Is the direction of gravitational force can be changed by using megnetic or elictric feild or both????????

Question

Is the direction of gravitational force can be changed by using megnetic or elictric feild or both????????

Answer 1

it can't be changed because they are two separate fundamental forces, gravitational, and electromagnetism,

( gravity can simulated by accelerating in any direction, for example the earths gravity in space could be simulated by going "up" at a constant rate so that your own inertia and the craft's velocity would push your feet to the floor.)

Answer 2

of course u cant change the direction of the gravitational force..

Answer 3

You know Fred.  You're right.  I'd better retract my answer and save what's left of my credibility.  Of course no serious scientist would imply that the forces talk to one another.  I mean how stupid is that.  Can you imagine what kind of conversations those forces would have with each other?  It's preposterous.  I admit I was misinterpretting Einstein's work and just throwing around those fancy terms to try to BS you.  But you're just too smart for that.  That RKelly guy, on the other hand, is a real fool.  Who does HE think he's kidding with his PhD?  And you call those references?  Pauli and Weyl were idiots.  PRL is a stupid rag.  In my department's bathroom, we use it for TP.  I'm putting my stock in Fred.  who uses GR all the time.  and his students.  at that school where he teaches.  for 30 years.  Physics.  and PChem.  and Calculus.  and his grad students.  and that's not even to mention Greydog and his multiple personalites.  And my multiple personalities.  I feel I'm in much better company now.  Sorry to desert you RKelly, but these lies just aren't gonna hold up before the harsh glare of Fred's intelligence and vast experience.

Now that I've maxed out my answer, I have to send my alterego out clubbing or whatever and take over her answer:

The point of whether you look at gravity as a quantum exchange force like the other forces or as a geometric effect is immaterial.  Until such time that we can probe quantum gravity (probably never), the two views are equivalent and they both agree that the source of the gravitational "force" perceived is the stress energy tensor, and that includes contributions from all the forces--EM, weak, strong, axion and higgs fields if they exist, and even gravity itself (the self-coupling which gives the theorists fits).

I say again, no matter how you look at it, all fields contribute to the stress energy tensor which is the source of gravity.  So the answer has to be yes.

A couple misconceptions to correct--we're not talking about a magnetic force opposing gravity a la maglev or Remo's frog.  We are, in fact, talking about the change in gravity due to the energy of the EM fields.

And your A implies B etc argument is off.

Here's how it really goes.

A: Gravitational fields

B: EM fields

C: Weak fields

D: Strong fields

E: Higgs fields

F: Axion fields

G: Bekkion fields

H: Remo-onic fields

Z: Stress energy tensor

All the fields, A through H, impact Z.  Z is the source of A.  Therefore, A through H impact A.  This isn't a unification theory that would explain how some of the other forces are the same as A.  It's not anything original or Nobel worthy (unless you're Einstein who thought of it, but he already had his).

--------------

Now that we've dealt with your points, we'll wade back into the ad hom attacks just because it's fun.

How we know Fred isn't a scientist:

1  You don't seem aware that most scientists specialize after a year of grad school.  Being a professor would not automatically make you an expert in a given subfield.  A grad with two years completed in particle ought to know more about the standard model than a distinguished prof in solid state.

2  You claim to teach physics and mathematics.  That may go in high school or maybe a liberal arts school, but not a research university.  The math faculty teach math (with rare exceptions like a prof who has an extreme interest in some aspect of GR).  The physics faculty teach physics (if you count math methods as a physics course, which it technically is).  They don't mix and match.

3.  A scientist has a pretty good feel for the boundaries of his expertise.  Unless you're just being intentionally inflamatory (which I'm starting to suspect), you honestly don't seem to realize when you're out of your zone.

----------------

I'm not very smart (hehe, hairflip) and don't have a phd or anything, but I know how to look stuff up on wiki.

So I went here cause someone told me this theory explained everything we know about gravity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_rel...

And in the box on the right, there's this equation I don't understand.  Maybe wiki will explain it to me.  Click.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_fi...

I still don't get that T symbol.  Maybe I wiki will tell me what that is.  Click.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-ener...

And oh lovely, an explanation even a blonde can understand.  Snip/paste

The stress-energy tensor (sometimes stress-energy-momentum tensor) is a tensor quantity in physics that describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime, generalizing the stress tensor of Newtonian physics. It is an attribute of matter, radiation, and non-gravitational force fields.

