Explanation for Gravity and Electromagnetism link model

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Explanation for Gravity and Electromagnetism link model
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Profile kasule francis

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 08
Posts: 293
Credit: 104,493
RAC: 0
Message 835346 - Posted: 29 Nov 2008, 7:28:50 UTC
Last modified: 29 Nov 2008, 7:34:03 UTC

These explanation is quit complicated but true and i believe can be proved mathimaticaly i will first outline five theories sort of then join them together in conclusion.so lets begin go slowly every theory is important and related to the previous

1). the heavier the object the greater the gravity i.e that means gravity must have an atomic basis its a sumation force of all the atoms in that object.

2).Resonance of an electron in a free atom is in a given direction (dont worry you will see later why i said so)

3)Resonance of electron round an atom has an effect
on the resonance of electrons of other atoms and it can be felt for a given distant x from that atom.these
effect is to attain equilibrium in direction of resonance.

4)resonance of an electron round the nucleus can be intereferred with i.e example by electric feild . (these will later explain why we have electromagetic waves)

The effect of sumation of force of resonance lets say planet made up of n atoms were each atom exerts a force of t is nt on anther body some distance away is
that force in the direction towards the heavier body and total equilibrium achieved when the two bodies are in contact i.e pulling the smaller object towards the heavier to achieve equilibrium in direction of resonance toward heavier body i.e what we see as gravity.

Conclusion 2
forceful intereference of the direction of resonance away from equilibrium by a perpendicular force is faced with resistance due newtons law (to every action there is an opposite reaction)setting a wobbling force on the atoms these pulses are what we see as electromagetic energy emitted and there of different types due to fact there are different positions away from position of equilibrium in a 90 degree angle i.e different frequency of electromagetic waves.

Conclusion 3
If it were possible to reverse the direction of resonance of electrons in a smaller body away from equilibrium i.e that it achieves due to contant with heavier body . Then the smaller object would effectively be repelled away from heavier one by a force of gravity and these is using gravity force space travel i.e leaving earth without need of rockets

thanks alot if you still with me prove it mathematically for me it is my explanation truth or maddness
We choose to go to the moon and to do other things, we choose to go to the moon not because its easy but because its hard. kennedy
ID: 835346 · Report as offensive
Profile kasule francis

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 08
Posts: 293
Credit: 104,493
RAC: 0
Message 836701 - Posted: 3 Dec 2008, 13:22:12 UTC - in response to Message 835346.  

I think i have a more palatable statement to describe how the effect of gravity occurs and that is

electrons command atoms how to fold space and the direction to fold it in,which direction is determined by presence of heavier body whose goal is to achieve equilibrium in direction of resonance.

question is what property of electron can fold space ,i think it could be that it has momentum due to fact that its osscilating
not sure any one with an idea can chip in so we can pin this thing once and for all.
We choose to go to the moon and to do other things, we choose to go to the moon not because its easy but because its hard. kennedy
ID: 836701 · Report as offensive
Profile kasule francis

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 08
Posts: 293
Credit: 104,493
RAC: 0
Message 840582 - Posted: 16 Dec 2008, 14:32:40 UTC - in response to Message 836701.  
Last modified: 16 Dec 2008, 14:37:48 UTC

PESWiki.com -- Pure Energy Systems Wiki: Finding and facilitating the best renewable energy technologies.

HOPE for uncertain times . . . There is a brighter energy future.

Repulsive gravity within the hydrogen atom
From PESWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

In ZPEnergy( 1 ) Dr. Paul J. Werbos writes:

"But it might even be that another vehicle is simply that of better UNDERSTANDING the next generation of nuclear theory. There is a lot of energy out there in the nuclear patch. Some people think that nuclear physics is a kind of mature, dead end. Yet a decade or two ago.. it was widely agreed that the realm of light and electricity is a dead end in terms of basic physics, and that has turned out to be dead wrong; first generation quantum computing brought a lot of new life and deeper insight into what we can do in technology, more than we thought, and there are other aspects... "

So, in order to modify gravity, the researchers must to understand what is gravity: how it is formed, and where it is formed.

