The 1/r³ antigravity of a simple charge

[waitedavid137]

In a prior thread I showed that the first order differential equation of time travel for geodesic motion in a Reissner-Nordström spacetime was

where the spacetime was described by

Consider a neutral particle dropped radially into it for simplicity. This line element can then be used to describe its world line and since its motion is radial, the angular term vanishes yielding

by division,

We can now insert the result we had for the differential time travel equation,

Simplified

Differentiate with respect to proper time

Simplify

Now the repulsive term should be clear.

 

[Dejan Corovic]

Now the repulsive term should be clear.

OK, so we are dealing with static solution for an object falling into a non-rotating electrically charged black hole.

David I know that I am disappointing you, but which term is repulsive? Is it -GM/r^2? Is that happening once one had fallen behind the event horizon?

 

[waitedavid137]

Correction, a typo copy and paste carried down a few lines. I normally run through the math on computer screen, not paper. It should be

The

term is attractive and agrees with the Newtonian gravitation radial motion except for that the time derivative is with respect to the time of the infalling thing and that time differs from that of a remote observer. The

term is gravitationally repulsive. This solution is exact for radial motion everywhere.

 

[Dejan Corovic]

OK, so the "the time of the infilling thing" is so called "proper time" AND the time of the remote observer is "coordinate time". Is that right?

Another layman's attempt to ponder this equation. How can -GM/r be attractive? I guess d2r/d2t is some kind of acceleration in the infilling objects time frame. So if acceleration is equal -GM/r, than acceleration is negative, so acceleration is slowing down? That's what's confusing "test dummy" or myself ...

 

[waitedavid137]

OK, so the "the time of the infilling thing" is so called "proper time" AND the time of the remote observer is "coordinate time". Is that right?

Specifically coordinate time refers to the time like coordinate that you are using in the spacetime solution, which in this case was given in coordinates appropriate to describe the scenario according to a remote observer. The proper time is the local time according to whatever is tracing out some path through the spacetime whose motion you are analyzing.

How can -GM/r² be attractive? I guess d2r/d2t is some kind of acceleration in the infilling objects time frame. So if acceleration is equal -GM/r², than acceleration is negative, so acceleration is slowing down? That's what's confusing "test dummy" or myself ...

The normal thing is to define your radial unit vector to point away from the origin, so positive acceleration would be in that direction, away for repulsive. The negative sign indicates it is opposite to that direction, or toward the origin, attractive. Yes

is the radial acceleration except the time is reconed according to the infalling thing.

 

[Dejan Corovic]

OK, so what that equation is telling us is that the second term, +ke G q^2/ (r^2 c^2) is going to carry a large handicap relative to the first term -GM/r^2, because it's divided by c^2 and multiplied by ke that is really small number.

But maybe for something that has small mass and a big charge, like an electron, might create stronger overwhelming second term? Maybe, infalling electrons would be repelled with aid of second term?

 

[waitedavid137]

OK, so what that equation is telling us is that the second term, +ke G q^2/ (r^3 c^2) is going to carry a large handicap relative to the first term -GM/r^2, because it's divided by c^2 and multiplied by ke that is really small number.

But maybe for something that has small mass and a big charge, like an electron, might create stronger overwhelming second term? Maybe, infalling electrons would be repelled with aid of second term?

More important is the

behavior Vs the

behavior. At significant distances from the charge the

term dominates and all you see of the gravitation is Newtonian gravitational attraction no matter what the constants are. Close enough to the charge, the

term dominates over it, no matter what value those constants are.

 

[Shadowprophet]

Okay, I'm knee-deep into this whole thing now studying The repulsive force predicted in GR. I'm beginning to see how Tensor calculus works.

If I have my interpretation right,. In this model, the Universe is Flat, With a negative curve,

This leads me to the speculation That A flat universe could be infinite drowning out such possibilities as a multiverse.
So I'm wondering, Is it possible that from the observable aspect of the universe as we see it, What we are interpreting as Dark energy is just a Massive tension of Gravity at some sort of horizon of our observable universe? Like We see the Gravitational horizon But only because that's our perspective that we observe it from,

So in water, When a Wave comes inward you will see the water level kind of drop which to the observer will look like the water is receding, however, this is just the Wave pressure sucking up all the near by water.

Is it possible that what we are observing as dark energy are simply impossibly large gravitational waves basically undertowing this gravitational horizon that we observe to be accelerating?

I don't know, Sorry for the crudity of the image, but you know, It was a practically pointless image anyway.

I mean, In some ways, At least in my own theory, Redshift kind of highlights Large scale almost static gravitational waves. But That's just me and a theory I suppose.

