Thursday, January 17, 2008

Why Now?

Personally, I'm horrified to imagine myself to be in the shoes of the researchers in the field of MOND and in the theory of the plasma and magnetic field caused jet phenomenon from the black hole accretion discs. It is possible that they could blame me for the cause of their failure asking "why are you doing this to us and now?" But the two major papers regarding dipole gravity were published in 1997 and 1999 in the regular journals after I uploaded them first in the LLNL archive.

They should have had enough time to investigate what might be at stake in their future research activities. Because no one would want to waste his/her valuable energy and time for something that is not going to withstand the harsh reality of the world of the scientific research.

After the publication of the last paper in Physica Scripta, I felt exhausted and found myself deeply involved in other major mystery of the nature. I felt I did my job and it is only up to the researchers in the field whoever finds it interesting and takes it over and expound the theory to the bottom of it. However, to my greatest disappointment, the theory of dipole gravity was still buried and untouched eight years after I showed the dipole gravity potential diagram which conspicuously showed the possibility of the jets from the rotating compact stellar objects. The sign error in the Lens-Thirring force could have been found by anyone who took a time to take a close look into it. And such a discovery could have been regarded as pivotal in the understanding of the dark matter problem.

Don't tell me I didn't communicate personally the major idea with the highest authorities in the field. The first person I contacted to communicate the idea even before the publication in the LLNL archive of course was Dr. Kip Thorne of Caltech. After a lengthy debate over the email exchange, he finally acknowledged that "the concept of the gravitational dipole moment makes sense...".

I didn't think he would like me to use his private comment as a public endorsement of the theory of dipole gravity because he never replied after I sent him the last email saying that "by the way, the theory of dipole gravity predicts the possibility of extracting the gravitational energy from space..." I regretted the fact I did. First off, it was obvious from the theory itself, so it was unnecessary and second, it could've been too frightening for anyone to imagine such a possibility.

His main objection in the beginning was that the gravitational dipole moment is basically a removable constant phase factor in the field theoretical description, which is a different way of saying that one can remove it by displacing the origin of the coordinate system to the true center of mass of the source.

I countered that in the case of a rotating hemisphere, the phase angle depends on the physical parameters like the rotational angular frequency and the geometry of the source which can not simply be transformed away because they are physically meaningful quantities due to the relativistic shift of the center of mass.

I continued "if we take a partial derivative of the field with respect to the momentum variable, the phase angle which depends on the angular frequency of the source will generate a very complex value which is highly nontrivial..."

That's when he finally acknowledged that the concept of the gravitational dipole moment makes sense.

I don't know even now if he knew exactly what he was talking about. Because he was consenting into the fact that the field of general relativity and gravitation has been neglecting the whole new chapter on the gravitational dipole moment and the vast physical and scientific consequences following from it.

Monday, January 14, 2008

Special Relativity and Newtonian Mechanics

Often times I wonder, what if someone, possibly a journal editor, objected to the validity of special relativity based on the example of a system of a rotating hemisphere that special relativity violates Newtonian mechanics and prohibited it from being published reasoning that it can't possibly be correct.

We will probably still be in the dark ages. It looks like the similar argument is in effect in the case of dipole gravity. Despite its elegant solutions to the jets and the flat rotational velocity curves, the theory "unfortunately" predicts the possibility of extracting the gravitational space energy into a useful form. How can this be possible?

I think it only tells us that the source of gravitation is not heavy materialistic terrestrial particles. If we put the particles that are responsible for the gravitation in a sealed bottle of a jar, it won't stay inside. So, the kinetic theory of gases no longer applies in the case of gravitation, where the principle of the local energy conservation was derived and liberally applied in all the branches of physics without a serious question. Contrary to the molecular gases, the particles that govern the gravitational phenomenon is not confinable, ie, a sheet rock or metal does not block the gravitational field. And those particles can carry energy from infinity to infinity. If that is out of question, anything should be possible. So, like in the case of special relativity, if we threw away dipole gravity just because it predicts the energy extraction from the space, we may be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I believe it must be dealt with in a totally separate manner. Because there will be solutions for it in the near future. It must be emphasized that dipole gravity is not a new creation of a theory of gravitation. It was there in general relativity all the time. It has shown a fraction of its face in the form of the Lens-Thirring force with the reversed mirror image of its sign throughout all those years. People in the field didn't dig deeply enough to find it. And no one tells us to perform research in any field of science other than our own instinct to smell and locate where the secret of the nature may be hiding and lurking.

As anyone may have experienced in their lives, the closer the object you want to find is from your reach, the harder it is to actually locate it.