A Comparative Study of Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields

8/9/2019 A Comparative Study of Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields

1/26

1

A comparative study of electromagnetic and gravitational fields

In recent decades, much attention has been devoted to electromagnetic and

gravitational field unification, first attempted by Faraday, without success, in 1849.Mathematical models devoted to the achievement of this unification invariablyfounder on problems related to the relative strengths of the forces involved, withoutdiscovering a way around this conceptual barrier. It may be that responsibility for thissituation lies in the seductive similarities between the laws governing electromagneticand gravitational forces and potentials where only static sources are considered. Itmay be that accelerated sources represent a more practical starting point for theunification process. The Equivalence Principle underpins the Theory of GeneralRelativity and Special Relativity but stands apart from both. Special Relativity dealswith unaccelerated frames of reference, General Relativity with scenarios in whichacceleration has been transformed away with the action of gravity, as a force (force

implies acceleration of mass, acceleration implies force is acting on mass) but theEquivalence Principle presupposes the equivalence of all accelerations and is of primeimportance to relativity. There has been little incentive to test the equivalence of theacceleration of mass in general, associated with the concept of inertia and leading tothe definition of inertial mass via Newtons Second Law of Motion, and theacceleration of mass by the gravitational force. The standard tests involve onlyotherwise static masses in free fall, not masses already accelerating in one, two, threeor more dimensions (after all, the current paradigm favours ten dimensions) prior to,or simultaneous with, acceleration by gravity.

Perhaps the foregoing is forgivable. After all, the gravitational force between twostatic masses is notoriously difficult to measure compared with the electric force

between static charges so it is hardly surprising that the equations for acceleratedstates were discovered much later than those for the unaccelerated ones. Starting withthe case of two charged masses, m1 and m2, separated by a small distance r, and

proceeding to consider the same masses in an uncharged condition uncharged, therelevant equations are: -

Coulombs Law Newtons Law

1(a) Fe = k q1 q2 1(b) Fg = G m1 m2

r2

r2

where k = 1 .4 0

k is the electric constant, G the Newtonian constant of gravitation.


2/26

2r m1

m2 s = the distance, at closest approach, of m2 tom1a s r = the distance between m1 and m2 for the

purpose of calculating Fe and Fg

= the angle between the acceleration anddistance vectors, a and r

Figure 1

Where r is small and there is a low relative velocity between the masses, even whenassociated with relative acceleration, the situation reduces mathematically to the staticone. The case is quite otherwise where r is large: -

2(a) Fe = k q1 q2 a sin 2(b) Fg = G m1 m2 a sinc2 r c2 r

Although the two forces bear the same relationship to one another with regards totheir relative strengths, the adjustment of both of them by the factor c-2 clearly

presents a considerable experimental challenge when it comes to measuring the forcesinvolved.

There is, of course, more than one type of acceleration to be considered. Rotationalways involves centripetal acceleration. As G. Nordstrms letter to Einstein (1912)suggested and Einstein himself confirmed, Special Relativity (SR) must be taken intoaccount where an extended spinning mass is involved. Although acceleration isinvariably associated with General Relativity (GR), due to the importance of theEquivalence Principle (EQ) to the latter, the accelerated point mass on the edge of anextended mass, spinning with constant velocity, is evidently in a different frame ofreference from the one at the centre of gyration and this has implications for thevalidity of the EQ, deriving from the application of SR to the situation. This becameknown as the Nordstrm Theory.

Professor Alex Harvey submitted an analysis of one example of the problem toAnnals of Physics in 1964. He was able to show that, due to the Lorentz-Fitzgerald

time dilation, the time measured at the centre of a spinning dumbbell would onlymatch that measured at either end of it in terms of their proper times, i.e. the timesmeasured at those points. The time at either end of the dumbbell as measured from thecentre, or coordinate time, appears to be dilated. This scenario involves a conflict withthe Equivalence Principle (EP), according to which the inertial mass of an object,such as a ball at one end of a spinning dumbbell, treated as a point mass, would fall atthe same rate as one at the centre of gyration. However, he was able to show that, on

paper at least, the Nordstrm Theory applied and therefore the time of fall asmeasured at each point on the dumbbell (the proper time for each points frame ofreference) might be the same, but the time of fall for a point mass on the ball asmeasured at the centre of gyration (the coordinate time) would be greater. To put it

another way, the point mass on the ball would be subject, effectively, to a lowergravitational acceleration when the dumbbell was rotating than when it was not.


3/26

3

Professor Harvey drew a distinction between what he termed the weak EP, inwhich all inertial and gravitational masses are equivalent, regardless of whether they

are point or extended masses and of the relative motions of different parts of theextended masses, and the strong EP. According to the latter principle, Einsteinsown, only point masses are mutually equivalent with respect to inertia and gravity.The matter can only be resolved by designing practical tests of Prof. Harveystheoretical analysis of the Nordstrm Theory. This is because, unfortunately, therelativistic aspects of the dumbbell experiment render it impractically difficult toimplement with any hope of obtaining observable results.

Before proceeding to a consideration of the effects of accelerated charges andmasses upon one another, it is worthwhile examining the similarities between theequations relating the electric and gravitational potentials to their sources. Theequation for the electrostatic field, Gauss Law, also the first of Maxwells Equations

(Maxwell I) is, in its differential form, known as Poissons Equation: -

3(a) 2 V = 4e (Gaussian units)

Or 2 V = e / (SI units),

where V is the electric potential and e the electric charge density.

The equation for the gravitostatic case is: -

(b) 2 = 4Gm-e,

where is the Newtonian gravitational potential and m-e the mass-energy density or,as it is sometimes termed, the mass charge density.

These equations reveal the functional equivalence of the constants of proportionalityinvolved, namely, , the electric permittivity and G, the Newtonian gravitationalconstant. Equation 3(a) is clearly more suggestive in Gaussian units andsuggestiveness is always at a premium among unification theorists, but the SI unitsversion is more important because of those units role in the unity of physics.

Turning to the case of accelerated charge and the lesser known consequences ofaccelerated mass, these are seen to involve radiation with a power output that dependson the principle distinguishing factors of the force equations referred to here as 1(a)and 1(b): -

The Larmor luminosity/ power radiated by accelerated charge q: -

4(a) Le-m = 2 k q2 a2 ,3 c3

where a = the acceleration of q and k = 1/4


4/26

4

The gravitational luminosity/ power radiated by a binary pulsar (co-rotating neutronstars): -

4(b) L grav. = 128 G M2 r4 65 c5

where the centripetal acceleration of each star a = 2 r, being the angularfrequency of the co-rotation and r its radius.M = the mass of each star.

Of course, the example used is no different, in principle, from the general case.However, it is a good deal more practical, as the relatively huge mass of a neutronstar, the large distances between stars in binary pulsars (on terrestrial scales) andangular frequency of co-rotation make it possible to conceive of measurable

observations resulting from this example whereas a useful laboratory equivalent iscurrently inconceivable.

