Gravity and electricity
Orion
that the quantum uncertainty does not allow this but what if this
postulate is not valid?
Traveler
dan...@bezeqint.net (Orion) wrote:
Yes there is. They both obey an inverse square distribution from the
source. There are several differences, of course: First, whereas an
electric field can be shielded, gravity cannot. Second, the
acceleration of gravity on earth is the same for all masses; this is
not true for the acceleration between charges. Third, gravity is
always attractive whereas electricity can be either attractive or
repulsive.
I have excellent reasons to believe that gravity is an energy
conservation phenomenon resulting from electric interactions.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Puppet_Sock
Not really. Gravity is a geometry effect. Electricity (I presume
you mean the electromagnetic force) is an interaction of electric
charge through an electric field.
There is no particular application of "quantum uncertainty" that
is relevant here. Did we have a quantum gravity theory, there
would presumably be appropriate equivalents of the Heisenberg
uncertainty principle.
Socks
John Sefton
Traveler wrote:
> In article <fca052bf.05062...@posting.google.com>,
> dan...@bezeqint.net (Orion) wrote:
>
>
>>Is there a possible connection between gravity and electricity? I know
>>that the quantum uncertainty does not allow this but what if this
>>postulate is not valid?
>
>
> Yes there is. They both obey an inverse square distribution from the
> source. There are several differences, of course: First, whereas an
> electric field can be shielded, gravity cannot. Second, the
> acceleration of gravity on earth is the same for all masses; this is
> not true for the acceleration between charges. Third, gravity is
> always attractive whereas electricity can be either attractive or
> repulsive.
>
> I have excellent reasons to believe that gravity is an energy
> conservation phenomenon resulting from electric interactions.
>
I try to match two pictures, so some
things are easier to rule out.
Stars radiate. Where does the energy
all go? Where did it come from?
John
Uncle Al
>
> Is there a possible connection between gravity and electricity?
No, not even if you are wearing Kaluza-Klein jeans.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Traveler
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>Orion wrote:
>>
>> Is there a possible connection between gravity and electricity?
>[snip]
>
>No, not even if you are wearing Kaluza-Klein jeans.
Fucking ineducable idiot.
John Sefton
How much energy is released every moment
by the million suns that make up a galaxy?
Whither to, that energy?
Whence, that energy?
Why don't galaxies gradually dim and die as their
stars die? Are new stars produced? Where do
they come from? Where does the energy come
from to replace the radiated starlight?
If we don't know that, how can
we know gravity?
John
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> How much energy is released every moment
> by the million suns that make up a galaxy?
A lot, I'm sure. What's that got to do with
the topic of this thread?
> Whither to, that energy?
> Whence, that energy?
Mostly "out." That is, most of it goes away from
the galaxy. Again, so what?
> Why don't galaxies gradually dim and die as their
> stars die? Are new stars produced? Where do
> they come from? Where does the energy come
> from to replace the radiated starlight?
Stars do die. Stars are produced. Galaxies do age.
> If we don't know that, how can
> we know gravity?
Who says we don't know?
What is the connection between them?
Socks
hanson
news:1119275994.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Orion wrote:
>> Is there a possible connection between gravity and electricity?
>> I know that the quantum uncertainty does not allow this but
>> what if this postulate is not valid?
>
> Not really. Gravity is a geometry effect. Electricity (I presume
> you mean the electromagnetic force) is an interaction of electric
> charge through an electric field.
> There is no particular application of "quantum uncertainty" that
> is relevant here. Did we have a quantum gravity theory, there
> would presumably be appropriate equivalents of the Heisenberg
> uncertainty principle.
> Socks
>
Right. Dimensional speculations show quickly that
that the Energy exchange between masses per
time (event duration), E/T, has to be greater
then a minimum because Planck's h factors in
as can be seen in E/T = P => rho*G*h,
where P = the power transfer, rho = the density
difference before and after, and G = Newton's
and h Planck's.
ahaha... ahahanson
hanson
news:42B6EE84...@hate.spam.net...
> Orion wrote:
>> Is there a possible connection between gravity and electricity?
> [snip]
>
> No, not even if you are wearing Kaluza-Klein jeans.
>
idiot. There is a connection of/by/with/thru and between gravity
& electricity and all things that are residing within the cosmos.
Even if YOU can't see it because you are stuck in your
worn-out and archaic Kaluza-Klein jeans... ahaha... AHAHA...
Al, listen:.... AHAHAHAHA...... ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA....
Past history says that it cranks you. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
ahaha... ahahanson
John Sefton
Puppet_Sock wrote:
> John Sefton wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>How much energy is released every moment
>>by the million suns that make up a galaxy?
>
>
> A lot, I'm sure. What's that got to do with
> the topic of this thread?
Where does gravity come from?
Most matter is clumped in units called
galaxies. These galaxies are constantly
spraying emr everywhere.
That's energy out.
Where is the energy coming in?
Is it emr also?
That's two energy flows we have failed
to connect to the picture.
How many others are there?
We are not going to find gravity by
staring at our navels; we must look at and
get a handle on the big picture.
snip
John
Traveler
<veg...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
Most of the observed energy comes from the fusion of nuclei within
stars. However, there is a lot more energy coming from matter in the
form of EM photons. every electron, positron and other charged
particles are emitting a huge amount of energy continually. Physicists
absolutely refuse to explain where this energy is coming from. Heck
they won't allow other people to come up with models to explain these
phenomena on the brain-dead pretext that one is not allowed to ask why
in physics. So what do the fucking morons do? They do what morons
usually do, they label the photons "virtual" (i.e., voodoo), sweep the
issued on the rug and hope nobody ask questions.
The truth is that all photons are real, not virtual. And they must
come from somewhere. It shouldbe obvious to anyone with more than two
neurons between their ears that we are swimming in a vast sea or ocean
of highly energetic particles and that the sea is composed of photons.
That's where the self-energy of the electrons and gravitational energy
comes from. The sea is organized as a regular 4-dimensional lattice
and we are moving in it in the fourth dimension at c.
Uncle Al
>
> In article <42B6EE84...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
> <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> >Orion wrote:
> >>
> >> Is there a possible connection between gravity and electricity?
> >[snip]
> >
> >No, not even if you are wearing Kaluza-Klein jeans.
> Louis Savain
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/savain.jpg
DING!!! savain DING!!!
Uncle Al
Gravity and electromagnetism are handled by entirely separate
potentials. Fundamental forces arise from irreducible tensors, but
the proposed unified field strength tensor is asymmetric and
reducible.
Classical gravitational potential has units of mass/length. Classical
electromagnetic potential has units of charge/length. Mass and charge
are separate, independent qualities of particles as seen by the
electron. If time is reversed on a Feynman diagram, the sign of its
charge reverses to become a positron while its mass is unchanged.
Field equations are free to be normalized. By choosing the potential
as a normalizing factor, the choice of units for the potential does
not matter:
Box^2 A_u / |A_u| = 0
The units of this field equation depend only on the operator Box^2.
If A_u is complex-valued, then A_u/|A_u| is a way to represent
U(1),the symmetry group of electromagnetism. The box operator acts on
A_u,not on A_u/|A_u|, so I am not entirely clear on what this
observationmeans.
The second rank tensor A^u;v is reducible. It can be broken into the
antisymmetric second rank electromagnetic field strength tensor F^uv,
and the symmetric field strength tensor .5 (A^u;v + A^v;u). It has
been shown that a symmetric second-rank tensor is the minimum rank
tensor able to depict curved spacetime. This proposal is consistent
with that observation.