Where the gravity is born

In the book Quantum Ring Theory( 2 ) it is shown that gravity has its origin within the sctructure of fundamental particles.

In the paper No. 9 entitlied New Nuclear Model it is proposed the structure of nuclei. They are formed by a central nucleon 2He4, where a strong flux of gravitons is created.

Fig. 1 shows a nucleus 8O16 where a flux of gravitons (called n(o) in QRT) is formed by the central nucleon 2He4.


The elementary particles have two fields: a principal field Sp( ), and a secondary field Sn( ) is induced from the rotation of the principal field.

Fig. 2 shows the formation of the gravitational flux n(o) within a proton.


Fig. 3 shows that there exist three different structures of a proton, depending on the relative motion of the gravitational flux n(o) with regard to the rotation (and spin) of a quark up.


Fig. 4 shows the formation of the gravitational fluxes n(o) within the nucleon 2He4


Fig. 5 shows how the secondary field Sn( ), responsible for the electromagnetic-gravitational interactions of the macroscopic bodies, is spread in the space

Repulsive gravity within the hydrogen atom

The use of gravity modification will be connected with the repulsive gravity responsible for the expansion of the Universe, detected by astronomical observations.

The repulsive gravity also exists within the atom, and it is responsible for many paradoxes in Quantum Mechanics, since the theorists did not know its existence within the atoms, and they had to adopt several theorems and axioms in order to adapt the hydrogen atom of Quantum Mechanics.

In Quantum Ring Theory it’s shown how the repulsive gravity causes the expansion of the aether wihin the hydrogen atom. In order to have an idea, see PowerPedia:Cold fusion, Don Borghi's Experiment, and hydrogen atom

See also

On the new nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory:

Antigravity within the photon

Article:Cold Fusion and Gamow's Paradox

Don Borghi's experiment
Retrieved from "http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Repulsive_gravity_within_the_hydrogen_atom"
We choose to go to the moon and to do other things, we choose to go to the moon not because its easy but because its hard. kennedy
ID: 840582 · Report as offensive
Profile kasule francis

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 08
Posts: 293
Credit: 104,493
RAC: 0
Message 840885 - Posted: 17 Dec 2008, 16:22:46 UTC - in response to Message 840582.  

under general relativity theory, which is a classical not a quantum theory, the force of gravity is propagated by gravitational waves, which transmit the force of gravity at the speed of light.

Under a quantum theory of gravity, we focus on the quanta of gravity—gravitons, the elementary force particles that transmit gravity through a process of graviton exchange. Gravitons, never experimentally observed, are particles of zero mass which travel at the speed of light and have a quantum “spin” of 2.

Quantum gravity is of interest both to permit gravity to be unified with the other three forces, as well as to unify general relativity with quantum physics. Quantum gravity is at the heart of physics’ Theory of Everything.

Without migrating our understanding of gravity into the framework of quantum physics, general relativity will remain a theory of classical physics, of physics not reconciled with quantum theory. This seems inelegant, that these two major theories of modern physics—general relativity and quantum physics—are not unified into a single theory. The quest for a convincing theory of quantum gravity is physics’ search for the Holy Grail: quantum gravity will explain mysteries we’re aware of and also answer questions we don’t yet even know how to ask.

Some physicists, including Roger Penrose, who theorize about the connection between the brain and the mind, look for this connection at the intersection of general relativity and quantum physics. For these physicists, “everything”—in the Theory of Everything, for which quantum gravity is the centerpiece—must include not only force particles and matter particles, not only general relativity and quantum physics, but also a theory of consciousness.

Lee Smolin’s 2001 book Three Roads to Quantum Gravity draws from current approaches to propose his preferred approach to quantum gravity. We’ll start our discussion with Smolin’s approach to this central question of physics that remained unanswered as the new millennium began.

