No, I haven’t got the book. Since you posted the claim and you obviously agree with it and therefore fully understand the mathematical basis for the claim that the two 6x6x6 neutral cubes of unit charges always attract, I was hoping that you would provide that information for us.Have you got the book?
Chapter 3.
Why would I repeat what’s written in the book?No, I haven’t got the book. Since you posted the claim and you obviously agree with it and therefore fully understand the mathematical basis for the claim that the two 6x6x6 neutral cubes of unit charges always attract, I was hoping that you would provide that information for us.
Why do you think that it is the correct explanation for the source of gravity when there are many cogent reasons, including some already alluded to in this thread, that gravity cannot be an electromagnetic phenomenon? What has persuaded you that the explanation is correct for the two neutral cubes always attracting when there are equal numbers of positive and negative unit charges equally disposed in them?Why would I repeat what’s written in the book?
Please read it, if you have any questions then we can discuss.
Read the book!Why do you think that it is the correct explanation for the source of gravity when there are many cogent reasons, including some already alluded to in this thread, that gravity cannot be an electromagnetic phenomenon? What has persuaded you that the explanation is correct for the two neutral cubes always attracting when there are equal numbers of positive and negative unit charges equally disposed in them?
Two masses will always attract according to Newton’s law of gravity. It doesn’t matter if they are cubes or spheres. F= G*Mm/d^2… Physics 101. Going further, Einstein said that gravity was a geometrical consequence of a mass.I should be grateful if you would show the mathematical treatment which shows that.
I’m sorry I seem to have misunderstood. Since you seem to be wedded to this frankly bizarre idea, I assumed you were here to explain and discuss it but it seems you only want to promote a book. There are probably 15-20 theories of gravity developed to various degrees of sophistication by physicists, of which one, the General Theory of Relativity mostly closely matches observations currently. There are probably ten times as many crackpot hypotheses and ideas, developed mostly by non-physicists and most promoted via vanity published books and personal websites, which are obviously and fundamentally flawed. You have given us no reason to spend any time considering this one particular idea amongst so many. By refusing to answer basic questions about the idea and by ignoring obvious flaws in the concept, you are not doing a good job of persuading anyone to take it seriously. Which is no skin off anyone’s nose.Read the book!
There is even an experiment description that was done by professor Hughes.
Kopernicky did his own different ones.
yes, something, but what is the relevance?Do you know something about screened potential?
Just so. But I’m not sure you have followed the reason for my request for the claimed mathematical derivation of the electrostaticattraction of neutral bodies as put forward by Jaanosik.Two masses will always attract according to Newton’s law of gravity. It doesn’t matter if they are cubes or spheres. F= G*Mm/d^2… Physics 101. Going further, Einstein said that gravity was a geometrical consequence of a mass.
Yes, I understand it very well. I can explain it.I’m sorry I seem to have misunderstood. Since you seem to be wedded to this frankly bizarre idea, I assumed you were here to explain and discuss it but it seems you only want to promote a book. There are probably 15-20 theories of gravity developed to various degrees of sophistication by physicists, of which one, the General Theory of Relativity mostly closely matches observations currently. There are probably ten times as many crackpot hypotheses and ideas, developed mostly by non-physicists and most promoted via vanity published books and personal websites, which are obviously and fundamentally flawed. You have given us no reason to spend any time considering this one particular idea amongst so many. By refusing to answer basic questions about the idea and by ignoring obvious flaws in the concept, you are not doing a good job of persuading anyone to take it seriously. Which is no skin off anyone’s nose.
yes, something, but what is the relevance?
Well, you haven’t shown any evidence of that so far.Yes, I understand it very well. I can explain it.
Enjoy your faith in an idea which is patently wrong. Enjoy your complete failure to interest anyone in it. Have a good 2015.It can not happen if you do not start to read.