-----------

Well, maybe I don't totaly understand what all those big words mean, but doesn't "non-gravitational force fields" include "magnetic or electric fields or both????"  Click.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagn...

Why yes, apparently it does!

Answer 4

No, the direction of the total force acting on an object can be changed if it experiences an electro-magnetic force plus gravity, but the direction of the gravitational force itself won't change unless you add another mass off center from the gravitational pull.

Answer 5

i do not think so

if you were right you will see some people flying in the street

Answer 6

No it cant be changed.

Answer 7

For the non-hard core physics types......Here is the floating frog levitated by a magnetic field: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ_gzB0WK...  Pretty amazing.

At least under Einstein's basic precept for general relativity, the principal of equivalence, the frog cannot tell whether the gravitational force has stopped or that it is being balanced by a magnetic field.  (The frog is following his personal geodesic).  So the frog would say that the direction of the gravitational force has, indeed, changed.

Ok, hard core physics types:  I love the answers of all three of you: Bekki, Greydog and Remember.Kelly.  They were fantastic.  All of you made some very interesting points.  A few I have pondered before and many I will now ponder.  (Pondering physics problems is a great way to put yourself asleep!).  

I know I wasn't your intended audience, but I learned something from reading each of your answers,  so thank you.

P.S.  My doctorate is in jurisprudence (J.D.).  I have learned that character assassination may play well before selected audiences, but it is absolutely irrelevant -- so please keep it to a minimum.

Bekki: I was trying to give a playful and thought provoking answer.  Much of this discussion is beyond me and I presume beyond the questioner.  So why not give him something he can bite into.  Who knows, maybe it will stimulate the questioner to pursue physics.

But I wasn't trying to mislead the questioner.  The frog is in free fall.  He is taking the path of least time given the forces on him.  I know that you can break it down to a microscopic level to show that his atoms and subatomic particle are experience net forces which on a macroscopic level balance each other out.

Answer 8

Joe had the right answer first.  I support his reasoning and his concise explanation.  Bravo, sir!

As he said, the answer is “No”.  It’s pretty simple, really and not even a debate within the scientific community.  No serious scientist (with a Ph. D. or without, Bekki) would ever claim that the electro-magnetic field affects the gravitational field.  To REMEMBER: Those references do not say that, and I'm surprised that you would claim that they do.  You either misread them or, worse yet, don't understand them.  If you want to claim that you are a doctor of physics, I would NOT cling to this answer much longer.  Everytime you re-post a rebuttal, it puts your credibility at risk, further.  Come on, back the correct answer.

THE ERROR THAT THEY MADE IN LOGIC (AND PHYSICS)

The folks who thought “Yes” was right made an error in interpreting the meaning and use of the Stress Energy Tensor.  Every single field contributes energy to the tensor, BUT the individual tensor sub-components do not “talk to” each other.  It’s like saying A influences C and B influences C so thus A influences B.  Wrong!  (And it is not semantics.  It is just wrong).  If and when “String Theory” pans out, then maybe someone will “marry the fields”, but not today.

THERE ARE NO PAPERS THAT SAY “The elecro-magnetic force affects gravity” for the reason I have stated.  If it were true, there would be papers all over the journals with that EXACT title.

Bekki can trash talk, kick, scream, yell, hiss, back pedal, qualify, excuse, alter, debate, insult, name call, pull hair, stomp, be a brat, whine, display her jealous pigheaded side and spit venom to her heart’s content but it won’t make “Yes” the right answer.  But feel free to go wild, girlfriend.  You are highly ammusing and I enjoy every word of it.  I chuckle about your "wildly wrong" answers and share them with my students.  We all think you are a hoot!!!  Thumbs up to BEKKI.  Keep 'em flying, I hope I never catch my breath!  You are another Carlin.

-Fred

Answer 9

Mistress Bekki is right in principle. The metric tensor is modified by the presence of electric and magnetic fields, as you might expect by the reason she gave. Thus if you imagine a charged point particle of very small mass, if the charge is sufficiently large, the contribution of the electric field to the metric tensor  could exceed that of the mass. But I don't know if the gravitational force could be reversed that way -I don't think so.  Both contributions should yield a force towards the point particle,  I also don't think that the sign of the charge matters.  Ditto if you were to have a magnetic dipole or even a monopole.

Wolfgang Pauli briefly gives some results in his "monograph" (why people call it that, is a mystery), with references.  I have it somewhere in my house, but I leave some of the work to others rather than try providing all answers.