Background Independence

The three roads that Pennsylvania State University physicist and geometer Lee Smolin sees physicists taking toward quantum gravity are string theories, loop quantum gravity, and black hole thermodynamics. Smolin draws from these three approaches to recommend how quantum gravity is to be best understood.

String theorists are working very hard to create a theory of everything out of models in which strings are the elementary entity of physics. Today’s extradimensional string theories have proven remarkably robust in creating accurate models of physics’ particles and interactions. String theories provide a model for all four of physics’ forces and for the elementary particles of matter as well. Among string theories’ vibrational string patterns is a pattern that exactly produces the properties of the graviton. Thus, string theory is a quantum theory that incorporates gravity.

String theories’ detractors are concerned that new features seem to proliferate in order to respond to objections and to match the theory with observed reality. But it’s hard not to be impressed with how all-encompassing string theories are. Admittedly, there’s a “Christmas tree effect” as new features and twists embellish the theory to get it more accurate. But it’s a Christmas tree, not a national forest—it’s still a fairly compact theory considering the scope of the questions it’s addressing.

But string theories are background-dependent. The background is spacetime, and in string theories all of the forces—including gravity—operate against the background of spacetime. This seems to present a conceptual stumbling block in the way of using string theories to reconcile general relativity’s gravity with quantum physics’ other forces, because general relativity is a background-independent theory. Under general relativity, the force of gravity shapes spacetime—is spacetime.

So it’s hard to see how a string theory road to quantum gravity can be the whole road: even if string theory’s models provide extraordinary accuracy to the proposed structures of physics’ forces and matter, background-dependent theories will not give us the gravitational exceptionalism that we need. Gravity is not like the other forces. The other forces operate against the spacetime backdrop, in a spacetime grid. Gravity doesn’t. Gravity is the spacetime grid.

Theories of the nongravitational forces can be developed as background-dependent theories—the electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces operating against a background of a fixed spacetime grid. Theories of gravity also can (and have) been developed as background-dependent theories, but it’s hard to see how a background-dependent theory of gravity can be correct at the deepest levels. Gravity—the force being described—reshapes spacetime. How can a theory of gravity be validly constructed assuming fixed spacetime when we know there’s this recursive effect of gravity changing spacetime?

Smolin discusses the kind of radical rethinking that will be required to establish a complete theory of quantum gravity. The “three roads” of Smolin’s title will ultimately have to combine to produce a single more basic theory, and this more basic theory will have to be background-independent. In fact, there are string theorists today who are working to reformulate string theory to remove its inherent background dependence.

What this single theory will ultimately be based on will in all likelihood move us entirely away from a conceptualization that the universe consists of things occupying regions of space, toward instead a conceptualization that the universe consists of a network of relationships, of processes by which information is conveyed from one part of the universe to another.

Loop Quantum Gravity

String theories assume that space and time are granular, that there is a smallest granule of length (the Planck length, 10-33 centimeters) and a smallest granule of time (the Planck time, 10-43 seconds). Said another way, “quantum geometry is discrete.” Of course, these granules of space and time are so unimaginably small that there is no experimental verification that the geometry of spacetime is in fact discrete rather than continuous.

Loop quantum gravity, the second of Smolin’s “three roads to quantum gravity,” also assumes this granularity of space and time. But loop quantum gravity, of which Smolin is a key developer, sets out as its quest to remove background dependence. An earlier version, a lattice theory of gravity, was rejected, because the background dependence could not be eliminated. But loop quantum gravity does this by reducing spacetime to loops alone, with no background in which these loops reside. The loops interact in a network of “knots, links and kinks.” Taking the lead from work that Roger Penrose had done in the 1960s and 70s, the loop quantum gravity model is a spin network model, because the loops each have a value associated with the spin of physics’ elementary particles. The surface and volume of spacetime are built up at the edges and nodes of this spin network. Because spacetime at the Planck scale is not localized at a point, these spin networks have come to be called spin foam, and are currently a subject of exploration and theorizing among physicists across the world.

