Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #659901 > unrolled thread

Is Gravity and Electricity the same thing?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Is Gravity and Electricity the same thing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-28 12:38 -0800
    Re: Is Gravity and Electricity the same thing? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-12-28 21:51 +0000
    Re: Is Gravity and Electricity the same thing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-28 14:27 -0800
    Re: Is Gravity and Electricity the same thing? Sabbir Rahman <intuitionist1@yahoo.com> - 2024-12-29 04:27 +0300
      Re: Is Gravity and Electricity the same thing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-28 20:45 -0800
    Re: Is Gravity and Electricity the same thing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-12-29 07:05 +0000
      Re: Is Gravity and Electricity the same thing? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-12-29 06:04 -0800
      Re: Is Gravity and Electricity the same thing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-12-30 02:35 +0000
    Re: Is Gravity and Electricity the same thing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-29 08:18 -0800

#659901 — Is Gravity and Electricity the same thing?

Is Gravity and Electricity the same thing?



I gotta find a paper on it...

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#659903

On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 20:38:42 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

> Is Gravity and Electricity the same thing?
>
>
>
> I gotta find a paper on it...
Encyclopedia Britannica says the unified field theory "failed," so I
guess they're not quite the same. Gravity doesn't move at the speed of
electromagnetism.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659906

On 12/28/2024 12:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Is Gravity and Electricity the same thing?
>
>
>
> I gotta find a paper on it...
>

No, man, though there's a theory about energy and radiation,
usually in terms of waves, that what's conserved in any
location in space-time is called according to a continuity law,
and that transitions make for something like Shech's and that
"more than Noether's theorem, conservation laws are really
strong continuity laws", then that gravity, first of all,
to not be constantly violating conservation of energy
must be some kind of universal fall-gradient a fall-gravity,
while electricity is super-classical itself, with regards
to usually a tetrad of quantities, neutron proton electron photon,
and usually a tetrad of fields, then that gravity or fall-gravity
results being the same thing as strong nuclear force, while
electricity and electromagnetism is part of the larger
"sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials least-action least-gradient",
theory, then whether mass or charge is first in the theory,
i.e. a kinetic theory like "thermo second law is our law",
or an electrical theory like "Maxwell's law(s), one of them,
is our law", that anyways, it's all one theory.

Doofus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659909

In article <677061D2.5D1E@ix.netcom.com>, starmaker@ix.netcom.com 
says...
> 
> Is Gravity and Electricity the same thing?
> 
> 
> 
> I gotta find a paper on it...

Here is a paper that shows that electrodynamics is emergent from 
gravity:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386633510
_Charge_is_Dimensionless_Classical_electrodynamics_from_the_motion_of_a_
self-gravitating_dipolar_relativistic_fluid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659910

On 12/28/2024 05:27 PM, Sabbir Rahman wrote:
> In article <677061D2.5D1E@ix.netcom.com>, starmaker@ix.netcom.com
> says...
>>
>> Is Gravity and Electricity the same thing?
>>
>>
>>
>> I gotta find a paper on it...
>
> Here is a paper that shows that electrodynamics is emergent from
> gravity:
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386633510
> _Charge_is_Dimensionless_Classical_electrodynamics_from_the_motion_of_a_
> self-gravitating_dipolar_relativistic_fluid
>

Hello. When you say "positive or negative mass",
is that to be read as that the electron is "vacillating",
its rest mass, which is small, and "vanishing", that
the electron more or less a wiggle? These "exotic
dipolar particles"?


Waves is a usual model of propagation and change
in an open system, that's agreeable. There's Huygen's
principle that "radiation is waves is radiation is waves",
then that at some point like the pseudo-differential
is the wavelet, or ondes and ondelettes.


Here the Lorentzian signature is (+, +, +, -) not (-, -, -, +).


The definition of "continuous relativistic fluid" would
usually entail notions of "incompressibility" here though
with regards to the "viscoelastic".

In (2), needn't the "c^2" term be distributed across?

The footnote (d) is indeed quite seeming.

"Most physicists unfortunately tend to be rather allergic
to the idea that the r < 0 region is physically real as
it would imply the existence of both negative mass particles
and closed timelike curves (CTCs) that violate causality."


"Our firm position on this matter is that the r < 0 region is very
clearly an intrinsic part of the original mathematical solution - not
merely an extension - and cannot simply be discarded or brushed under
the carpet because it is mathematically or physically “inconvenient”."


Here there's that at r = 0 in the middle of a black hole
is a singularity and asymptotic, while, in multiplicity theory,
any singularity is merely a multiplicity. It is so though that
r < 0 is indeed not real when r, the radius, is an unsigned magnitude.

