Well, he shouldn’t because the effect of mass is not within
the particle, but emitted by the particle.
/ James S Saint /

Exactly, mass is not primary property of particle,
it is its influence to the surround.
Again very simple example:
two vacancies tend to be attracted and two interstitials tend to be repulsed

Or: two parallel whirls are attracted and two antiparallel whirls are repulsed

BTW the “spin” phenomenon has the same “motor” as inertial motion has –
it is universal motion of the “presence” to the “future” - m*c^2 ~ kinetic energy
of this motion… Spin is whirl by which is “particle”/defect replicated,
flows to the future.
/Cerveny /
=====================.

You also might be interested in the actual cause of mass attraction.

It is caused by a 45 degree swirl of affectance wave emitted by every particle. No energy is emitted, mere variations in affectance and can be detected by cosmic ray range detectors. The swirling of the EM inside the particle is at the same speed as the radiation leaving the particle, hence 45 degree waves.

The 45 degree affectance waves, when encountering a particle tumbling, cause the effect of the closer EM wave portion to slow and thus the entire particle rolls toward the epicenter of the approaching wave, its origin. Every particle is doing that exact same thing and thus all particles cause every other particle to slowly roll toward them.

In combination of trillions, the effect of the waves is amplified - gravity.

That’s wrong I’m afraid James. What you’re describing in your own sweet way is electromagnetism. Two charged particles such as the electron and proton have opposite “swirl” such that their chiral electromagnetic fields mask one another. There is however a trace or two. One is magnetism, which you see when all the electron spins are lined up in say a ferromagnet. Another trace is gravity. It’s essentially a refraction, hence gravitational lensing. See Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime for an interesting read. Here’s a fair-use excerpt:

“The refractive index of vacuum, as a special optical medium, may be changed under the influence of gravitational matter. In fact, there has been a long history of such an idea. In 1920, Eddington[26] suggested that the light deflection in solar gravitational field can be conceived as a refraction effect of the space (actually the vacuum) in a flat spacetime. The idea was further studied by Wilson,[27] Dicke,[28] Felice,[29] and Nandi et al.[30¡32] Recently, this thought of vacuum has been investigated further by Puthoff[13;14] and Vlokh.[33] In Puthoff’'s paper, the influence of gravitational field on the vacuum refractive index is analysed through the vacuum polarization…”

Emm… no, by your following rhetoric, I can see that you misuderstood it.

The theory of “spacetime curving” and “gravitational lensing” are merely mental models that disregard the concept of Euclidean geometry. They are the end result of mathematical graphing. They are not entities or properties of anything other than their aberrant end effects.

In a sense, you and most of physics these days, are confusing the map with the terrain. My explanation of the affectance field is certainly not incorrect and actually addresses the physical existence involved rather than a mathematical aberration presumed to be an entity.

No James, I understand this. Light curves in a gravitational field because there’s a gradient in vacuum impedance in the space it’s travelling through. Not because “the spacetime is curved”. Anybody who asserts the latter is confusing cause and effect.

This isn’t just something I’ve made up. Take a look at what Newton said in Opticks queries 20 and 21:

"Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines? …Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the Sun, stars, planets and comets, than in the empty celestial space between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the bodies; every body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the medium towards the rarer?

Then there’s Einstein:

[i]“In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position”.

“According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that ‘empty space’ in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty”.[/i]

Gravitational lensing is something real. It happens, we can see it. That’s no mental model. But the given explanation of “curved spacetime” is. Einstein didn’t describe it as such, see this paper for a bit of history on this.

Not me.

Shrug. Like I said, what you’re describing is electromagnetism, not gravity. Take a look at There is a space-time vortex around Earth. This is something that’s come out of Gravity Probe B. See where it says: Our planet spins, and the spin should twist the dimple, slightly, pulling it around into a 4-dimensional swirl. That swirl is the gravitomagnetic field, not the gravitational field.

farsight—i think i follow you but i dont get the gravitomagnetic term…what does vacuum impedance have to do with magnetic…

By “it” I was referring to what you read of my post.

But again and no pun intended but, the “impedance of space” is a vacuous term. Impedance is the result of something. I was talking about the cause of its impedance. If you are going to argue with me, get on the same page. Your quotes back me up more than contend with me.

