This is going to sound like a very bizarre and possibly insane question, but
indulge me if you can.

Ok, so I was thinking the other day: "Would it be possible to write down a
set of differential equations for some field that, in flat space, looks
kinda like EM, but it curved space has a gravity term/component? Sort of
like the way a magnetic field at zero velocity looks partially electric at 0
v c".

I know it's a bit of an odd question, but I was curious as to how one would
contruct such a theory and what it would look like. Answers on a postcard


Thanks in advance

Ziggi


ps, spare no technicality in your response... I'm not exactly a "lay" person

Ziggi,

I have made a research called The Unity Theory, from 2 years, which
adopts an idea similar to what you are talking about. It is just time
to announce about that research. It unifies the 4 fundamental forces
by saying that they originate from the Electric Force.

The unification of these forces together with the explanation of the
experimental results of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are
all done by introducing two postulates:
1. Matter consists only of only electrons and positrons which differ
very slightly in charge (order of 1 exp (-50) Coulomb) and in mass.
{The difference in charge is confirmed by the presence of an elctric
field around the earth of about 120 V/m (as measured by Feynmann and
others).}
2. Any charge present in the space affects the permittivity and
permeability of the space (They are function of the radial distance
from the charge.) and in consequence affects slightly the refractive
index of space on which the speed of light depends (refractive
index=(relative permittivity * relative permeability)^(1/2) &
c=co/(refractive index) ).

The general formula for the relative permittivity and permeability has
been put.

The theory has managed to give the same results approximately as GR
but with smaller error (1%) relative to experiments and results very
similar to that of Quantum Mechanics.

In the theory, known Maxwell's Equation (which are
special-relativistic) are the guiding equations for the
electromagnetic force.

The equation of motion is still similar to the relativistic one but
with slight difference which is its dependence on the refractive
index of the medium (This has been derived from Einstein Relation:
E=gamma*m*c^2).
The equation of motion, also includes another small term which depends
upon acceleration^2 in order to account for electromagnetic radiation
(This term is already known by scientists).

To tell the truth, this is not exactly your idea, but it is very
similar to it.

*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*

"Ziggi" wrote in message ...
This is going to sound like a very bizarre and possibly insane question, but
indulge me if you can.

Ok, so I was thinking the other day: "Would it be possible to write down a
set of differential equations for some field that, in flat space, looks
kinda like EM, but it curved space has a gravity term/component? Sort of
like the way a magnetic field at zero velocity looks partially electric at 0
v c".

I know it's a bit of an odd question, but I was curious as to how one would
contruct such a theory and what it would look like. Answers on a postcard


Yes, he

http://www.ingenta.com/isis/searchin...00001/00484392

Online for free he

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=688763&ln=en

Feel free to ask questions here or by email (note: email in paper was
spammed out of existence).

-drl

(Danny Ross Lunsford) wrote in message . com...
"Ziggi" wrote in message ...
This is going to sound like a very bizarre and possibly insane question, but
indulge me if you can.

Ok, so I was thinking the other day: "Would it be possible to write down a
set of differential equations for some field that, in flat space, looks
kinda like EM, but it curved space has a gravity term/component? Sort of
like the way a magnetic field at zero velocity looks partially electric at 0
v c".

I know it's a bit of an odd question, but I was curious as to how one would
contruct such a theory and what it would look like. Answers on a postcard


Yes, he

http://www.ingenta.com/isis/searchin...00001/00484392

Online for free he

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=688763&ln=en

Feel free to ask questions here or by email (note: email in paper was
spammed out of existence).

-drl

Hi, I see you use as a ref Weyl's paper "Gravitation and Electricity".
I have a problem with it, (using Dover's PoR), Eq.(7) implies

phi_u

is a gradient. In Eq.(10) he takes the curl of phi_u, to define
the EM field tensor, which, I think, vanishes ie.

curl grad (scalar) =0

Do you see any problem with that?

I hold other comments on your paper pending your reply.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Robert and Ziggi please read the following:

A Maxwell-analogous Gravitational Theory with two gravitational
fields.

