There is no gravitational dipole

[nduriri]

Allais Effect solved

Okay, I'm trying to understand the concept behind gravitomagnetism. Is it analogous to magnetism arising from changes in charge density due to length contraction? Except in this case there are changes in mass density due to length contraction? Am I on the right trail of thought or am I completely lost?

Given the geometrical similarities between the Newton law (f =m1.m2/r^2) and the Coulomb law (f =q1.q2/r^2) in a staic regime and if the the 2 perturbations travel at the speed of light, we would expect the 2 fields to obey the same laws in variable regime. We ignore the nature of the electric field and the nature of the gravitational field but we know how to calculate the force exerted on particles by these fields, we know how to transform forces from one reference frame to another by using the Lorentz Force Rransformation ( ).
1) We start by transforming the force exerted by the electric field on a charge particle from one reference frame to another in order to show the existence of the magnetic field (it is a concept = mathematical tool to help us solve easily physical problems).
2) Likewise we transforme the force exerted by the gravitational field on a masse particle from one reference frame to another in order to show the existence of the gravitomagnetic (it is a concept = mathematical tool to help us solve easily physical problems).
3) In both cases we ignore the nature of the fields, we just deal with forces exerted on particles, in that case there is not semantic debate of fields and tensors.
4) The results we get, at best, should be in conformity with the astronomical observations and at worst tend to be in line with the astronomical observations.
Please don't talk about length contraction, it is also a mathematical tool.
Image 2 observers moving at different speeds with respect to an object, they will notice that the object got 2 different lengths but the object has only one length, U see the contraction is a relative tool.

 

[clj4]

Given the geometrical similarities between the Newton law (f =m1.m2/r^2) and the Coulomb law (f =q1.q2/r^2) in a staic regime and if the the 2 perturbations travel at the speed of light, we would expect the 2 fields to obey the same laws in variable regime. We ignore the nature of the electric field and the nature of the gravitational field but we know how to calculate the force exerted on particles by these fields, we know how to transform forces from one reference frame to another by using the Lorentz Force Rransformation ( ).
1) We start by transforming the force exerted by the electric field on a charge particle from one reference frame to another in order to show the existence of the magnetic field (it is a concept = mathematical tool to help us solve easily physical problems).
2) Likewise we transforme the force exerted by the gravitational field on a masse particle from one reference frame to another in order to show the existence of the gravitomagnetic (it is a concept = mathematical tool to help us solve easily physical problems).
3) In both cases we ignore the nature of the fields, we just deal with forces exerted on particles, in that case there is not semantic debate of fields and tensors.
4) The results we get, at best, should be in conformity with the astronomical observations and at worst tend to be in line with the astronomical observations.
Please don't talk about length contraction, it is also a mathematical tool.
Image 2 observers moving at different speeds with respect to an object, they will notice that the object got 2 different lengths but the object has only one length, U see the contraction is a relative tool.

You've already been told here by several people that the blunder is actually yours:

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=814734&postcount=73

Do you need to try every forum to see if you hear the same objections?

 

[nduriri]

pioneer effect

You are close. Magnetism arises from charges in motion - I wouldn't single out length contraction as the particluar part of relativity that causes magnetism, though.

Gravitomagnetism arises from masses in motion in much the same manner as magnetism does from charges in motion. The anology is close enough that in the case of linearized gravity, one can recover a set of equations that look much like Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism, with some non-unity factors of 2 and 4.

I agree with U a 99%, all what I try is to show that from Lorentz force transformation we can get these equations. See U

 

[JustinLevy]

Nduriri, can you please stop posting about your pet theory? It would be much appreciated.

It's also worth noting that g and H do not transform in the same manner as E and B under Lorentz boosts.

That post was really interesting, thanks!

But can you explain how one would go about figuring out how g and H do transform? I don't really understand why it would be different, as shouldn't a "point charge" (rho = m * delta function) be the same in all reference frames? Or are you saying we are supposed to use the old notion of "relativistic mass" instead of invarient mass or something?

 

[nduriri]

pioneer anomaly

Nduriri, can you please stop posting about your pet theory? It would be much appreciated.


That post was really interesting, thanks!

But can you explain how one would go about figuring out how g and H do transform? I don't really understand why it would be different, as shouldn't a "point charge" (rho = m * delta function) be the same in all reference frames? Or are you saying we are supposed to use the old notion of "relativistic mass" instead of invarient mass or something?

If my theory does not worry, why are you fighting it with such a force, your are either scared or jelous or both. Stop insulting me, say sensible things.

 

[pervect]

We strive for accuracy here. Your made up theories are, at best, a minor irritant. They are irritating because we strive for accuracy, and your theories are wrong and might mislead the naive. (They wouldn't mislead anyone with any expertise, however).

Note that, in the interest of accuracy, we have formal guidelines about the posting of personal theories which you are ignoring.

It's a judgment call, but it seems likely that trying to explain to you why you are wrong is a waste of time. It might not be a waste of time to explain to someone else why you are wrong, but it seems unlikely that you will actually listen, being committed to your own crack-pot ideas. Anyone who tries to explain that you are wrong and why will be perceived as "attacking your revolutionary breakthrough ideas" :-(.

Generally, though, being 'reactive' like this isn't particularly useful for explaining science. It's much better to explain the 'right' theory from the start, rather than trying to explain why some crackpot is wrong.

Hopefully a moderator will notice how off-track this has become and lock down the track.

I suspect you'll view this as vindication for how 'threatining' your ideas are, rather than an indication that you are just plain wrong. See the remarks about "why it's probably a waste of time to explain to you why you are wrong".

In summary, there are some reasonably good references on the web about gravitomagnetism, for those curious on the topic. The wikipedia article, unless it has been vandalized recently is one such. Your paper is not on the recommendable list.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Hopefully a moderator will notice how off-track this has become and lock down the track.

Glad to oblige.