I didn’t say it wasn’t real. But, what actually causes gravitational lensing? In fact what actually causes gravity itself? What causes that impedance and its variance? That is what was being addressed. Magnetism is a different related issue and you have been confusing two kinds of spins with your magnetism references.

wow this is good…
yeah how about gravity–what is going on…

And also Farsight,

You know that a change in electric potential causes a magnetic field (or you can think of it the other way around since you can’t have one without the other), but what causes that? Why is an electric field change always accompanied by a magnetic field?

Yes, I back you up, and like I said on another thread, you’re not entirely wrong. But you’re wrong about some things, and I need to correct you because if I don’t the wrong things you say will undermine the right things you say.

What causes it is a variation in spatial energy density. This imparts an energy density gradient in the surrounding space, so the wave-related properties of that space are no longer uniform. It’s a little bit like varying the elastic properties of a solid material by compressing it.

Because it’s the electromagnetic field. There aren’t two different fields. It’s one field and two forces. Think about the “electric field lines” associated with a proton or an electron:

Then think about the magnetic field lines around a current in a wire:

You’ve got radial lines and you’ve got concentric lines. Combine them to get an idea of what the electromagnetic field is really like:

There’s your swirl. The electron has spin angular momentum and magnetic dipole moment, think of it as something like a vortex. Two identical vortexes move directly away from each other. However if you sling one towards the other they swirl around each other too. There’s linear motion and rotational motion, if you only see the linear motion you call it an electric field. If you only see the rotational motion you call it a magnetic field. But there’s only one field making this motion happen, the electromagnetic field.

Well I am definitely interested in anything inconsistent that I have said, but I haven’t seen where I have done that. And you don’t seem to have pointed it out.

Your error is in assuming that what you just said is actually different than what I described. Except you seem to have gotten the notion that “energy density” is some smooth uniform field as the surface of deep or deeper water. There is a degree of truth in that, areas of greater affectance are about and they will indeed compel motion of distant entities. The problem is that such areas repel other similar areas, not attract them. Without particles, energy disperses. You know that.

Well now you are being insulting.

So you claim that one cannot have a electric field without a magnetic field because they are the same field?

Surely you know that one doesn’t appear until you try to move the other…?

My question to you was why it is that one only appears when you move the other. Saying that it is because they are [called] “electromagnetic” and thus are one, is a bit trite and certainly doesn’t answer the question.

Until they sling back away, which without an additional effect involved, they certainly would… and right away.

I think you are throwing in a little too much imagination into that explanation. An electric field is merely the linear component of a electromagnetic field??

A single point charge moving in a straight line (linearly) instantly develops a magnetic field surrounding it when there are no rotations involved… why?

I don’t recall that you’ve said anything inconsistent.

Stop being so argumentative James. I’m on your side, but you need a nudge from time to time to keep you on the straight and narrow.

Yep. The universe expands. But a particle is a “knot” of energy going round and round at c, and when it encounters a spherical energy density gradient, it veers towards the middle. And so gravity concentrates energy.

No I’m not. Find Minkowski’s Space and Time and look two pages from the back and you’ll see this:

Then in the description of the field produced by the electron we see that the separation of the field into electric and magnetic force is a relative one with regard to the underlying time axis; the most perspicious way of describing the two forces together is on a certain analogy with the wrench in mechanics, though the analogy is not complete.

It’s one field and two forces. Even Minkowski, my least-favourite relativity guy knew that over a hundred years ago.

You might have an electric field. But move through it, and you now see magnetic field. Move through a magnetic field, and you see electric field.

Think relative motion. You’ve got an electron, it’s got an electromagnetic field. The way you see it depends on how you move.

That’s how it is. Take a look at Dynamics of the electromagnetic field and note this:

“In the past, electrically charged objects were thought to produce two different, unrelated types of field associated with their charge property. An electric field is produced when the charge is stationary with respect to an observer measuring the properties of the charge, and a magnetic field (as well as an electric field) is produced when the charge moves (creating an electric current) with respect to this observer. Over time, it was realized that the electric and magnetic fields are better thought of as two parts of a greater whole — the electromagnetic field”.

I’m not James. This goes back to Maxwell and On physical lines of force.

Because there are no point charges. The electron is not a point, it has spin angular momentum and magnetic dipole moment. There’s something going round and round. And it alters the surrounding space via what is essentially frame-dragging. Like this:

Haha…

Yes, and we were discussing exactly WHY that happens. You seem to merely keep saying that it does. We KNOW it does. The question at hand, as stated before, is WHY it does.