An objection to working with a reducible tensor is one could imagine
almost any arbitrary collection of tensors stapled together to form
the reducible tensor. Completeness argues against this stance. The
asymmetric tensor A^u;v is not an arbitrary tensor. Instead, it is
the complete expression of a covariant differential operator acting on
a 4-potential. The complete covariant derivative of a 4-potential can
be split into two irreducible and thus two fundamental fields: F^uv,
the accepted field for electromagnetism, and a symmetric second rank
tensor which might be connected to gravity. The completeness approach
is in contrast to many current efforts which start from an irreducible
representation, then call upon spontaneous symmetry breaking. It may
be worthwhile to seriously consider the complete covariant derivative
of a 4-potential that happens to be reducible for unifying gravity
andelectromagnetism.
Two tested equations of gravity are Newton's law of gravity and the
Schwarzschild metric of general relativity. Newton's gravitational
force law is accurate enough to guide most, but not all, spacecraft.
Subtle corrections are required due to the finite speed of light. The
weak field tests of general relativity have been confirmed. This
unification proposal must generate both types of equations within
experimental accuracy.
The complete relativistic force law has two irreducible parts, and
thus separate fundamental field strength tensors and charges:
F^u = m (A^u;v + A^v;u) / (2 |A^u|) d X_v/dtau
+ kq(A^u,v - A^v,u) / (2 |A^u|) d X_v/dtau
The electromagnetic field strength is normalized to the potential, but
is otherwise identical to the standard Lorentz force. Where in the
gravitational force term is Newton's gravitational constant G? It
will emerge from a dimensionless gravitational source term in the
symmetric tensor.
A particular potential must be chosen for a detailed study of this
force law. The potential must solve the field equations. The
potential 1/r solves the Laplace equation. That potential is relevant
to both classical gravity and electromagnetism under certain
conditions. Now the field equations are based on the d'Alembertian
operator, and time must be included with the distance r. One natural
way to do this is to use the interval tau. The potential, A^u =
(1/tau^2, 0, 0, 0) solves the field equations:
d(1/(t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2))/dt = 2 t/tau^4
d(1/tau^2)/dx = 2 x/tau^4
d(1/tau^2)/dy = 2 y/tau^4
d(1/tau^2)/dz = 2 z/tau^4
d (2t/tau^4)/dt = 8 t^2/tau^6 - 2/tau^4
d (2x/tau^4)/dx = 8 x^2/tau^6 + 2/tau^4
d (2y/tau^4)/dy = 8 y^2/tau^6 + 2/tau^4
d (2z/tau^4)/dz = 8 z^2/tau^6 + 2/tau^4
d^2 A_0/dt^2 - d^2 A_0/dx^2 - d^2 A_0/dy^2 - d^2 A_0/dz^2
= 8 (t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2)/tau^6 - 8/tau^4
= 0
Weak gravitational fields hardly bend spacetime at all. For small
deviations from background, it is common practice to investigate a
linear restoring force. A simple restoring force for this potential
would be:
1/tau^2 = 1/((T + t GM/(2 c^3 T))^2 - (R/c + r/c GM/(2 c^2 R))^2)
where small t and r are the variables, and the spring constants
are GM/(2 c^3 T) and GM/(2 c^2 R) respectively. Note this will
only work locally for small amounts of time t and space r, not
globally.
What needs to be calculated is (A^u;v + A^v;u)/(2 |A^u|) for the
potential A^u = (1/tau^2, 0, 0, 0) assuming the above linear restoring
force. Spacetime has already been assumed to be nearly flat. By
assuming Euclidean coordinates, the connection is zero and standard
derivatives can be used in place of the covariant derivative.
d (1/((T + t GM/(2 c^3 T))^2 - (R/c + r/c GM/(2 c^2 R))^2)) /dt
1/|1/tau^2|
= -GM/(c^3 tau^2) as t, x, y, z -> 0
d (...) /dx 1/|1/tau^2|
= GM/(c^3 tau^2) as t, x, y, z -> 0
d (...) /dy 1/|1/tau^2|
= GM/(c^3 tau^2) as t, x, y, z -> 0
d (...) /dy 1/|1/tau^2|
= GM/(c^3 tau^2) as t, x, y, z -> 0
Write out the relativistic force, trying to get all the signs right.
,v = (d/dt, -d/dx, -d/dy, -d/dz)
A^u = (1/tau^2, 0, 0, 0)
dX_v/dtau = (dt/dtau, -dx/dtau, -dy/dtau, -dz/dtau)
F_u = m (A^u;v + A^v;u)/(2 |A^u|) dX_v/dtau =
= m (-GM/(c^3 tau^2) dt/dtau, GM/(c^3 tau^2) dx/dtau,
GM/(c^3 tau^2) dy/dtau, GM/(c^3 tau^2) dz/dtau)
Let's see if Newton's law is sitting right here. Under classical
conditions, dt/dtau = 0, t = 0, and |tau| = R/c. Assuming radial
symmetry, the force equation simplifies to:
F^u = m (0, GM/R^2 dR/dtau)
Calculate dR/dtau if |tau| = R/c:
R/c = (t^2 - tau^2)^.5
dR/dtau = -tau/R
If d^2 R/dtau^2 =~ d^2 R/dt^2, then:
m d^2 R/dt^2 = -GmM/R^2
This is Newton's law of gravity.
Shove that up your ass, hanson.
ded...@yahoo.com
That's the law of lever. Charge, mass, force and weight are all
simultaneously proportional. Dynamic lever is given with:
{F', D'}={{kcos(a), msin(s)}, {lsin(a), ncos(a)}}x{F, D}/|{{kcos(a),
msin(s)}, {lsin(a), ncos(a)}}|
k,l,m,n designate wether the projections of F', \Delta F, D' and \Delta
D have same or opposite directions with that vector. When the product
klmn=-1 the weight is part of attraction; klmn=0 refers to extreme
state and klmn=1 refers to repulsion. There are no nuclear force really
cause force is only potential distance. Fusion-fission switches are
switches in the type of the interaction. Just imagine what happens with
1kg U^235 when it converts all its attractions into repulsions -
nuclear kaboom, right?
Puppet_Sock
> Puppet_Sock wrote:
> > John Sefton wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> >>How much energy is released every moment
> >>by the million suns that make up a galaxy?
> >
> >
> > A lot, I'm sure. What's that got to do with
> > the topic of this thread?
> Where does gravity come from?
> Most matter is clumped in units called
> galaxies. These galaxies are constantly
> spraying emr everywhere.
> That's energy out.
> Where is the energy coming in?
As far as gravity goes, it is a truly minute perturbation.
Recall such things as the fact the Earth's orbit has been
relatively stable over some billions of years. Yet the
sun has been happily pumping out sunshine that entire time.
Also recall that the sun goes through various cycles
where its total output changes. The amount of energy
it puts out as electromagnetic radiation can change
significantly, while the Earth's orbit does not change
in any signficant way as a result.
> Is it emr also?
A big part of the energy flowing away from stars is
in the form of electromagnetic radiation. At least
for the typical star that isn't losing much of its
material through ejecting massive particles. There
are some things like protons being ejected by our
sun, but again, it's a tiny fraction of the total
mass of the sun. And a few stars do go through stages
of ejecting large amounts of matter, some episodically,
others catastrophically such as supernovas.
> That's two energy flows we have failed
> to connect to the picture.
It's not that it has not been connected. It's that it's
too small to have any effect.
> How many others are there?
The energy flowing from stars is, in most cases, a
minute fraction of the total mass of the star.
Notice that most stars have lifetimes in the millions
of years to billions of years range.
> We are not going to find gravity by
> staring at our navels; we must look at and
> get a handle on the big picture.
Well, possibly. But starlight is a negligible fraction
of the total mass/energy in a galaxy at any given moment.
So, I'd say you have a worse handle on the "big picture"
than anybody else.
Socks
Orion
is a thermo-atomic interaction.
Uncle Al
Beneath contempt. You'd be amazed at what science and mathematics
have accomplished since 500 BC, git.
Uncle Al
>
> In fact gravity is the weakest force we know. My speculation is that it
> is a thermo-atomic interaction.