Smolin’s Resolution, and Its Critics

Smolin favors loop quantum gravity over string theories as the source of a theory of quantum gravity, due to loop quantum gravity’s inherent background independence. But Smolin also recognizes the power of string theory for describing forces and matter, even though this is accomplished against a classical spacetime background. For this reason Smolin views loop quantum gravity and string theory as complementary and ultimately reconcilable (with loops forming a more basic concept than strings). Perhaps, too, string theory will one day be successfully reformulated (as Grosse and Schlesinger propose) as a background-independent theory.

Smolin also discusses how both loop quantum gravity and string theories interrelate with black hole thermodynamics, the third of Smolin’s three roads to quantum gravity.

Smolin estimates that there are a billion billion (1018) black holes in the universe. Those looking to create a theory of quantum gravity from the study of black holes do so by incorporating concepts of the black hole’s entropy (degree of disorder, a key metric of thermodynamics) and the amount of information that a black hole—or any region of space—can contain.

For example, University of Oxford physicist Stephen Hawking theorizes (A Brief History of Time and elsewhere) that a quantum theory of gravity is needed to understand how the universe began: without a quantum theory of gravity, theories produce at the big bang an undesired collapse of all matter to zero volume, an undesired infinite density and infinite curvature of spacetime at the beginning of time. By drawing conclusions from studies of black holes, Hawking has proposed a theory of the universe, which includes quantum gravity, based on the concepts of imaginary time and the universe’s “multiple histories.”

These concepts—entropy, information, black holes, multiple universes, imaginary time—will be discussed in upcoming chapters. In his stab at reconciling this black hole thermodynamics “road” with the other two roads to quantum gravity, Smolin proposes that that the holographic principle—which quantifies how much information can be contained in any region of space—will be a basic principle that unites the three roads to quantum gravity. (Physicist Dennis Gabor won the 1971 Nobel Prize for physics for earlier work on the holographic method.) Under this unified approach, the universe is “a network of holograms,” a network of information.

Although we will be pursuing further elements of these concepts, it is probably not a surprise that the work of Smolin and colleagues studying quantum gravity is not universally accepted. For example, Michael Riordan—who teaches the history of physics at Stanford and at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and who has written the general-audience book The Hunting of the Quark—expresses a number of criticisms of this pursuit of quantum gravity. Principally, Riordan’s concern is the lack of experimental verifiability of these theories, the risk that “these imaginative theories of quantum gravity will remain rooted only in the misty realms of metaphysics.” In Riordan’s view, this contradicts four centuries of scientific method, and exposes physics to the “virulent attacks of postmodernist critics, who argue that that science has no special claim to objective reality.” Riordan asks, “Are these people really practicing science?”

Why Is This So Hard?

Why is it so difficult to construct a complete theory of quantum gravity?

If your junior high school or high school science courses were anything like mine, somewhere along the line you had a lesson on Galileo dropping objects from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. You were fooled into saying that a heavy ball would fall more quickly than a lighter ball, at which point your science teacher told you that, no—they’d both hit the ground at the same time. This bothered you, because it seemed so counterintuitive. Then you were stunned into silence by the claim that—in a vacuum, without air resistance—even a feather would fall at the same pace as a lead ball.

Rather than this being something that fourteen-year-olds should feel foolish about not understanding, this is actually an important mystery of physics. We expect, when we have more of a force-generating quantity, to have greater force. A big light shines more brightly than a small light. A nucleus with lots of protons has more strong force holding it together than a nucleus with few protons. So why would a more massive block of matter not fall faster than a less massive block—doesn’t more mass mean more gravitational force?

The answer, in its general form, has to do with the precisely offsetting phenomenon of inertia: the larger the mass, the more force it takes to accelerate it. This question—the question of why inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass—is not at all a trivial question of physics, and in fact remains one of the mysteries of gravity. Attempts to solve this mystery have led to some strange hypotheses, such as University of California physicist Shu-Yuan Chu’s recent work suggesting that this involves forward- and backward-in-time interactions between objects on earth and all of the other matter in the universe.