As a hypothetical example, consider the following. A particle collider experimentsucceeds in creating a Planck scale binary pulsar with a view to demonstrating theunification of electromagnetism and gravitation at the quantum level. Each minineutron star should therefore have a mass of one Planck mass or 22 g and a densityof = 5 10 10 kg m -3. A thin shell of iron on each star, with a mass of 0.5g and arate of co-rotation and therefore a spin rate per star of 600 r.p.s., would cause the 1.7mC of drift electrons (q) circulating about the equator of each star to produce amagnetic dipole of 1T. The radius of each star would be rn = 6.39 10 -7 m and theircommon radius of gyration (radius of co-rotation) I choose to set at 2 rn. The situationis pictured in Figure 2: -

rn M

4rn

M rn

Figure 2

The resultant electromagnetic (e-m) radiation should be: -

5(a) Le-m = 2 k q2 a2 per star,3 c3

or 2 5.51 10 -14 W4

So the total Le-m = 2.76 10 -14 W.


5/26

5

5(b) L grav. = 128 G M2 r4 65 c5

= 128 G MP2 (2rn4)65 c5

L grav = 2.61 10 -63 W

The 49 orders of magnitude between the results for 5(a) and 5(b) indicate that thedifferences of scale that are prevalent on the macro scale apply at the Planck scalealso.

Continuing to take account of the variations in the static field values introduced byrotation I next consider the Barnett Effect. A small but measurable magnetic field is

generated when an object spins, regardless of any pre-existent field, provided it isbelow magnetic saturation for that object. The effect is, of course, more obvious inferromagnetic materials and involves the spin coordination of the intrinsic and, to alesser extent, orbital spins of the electrons in the materials atoms, bringing theirmagnetic dipoles and those of their atoms into a common alignment.

For a cylinder or rod rotating about its axis of symmetry: -

The gyromagnetic ratio = /L in A kg -1,

where is the magnetic moment, in A m 2, produced by the angular momentum L, inkg m 2 of the cylinder or rod about its axis of rotation.

The Earths field was at one time thought to derive from a similar source but itwas later established that its core consisted of molten iron, heated above the Curietemperature and therefore not capable of sustaining a field. It is now thought to derivefrom the electric charge carried in cooler, slow, ionised eddies about that liquid core.This means that the Earth acts more as a solenoid than a bar magnet. Rotation is stillessential to the preservation of the field but in a different way from that which mightreasonably have been expected.

At the quantum level, the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron is: -6(a) The Bohr magneton, = / Le,where Le is the angular momentum of the electron.

(b) Also, = 0 e/ me,where 0 is the magnetic permeability of the vacuum.


6/26

6Turning to the impact of rotation on a mass, m, symmetric about its axis of

rotation, it is found that gravity acts on it in two explained ways, but also that angularmomentum overcomes gravity in an unexplained way. The rate of precession of a

gyroscope about its vertical axis is: -

p = / L = 2f rads s-1,

where f = the frequency of precession, = the torque due to gravity acting on the mass m at the angle of precession and: -

= mg sin l,

where l = the distance along the axle from the mass to the supporting fulcrum.

The action of gravity upon a gyroscopes wheel may be understood from thisexample. It pulls the wheel down from the sleeping top position, as would beexpected. However, the fact that the wheel is sustained at its angle of precessionagainst the continuing pull of gravity has never been explained, any more than has therise of a motorised gyro against gravity, as its spin rate is increased. The fact that theratio of the spin rate to the precession rate alters in keeping with the principle of theConservation of Momentum does not explain the observation that the gyro axlemaintains itself at the angle of precession, let alone the wheels rising motion. Were itnot observed, the phenomenon would be impossible to predict from conservation

principles.

The direction of precession is plausibly explained by comparing the action ofgravity, at a given moment, against the mass in the rising side of the wheel to thefrictional effect of a surface placed against it, causing the wheel to move as if pushedaway from that side. As a result, the direction of precession matches the direction ofspin when viewed along the axis that is the vertical with respect to the angle of

precession. For the purpose of consistency with what follows I include here thedefinition of the gyros spin angular momentum: -

L = I s,

where I = the gyro wheels moment of inertiaand s = its spin angular frequency.

There is also a secondary precession, associated with a continuous change in ,due to a continuous change in the spin frequency. This rotational motion in thevertical plane has a frequency of: -

sec = / 2LpHere the angular momentum Lp is associated with the precessional rotation rather thanthe spin of the gyro. As the gyro inverts (assuming it has sufficient degrees of


7/26

7

freedom to do so) the potential energy of the sleeping top position becomes thekinetic energy of the inverted position. The energy of the inversion process is: -

E = 2 / 2 = 2Lpsec

For a spinning electron, which also precesses about an axis and inverts in responseto the interaction between an external magnetic field and its magnetic dipole, thisinversion energy is: -

E = 2Lp

In this case, the precessional angular momentum Lp yields the quantum ofangular momentum, because: -

2Lp = h, where h = Plancks constant.

Substituting for 2Lp in the previous equation gives E = h, Einsteins Equation.This situation illustrates, in its simplest form, the deep connection between spinningmass and spinning charge, likewise that between macroscopic and quantum scale

phenomena.

The above examples highlight two fundamental features of matter. One is angularinertia, which is another conserved quantity and an aspect of the Conservation ofEnergy Principle. The other is the electromagnetic nature of the atom, the basicconstituent of all matter. Although obvious in one sense it would be easy to suspectthat the positively charged atomic nuclei were composed of something other thancharge if the quark had not been discovered. Indeed, Einstein, trying to determinewhich had primacy in the composition of matter, concluded that it was gravity ratherthan charge. He did so before the discovery of the quark, or even that of the neutron in1932, though the latter would have seemed to support his contention that charge wasan acquired feature of uncharged nucleons. Once it was established that both the

proton and neutron comprised three charged particles apiece, the indivisible quarks, itbecame apparent that charge was as much of a defining characteristic of the atomicnucleus as it was of the electron. The name baryon, applied to nucleons, effectivelymeans charge-bearing.

The other defining characteristic of the atom, mass, could either be regarded as thesource of the gravitational force that affects all other mass or the source of space-timecurvature, simulating a force of attraction that causes mass to follow space-timegeodesics. Strangely, Einstein had already arrived at the conclusion that the gravityconcept could be disposed of in this manner, a requirement for the mathematics ofGeneral Relativity, even as he arrived at the idea that the gravitational force renderednon-existent by his mathematical transformation actually represented the origin ofmass. Thus he entered into a conceptual vicious circle. As Saint Augustine might have

put it in response to the question What did God do before he made time?, He wascreating a hell of self-confusion for those who pry too deeply into the nature of things

before the relevant data is available.