My empirically supported observation is that you are an idiot. Tell
us, idiot, how "a thermo-atomic interaction" propagates through
vacuum. Tell us, idiot how plasma (the sun; 15 million C at its core)
and Gravity Probe-B's gyroballs at 1.7 K both gravitate equally re the
Equivalence Principle if graviattion is a "a thermo-atomic
interaction."
Traveler
<trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>They do what morons
>usually do, they label the photons "virtual" (i.e., voodoo), sweep the
>issued on the rug and hope nobody ask questions.
Correction:
>They do what morons
>usually do, they label the photons "virtual" (i.e., voodoo), sweep the
>issue under the rug and hope nobody ask questions.
Orion
We must remember that energy conservation can sometimes be a misnomer.
In order for energy conservation to take place the universe must be a
closed system (like a box). But i believe that the universe has a flat
and open structure. It's unlimited.
Maybe there is no such thing as energy conservation when it comes to
the vacuum.
Traveler
[crap]
John Baez... ass... kiss... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
John Sefton
Puppet_Sock wrote:
Let me try anyway.
The stars radiate. Neutron stars fall
into the BH. Plasma comes out to form new stars.
There has to be an energy flow *inward* from the
Universe to resupply the energy radiated. This
energy seems to be 'imported' somehow by the BH.
If you are keeping LeSage Theory
in mind, you need an inward flow of energy to be
being absorbed on a proton-by-proton basis.
Gravity/inertia explained. Now just pinpoint
the incoming energy source. You have the source of
gravity.
John
Uncle Al
[snip]
> The stars radiate. Neutron stars fall
> into the BH. Plasma comes out to form new stars.
[snip crap]
Empirical bullshit from an empirical idiot.
John Sefton
Uncle Al wrote:
> John Sefton wrote:
> [snip]
>
>
>>The stars radiate. Neutron stars fall
>>into the BH. Plasma comes out to form new stars.
>
> [snip crap]
>
> Empirical bullshit from an empirical idiot.
>
Ouch. That hurt.
I'm just saying there has to be incoming
energy to replace that lost to radiation.
I'm saying that absorption of this energy
by matter may be what causes gravity/inertia
and at the same time keeps the balance of energy
in the galaxy.
John
Uncle Al
--
hanson
in news:42B71560...@hate.spam.net... ... ahahaha...
ahahaha.... AHAHAHAH.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... So, Alan
Schwartz, a few days ago you showed a vivid interest in my ass
crack, and now you advise me to "Shove that up your ass, hanson",
referring to the intellectual property that you have stolen... Not good,
Al. Bad scene for your reputation to exhibit such a yearning for my
ass. Your anal fetish is not my bag, and hence your thirsty attempts
will remain an unreachable quest and an unattainable goal for you.
To make matters worse it appears to be an ongoing thing with you
trying to keep on bragging with the same stolen property, see in:
news:4277CCA2...@hate.spam.net... and my post making
you gently, politely, courteously and urgently aware of it in:
news:m%Ude.6366$BE3...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...AHAHAHA.... Al, I always gave
you the benefit of the doubt when you cajole and brag how gifted
you are. I thought you referred to your intellectual prowess and not
to your giftedness as a petty thief. Now, I begin to side with Prof.
Richard Schultz who sees you as a liar.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
All these events, Al, do cast a long shadow onto your participation
in the results of the upcoming/ongoing (???) Eotvoes experiment.
Long, Al.... LONG... like in.... AHAHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha....
in news:42B71560...@hate.spam.net... ... ahahaha...
>> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
>> news:42B6EE84...@hate.spam.net...
[Orion wrote:]
>> >> Is there a possible connection between gravity and electricity?
>> > [snip]
>> >
[Al]
>> > No, not even if you are wearing Kaluza-Klein jeans.
>> > Uncle Al
>> >
[hanson]
>> idiot. There is a connection of/by/with/thru and between gravity
>> & electricity and all things that are residing within the cosmos.
>> Even if YOU can't see it because you are stuck in your
>> worn-out and archaic Kaluza-Klein jeans... ahaha... AHAHA...
>> Al, listen:.... AHAHAHAHA...... ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA....
>> Past history says that it cranks you.... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>> ahaha... ahahanson
>
[Al]
> Gravity and electromagnetism are handled by entirely separate
> potentials. .....
>
[hanson]
idiot.
AHAHAHAHA..... ahahaha.... AHAHAHA.... ahahaha...
More honestly, you should have posted that you and your
plagiarized stuff below are also handled by different potentials,
namely D.Sweetser, the author and you Alan Schwartz, the
plagiarizer...... AHAHAHAHAHA.... Maybe your plagiarized
postings do impress some fools, but don't try to impress me
with that stuff below, about which you have only a very faint inkling
about it may mean. Besides, your only semi-own thought above
is pompous self- aggrandizement. At least state in your future
plageriarizations that "G & EM MAY or CAN be handled..." but
don't use ARE that implies "ONLY" ...ahahahaha... AHAHAHA..
In the real world, including physics and math, there are always
very many ways to skin the cat... I'd go along with what Sweetser
has said, (which you have plagiarized to appear to be as gifted
as he is) if the issue would be about events taking place in the
neighborhood of E-(15 to 18)... just beyond the extreme borders
of the current state of metrology. But Sweetser makes a great
syncopated orchestration, a mensa style menstruation about events
that require metrological sensitivities of E-(35 to 41). Not surprisingly
he makes large Shakespearian cape waving assumptions that have
nothing to do with EM vs G and ends up with the grand and gifted
conclusion that: "m d^2 R/dt^2 = -GmM/R^2" which is nothing else
then Newton's m*a = -GmM/R^2... a thing they teach at the start
of high school physics... ahahaha... AHYAHAHAHA... ahahaha....
AHAHAHA... and you gifted idiot, you Al, steals it and runs around
with it bragging.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>
>
--------- [Al's plagiarized post begins] -----------
> m (-GM/(c^3 tau^2) dt/dtau, GM/(c^3 tau^2) dx/dtau, classical
> conditions, dt/dtau = 0, t = 0, and |tau| = R/c. Assuming radial
> symmetry, the force equation simplifies to:
>
> F^u = m (0, GM/R^2 dR/dtau)
>
> Calculate dR/dtau if |tau| = R/c:
>
> R/c = (t^2 - tau^2)^.5
>
> dR/dtau = -tau/R
>
> If d^2 R/dtau^2 =~ d^2 R/dt^2, then:
>
> m d^2 R/dt^2 = -GmM/R^2
>
> This is Newton's law of gravity.
>
--------- [Al's plagiarized post ends] -----------
>
[hanson]
Original author is not Al Schwartz but Doug Sweetser.
www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2002-08/msg0043615.html -
a.. From: swee...@world.std.com (Doug B Sweetser)
a.. Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 03:54:42 GMT
a.. Message-ID: <H12A9...@world.std.com>
a.. http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2004-04/msg0060435.html
a.. From: Doug Sweetser <swee...@alum.mit.edu>
a.. Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:30:28 +0000 (UTC)
a.. Message-ID: <c60l8m$t1c$1...@pcls4.std.com>
a.. Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
-----------------------------------------------
> Shove that up your ass, hanson.
> Uncle Al
>
[hanson]
AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha... ahahahaha... you mean,
Al, you are so embarrassed that you try to fence it
and get rid of your stolen goods here?....ahahahaha.....
At minimum, Al, you the mucho self-proclaimed gifted
and self-anointed one, should have shown at least
whereto the EM charge went and disappeared to in
your heisted loot. It's nowhere to be seen, Al... OR,
is it buried after all in m*a = GmM/r^2... ahahahaha...
like I said in my post above, and like so very many
other folks begin to suspect?.... AHAHAHAHAHA...