By Louis Nielsen Denmark http://www.rostra.dk/louis

More than thirty five years ago (in the sixties) I suggested and
derived a Maxwell-analogous gravitational theory with two
gravitational fields. The two fields are the 'gravito-static' field of
Newton and the 'gravito-magnetic' field, which is a gravitational
rotation-field. The two fields exist around matter in relative
motions.
In my treatise I show that the four field equations, which must be
fulfilled by the 'gravito-static' field and the 'gravito-magnetic'
field, are mathematical identical to Maxwell's electromagnetic
equations.
I show that the four field equations and the 'gravitational
Lorentz-force equation' are a consequence of:

1) Newton's gravito-static force law,

2) The transformation equations for positions, times, velocities, and
forces as given in the special theory of relativity,


3) The assumption that the 'gravitational mass' is Lorentz invariant.

In the equations I introduce a quantity, the ‘gravito-magnetic
permeability' which is coupled to the 'gravito-magnetic' field. The
‘gravito-magnetic permeability' has connection to the gravitational
constant of Newton and the propagation velocity of the gravitational
fields.
The velocity of propagation of the gravitational fields can be assumed
to be equal to the velocity of light, in accordance with the made
observations.


Decreasing cosmic gravity.
According to my quantum-cosmological theory (see my treatise) Newton's
gravitational 'constant' is not a constant but is decreasing along
with the expansion of the Universe.
If the propagation velocity of the gravitational fields does not
change in cosmic time then it has as a consequence that also the
'gravito-magnetic permeability' is a decreasing quantity along with
the expansion of the Universe.
In our epoch the 'gravito-magnetic' fields are extremely small around
moving bodies from daily life, and they are difficult to measure. But
around massive bodies with great velocities there exist measurable
'gravito-magnetic' fields. In earlier epochs of the cosmic evolution
of the Universe the magnitude of the 'gravito-magnetic' fields were
higher. As we look back in time to distant objects in the Universe,
these objects moves in more intense and strong cosmic
‘gravito-magnetic' fields, which give a lot of astrophysical
consequences and which can give explanation of different observations.

You can study my derivation of the gravitational field-equations in
part 6 of my treatise:

http://www.rostra.dk/louis/

Best regards Louis Nielsen, Denmark



robert bristow-johnson wrote in message ...
in article , Ziggi at
wrote on 10/12/2004 14:45:

This is going to sound like a very bizarre and possibly insane question, but
indulge me if you can.

Ok, so I was thinking the other day: "Would it be possible to write down a
set of differential equations for some field that, in flat space, looks
kinda like EM, but it curved space has a gravity term/component? Sort of
like the way a magnetic field at zero velocity looks partially electric at 0
v c".

I know it's a bit of an odd question, but I was curious as to how one would
contruct such a theory and what it would look like. Answers on a postcard


i don't see it as an odd question at all. i've been thinking about it
myself for as long as i understood (as best as a "lay" physiker can - i'm an
electrical engineer so that might give you an idea of the limits of my
physics expertise) how Electromagnetic forces could be derived from
Electrostatic forces with Special Relativity taken into consideration. i
have thought "Why not do the same for gravity? They are both inverse-square
forces and have a velocity of propagation of c, so why not?" folks on this
newsgroup haven't been too impressed and that's fine with me.

Anyway, there is a name for this theory and it's called
"Gravitoelectromagnetism" (GEM) and there isn't yet a Wiki page for it yet.
This GEM theory has counterparts to Maxwell's Equations that look just like
Maxwell's Equations (and the Lorentz force equations) with "q" replaced by
"m", 1/(4*pi*epsilon0) replaced by -G (just as it is in the Coulomb force
law to get to Newton's law of gravitation) except that the magnetic flux in
GEM is expressed as "B/2" instead of "B". There are at least two papers:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9912/9912027.pdf

http://www.iop.org/EJ3-Links/26/B2Pc...,HA/q01911.pdf

that derive these GEM equations from GR (Einstein's Field Eq.) for flat
spacetime.