8/26

8

Einsteins development of the General Theory of Relativity permanently changedideas about the relationship between gravity and mass and introduced a new one.Hitherto the rotation of a planet had been thought of as a feature independent of its

gravitational field so that the latter was not thought to communicate its motion toobjects on the periphery of that field. The Special Theory of Relativity conferred anew property on every point mass in space, an inertial frame of reference. From this

position every observation was circumscribed by the finite nature of the speed oflight, c, and adjusted to account for the relative velocity of every other inertial frameof reference (f.o.r.). The impact of gravity on a point mass would therefore affect itsf.o.r., partly because it would redirect light in its vicinity and partly because it is

possible to place that mass in such a position that it is only peripherally affected bythe field. As a field rotates with a planets f.o.r. it interacts with the point mass f.o.r.,rather in the manner of a vast rotating gear wheel with miniscule teeth meshing withand rotating a miniscule gear wheel. The phenomenon is referred to as frame-

dragging and intitled the Lense-Thirring Effect. Due to the equivalence of mass andenergy revealed by E = mc2 and expressed in the term mass-energy, even a masslessform of energy such as light can represent the source of a gravitational field, thoughthe concentration of light energy would have to be at the very limits of those currentlyachievable to produce measurable results.

The impracticality of the use of light energy as a gravitational field source shouldbe set against that of placing a spinning object in a near Earth orbit and attempting tomeasure the perturbations in its spin due to frame-dragging, a project as expensive asits results would be questionable. All the best and most defensible experiments take

place under controlled laboratory conditions. In the case of a light-energy based testthe correct equipment is a ring laser, Figure 3 being a diagram of a square pathversion.

L mirror

r

0

LaserHe-Ne

Figure 3.


9/26

9In this design, the time of transit of a light beam about the ring is: -

t = 4L/c

L being the side length, as shown.

Considering first the case where the ring laser itself rotates, representing a ringlaser gyroscope, the distance moved in time t is: -

d = rt,

where is the angular frequency of rotation, in the same direction as the light, andr the radius of motion, whereby r becomes scalar value of the mirrors constantvelocity of rotation. The change in path length S (= 4L) with respect to the lightsinertial f.o.r. is: -

S = 2 L2 /c

In order for the maximum amount of light energy to be concentrated in the gyro,the path length needs to be an integer number of wavelengths of the light, wherebyeach circuit traced by the beam is in phase with the last and next. So, S = n and thechange in wavelength is: -

= S /n

and / = S/ S

Because = c, / = / , an increase in wavelength representing a decrease infrequency and vice-versa.

Now consider the case of two laser beams, oppositely directed about the ring, eachwith the same source frequency . The one moving with the direction of motion of thegyros spin will undergo a decrease in frequency , the one in the opposite directionan increase in frequency of the same amount. This produces a beat frequency f, thedifference in the beam frequencies 1 and 2 : -

f = 2 1 = + ( ) = 2 .

The output is therefore visible and measurable. From the above: -

f = 2 = 2 /

f = 2 S/ S

= 2 2 L2 /cS.

As = c/, f = 4 c L2 cS


10/26

107(a) = f S

4 L2

For example, if f = 2 105 Hz, L = 10 cm and = 500 nm,

= (2 105)(5 10-7 0.4)/ 4 0.01 = 1rad s-1,

The formula has been tested and found to be a reliable way of determining .

A design for an experimental test of the Lense-Thirring Effect features a staticring laser and a spinning particle, probably a neutron, situated at its centre. Thisapproach has the advantage of permitting the replacement of a single beam circulatingabout a square path with four phase locked beams of identical frequency, two in

parallel and two orthogonal to these, allowing the path about the neutron to be muchsmaller than would be possible using the mirror design. The objective is to find out

the amount of precession of the laser gyro produced for a given light energy lineardensity (in Wm-1) so that the closer the energy was brought to the particle, the greaterthe influence it would have on the neutrons spin direction. The light energy can beconcentrated by an indefinite amount by reducing the size of the laser. The rate ofchange of spin direction, i.e. the rate of precession, of the particle is: -

dS / dt = P S

where P is the particles angular frequency of precessionand S rate of spin.

If the layout of the design is referred to a Cartesian coordinate system, so that thelaser occupies the x-y plane, with the particle precessing about the z-axis, thecomponents of the particles precession rate are: -

Px = Py = 0, Pz = 2 (ck)/ L,

where k = 8G/ c4 and = the lasers linear radiation density.

(b) Therefore Pz = 82 (G)/ L c3

For example, if = 10W cm-1

and L = 1cm, Pz = 2.80 10-30

rads s-1

So not readily observable, then.

Anyway, the above example serves to show that the mass-energy that createsgravity/space curvature can take a purely immaterial form. Also, thatelectromagnetism produces gravitation whereas the reverse is not the case. The mass-energy of spinning heavenly bodies not only produces gravity but also a modificationof gravity by the inertial force associated with spin, wrongly termed centrifugalforce. In the case of the Earth this effect at least is readily measurable, in the form ofa pendulums lateral deflection with respect to the planets gravitational force, in theopposite direction to that of its spin.


11/26

11

The deep electromagnetic nature of matter implies that the deflection of light bya star and, to a much smaller extent, by a planet, due to the masses involved,represents the deflection of electromagnetism by electromagnetism. Thus mass-

energy is seen to be electromagnetic. Moreover, de Broglies matter wave hypothesis,a development of early quantum mechanics theories, building on the photon concept,depicts the sub-nuclear particle as a wavepacket. Therefore, gravity could bedescribed as the non-electromagnetic influence of one array of wavepackets onanother. But can it truly be non-electromagnetic?

In any case, the realm of particle physics has no need of gravity scientists. Anastronomically large number of wavepackets is required to exert a gravitationalinfluence on one wavepacket. This fact of itself gives rise to the possibility thatgravity can be dispensed with as a separate force. Indeed, the application of SpecialRelativity (S.R.) Theory to moving charge (drift electrons) in the form of Lorentz-

Fitzgerald length contraction, producing charge concentration that only simulates theinteraction of magnetism with the field produced by other electric currents, so thatonly an electric force actually exists between them, eliminating the magnetic fieldconcept, is irrational. Any explanation of gravity in electrical terms would look goodcompared with this ad hoc explanation for magnetism.

Gravitational modification (g.m.) involves a unification of gravity andelectromagnetism termed gravitomagnetism. Pete Skeggs, Douglas Torr and Ning Li,of the University of Alabama, replicated an experiment in which weight loss appearedin a sample mass placed above a spinning superconductor, designed and carried out

by Yevgeny Podkletnov of Tampere University in 1992. Podkletnov withdrew hisreport on the experiment, under illegal official pressure from the Finnish authorities,working for the U.S.A. Fortunately, Douglas Torr and Ning Li did not withdraw theirreport and their findings confirmed such data as had been leaked to the scientificcommunity from the Podkletnov experiment.