Then, to be making "negative time" and "negative mass" and
these kinds of things is considered not having a physical
interpretation, and furthermore not having a mathematical
interpretation. Now, that's not to say that something like
anti-deSitter space or even Kaluza-Klein isn't merely a
"book-keeping dimension", here of the adiabatic and
non-adiabatic, yet the theory no longer remains "physical".


Why it is possibly mathematically inconsistent to do so
is because circles have radius r > 0, otherwise you'd
have to make the theory of "circloids r > 0 or r <= 0".


Otherwise it's figured the exotic particles for electrons
can be "vacillating vanishing-rest-mass electrons", and
those living in the kinetic, then uniting kinetic and gravity
and nuclear force via mechanics, for a quantum gravity like
a fall-gravity, with relativistic space-contraction-linear
and space-contraction-rotational, each.


So, "electrons as super-classically oscillating", is not so bad.


Thanks for mentionining Villata in footnote (e).


"This can be understood as follows. Once the mass-density of the two
fluid components have been fixed to be equal and opposite, all that
remains will be to find their corresponding velocity vector fields
v + and v − ."

"The requirement that the mass density of the two
components of the fluid be equal and opposite
everywhere effectively ensures that the two sets
of fluid particles are always comoving. This must
hold irrespective of the volume of the fluid under
consideration, ..."



I like the intuition, though someone can come along and give
inductive accounts of inconsistency about that.


About volume V and infinitesimal dV, as with regards
to usually the Laplacian the sum of second partials,
and the usual formulas that make up then what give
Maxwell's, is also "intuitive" this

"So zooming out and considering a small but finite
volume of fluid δV , the total mass of particles in
that fluid element must be ρδV ."

That is to say, the differential when partials
may talk about second-order changes yet doesn't
necessarily include content.


"Now it is always possible to choose the function ψ
implementing the gauge transformation in such a way
that φ = 0 everywhere...", if according to Landau
and Lifschitz, "The Classical Theory of Fields",
when I say that I think that's not necessarily so
is that sometimes the gauge transformation implements
the Schroedinger picture not the other way around.


"This completes our proposition that the physical
basis underlying the standard texbook formulation
of classical electrodynamics is the motion of a
space-filling self-gravitating dipolar relativistic
fluid which can be identified as the ‘luminiferous aether’."


That may be kind of so yet it's all only electrical
about distinguishing mass and charge as different
quantities, and frame-spaces and space-frames as
different things, that it seems what you're talking
about is purely or merely electrical, though otherwise
this amuses me and I hope that you carry on about it.



"In this paper we have demonstrated the simple yet
profound result that all of the equations of classical
electrodynamics follow from the motion of a space-filling
relativistic fluid consisting of particles that are
gravitational dipoles if the electromagnetic 4-potential
is identified with the 4-momentum of that fluid."


When you say "classical" and "dipoles" at the same time,
to get back to that is "super-classical" as some point,
and also assumes no gravitational dynamics which are
always in effect, because the geodesy is always current.



So, yeah mostly it's footnote (d) that is can't be agreed.

Yet, if develop a theory of "r > 0 and r <= 0 circloids",
or spheroids, then about there being instead of positive
and negative mass and motion, instead just "constant motion",
electrons as "vacillating", then it would be physical without
non-physical things like "negative mass" or "negative energy"
or "negative time", though it would have "super-classical motion".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659912

On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 20:38:42 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

> Is Gravity and Electricity the same thing?
>
>
>
> I gotta find a paper on it...

Read the post on the cause of gravity by Arindam Banerjee in this ng.

Arindam has unified all forces as electrical and electromagnetic.
Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.

Woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659925

In sci.physics Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 20:38:42 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
>> Is Gravity and Electricity the same thing?
>>
>>
>>
>> I gotta find a paper on it...
> 
> Read the post on the cause of gravity by Arindam Banerjee in this ng.
> 
> Arindam has unified all forces as electrical and electromagnetic.
> Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.

So where is your experiment with data, analysis, and math that shows
that, crackpot?

Crackpot ravings are not an experiment, crackpot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659956

On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 7:05:26 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 20:38:42 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
>
>> Is Gravity and Electricity the same thing?
>>
>>
>>
>> I gotta find a paper on it...
>
> Read the post on the cause of gravity by Arindam Banerjee in this ng.
>
> Arindam has unified all forces as electrical and electromagnetic.
> Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
>
> Woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>
> Bertietaylor

As all worthy scientists tacitly agree.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659935

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Is Gravity and Electricity the same thing?
> 
> I gotta find a paper on it...

i was looking for Einstien's paper on it, it had to be before 1929.




-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web