Why Gravitational Repulsion Doesn't Exist

There has been much discussion in the literature of anti-gravity machines based on gravitational repulsion that would be the source for propulsion of payloads in the foreseeable future. The possibility of gravitation repulsion comes from an analysis of the Schwarzschild metric by Droste and Hilbert which predict that "a large mass moving faster that $c/\surd 3$ could serve as a driver to accelerate a much smaller mass from rest to a good fraction of the speed of light" (Felber: http://arxiv.org/abs/0910/1084).

The Need for a Road Map in General Relativity

We have seen that the same formulas may have entirely different meanings and the same same physical phenomena may be explained in many ways. Two such examples are the general relativistic calculation of the deflection of light and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. Both these phenomena were known before the advent of general relativity, and even the numerical gap in the advance of the perihelion was known, but not to the degree it is known today.

Weber versus Schwarzschild: GR Much Ado About Nothing

In our last blog we proposed a metric,


in the plane, $\vartheta=\pi/2$, for the Weber force,


whose vanishing coincides with the Euler-Lagrange equations, or, equivalently, the geodesics. 

The Lagrangian describing this geometry is

The Metric for the Weber Force

We have seen, in the last blog, that there is a rather strict analogy between the Schwarzschild metric and Gerber's potential, both of which give the same expression to the perihelion shift of Mercury to order $1/c^2$. It has long been known that to this order the force derived from Gerber's potential is the same as the Weber force. There is a slight difference, however.

Is Gravitation a Longitudinal or Transverse Force--Or Both?

The idea behind Ampere's investigations was that charges in motion exert forces on each other and the force is directed along the line connecting the charges or the current elements which he dealt with. Historically, Ampere's work was anteceded by the experimentation of Biot-Savart who studied the interaction of currents and magnetics. It was Ampere's idea that a magnetic could be modeled as a small current loop. It is commonly knowledge that the two laws are equivalent when one of the current loops is closed. 

Is Gravity Incompatible with Geodesic Motion?

Accelerating masses are repudiated to be the sources of gravitational waves just like accelerating charges in an antenna produce electromagnetic waves with the exception that the former needs a quadrupole, because masses have no charge, while the dipoles will suffice for the latter. Now, it is a matter of fact that all particles, whether they be 'test' particles or real ones, follow geodesics. Geodesics are paths of constant velocity so how can general relativity predict the existence of gravitational waves if masses don't accelerate?

When Ampere Meets Doppler

It has often been claimed that Ampere's force is equivalent to Grassmann's force, which is a precursor of the Lorentz force, when the force is integrated round a circuit, in which the current element forms a part, vanishes. This is taken to mean that a force exerted by a complex circuit element is a right angles to the element. As such it was taken to be equivalent to the earlier discovered Biot-Savart law. The Biot-Savart law,

$$\vec{B}=\frac{\mu}{4\pi r^2}(\vec{v}\wedge\hat{r}),$$

Cosmic Coincidences

The critical density, as we have seen, is determined by introducing the Hubble parameter, $H$, defined from the velocity distance relation, $v=HR$. Rather than being a 'receding speed', $v$, and $R$ the distance the galaxy and the observer, the former appears as a revolving speed, so that $H$ is an angular speed of rotation, and the latter the radius measuring the distance between the galaxy and the cosmic center.

What's Wrong With The Robertson-Walker Metric, and Why a Critical Mass Has No Meaning

The Robertson-Walker metric supposedly describes a homogeneous and isotropic universe.It supposedly gives the criterion of a critical mass of the universe whose deficiency has led to the supposition of "dark matter."

It is commendable that the same criterion also follows from an elementary, nonrelativistic, derivation where the total kinetic and gravitational energies of the universe are conserved at two different times


Why Do Apples Fall and Non-Radiative Electric Fields Don't Aberrate?

Newton could tells us, but Einstein can't. According to his "general" theory of relativity, all particles follow what are known as 'geodesics'. These are paths of the shortest distance between any two points. In flat space, these paths are straight lines, but in non-euclidean spaces, these are curves where a point moving along such a segment moves at constant velocity with zero acceleration. How can Newton's apple be reconciled with such behavior?