Thanks, for all the laughs, Al, you gifted petty thief...
ahahahaha...ahahahanson
jgr...@seol.net.au
Hydro-electric power stations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(The relationship of gravity, potential energy, and electric energy,
clearly demonstrated)
Jim G
c'=c+v
The Ghost In The Machine
<veg...@accesscomm.ca>
wrote
on Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:11:07 -0600
<42b7676d$1...@news.accesscomm.ca>:
OK, I'm missing something here, but one extremely basic tenet of
SR throws a good chunk of mass-energy equivalence into the
luminiferous aether trash bin, where it belongs.
I'll admit I can't specify what it's replaced with, beyond
the elementary observation that E = E0 * gamma.
As for black holes releasing plasma, I'll admit to some
curiousity as to why many a black hole appears to
release jets along its spin axis. Of course that may be
more an issue regarding the disk *surrounding* the hole
than the hole itself...
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Orion
I think the answer lies in the hydrogen atom. Hydrogen is the most
common element in the universe. The intergalactic medium is mostly
ionized hydrogen (e.g plasma) there must be a physical process going
on.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
similarity ends. They are not relative. Bert
Mark Fergerson
> Is there a possible connection between gravity and electricity?
Maybe. What sort of connection did you have in mind? A direct
cause-and-effect relationship is out of the question for many
reasons some of which have been mentioned by others.
> I know
> that the quantum uncertainty does not allow this but what if this
> postulate is not valid?
What exactly does this mean? How do you think quantum uncertainty
enters into it?
Note that there's no obvious way to quantize mass as opposed to
say electric charge, color charge, and spin.
I started a thread about the possibility that mass is not the
same sort of fundamental quantity as the other kinds of charge, and
speculated that what we call gravitation is an emergent property of
the quantizable field effects we know. It got good reception (nobody
called me an idiot right off the bat, anyway) but doesn't seem
likely to lead to anything useful just yet.
Mark L. Fergerson
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> The stars radiate. Neutron stars fall
> into the BH. Plasma comes out to form new stars.
I presume you mean "black hole" by BH.
Um. Yes, these processes (among many others) do
happen.
> There has to be an energy flow *inward* from the
> Universe to resupply the energy radiated.
But you have zero support for this. There does not
have to be a "resupply" of anything. We see these
processes going on. We don't see any energy going
missing. Nor do we see any energy showing up where
it is not accounted for. There's no room for any
energy to balance the energy radiated away as light.
Nor any need. Stars shine by converting mass to
energy. But a tiny, miniscule, microscopic fraction
of their total mass in the typical case. (Hint:
Look up the difference in mass between four
Hydrogen atoms and one Helium atom.)
> This
> energy seems to be 'imported' somehow by the BH.
You have no support for this whatever. None at all,
not even a good analogy.
> If you are keeping LeSage Theory
> in mind, you need an inward flow of energy to be
> being absorbed on a proton-by-proton basis.
Yet, LeSage style gravity is easily dismissed as
being unable to reproduce experiment. For example,
it can't possibly produce a stable orbit. Yet the
Earth has been here, quite happily, for billions
of years.
And there are many other problems that are equally
"show stoppers" for LeSage style gravity. It is shash.
> Gravity/inertia explained. Now just pinpoint
> the incoming energy source. You have the source of
> gravity.
Well, except for the long list of things that make
the entire line of reasoning extremely conflict with
a huge number of experimental results. As has been
pointed out to you numerous times.
Why not take the results on board and try to actually
do some science? You could start with something that
is more than word salad. Try writing down some theory
that has some actual numerical predictions. Try not
getting lost in dreamy superficial resemblances.
Socks
Uncle Al
[snip]
> in news:42B71560...@hate.spam.net... ... ahahaha...
> ahahaha.... AHAHAHAH.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
[snip]
> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...AHAHAHA....
[snip]
> ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
[snip]
> AHAHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha....
[snip]
> in news:42B71560...@hate.spam.net... ... ahahaha...
> AHAHAHAHA..... ahahaha.... AHAHAHA.... ahahaha...
[snip]
> AHAHAHAHAHA....
[snip]
> ...ahahahaha... AHAHAHA..
[snip]
> ahahaha... AHYAHAHAHA... ahahaha....
> AHAHAHA...
[snip]
> ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
[snip]
> [hanson]
> AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha... ahahahaha...
[snip]
ahahahaha...
[snip]
> AHAHAHAHAHA...
[snip]
> ahahahaha...ahahahanson
Do you think hanson has a text file he cuts and pastes, or does he
type it out new each time?
Uncle Al
Idiot.
Traveler
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Fucking idiot. He's laughing at your stupidity and lying ways.
Ron Jones
> hanson wrote:
> [snip]
> [snip]
>
>> ahahahaha...ahahahanson
>
> Do you think hanson has a text file he cuts and pastes, or does he
> type it out new each time?
Lets hope he types it afresh. They he'll wear out the A and H keys... :-)
--
--
Ron Jones
Don't repeat history, see unreported near misses in chemical lab/plant
at http://www.crhf.org.uk
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...'" :
Isaac Asimov:
Ian St. John
He uses Microsoft Word.
hanson
news:amogb1phpid04ishk...@4ax.com...
> In article <42B848D2...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
> <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>hanson wrote:
>>[snip]
>>> ahahaha.... AHAHAHAH.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>>[snip]
>>> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...AHAHAHA....
>>[snip]
>>> ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>>[snip]
>>> AHAHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha....
>>[snip]
>>> AHAHAHAHA..... ahahaha.... AHAHAHA.... ahahaha...
>>[snip]
>>> AHAHAHAHAHA....
>>[snip]
>>> ...ahahahaha... AHAHAHA..
>>[snip]
>>> ahahaha... AHYAHAHAHA... ahahaha....
>>> AHAHAHA...
>>[snip]
>>> ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>>[snip]
>>> [hanson]
>>> AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha... ahahahaha...
>>[snip]
>>ahahahaha...
>>[snip]
>>> AHAHAHAHAHA...
>>[snip]
>>> ahahahaha...ahahahanson
>>
>>Do you think hanson has a text file he cuts and pastes, or does he
>>type it out new each time?
>
> Fucking idiot. He's laughing at your stupidity and lying ways.
> Louis Savain
>
ahahaha... I don't think Al is getting the meaning nor the chirality
of ahahaha.. AHAHAHA ... Hence for Al and the other inquirers
who wonder about that highly mesmerizing ...ahaha...AHAHA...
I am preparing a FAQ about ... ahahaha... AHAHAHA..
ahahaha... ahahanson
hanson
Bravo, Al! As usual, you lead the parade with your inquiry:
Here's the == FAQ: about ahahaha.... AHAHAHA...== for you in
news:Vw0ue.7064$hK3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
wherein it says:
=== The "....ahahaha.... AHAHAHA" is an enormously effective tool
to rile up fanatics in any field or discipline. Use it freely & copiously.
Whenever you see someone commenting about "ahaha... AHAHAHA"
you know right off the bat that you've got a real stupid fool & uptight
mooch on your hands worth having big time fun with. === end ===
Thanks for the laughs, Al
... AHAHAHA... ahahaha......ahahahanson
>
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:42B848D2...@hate.spam.net...
hanson
news:111938343...@doris.uk.clara.net...
> Uncle Al wrote:
>> hanson wrote:
>> [snip]
>> [snip]
>>
>>> ahahahaha...ahahahanson
>>
>> Do you think hanson has a text file he cuts and pastes, or does he
>> type it out new each time?
>
> Lets hope he types it afresh. They he'll wear out the A and H keys... :-)
>
....maybe, maybe not, BUT,
Here's the == FAQ: about ahahaha.... AHAHAHA...== for you in
news:Vw0ue.7064$hK3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
wherein it says:
=== The "....ahahaha.... AHAHAHA" is an enormously effective tool
to rile up fanatics in any field or discipline. Use it freely & copiously.
Whenever you see someone commenting about "ahaha... AHAHAHA"
you know right off the bat that you've got a real stupid fool & uptight
mooch on your hands worth having big time fun with. === end ===
Thanks for the laughs, Ron
... AHAHAHA... ahahaha......ahahahanson
hanson
wrote in news:UI_te.4083$EP2....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:42B848D2...@hate.spam.net...