According to Giovanni Modaneses article Updating the Theoretical Analysis ofthe Weak Gravitational Shielding Experiment, Podkletnov and his team spunsuperconducting disks, 15 to 30 cm in diameter, at 5,000 r.p.m., recording a weightloss of 0.5% in a sample placed above the disk. They then reduced the spin rate to3,500 r.p.m. and the weight loss increased to between 1.9% and 2.1%, depending on

the samples position w.r.t. the disk edge. Ning Li and Douglas Torrs report uses anextension of the Lorentz Force Law, Fe-m = q (E + v B), which gives the forceexerted by an electric and a magnetic field on a charge q. Substituting what might betermed a gravitational charge, mass, for the electric charge, the reports authors cameup with an expression for the combined electromagnetic and gravitomagnetic forces.Maybe it could be termed a complete version of the Lorentz Force Law: -

8. F = q(E + v B) + m(Eg+ v Bg)

E and Egare the electric and gravitoelectricfields, respectively. B and Bg are the magnetic and gravitomagnetic fields, respectively.


12/26

12For the purposes of these experiments, the mass m and charge q are the mass and

charge of a Cooper pair (of drift electrons). Drift electron pairing, with itssynchronised, phase-locked motion, is held to be responsible for the phenomenon ofsuperconduction. The report assumes that no anomalous weight loss would have

appeared if the gravitomagnetic interaction had not been invoked by superconductingmaterial in motion. In other words, the interaction would not have appeared forconductors possessing a measurable amount of resistance, let alone insulators.

The individual fields applied to the superconductor appear in the report as: -

9(a) E = A,t

where = the scalar e-m potentialand A = the vector e-m potential.

(b) Eg = g Ag,t

where g = the gravitoelectric scalar potentialand Ag = the gravitomagnetic vector potential

Similarly, the magnetic components are given as: -

10(a) B = A

(b) Bg = Ag

One important difference between the standard situation concerning a staticsuperconductor and the rotating version was found to be that, whilst the formerconsistently repels all external magnetic fields, leaving it unmagnetised, the latter isleft with both a residual magnetic field and a gravitomagnetic one. The disk wasrotated by pulsed electromagnets, generating a field that supported and rotated thesuperconductor, due to the Meissner Effect. The residual fields were determinedto be: -

11(a) B(z) ~ m2

gB0 m Bgq2 q

(b) Bg(z) ~ Bg,0 + gm B0q

B0 = the internal magnetic field.Bg,0 = the magnetically induced gravitomagnetic field ~ 1011 B0 = the superconductors magnetic permeability.g = the superconductors gravitomagnetic permeability.


13/26

13The discovery of a vast difference between the gravitomagnetic field associated withthe superconductor and the magnetic field was to be replicated in differentexperiments involving superconductors but with other objectives.

The Lorentz Force Law can be adapted to provide the components of anelectromagnetic (e-m) field, the mass-energy in Einsteins General Relativity FieldEquations can be expressed in the form of these components and then thisrepresentation can be used to provide the field characteristics of an experimentdesigned to generate gravitational waves. These are the essence of gravitationalmodification and complete the set of characteristics which show gravity to be theanalogue of electromagnetism and vice-versa, being the equivalent of e-m waves. Ifthe law is written as: -

F = ma = e(E + v B),

where m = the mass of an electrone = the charge on an electron

and a = the acceleration given to an electron to replicate its path inspacetime under the influence ofE and B, where the scalar value of its velocity isa constant.

The Faraday e-m field tensor, F, is the Lorentz Force (B components only) inexplicit components, a 3 3 sub-matrix within the 4 4 matrix, the Maxwell FieldTensor. The latter is a double-acting force permeating space, i.e. a bisor, consisting of16 components Fji in 4 equations. The components Fji feature superscripts i = 0, 1, 2, 3and subscripts j = 0, 1, 2, 3 where time and the Cartesian coordinates are indicated bythe numbers thus; t = 0, x = 1, y = 2, z = 3. The i superscripts denote row number inthe matrix, the j subscripts the column numbers. The top row represents thecomponents of Gauss Law, . E = /0.

F00 F10 F20 F30

Fji = F01 F11 F21 F31F02 F12 F22 F32

F03 F13 F23 F33

Applying the Lorentz Force Law to each component: -

12. 0 Ex Ey Ez

Fji

= Ex

0

Bz

ByEy Bz0 Bx Ez ByBx0


14/26

14In Einsteins General Relativity Equations, termed the Field Equations: -

Gij = k Tij

or, verbally, Space Curvature = 8G Mass-energyc4

The mass-energy of an e-m field, termed the Maxwell energy-momentum tensor,Tij, can be expressed as a matrix: -

13. T00 T01 T02 T03Tij = T10 T11 T12 T13

T20 T21 T22 T23T30 T31 T32 T33

It is called a symmetric four-tensor. The components of the two matrices, 12 and 13,

are related by an equation that expresses the Tij in terms of the Fjibut using substitutecomponents that employ the dummy indices k and l, which are contracted out by themultiplication process. There is also a permutation bisor, ij, which equals 0 if i = j.Otherwise ij = ji = 1.

Tij = 1 FikFjk 1/4 ij Flm Flm

4

The components of the symmetric four tensor are best presented in list form: -

T00 = EE + 1 BB2 2

T10 = T01 = i (EyBz EzBy)c

T20 = T02 = i (EzBx ExBz)c

T30 = T03 = i (ExBy EyBx)c

T11 = ( Ex2

Ey2

Ez2

) + 1 (

Bx2

By2

Bz2

)2 2

T12 = T21 = ExEy + 1 Bx By


15/26

15

T13 = T31 = EzEx + 1 Bz Bx

T22 = ( Ey2 Ez2 Ex2) + 1 (By2 Bz2 Bx2)2 2

T23 = T32 = EyEz + 1 By Bz

T33 = ( Ez2 Ex2 Ey2) + 1 (Bz2 Bx2 By2)2 2

The T00 represents the energy density of the e-m wave and the rest of the first row andfirst column of the matrix the value of the Poynting vectorN = E B/

Since e-m waves can simulate the mass-energy of material objects for the purpose ofdeveloping a gravitational field it is time to consider their potential as sources ofgravitational waves. These so-called ripples in space-time possess an extremely lowenergy and frequency with a correspondingly large wavelength, typically inkilometres, as would be expected from Einsteins equation E = h. Although anasymmetric rotating mass or one rotating with its axis of symmetry orthogonal to thatof its rotation, generating a continuously changing gravitational field strength w.r.t. anobserver in the plane of rotation, would seem suitable, they are not. A notoriousexample is that of the mass M = 490 Mg steel beam, length, l, = 20m, rotating atangular frequency, = 28 rads s-1. This would produce an output of: -

Gravitational wave power LGW = 2/45 (M2 l4 6) = 2.2 10-22 erg s-1,

an immeasurably insignificant quantity compared with the motive power required.Therefore, an e-m equivalent seems a plausible starting point for examiningalternative possibilities for laboratory sources. Gasperini and Venzo de Sabbattaworked out (1985) a design for a system that could, though only in theory, generategravitational waves from e-m waves and static e-m fields, represented in Figure 4.The electric, E, and magnetic, H, fields indicated are static.emerging g.w. emerging e-m wave emerging g.w.

y y

energy density E z E0 z = Wp

plane polarised e-m H g.w. H0 wavewave

.l l0 x

Figure 4


16/26

16The magnetic field strength H is directed into the paper. H is the standard substituteforB, where B = H.

