If I've already sent this please forgive my senility. 8^)
I don't have the time for an extended discussion. However, I will
try to answer your questions of the moment.
On Apr 7, 2007, at 3:15 AM, David Thomson wrote:
Hi Horace,
Would you consider gravitational charge to be the same thing as
mass? If
not, why not?
Coulombic charge is the emitter/receiver of the messenger particle of
the electromagnetic (EM) field. Gravitational charge is the emitter/
receiver of the messenger particle of the gravimagnetic (GK) field.
Coulombic and gravitational charge can be bound into, be contained
in, the same particle.
Gravitational charge defines gravitational mass, but not inertial
mass. Inertial and gravitational mass are maintained in proportion
only because in typical matter the two charge carriers are maintained
in proportion. Neutrons carry EM charge, but the charges are
balanced. Photons, on the other hand, carry no EM charge, but do
carry GK charge.
How do you use the term "virtual" such that it applies to the real
world?
That is, how can an object exist without really existing?
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
Messenger particles carry (are) the force of a force field. They
travel at finite speed, thus, as Jefimenko Showed, their effects in
dynamic systems are delayed, i.e. "retarded". This retardation
accounts precisely for the magnetic component of both the EM and GK
fields, thus there is no need for a magnetic field messenger particle
of either the EM or GK variety. This accounts for why the electric
and magnetic components of a field depend on the observer's relative
motion. Jefimenko has further showed that retardation accounts fully
for many relativistic effects.
Super massive black holes are hypothesized to exist, but as of yet,
there is
no hard evidence that they do.
A search of the literature will show the above to be highly
debatable. It is not a debate in which I have sufficient interest to
spend time.
How can your theory prove the existence of
super massive black holes?
It can not. Proof of black holes only comes from observation. The
gravimagnetic theory logically necessitates black holes, and further
black holes with specific characteristics. The gravimagnetic theory
was in fact derived to be consistent with a number of types of
assumed observations. I think one of the indications of the power of
the theory is the clarity of its explanation of polar jets emitted
from black holes. Another is its wide range of quantified predictive
abilities.
Also, there is evidence to suggest that the length scales of
astrophysics
are wrong. If it turns out the perceived distances between
galactic objects
is wrong, and the Newton calculations for gravitational force are
correct,
would your theory still predict dark energy?
Yes, of course. Gravity must necessarily be reduced by the noted
effects of propagation delay, gravitational red shift, and graviton
absorption. Further, the predicted existence (by symmetry, as well
as polar jets) of negative mass charge necessitates the existence of
a repulsive gravitational force and negative gravitational matter.
The existence of such matter has profound cosmological consequences.
Overall, the universe must expand indefinitely, but in localized
zones consisting primarily of one charge type or another, a phoenix
effect takes place through generations of alternating black hole
types. It is possible that negative gravitational mass matter
arrives here on earth continuously in the form of cosmic rays, and
that it thus occupies the volume of local space in surprisingly high
amounts. The energy of cosmic rays greatly exceeds that necessary
to overcome the earth or solar system's escape velocity. To my
knowledge no determination of length scales has even considered all
these things.
I find several ideas in your theory to be heading in the right
direction,
such as the identification of "gravitational charge" as separate from
electrostatic charge. However, it is unclear to me what dimensions
gravitational charge has in your theory.
Gravitational charge has the dimension of gravitational mass, e.g.
kg_g. When it is clear you are talking about gravitational mass and
not inertial mass you can simply dispense with the "sub g".
The more interesting and nebulous thing, and even not explored thing,
is the space in which the graviton exists, which includes imaginary
dimensions. The travel time between two particles for gravitons and
virtual photons need not be the same at all times. If a space
warping model is of use, the two subspaces might warp independently.
The ratio of charge, or inertial mass, to gravitational mass is not
necessarily constant. The change in proportions affects clocks, so
manifests as time warp.
It is also unclear what the force
law is that mediates gravitational charge. For example, Coulomb's
electrostatic force law and Newton's gravitational force law
quantify the
forces between electrostatic charge and mass, respectively.
I think you just answered your own question. These two laws are
analogs under the defined isomorphism. Optionally, you can can
subscript everything in Coulomb's law with a "g" to obtain Newton's
gravitational force law as defined by the nomenclature in:
http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Gravimagnetism.pdf
There are
empirically derived constants that mediate the forces between the
dimensions
of charge and mass, respectively.
The force law "constants" depend on the ratio of GK charge to EM
charge in ordinary matter particles, and, depending on other
assumptions, the conditions of observation. However, the distinction
between inertial mass and gravitational mass was not drawn when the
force law constants were initially defined in prior centuries.
In your theory, it is unclear whether gravitational charge is the
same thing
as mass, charge, or something completely different.
A fundamental premise of the theory is that gravitational mass and
inertial mass are completely distinct. Forces from gravitational
charge interactions are distinct from inertial f=ma forces, which can
be shown to be due to EM forces resulting from the fact charged
particles have finite dimensions. I think Puthoff (a former member
of this list) and Ibbitson have written a number of articles about
the EM source of inertia.
Coulomb charge and mass charge are utterly distinct under the
gravimagnetic theory, though they are commonly bound together in
ordinary matter.
I'll need to see your
answers before taking this further.
Perhaps you could take it in a basket for a picnic. mmmmm.... picnic...
Regards,
Horace Heffner