>> hanson wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> ahahaha.... AHAHAHAH.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>> [snip]
>>> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...AHAHAHA....
>> [snip]
>>> ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>> [snip]
>>> AHAHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha....
>> [snip]
>>> AHAHAHAHA..... ahahaha.... AHAHAHA.... ahahaha...
>> [snip]
>>> AHAHAHAHAHA....
>> [snip]
>>> ...ahahahaha... AHAHAHA..
>> [snip]
>>> ahahaha... AHYAHAHAHA... ahahaha....
>>> AHAHAHA...
>> [snip]
>>> ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>> [snip]
>>> [hanson]
>>> AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha... ahahahaha...
>> [snip]
>> ahahahaha...
>> [snip]
>>> AHAHAHAHAHA...
>> [snip]
>>> ahahahaha...ahahahanson
>>
>> Do you think hanson has a text file he cuts and pastes, or does he
>> type it out new each time?
>
[AsstrolloIan]
> He uses Microsoft Word.
>
[hanson]
Is that your recommendation? Are you sure? Is that what your
astrological charts tell you?. Maybe it's time for you to read
the == FAQ: about ahahaha.... AHAHAHA...== as in
news:Vw0ue.7064$hK3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
wherein it says:
=== The "....ahahaha.... AHAHAHA" is an enormously effective tool
to rile up fanatics in any field or discipline. Use it freely & copiously.
Whenever you see someone commenting about "ahaha... AHAHAHA"
you know right off the bat that you've got a real stupid fool & uptight
mooch on your hands worth having big time fun with. === end ===
Thanks for the laughs, Ian
... AHAHAHA... ahahaha......ahahahanson
Uncle Al
> >
> [hanson]
> ahahaha... I don't think Al is getting the meaning nor the chirality
> of ahahaha.. AHAHAHA ... Hence for Al and the other inquirers
> who wonder about that highly mesmerizing ...ahaha...AHAHA...
> I am preparing a FAQ about ... ahahaha... AHAHAHA..
> ahahaha... ahahanson
Idiot.
Uncle Al
>
> "Ron Jones" <r...@ronjones.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:111938343...@doris.uk.clara.net...
> > Uncle Al wrote:
> >> hanson wrote:
> >> [snip]
[snip]
> === The "....ahahaha.... AHAHAHA"
[snip
"ahaha... AHAHAHA"
[snip]
> ... AHAHAHA... ahahaha......ahahahanson
Idiot.
Uncle Al
ahahaha.... AHAHAHA...== as in
[snip]
> === The "....ahahaha.... AHAHAHA"
[snip]
"ahaha... AHAHAHA"
[snip]
> ... AHAHAHA... ahahaha......ahahahanson
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
[snip]
about ahahaha.... AHAHAHA...==
[snip]
> === The "....ahahaha.... AHAHAHA" i
[snip]
"ahaha... AHAHAHA"
[snip]
> ... AHAHAHA... ahahaha......ahahahanson
> > [snip]
Idiot.
hanson
Here study this: ---- it's time for you to read the
== FAQ: about ahahaha.... AHAHAHA...== as in
news:Vw0ue.7064$hK3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
wherein it says:
=== The "....ahahaha.... AHAHAHA" is an enormously effective tool
to rile up fanatics in any field or discipline. Use it freely & copiously.
Whenever you see someone commenting about "ahaha... AHAHAHA"
you know right off the bat that you've got a real stupid fool & uptight
mooch on your hands worth having big time fun with. === end ===
Al, listen: ahahahaha....... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:42B8A15F...@hate.spam.net...
hanson
== FAQ: about ahahaha.... AHAHAHA...== as in
news:Vw0ue.7064$hK3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
wherein it says:
=== The "....ahahaha.... AHAHAHA" is an enormously effective tool
to rile up fanatics in any field or discipline. Use it freely & copiously.
Whenever you see someone commenting about "ahaha... AHAHAHA"
you know right off the bat that you've got a real stupid fool & uptight
mooch on your hands worth having big time fun with. === end ===
Al, listen: ahahahaha....... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:42B8A1B2...@hate.spam.net...
hanson
== FAQ: about ahahaha.... AHAHAHA...== as in
news:Vw0ue.7064$hK3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
wherein it says:
=== The "....ahahaha.... AHAHAHA" is an enormously effective tool
to rile up fanatics in any field or discipline. Use it freely & copiously.
Whenever you see someone commenting about "ahaha... AHAHAHA"
you know right off the bat that you've got a real stupid fool & uptight
mooch on your hands worth having big time fun with. === end ===
Al, listen: ahahahaha....... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:42B8A187...@hate.spam.net...
hanson
== FAQ: about ahahaha.... AHAHAHA...== as in
news:Vw0ue.7064$hK3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
wherein it says:
=== The "....ahahaha.... AHAHAHA" is an enormously effective tool
to rile up fanatics in any field or discipline. Use it freely & copiously.
Whenever you see someone commenting about "ahaha... AHAHAHA"
you know right off the bat that you've got a real stupid fool & uptight
mooch on your hands worth having big time fun with. === end ===
Al, listen: ahahahaha....... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:42B8A202...@hate.spam.net...
Richard Schultz
: Idiot.
Another well-referenced and detailed argument from Uncle Al, I see.
So when is that paper coming out in Phys Rev D? Before or after you
explain how d-orbital participation explains the geometry of PH3?
Before or after you explain how the existence of magnetic monopoles
is forbidden by the Maxwell Equations?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"A mensch takes personal responsiblity for his actions. When demonstrated to
be empirically wrong a mensch admits error and becomes a better mensch."
-- "Uncle Al" Schwartz, in article <41D0A0BA.BCF76...@hate.spam.net>
hanson
news:d9aqov$1kr$3...@news.iucc.ac.il...[Rich]
> Another well-referenced and detailed argument from Uncle Al, I see.
>
uA is a very gifted person, self-anointed of course. But uA has, to his
credit, a vast number of such intellectually blinding 1 word posts.
Google shows 251,000 web hits for == uncle Al + idiot. ==
Google shows 18,300 group hits for == uncle Al + idiot ==
uA is almost as smart Archimedes Plutonium, but Archie made it into
the "Discovery Magazine". uA Schwartz did NOT. Maybe because of
uA's dietary habits...... hahahahahaha..... see below.
[Rich]
> So when is that [uA] paper coming out in Phys Rev D? Before or after
> you [uA] explain how d-orbital participation explains the geometry of PH3?
> Before or after you explain how the existence of magnetic monopoles
> is forbidden by the Maxwell Equations?
>
[hanson]
I am afraid that this will not be possible for uA Schwartz, as he
appears to suffer from debilitating nutritional consequences
from his latest invention that he pushes: *** Al's DIET ***:
news:42B85FF2...@hate.spam.net... : Says uA:
"Pour some vegetable oil into your toilet. Does it spread to
cover the water, you loathsome jackass? Now add some torn
lettuce, pee into the slop, and have yourself a nice veggie dinner
-- Uncle Al".
...hahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA...
uA apparently start his dinners with a prayer that consists of a
single word that he chants: "idiot"..... So, he, uA, says in his post.
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Traveler
"Attila the Bum" <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Richard Schultz wrote:
>> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> : Idiot.
>>
>> Another well-referenced and detailed argument from Uncle Al, I see.
>
>No, Richie, you _don't_ see.
>
>None of what you spew is required
>here.
>
>> So when is that paper coming out in Phys Rev D? Before or after you
>> explain how d-orbital participation explains the geometry of PH3?
>> Before or after you explain how the existence of magnetic monopoles
>> is forbidden by the Maxwell Equations?
>
>[snip crap ...]
>
>Talking like a physicist, avoiding
>topics related to what you claimed
>to have learned in school.
>
>Richie, are you an inorganic chemist
>or not?
