neuvophysics.com   neuvophysics@Gmail.com

 

 

 

THE GRAVITOMAGNETIC AFFECT

 

Like I stated elsewhere in the thesis ---"I believe that the magnetic fields of spinning bodies is created by gravity," -and even though gravity isn't responsible for all magnetism by a long shot- it still stands to reason that spinning objects will develop a gravity caused magnetic affect. This gravitomagnetic affect was first predicted by Einstein. Like I keep hammering home--- relativity is the mathematical solution to very real physical phenomena and that phenomenology is what G-theory is all about.

 

If you read the home page 'essay' you will notice how graviton transitions are theorized to affect quark lattices. When the summed GTDg graviton resultant transitional eigenvector affects a quark lattice in a spinning object then of course you will see an eigenvector magnetic field alignment change throughout the object--- mainly dependant on the RPM.

 

Because the quark lattice is also retroactive on the graviton flux it also stands to reason that there will be a retro-affect on gravity also and if we have a spinning object aligned horizontally to the geodesic -which is a differential field in the vertical direction- then we will see a pinwheel type bending of the gravity field* and the resultant eigenvector change is expected to be very slight but in the tangential direction relative to the spin and any simple vector analysis will reveal that there will be an increase in gravitational force above the spinning object because of the now vectored graviton flux. We can imagine this because the vector result of the slower graviton transitions from below is shifted at a greater angle and therefore sees a disproportionately increased affect compared to the downward angling higher velocity gravitons and the net result is a greater down force.

 

However it is doubtful that this would even be measurable in small objects and in fact the G-theory prediction of the amount of deviation is about the square root of Einstein's prediction so the concluded result is essentially zero but it is there and it takes an unfathomable quantity of nucleons to exhibit its presence.

 

The phenomenon was recently put to the test with surprising results which are not supported by either Einstein or G-theory so I suspect that the experimenters are measuring something else and that the experiment is flawed. For an insight into that experiment visit---

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml  Note the warning to not rush to judgement from the scientists themselves. We don't need this to prove GTR wrong in any case. This site alone proves other phenomenology which supersedes that mathematical concoction.

 

The one nul result they did get was that the spinning superconductor did not create a magnetic field -as predicted by G-theory- against that of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics also suppose that just like that previous dud prediction that a spinning mass causes gravity. That is not what G-theory suggests either. So that's not likely to be what's going on at all.

 

For more details on failed experiments with gravity shielding devices visit---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov

 

Another conclusion we are able to derive from this mind experiment in collusion with G-theory quantum physics is that the geo magnetic field also has some retro effect on gravity which will cause a slight gravitational anomaly between the polar regions and the equatorial circumference on Earth for instance, after other considerations like the spin of the Earth and tides have been accounted for.

 

Will any of these predictions from G-theory be tested? In the near future I doubt it because physics currently sees relativity as being a total metaphysical replacement theory for causation rather than being recognized as just the simplistic mathematical model it truly is.

 

This is exactly the same theory that applies to solar rotational force frame dragging* and the affects of the graviton transitions -similar to that which has been just described- will cause an equatorial flux alignment of all the quark magnetic dipoles. If we ignore the other magnetic forces in the Sun and analyse the Earth instead for instance we will see that all the quark magnetic dipole eigenvectors are tilted in the same direction--- which affect has a gradient of attenuation towards the poles where it doesn't occur at all. This could be referred to as quantum magnetic field frame dragging.

*Refer to the tab on planetary orbit stability.

 

The following is going to take some mental gymnastics because we have all been hoodwinked by the humble compass. The compass is not pointing to the poles as per the traditional folklore--- it is only reacting to the latitudinal gradient of magnetic force change wherever it is placed in any constant magnetic field and that alignment is fully dependant on the shape of the field.

 

In the first instance just described we have generated a stable unilateral magnetic field which a compass would have trouble with aligning to in the horizontal -really geocentric shell- plane but one which is unlikely to remain in place for very long at all, and the magnetic field alignment of all the quarks in unison eventually toggles over and snaps a north magnetic force into place at one pole and a south at the other. The direction is an arbitrary result and it could have gone either way.

 

If something upsets the Earth's gravitational field say like an incoming negative or positive gravity pulse then the poles could very well be reversed. Such pulses are predictable by G-theory and they can derive from nearby magnetar explosions or periodic waves from 'long ago' supernovas. By nearby I mean relatively speaking. I think I'd prefer to experience a negative pulse that a positive one wouldn't you? None of the above?! Mmm LOL

 

NB In G-theory Gravitomagnetism has nothing to do with planetary frame dragging or the Lens Thirring effect or indeed any phenomenological application to the subject of gravity. This rejects the work of Heaviside et al.

 

For a place to start looking at G-theory why not begin with the subject of astrophysics ?

 

 

neuvophysics.com   neuvophysics@Gmail.com