I haven't understood the B/2 scaling thingie (they say its because gravitons
are spin-2 particles) because it seems like, at velocities of c/2, the
gravito-magnetic forces completely counteract the gravito-static force and
that should not happen (from the p.o.v. of Special Relativity) until the
velocity is close to c. at least that's how this amateur looks at it. i
wish the experts here could give me an explanation of that seeming
contradiction.

ps, spare no technicality in your response... I'm not exactly a "lay" person


but i am.

r b-j

(Louis Nielsen) wrote in message . com...
Robert and Ziggi please read the following:

A Maxwell-analogous Gravitational Theory with two gravitational
fields.

By Louis Nielsen Denmark http://www.rostra.dk/louis

More than thirty five years ago (in the sixties) I suggested and
derived a Maxwell-analogous gravitational theory with two
gravitational fields. The two fields are the 'gravito-static' field of
Newton and the 'gravito-magnetic' field, which is a gravitational
rotation-field. The two fields exist around matter in relative
motions.

NASA, spent time on that. We (C-Dyn) visited the experiment
at MSFC, and examined Ning Li's (sp) refereed theories in
Physical Review, (aka gravity attentuation). We couldn't
make it work in any theoretical assumptions that were consistent,
(that certainly does not mean it's impossible).

So far, our inhouse theories can't make "frame dragging"
work either, for similiar reasons, we'll need to wait and
see what GP-b finds, and go from there.

Ken S. Tucker

(Ken S. Tucker) wrote in message . com...
(Danny Ross Lunsford) wrote in message . com...
"Ziggi" wrote in message ...
This is going to sound like a very bizarre and possibly insane question, but
indulge me if you can.

Ok, so I was thinking the other day: "Would it be possible to write down a
set of differential equations for some field that, in flat space, looks
kinda like EM, but it curved space has a gravity term/component? Sort of
like the way a magnetic field at zero velocity looks partially electric at 0
v c".

I know it's a bit of an odd question, but I was curious as to how one would
contruct such a theory and what it would look like. Answers on a postcard


Yes, he

http://www.ingenta.com/isis/searchin...00001/00484392

Online for free he

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=688763&ln=en

Feel free to ask questions here or by email (note: email in paper was
spammed out of existence).

-drl

Hi, I see you use as a ref Weyl's paper "Gravitation and Electricity".
I have a problem with it, (using Dover's PoR), Eq.(7) implies

phi_u

is a gradient. In Eq.(10) he takes the curl of phi_u, to define
the EM field tensor, which, I think, vanishes ie.

curl grad (scalar) =0

Do you see any problem with that?

I hold other comments on your paper pending your reply.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

(by PoR I assume you mean "Principle of Relativity")

That is unfortunate notation - replace phi_m by A_m everywhere to make
it more transparent. He's simply saying the change in calibration is a
linear, homogeneous expression in the coordinate differentials under
an infinitesimal displacement. This is an assumption, not a
consequence. By no means is A_m (or phi_m in Weyl's notation) a
gradient. (If it devolves to a gradient, Weyl geometry reduces to
Riemannian geometry.)

Also note that Weyl has a footnote where he clarifies his notation.

-drl

(Danny Ross Lunsford) wrote in message . com...
"Ziggi" wrote in message ...
Ok, so I was thinking the other day: "Would it be possible to write down a
set of differential equations for some field that, in flat space, looks
kinda like EM, but it curved space has a gravity term/component? Sort of
like the way a magnetic field at zero velocity looks partially electric at 0
v c".
Yes, he
Online for free he
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=688763&ln=en
Feel free to ask questions here or by email (note: email in paper was
spammed out of existence).
-drl

Does the six dimensions include time? I have a number system
(polysigned numbers) that I am trying to approach the same way and am
currently at six dimensions plus time, but the component space is a
cross product of a progression of four ( 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 ) in the signed
system. In polysigned numbers time mimics one-signed numbers and is
zero-dimensional.