What are these other theories of gravity, and how do they compared to the standard of classical Newtonian theory in terms of their predictive power (as a theory that is regarded as inferior to Newton’s theory does not deserve serious consideration). I am aware of modified Newtonian dynamics and the hypothesis that antimatter is repulsive on ordinary matter (but this is hard to test due to the lack of antimatter in the universe, the difficult to create dark matter, and the weakness of gravity). I ask because I am interested in how alternative theories explain astronomical and cosmological phenomenon. Are these theories fundamentally different from the general theory of relativity, that they have fundamentally different theoretical entities such as denying the existence of Minkowski spacetime (and the associated phenomenon of gravitational lensing) and time dilation (or dark matter which isn’t a fundamental component of general relativity anyway, but that is more related to particle physics and cosmology) or proposing that extra dimensions to explain certain gravitational interactions.I’m sorry I seem to have misunderstood. Since you seem to be wedded to this frankly bizarre idea, I assumed you were here to explain and discuss it but it seems you only want to promote a book. There are probably 15-20 theories of gravity developed to various degrees of sophistication by physicists, of which one, the General Theory of Relativity mostly closely matches observations currently. There are probably ten times as many crackpot hypotheses and ideas, developed mostly by non-physicists and most promoted via vanity published books and personal websites, which are obviously and fundamentally flawed. You have given us no reason to spend any time considering this one particular idea amongst so many. By refusing to answer basic questions about the idea and by ignoring obvious flaws in the concept, you are not doing a good job of persuading anyone to take it seriously. Which is no skin off anyone’s nose.
yes, something, but what is the relevance?
There is a range of alternative theories. Metric theories include GR which is a tensor metric theory. Other theories include add scalar or vector fields - for example in Brans-Dicke theory, which is a scalar-tensor theory similar to GR, the value of the gravitational constant itself varies as a function of local matter as described by an additional equation defining the scalar field of the reciprocal of the graviational constant. So there are also vector-tensor and even scalar-vector-tensor theories such as Bekenstein’s TeVeS theory, which is a relativistic theory based on non-relativistic MOND. There are also static or non-metric theories. You are correct that, to be taken seriously, theories must reduce in the low-velocity weak-field limit to Newtonian gravity - although of course in MOND, and theories based on it, it is proposed that in very weak field conditions gravity is not strictly Newtonian. Anyway, my estimate above of 15-20 of these theories is probably an underestimate. Some have been excluded over time by empirical evidence, but several remain viable theories.What are these other theories of gravity, and how do they compared to the standard of classical Newtonian theory in terms of their predictive power (as a theory that is regarded as inferior to Newton’s theory does not deserve serious consideration).
Did you mean to write antimatter here where you wrote dark matter? Anyway, while MOND is a proposal that seeks to explain the flat rotation curves of galaxies, it is not a theory of gravity in itself, although it can form the basis for a theory.I am aware of modified Newtonian dynamics and the hypothesis that antimatter is repulsive on ordinary matter (but this is hard to test due to the lack of antimatter in the universe, the difficult to create dark matter, and the weakness of gravity).
Minkowski spacetime as a concept has nothing to do with gravitational lensing. It is the spacetime of general relativity in the absence of gravitation - in otherwords special relativity (akin to Euclidean space with the addition of the time dimension). In Minkowski spacetime Lorentz transformations define change of frame.I ask because I am interested in how alternative theories explain astronomical and cosmological phenomenon. Are these theories fundamentally different from the general theory of relativity, that they have fundamentally different theoretical entities such as denying the existence of Minkowski spacetime (and the associated phenomenon of gravitational lensing)
Dark matter isn’t inherent to a theory of gravity but is needed to reconcile astronomical observations with GR. Some gravitational theories (such as TeVeS and other MOND based theories) seek to explain the observations without the need for dark matter.and time dilation (or dark matter which isn’t a fundamental component of general relativity anyway, but that is more related to particle physics and cosmology) or proposing that extra dimensions to explain certain gravitational interactions.
I am not really familiar with the philosophical subtleties, but I would say that, in modern science, theories are accepted or rejected on the basis of how well they describe observation. GR is currently the most commonly accepted theory of gravity because it matches observation well. However, alternative theories might prove superior if they are at least as good as GR in its tested range and, in addition, make better predictions under certain conditions. So far that has not been the case, but that doesn’t mean that further theorising and attempts to devise means of distinguishing between GR and alternatives should or will stop.…I ask in good faith as a means to explore scientific instrumentalism and antirealism. …Agnosticism makes it difficult for one to maintain a realist position.
Are still trolling and not reading?Well, you haven’t shown any evidence of that so far.
Enjoy your faith in an idea which is patently wrong. Enjoy your complete failure to interest anyone in it. Have a good 2015.
