there's more than one gravitational force (IMHO)

[tony_fleming]

what the gravitation self-field theory also tells us (at the solar system to take one of the four Gravitational forces) is that there are two streams of photons running both ways between any two masses, but they run in orthogonal planes to each other. in the case of the Sun and the planets this means we should find one stream on the plane of the sun and earth, and another orthogonal to this. observing both the sun and the earth we see a field running north-south through both. what GSFT says then is that these two polar running magnetic fields will met up by bending over in the plane orthogonal to the ecliptic plane.

so if there were no other masses outside of the solar system there would only be the finite number of photon streams running between the sun and the planets and a whole pot of little streams for all the smaller masses like the asteroids, and the particles of the kuiper belt.

when we get to galaxies, the streams are running between 'three-way' nuclear masses mainly all the conglomerations of negative nuclear energy in the galaxy and the central 'black hole', a negative analogy of the sun at the galactic level.

so there will be streams of gluons/photons leaving and entering at the top of a galactic black hole which separates out and joins all the negative enrgy conglomerates in the galaxy.

etc, etc for super clusters and at the universal level;

then maybe we begin on the next cycle of gravitational forces???

what we see here is a major difference between gravitation as modelled by general relativity and gravitational self-field theory; namely the field is photonic and therefore discrete.

[tony_fleming]

well, this depends upon the type of gravity -i.e. which one of the four distinct gravitations-which depends on the type of particles involved- and the force appears to be dependent on the cross-sectional area AND the direction of this area. the direction is not always front-on. there's an axially directed force, and an axially symmetric force. so we see this as E-field like and H-field like.

[AntonioLao]

The Lorentz force given as

[math]\vec{L}=q(\vec{E}+\vec{v}\times\vec{B})=\vec{F}_E+ \vec{F}_B[/math]

can really be expressed into four kinds of forces depending on the order of the vectors and on what is subtracted from what.

[math]\vec{L}_1=\vec{F}_E+\vec{F}_B[/math]

[math]\vec{L}_2=\vec{F}_E-\vec{F}_B[/math]

[math]\vec{L}_3=\vec{F}_B-\vec{F}_E[/math]

[math]\vec{L}_4=-\vec{F}_B-\vec{F}_E[/math]

[tony_fleming]

The Lorentz force given as

[math]\vec{L}=q(\vec{E}+\vec{v}\times\vec{B})=\vec{F}_E+ \vec{F}_B[/math]

can really be expressed into four kinds of forces depending on the order of the vectors and on what is subtracted from what.

[math]\vec{L}_1=\vec{F}_E+\vec{F}_B[/math]

[math]\vec{L}_2=\vec{F}_E-\vec{F}_B[/math]

[math]\vec{L}_3=\vec{F}_B-\vec{F}_E[/math]

[math]\vec{L}_4=-\vec{F}_B-\vec{F}_E[/math]

Antonio, you're a gem cobber! ok, a challenge, first i have to learn latex; i've tried to stay clear of it's code like the plague all my career using word and mathtype instead, but i see there's no other choice; then i can write specific equations about what self-field theory sees mathematically. but (as usual) let me hand-wave furiously to see if i can describe in words what the physics is.

first an example EM Self-Field Theory: we have two charges, say the electron and the proton of the hydroegn atom, (or the 'ephectron' and the 'phroton' of the proton-but we shall stay with the atom for now for simplicity). in both cases, the electron and the proton, we see each charge performs TWO orthogonal motions that have different signs associated with their rotations (rotations is the simplest case but not the only case-as long as the motion is periodic and it obeys the dynamic equilibrium given by Maxwell's equations), a bit like forward and backward waves in a closed microwave oven. each of these (particle) motions (an orbital and a cyclotron path) is caused by photons travelling to and fro between the two charges, i.e two field motions that are spiral in form where the masses are unequal as in the hydrogen atom. so what we see here is that these two particle motions are given by your Lorentz equation above; the first of your equations. each motion can be associated with either an E-field or a B-field. each particle sees the fields that flow between them as an outgoing flow of photons, i.e. an E-field and an incoming flow of photons, a B-field.