And this mystery about the nature of gravity is just one element of why it is so hard to establish a theory of quantum gravity. Also noted as sources of difficulty in successfully modeling quantum gravity are:

• Gravity is so weak that the effects of quantum gravity are noticeable only at the smallest scales of distance.

• Gravitons interact with everything—all forms of matter, all forms of energy (remember: matter and energy are equivalent, through E = mc2), even with other gravitons.

• As we’ve mentioned, spacetime plays an active, dynamic role in gravity, unlike the passive role it plays as the stage on which the other forces act.

In the meantime, experimental physicists aren’t standing still while the theoreticians work this out. At both subatomic and astronomical lengths, physicists continue the search for evidence of the graviton and quantum gravity.

A 2001 progress report on contemporary approaches to quantum gravity notes: “Work along these lines has not yet led to any physical breakthroughs, but perhaps that is too much to ask, given that more conventional approaches have not been terribly successful either.” But the analysis continues: “It is safe to say that most people working in quantum gravity expect that the theory will eventually lead to radical changes in our understanding of space and time.”

We choose to go to the moon and to do other things, we choose to go to the moon not because its easy but because its hard. kennedy
ID: 840885 · Report as offensive
Profile kasule francis

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 08
Posts: 293
Credit: 104,493
RAC: 0
Message 841371 - Posted: 18 Dec 2008, 9:41:06 UTC - in response to Message 840885.  

Mathematical Analysis And Mistake Identification

Many scientist critical of Special Relativity have challenged Einstein's theory on the grounds of logical inconsistencies (e.g., challenges to the twin paradox or time dilation). While they offer compelling arguments, they have not found definitive evidence resulting in a crisis that the scientific community must respond to.

My challenge to the validity of Einstein's equations is based on mathematics, which greatly simplifies my argument. This foundation in mathematics establishes a set of rules that the scientific community already accepts. This approach has the advantage of being readily verifiable by the greater scientific community.

Readers familiar with namespaces and overloaded variables, and their relationship with functions, will find the problem accurately addressed in Episode 17 of the Podcast Series – A Look at Einstein’s 1905 Derivation. Other readers will find the algebra-based approach given in the Storrs Conference Presentation, and summarized below, easier to follow.

Here we summarize Einstein's Xi derivation as given in his 1905 paper. As illustrated in the following figure, Einstein begins with one math statement and then performs three algebraic substitutions


Since Einstein's derivation consists of three substitutions, mathematically, each highlighted equation must produce the same result on the right-hand side when given the same input values. (Note: His final multiplication of each transformation equation by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not shown, since by that time the problem has already occurred.)


As shown above, each equation does not produce the same result on the right-hand side when given the same input value, representing a mathematical problem in Einstein's derivation. This problem is discussed in detail in Episode 2 of the RelativityChallenge.Com Podcast and in the Storrs Conference presentation. In addition, Episode 8 of the Podcast explains the root cause as the mistreatment of Tau as an equation rather than as a function.

With the problem identified, the inconsistencies in each of Einstein's derivations can be confirmed by analyzing them using accepted mathematical rules.

RelativityChallenge.Com invites you to participate in creating the next chapter in Modern Physics. The model of Complete and Incomplete Coordinate Systems offers opportunities to expand our understanding of space, time, and physics in general. The findings presented at RelativityChallenge.Com and accompanying papers represent a launching point for continued research in wave and particle behaviors.

For Special Relativity Challengers

When one theory is shown to be incorrect, a new model needs to build support for it to take hold. Given this, I offer several ways in which you can help establish the model of Complete and Incomplete Coordinate Systems through your research and exploration.

