Talk:Gravitoelectromagnetism/Archive 1

message: As I know, frame-dragging is not a gravitomagmetic, but stand-alone effect.--Nixer 09:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am working off-line on preparing a new set of articles on weak-field gravity, multipoles, far fields, gravitoelectromagnetism which should clarify all of this!   Short story is that anything which involves only the magnetogravitic tensor field in the Bel decomposition (this closely related to but more general than the most common formulation of gravitomagnetic vector field) can be called a gravitomagnetic effect.  Contrast effects involving only the electrogravitic tensor field or tidal tensor.  The Lense-Thirring effect should probably be reserved for effects inside a rotating thin spherical shell (or something like that), while Schiff precession (often called Lense-Thirring precession) of the spin axis of an orbiting gyroscope (additional to other precession effects) was introduced as another gravitomagnetic effect which is easier to check experimentally.  In addition to these there are certain clock effects and spin-spin forces. In my articles I hope to contrast these with related tidal effects such as de Sitter precession, tidal stresses on a rotating asymmetric object in an ambient gravitational field, etc.  I also hope to clarify the analogies between EM and gtr, and to answer the question of why GEM (mainstream) is not at all to be confused with cranky ideas sometimes called electrogravity.---CH 02:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frame-dragging 

message: Maybe Heim Theory should be added in the fringe physics section, especially considering its proposed connection between gravity and electromagnetism.  
(unsigned comment by User:Hslayer)
:No. This article is not about fringe physics. This article is about a specific  formulation of the gravitational field equations. linas 05:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign future comments, Hslayer.  And of course Linas is correct: GEM is perfectly mainstream (Gravity Probe B, currently in final stages of data analysis, is a mainstream satellite test of an important GEM effect). Don't confuse GEM with various crank "theories" which sometimes have similar names.---CH 02:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More fringe physics? 

message: "Meanwhile, the gravitomagnetic force repels when gravitomagnetic polarities (or equidirectional fluids of mass) differ, and attract when those polarities (or opposite-directional fluids of mass) are similar"
What exactly does that mean? I thought all mass charges were "positive", thus, of equal polarity. Can matter really have negative mass? --April Arcus 19:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not about charges, but polarities: note its not gravitoelectric, but gravitomagnetic force, which occures only in case of moving mass.--Nixer 17:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposite Gravitic Charges

message: I am trying to get the duplicate article Gravitoelectromagnetism deleted.  You may remember that I had complained about confusion between mainstream stuff (GEM), cranky stuff (Anti-gravity, Eugene Podkletnov) and offered to rewrite the article, then foolishly agreed to a plan I now regret.  Briefly, by some foulup, we had one talk page for two articles with almost identical names, Gravitoelectromagnetism and Gravitomagnetism, but there should only be one article on a given topic and there is only one topic here.
I am adding citations to some mainstream review articles on GEM but others will have to sort out this article. ---CH 00:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GEM

message: "if two wheels are spun on a common axis": same sense or opposite sense? ---CH 08:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Random correction

message: Distinctive linkspam to this website registered to one Joseph Nduriri of Lille has recently been added (sometimes blanking previous version of the article) by:
* the fbx.proxad.net anon (Online-BMN-org; geolocated near Paris)
#
##6 May 2006 replaces entire article with " think the best thing is to read www.gravitomagnetism.com, you will get all the information you wish about gravitomagnetism"
*the abo.wanadoo.fr anon (Wanadoo France; geolocated near Paris)
#
##9 Jun 2006 edit warring
##9 Jun 2006 replaces entire article with essay and link
##4 May 2006 replaces entire article with "I think the best thing is to read www.gravitomagnetism.com, you will get all the information you wish about gravitomagnetism"
##31 May 2006 replaces NPOV dispute with "www.gravitomagnetism.com"
---CH 13:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help us promptly revert gravitomagnetism.com linkspam

message: I was handed this URL of a report on an apparent observation of a gravitomagnetic effect. I haven't checked up on the veracity of the claim, but could it be added to this article?--Gigacannon 18:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what bothers me a little (being a believer in the Einstein theory of gravitation) is that the "measured field is a surprising one hundred million trillion [1020] times larger than Einstein’s General Relativity predicts."  this could not be consistent with the analogous GEM equations in the article and the known value for G and a speed of gravity that is faster than 10-10c (about 3 cm/s).  i'll let the real physicists thrash it out, but i'm a little skeptical of the quantitative finding.  maybe it's true, but then none of the GEM equations in the article are even approximately true. r b-j 23:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laboratory evidence of gravitomagnetism?