 

[waitedavid137]

Okay, I'm knee-deep into this whole thing now studying The repulsive force predicted in GR. I'm beginning to see how Tensor calculus works.

If I have my interpretation right,. In this model, the Universe is Flat, With a negative curve,

This leads me to the speculation That A flat universe could be infinite drowning out such possibilities as a multiverse.
So I'm wondering, Is it possible that from the observable aspect of the universe as we see it, What we are interpreting as Dark energy is just a Massive tension of Gravity at some sort of horizon of our observable universe? Like We see the Gravitational horizon But only because that's our perspective that we observe it from,

So in water, When a Wave comes inward you will see the water level kind of drop which to the observer will look like the water is receding, however, this is just the Wave pressure sucking up all the near by water.

Is it possible that what we are observing as dark energy are simply impossibly large gravitational waves basically undertowing this gravitational horizon that we observe to be accelerating?

I don't know, Sorry for the crudity of the image, but you know, It was a practically pointless image anyway.

The universe is as flat as we can tell, but a flat universe is infinite, the same as a negative curved universe. It is the limit though, as a positive curved universe is closed. Dark energy's source can't be gravity waves. The trace of Dark energy's tensor

isn't zero, when the stress-energy tensor of any cloud of massless radiation would have a zero trace,

, including gravitational. Second, Gravity waves are waves in the metric that correspond to a zero stress-energy tensor, but nonzero Reimann tensor. The point of calling dark energy that instead of just "cosmological constant" is the proposition that

can be interpreted as an actual nonzero stress-energy tensor.

 

[Dejan Corovic]

Close enough to the charge, the

term dominates over it, no matter what value those constants are.

So, on the surface, equation acts like quarks? They repel when close, and pull when far away?

Does this mean that electron can never fall into a black hole because 1/r^3 term will push it away?

 

[waitedavid137]

Does this mean that electron can never fall into a black hole because 1/r^3 term will push it away?

It means that neutral, uncharged matter, doesn't intersect the physical singularity of a charged black hole, but something different altogether happens.

If region I is our external region and the vertical dotted line along the right of IV or to the left of V is a physical singularity, a neutral mass that falls in crosses the outer horizon into III, then into an inner horizon into IV, or with a high enough energy parameter into V, then across another inner horizon into VI and then across another outer horizon out into external regions VIII or VII. An infalling observer in a rocket for example can fire his engines to change his energy parameter and decide which external region his comes back out to.

 

[waitedavid137]

So, on the surface, equation acts like quarks? They repel when close, and pull when far away?

Quarks act quite differently than you think. Their quantum wave like behavior and strong force interaction matters a lot in their interaction. If you have bound quarks and try to take one away, essentially the interaction field energy increases and you work on it to pull it away until the field has enough energy to produce more quarks so if you strip one away, you find it now has a new bound partner or two, as does the others you took it from.

 

[Dejan Corovic]

then across another inner horizon into VI and then across another outer horizon out into external regions VIII or VII. An infalling observer in a rocket for example can fire his engines to change his energy parameter and decide which external region his comes back out to.

So there are more than one horizons inside black hole?

And, these external regions VII and VIII, where are they external to? Back into normal space in a vicinity of black hole or one falls into singularity and than somehow loops into some parallel space far away from black hole.

Same as with @Thomas R. Morrison, more I listen about GR less and less I think that GR has anything to do with UFOs.

 

[Thomas R. Morrison]

Same as with @Thomas R. Morrison, more I listen about GR less and less I think that GR has anything to do with UFOs.

Whoa - I don't know where you got that idea; I've been saying the exact opposite of that for years. I think that AAVs represent an engineering application of GR that, as far as I know, is far beyond human capabilities (but if David's right then I may have to reconsider that last point). All of the key AAV performance characteristics perfectly conform to the unique characteristics theoretically predicted via GR:

• Propellantless and nonaerodynamic acceleration (seemingly reactionless propulsion)
• Silent hovering and prolonged loiter capability
• Sharp acute-angle maneuvers at thousands of mph

Trying to explain these features without GR is extremely difficult, perhaps even impossible. But these features naturally fall right out of GR explanations; it's a hand-in-glove fit.

And perhaps the most stunning counterintuitive feature of gravitational field propulsion is that there's no intrinsic energy expenditure associated with it. The only energy expenditure would be attributed to whatever efficiency losses are associated with the technology required to produce it. So in theory you could travel between stars with no energy expenditure if your technology was lossless.