1. Publish experimental evidence that differentiates the expected results of the model of Complete and Incomplete Coordinate Systems from the expected results of Special Relativity.
2. Publish theoretical papers supporting the mathematical analysis identifying the mistakes in Einstein's derivations.
3. Conduct experiments that confirm the behaviors of Complete Coordinates Systems.
4. Confirm the model of Complete and Incomplete Coordinate Systems for other wave mediums besides EMF and light.
5. Reexamine the theoretical foundations of gravity waves and/or quantum waves using the model of Complete and Incomplete Coordinate Systems as a foundation.
6. Publish experimental evidence defining the existence and speed of gravity waves and/or quantum waves.

For Special Relativity Supporters

New questions have come up as a result of research into the Model of Complete and Incomplete Coordinate Systems. These questions should be answered by the Special Relativity Community.

1. Einstein defines the Tau function as Ï„=t-(vx')/(c^2-v^2). Define the meaning of this function and its key function parameters; t and x'.
2. In Einstein's Tau function, what is the meaning of vx'/(c^2-v^2)? Include a picture that explains this meaning.
3. Explain the meaning of the function invocation : Ï„(x', y, z, x'/(c-v)).
4. Explain the meaning of the function invocation: Ï„(0, y, z, y/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)).
5. Explain the meaning of the function invocation: Ï„(0, y, z, z/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)).
6. Explain the meaning of the function invocation: Ï„(x', y, z, t).
7. Explain any differences between the answer to question 6 and question 3.
8. Explain how namespaces and variable overloading applies or does not apply to Einstein's derivation.

We choose to go to the moon and to do other things, we choose to go to the moon not because its easy but because its hard. kennedy
ID: 841371 · Report as offensive
Profile tullio
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 6158
Credit: 1,464,877
RAC: 1,360
Message 841416 - Posted: 18 Dec 2008, 12:51:53 UTC
Last modified: 18 Dec 2008, 12:52:12 UTC

Einstein's relativity theory has been confirmed by any experimental test done so far except for:
a)frame dragging, which is still been analyzed in the Gravity Probe B results
b)gravitational waves, still being searched by LIGO, GEO600, ViIRGO and other resonant mass detectors (see also Einstein@home).

Sic stantibus rebus, IMHO it is a very sound theory, even if no one has been able to quantize it. But that may be not Einstein's fault.
ID: 841416 · Report as offensive
Profile kasule francis

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 08
Posts: 293
Credit: 104,493
RAC: 0
Message 847114 - Posted: 31 Dec 2008, 6:18:16 UTC - in response to Message 835346.  
Last modified: 31 Dec 2008, 6:46:21 UTC

HUSTON WE HAVE LIFT OFF ........... Mordern lifter technology links.


(lifter technology demostration and explanation)


(hexagon lifter-electrogravitic propulsion)


(lifter antigravity)




We choose to go to the moon and to do other things, we choose to go to the moon not because its easy but because its hard. kennedy
ID: 847114 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3327
Credit: 1,322,052
RAC: 21
United States
Message 847188 - Posted: 31 Dec 2008, 11:55:02 UTC - in response to Message 841416.  
Last modified: 31 Dec 2008, 11:56:09 UTC

Einstein's relativity theory has been confirmed by any experimental test done so far except for:
a)frame dragging, which is still been analyzed in the Gravity Probe B results
b)gravitational waves, still being searched by LIGO, GEO600, ViIRGO and other resonant mass detectors (see also Einstein@home).

Sic stantibus rebus, IMHO it is a very sound theory, even if no one has been able to quantize it. But that may be not Einstein's fault.

That's right--Mathemathics is not necessarily consistent nor necessarily related to physical "truths". Kurt Godel has of course shown this to be true. It very often does,however. In the case of special relativity the things that literally fall out of the Math have all been proven to relate to the notion of Reality in that we can measure and observe their consequences.

I do not see any inconsistencies is my study of special relativity. The math--most of which was actually done via Lorentz's transformations is fairly straight forward.