Your approach may work more simply over polysigned numbers (on
sci.math). Compex numbers are yielded at three-signed and four signed
are like complex numbers in 3D. The system is very simple and natural.

-Tim Golden

(Timothy Golden) wrote in message . com...
(Danny Ross Lunsford) wrote in message . com...
"Ziggi" wrote in message ...
Ok, so I was thinking the other day: "Would it be possible to write down a
set of differential equations for some field that, in flat space, looks
kinda like EM, but it curved space has a gravity term/component? Sort of
like the way a magnetic field at zero velocity looks partially electric at 0
v c".
Yes, he
Online for free he
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=688763&ln=en
Feel free to ask questions here or by email (note: email in paper was
spammed out of existence).
-drl

Does the six dimensions include time? I have a number system
(polysigned numbers) that I am trying to approach the same way and am
currently at six dimensions plus time, but the component space is a
cross product of a progression of four ( 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 ) in the signed
system. In polysigned numbers time mimics one-signed numbers and is
zero-dimensional.

Your approach may work more simply over polysigned numbers (on
sci.math). Compex numbers are yielded at three-signed and four signed
are like complex numbers in 3D. The system is very simple and natural.

-Tim Golden

The timelike aspect of the assumed base space is 3d, it doesn't
"include time" as such. Whatever way you coordinatize time, there are
2 orthogonal directions and certain combinations of derivatives of
field intensities in those directions correspond to matter. t itself
is no more "time" than x alone is "space".

The most natural mathematical object in the sense of a
"spatio-temporal element" seems to be the Plueckerian line, or if you
prefer, something related to twistors.

-drl

(Danny Ross Lunsford) wrote in message . com...
(Ken S. Tucker) wrote in message . com...
(Danny Ross Lunsford) wrote in message . com...
....

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=688763&ln=en

Feel free to ask questions here or by email (note: email in paper was
spammed out of existence).

-drl

Hi, I see you use as a ref Weyl's paper "Gravitation and Electricity".
I have a problem with it, (using Dover's PoR), Eq.(7) implies

phi_u

is a gradient. In Eq.(10) he takes the curl of phi_u, to define
the EM field tensor, which, I think, vanishes ie.

curl grad (scalar) =0

Do you see any problem with that?

Ken S. Tucker

(by PoR I assume you mean "Principle of Relativity")

Yes, sorry I see you refd to Weyl's "SPACE TIME MATTER",
chp 35, more below.

That is unfortunate notation - replace phi_m by A_m everywhere to make
it more transparent. He's simply saying the change in calibration is a
linear, homogeneous expression in the coordinate differentials under
an infinitesimal displacement. This is an assumption, not a
consequence. By no means is A_m (or phi_m in Weyl's notation) a
gradient. (If it devolves to a gradient, Weyl geometry reduces to
Riemannian geometry.)

Also note that Weyl has a footnote where he clarifies his notation.
-drl

Thank you. In your article, eq.(23) clarifies that much
better.

Weyl, in his SPACE TIME MATTER preface, page "v",
claims his approach, employed in chp 35, using gauge
invariance, does not connect EM potentials A_u with
gravitational potentials g_uv, but rather to the wave
field.
Would you agree with his assessment?

About your paper, I noted, following eq.(26) you've
determined a non-zero covariant derivative for the
4D metric, i.e. g_uv;w =/=0, (that's gutsy), for
example, one cannot do arbitrary associations like,

X_u = g_uv X^v

if g_uv;w =/=0. (Also, how does that affect the
covariant derivative of the Kronecker delta?).
I noted you did use a 4D association going from
eq.(39) to (40), is that what you meant to do?

I've discussed g_uv;w =/=0 with a mathematician
and he tell's me that's ok, but I could never
make them work, as they violate the Principle
of Equivalence.
Recall that the PoE allows for a CS where
g_uv;w = 0, and I certainly do understand you are
lifting the requirement of PoE in the presence of
EM fields such as A_u in your article.

Incidentally, as you use 6D does the covariant
derivative of the 6D metric vanish?

Regards
Ken S. Tucker