***************************

To Grey Dog:

The reason "why" is that in the energy tensor all forms of energy enter.  It is not a unified field theory because, as the word "unified" implies, that requires a theory in which several fields have been replaced by one. Thus instead of having two coupling constants, G and e, there would be just one.

I have another book that discusses this problem in more detail than Pauli did; if I could find them I'd give you the references.

*****************************

To M. Bekki:

On your remark:

"Calculate the energy contained in an electric or magnetic field of some reasonable size and strength. To how much mass is that equivalent? It won't be much."

This calculation forms the basis of the classical model of the electron, does it not?   I think it would pay off to look at those models again from the perpective of the posed question.  As I recall, the attempt to equate the electromagnetic mass of the electron to the observed mass did not work out.  If I didn't have to fix my roof, I'd think about it some more.

*******************

Here is an anecdote from an answer I wrote to a similar question, if anything besides mass could create a gravitational field (I got it by scanning through a recently published book in a bookstore, but, again, forgot the author's name):

John Archibald Wheeler once asked Einstein if a "ball of light" could exist that had so many photons in it that it would hold together under its own gravitational force. Einstein thought a moment, and then said "yes", he thought it could, but he predicted that it would be unstable (meaning that any slight deviation from spherical symmetry would cause it to fly apart.

It's starting to rain - gotto fix my roof.

********************

Questions like these have been investigated by Reissner, Levi-Cevita, Weyl, Bergmann, and others.  First, the nature and role of the energy momentum tensor Tαβ as descrbed by M. Bekki is simply explained by the purely mathematical property Gαβ ;β =0, which requires that the physical conservation law Tαβ ;β =0 is satisfied (since Gαβ=const Tαβ) . Now, Tαβ ;β =0 only if Tαβ represents the total energy-momentum tensor of all fields (energy and momentum conservation is not satisfied by individual fields due to their interactions), including the electromagnetic field and everything else. This also explains the above anecdote.

The simplest argument, which any school boy knows, is that of action and reaction, which applies not just to objects but also to fields.  All fields carry momentum and energy, and therefore if one acts upon another, the latter must react upon the first in order to conserve momentum.  This goes for gravity and electromagnetism.  

Returning to the specific question at hand: My next point is that the above authors give the, to me surprising, result that the gravitational potential of a stationary spherical charge is given by

φ =   -Gm/r   + Ge^2/(2c^2 r^2)

(Pauli, p.171;  Bargmann p.206 - both in Dover editions)

Note that the first term corresponds to an attractive, the second to a repulsive force.

This result predicts that at the classical electron radius, given by

                         R = e^2/(mc^2)  ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚‰Âˆ 2.8  10^-15 m

an electron's gravitational force changes from attractive to repulsive.  This, I never expected.   More macroscopic manifestations satisfying the above would seem even less likely due to foreseeable instabilities: an object would tear itself apart before the above relation would be satisfied (compare to liquid drop model of nucleus).

Note that the above given potential is of a purely gravitational character.  E.g. the Coulomb potential is still  given by e/r for a point charge (viz.  Pauli, etc)  .

To M. Bekki:

I brought up the classical electron model, not to contradict, but re-enforce your argument.  By the foregoing , the idea appears to make sense although classical models break down at that range anyway.  Incidentally, I read Lamb's paper in graduate school many years ago.  A friend of mine did the same calculation that did not lead to the divergence problem, simply by not making the dipole approximation (if I recall correctly) - but that was only nonrelativistic, and  thus not really correct either.

*******************************

Sad to say, Fred and Grey Dog are completely wrong, and both refuse to look at the facts or even be rational.  I gave a number of references from the beginning where this calculation has been performed, and neither has looked at those or even acknowledged that these exist. The fundamental physics is rather obvious and above I gave a simple demonstration that T can not be anything but the energy tensor representing all fields, which I've know since the age of 16.  Ignore all the banter about infinite self energies and renormalization; those are totally irrelevant to the question at hand.  

To Grey Dog in particular, M Bekki's physical argument is quite sound, it is your own rant that resembles that of talk radio; Rush Limbaugh comes to mind .  Until now you haven't addressed any of the points that have been made, or acknowledged the references.  I hate to ask this, but where did you get your PhD?

****************

To GreyDog:

If you don't accept my arguments, please take note of the references I gave, which includes papers by the likes of Wolfgang Pauli, Levi-Cevita and  Hermann Weyl that treat precisely this problem.  There is no need for me to look up a physics PhD at a local diploma mill.  I have a PhD in that subject myself and am a regular referee for PRL; and I have written  a number of papers on field theory in PRL, PR-A, and JOSA B.

Answer 10

Yes, but not much if you are using E-fields and B-fields of "normal" strengths.  

Gravity couples to all forms of energy.

Calculate the energy contained in an electric or magnetic field of some reasonable size and strength. To how much mass is that equivalent?  Not much.  Or work it the other way, solve for the field required to equal the mass energy density of the earth. Ginormous.

Fred: nonsense.  Go look up the mass of H3.  Go look up the mass of He3.  They are identical under the strong interaction.  The only difference is electromagnetic.  One has more EM energy than the other.  And low and behold, it weighs more.

Einstein discovered the relationship a while ago, so I don't think any Nobel prizes are in order for the discovery.  And noticing the fact that all the forces contribute to the stress energy tensor is not what they mean when they talk about a unified theory--something that describes the different forces as manifestations of one force with a common coupling that would be identical under some symmetry except that it gets broken somehow.

And it takes a certain lack of perspective to talk about to much "yap yap" and demand articles and then cite an article in NewScientist.  Do you see the contradiction?  This reminds me of your assertion that alpha decay was a weak process except you can't use the excuse here that any of this wasn't known whenever you learned physics.

RKelly: You are correct that the classical EM self-energy of the electron is infinite if you assume it's a point charge.  The classical radius you'd have to assume to get the right answer is far bigger than the electron could be.  So evidently the mass of the electron is not explained by EM forces.  But whatever the electron's mass is, there is infinite EM energy associated with it.  So we assume the electron's actual mass is negative infinity and the measured mass is the sum of this negative infinity and the infinite EM energy.  This might seem like a ridiculous explanation except that it ends up giving you the Lamb shift.  Go read Bethe's original paper if you can find it.  It's a really, really pretty piece of work that still reads nicely today.

Fred: And just to not look too bad in the future, note that QED just describes the electromagnetic interaction, although it was the model in some ways for the other interactions.  QFT is the more general term you are looking for.

--I knew it was just a matter of time before Fred brought his primary personality into the discussion.  Do you have any more?

--Fred, if you want to see the answer the hard way, dig up Einstein's original GR paper.  If you want to do it the easy way, pull out a GR text (MTW will work, but Hartle explains it more clearly for someone of your level of understanding).  However you do it, look at the Einstein equation.  Notice the stress energy tensor.  Then read the description of it.  It encompasses energies from force fields of all types as well as mass.  And even mass itself includes those energies, a concept which is fundamental to the practice of particle and nuclear physics.  So that's the relationship between gravity and the other forces.  Nobody is claiming to have discovered a common coupling or symmetry or mechanism that breaks the symmetry or anything extraordinary.  This is just ABCs of general relativity.  And try not to hurt yourself with the physics cannon (or remember that spellcheck doesn't distinguish homophones).  Also, about your comment regarding "how gravitons do the gravity thing", there is absolutely such a theory and has been since the 60s at least (Feynman's book on gravitation).  At the macroscopic level, it reproduces the results you get from the classical derivation of GR.  The graviton couples to the stress energy tensor as you would expect it to.  The only major problem with it is that it is unrenormalizable, so it can't be the ultimate truth of gravity, only an effective theory.  But neither can classical GR.  So folks keep looking, but not too hard, since no experiment in the near future is going to test the differences between the classical and quantum gravities.  Note that this is tangential to the actual question, since both quantum and classical gravity theories agree on the point that the stress energy tensor is the source of gravity.

Remo--floating frog is experiencing an EM force, so he isn't following a geodesic as far as anyone has figured out.  He (the frog) may not realize the difference as long as he doesn't move much, but nobody has developed a scheme yet to model geometrically the EM force the way you can model gravity (and not for lack of trying--Einstein really wanted to, and some others followed the effort).

Remo: I take your overall point.  That said, the frog is not in freefall.  The EM force is opposing gravity.  So he sits there not going anywhere, just like you sit on a chair   and don't go anywhere.  The only difference is that it's an internal chair.  Now if you make some assumptions--that the frog is perfectly evenly magnetized, and that it doesn't move relative to the magnetic field, then it is practically equivalent to zero g.  You could assert a sort of equivalence principle and come up with a consistent theory--"Remo's theory of the general relativity of magnetically levitating frogs" that geometrizes the effect of the magnetic force and models it as the frog falling along a geodesic.  But your theory breaks down as soon as he moves.  Moreover, I don't believe that the equivalence supposition is actually true.  A frog is made up of different materials.  And I would think that some of those materials  must magnetize differently than others.  So some parts of the frog are pulled up by his "internal chair" more than others.  The frog can't tell us he's uncomfortable (and in fact, he seems happy enough), but unless the effect I'm assuming is very tiny, this can't be good for him.

Now that I reread your answer, it seems you figured as much yourself.  Still, you should take care to distinguish the geodesics of your gravity/magnetostatics theory with the geodesics of regular old gravity.

--And fred/dog, your alteregos have switched roles.  I thought fred was the rude, scrappy one and dog was the one that stepped nobly above the fray.  Now they are switching.  It's like schizophrenia within schizophrenia.  If one of you looks something up, does the other personality remember?  Cause otherwise you're going to have to get out your GR book twice to figure out what's going on.

--Fred, are you claiming the wiki's wrong?  Wiki isn't an original source, but you can usually count on it to get the basic equations of physics correct.  It looks correct to me.  If you do think it's wrong, feel free to double check it in the GR text of your choice--MTW or one of the other 20 out now.  If you want a journal article, dig up the original Einstein paper from the 30s.  It's probably online somewhere if you care enough to look for it.  But if you're having a tough time understanding the wiki or a textbook, you're probably not going to want to read through the original paper, which wasn't written nearly as clearly as the account you'd find in a text today.  So be ignorant or go read and learn something.  I don't care.  Whatever it is you studied in school whenever that was, neither GR nor particle physics was on the agenda apparently.  Which is fine if you're in another branch, but you're clearly stepping beyond your expertise here.

If you go to Einstein's wiki page and look at his list of publications, you can find:

http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/p...

Stress energy tensor: p 184.

EM contribution to the it: p. 192.

My alter ego and I now await your apology--not so much for being wrong, but for being a jerk about it.  One will suffice from both of yours to both of mine.

RememberKelly--the really interesting paper wasn't Lamb's experimental measurement of the shift but Bethe's explanation of it that used the canceling infinities.  The renormalization technique became fundamental to QED specifically and QFT in general.  That attractive short-range gravitational potential you cite does mesh somewhat with the negative-infinite raw mass that renormalizes the electron mass.  I'd have to check the derivations to see if that is, in fact, the precise reason for it.

Fred--if you want to know why you don't get respect, it's because you pretend to understand something you don't (GR and particle physics concepts in general) and then have the nerve to act condescending about it--which you are still doing.  I don't go telling chemists or solid state physicists their business.  If I take a stab at a chemistry question, I'll say I'm taking a stab.  Asking for a paper documenting Einstein's equations is like asking someone to cite the Principia because you don't believe Newton's Laws.  If you didn't understand my use of the term "couple", all you had to do was ask without all the vitriol.

You can model gravity as a curvature in space/time or as an exchange of gravitons.  The two descriptions are equivalent at a macroscopic level (which is all we can probe, and may be all we can ever probe experimentally).  So saying gravity couples to the stress energy tensor is equivalent to saying stress-energy is the source of a curvature in space/time, but takes fewer keystrokes.  It's purely semantics for now.  In your head, replace the former with the latter every time I write it if that is clearer for you.

Fred--it's not obfuscation--it's a separate discussion.  Disregard everything I write addressing RKelly.  If you are struggling with GR, you don't any part of renormalization

Answer 11

Bekki: First of all, I too say that the best answer here is JOE's.

He is right on the money.  He said "No"...you said "Yes".  You seem to be hiding behind some defense that we all misunderstood some semantic point that you were making about "coupling",  and it is our fault for not asking.  GREAT misdirection!!  IF that were true, you should have said so in your first edit rather than trying to shovel a load of c**p at us about Stress Tensors.  You would have straightened it out right away.  We know what you said, you were very clear...

You were suggesting that two fields that shape space somehow affect each other.  

Not a fact accepted by science today.  It is not semantics...it is wrong.  Don't try to hide it, sugarcoat it ir modify it.  Take it out for a nice long ride in the woods and loose it.  Thanks for qualifying your answer.  It helps us see that you at least understand the gravity (ROFLMAO) of your error and are trying to lessen its magnitude.

======================================...

REMEMBER:  All of your references are off topic.  No one is arguing that there is any problem with the Stress Tensor Energy...we are discussing whether the EM field affects the G field, which, as any undergraduate physics student (with the exception of BEKKI) knows, it does not.

H. Reissner, Ann. Phys. Lpz., 50, 106 (1916)

This paper deals with showing that the only conformal or projective vector fields admitted by the Reissner-Nordström metric are its standard Killing vector fields.

NOTHING TO DO WITH ELECTRO-MAGNETISM AFFECTING GRAVITY...sorry!!!  NICE MEANINGLESS CUT AND PASTE.

H. Reissner, Ann. Phys. W. Pauli, "Theory of Relativity", Dover, Section 59.

The well-known discussion of a partition function

in special relativity (without corrections to second order by the way).  This reference is not on point!

Raum-Zeit-Materie : Vorlesungen Uber Allgemeine Relativitatstheorie (which he dedicated to his wife—wasn’t that sweet?) is also off topic.  Published in 1921 it does not tie the electro-magnetic force to gravity…sorry.

P. G. Bergmann, "Intoduction to the theory of Relativity," Dover, Ch.12.

An introduction to GR…no statements that EM fields affect G fields.  (You do know that when I asked for references I was asking for ones that address this question, not just a list of books at random about GR, right?  Chapter 12 of this nice book with a forward by Einstein discusses the field equations and linearized solutions, fields of a mass point, and the conservation laws of GR.  OOPS…off  topic again.

T. Levi-Cevita, Accad Lincei (5)26, p519 (1917)

By the way…I think the name is Civita  

This one contains a static solution for the exterior gravitational field among other issues related to GR field equations—BUT NOTHING ON POINT.

PLEASE DO NOT CUT AND PASTE ANYMORE OFF TOPIC REFERENCES, OK??

I=====================================...

Neither Bekki nor her little friend are not able to supply a single journal reference for the very wrong statement that gravity couples to elecro-magnitism.  There are tonnes of rederences for general relativity mentioned here, but GR is not the subject.  Lots of chatter...lots of jabber....lots of "hand waving"...BUT no references...(although I'll bet she searched high and low..ehh?)  

Since I dare to question the statements of someone who refuses to give up a bad position...maybe you will find my answer deleted by the "troll defenders of bad science".  Or the Queen Troll herself who BLOCKS anyone who questions her authority or has the question deleted if she is inaccurate or wrong.  You can't even be number one in physics on this silly little website without having "Mommy and Daddy" protect you and clean up your c**p.  SIGH.  

I'll appologize if anyone can find a reference that says that "Gravity is influenced by the electro-magnetic force"  otherwise you are wrong.  

======================================...

It's kind of fun to listen to you lash out and fight like a trapped animal with no escape.  I did not realize that you were so touchy about being flat out, silly wrong.  And thanks for admitting Blondebit-h is you (I see you are "off" answering lots of questions in that "voice" so that you can have yet one more fake voting and "thumbs up/down" account.  So THAT'S how someone who knows so little about physics is able to be the top contributor of the site--you cheat.

Go get a Ph.D.or a masters or a job, it'll give you something to do in life rather than hanging out on this site "pretending" to be a physics expert.  You can become one in reality.  Paul Hewitt did it!  I respect him and I pity you.

You would "wash out" in a hurry with that smug attitude of yours and wind up on a "Gaming site" posing as the "Queen of Physics":  hoping your "yap-yap" lulls and impresses the ignorant masses.  Pathetic. SIGH!

To REMEMBER:  When you say "The fundamental physics is rather obvious and above I gave a simple demonstration that T can not be anything but the energy tensor representing all fields, which I've know since the age of 16."  I completely agree (of course I have no way of knowing what you knew and did not know at 16), but, please do not confuse the total energy components (sum of EM and Gravity in this case) shaping the geometry of space with the two components affecting each other.  This is the point that you are missing.

It is obvious, I agree.   Remember, why not call up a local college and ask this question of someone with a real doctorate in physics?  They may be able to guide you "in person".  Sorry, but we can't bend the rules of physics for you two or we'd have to do it for everyone.    

To address your question about my credentials...

My physics doctorate (which is not needed to answer this super basic question) is from one of the top three universities for physics in the United States.  Thanks for asking.  I'd ask about yours but if you believe that your references address this question, I KNOW you don't have one, in physics at least.