ID: 847188 · Report as offensive
Profile kasule francis

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 08
Posts: 293
Credit: 104,493
RAC: 0
Message 875021 - Posted: 12 Mar 2009, 21:32:17 UTC

testing einstein

An Unfinished Job

Einstein's theory of general relativity has passed every test that it has ever been put to. Nevertheless there are at least four good reasons to think that the theory is incomplete and will eventually need to be overthrown in just the same way that Newton's was. Firstly, general relativity predicts its own demise; it breaks down in singularities, regions where the curvature of spacetime becomes infinite and the field equations can no longer be applied. These cannot be dismissed as mere academic curiosities, because they do apparently occur in the real universe if general relativity holds. Theoretical work by Stephen Hawking and others has proven that singularities must form within a finite time (the universe is necessarily "geodesically incomplete"), given only very generic assumptions such as the positivity of energy. Two places where we expect to find them are at the big bang, and inside black holes like the one at the center of the Milky Way. If we are to fully understand these phenomena, then general relativity must be modified or extended in some way.

Secondly, there is the question of cosmology. Under the reasonable assumptions that the universe on large scales is homogeneous and isotropic (the same in all places and in all directions), as suggested by observation in combination with the Copernican principle, general relativity has led to the creation of a cosmological theory known as the big bang theory. This theory has had some spectacular successes; for instance, the prediction of the cosmic microwave background radiation, the calculation of the abundances of light elements, and a basis for understanding the origin of structure in the universe. It also has some weaknesses, notably involving finely tuned initial conditions (the "flatness" and "horizon problems").
More troublingly, in recent decades it has become impossible to match the predictions of big-bang cosmology with observation unless the thin density of matter observed in the universe (i.e. that which can be seen by emission or absorption of light, or inferred from consistency with light-element synthesis) is supplemented by much larger amounts of unseen dark matter and dark energy that cannot consist of anything in the standard model of particle physics. The observations are quite clear: the required exotic dark matter has a density some five times that of standard-model matter, and the required dark energy has an energy density some three times greater still. To date, there is no direct experimental evidence for the existence of either component, and there are strong theoretical reasons (the "cosmological constant problem") to be suspicious of dark energy in particular. There is also no convincing explanation of why two new and as-yet unobserved forms of matter-energy should be so closely matched in energy density (the "coincidence problem"). While the majority of cosmologists seem prepared to accept both dark matter and dark energy as necessary, if inelegant facts of life, others are beginning to interpret them as possible evidence of a breakdown of general relativity at large distances and/or small accelerations.

Thirdly, existing tests of general relativity have been restricted to weak gravitational fields (or moderate ones in the case of the binary pulsar). Major surprises in this regime would have been surprising, since Einstein's theory goes over to Newton's in the weak-field limit, and we know that Newtonian gravity works reasonably well. But surprises are quite possible, and even likely, in the strong-field regime. The reason why is closely related to the
fourth motivation for continuing to test Einstein's theory: general relativity as it stands is incompatible with the rest of physics (i.e. the "standard model" based on quantum field theory). The problem stems from the fact that the gravitational field carries energy and thus "attracts itself" (by contrast the electromagnetic field, for example, carries no charge). In field-theory language, quantization of gravity requires an infinite number of renormalization parameters. It is widely believed that our present theories of gravity and/or the other interactions are only approximate "effective field theories" that will eventually be seen as limiting cases of a unified theory in which all four forces become comparable in strength at very high energies. But there is no consensus as to whether it is general relativity or particle physics—or both—that must be modified, let alone how. Experimental input may be our only guide to unification, the last great remaining problem in theoretical physics.

1) The Equivalence Principle

2) Gravitational Redshift

3) Mercury's Perihelion Shift

Light Deflection

5) Shapiro Time Delay

6) The Binary Pulsar

7) Gravitational Waves.

We choose to go to the moon and to do other things, we choose to go to the moon not because its easy but because its hard. kennedy
ID: 875021 · Report as offensive

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Explanation for Gravity and Electromagnetism link model

©2017 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.