>
>
> Atty (Now, about MgO ... hydrates?)
ahahaha... Me thinks Attila is Uncle Dickhead in disguise. ahahaha...
ahahaha...
Richard Schultz
: Richard Schultz wrote:
:> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
:> : Idiot.
:>
:> Another well-referenced and detailed argument from Uncle Al, I see.
:
: Uncle Al is a bit off the mark here. Hanson is not an idiot per se,
: especially when compared to the like of some others in this group.
:
: Hanson is more of a ranting psychotic.
That's why I killfiled him (Hanson). For all of his claims of superior
intelligence, Uncle Al has yet to figure out what a kill file is.
In this particular case, I did not mean to say that Hanson is necessarily
*not* an idiot: only that if Uncle Al allows himself the right to respond
to a post with a single word, then he should allow other people the same
right. Like when he's wrong (as he is so frequently), I don't see why
he should object to people responding with the single word "wrong."
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
And when I found the door was shut,
I tried to turn the handle, but --
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
A lot can be forgiven of people who *do* provide accurate and useful information
to genuine non-trivial questions.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
tadchem
Richard Schultz wrote:
> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> : Idiot.
>
> Another well-referenced and detailed argument from Uncle Al, I see.
Uncle Al is a bit off the mark here. Hanson is not an idiot per se,
especially when compared to the like of some others in this group.
Hanson is more of a ranting psychotic.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Attila the Bum
Richard Schultz wrote:
> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> : Idiot.
>
> Another well-referenced and detailed argument from Uncle Al, I see.
No, Richie, you _don't_ see.
None of what you spew is required
here.
> So when is that paper coming out in Phys Rev D? Before or after you
> explain how d-orbital participation explains the geometry of PH3?
> Before or after you explain how the existence of magnetic monopoles
> is forbidden by the Maxwell Equations?
[snip crap ...]
hanson
news:3htekoF...@individual.net...
>> : Richard Schultz wrote:
>> :> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>> :> : Idiot.
>> :>
>> :> Another well-referenced and detailed argument from Uncle Al, I see.
>> :
>> : Uncle Al is a bit off the mark here. Hanson is not an idiot per se,
>> : especially when compared to the like of some others in this group.
>> : Hanson is more of a ranting psychotic.
>>
>> That's why I killfiled him (Hanson). For all of his claims of superior
>> intelligence, Uncle Al has yet to figure out what a kill file is.
>> In this particular case, I did not mean to say that Hanson is necessarily
>> *not* an idiot: only that if Uncle Al allows himself the right to respond
>> to a post with a single word, then he should allow other people the same
>> right. Like when he's wrong (as he is so frequently), I don't see why
>> he should object to people responding with the single word "wrong."
>
[Dirk]
> A lot can be forgiven of people who *do* provide accurate and useful
> information to genuine non-trivial questions.
>
[hanson]
....... ahahaha... this is too much.... AHAHAHAHA... Schultz trying to
bite off Al's limp beytsim, while from the bleachers they cajole and
argue in their total impotence about my mental status, and proudly
announce that they kill-filed me, yet apparently hanging onto every
drop of my wisdom I post.... and then they profusely discuss me.....
ahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA.... Enter Dirk, like old Merlin... & thus he
spoke... like the Grand wizard of yore himself... I like that too!
Thanks for all the laughs, guys!
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Richard Schultz
: A lot can be forgiven of people who *do* provide accurate and useful
: information to genuine non-trivial questions.
Well, since in the (latest) case where Uncle Al was demonstrably wrong, I
did provide a detailed explanation, while Uncle Al refused (as usual) even
to *attempt* to defend his claim, and misrepresented the reference that
I gave him after he asked for it, I'm going to assume that it's not him
to whom you are referring.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
I have periodic attacks of pragmatism...
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> In sci.chem Dirk Bruere at Neopax <di...@neopax.com> wrote:
>
> : A lot can be forgiven of people who *do* provide accurate and useful
> : information to genuine non-trivial questions.
>
> Well, since in the (latest) case where Uncle Al was demonstrably wrong, I
> did provide a detailed explanation, while Uncle Al refused (as usual) even
> to *attempt* to defend his claim, and misrepresented the reference that
> I gave him after he asked for it, I'm going to assume that it's not him
> to whom you are referring.
Actually, I only really care about info that's destined for my consumption.
Caveat emptor.
tj Frazir
mass in motion takes up more space per time unit so even less universe
expands .
Gravity is an energy slope tp less energy.
The parts of the atom orbit its center wile they change mass at C .
In the energy slope the parts have more mass in more energy and less
mass in less energy.
More of the mass per time unit is on the one TOP side of the atom (
gain in mass ) .
More mass is falling in one direction than the other as all the mass is
falling to the center of the atom.
1/2 the atom is pushing the other 1/2 down the energy slope.
1/2 the atom has more mass then the other 1/2 and it is pushing its
self. No pull exsist.
The gain in mass is F pushing the mass of the atom . F--ma
Magnets move the gain in mass .
No object can move with no change in mass.
gravity is the gain in mass pushing the sum of te mass to less energy.
Will any of yu morons ever learn ?
T Wake
"tj Frazir" <Gravity...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:27255-42...@storefull-3218.bay.webtv.net...
Have you paid the promised $2 million and GT 40 or are you full of shit?
Jeff_Relf
Hi Danny99,
You asked: Is there a possible connection between gravity and electricity ?
I know that the quantum uncertainty does not allow this
but what if this postulate is not valid ?
Einstein used simple principles to derive his equations, e.g.:
1. Time is spatial.
2. The speed of light is always the same everywhere.
Likewise, I think the following two principles apply to your question:
1. Entropy is spatial.
2. Physical processes always determine absolutely everything.
Observationally, our universe has gone from virtually zero entropy,
where nothing at all was dissipated at the virtual start of the big bang,
with it's virtually infinite density and heat, to where we are today,
i.e. what we subjectively call the middle, where water/life exists.
And, thanks to the observed constant acceleration
of the expansion of spacetime over the past 12 billion years or so,
our universe is surely headed to virtually infinite entropy,
i.e. virtually perfect vacuum... perfect dissipation.
Gravity, then, is simply a remanent of greater densities that once existed.
The only difference between gravity and electricty, I posit, is
how our minds preceive our universe at different scales.
For example, zooming out to huge times and sizes,
such as evolution and the big bang, makes us feel helpless, like ants,
while zooming in to tiny times and sizes makes us feel omnipotent, like gods.
But which is it ? Are we gods or ants ? It's a matter of perception.
Likewise,
gravity and electricity are merely two perceptions of the same thing.
But beware, the big bang is even more controversial than evolution
because People_Of_Faith don't like zooming out, feeling helpless.
malloc
> Hi Danny99,
> But beware, the big bang is even more controversial than evolution
> because People_Of_Faith don't like zooming out, feeling helpless.
But will it Compile faster?
Fred Hall
wrote:
How the hell could Jeff know? He can't even work his newsreader.
amosf
I got a big bang out of compiling my first kernel... Moreso when I wrote my
first working program in assembly...
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
7
>
> Hi Danny99,
>
> You asked: Is there a possible connection between gravity and electricity
> ?
Hahahar me harties, well this is it you see,
if electricty was tied to gravity, then
you would be able to see the string tying it together
and then you would be totally surprised that it was all done in a bow knot!
If you are a student of physics and find windope software is going
up and up in price and can't afford anything decent to do your maths,
htne you could work all this out with symbolic maths equation solver xmaxima
available in Quantian liveDVD distro along with 250+ other liveCDs on
this link..
http://www.frozentech.com/content/livecd.php
Hahahar me harties, its all free and available with source code
to modify to a pirate heart's content without having to be
accused of being a student pirate. Hahahar!
Kadaitcha Man
bugbane, and hoarder of the domestic refuse of others, promulgated:
> Jeff_Relf <M...@Privacy.NET> wrote:
>> gravity and electricty
> Oh yeah, and that one effects only electrically charged bodies
> and the other effects everything.
