If you say “theory” people normally become immediately skeptical about it thinking “ok, what kind of unlikely assumption is proposed in there?” MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) is certainly a “theory” which is riddled with unthinkable contradictions, like non conserving energy and momentum without a justifiable reason. Whenever I mention about the theory of dipole gravity, this is a kind of a general reaction. There are so many shaky theories that are unverified, untested, circling around in the field of physics that sometimes it is hard to tell which are the correct theory and which isn’t. First of all, the theory of black hole will never be tested by experiment so it will remain as a “theory” as long as it exists.
What we have learned in the Classical Mechanics is that we can predict what is going to happen to the bodies of the celestial object when they are influenced by the law of Newtonian gravity. Detailed calculation is hardly necessary to understand the properties of the fundamental trajectory, for example; either if it is an elliptical orbit or a parabolic one.
The principle is basically the same with dipole gravity. You can predict many features of the motion of the celestial bodies without resort to a detailed calculation. The fundamental gravity force lines are the ones that the cosmic objects will follow in their orbit or the passages that are running perpendicular to it. From this observation, the presence of the dark matter halo becomes self evident around the fast rotating ultra compact stellar objects as well as the jets. The visibility issue is only a matter of considering if there will be enough collisions among the debris specifically for the case of the jets, and if there is going to be long enough time for them to coagulate and proceed to the thermonuclear synthesis for the generation of heat and energy as in the case of the stars.
Unfortunately it took nine years after the publication of dipole gravity to realize that the Lense-Thirring force had the wrong sign. Without this finding, there would have been no consistent understanding of the jets and the dark matter problem within general relativity. Dipole gravity is not a theory as one would normally think of a “theory”. It is a self evident general relativity. The fact that it took so long to find the solution doesn’t mean that it had to be a horrendously difficult problem. On the contrary, it was an exceedingly simple solution when the right concept was applied.
This is the reason the experts in the field refuse talking about it. You can not talk about it while being known as a renowned expert in the field of cosmology and general relativity, because if you do, it will be tantamount to an admission of a total incompetence.
Is it my fault to make them feel incompetent? Of course not.
I don’t think anyone will tell them to quit their job for being incompetent. It is purely a human factor of arrogance and pretentiousness that prevents them from coming forward. After all we are all human beings that are fallible and susceptible to error.
I don’t think I’m infallible either. I fixed the sign of the Lense-Thirring force in the 1999 paper to make it match with the known form. It could have been considered a form of an academic dishonesty in a way. I should not have followed the errors of the previous researchers. But I came forward to announce that it was an error despite its general acceptance in the physics community for the last 90 years without any contest, after a careful scrutiny of the various problems of cosmology. It was not an easy conclusion to draw, because it has passed the test of the numerous physicists and the brightest minds. So unless you're absolutely sure, no one will make such a drastic claim. But I'm hundred percent positive about this claim, "Lense-Thirring force has the wrong sign".
What matters is not what others think or regard of yourself. What really matters is “what is the real truth of the nature?” Any theory in physics or science or any field of study for that matter can be challenged, modified or/and improved.
Paradigm Shift
Theory of Gravitation, Cosmology and a part of general relativity
Friday, March 28, 2008
Self Evident Dipole Gravity
Sunday, March 23, 2008
General Relativity was much Bigger than Einstein Could Imagine of it Himself
If you are a professor in an academic institution, you can not afford not to learn the theory of dipole gravity. It's time to revise and rewrite your 20 year old note books on mechanics and the theory of gravitation that you have been teaching in the class over and over again. Physics at the present time is not a sole trademark of a few individuals like at the time of Galileo.
The nations of the world have prominent physicists and scientists with their own independent thoughts and capabilities of judgement to realize what is the significance of dipole gravity. This kind of activity is called in the medical field as "continued education", to accommodate the newly discovered medical facts and important discoveries for the cure of human disease conditions.
The lack of the progress and understanding of the mechanics of the nature is a disease condition in the field of science so to speak.
I realized that contrary to the thinking of many graduate/undergraduate students, the professors in the field of cosmology and gravitation or any field of science can be as ignorant as the students themselves in certain areas of expertise. This is a simple fact. If you haven't been taught by others or by yourself, there is no way you can learn about any new field of science.
One of the fastest way to learn dipole gravity is to exercise the derivation of the Lense-Thirring force using the two opposite dipole gravity potential by taking a gradient of them. This exercise includes the derivation of the relativistic shift of the center of mass from the rotating hemisphere.
One can solve so many problems in cosmology just using the conventional Newtonian potential plus dipole gravity. And you don't have to go through the details of general relativity to learn so many important aspects of cosmology.
So, it would be appropriate to include dipole gravity at least in the text books of the classical mechanics of the graduate courses if not in the undergraduate ones.
You will learn eventually that general relativity was actually meant to find dipole gravity. The reason is because there is not much testable cosmological problems beyond the second order effect of general relativity. Although it may be considered that general relativity has been tested in many different venues, as you may read from the NASA article on "In Search of Gravitomagnetism", which is considered the key to the solution of general relativity, the true nature of the general relativistic gravitomagnetism has never been known. The so called conventional "gravitomagentism" and its prediction for the amount of the precession of the gyro were derived from the modified Maxwell's equation, which is not the correct theory of gravitation. To be more specific, the conventional gravitomagnetism has never succeeded in deriving the Lense-Thirring force or any forms close to it.
The fundamental irony of this exploration is that general relativity was much bigger than Einstein could imagine of it himself. But then Newton was totally engaged himself in alchemy in his later years as well. After all, we are all gullible to our own idiosyncrasies.
The main problem with the conventional gravitomagnetism is not knowing which side of the rotating ring becomes the attractive gravity pole and which side the repulsive one. Unless one assumes that the copious amount of positrons (just as many as the number of the electrons) can be created by some miraculous way at the core of the accretion discs, there is no way one can explain the symmetric jets using the Penrose mechanism.
It's like people built houses on a sand dune when they used the conventional gravitomagnetism for the explanation of the jets. This should be a lesson for the future theorists in the field of science.