 

[Dejan Corovic]

Whoa - I don't know where you got that idea; I've been saying the exact opposite of that for years. I think that AAVs represent an engineering application of GR that, as far as I know, is far beyond human capabilities (but if David's right then I may have to reconsider that last point). All of the key AAV performance characteristics perfectly conform to the unique characteristics theoretically predicted via GR:

• Propellantless and nonaerodynamic acceleration (seemingly reactionless propulsion)
• Silent hovering and prolonged loiter capability
• Sharp acute-angle maneuvers at thousands of mph

Trying to explain these features without GR is extremely difficult, perhaps even impossible. But these features naturally fall right out of GR explanations; it's a hand-in-glove fit.

And perhaps the most stunning counter intuitive feature of gravitational field propulsion is that there's no intrinsic energy expenditure associated with it. The only energy expenditure is only associated with whatever efficiency losses are associated with the technology required to produce it. So in theory you could travel between stars with no energy expenditure if your technology was lossless.

Unfortunately, nobody has ever reported seeing an UFOs flying around with black hole hanging around it's neck, so to say.

Obviously General Relativity ( GR ) is right, so the effects you described are part of the nature, but there is some other theory that we don't know off, which can produce these effects with relatively modest amounts of energy. So GR would be a subset of that theory.

David's solution is right, because it's based on GR and GR is gold standard, but it requires 40 MV of voltage which would rip apart, with mechanical stresses, even the strongest material that we can imagine. An UFO approaching ground to land or approaching aircraft would produce huge thunderbolts that were never observed. But otherwise, there is huge number of high voltage effects that witnesses report. So, high voltage is definitely a part of their propulsion, now supported with GR.


Now that we are certain that UFOs are real, we can even more use recorded UFO cases to extrapolate their technology.



This graph represents interference of UFOs with car petrol engines ( causing them to stall ) and it was made by NICAP's director Mark Rodeghier and was extracted from the data from 441 reports collected between 1909 .. 1980 in US, England, France, Argentina, Spain, Brazil, Australia. Full 151 pages report is here. Main point of this graph is that this graph fits inverse square law which is well known from electrodynamics to represent distribution of electric field with distance. Most engineers interpret this graph as air becoming ionized from high voltage in vicinity of UFO and ionized air is more conductive so spark in petrol engines starts misfiring and than stalling engine. For that part we have David's GR solution vindicated with the above real empirical data.

Etc. etc.

This is boiler plate of what UFOs are:



Those were UFO's EM emissions collected by crew on Air Force RB-47 electronic intelligence gathering spy plane and it is electromagnetic waves data recorded with the most accurate and the most expensive technical equipment mankind can afford, even in today's terms. If we are to talk about UFOs as scientists and engineers we must explain that data.

 

[waitedavid137]

So there are more than one horizons inside black hole?

Yes, though technically around the hole rather than "inside". They encompass the physical singularity.

And, these external regions VII and VIII, where are they external to?

They are external to the black hole, just like our external region is.

Back into normal space in a vicinity of black hole or one falls into singularity and than somehow loops into some parallel space far away from black hole.​

I'll say it again, neutral matter does not intersect the physical singularity of a charged black hole. It falls back out into a region external to the hole and travels back in time while it is in the regions between inner and outer horizons.

..., more I listen about GR less and less I think that GR has anything to do with UFOs.

Speaking as one of only a handful of people that understand general relativity, and likely the only person you will ever interact with that does so at the level that I have worked out my own exact solutions to its field equations, I am of the opposite mind. ​

 

[Dejan Corovic]

Yes, though technically around the hole rather than "inside". They encompass the physical singularity.

They are external to the black hole, just like our external region is.

I'll say it again, neutral matter does not intersect the physical singularity of a charged black hole. It falls back out into a region external to the hole and is traveling back in time while it is in the regions between inner and outer horizons.

Speaking as one of only a handful of people that understand general relativity, and likely the only person you will ever interact with that does so at the level that I have worked out my own exact solutions to its field equations, I am of the opposite mind. ​

OK, importantly, I am not saying your solution is wrong, I am sure it's right and I am grateful for you revealed it to us.

But, at very high voltages that your solution requires, UFO witnesses never report sparks or lightning bolts coming off the UFOs when they are close to the ground. There is some high voltage around UFO, but it is certainly lower than threshold of electric breakdown of air. Since in your equation electrically induced acceleration is proportional to strength of electric field, there is not enough to do the job. So something else can be at play, beside high voltage.

I know you dislike going down into pedestrian engineering, but maybe you can do calculation for electric field strength for a lenticular craft hovering close to earth's surface. Just to flesh it out with some nubmers. I guess it would be sustainably high.