The e-m wave components of the plane polarised e-m wave introduce a variation

on equation 12: -Hz (wave) = aik(x ct) and Ey (wave) = aik(x ct) ,

where a = the maximum amplitude of the wave, k = /c, being the waves angularfrequency.

The field components for the combined static and wave fields were depicted bythe Sabbattas as: -

F11 F12 F13 F14F = F21 F22 F23 F24

F31 F32 F33 F34F41 F42 F43 F44

Here, the , = 1, 2, 3, 4 = x, y, z, t.

They were evaluated, using the Lorentz Force Law, to give: -

14(a) . 0 (Hz + aik(x ct) ) Hy Ex

F = (Hz = aik(x ct) ) 0 Hx (Ey aik(x ct) )

Hy Hx 0 Ez Ez (Ey + aik(x ct) )Ez 0

The mass-energy of these components, with the introduction of dummy variables,contracted out by multiplication, is: -

T = 1 F F 1 F F

4 4

where , the Kronecker delta/ substitution bisor, = 0 for and 1 otherwise.


17/26

17kT41 = G l2 a2 [(Hy + Ez )2 + (Ey + Hz) 2]

4c4

To simplify evaluation of the output consider the case where only H fields are present.

The energy density of the emerging gravitational wave (g.w.) cannot be measureddirectly but the e-m wave emerging from the second static field region can be,provided it is of sufficient intensity and would possess the same energy density, Wf.

15. Wf = G2 l2 l02 [(Hz Hz0 + Hy Hy0 ) 2 + (Hz0 Hy Hy0Hz) 2]ergs s-1

c8

The incident e-m waves energy density, Wi = a2 ergs s-1,4

G2 = 6.82 10-89 s4 kg-2m -2, so, for unit lengths and field strengths (A m-1)c8

SoWf = ~10-88 ergs s-1, indicating that only one graviton would be generatedby ~1088photons per A m2. Even allowing for currently available maximum values forl, l0and H, it is obvious that the 66 orders of magnitude separating this and the alreadyimpractically small output from the rotating 490 Mg steel beam cannot be breached,on Earth. The de Sabbattas, therefore, confirmed the complete uselessness of thismodel for use as a laboratory source of gravitational waves (g.ws.)

However, the extremely intense magnetic field of a neutron star, typically108 Teslas, astronomically large distances for l and l0 and the likelihood of a g.w.,from a binary pulsar, perhaps, interacting with the star, would improve the probabilityof obtaining a measurably large observation up to a practical level. This indirectmethod of observing a g.w. may yet prove to be the only method possible, in spite ofall the uncertainties the astrophysical scale of the experiment would introduce. Theenergy density of the e-m wave associated with the g.w. would be: -

16. We-m = ~10-70 22 S,

where = the angular frequency of the observed g.w. = the neutron stars magnetic dipole moment

and S = the energy flux of the incident g.w.

There is an alternative prospect for gravitational modification (g.m.) to thosepresented by Y. Podkletnov or P. Skeggs, D. Torr and N. Li with their spinningsuperconducting disks. V.V. Roschin and S.M. Godin of the Russian Academy ofScience designed a version of the Searl Effect Generator (SEG). John Searls originaldesign featured three layered concentric rings acting as a stator and three


18/26

18interconnected sets of layered rollers, rotating in circles about the rings, acting as arotor. The layers, going from the outermost to the innermost, were of titanium, iron,nylon and finally neodymium. Searl claimed that the SEG, after activation by astarting motor, generated more electrical power than had been put into it, the surplus

being extracted from the cosmic vacuum. Roschin and Godins SEG comprised onlyone layered ring as a stator and one set of layered rollers acting as a rotor but it was asubstantial model. The mass of their assembly was 350 kg of which the rotor, judgingfrom clues in the report, represented m =~ 175kg. Using the dimensions featured in adiagram that depicts an anomalous permanent magnetic field associated with the SEGthe diameter of the rotor (2r) was ~ 2.5m. Given that the rotors mass distributionapproximated that of a hoop gyroscope, the frequency, f, of the rotation being 600r.p.m. or 10 r.p.s. at the maximum output of the SEG when acting as a generator, themaximum angular momentum of the rotor, L max, would have been: -

17. L max =~ m r2 , where the rotors angular frequency = 2 f rads s-1

= 2 10 rads s-1

So L max =~ 175 1.252 20 = 17,440 kg m2

Roschin and Godin found an apparent weight loss in the complete SEG assembly,as measured by the induction displacement meter below the assembly platform of35% of the total, representing 122.5 kg, in association with the above angularmomentum. If accurately recorded, these results certainly make those from thespinning superconducting disk experiments look sad. Anything that modified gravityto such an extent would have the potential to generate the elusive gravitational waves.

Roschin and Godins graph of rotation rate against overall recorded weight loss asa percentage of the total reveals the following. There is a straight line portion of thegraph between weight loss, G =~ 10%, for N = ~ 510 r.p.m., and G =~ 29%, for

N = 550 r.p.m. Extrapolation of that portion back from G =~ 10% to G = 0%, givesa starting value of N = ~ 500 r.p.m. The angular frequency for this rotation rate is= 2 500/60 rads s-1. We may assume that the stator loses no weight in the process,which has insufficient parallels with Podkletnovs static sample weight lossexperiment, there being no superconductors in the SEG. Therefore, the rotor, whichappears, from clues in the text, to have a mass approximately equal to that of thestator, must experience a weight loss of, at most, 2 29% = 58% for the linear portion

of the graph, up to N = 550 r.p.m.. Comparing like with like, we may thereforedetermine the ratio of the change in the rotors centripetal/inertial force to the changein its apparent reduction in weight. The starting motor was turned off at somearbitrary point between N = 200 r.p.m. and 500 r.p.m., according to the report, thelinear graph being associated purely with the action of the SEG as a generator. The iswhy the starting value from the extrapolation of the graph is required, acting as a

projection to account for the output that could be expected if the SEG had beenoperating as a generator for N = 500 r.p.m. The centripetal/ inertial force, of the rotoris: -


19/26

19Fc = m2r N

Its weight Fg = mg N

The maximum change in the rotors weight, Gr= 58%, so its maximum reduction inweight is Fgr2 = 0.58 mg N, with the minimum being Fgr1 = 0. This makes the relativechange in centripetal/ inertial force w.r.t. recorded weight, kr: -

kr= Fc/Fgr= m(22 12)r/( Fgr2 Fgr1)

= m(22 12)r/ 0.58 mg

= 42(f22 f12)r/ 0.58g,

where 2, 1are the angular frequencies corresponding to Fgr2, Fgr1 and

f2 = 550/60 r.p.s., f1 = 500/60 r.p.s. the associated rotation frequencies.