That guy was a great mathematician. But that guy was also a really lousy philosophical analyst contorting mathematics into an obfuscation of reality.

Wait. Did you just say, “You might have an electric field”??
And no magnetic field until you move through it?
Emmm… an electric without a magnetic until later??

Obviously they are NOT the same thing. A “field” is a field of force/s.

Which moves is irrelevant. The energy of the motion is what causes the magnetic field. A magnetic field is a different type of energy with different properties.

The “single” field that you are thinking of, is the field of affectance. The electric is the potential to affect. The magnetic is the affecting in process.

An electric field is the field of potential to affect. Armies readied for war.
A magnetic field is a field of affecting taking place. Armies engaged in war.

They are not the same thing.

Oh, now I see, “God did it”. We are talking about WHY it occurs, not whether it occurs.

Jesus H Christ James. An electron moves linearly in an “electric field”. That isn’t the potential to affect, that’s affecting in progress.

Now buck your ideas up, stop being such an old curmudgeon, and start thinking instead of being as hostile and dogmatic as the mainstream people you despise.

What the hell are you talking about?

The electric field is the field of potential(to affect). It is a static field, known for several hundred years.

The MOTION through it is the source for the wave of affecting/changing that surrounds the object. That wave of changing electric potential is the magnetic wave. The “magnetic field” is the entire area of changing potential.

Is that really so hard for your old brain?

See this and note this bit:

“In fact Richard Feynman complained [citation needed] that he had been taught electromagnetism from the perspective of E and B, and he wished later in life he had been taught to think in terms of the A field instead, as this would be more fundamental”.

Sorry James, the electric field isn’t the field of potential, Electromagnetic four-potential is. And it’s got that swirl you were talking about.

Really, when it comes to electromagnetism, it’s the electromagnetic field, not two separate electric and magnetic fields. I’m not kidding about this.

Re the above, note that the Aharonov-Bohm effect is where you see an effect on electrons in a region where there is no detectable electric field or magnetic field. It’s often described as a quantum mechanics phenomenon effect, usually used to support the kind of gee-whiz quantum mysticism that’s all too common these days. However the effect was actually predicted ten years previously by Ehrenberg and Siday in The Refractive Index in Electron Optics and the Principles of Dynamics. It’s a classical electrodynamics paper.

Here’s an attachment showing a bit of the paper:

EhrenbergAndSiday.JPG839×598 89.1 KB

Farsight, you are arguing stupid semantics. I think you have been working too close to PhysBang.

To accept what you are saying requires throwing out a great many writings merely because they use “potential” to mean something as silly a “potential”.

Accept it James. I’m not wrong about this. It isn’t something I’ve made up.

The difference between me and PhysBang is that I’m telling you you’re right about this “swirl”. Only in telling you it’s electromagnetism rather than gravity, I’m telling you it’s 10^40 times as important as you think it is.

See figure 2 in the picture above. The circle is a top-view of a solenoid. The electrons going round it affect the surrounding space. There’s no detectable electric field or magnetic field outside the solenoid, but you can detect what’s nowadays known as the Aharonov-Bohm effect. It’s depicted in figure 3.

It is just something that you are not thinking fully about.

It is really tough to get things into your head, although I admit that they are really pretty when they come out.

And I was telling someone that gravity and magnetism are caused by the same thing, merely a different aberration. Whether we call that “thing”; “aether”, “electromagnetic field”, or “affectance” is philosophically irrelevant. But in ALL cases of the field named, there is a field of potential to have affect and there is the field of affecting in action. It the difference between a crowd standing still vs a crowd moving. The difference in the potential vs the concurrent action is the difference between the electric potential and the magnetic flux. They are different conceptual entities made of the different aspects of the same conceptual entity. You can have an electric field without a magnetic field. You know that.

So to say that the electric field is a “electromagnetic field” is to say that every capacitor has a magnetic component, which it doesn’t unless it is being filled or drained.

That is irrelevant to the argument.

The effect of the spiraling wave that I mentioned is that it must always attract the other similar wave center. It can never repel it. The two centers gravitate toward each other in a very weak manner. Such is not the case for electric attraction/repulsion, nor magnetic pole reactions.