Another question is why UFOs produce microwaves, as shown in the picture in the previous post.

 

[Thomas R. Morrison]

This is boiler plate of what UFOs are:

View attachment 9552

Those were UFO's EM emissions collected by crew on Air Force RB-47 electronic intelligence gathering spy plane and it is electromagnetic waves data recorded with the most accurate and the most expensive technical equipment mankind can afford, even in today's terms. If we are to talk about UFOs as scientists and engineers we must explain that data.

OK, importantly, I am not saying your solution is wrong, I am sure it's right and I am grateful for you revealed it to us.

But, at very high voltages that your solution requires, UFO witnesses never report sparks or lightning bolts coming off the UFOs when they are close to the ground. There is some high voltage around UFO, but it is certainly lower than threshold of electric breakdown of air. Since in your equation electrically induced acceleration is proportional to strength of electric field, there is not enough to do the job. So something else can be at play, beside what you said.

Another question is why UFOs produce microwaves, as shown in the picture in the previous post.

You're going about this backwards. Imagine if somebody drove a car by Isaac Newton in 1698: he would hear the roar of the engine which would have a certain frequency, he might smell the exhaust coming out of the tail pipe, or hear the screech of the brakes.

None of the outward signs of a car's operation would be sufficient for Isaac Newton to understand how the car works, nor could he ever hope to build a car of his own by studying its many performance signatures. To build a car you need to understand how it works from the fundamentals, and then you can start to design an engine and a power train and all the rest of it. GR gives us the theoretical building blocks in that conceptualization process, but we still have to build a bridge from the theory to the application. Until we've done that, these kinds of signatures are useless.

These performance characteristics that you cite might help us verify that our human-made AAVs someday in the future function in a similar manner to the AAVs that we've been seeing in the skies for the last 70+ years, but I see no hope of understanding their technology from the EM signatures, which may not even be produced by the propulsion system, but could be associated with the power source or anything else on board the craft.

 

[Dejan Corovic]

You're going about this backwards. Imagine if somebody drove a car by Isaac Newton in 1698: he would hear the roar of the engine which would have a certain frequency, he might smell the exhaust coming out of the tail pipe, or hear the screech of the brakes.

None of the outward signs of a car's operation would be sufficient for Isaac Newton to understand how the car works, nor could he ever hope to build a car of his own by studying its many performance signatures. To build a car you need to understand how it works from the fundamentals, and then you can start to design an engine and a power train and all the rest of it. GR gives us the theoretical building blocks in that conceptualization process, but we still have to build a bridge from the theory to the application.

These performance characteristics that you cite might help us verify that our human-made AAVs someday in the future function in a similar manner to the AAVs that we've been seeing in the skies for the last 70+ years, but I see no hope of understanding their technology from the EM signatures, which may not even be produced by the propulsion system, but could be associated with the power source or anything else on board the craft.

I don't agree. I have a feeling that anybody who has a sound knowledge of physics and engineering can reverse engineer anything he likes. Just stick to tried and tested scientific knowledge and you'll crack it.

I used that exact example as you, but with a tribesman born in Papua New Guinea who got an online degree in physics. Anyhow, Isaac Newton would have no problem reverse engineering car, just by looking at it while it works. In the case of the car important clues are hot fumes coming out of the exhaust and vibration caused by engine starting. From fumes Newton would conclude that there is something on fire inside the car. And from starting vibrations he would conclude that there is something heavy, but loosely attached and vibrating, inside car. If he just followed exhaust he would find where that heavy thing is. At a minimum Newton would be able to say that there is hot and heavy furnace in the car that probably provides energy to wheel through some kind of gears.

And all that from just a first look. If Newton was to sleep over it for a couple of days, he would suss out the internal combustion and pistons 99.99%.

But back to David's solution. I have doesens of most authentic, pre Photoshop, pictures of ufos and they come in all kinds of variations on lenticular shape. Many of them are so distorted, that they look more like hats than lenticular. But on all the photos, even those from 19th and early 20th century, they have one thing in common, the pointy ledge. And that 100% conforms David's equations, because sharp ledge would be creating high voltage required to create electro-gravitic acceleration.

 

[waitedavid137]

OK, importantly, I am not saying your solution is wrong, I am sure it's right and I am grateful for you revealed it to us.

But, at very high voltages that your solution requires, UFO witnesses never report sparks or lightning bolts coming off the UFOs when they are close to the ground....

But they do. I am puzzled why you ignored the response I already made to that, specifically in my referenced to the shock Travis Walton got that they apparently felt the responsibility to revive him from. Also we already mentioned that not all are necessarily the same tech.