Please provide evidence for gravity affecting, say, neutrinos.
Thank you.
Jeff_Relf
Hi Guy_Gordon and Danny99,
I wrote: Einstein used simple principles to derive his equations, e.g.:
1. Time is spatial.
2. The speed of light is always the same everywhere.
And you told me: You list two things you claim were his principles.
No, they really were principles he used,
i.e. the Principle_of_Relativity and the concept of Space_Time.
Space_Time warps into another spatial dimension, right ?
And the entropy of the cosmos has always gone up, right ?
I've just taken Einstein's principles one step further:
1. Entropy is spatial.
2. Physical processes always determine absolutely everything.
You commented: Wow, that's deep.
Somehow I doubt that you're familiar with deep thought.
You wrote: I GOT it. There are two in each case !
What are you trying to tell me ? You're an idiot ?
I wrote:
Observationally, our universe has gone from virtually zero entropy,
where nothing at all was dissipated at the virtual start of the big bang,
with it's virtually infinite density and heat, to where we are today,
i.e. what we subjectively call the middle, where water/life exists.
And, thanks to the observed constant acceleration
of the expansion of spacetime over the past 12 billion years or so,
our universe is surely headed to virtually infinite entropy,
i.e. virtually perfect vacuum... perfect dissipation.
Gravity, then, is simply a remanent of greater densities that once existed.
The only difference between gravity and electricty, I posit, is
how our minds preceive our universe at different scales.
For example, zooming out to huge times and sizes,
such as evolution and the big bang, makes us feel helpless, like ants,
while zooming in to tiny times and sizes makes us feel omnipotent, like gods.
But which is it ? Are we gods or ants ? It's a matter of perception.
Likewise,
gravity and electricity are merely two perceptions of the same thing.
But beware, the big bang is even more controversial than evolution
because People_Of_Faith don't like zooming out, feeling helpless.
And you commented: like electrical charges repel.
Oh, and one is just 10E40 times stronger than the other.
Oh yeah, and that one effects only electrically charged bodies
and the other effects everything.
But other than that you are SO right. They're really exactly the same !
You're not trying to understand me, Guy_Gordon,
I said they were merely Perceived differently.
All observations are subjective perceptions.
Jeff_Relf
Hi Guy_Gordon,
You told me: Einstein never said ' Time is spatial '.
Hermann Weyl, Einstein's colleague, said:
The world doesn't happen, it simply is.
Einstein wrote:
But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation.
The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past.
...
People like us, who believe in physics, know that
the distinction between past, present, and future is
only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
...
Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end,
by forces over which we have no control.
It is determined for the insects as well as the star.
Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to
a mysterious tune intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.
...
A human being is a part of a whole, called by us ' Universe ',
a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself,
his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest...
a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.
...
The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events
the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of
this ordered regularity for causes of a different [ supernatural ] nature.
...
Every true theorist is a kind of tamed metaphysicist,
no matter how pure a ' positivist ' he may fancy himself.
[ ... He believes in ]
a conceptual system built on premises of great simplicity.
...
If [ God ] is omnipotent, then every occurrence,
including every human action, every human thought,
and Every human feeling and aspiration is also His work ;
how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for
their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being ?
In giving out punishment and rewards he would,
to a certain extent, be passing judgment on Himself.
How can this be combined with
the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him ?
Stephen Hawking wrote:
In summary,
the title of this essay was a question: Is_Everything_Determined ?
The answer is yes, it is. But it might as well not be,
because we can never know what is determined.
...
In relativity,
there is no real distinction between the space and time coordinates,
just as there is no difference between two space coordinates.
...
The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.
The universe would be completely self-contained
and not affected by anything outside itself.
It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just Be .
What place, then, for a creator ?
I wrote: Space_Time warps into another spatial dimension, right ?
And you replied: No. It doesn't. Not even in General Relativity.
Where are you getting this " another spatial dimension " from ?
GR is a theory with 3D and 1T dimensions.
It does say space-time has curvature.
It doesn't say it's warped into another spatial dimension.
As Hawking said above, in GR, space_time has four Spatial dimensions,
not, as you claimed, 3D and 1T.
Space_Time cannot curve without a fifth Spatial dimension.
Entropy is that fifth spatial dimension, space_time_entropy.
I wrote: Entropy is spatial.
And you replied: Total nonsense,
and has nothing to do with anything Einstein wrote.
It takes yet another Spatial dimension, entropy, to track
the constant acceleration in the expansion of space_time.
Recent evidence has shown that Einstein's cosmological constant
is true for about the last 12 billion years.
If alpha, the fine_structure_constant, and the speed of light
are a function of density, like sound waves, as I suspect,
then the leading cosmological theory, inflation, is wrong and I am right:
Entropy is an intrinsic property of mass_energy.
That Einstein didn't get that far doesn't surprise me,
he didn't have all the CMBR, WMAP and supernova data that we now enjoy.
I wrote: Physical processes always determine absolutely everything.
And you asked me:
And this is supposed to be an extension of what Einsteinian principle ?
Yes, from relativity's founding postulate, of course: Time is spatial.
jab...@texeme.com
> Hermann Weyl, Einstein's colleague, said:
> As Hawking said above, in GR, space_time has four Spatial dimensions,
Funny, but all the physicists you quote night and day are the ones I don't
really like that much.
--
Texeme Textcasting Technology
http://www.texeme.com
Jeff_Relf
Hi Guy_Gordon,
Re: My quotes of physicists, including Einstein, saying time_is_spatial,
You replied: Einstein never once said Time_is_spatial.
Yes he, they, did but using more words.
I hope someday you'll feel up to reading them more carefully.
Re: My Entropy_is_spatial postulate,
and my comment that relativity's founding postulate is: Time_is_spatial,
You replied: And since that is not one of relativity's founding postulates,
your stuff is all crap.
Look, if all you care about is feeling superior, I'm not game.
The speed of light is the same everywhere Because time is parochial.
Aquila Deus
dude, if the speed is really the same, how can we discover black holes
then?
silly!
Nick
After all when things happen in time we say they "take place."
Jeff_Relf
Hi Guy_Gordon,
I wrote:
The speed of light is the same everywhere Because time is parochial.
And you replied: I thought you said time was spacial. Which is it ?
Time is parochial because it's spatial.
This is much easier to see at cosmic scales, though.
Same for entropy being the fifth spatial dimension.
Entropy is how the expansion of Space_Time is gauged.
Although entropy is still spatial at microscopic scales,
humans simply can't perceive it that way,
because far, far too much information is missing.
Jeff_Relf
Hi Nick and Guy_Gordon,
I wrote:
The speed of light is the same everywhere Because time is parochial.
And Nick replied: Why not say: Time takes place ?
After all when things happen in time we say they " take place."
Because, although time is Obviously spatial at cosmic scales,
much of that information is lost when zooming down to smaller scales,
greatly altering one's perception of time.
Time doesn't just take_place, it's not just parochial, it's perfectly spatial.
i.e. That's the best postulate.
Jeff_Relf
Hi Aquila_Deus and Guy_Gordon,
I wrote:
The speed of light is the same everywhere Because time is parochial.
And Aquila_Deus replied: Dude, if the speed is really the same,
how can we discover black holes then ? silly !
Our universe is going from zero entropy to infinite entropy,
from infinite density to infinite dissipation.
In a back hole's Local frame of reference,
it's just a supernova taking a few seconds to totally dissipate.
However, from our very distant view,
there's not enough time in the universe for an event horizon to fully form,
besides, entropy will totally dissipate the black hole before then.
The speed of light is the same in all Local frames of reference,
but, form our very distant view of never_fully_formed black holes,
it's speed of light is Observed to approach zero.
It's a matter of perception, obviously.
tho...@antispam.ham
> The speed of light is the same everywhere Because time is parochial.
Reread your statement.