ok, so in essence what we have is a MONOPOLE system comprised of two charges. we could add extra MONOPOLES or even neutral particles such as neutrons by allowing a dipolar representation. Alternatively by including a 'strong nuclear' field, we coulld model the nuetron as a system of quraks. but that's another story. for now we want to zero in on the fact that the system is comprised of MONOPOLES.

now this is where gravity comes in!! imagine these atoms are treated as DIPOLES. now the atoms each have an incremental charge that can be expressed as a radial DIFFERENTIAL of charge. likewise, there are many atoms that comprise say the earth and the sun, so we need to INTEGRATE over all the atoms to get the forces which are still able to be put into a LORENTZ form as above. we have both an integral and a differential in its gravitational form compared with the atomic forces.

so what we have is an equation of the long-range dipole-dipole forces between earth and sun, which now is very similar to, but not exactly like the EMSFT forces between the electron and the proton of the hydrogen atom. in the case of hydrogen atom, there is a cyclotron motion that occurs in the r, theta plane (sorry i need to go mathematical here) whereas in the gravitational case, the cyclotron motion occurs in the r, phi plane.

what this means is that as in the case of the perihelion of mercury, the cyclotron motion can add to the orbital rotation, which doesn't happen in the case of the electron say in the hydrogen atom because of the plane of rotation of the cyclotron motions in each case.

so this describes the essentials of garvitational self field theory at the solar system level (GSFT1)

HOWEVER, its only the START since there are nuclei inside each atom and each nuclei attracts (or repels) each other nuclei at the galaxy level. BUt this requires a THREE_WAY interaction, so it requires a long-range nucleus-nucleus-nucleus interaction. it turns out that this gravitational form can ALSO be put into the form of a LORENTZ eqn but in this case, we need TWO DIFFERENTIALS and TWO INTEGRATIONS to specify the force (GSFT2).

AGAIN at the supercluster level, we need a FOUR_WAY interaction and THREE DIFFERENTIALS and THREE INTEGRATIONS to specify this gravitational force in terms of a LORENTZ equation (GSFT3).

FINALLY, at the universal level, we find a FIVE-WAY effect, and FOUR DIFFERENTIALS, and FOUR INTEGRALS to specify a universal effect in terms of a LORENTZ equation (GSFT4)!!

(so what is GSFT5??? a multiverse system ??)

so to specify the TOTAL gravitational effect at any point in space-time, we need to simply SUM all the gravitational effects, PLUS all the atom, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, etc, etc, etc!!

so, if you can understand all that, go and have a beer, you need it!! and so do i!! see ya soon.

[AntonioLao]

because of high blood sugar, my doctor does not allow me any beer or alcoholic beverage. But that's beside the point, what I'm trying to say is that gravity can be the vector difference of electric force and magnetic force.

[math]Gravity=F_E-F_B[/math]

or

[math]Gravity=F_B-F_E[/math]

It is a fact that gravity is a very weak force and is negligible in all accelerator experiments (at relatively low energy compared to Planck energy) where the EM force, nuclear strong and weak forces dominate. But theorist believe that at extremely high temperature such as the big bang singularity, or inside black holes, or stellar and galactic centers, all these forces have the same strength.

[tony_fleming]

because of high blood sugar, my doctor does not allow me any beer or alcoholic beverage. But that's beside the point, what I'm trying to say is that gravity can be the vector difference of electric force and magnetic force.

[math]Gravity=F_E-F_B[/math]

or

[math]Gravity=F_B-F_E[/math]

It is a fact that gravity is a very weak force and is negligible in all accelerator experiments (at relatively low energy compared to Planck energy) where the EM force, nuclear strong and weak forces dominate. But theorist believe that at extremely high temperature such as the big bang singularity, or inside black holes, or stellar and galactic centers, all these forces have the same strength.

are you on diamicron too?? a bloody old age hazard mate, especially for us aussies!! makes you almost want to slit your throat!! i used to really enjoy the 19th hole but now i sit there with my bottled water, and glower if anyone mentions it!

tell me more about the above. self-field theory sees E and B fields as two separate motions, one which isn;'t related to a 'charge source' and one which is, hence the coming and going between two charges. does your description above take into account the particulate nature of the fields? i see the photons causing a statistical-type orbit, say a rotation made up of many tiny collisions, another aspect of statistical mechanics. the photons get absorbed by 'larger particles' perhaps causing another photon to be ejected from the 'larger particle'.