So kr = 42((550/60)2 (500/60)2) 1.25/ 0.58 9.81

kr = 126.48.

It is now possible to evaluate the rotation rate, f3 r.p.s., equating to the conditionunder which G= 50% so that Gr=~ 100%, and the weight reduction Fgr3 = mg : -

Fc = krFgr

m(32 12)r = kr (Fgr3 Fgr1)

42 m((f3)2 (f1)2)r = kr(mg 0),

42 (f32 f12)r = krg

f32 f12 = krg/42r

f32 = 126.48 g/421.25 + (500/60)2

f3 = 9.7257 r.p.s.The corresponding value of N is therefore 9.7257 60 = 583.54 = 584 r.p.m. to 3 s.fs.

How is the appearance of weight loss to be explained? Think of the rotor as arestrained hoop gyro, unable to precess due to its degrees of freedom being restrictedto rotation in a single plane. Normally, the angle of precession reduces, the centre ofmass rising visibly, with increase in rotation rate, but here the gyro is fixed in thesleeping top position so the only detectable effect is a slight shift in the centre ofmass, detected as a weight loss. Notably, the Equivalence Principle, which equates therest condition with constant motion, i.e. a constant velocity, or, for accelerated frames


20/26

20of reference, being at rest in a gravitational field with constant acceleration, does notapply to cases of non-linear acceleration, as when a point mass is subject to bothcentripetal and gravitational acceleration. It would clearly be worthwhile to find outwhat the rest condition for these cases is. Anomalous results, if authenticated by

replication, always point to extensions to the Standard Model and a change in theEquivalence Principle would automatically represent such an extension.Apart from the weight loss, Roschin and Godin noticed a number of

electromagnetic anomalies as the rotation rate of the SEG rotor went from 200 r.p.m.to 600 r.p.m. Blue-pink glowing luminescence with white yellow discharge stripsappeared around the SEG but the characteristic sound for arc discharges was notaudible and erosive damage induced by arc discharges (was) not present on anysurfaces of the stator or rollers. A permanent magnetic field comprising a concentricvertical set of field vectors parallel with the rollers field vector. They noted that theborder of each layer has a sharp shape, the distance between layers (increasing from)50 (to) 80 cm moving away from the centre of the SEG. This sounds rather like a low

frequency standing wave. There was also a 6-8C drop in temperature recorded withinthe ~30 m diameter of the magnetic field, suggesting that the SEG might also be aform of heat engine, converting atmospheric energy into motive power.

Summing up, it would seem that a practical approach to the problem of finding acomplete set of gravitational field analogues to the electromagnetic fieldcharacteristics, including the waves, must be predicated upon discovering which fieldis the more fundamental feature of space-time or the false vacuum or the aether,depending on your choice of plenum (cosmic medium). So far, only one non-negotiable property of such a medium has been discovered. If a background mediumis not involved in foreground activity, such as classical mechanics or particle play,then the physical system is termed background dependent. If it relies on the universalmedium being involved with the foreground then the physical system is termed

background independent. In order for General Relativity to represent a reliable theory,as astronomical evidence suggests it is, then any physical system adopted as part ofthe Standard Model must be background independent, because otherwise there would

be no space-time curvature by the mass-energy contained within space-time.The principle difficulty in determining which field comes first in terms of

causality. i.e. which field is responsible for the other one, is that both act at the samespeed, that of light. The electric solar wind blows a comet-tail away from the Sunwhilst the relatively static electromagnetic solar mass draws the comet towards it,

along the space-time geodesic the mass has created. The electric and gravitationalforce equations are mutual analogues, since substituting the electric constant andcharges of material objects for the gravitational constant and their masses in theequation that determines the gravitational force between them produces the electricforce between them, as shown by equations 1(a) and 1(b), also 2(a) and 2(b).Likewise, the dipole e-m Larmor radiation from accelerated charges (as represented inequation 4(a)) converts to an expression giving the weak dipole component of thegravitational Larmor radiation from accelerated masses when that the samesubstitution is performed in reverse order. In Venzo and Gasperini de Sabbattas


21/26

21design for a g.w. generating experiment, a light wave entering an unfeasibly largeelectric/magnetic field produces gravitational quadrupole radiation, represented by theenergy equations 14(a) and 14(b). Similarly, a gravitational wave entering such a fieldwould produce a light wave (equation 15).

At present it seems reasonable to suppose that a charge-independentgravitational field is an unsustainable concept whereas a gravity independent electricfield does not seem so. This is because of discoveries concerning the fundamental roleof charge in the constitution of atoms, the source of gravity. Furthermore, the

principle advantage of this approach is that it allows for an explanation of the fixed,finite value of the speed of light. The persistence of Newtonian Relativity, with itsinsistence on a background dependent physical system, the fixed background beinglike an immovable metric comprising a permanent grid or lattice, and the concept ofuniversal time, as if there was only one clock in the universe that could be relied upon(a God clock?) was largely due to the intuitive attraction of a system in whichvelocities are always additive. Einsteins Special Relativity did away with this

concept, no velocities can add to a quantity greater than the speed of light which is, asthe word speed implies, constant in all directions. What it does not do is explain thereason for this counterintuitive phenomenon. A universal electromagnetic field,

polarisable by the concentrated energy in photons radiated by electrons falling fromone energy level to another, would respond to the presence of pure energy as light issometimes referred to, by producing the vast series of electromagnetic waves crossingspace at the rate of ~3 108 m s-1 as well as causing the wave motion to be helical, thedefault characteristic for unpolarised light, termed circular polarisation. Given thathelical motion does not appear obey the Lagrangian Principle of Least Action,according to which the unconstrained movement of any entity is that which involvesthe least expenditure of energy, it is an open question whether the nature of theuniversal medium determines the most efficient method and speed of lighttransmission. There is also the issue of non-locality to consider. This existence of this

phenomenon, whereby photons influence each other at a rate faster than light speed,was confirmed by Alain Aspect, in 1984, when he demonstrated duplication of motionin photons at distances which, relative to the wavepackets, were astronomically large.Only tachyonic, or faster-than-light particles, should be able to achieve this rate oftransmission. A tachyonic aether would automatically solve this problem by ensuringthat all action was local, i.e. time is illusory (already acknowledged, by Aristotle, noless) and space is illusory as well. This also explains why universal spatialexpansion can take place when there is no space to expand into. The explanation

must be that it doesnt, but there is no way of perceiving this in a tardyonic (slowerthan light speed) frame of reference. Furthermore, such a medium allows for theexistence of fully relational, background independent universe, the hypothesis

promoted by physics philosopher David Bohm. He supported the idea that a hiddenvariables theory could be used to find the deterministic reality beneath the randomnature of the quantum mechanical theory that appears to govern the nature of space-time. Find the hidden variables and you find the hidden equations governing reality.In 1932 the accomplished mathematician John Von Neumann published a proof thatvalid hidden variable theories could not exist. However, in the early 1970s Bohm

proved that they could, by publishing a valid hidden variable theory.