> And Aquila_Deus replied: Dude, if the speed is really the same, how can
> we discover black holes then?
Amusing that your claim above strengthens the case that you are a fool,
Jeff_Relf, given that you can't remember your own questions even when they
are preserved in the text you're quoting.
> silly!
Still suffering from reading comprehension problems?
> Our universe is going from zero entropy to infinite entropy, from
> infinite density to infinite dissipation.
You're erroneously presupposing that you are correct.
> In a back hole's Local frame of reference, it's just a supernova taking
> a few seconds to totally dissipate.
Classic attribution problem by someone who is ambivalent.
> However, from our very distant view, there's not enough time in the
> universe for an event horizon to fully form, besides, entropy will totally
> dissipate the black hole before then.
Classic evasion.
> The speed of light is the same in all Local frames of reference, but,
> form our very distant view of never_fully_formed black holes, it's speed
> of light is Observed to approach zero.
Non sequitur.
> It's a matter of perception, obviously.
Classic invective, as expected from someone who is excessively orderly and
organised.
tho...@antispam.ham
> The speed of light is the same everywhere Because time is parochial.
Classic hallucination.
> And Nick replied: Why not say: Time takes place?
Classic insecurity complex, as evidenced by your being undeveloped,
Jeff_Relf.
> After all when things happen in time we say they " take place.
Classic illogical circular reasoning by someone who is undeveloped.
> " Because, although time is Obviously spatial at cosmic scales, much of
> that information is lost when zooming down to smaller scales, greatly
> altering one's perception of time.
You're erroneously presupposing that my statement is irrelevant. Jeff_Relf
> Time doesn't just take_place, it's not just parochial, it's perfectly
> spatial.
Classic attribution problem by someone who is authoritarian.
> i.
Classic erroneous presupposition.
> e.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective, as
expected from someone who is undeveloped.
> That's the best postulate.
Classic inconsistency.
tho...@antispam.ham
> The speed of light is the same everywhere Because time is parochial.
Classic attribution problems again.
> And you replied: I thought you said time was spacial.
What you think is irrelevant.
> Which is it?
So why are you making off-topic posts, Jeff_Relf?
> Time is parochial because it's spatial.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> This is much easier to see at cosmic scales, though.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective, as
expected from someone who is presumptuous.
> Same for entropy being the fifth spatial dimension.
You're erroneously presupposing that it's a fact.
> Entropy is how the expansion of Space_Time is gauged.
Classic disregard for the truth, as evidenced by your being moody and
hypersensitive, Jeff_Relf.
> Although entropy is still spatial at microscopic scales, humans simply
> can't perceive it that way, because far, far too much information is
> missing.
I'm not surprised that you're not interested in a logical discussion.
Jeff_Relf
Hi Borked_Bot, a.k.a. Tholen_Bot,
a.k.a. EKPhm__Alt.NET__Newsrr.COM__IBM_NewsReader
I wrote i.e. but with the i. your exceptionally borked bot replied:
Classic erroneous presupposition.
And after e. your bot replied:
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim,
laced with invective, as expected from someone who is undeveloped.
Newsrr.COM, do you ever read what you post ? I highly doubt it.
Art Deco
<tho...@antispam.ham> tholed:
> Jeff_Relf writes:
>
> > The speed of light is the same everywhere Because time is parochial.
>
> Classic hallucination.
Irrelevant.
>
>
> > And Nick replied: Why not say: Time takes place?
>
>
> Classic insecurity complex, as evidenced by your being undeveloped,
> Jeff_Relf.
Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
argument.
>
>
> > After all when things happen in time we say they " take place.
>
> Classic illogical circular reasoning by someone who is undeveloped.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective, as
expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
>
>
> > " Because, although time is Obviously spatial at cosmic scales, much of
> > that information is lost when zooming down to smaller scales, greatly
> > altering one's perception of time.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that my statement is irrelevant.
Classic lack of specificity.
> Jeff_Relf
>
> > Time doesn't just take_place, it's not just parochial, it's perfectly
> > spatial.
>
> Classic attribution problem by someone who is authoritarian.
Liar.
>
>
> > i.
>
> Classic erroneous presupposition.
Classic evasion of the point.
>
>
> > e.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective, as
> expected from someone who is undeveloped.
You're erroneously presupposing that it's a fact.
>
>
> > That's the best postulate.
>
> Classic inconsistency.
You're erroneously presupposing that you are correct.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
"It's less a process of "convertion" it's about the reality of matter and
energy (all 8 [!] kinds of matter) ... and yes, that's how "they do it".
We {aliens} call it phase-tuning or simply phase-ing.
And no, you will have to find it out all by yourself. And yes, we
{aliens} will make sure your technical advancement will no longer be
faster than your spiritual one ... we'd rather let you perish on this
planet. That's a promise, you monkey-fu*kers.
HTH.
C."
-- Charles D. "Chuckweasel" Bohne's award-winning alien technology
"Irrelevant, given that USENET isnt' "RL" to you, Ross."
-- Dr. David Tholen, Psychic Astrologer
* * * Y o u r . S h e p h e r d . A q u i l a . D e u s . ( d 2 0 0 5 x x , d 2 0 0 4 x x , d 2 0 0 3 x x , d 2 0 0 2 x x ) * * *
I see, thanks!
Jeff_Relf
Hi Aquila_Deus and Guy_Gordon,
Re: My attempt to explain black holes,
Aquila_Deus replied: I see, thanks !
Thanks for the kind words but my final sentence was quite wrong.
C, the speed of light, is always constant no matter how distant the source.
Further, the official SI second, i.e. Système_International time,
assumes that C is always constant.
So instead of saying:
The speed of light is the same in all Local frames of reference,
but, from our very distant view of a black hole,
it's speed of light is Observed to approach zero.
^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^
I should've said:
The SI second is the same in all Local frames of reference,
but, from our very distant view of a black hole,
it's SI second is Observed/Preceived to take an eternity.
Because C is always constant, the SI meter contracts as the SI second dilates.
That's called time dilation, space contraction and redshifting.
FYI, the word Virtual means Only in effect, not in fact.
For a so_called hard science, physics has a lot of virtual objects.
I failed to mention that the virtual start of the big_bang
is similar to the virtual event_horizon of a black hole.
From our very distant view, the closer we get to observing/preceiving
the virtual start of the big_bang, the slower it's SI second seems to us,
so that we see it forever approaching, but never reaching, an eternity.
There is no actual, local, start to the big_bang.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Irrelevant.
Classic illogical circular reasoning.
> Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective, as
expected from someone who is anal-compulsive.
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective, as
> expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
Classic hallucination by someone who is fascinated by excrement.
> Classic lack of specificity.
Classic pontification by someone who is anally fixated.
> Liar.
Classic pontification by someone who is evasive.
> Classic evasion of the point.
Classic pontification by someone who is anally fixated.
> You're erroneously presupposing that it's a fact.
Classic disregard for the truth, as evidenced by your remark.
> You're erroneously presupposing that you are correct.
Classic pontification by someone who is indecisive.
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Classic hallucination by someone who is fascinated by excrement.
the softrat
wrote:
>
>My empirically supported observation is that you are an idiot. Tell
>us, idiot, how "a thermo-atomic interaction" propagates through
>vacuum. Tell us, idiot how plasma (the sun; 15 million C at its core)
>and Gravity Probe-B's gyroballs at 1.7 K both gravitate equally re the
>Equivalence Principle if graviattion is a "a thermo-atomic
>interaction."
Why don't you calm down, 'Uncle' Al, and stop baiting the trolls and
idiots? You rather sound like a Troll yourself. No one appointed you
Policeman of the Internet.
http://softrat.home.mindspring.com/pdfttroll.html
the one, the only, the unusual,
the softrat
Sometimes I get so tired of the taste of my own toes.
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
"Never tell the Platoon Sergeant you have nothing to do." -
Unknown Army recruit