Fruechte Gravity Theory Blog

For an electron in an atomic orbital the magnetic part of the Lorentz force [1], F = q[E + (v x B)], deflects the electron’s path so that the electron cannot head directly toward the nucleus.  Magnetic fields produced by the nucleus essentially fight off the electron’s direct path which is due to the electrostatic part of the force.  This is one of the aids in assuring that atomic collapse does not occur.  In the vicinity of an electron orbital turn where gravitons are emitted from an electron, a planar electron arc can be assumed [2], however this is only in the tangential limit relatively far from the nucleus and there are no complete arcs in electron orbitals that are geometrically planar. 

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force

[2] https://www.fruechtetheory.com/blog/2008/07/20/spread-of-a-fermion-wave-function/

It seems I suggested to the GLAST people at one point, when the Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope was still in a pre-launch test phase, that they try pointing the telescope straight up into the sky and turn the instrument on to see what they could read.  As long as the anti-coincidence shield did not activate, there would be a gamma ray fog from the earth’s atmosphere, considerably stronger than the diffuse background that is found with the telescope now in space and pointing away from the earth.  With a planned schedule already at the time, they probably did not try it.

As far as new equipment goes, another way to test whether or not our atmosphere emits gamma rays is to send a gamma ray telescope up as the payload of a high altitude balloon.  The instrument would point at an acute angle to the vertical so as to keep the balloon itself out of the picture.  As the balloon ascends to high altitude there should be a gradually decreasing flux density of gamma rays.  The energies to look for are centered on 312.76 MeV.

The suggestion would otherwise be to place the instrument looking out an opening of a high altitude engine propelled aircraft as it ascends, except that vibrations may at times affect the readability.

It is always refreshing when instances are found where the physics world is honest, and shows that they really have some integrity and responsibility, because going way back things can get out of hand once in a while before they come back to reality.  At Fermilab, the CERN LHC, and other labs, with all the particles smashing together almost anything can be found with some imagination and maybe a matrix made to match.

Here is one instance where responsibility recently prevailed: http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-large-hadron-collider-signatures-microscopic.html

The link seems to have generated a lot of interesting comments as well.

In one of the FGT YouTube videos of February 2008 it was mentioned that unlike a tug of war where the tension in the rope is the same throughout when the rope is stationary, gravity is one mass acting independently on another.  In the case of two masses of spherical shape the force is known to be F₁₂ = Gm₁m₂/r₁₂², which we can equate to m₁a or m₂a, depending on whether we want to calculate the acceleration of m₁ or m₂, and where r₁₂ is the distance between the centers of the two masses.  With planetary masses that are close to spherical, and the objects they pull, this formula has been used most reliably, while it has been known for a long time by learned mathematical and scientific people that shape matters, and using center of mass with the standard physics book formula can cause increased error in some instances.

As an analysis that has already been done, let us use Kline Chapter 16, Sections 5, 6, and 7.  Starting with Section 5, “Gravitational Attraction of Rods”, the example given is that of a “rod 6 feet long and of mass 18 pounds which is uniformly distributed” and “so thin that we think of it as extending in one dimension only.  Three feet from one end of the rod and along the line of the rod is a small object of mass 2 pounds which we shall regard as located at one point.”   Kline first calculates the force that the rod exerts on the 2-pound mass as though the entire mass of the rod were concentrated at its center, according to the standard F₁₂ = Gm₁m₂/r₁₂² formula, which comes out as equaling G poundals.  Then he does the calculation properly using an integration over the rod, showing that the force that the rod exerts on the 2-pound mass is actually (4/3) G poundals.  In Section 6, “Gravitational Attraction of Disks” [1], again a difference from the standard formula is shown which for comparison includes Exercise 1 from that section.  Finally, in Section 7 it is shown that the standard physics book formula can be used with spheres.

Since the title of the referenced book includes “An Intuitive and Physical Approach”, intuition may tell us that, since the rod was integrated along its length to obtain a correct answer, every piece of a nearly one dimensional rod in the limit of a Riemann sum exerts a gravitational force independently on a separate point mass.

With General Relativity, unproven to date, a mass produces surface curvature in space, which may contact a series of points on other surfaces, due to another mass, through a tensor product [2] that reduces to a force vector.  This may be interpreted as space-time surface interaction, and not necessarily complete independent action.  At least two multi-million dollar projects are built and running ([3], [4]) and at least one is being developed [5] in attempts to prove General Relativity.

Special Relativity, on the other hand, E = mc², has long been proven correct, and the gravitational theory presented on this web site would not work without it.  Some physicists in their writings seem to make a transition from Special to General Relativity as though the two are somehow linked, and in reality they bear no relationship to each other.

[1] Kline, Morris, Calculus, An Intuitive and Physical Approach, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967, 1977; Dover (1998) unabridged republication.

[2] Rainich, George Yuri, Mathematics of Relativity, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1950, Chapter 4

[3] http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/

[4] http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html

[5] http://lisa.nasa.gov/

Any middle school student in the free world with a true interest in science, and proper resources to learn, has noticed from diagrams in books or on the web, or with iron filings on a piece of paper with a magnet beneath, that magnetic field lines have curvature.  A local electric field between and surrounding two point charges also has curvature in the near space, except for on a line pointing directly away from the other charge.  Dr. Schombert gives us a good diagram of this on the web. [1]

The lines of a gravitational field, on the other hand, have no curvature in any instance, and “the gravitational force is entirely radial”. ([2], pg 616)  So, what is going on here?

Earlier it was mentioned that the Coulomb force may transmit “through the gravitational field in wave packets at group velocity, by phase shift and chirality” [3].  This could otherwise be stated as by phase shift and parity and, as physicists know, group velocity can be faster than the speed of light.

To extend on this concept and compare then, if a rotational component is developed in a free graviton, it is due only to Coulomb field production, and though free gravitons always travel in a straight line, neglecting lensing, when there are no charges present the rotational component of a free graviton would be zero. 

[1] http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec04.html

[2] Kline, Morris, Calculus, An Intuitive and Physical Approach, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967, 1977; Dover (1998) unabridged republication.

[3] https://www.fruechtetheory.com/blog/2010/06/15/muonic-states/