Are Electric Fields Distrorted By Gravity? [Relativity]

Prev: Relativistic "Doppler" shift, and why bp hates cap&trade derivatives [*], if they do.
Next: Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion, and whether Murdoch/bp hate Captain Tax derivatives [*], re "climategate controversy."

From: mpc755 on 5 Aug 2010 19:21

On Aug 5, 6:32 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 04:25:14 -0700 (PDT), mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 5, 4:36 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 4, 3:28 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
> >> > SPACE CARRYING A FIELD IS NOT THE SAME AS SPACE DEVOID OF FIELDS.
>
> >> There is no place in the Universe "devoid of fields".
>
> >> Mark L. Fergerson
>
> >There is no place in the Universe devoid of mass. There is no place in
> >the Universe devoid of matter and dark matter.
>
> there is place on this NG devoid of morons
>
> Henry Wilson...
>
> .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.

Does the ripple eventually reach the Earth? If not then why not?

'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html

"Astronomers using NASAs Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view
of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two
galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark matter, which is
somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the
water."

The ripple will eventually reach the Earth and this is evidence dark
matter exists from the galaxy cluster to the Earth. This is evidence
dark matter is the medium of space in which light waves propagate.

From: Thomas Heger on 6 Aug 2010 00:09

Henry Wilson DSc schrieb:
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 06:32:22 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> But fields still exist in matter-free space. The presence of fields
>> does not require the presence of matter.
>
> The question remain, is matter ...and mass...just a strange arrangement of
> fields?
I think, that the term 'fields' belongs also to the '..just a strange
arrangement ..' category.
To model this idea, I use a double-tetrahedron, representing
bi-quaternions, that rotate in opposite direction. This allows standing
waves, what we call matter. If the rotation gets out of balance - or: if
the axis of rotations do not align, a state would radiate.
As standing waves are what we call matter and that is what the objects
are build of, their behavior or where and how things move, we ascribe to
the term 'fields'.
Because all these terms are related in a way, we could model them all on
the same basis, what I assume to be GR-spacetime, modeled with quaternions.
The idea is to allow feed-back-loops on different scales. The scale is
related to the frequency associated with a system, where larger systems
have lower frequency and smaller have higher. Than higher energetic
content is found in smaller systems, like in the nucleus compared to the
whole atom. This scheme we find on many levels above and below. The
largest system conceivable is the entire universe, where we have periods
of 13 billion years and a wavelength in that range. The smallest is the
singularity the universe once came from.
Important is the role of time as a local measure of an arbitrary
observer. If we alter its timeline - e.g. by acceleration- we alter its
local time and the perception of space and could experience the same
thing as very small or very large:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4fV6lXhyno&NR=1
(A film about 'coin shrinking')

TH

From: eric gisse on 6 Aug 2010 04:00

...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 01:36:26 -0700 (PDT), "nuny(a)bid.nes"
> <alien8752(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 4, 3:28 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>>> SPACE CARRYING A FIELD IS NOT THE SAME AS SPACE DEVOID OF FIELDS.
>>
>> There is no place in the Universe "devoid of fields".
>
> The WFT says that fields are quantized and the inverse square law must
> eventually break down. The starts to occur at the WDT (Wilson Density
> Threshold) and genuine holes of 'nothing' form momentarily in space...like
> foam plastic. The lower the density, the bigger the holes..(Note: density
> involves fields as well as ordinary matter)
>
> Below the WDT light behaves 100% ballistically in the holes. It is very
> close to being that in a high vacuum anyway.

Given that there are no observations supporting ballistic theory, I can't
help but wonder where this inside information comes from.

>
>> Mark L. Fergerson
>
>
> Henry Wilson...
>
> .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.

From: eric gisse on 6 Aug 2010 04:01

...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
[...]

>
>>> >3. There have been multiple attempts to explain gravity in terms of
>>> >electromagnetic fields. See, for example, Kaluza-Klein. Do catch up.
>>>
>>> The problem is to test any theory since the gravity force is so much
>>> weaker than the other two.
>>
>>As I said, you need to see the attempts put forward already. Do catch
>>up.
>
> If they have all failed, what's the point in reading about them?

Its' called "learning from the mistakes of others".

>
>
> Henry Wilson...
>
> .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.

But given you actually believe your sig, I don't see how it is all that
relevant to you.

From: Autymn D. C. on 6 Aug 2010 08:07

On Aug 5, 4:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Gravity has a range and can be empty. Energy forms are light and
> matter. These are the only places of energy. Energy has time flow but
> there is no time flow for empty gravity.

not moot gravity?