Horace Heffner wrote: > > On Feb 2, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: > >> Horace Heffner wrote: >> >>> >>> On Feb 1, 2006, at 10:20 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Could Gravimagnetism be involved in the precession of the perihelion >>>> of planet mercury? >>>> >>>> http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html > [snip] >> >> Presumably then gravimagnetism is not required to explain _any_ of the >> orbital precession since it can all be explained by classical and >> relativistic physics. >> >> Harry > > This is true. Gravimagnetism is consistent with the above with regard > to the retardation effects, and adds no changes to the retardation > results calculated by conventional means. It adds nothing to the > final results. Its primary value in this case is the fact it > circumvents the incomprehensible math behind things like the Thirring- > Lense effect and brings some important gravitational concepts down to > a high school math level. It makes some intuitive sense of the > Thirring-Lense effect at a mundane level. > > The Thirring-Lense effect is becoming more important to astronomy. > For example, see: > http://www.physics.uiuc.edu/Research/CTA/news/sidebands/. Simple > mental models are vitally important to sorting out the nature of > various gravitational effects, and to approaching a quantum theory of > gravity. They are also of important to basic engineering of gravity > effects, and to distinguishing real from retardation relativistic > effects. The gravimagnetic model, with corrections for real effects, > both in the EM and gK realms, may lead to alternate explanations for > observed effects. > > If I had the concepts roughly right and did the calculations > correctly in > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/GraviCalcs.pdf > then the ambient gravimagnetic field overwhelms the Earth's local > gravimagnetic field. The ambient gravimagnetic field has little > effect on orbital precession however, only on average orbital > height. The GRACE mission: > http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/earth_drag.html > did actually see the effects of the Earth's gravimagnetic field on > orbital precession, because it is an *incremental* effect due to > incremental changes in distance from the Earth. The Gravity Probe B > satellite, however, is measuring the effect of the *absolute* > gravimagnetic field by looking at precession of a small silicon ball, > so gravimagnetism predicts a 50-100 fold difference in results. > > If I did things right (still much in doubt!) then NASA is in for some > surprising results! We should hear in early 2007. If that actually > happens then the value of the concept will be permanently cast in > cement. > > There is a far more significant value to the concept, however, at > least when it is developed and applied under the isomorphism proposed > in: > http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/GR-and-QM.pdf. > This isomorphism, in addition to immediately bringing to bear every > EM equation on gravitational problems, points to underlying > symmetries and opens up a large number of difficult questions and > implications, some of which are discussed in the referenced document. > It demonstrates the power of the imaginary number i in gravitational > computations. > > Then again, this could all be bunk! 8^) > > Horace Heffner > >
In EM theory a body with some charge and with motion which is initially uniform and in a straight line will be deflected by the appearance of a magnetic field. If the isomorphism between Gravity and EM holds, then a body with some mass with the same initial motion should be deflected by the appearance of gravimagnetic field (not a gravity field) , but it appears to be only true if the body is initially rotating too. Have I misunderstood the meaning of isomorphism or something about the theory of gravimagnetism? Harry