what is found in regards self-field theory (SFT) and quantum field theory (QFT) is that the two 'see' the physics in a similar way but not identical, so if 'conventional' theory sees four forces i would'nt be surprised, but i haven't heard anyone else (apart from you) say this

[AntonioLao]

2 years ago I was prescribed Ziac to reduce blood cholesterol. But after I lose 35 lbs, my blood pressure becomes too low, I'm off Ziac. Now my diet consists of low fat meat, low carb and salad or as much seafood as I can afford and also bottled water.

Millikan, the famous experimentalist, did his monumental oil-drop experiment to measure the unit electric charge by assuming that the force of gravity is zero such that

[math]F_E=F_B[/math]

in the symmetrical frame of the laboratory, this vector equation became just a scalar equation.

This scalar equation should apply to a photon, since a photon is not affected by gravity because its rest mass at low energy-low speed-weak gravity domain is practically zero. Inside a black hole (very strong gravity field), photon acquired mass due to its energy content as required by the mass-energy equivalence and Einstein field equations of general relativity.

[tony_fleming]

2 years ago I was prescribed Ziac to reduce blood cholesterol. But after I lose 35 lbs, my blood pressure becomes too low, I'm off Ziac. Now my diet consists of low fat meat, low carb and salad or as much seafood as I can afford and also bottled water.

Millikan, the famous experimentalist, did his monumental oil-drop experiment to measure the unit electric charge by assuming that the force of gravity is zero such that

[math]F_E=F_B[/math]

in the symmetrical frame of the laboratory, this vector equation became just a scalar equation.

This scalar equation should apply to a photon, since a photon is not affected by gravity because its rest mass at low energy-low speed-weak gravity domain is practically zero. Inside a black hole (very strong gravity field), photon acquired mass due to its energy content as required by the mass-energy equivalence and Einstein field equations of general relativity.

well done!! the 35 lbs i mean. i found out after weeks of summer and eating a packet of icypoles (don't know what you guys call them-sugary frozen ices??)
per day that my BSL (blood sugar level) was 26!! it should be <6. so i've been on a diabetic diet. i've got the BSL down to about 6-8 so it's going in the right direction; gotta play lots of golf which i love, so that's fine, and the pooches get a few more walks.

i think what you're saying about the photon is the basis of the early attempts to see what the mass of the photon was, or should i say to obtain an upper limit on it. I have a good reference to it all in J.D. Jackson's latest edition of his wonderful book "Classical electrodynamics", 3rd Ed., 2000. this gives the cut-off point as to where classical and quantum theories apply. it's done with a pendulum though so the physics is essentially different to milliken's famous charge experiment.

i don't think we can do the same with the photon, 'cos we don't even know how to 'split' the photon (yet). but what we CAN do is use self-field theory and use the obtained spectroscopy and match these frequencies to various phenomena and the quantitative observations therein, and hence find out the structure of the photon including what the elementary charges on the subphotonic 'particles' should be.

[AntonioLao]

J.D. Jackson's latest edition of his wonderful book "Classical electrodynamics", 3rd Ed., 2000

in quantum electrodynamics, when 2 photons collide the product is an electron and a positron (both have mass). For higher energy regime, it takes 3 photons to produce an electron and a positron. These are the reversed processes of parapositronium and orthopositronium experiments done many years ago.

[hdeasy]

Just testing out the forum a bit... Well, Heim as a couple of grav forces too - quoting from my (with others - I started it) wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_Th...ter_and_forces -

Heim Theory predicts the existence of all the known 4 forces, along with 2 new gravitational-like forces:

H1 predicts gluons, carriers of the strong nuclear force.
H3 and H4 predicts the W bosons and Z boson, carriers of the weak nuclear force.
H5 predicts photons, carriers of the electromagnetic force.
H10 predicts quintessence, a weak gravitational-like repulsive force that would cause the expansion of universe.
H11 predicts gravito-photons, as yet unobserved particles that would, theoretically, allow the conversion of an electromagnetic field into a gravitational-like field.
H12 predicts gravitons, carriers of gravity.