Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Gravitomagnetism

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,732

    Gravitomagnetism

    First, this is a mainstream question because gravitomagnetism was already proven right.

    Here we go:

    We all know a moving electric field induces a magnetic field and vice-versa.

    My question is:

    If a moving mass will induce a magnetic field as well then the opposite should be true, right?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,431
    A moving mass does not induce a magnetic field. Gravitomagnetism is not magnetism.

    Grant Hutchison
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,732
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    A moving mass does not induce a magnetic field. Gravitomagnetism is not magnetism.
    Ok but there's something there (see conclusion):
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0003011.pdf

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,732

    Gravitational-magnetic-electric field interaction

    Finally, is the following manuscript a crackpotery or duly peer-reviewed? It seems to make absolute sense to me:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...11379718314128

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,431
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Ok but there's something there (see conclusion):
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0003011.pdf
    What do you think is there? I can't see anything relating to your claim that a moving mass induces a magnetic field.

    Grant Hutchison
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,732
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    What do you think is there? I can't see anything relating to your claim that a moving mass induces a magnetic field.

    Grant Hutchison
    True but one thing leads to the other.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,732
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    What do you think is there? I can't see anything relating to your claim that a moving mass induces a magnetic field.
    Sorry I got confused as I just learned about gravitomagnetism today. Can I reiterate my question?

    Will a moving magnet induce gravitomagnetism to balance the electric, magnetic and gravity fields? Thank you.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,815
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post

    Will a moving magnet induce gravitomagnetism to balance the electric, magnetic and gravity fields? Thank you.
    Gravitomagnetism depends on mass, and therefore gravity, not on magnetism, so a magnet can only induce gravitomagnetism like any comparable mass could. For instance, the Earth has a magnetic field but it is irrelevant to this.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,732
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Gravitomagnetism depends on mass, and therefore gravity, not on magnetism, so a magnet can only induce gravitomagnetism like any comparable mass could. For instance, the Earth has a magnetic field but it is irrelevant to this.
    Yeah ok.

    Offtopic but we should be able to use the right material to build a gravitomagnet then...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,815
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Yeah ok.

    Offtopic but we should be able to use the right material to build a gravitomagnet then...
    The right material is anything that has mass. Gravity Probe B measured the gravitomagnetic effect (or frame dragging) while orbiting Earth, but it was just barely within the realm of detectability. So get yourself a decent mass planet or something more massive, and you’re good to go.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,633

    Gravitomagnetic threads merged
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here, the special rules for the ATM section here and conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,732
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Finally, is the following manuscript a crackpotery or duly peer-reviewed? It seems to make absolute sense to me:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...11379718314128
    Since the threads were merged, what about this one?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,431
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Since the threads were merged, what about this one?
    You know you can look this stuff up for yourself?
    Results in Physics is a peer-reviewed open access journal with a so-so ranking among journals dealing with multidisciplinary physics. It does not appear on a list of predatory journals.

    Grant Hutchison
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,732
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    You know you can look this stuff up for yourself?
    Results in Physics is a peer-reviewed open access journal with a so-so ranking among journals dealing with multidisciplinary physics. It does not appear on a list of predatory journals.
    Ok so we don't know for sure.

    On another note: what I learned from my own experience is that groundbreaking theories will never emerge out of reputable journals because they are risk prone, even if they make sense. I think this is "counter-scientific" but that's just the way it is.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,431
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    On another note: what I learned from my own experience is that groundbreaking theories will never emerge out of reputable journals because they are risk prone, even if they make sense. I think this is "counter-scientific" but that's just the way it is.
    My experience is exactly the opposite--that reputable journals fall over themselves to publish "ground-breaking" work, and sometimes their critical faculties are rather dulled by the excitement of the new.
    The world might be a different place, right now, if The Lancet had decided to be sensible and not to publish Andrew Wakefield's paper of 1998, for instance.

    Grant Hutchison
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,732
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    My experience is exactly the opposite--that reputable journals fall over themselves to publish "ground-breaking" work, and sometimes their critical faculties are rather dulled by the excitement of the new.
    The world might be a different place, right now, if The Lancet had decided to be sensible and not to publish Andrew Wakefield's paper of 1998, for instance.
    I meant in physics in this era. But we're off topic now.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,431
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I meant in physics in this era. But we're off topic now.
    And I was talking about science publication generally. Editors demonstrably will give their right arms to publish "ground breaking" material.

    Grant Hutchison
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,732
    Ok to go back on the subject, how do we translate a gravitomagnetic field into a force? AFAIK the units are: Hz (s^-1).

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,732
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Ok to go back on the subject, how do we translate a gravitomagnetic field into a force? AFAIK the units are: Hz (s^-1).
    Nevermind:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravit...#Lorentz_force

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,732
    To go back on the subject but with spinning superconducting rings generating gravitomagnetism:
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0610015.pdf

    If we take disks of brass instead, of 0.15 m and spinning at 12000 RPM in 10 seconds then this would generate a gravitational acceleration of:
    0.0084 / 0.00185 * 0.15 m * 1256.6370599999977 rad/s / 10 s = 85.58717273513497 m/s^2

    It seems to me that there's something wrong because 9g is easily achieved here.
    Last edited by philippeb8; 2021-Oct-27 at 06:15 AM.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,633
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    It seems to me that there's something wrong because 9g is easily achieved here.

    Yes, clearly you have made a mistake somewhere, otherwise don't you think that the authors of the paper would have mentioned this?
    Time to stop here trying to develop some ATM theory.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here, the special rules for the ATM section here and conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,478
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    To go back on the subject but with spinning superconducting rings generating gravitomagnetism:....
    Gravitoelectromagnetism is that the equations for electromagnetism and relativistic gravitation look the same in the weak field limit of gravitation. Masses will have a gravitational field. Small, non-relativistic masses can have the gravitational field treated las electromagnetic field.
    The link is to a 2006 preprint of a conference presentation: Measurement of Gravitomagnetic and Acceleration Fields Around Rotating Superconductors. The presentation has 27 citations. There seems no follow-up for this 15 year old experiment.
    ETA: They speculate that gravitons have mass and use this to get a theoretical prediction within a factor of 2 of their results. The problem is that theoretically the graviton has no mass and we detected gravitational waves a decade after this presentation. They put a tiny upper limit to graviton mass of 7.710−23 eV/c2.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2021-Oct-27 at 07:50 PM.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,732
    Sorry about the post; yesterday I am just warming up. This is also clear now.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •