 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / October 2005Electro-London Inertia
Sue: paraphrase style in brackets []. << Woodward: Roughly, the modern instantaneous action argument goes as follows. In general relativity theory matter "there" tells space "here" how to curve, Sue: [induced dipoles there tell induced dipoles here their shape] and space "here" tells matter "here" how to move. Sue: [induced dipoles here attract induced dipoles there] (Matter "here" also tells space "there" how to curve.) Thus, in order to talk about any situation in dynamics we must specify the distribution and motion of matter throughout space. (Strictly speaking, we must provide "initial data" on some suitably chosen "three dimensional spacelike hypersurface".) The usual field equations for gravity (Einstein's equations) are not enough, by themselves, to do this it turns out. Because of the finite propagation velocity built into them, we might specify some distribution of matter that subsequently leads to idiotic results. To make sure this doesn't happen, our distribution of matter has to satisfy some additional equations called "constraint" equations. The neat thing about these constraint equations is that, unlike the field equations, they're instantaneous. (Technically, they're "elliptic" rather than "hyperbolic" differential equations.) It's then claimed that inertia is conveyed by the constraint equations -- instantaneously. The use of constraint equations to communicate real physical influences instantaneously is justified by appeal to the instantaneous propagation of stationary electric fields in the Coulomb gauge. >> Appologies to: James F. Woodward http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/ http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/nord.htm The mystery in such a substitution is what mechanism similar to... ============ RA AR +- -+ -+ +- http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/160Aintermolec.html http://web.umr.edu/~gbert/INTERACT/intermolecular.HTM http://polymer.bu.edu/Wasser/robert/work/node9.html ============ ...what mechanism can increase the attractive force before an object and decrease the attractive force behind an object, in proportion to the applied force of acceleration? Sue... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elepe.html http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034  SignatureUsing Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > Sue: paraphrase style in brackets []. > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ xxein: [Sue: ...what mechanism can increase the attractive force before an object and decrease the attractive force behind an object, in proportion to the applied force of acceleration?] Gravity. The multi-orbital behavior 'moons'. Acceleration is not limited to speed. You wish to use the term "force" for this? I don't particularly mind, but Einteinians do. Can you define acceleration in a many-bodied gravitational system? I think that there is an objective physic in existence that we cannot fathom yet. We tend to make a physic out of our subjective observations (relative). Do you really think that relative-based observations (a partial set) can describe the overall objectivity (the whole set)? Can't anybody realise that velocities and addition of velocities depend upon a rest-based theory called relativity that cannot synchronize clocks except for rest-based relativity? When did this universe last have rest? Ans: When we invented it. While it is true that relativity theory describes a timely form of cause and effect, it is just locally applicable with locally applied time. It is very good... if you like a local physics that cannot describe or correlate to quantums or strings. (I hate strings) In a nutshell, we are in one, and nobody seems to realise it. > > Sue: paraphrase style in brackets []. > > [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > Gravity. The multi-orbital behavior 'moons'. Yes.. that is the vein I am thinking in. > Acceleration is not limited to speed. Indeed, I might have used a broader expression saying we impart energy to the system. But it is energy with a vector component. > You wish to use the term "force" for this? I don't particularly mind, > but Einteinians do. In the case of Lorentz, Van Der Waal or London, the term force seems correct. That is the reason I used it. Yes... it seems unweildly. It may be a poor choice. But dicipline seems to demand retaining the root term from Coulomb force until some other derivation is shown. > Can you define acceleration in a many-bodied gravitational system? I can not... but intuitivly, I assumed that a computer could. http://www.kfa-juelich.de/zam/ZAMPeople/sutmann-teaching/UNAM_2005 > I think that there is an objective physic in existence that we cannot > fathom yet. We tend to make a physic out of our subjective > observations (relative). Do you really think that relative-based > observations (a partial set) can describe the overall objectivity (the > whole set)? No. In fact, my intent was to encompass the whole set. I should have mentioned the sister thread 'Electro London Gravity'. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/b5e1d090adee0ace?hl=en& > Can't anybody realise that velocities and addition of velocities depend > upon a rest-based theory called relativity that cannot synchronize > clocks except for rest-based relativity? I have not found this a viable statement. Even Einstein conditions his version of it... ~and *apparent* incompatabiliy with Maxwell's equations and the principle of relativity. Tho it is not a simple relation, the *appearance* seems well accounted for we compare the various points of view (gauges) we might apply to the issue. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing > When did this universe last have rest? Ans: When we invented it. LOL > While it is true that relativity theory describes a timely form of > cause and effect, it is just locally applicable with locally applied > time. The neighborhood of a few interacting molecules seems fairly local. One need not venture far to be out of the near-field where Van der Waals and London forces apply. > It is very good... if you like a local physics that cannot > describe or correlate to quantums or strings. (I hate strings) > > In a nutshell, we are in one, and nobody seems to realise it. Oh ??? << Abstract The unexpected dynamic shift of the center of mass for a rotating hemisphere is shown to produce a general relativistic dipole field in the macroscopic scale. This prompts us the question of what might be its cosmological implications. ... >> http://www.physica.org/xml/article.asp?article=v059a00339.xml That is a interesing take on the issue but philosophy along the lines of: http://wine1.sb.fsu.edu/chm1045/notes/Forces/intermol/IMG00002.GIF from: http://wine1.sb.fsu.edu/chm1045/notes/Forces/intermol/Forces02.htm ...is more what I had in mind. :o) Many thanks for the obeservation about the term 'force'. At some point, a poor choice between force, energy, acceleration or potential can hide the trees in the forest. The correct choice would show the clearest relation between mass, gravity and inertia yet be something a bit more formal than a professor riding in a lift. Sue... ... > Many thanks for the obeservation about the term 'force'. > At some point, a poor choice between force, energy, acceleration [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a lift. > Sue... Hi Sue, Ken here... Your cuddling to the Electo-vacuum solution to the EFE's (Einstein Field Equations), however in agreement with your inclination, the solution departs from a continuum. That is to say, the EFE's do require relations in the way you are seeking. For example, take a pair of charges "a" and "b" and they have some configurational energy, p = a*b/s, in ergs for example. Slap the behind (dividing by volume) and get the energy density, T00= p/s^3 == a*b/s^4. Now, pause and ponder this, T00= (a/s^2)*(b/s^2) = E(a)*E(b) = a*b/s^4, where E(a) & E(b) are Electric fields of charge "a" and some other charges. Sue, the above departs from the classical solution to EFE's that uses a continum, but who cares, that's pretty junky now. If you like that's Tuckers "noncontinuum solution to the Electrovacuum EFE's", I mean that. Once T00 is defined that way, we can enjoy G00 by G_uv = T_uv , G00 = T00. OO scary equation, I'm shakin in my boots. Twist & shout, G00 = NABLA^2 g00 = T00. Solve for g00 and find, g00 = 1 + (a/s)(b/s), provided the charges don't masturbate, so terms like self energization "a^2/s" are excluded including a^2/s^4. Sue want's a solution using discrete charges I figure we should give girls what they need. At this point we have a closed logic system consistent with the EFE's and discrete, where discrete means charge "a" is in a different location than "b", and the metric is defined by the relation. See, the continuum died. With Sues ableness to put things behind us, we can proceed to observe the asymmetry of the relative geodesics of charges "a" and "b". I'll stop here, take questions, and if you want, show how nonsymetrical metrics give the EM field. Regards Sue Ken S. Tucker > ... > > Many thanks for the obeservation about the term 'force'. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > That is to say, the EFE's do require relations in the > way you are seeking. You are so far forward on your skis that you missed a high crime right under your nose. > For example, take a pair of charges "a" and "b" and > they have some configurational energy, [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > want, show how nonsymetrical metrics give > the EM field. So... where is the force term ? When I push on a object, I expect it to push back? Hint: We can't apply force to an object. We must apply force *between* a pair of objects. Now... !!! You can use your field equations to show why the exponents in the these expression are really the same. Field intensity: 1/r^2 a = 1/2 mv^2 That assumes the two objects are far enough apart to ignore Lorentz, Van der Waal and London force. You are mis-spellin the word TWO TOO means in addition to; also; furtha-more. <<including a^2/s^4.>> Hmmm.. That looks to be some dialect of the English language that would be encouraging to see fall out of all those Goo-Goo expressions. Goo-Goo to you TOO ;-) Soo... > Regards Sue > Ken S. Tucker > ... > > Many thanks for the obeservation about the term 'force'. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > That is to say, the EFE's do require relations in the > way you are seeking. The wiki URL you posted in another thread, inspired a bit of window shopping and I sort of like the way this outfit looks on induced dipoles: <<Phenomena which can be modeled by null dust solutions include: a beam of massless neutrinos (treated according to classical physics), a very high-frequency electromagnetic wave, a beam of incoherent electromagnetic radiation. In particular, a plane wave of incoherent electromagnetic radiation is a linear superposition of plane waves, all moving in the same direction but having randomly chosen phases and frequencies. (Even though the Einstein field equation is nonlinear, a linear superposition of comoving plane waves is possible.) Here, each electromagnetic plane wave has a well defined frequency and phase, but the superposition does not. Individual electromagnetic plane waves are modeled by null electrovacuum solutions, while an incoherent mixture can be modeled by a null dust. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_dust_solution I don't read the shorthand well enough to know it that is what you are modeling below. I am not at all comfortable with the freewheeling interchange of E and B *outside the particle* but that may be valid way to derive forces from incoherent radiation. A null dust seems to be the best description of induced dipoles. Sue... > For example, take a pair of charges "a" and "b" and > they have some configurational energy, [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > Regards Sue > Ken S. Tucker > > ... > > > Many thanks for the obeservation about the term 'force'. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > bit of window shopping and I sort of like the way this > outfit looks on induced dipoles: I should have provided that ref to you, so you don't think I'm a TOTAL lunatic, but just partly loony:-). That wiki on GR is pretty good, the authors are trying hard, I follow the discussion. > <<Phenomena which can be modeled by null dust solutions include: > a beam of massless neutrinos (treated according to classical physics), [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > description of induced dipoles. > Sue... I think no one is satisfied yet. It seems GR is being treated as a extension of Newtons continuum theory, and of course that makes it's fusion with QT difficult because QT is a theory about relations, and not about points on a continuum. OTOH I see GR as naturally a relation theory, such as relating two simple charges "a" and "b" below. Regards Ken S. Tucker > > For example, take a pair of charges "a" and "b" and > > they have some configurational energy, [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Regards Sue > > Ken S. Tucker >> > ... >> > > Many thanks for the obeservation about the term 'force'. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > being treated as a extension of Newtons continuum > theory, The matter that fills the universe requires that we consider a continuum. > and of course that makes it's fusion with > QT difficult because QT is a theory about relations, The forces between charges requires that we consider the relation between the entities. > and not about points on a continuum. OTOH I see GR > as naturally a relation theory, such as relating > two simple charges "a" and "b" below. So yes. You can't have biscuits with jam using all bread or all jam. :o) Sue... > Regards > Ken S. Tucker [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] >> > Regards Sue >> > Ken S. Tucker SignatureUsing Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > >> > ... > >> > > Many thanks for the obeservation about the term 'force'. [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > Sue... Hi Sue, have a quick glance at http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf that Fredifizzx helped me with. It's only 2 pages, but it connects a few dots. Also G. Hansen's post to "what is about gravity that slows light" today is really good. Regards Ken > > >> > ... > > >> > > Many thanks for the obeservation about the term 'force'. [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf OK... I got lost in the tensor notaton but gained enoungh footing to see that equation 4 looks ~similar~ to 3d + 1t induced dipole equations. I was not able to, but perhaps you can, repeat the evolution and show that electromagnetism repels. That would require swapping b with -b? I couldn't find a good excuse to do that. :o( Sue... > that Fredifizzx helped me with. > It's only 2 pages, but it connects a few dots. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Regards > Ken Thanks for lookin Sue... > > > >> > ... > > > >> > > Many thanks for the obeservation about the term 'force'. [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > footing to see that equation 4 looks ~similar~ to > 3d + 1t induced dipole equations. Good, I wrote/derived equation (4) so it applied to 3D space and still hold. When extended by covariant equations into 4D it becomes quite sophisticated but revealing details. ((I had to put in Eqs(1)...(3) to add some pedigree so the Grist's will respect me)). The whole idea on *boiling down* to (4) and then showing how intimate that is with GR above, then using EM, and seeing how Newtons gravity emerges is to show a reasonable idea of how we can see in a few steps an intro to Unified Field Theory. > I was not able to, but perhaps you can, > repeat the evolution and show that > electromagnetism repels. > That would require swapping b with -b? > I couldn't find a good excuse to do that. :o( > Sue... Wow, Sue, a penetrating question, never expected it! (I suspect you already know some of the answer and so I think your question is a bit rhetorical, but I'll respond as if it isn't,, ok :-). AE in GR suggested and subsequently proved, Energy =(c^4/G)*Length. Have fun and put that another way, DE = (c^4/G)*DL . That in conjuction with Eq.(4) per ref, S^2 = X^2 + ab Eq(4) accounts for the source of electrostatic forces, as well as gravitational forces. I think I can demo that off Eq.(4) using some basic algebra if you want. Regards Ken S. Tucker > Thanks for lookin Sue... > [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > so I think your question is a bit rhetorical, but I'll > respond as if it isn't,, ok :-). Well... it seemed a fair test for a mulit body solution but after some tho't I realised it will depend on the temperature of the masses. Heat will do the swapping of b with -b and that will affect both the EM pressure and gravitational attraction... hopefully in equal ammounts. > AE in GR suggested and subsequently proved, > > Energy =(c^4/G)*Length. That could make sense: http://planck.com/threepenny/html/chap03.html > Have fun and put that another way, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I think I can demo that off Eq.(4) using some > basic algebra if you want. Factors like 10^42 don't fall out of basic algebra. :o) I need to digest both those papers together and be convinced we aren't just basing every thing on a Cavendish balance and electrometer measurement and never actually deriving one from the other. Either you have reduced Gibbon's work by about 36 pages... or we overlooked something real important. http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon :o) Sue... > Regards > Ken S. Tucker Hi Sue and all, > > Thanks for lookin Sue... [big snip} > > Wow, Sue, a penetrating question, never expected it! > > (I suspect you already know some of the answer and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > affect both the EM pressure and gravitational > attraction... hopefully in equal ammounts. Yes I think that's true. I simplify to naked static charges in, http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf but certainly a more detailed analysis provides radiation when "a" and "b" change the're radar distance "S", as temperature would create. > > AE in GR suggested and subsequently proved, > > > > Energy =(c^4/G)*Length. > > That could make sense: > http://planck.com/threepenny/html/chap03.html Well, I'm a cynic, so I the hit the math and simed on computers and found the deflection of light corresponded to the removal a length equivalent to the GR prediction Mass=1.47 km, in the case of the Sun. I'm ok with classical GR, as far as it goes. > > Have fun and put that another way, > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 36 pages... or we overlooked something real important. > http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon Sue, sit down and play with a pair of magnets, there's real forces there that separate those magnets in space and time. I see how GR explains why that happens. The big amplifier is found in, DE = (c^4/G)*DL . (makes SR's mc^2 look like a fart!) Let's pull GR's Unitivity solution, S^2 = X^2 + ab Eq(4). DS =/= DX , DL = DS - DX. EM FORCE = DE/DX = (c^4/G)* DL/DX. >From the analysis of a "charge couple" in GR, we can see from Eq.(4) how GR predicts EM force and, in turn, gravitation as a residual EM effect. That's why GR works for me. I believe what I write because I see an over-all organization in the universe, where attraction is a wee bit greater than repulsion, I'll bet Sue would call that Love = residual attraction. Ken S. Tucker kxsxt > Hi Sue and all, > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > Sue, sit down and play with a pair of magnets, OK, I am playing. How does this look?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_integral > there's real forces there that separate those > magnets in space and time. I see how GR explains > why that happens. The big amplifier is found in, Whatchu mean *time* you krazy kanook! :o) ====================================| Time-independent Maxwell equations Introduction Coulomb's law The electric scalar potential Time-dependent Maxwell's equations Introduction Faraday's law Electric scalar potential? ====================================| http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html > DE = (c^4/G)*DL . > > (makes SR's mc^2 look like a fart!) That IS a big number... Hmmm OK, ~10^42 might fall out of that. > Let's pull GR's Unitivity solution, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > is a wee bit greater than repulsion, I'll bet > Sue would call that Love = residual attraction. No... Sue says *love* is what makes people crazy enough to see 4d clocks respond to 3d motion. More dicipline we need! http://www.users.qwest.net/~efotheringham/Media/internet%20dominatrix.jpg Sue... > Ken S. Tucker > kxsxt | > Hi Sue and all, | > [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] | > | > (makes SR's mc^2 look like a fart!) Depends on how big the m is. ;-) | That IS a big number... Hmmm | OK, ~10^42 might fall out of that. Ken might be just a tad high on that. ;-) Christoph Schiller's max force = c^4/4G. LOL! http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0309118 Try to equate that to the vacuum expectation value of 246 GeV. Maybe works OK in 8D. FrediFizzx http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf or postscript http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps http://www.vacuum-physics.com > | > Hi Sue and all, > | > [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > Ken might be just a tad high on that. ;-) Christoph Schiller's max > force = c^4/4G. LOL! http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0309118 Indeed! Page 4 *does* equate c^4 to ~10^42 Beyond that... Ugggh, There is a bit too much based on what has not been disproven about angels dancing on pins. A narrative always seems to take that course whenever the the name Schwarzschild appears absent the definition of a clock and accelerometer. Sigh... :-( > Try to equate that to the vacuum expectation value of 246 GeV. Maybe > works OK in 8D. 8d ? Yikes! Are you a kanook too? I should probably find out what that means to a Canadian. It might be worse than I intend. << can~uck n. a. picky, marked by extreme care in treatment of details; "a meticulous craftsman"; "almost worryingly meticulous in his business formalities" punctilious marked by precise accordance with details; "was worryingly meticulous about trivial details"; "punctilious in his attention to rules of etiquette" >> http://www.redgreen.com/files/layout/washing.jpg :o) Sue... > FrediFizzx > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.vacuum-physics.com Hi Sue Fred and all... > > Hi Sue and all, > > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > OK, I am playing. How does this look?: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_integral More complicated than needed at first. > > there's real forces there that separate those > > magnets in space and time. I see how GR explains > > why that happens. The big amplifier is found in, > > Whatchu mean *time* you krazy kanook! :o) I'm not kanook, my step parents are half North American! > ====================================| > Time-independent Maxwell equations [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > That IS a big number... Hmmm > OK, ~10^42 might fall out of that. Yup, E=mc^2 , E = L*c^4/G, > > Let's pull GR's Unitivity solution, > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > More dicipline we need! > http://www.users.qwest.net/~efotheringham/Media/internet%20dominatrix.jpg Ok, I get to wear the spikey, unless otherwise!!! > Sue... > > > Ken S. Tucker > > kxsxt > Hi Sue Fred and all... > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > > > > > http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf Yes... it will complicate itself without our help. Lightspeed is what it is, because a charge couple has a definite mass and tension. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif from http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html We are *assuming* we don't get light or gravity unless something moves. So... Can the motion which we analyze be as simple as a chaNge is the spacing of the chaRge couple? I think you have already answered that. I just need to go back and read again. > > > but certainly a more detailed analysis provides > > > radiation when "a" and "b" change the're radar [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > I'm not kanook, my step parents are half North > American! GAWD! I hope the other half of them is not to the south. That will throw of all of our induced dipole musings. > > ====================================| > > Time-independent Maxwell equations [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Yup, E=mc^2 , E = L*c^4/G, I might letcha do that. I have to read some more about Planck area. > > > Let's pull GR's Unitivity solution, > > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Ok, I get to wear the spikey, unless otherwise!!! It is a good thing you're fond of simple equations. Big equations are difficult to manage with a brain between your legs. ;-) Sue... > > > Sue... > > > > > Ken S. Tucker > > > kxsxt > > Hi Sue Fred and all... > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Lightspeed is what it is, because a charge couple > has a definite mass and tension. > http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif from > http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html Incidentally, I helped design a control panel for an oil tank farm, and we had to use Hall Effect switches because they don't spark. > We are *assuming* we don't get light or gravity unless > something moves. So... Can the motion which we > analyze be as simple as a chaNge is the spacing of the > chaRge couple? > I think you have already answered that. I just > need to go back and read again. Ok, maybe I should put an addendum to the article to explain things better, so your questions are very helpful. > > > > but certainly a more detailed analysis provides > > > > radiation when "a" and "b" change the're radar [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > Big equations are difficult to manage with a > brain between your legs. ;-) LOL, we're taught to simplify the answers so even I can understand them! Ken > > > Hi Sue Fred and all... > > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > an oil tank farm, and we had to use Hall Effect > switches because they don't spark. I wish you had designed my dearly departed motor scooter. The battery terminals were about 150mm from the fuel filler... and they DID spark! :-( > > We are *assuming* we don't get light or gravity unless > > something moves. So... Can the motion which we [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to explain things better, so your questions are > very helpful. Well you do mention light, so we have to move some charges if that is part of the mechanism. > > > > > but certainly a more detailed analysis provides > > > > > radiation when "a" and "b" change the're radar [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] > LOL, we're taught to simplify the answers so even > I can understand them! LOL :o) Sue... > Ken ... > I wish you had designed my dearly departed motor scooter. > The battery terminals were about 150mm from the fuel > filler... and they DID spark! :-( Hope that wasn't a serious thing, like a pube cinger. I'm afraid I can't ride a motorcyle, don't have enough room between my legs, to many brains in the way! :-( > > > We are *assuming* we don't get light or gravity unless > > > something moves. So... Can the motion which we > > > analyze be as simple as a chaNge is the spacing of the > > > chaRge couple? > > > I think you have already answered that. I just > > > need to go back and read again. > > Ok, maybe I should put an addendum to the article > > to explain things better, so your questions are > > very helpful. > > Well you do mention light, so we have to move some > charges if that is part of the mechanism. Well LIGO expects to receive g-waves at certain frequencies. It appears the GR charge couple solution would predict that energy is EMR, we'll see. Ken | Hi Sue and all, | [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] | is a wee bit greater than repulsion, I'll bet | Sue would call that Love = residual attraction. And QVC helps because then we can model EM as a curvature of spacetime also. In fact, when playing with those magnets, it is pretty easy to see that those magnets are highly curving spacetime wrt the magnets. No magic required! ;-) FrediFizzx http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf or postscript http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps http://www.vacuum-physics.com snip > And QVC helps because then we can model EM as a curvature of spacetime > also. In fact, when playing with those magnets, it is pretty easy to > see that those magnets are highly curving spacetime wrt the magnets. No > magic required! ;-) *Homogenous* space-time you mean? If you don't see 1/r^3... then you don't see magnets. http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html Half the volume of your 4d space-time is null and it is too easy to put things there which don't exist. << Thus, charges *appear* to emit only retarded waves, which agrees with our everyday experience. Clearly, in this model we have side-stepped the problem of a time asymmetric Green's function by adopting time asymmetric boundary conditions to the universe; i.e., the distant charges in the universe absorb retarded waves and reflect advanced waves. This is possible because the absorption takes place at the end of the universe (i.e., at the ``big crunch,'' or whatever) and the reflection takes place at the beginning of the universe (i.e., at the ``big bang''). It is quite plausible that the state of the universe (and, hence, its interaction with electromagnetic waves) is completely different at these two times. It should be pointed out that the Feynman-Wheeler model runs into trouble when one tries to combine electromagnetism with quantum mechanics. These difficulties have yet to be resolved, so at present the status of this model is that it is ``an interesting idea'' but it is still not fully accepted into the canon of physics. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em1/lectures/node46.html 'Space-Time' http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node13.html But... If we put all the matter and all the space into a blender, and push the 'puree' button, your SI MKS compatable paradigm looks pretty close to me. :o) In cgs, we don't have imagine spin faries making permeability out where no structures exist to support it and we don't have to explain how to make four telescopes share one photon. <<ESO Press Release 16/02: Four Eyes Are Better. VLT Interferometer Passes Another Technical Hurdle. (26/September/2002).>> http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2002/pr-16-02.html Sue... > FrediFizzx > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.vacuum-physics.com | snip | > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] | Half the volume of your 4d space-time is null and | it is too easy to put things there which don't exist. 4D??? Heck we have to have a minimum of 8D or it doesn't work. ;-) FrediFizzx > | snip > | > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > 4D??? Heck we have to have a minimum of 8D or it doesn't work. ;-) That is the same total I get. Four dimensions for the physics and four dimensions for the stuff we have to call magic. :o) Sue... > FrediFizzx | > | snip | > | > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] | dimensions for the stuff we have to call | magic. :o) It's becoming less magical now-a-days. Darn! "Our" Universe's "now" is a physical event horizon that moves at c. Naturally the question is... an "event horizon" between what? Here is more... http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9905221 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9906064 Two 3-branes? Ok, let's go for it. I'm easy. FrediFizzx http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf or postscript http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps http://www.vacuum-physics.com > | > | snip > | > | > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9905221 > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9906064 Yep... That is the degree of abstraction you need for a propagation model that assumes permeability in spaces lacking structures to support it. http://geophysics.ou.edu/gravmag/mag_basic/mag_basic.html Sue... > Two 3-branes? Ok, let's go for it. I'm easy. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.vacuum-physics.com | > | > | snip | > | > | > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] | spaces lacking structures to support it. | http://geophysics.ou.edu/gravmag/mag_basic/mag_basic.html Well... if we are to have "vacuum" inductance and "vacuum" capacitance, then that means we have to have "vacuum" charge also. Gotta have a spacetime for it to exist in because it don't seem to be in "ours" directly. Now, is it two separate 3-branes with "now" being an event horizon between or is it more like an embedded brane scenario? Anything that is freakin' mostly hidden from us (on the other side of an event horizon) is always going to have to be an abstraction. I don't see anyway around that problem. But there are clues since it is not entirely hidden. FrediFizzx http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf or postscript http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps http://www.vacuum-physics.com > | > | > | snip > | > | > | > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Well... if we are to have "vacuum" inductance and "vacuum" capacitance, > then that means we have to have "vacuum" charge also. Why would you want to assume things other than what we measure? 0102reflectionsfig3.gif http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html > Gotta have a > spacetime for it to exist No... you only need apply appropriate transformations to the near field. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034 > in because it don't seem to be in "ours" > directly. Now, is it two separate 3-branes with "now" being an event [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > anyway around that problem. But there are clues since it is not > entirely hidden. When driving at night, we see the moon going whereever we go. We can, if we please, conconct a model of the solar system that assumes the moon is in fact following us in our travels which will mathematically correct. The unecessary complexity should be obvious. :o) Just because we can design a co-ordinate system which will, by definitiion, conserve energy, charge, c, or some other quantity, nature is under no obligation to color between the lines we draw. :o) Sue... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath564/kmath564.htm > FrediFizzx > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.vacuum-physics.com > | Hi Sue and all, > | [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > magic required! ;-) > FrediFizzx What intrigues me is how magnetism goes through lead (Pb). If the photon is the EM force carrier, does it stand to reason sufficiently low frequency EM will go through Pb? Fred recall we were discussing spinors. I use something similiar to convey magnetism in space- time, the antisymmetric of the g_uv, like q*Bz = g12, and g21=-g12. I think the Eq(4) above depends upon the QVC, and the definition of a vacuum you and Dr Inopin are working on. Regards Ken S. Tucker > > | Hi Sue and all, > > | [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > does it stand to reason sufficiently low frequency > EM will go through Pb? Your response to the wiki about triple integrals tipped me off that you might find that intriguing. We only see a photon when it is emitted or absorbed. We only see magnetic and graviataional domains when they align dipoles, permanent or induced. Particles can have charges but the force of their motion can be electrically neutral over a region. <<Recall that the electromagnetic momenergy of a charge splits unambiguously into two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive parts: (1) that which is radiated and (2) that which is bound 14 to the charge. >> [...] <<The Lorentz-Dirac equation demands that this radiation reation four-force change the inertial plus bound e.m. momenergy of the charged particle. The magnitude of the radiation four-force is given by the invariant Larmor formula... >> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9910086 Sue... > Fred recall we were discussing spinors. I use > something similiar to convey magnetism in space- [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Regards > Ken S. Tucker > > > | Hi Sue and all, > > > | [quoted text clipped - 118 lines] > http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9910086 > Sue... Sue, you quoted that paper, would you ascertain it is correct? Ken > > > > | Hi Sue and all, > > > > | [quoted text clipped - 121 lines] > Sue, you quoted that paper, would you ascertain > it is correct? LOL I might get through one equation in 27 days and it is 27 pages long. Are you troubled by integral rather that differential forms? That can happen if you want to write timeless equations. << So, we have come full circle in our investigation of magnetic fields. Note that the simple result (345) can only be obtained from the Biot-Savart law after some non-trivial algebra. Examination of more complicated current distributions using this law invariably leads to lengthy, involved, and extremely unpleasant calculations. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node39.html Maybe that is why Paul Gibbon likes computers. http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon Time-independent Maxwell equations Time-dependent Maxwell's equations http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html If that isn't what you were asking... then ask something easier. :o) Sue... > Ken > > > > > | Hi Sue and all, > > > > > | [quoted text clipped - 125 lines] > I might get through one equation in 27 days and > it is 27 pages long. Check out pg 23, note "Black holes", do you want to quote those 1,2, statements? > Are you troubled > by integral rather that differential forms? Both ok with me. > That can happen if you want to write timeless > equations. Basically an integral physically adds a dimension and a constant of integration where possible. Ken snip > > > > > What intrigues me is how magnetism goes through > > > > > lead (Pb). If the photon is the EM force carrier, [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Check out pg 23, note "Black holes", do you want > to quote those 1,2, statements? Because of the 'popular' image conjured up when the term is used, I avoid using it. I don't see that the musings (he calls them observations ) lend any physical interpretation to singularitiies or infinities that pop up we treat an entity as a point source. > > Are you troubled > > by integral rather that differential forms? > > Both ok with me. They were not both OK a few posts previous, when I offered the triple integral wiki URL. LOL They are not both OK with Fitzpatrick because he covers them separately. Maybe a picture will help. Compare: http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/magnetostatics/thumbnails/ RingMagIntThumb from: http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/magnetostatics/index.htm with: http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/vectorfields/thumbnails/pa thintthumb.jpg from: http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/vectorfields/index.htm > > That can happen if you want to write timeless > > equations. > > Basically an integral physically adds a dimension > and a constant of integration where possible. Yes... 'where possible'. The paper I offered was to give some sense of the ambiguity that can result when it is not possible, but a theorist tries anyway. Time is an abstraction that 'seldom' is on the same footing as spatial displacement so it is very easy to commit kinky acts that nature never intended with the dt below the fraction bar. Sue... http://mathworld.wolfram.com/StokesTheorem.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GreensTheorem.html 'From Lorenz to Coulomb and other explicit gauge transformations' http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034 > Ken > snip > > Maybe a picture will help. Compare: If the Google composer chops RingMagIntThumb.jpg Use duct tape. :o) http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/magnetostatics/thumbnails/ RingMagIntThumb.jpg > from: > http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/magnetostatics/index.htm > with: > http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/vectorfields/thumbnails/pa thintthumb.jpg > from: > http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/vectorfields/index.htm Sue... ... > > Basically an integral physically adds a dimension > > and a constant of integration where possible. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > very easy to commit kinky acts that nature never > intended with the dt below the fraction bar. The "relativity of charge"...charge doesn't exist except relative to another charge, a charge has no absolute existance, it can only exist in a pair, but each does have an invariant magnitude. That's why I use S^2=X^2+a*b Eq.(4) where "a" and "b" dilineate X and S. But because of QT, the distance S (or X) cannot vary continuously, but only by quantized amounts photons)which brings us back to your point about "dt". Consider the Electric Field of charge "a", E(a). It does NOT exist since "a" doesn't exist alone. But E(a)*E(b) does exist as an "energy density T", like in a battery. But the "T" is "quantized" so it can't be varied continuously, meaning dT =0, but is not constant. You can vary T incrementally, like DT where D is a finite increment. Funny in the differential calculus we make dT = Lim DT => 0 . Recall Planck invented QT by letting Action=>h, instead of 0. Regards Ken S. Tucker > Sue... > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/StokesTheorem.html [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > Ken > ... > > > Basically an integral physically adds a dimension [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > exist in a pair, but each does have an invariant > magnitude. Indeed, 0.511MeV is only half the story. > That's why I use > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > photons)which brings us back to your point about > "dt". Ah Ha! All matter is not atoms. The restriction is artifical. But it may be essential to other parts of the QT formalism so we cannot arbitrarily ignore it. > Consider the Electric Field of charge "a", E(a). > It does NOT exist since "a" doesn't exist alone. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a finite increment. Funny in the differential > calculus we make Hmmm... I don't think you can put something in the denominator that is discontinuous and still call it differential calculus. > dT = Lim DT => 0 . > > Recall Planck invented QT by letting Action=>h, > instead of 0. OK... you are getting some sense of what is troubling me about your derivation where c^4 and Planck area *looks* so elegant... but I believe it is so wrong. (quantitativly it may be close ) I can't phrase it any better than you just did. Words might come to me if I review some of the material with that in mind. Thanks for pointing it out. Regards, Sue... > Regards > Ken S. Tucker [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > > > Ken > ... > > > Basically an integral physically adds a dimension [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Recall Planck invented QT by letting Action=>h, > instead of 0. While you may not care for Roger Boudet's English OR French, I believe he is ranting around a similar issue and his calculations are better than I can provide. << Nevertheless, because it is used generally in conformity with the Maxwell-Lorentz laws, QFT may lead to right results. However in all the problems I have met: spontaneous emission (see [1, 1993]), quantum transitions, photoelectric [7], even in the calculation of the Lamb shift (at least in its unrenormalized part) [8],[9], the use of QFT may be advantageously replaced by the consideration of the Maxwell-Lorentz fields created by the transition Dirac charge currents. The reason of the presence of ¯h in these field lies in the presence in their ***sources***, the charge currents, not in constitutive laws of the fields.>> However there is at least a case where the use of QFT leads to a major absurdity. The quantization of the number p! ([1,1990]). For the inattentive readers I emphasize that I am not the author of the stupidity... >> http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-291/aflb291p187.pdf Regards, Sue... > Regards > Ken S. Tucker > > Sue... > > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/StokesTheorem.html [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > > Ken > > ... > > > > Basically an integral physically adds a dimension [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > issue and his calculations are better than I can > provide. Yes Sue, thanks for the ref. (read your other post to). > << Nevertheless, because it is used > generally in conformity with the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Regards, > Sue... Yes, the part you quoted is right on, and so much more in Boudet's criticism. IMO theoreticians tend to depreciate the sophistication of the "relativity of charge" I mention above. If SR is the "relativity of velocity", then GR is part of the "relativity of charge" because together they produce QT. Regards Ken S. Tucker > > > ... > > > > > Basically an integral physically adds a dimension [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > Regards > Ken S. Tucker OK Thanks :o) I was beginning to feel like the schoolmarm insisting ya can't chew gum in class... without knowing why. LOL Sue... > > > > ... > > > > > > Basically an integral physically adds a dimension [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > ya can't chew gum in class... without knowing why. LOL > Sue... No guff Sue, that was super ref. (I read it 3 times). AE was able to unify the Law of Conservation of Mass and the Law of Conservation of energy with E=mc2. ((I once went to a tutor session with a rather large intimidating equation that was wonderfully sophisticated. The Prof pondered it for a few minutes, got out his book and pointed to E=mc2. That was Prof W.W. Sawyer, who is quite famous now living in England. That was embarassing! That's why I embrace Eq.(4), a unified field theory for simple clarity.)) Another very fundamental one is Planck's E=hf, which is free of differentials and integrals. Then GR's E=(G/c^4)*L, your favorite :-). Regards Ken S. Tucker PS: I'm curious, it's 1:00 PM (13:00) PST in BC canuckistan, what time is it for you? > > > > > ... > > > > > > > Basically an integral physically adds a dimension [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > > Then GR's E=(G/c^4)*L, your favorite :-). If magnetism is to electromagnetism as London forces are to gravity then that relation might have some problems. Hmmm... what does this suggest? http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/optics507/modules/m10/laser_cooling.htm ;-) Regards, Sue... > Regards > Ken S. Tucker > > PS: I'm curious, it's 1:00 PM (13:00) PST > in BC canuckistan, what time is it for you? Just finishing lunch. ... > > No guff Sue, that was super ref. (I read it 3 times). > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/optics507/modules/m10/laser_cooling.htm > ;-) Hey that's cool (pun intended:-). As I recall, the LASER works by "stimulating Radiation to emission". I think the process of emission can remove energy from the system (atom in that case) so it get's cooler. So if one photon goes into a system but two photons come out, then the system looses the energy equivalent of the stimulated photon. Is that what you think? Ken > ... > > > No guff Sue, that was super ref. (I read it 3 times). [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > of the stimulated photon. > Is that what you think? Our notions about *local* mass/energy conservation and S.L.O.T. would certainly suggest that, but I honestly haven't studied in sufficient detail to comfortably say where all the jiggles end up. Because the theory is explained in terms of magnetic coupling, it is probably a bad place to try counting photons. I don't see the potential for an ultraviolet catastrophe, so why take the road worst traveled? :o) Sue... > Ken > > ... > > > > No guff Sue, that was super ref. (I read it 3 times). [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > catastrophe, so why take the road worst traveled? :o) > Sue... Ok, let's take a break and I'll tell you a story. Well you know how kid's can be observant, well this one blew my mind...yeah yah the bit left. My son (Travis) noticed his power bar had a little light in it, the old fashioned kind, that started to flicker as it aged. Then he said, it doesn't flicker in the dark, but only when the lights are on. So we get a flashlight and sure enough the bulb flickers when we shine light on it. And the more light the greater the flicker, evidentially a LASER. Sorry Sue, what were saying :-)... Ken > > > ... > > > > > No guff Sue, that was super ref. (I read it 3 times). [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > Sorry Sue, what were saying :-)... LOL Yes... neon lamps will do that too. Ancient equipment that uses them as memory devices don't work well in the dark. Sue... > Ken > ... > > > No guff Sue, that was super ref. (I read it 3 times). [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Is that what you think? > Ken Interestingly... A pretty good mechanical analog exist: << The vortex tube, also known as the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube, is a heat pump with no moving parts. Pressurized gas is injected into a specially designed chamber. The chamber's internal shape, combined with the pressure, accelerates the gas to a high rate of rotation (over 1,000,000 rpm). The gas is split into two streams, one giving kinetic energy to the other, and resulting in separate flows of hot and cold gases. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube Sue... > > ... > > > > No guff Sue, that was super ref. (I read it 3 times). [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Sue... Well everybody needs to make a $ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator A real free man doesn't suck the taxpayer to do research, he pays for it if it's right! SSC == $11 billion to make more particles. I'm ready to take a collection, what PP's out there will give a rat's a.s? none. There are two types of theoreticians, those who pay their own way, and those that are in the way. If you're bright enough to be a theoretician, you're bright enough to pay your own way. If you can't pay you're own way then get the f.ck out of the way, you don't qualify. That's the occam razor. Thus governmentally institutionalized theoreticians suckin off tax-payers are parasites giving real theoreticians a bad reputation. Like Shatner said, "get the f.ck out of your parents basement". "Get a real job" I could name at least a dozen people who post to this group who fall into the above catagory. Best to you.. Ken > Thanks for lookin Sue... > [quoted text clipped - 123 lines] > I think I can demo that off Eq.(4) using some > basic algebra if you want. Hi KenST and Freddi, What I was trying to say in the parallel post about Cavendish and Coulomb: << The electrical scaling relationships of the general theory are based on the linear relationships of the Maxwell and Newton equations. There are additional physical constants in the overall system. The only way to avoid the problem of linear dependencies is to utilize both linear and nonlinear terms in determining the scaling relationship. Just because the Newtonian gravitational energy and the Maxwellian field energy are computable, it is in no way implied that the metrical scaling relationship between the two fields is known. The classical electrical and gravitational systems of units form two distinct and orthogonal systems. No existing theory or system of units consistently connects the gravitational and electrical fields. The general theory contains no electrical arguments or principles to bridge this gap. Gravity stands alone. Refer to any textbook on the general theory of relativity for another perspective. >> http://www.s-4.com/pulsar/limits.htm So... the use of c^4 or in some cases I see pi*c^3 taking the ratio to Planck length etc. ect may produce a big factor where we need a big factor but if one is four-space-blind the way I am it starts to look like numerology. I don't mean that in a derogatory sense because the attempts are valiant trail blazing where the path isn't clear. The notion of equating a volume of space to mass/energy has merit. The notion of equating a mass moving at the speed of light has merit. Quantitatitivly the results can be good and predict what we already know... (from Cavendish or Etowash) Qualitativly, the approaches seem to leave us in the dark about what to make of optical tweezers or white dwarfs. KenST's fundamentals are in line with how a lot of similar work with induced dipoles begins... but the next rung on the ladder is a long reach requiring Ewald sums, multi body simulation or leaps of faith about 'space-time' or vacuum properties. I have to equate KenST's use of the term orthogonal with the use in http://www.s-4.com/pulsar/limits.htm . IOW... no real connection exist, so we might use c^6 or c^8 or whatever the customer orders. :o) Motion, in a pair of charge couples, (we suspect motion is a necessary element) would seem the logical way to proceed. The use of c, implies the motion of charges. The evolution *may* be the another right answer to the wrong question, as in 'gravitational redshift' where an accelerometer is mislabled as a clock. That is not as some would argue, a harmless error. It misstates EM propagation and any physical signifigance of singularities. If I have overlooked something rigoursly supporting the use of c^4 or Cavendish's G please correct me and the referenced URL. Regards, Sue... > Regards > Ken S. Tucker > ... > > Many thanks for the obeservation about the term 'force'. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > If you like that's Tuckers "noncontinuum solution to > the Electrovacuum EFE's", I mean that. Noncontinum solution? Didn't we know that was necessary from Maxwell's scalar and vector components that have to be patched-up with a retarded time before we are even 1/4 wavelength from the structure? http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em1/lectures/node46.html << The special theory of relativity assumes the existence of a unique class of global coordinate systems - called inertial coordinates - with respect to which the speed of light in vacuum is everywhere equal to the constant c. It was natural, then, to express physical laws in terms of this preferred class of coordinate systems, characterized by the global invariance of the speed of light. In addition, the special theory also strongly implied the fundamental equivalence of mass and energy, according to which light (and every other form of energy) must be regarded as possessing inertia. However, it soon became clear that the global invariance of light speed together with the idea that energy has inertia (as expressed in the famous relation E2 = m2 + |p|2) were incompatible with one of the most firmly established empirical results of physics, namely, the exact proportionality of inertial and gravitational mass, which Einstein elevated to the status of a Principle. This incompatibility led Einstein, as early as 1907, to the belief that the global invariance of light speed, in the sense of the special theory, could not be maintained. Indeed, he concluded that we cannot assume, as do both Newtonian theory and special relativity, the existence of any global inertial systems of coordinates (although we can carry over the existence of a local system of inertial coordinates in a vanishingly small region of spacetime around any event). >> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm > Once T00 is defined that way, we can enjoy G00 by > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > g00 = 1 + (a/s)(b/s), > provided the charges don't masturbate, so terms > like self energization "a^2/s" are excluded [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > location than "b", and the metric is defined > by the relation. See, the continuum died. ...and well it should if it insists that couplings that are not light must propagate like light anyway. > With Sues ableness to put things behind us, > we can proceed to observe the asymmetry of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > want, show how nonsymetrical metrics give > the EM field. I am assuming that would be a different way to express the advanced and retarded solutions for expressing the 1/r^3 magnetic and 1/r^2 Coulomb components. The 'obsession' with time and speed of light that is inhereted thru the use of a space-time continum, seems more a help than a hinderace. Contrast with: http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~keithr/moldy-manual/node11.html http://www.fisica.uniud.it/~ercolessi/md/md/node52.html Eleventeen ways from Sunday we can show that constant c electromagnetic field equations are compatable with a relativistic paradigm, but proof or conformance with the coupling modes for light, doesn't necessarly tell us anything about other coupling modes necessary to Coulomb, VDW, London and gravity. The space-time continum paradigm is tripping over its own shoelaces before it even produces a model for the simple 1/r^3 force, magnetism... and that effect is part of its own foundation. :-/ Sue... > Regards Sue > Ken S. Tucker Sue... mis-wrote: The 'obsession' with time and speed of light that is inhereted thru the use of a space-time continum, seems more a [hinderace] than a [help]. <<-->> I can mess up like that consistantly by trying to write balanced equations. <:-) Sue... > > Sue: paraphrase style in brackets []. > > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > Can you define acceleration in a many-bodied gravitational system? Actually, after a little prodding and harassment from KST :o), I think we can. If we gauge the force used to separate a pair of planets or Cavendish weights, it is not hard to see the mechanism of induced dipoles providing the reaction force we measure and a conformance with both the inverse square law and the the acceleration law. 1/r^2 a = 1/2 mv^2 When the two masses are far apart and we use a thin wire or rod to conduct the force between, is is not so easy to see how induced dipoles enter into the reaction force or 'inertia'. The solution might be very simple. All the other induced dipoles in the universe have a 'grip' on the masses that will change only as they approach more populus regions of space. Some may object over concerns of instaneous action at distance but that doesn't need to apply where the coupling to existing Coulomb lines are locally modifed as the structure of the induced dipole adapts to the field. So... your holistic, or all is one, nutshell notion seems it could be considered integral to inertial behavior. Sue... > I think that there is an objective physic in existence that we cannot > fathom yet. We tend to make a physic out of our subjective [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > In a nutshell, we are in one, and nobody seems to realise it. > > > Sue: paraphrase style in brackets []. > > > [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > > Actually, after a little prodding and harassment from KST :o), If you think I'm sexist, you should meet me in person, I'm worse, :-). > I think we can. > If we gauge the force used to separate a pair of planets or [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > as the structure of the induced dipole adapts to > the field. I think that's the ticket. That adaptation results in a gravitational attraction as a GR modification to electrostratic force. > So... your holistic, or all is one, nutshell notion > seems it could be considered integral to inertial > behavior. Yes, well written, that's what I think. Mach's Principle is more clearly understood using Maxwell's eqs when GR is accounted for. Unfortunately, if we are correct, it would predict a null result for the LIGO experiment, and sofar that is the result. IOW's the g-waves emit in EM spectrum. > Sue... If you want I'll expand on the above. ... > > While it is true that relativity theory describes a timely form of > > cause and effect, it is just locally applicable with locally applied > > time. It is very good... if you like a local physics that cannot > > describe or correlate to quantums or strings. (I hate strings) > > > > In a nutshell, we are in one, and nobody seems to realise it. A preface in an abstract stating the UNIVERSE=1 is a very reasonble invariant, I've used it. Agreeably Ken > > > > Sue: paraphrase style in brackets []. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 144 lines] > Agreeably > Ken xxein: UNIVERSE=1 what? Stasis or dymamic? (Just an aside.) I'll trust that you can help me with the below. I am missing one (only one? I wish!) piece of math. Given a simple G, M (in meters) and R, I can figure the 'ideal' timerates, escape velocities etc., but I don't know how to figure out a specific velocity under a specific circumstance --- that being: Even though the integration and derivitive calc for acceleration, velocity and time is very straightforward wrt a particular R, I don't know the calculus to figure the grander scale where R varies. The prime example is - how fast is a rock moving if dropped from 2 Earth radii to just as it approaches 1 Earth radii? Rem: this is the ideal with no atmosphere and no otherwise motion between them (just a pure m(1),m(test). Having a general form of this with G, M, R and c will help me tie a lot of loose ends. The last time I asked (a few years ago), Ande452 only gave me a hint as to powers (like I was supposed to know how to use them in a calc - or I should take calc(XVI)). He acted like it was a mundane piece of information with no scientific value except for a specific calculation. Well, I sorely miss this relation and feel in my bones that it is very important relation that may be a semi-Rosetta stone for understanding this universe. I also feel that it can spell trouble for SR-GR in that it might expose an unequality of great proportion if given a proper consideration. Otoh, it may help unite the different theories. But, without any regard to any event, I want it as a tool to play with. Can you express it so, or cite? This would be like the best of sex to me (temporarily, until I need more). Thx in advance for whatever you can provide. I just hope it is not theory dependent (?). [...] > > A preface in an abstract stating the UNIVERSE=1 > > is a very reasonble invariant, I've used it. > > Agreeably > > Ken > > xxein: UNIVERSE=1 what? Stasis or dymamic? (Just an aside.) Even in organic terms, you or me, an ant or a bee has 1 universe. > I'll trust that you can help me with the below. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Having a general form of this with G, M, R and c will help me tie a lot > of loose ends. That type of question is important in *Celestrial Mechanics*, Escape Velocity = sqrt(2GM/R) is what you want to understand. In GR defining "M" and "R" is a bit more complicated. > The last time I asked (a few years ago), Ande452 only gave me a hint as > to powers (like I was supposed to know how to use them in a calc - or I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Otoh, it may help unite the different theories. > But, without any regard to any event, I want it as a tool to play with. Sounds good, that same type of enquiry led to GR, to start. > Can you express it so, or cite? This would be like the best of sex to > me (temporarily, until I need more). > Thx in advance for whatever you can provide. I just hope it is not > theory dependent (?). Well spacecraft use Newtons Laws successfully. Ken > [...] > > > A preface in an abstract stating the UNIVERSE=1 [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > is what you want to understand. xxein: No. If dropped from 2R instead of infinity. Like if you drop something from the Empire State Bldg. instead of ten meters the splat velocity will be greater. Sqrt(2GM/R) is a drop from infinity. What is the splat velocity from 2R to R? Remember that R changes throughout the fall. The sqrt(2GM/R)is probably a math shorthand for some intergral that indicates "from R(=inf) to R(=surface of a mass), splat v=sqrt(2GM/R)". Repeat with "from R(=2R) to R(=X=any point above or including the surface of a mass), splat v=???". Do you understand what I am asking now? > > [...] > > > > A preface in an abstract stating the UNIVERSE=1 [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Do you understand what I am asking now? I'll assume you were just being complete including c. Let's try to ignore it. Force increases with radius below surface. Force diminishes by the square of the radius above surface. The curve is ugly and the equation not much prettier. I think the problem might be the interpretation of the word infinity. It is not the same as setting the focal length of a lens to infinity. If an object occupies 2 degress of your field of view, you can always double your distance and half the apparent angular size. This is how we 'expect' to approach infinity. Not so with Coulomb force and gravity You have to put on your Machian hat and consider the whole universe is always acting on the test mass. The earth acts to distribute the force of the universe assymetrically over the test mass to produce the acceleration vector. We can't approach infinity. We approach 377 ohms impedance because the universe is homogenous. As far as we know, we can't move to a position where the charges that comprise the universe will not try to drag photons out of us. That isn't the compact equation you seek, but perhaps the different POV about the mathematical use of the term 'infinity' will help to get there. Sue... > > [...] > > > > A preface in an abstract stating the UNIVERSE=1 [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Do you understand what I am asking now? Yes I do, books on this subject are available at a library by people who have written this stuff up clearly and you can verify are qualified to answer you. Anyway, IIRC, the differences in g-potential convert to kinetic energy, (Newtonian approx), E = m*v^2/2 = m*PHI2 - m*PHI1 But that is modified in GR. You may want to post that question in a new thread because the're quite a number of people who are very good at teaching. Ken > > > > > Sue: paraphrase style in brackets []. > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 164 lines] > Having a general form of this with G, M, R and c will help me tie a lot > of loose ends. Ahhh... you want to play hard-ball by putting the term 'c' in the relation. We can get there from a global assumption about conservation like e = mc^2. Look at KST's evolution above where: << For example, take a pair of charges "a" and "b" and they have some configurational energy, p = a*b/s, in ergs for example. Slap the behind (dividing by volume) and get the energy density, T00= p/s^3 == a*b/s^4. Now, pause and ponder this, T00= (a/s^2)*(b/s^2) = E(a)*E(b) = a*b/s^4, where E(a) & E(b) are Electric fields of charge "a" and some other charges. "the above departs from the classical solution to EFE's that uses a continum, but who cares, that's pretty junky now. " >> KST has good instincts about finding the shortest path to a solution but that grand assumption about the conservation of energy in the universe is troubling? But you'd rather see the evolution begin with universe having an impedance of 377 ohms, as in this relation? http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif from: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html Here is such an evolution that is incomplete. It considers the forces which diminish by 1/r, 1/r^2 and 1/r^3 anisotropcally. 'Electromagnetic energy and momentum ' http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node90.html You want rigorous field equations that will include forces diminishing by up to 1/r^12 so can see where the Coulomb force is a trillon, trillon, trillon times greater than gravity and inertia? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html Ha! ROFL... That could end up looking like: 'The Ewald Sum' http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~keithr/moldy-manual/node11.html or you might need a big computer http://www.kfa-juelich.de/zam/ZAMPeople/sutmann-teaching/UNAM_2005 > The last time I asked (a few years ago), Ande452 only gave me a hint as > to powers (like I was supposed to know how to use them in a calc - or I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it might expose an unequality of great proportion if given a proper > consideration. It seems it would spell trouble for GR SR because they are not well behaved when things move at other than c. > Otoh, it may help unite the different theories. Yes, at least on a macro scale it seem to move in the right direction. > But, without any regard to any event, I want it as a tool to play with. Is this a fair name for the tool? "Long Range Interactions in Many-Particle Simulation" (pdf) P. Gibbon and G. Sutmann. http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/datapool/page/1959/wsqs_2002_long_range.pdf > Can you express it so, or cite? This would be like the best of sex to > me (temporarily, until I need more). > > Thx in advance for whatever you can provide. I just hope it is not > theory dependent (?). The forces between dipoles is a rather simple and well established 'theory'. ;-) Sue... > > > > > > Sue: paraphrase style in brackets []. > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 255 lines] > > Sue... xxein: See my follow-up to KST. It should have a very macro answer in the proper context. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message