There is the nonsymmetric gravitational theory of John W. Moffat. BTW, if dark matter cannot be seen, but only inferred from GR, would that not indicate a possible problem with GR?There is a range of alternative theories. Metric theories include GR which is a tensor metric theory. Other theories include add scalar or vector fields - for example in Brans-Dicke theory, which is a scalar-tensor theory similar to GR, the value of the gravitational constant itself varies as a function of local matter as described by an additional equation defining the scalar field of the reciprocal of the graviational constant. So there are also vector-tensor and even scalar-vector-tensor theories such as Bekenstein’s TeVeS theory, which is a relativistic theory based on non-relativistic MOND. There are also static or non-metric theories. You are correct that, to be taken seriously, theories must reduce in the low-velocity weak-field limit to Newtonian gravity - although of course in MOND, and theories based on it, it is proposed that in very weak field conditions gravity is not strictly Newtonian. Anyway, my estimate above of 15-20 of these theories is probably an underestimate. Some have been excluded over time by empirical evidence, but several remain viable theories.
Well, Moffat has developed four or five different theories of gravity himself. NGT is just the first of these. The most recent, Scalar-Tensor-Vector Gravity (known as MOG - MOdified Gravity), like TeVeS, is a tensor-vector-scalar theory, and attempts to explain the flat rotation curves of galaxies without calling on dark matter. As far as I know it’s viable and also predicts the accelerating expansion of the universe without dark energy.There is the nonsymmetric gravitational theory of John W. Moffat.
Well if the only reason to propose dark matter was to explain the observed galaxy rotations, and the dark matter particle could not be detected, then we might prefer an alternative to GR, like MOG for example. But it’s not as simple as that. The presence of dark matter is inferred for more than one reason (eg, gravitational lensing of galaxies, the observation of the Bullet Cluster, the need for a critical density of mass-energy to make the universe geometry flat, and so on). Next, it is far from being the case that every potential dark matter particle has been ruled out - there are still many potential particles to attempt to detect. Then, MOG is considerably more complex and less elegant than GR, adding a massive vector field and three scalar fields to the usual relativistic tensor field. It feels a little like adding epicycles - add enough free parameters and you can model anything. But you’re right that ultimately, if dark matter can’t be detected directly, we need to seriously question whether GR is a good model for gravity at galactic scales.BTW, if dark matter cannot be seen, but only inferred from GR, would that not indicate a possible problem with GR?
‘Dark matter was invented’ because there is no explanation for faster rotation of spiral galaxy stars.There is the nonsymmetric gravitational theory of John W. Moffat. BTW, if dark matter cannot be seen, but only inferred from GR, would that not indicate a possible problem with GR?
Hello hec: Thanks a lot for your detailed explanations. I really enjoy reading them. It is a big help to get your viewpoint on these things.Well, Moffat has developed four or five different theories of gravity himself. NGT is just the first of these. The most recent, Scalar-Tensor-Vector Gravity (known as MOG - MOdified Gravity), like TeVeS, is a tensor-vector-scalar theory, and attempts to explain the flat rotation curves of galaxies without calling on dark matter. As far as I know it’s viable and also predicts the accelerating expansion of the universe without dark energy. Well if the only reason to propose dark matter was to explain the observed galaxy rotations, and the dark matter particle could not be detected, then we might prefer an alternative to GR, like MOG for example. But it’s not as simple as that. The presence of dark matter is inferred for more than one reason (eg, gravitational lensing of galaxies, the observation of the Bullet Cluster, the need for a critical density of mass-energy to make the universe geometry flat, and so on). Next, it is far from being the case that every potential dark matter particle has been ruled out - there are still many potential particles to attempt to detect. Then, MOG is considerably more complex and less elegant than GR, adding a massive vector field and three scalar fields to the usual relativistic tensor field. It feels a little like adding epicycles - add enough free parameters and you can model anything. But you’re right that ultimately, if dark matter can’t be detected directly, we need to seriously question whether GR is a good model for gravity at galactic scales.
This is no more than pseudoscientific nonsense. Let’s look at the conclusions first. According to this “analysis” if a body revolves in a circular path on the end of a string then the physics is different whether observed from a frame of reference at rest with respect to the centre of the path or from a frame of reference in uniform motion with respect to the centre. The author claims that there are forces in the latter case which force the path traced out by the body to be a prolate cycloid. This is completely wrong and violates a very old and very well tested physical principle - Galilean invariance - which states that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames (ie frames in uniform motion). And, of course, the conclusion is obvious that there cannot not be different accelerations viewed from different frames.The ‘free’ tangential acceleration creates a prolate cycloid. The stars move faster.
Yes, it’s so simple, many relativity paradoxes go away.