22/26

22The scenario outlined above would not be possible if the gravitational field proved

to be more fundamental than the electromagnetic one. In spite of his belief in hiddenvariables Einstein thought gravity was the primal force. In his Sidelights onRelativity, published c.1920, he wrote: -

If we consider the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field from thestand-point of the ether (sic) hypothesis, we find a remarkable difference between thetwo. There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational potentials; forthese confer upon space its metrical qualities, without which it cannot be imagined atall. The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existenceof space. On the other hand a part of space may very well be imagined without anelectromagnetic field; thus in contrast with the gravitational field, the electromagneticfield seems to be secondarily linked to the ether, the formal nature of theelectromagnetic field being as yet in no way determined by that of gravitational ether.From the present state of theory it looks as if the electromagnetic field, as opposed tothe gravitational field, rests upon an entirely new formal motif, as though nature might

just as well have endowed the gravitational ether with fields of quite another type, forexample, with fields of a scalar potential, instead of fields of the electromagnetictype. Electromagnetism is a vector, expressed by the vector potential A.

The preference for a gravity based universe over an e-m one may properly beattributed to the physics paradigm obtaining in the scientific community before thediscovery of the quark. Einsteins rejection of an electromagnetic aether may also bedue to the fact that such an aether would automatically be luminiferous. He claimedthat he was unaware of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment when hewrote his Theory of Special Relativity in 1905. Nonetheless, he told Abraham Pais,at some later date, that he had indeed heard of the 1887 experiment in 1892 and tookaccount of it in the development of his cosmic system. This experiment had two

prominent weaknesses. It assumed a value for the aethers density, a hotly contestedsubject in the 1880s, which just happened to be Albert Michelsons own value and itrequired that a cosmic luminiferous aether be centred upon the Sun. Otherwise,consistent results could not be obtained, nor, probably, a non-zero result. At his death,in 1931, Michelson, like the good Catholic he was, confessed to his priest that,although he did not observe, in his interferometers graticule, the expected fringedisplacement of ~0.4 of a fringe, which would suggest non-existence of an aether, hedid observe a shift of ~0.001 of a fringe on a regular basis, after allowing for allidentifiable forms of error. By then, the experiment had been retrospectivelyreconstructed so that it seemed to be good evidence for the constancy of the speed of

light. Who did Michelson hold responsible for his suppression of this vital data?Einstein and his relativity theories, in which the speed of light is required to be anabsolute, in order to avoid all sorts of unsettling consequences. One of these would bethat Maxwells pre-relativistic equations of 1856, with their relativistic consequences,would have to be redrafted in a more complex form, if c varied. There seemed to beno point in enforcing such a requirement. Make of that what you will. The aether andSpecial Relativity are not, in any case, mutually incompatible. As Frank Close put it,in The Void:-..relativity does not imply that there is no ether (sic), only that any stuff in that

ether must behave in accordance with the principles of relativity!


23/26

23The aether also needs to behave in accordance with the requirements of QuantumMechanics (Q.M.), i.e. it must be composed of quanta, fundamental particles. Thiscondition was satisfied by introducing the concept of the aetheric quantum, the

aetheron ( Harold Aspden). There is one certainty about the universal medium. Itwas assumed dead and buried c. 1925 but has stalked the scientific world ever since.It has been called the fabric of space-time, the Field, the Grid (in a nod to Newton?),the false vacuum and even the Aether. The habit of describing the latter as ethyleneoxide or Ether appears hard to break.

The saddest suggestion to enter the debate about the foundations of reality wasthat the fabric of space-time was composed of cosmic superstrings. This was inspired

by Roger Penroses creative geometry, specifically his quasi-crystals with five-foldsymmetry. These display a capacity for duplicating rotation in a plane at a distancefrom the source within in a superficially regular, but in reality, a non-repeating

pattern. This phenomenon, non-locality, which I referred to earlier, was found to

occur in real developing quasicrystals, causing incoming atomic groups to takeaccount of the overall pattern of the whole crystal. A more challenging example ofsuch behaviour is the non-locality of Q.M., discovered by Alain Aspect, in 1984,when he found that the motion of photon pairs involved duplication at relatively largedistances, a long time after the two had parted. Superstrings offered to solve thesemysteries but exhibited fundamental flaws, not one of which has ever been overcome.The hypothesis makes no unique predictions which, by their appearance/ non-appearance, would serve to confirm or falsify it. The latter is the vital scientific test ofall potential theories so string theory (as it is credited with being) is unscientific.Prospects of a testable prediction for string theory rely on multiverse theory; theyrequire extra unseen dimensions, up to seven, into which our 4D (3 + 1) universerandomly transforms. On the other hand, evidence for an 11D multiverse would not,of itself, make string theory valid. It would still be surplus to requirements, making itdoubly unscientific. After three decades during which the theory has not produced anytestable predictions some of the string theorists are trying to change the rules bywhich theories qualify as scientific, so that string theory will not have to pass theusual tests. This renders the string theorists themselves unscientific.

None of which has dampened the enthusiasm of Yank undergraduates for studyingthe hypotheses as a means of advancement within the Yank physics community, orsociology. It has enough believers among the academic staff who are in a position tohold the gift of promotion, so why would the students not subscribe to it? Some day it

might materialise as a real theory but nobody is in a position to judge Yank cultureanyway, whether in terms of its scientific content or otherwise. An anecdoteillustrating this presumption is referred to by Lee Smolin in his The Trouble withPhysics. It concerns a visit paid by Subramanyan Chandrasekar to Princeton in the1980s to attend a dinner given in recognition of his having recently received the

Nobel Prize for Physics. It so happened that he was sat next to a young theorist whoclearly did not recognise him and, on being informed of his field of study, advisedhim to drop what he was doing and switch to string theory or risk becomingobsolete. Young man, Chandra replied, I knew Werner Heisenberg. I can promiseyou that Heisenberg would never have been so rude as to tell someone to stop whatthey were doing and work on quantum theory. And he certainly would


24/26

24never have been so disrespectful as to tell someone who got his PhD fifty years agothat he was about to become obsolete. It is hard to imagine such an exchange taking

place at a British university. Yank graduates accept the recommendations of their

favoured peers, regardless. Consequently, their generalised use of retrospectivejustification led string theorists to believe they would prevail in the struggle for theprivilege of writing physics history. Smolin observes that they seem to have noproblem believing that string theory must be right while acknowledging that they haveno idea what it really is. In other words, string theory will subsume whatever comesafter it. He adds that Even Nathan Seiberg, who is a celebrated theorist at theInstitute for Advanced Study, was quoted in a recent interview as saying, If there issomething [beyond string theory], we will call it string theory.

Fortunately string theorists are losing their leaders. Ed Witten, who introducednon-commutative geometry into the field, has not contributed to it at all in recentyears and the godfather of string theory, Roger Penrose, was quite scathing about it in

a recent interview for New Scientist magazine: -

My main objection is all those extra dimensions, which dont make any sense, hesays. Witten aside, says Penrose, string theorists are not facing up to their problems.I dont see string theory converging on anything. In fact, its diverging: it has gotwilder and wilder.

Nevertheless, the sheer numbers of adherents attracted to what, for want ofevidence, has turned into a belief system and nothing more, indicates the truth of theobservation that Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first drive mad. Stringtheory remains, in effect, an unsustainable hypothesis, the pursuit of its Theory ofEverything an act of faith and its axioms mere doctrines. When a theorys scribeshave to keep re-writing the prophecies in the hope of discovering the experimentumcrucis, the miracle demonstration of concept that will rescue the theory, their beliefsystem has become a religion. Now that its founders are ready to perform the funeralrites over its remains string theory may remain dead and buried. Unfortunately, it isequally likely that it will self-resurrect as a persistent illusion and plague science in aclassic example of zombie physics.

The alternative? Any candidate for cosmic medium must resolve the dichotomybetween background dependent Quantum Mechanics and background independentSpecial Relativity? In the beginning of this dichotomy was the agent of all perception,

light. And Einstein saw that the light was a good way of resolving the conflictbetween Maxwells e-m theory and Galilean Relativity, using the Lorentz-Fitzgeraldtransformations. But then he introduced the impossible concept of a baryonic (slower-than-light) observer riding a light wave in order to argue for adjustments in the waywe perceive motion, length and time at velocities below light speed. Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and dilation would be better applied to the aether, as theiroriginators suggested they could be, than to objects in different frames of reference.Originally regarded as a fix, this idea makes sense because General Relativity assertsthat there is a universal medium which cannot be ignored. Consider two light beamsapproaching one another. A leptonic measuring daemon rides each one and, accordingto Galilean/ Newtonian Relativity, should record a relative velocity of approach of 2c.


25/26

25

However, it is commonly accepted that the daemons would record a light speed of c,the non-tachyonic upper speed limit for anything and everything. Why?

Energetic water waves cannot outpace their bow-wave, the interface betweenmoving waves and (relatively) static water. As the water is compressed with increasesin wave speed it reaches a limit beyond which it is incompressible, depending on its

purity and temperature. Similarly, the aether, which has a universal temperature and,presumably, universal consistency, must reach a limit, with the increasing speed ofany mass-energy penetrating it, beyond which it is incompressible. This feature mustalso govern the effect of gravity in extreme conditions, such as the compression ofeverything, including the aether, to a singularity, within a black hole.

Like a river, the aether is full of activity, though at the subnuclear rather than the

molecular level, so any grid or lattice structure imposed on a given arrangement ofaetherons would be impermanent. It is both random and relativistic. The circular

polarisation impressed on the aethers field elements by light energy (immaterial/pureenergy) is equivalent to a spinning plane wave in its effects. Spinning materialobjects, such as the SEG rotor, motorised gyros, spinning ring magnets supported bytheir fields and tops, whipped till they jump, all demonstrate gravitationalmodification. They can only do so by approximating their motion to that of e-menergy in a light wave, probably.


26/26

References: -

McGraw-Hill: Encyclopaedia of Science and TechnologyMisner, Thorne & Wheeler: GravitationA. Pais: Subtle is the LordW.J. Duffin: Electricity and MagnetismAlex Harvey: The Principle of Equivalence Annals of Physics,

vol.29 (1964) pp.383-90.Zakharov: Gravitational Waves in Einsteins TheoryThomas & Raine: Physics to a DegreeW.Rohlff: Modern Physics from to S.Weinberg: Gravitation and Cosmology

Bleaney & Bleaney: Electricity and MagnetismJ.Yarwood: Atomic Physics, Vol. IIPhysics World, Vol.23, no. 3, March 2010, p.5.Dr. James H. Sharp: Laser GyroscopesRonald Mallett: The Time TravellerRonald Mallett: Weak Gravitational Field of the Electromagnetic Radiation from aRing Laser In Physics Letters A, vol.269, 8 May 2000, p. 214-17.Giovanni Modanese: Updating the Theoretical Analysis of the Weak GravitationalShielding Experiment. In the arXiv facility athttp://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/supr-com/9601001. A Los Angeles Library of Science Article, publ. 9 Feb 1996.Jim Wilson: Taming Gravity. In Popular Mechanics, no.10, 1999.Jim Read: Skeggs & Ning Li on Gravitational Modification Superconductors,varying magnetic fields. In the website Allans Time at: -http://www.allanstime.com/UFT_discussion/00000019.htm

N.Li and D.G. Torr: Effects of a gravitomagnetic field on pure superconductors.In Physical Review D, vol.43, no.2, 15 Jan, 1991, pp 457-59.C. Clarke: Elementary General RelativityR. dInverno: Introducing Einsteins RelativityGasperini and Venzo de Sabbatta: Introduction to Gravitation 1985V.V. Roschin and S.M. Godin: Experimental Research of the Magnetic-GravityEffects. Full Size SEG tests. Website article by members of the Russian Academy of

Science at http://www.searleffect.com/free/russianseg/russianseg.htmA. Einstein: Sidelights on Relativity. From A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion,collected articles by Einstein, ed. Hawking.Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch: The GolemRev. F. Polkinghorne: The Quantum WorldLee Smolin: The Trouble with Physics 2006.Roger Penrose, in interview with Michael Brooks for the New Scientist,

March 2010, p.28-9Frank Close: The VoidJ-P Luminet: Black HolesHarold Aspden: Physics without Einstein
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/supr-com/9601001http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/supr-com/9601001http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/supr-com/9601001http://www.allanstime.com/UFT_discussion/00000019.htmhttp://www.searleffect.com/free/russianseg/russianseg.htmhttp://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/supr-com/9601001http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/supr-com/9601001http://www.allanstime.com/UFT_discussion/00000019.htmhttp://www.searleffect.com/free/russianseg/russianseg.htm

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	stephen-shires
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

A Comparative Study of Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields

Documents