Gravitation & Magnetism
Don H
=========================
(1) Gravity is the mutual attraction of one mass to another, and is due to a
natural tendency of masses to coalesce (energy efficiency?).
It could (also) be due to two magnetically neutral bodies being attracted
by each other's (random) positive/negative charges, and a trend towards
maximum neutrality.
Large (celestial) bodies tend to get larger by attracting smaller bodies.
(2) Magnetism = Gravity & Alignment, where an induced or natural alignment
of atoms gives dipolarity (N/S); or a positive/negative charge
concentration.
Magnetism is thus merely an enhanced form of gravity, where poles attract
(repulsion being discounted as attraction elsewhere).
A strongly magnetised body can attract a larger unmagnetised body.
(3) Atomic Matter - can acquire temporary or permanent magnetism, depending
on various factors: heat, dynamics, crystalline structure, etc.
An atom is a potential magnet (protons, neutrons, electrons).
The revolution of the Earth produces a magnetic field, while the Earth
rotates (if rotation ceased, the field would disappear?); the rotation
enables and facilitates alignment of atoms.
The deviation of the magnetic poles from the geographic poles (rotation on
axis) is due to inertia or drag of a fluid medium.
Reversal of the Earth's polarity could be due to the SOFA effect
(shoal-of-fish-analogy), whereby if one or some magnetised atoms start to
move in a particular direction, then others will tend to follow. This is
also the basis of induced magnetism.
=====================================
Don H
force directly proportional to the product of their masses, and inversely as
the square of the distance between them. This same law applies to the pole
strength of a magnet (substituting strength for mass), and for the force
between two electrical charges (with similar substitution). Is it the law
itself which is fundamental, or are we dealing with similar or related
forces?
=========================================
"Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:xhJCc.63224$sj4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
John Jones
jj
Don H <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:xhJCc.63224$sj4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
John Jones
> itself which is fundamental, or are we dealing with similar or related
> forces?
I can't imagine a law as being any more than a description of objects and
what they are doing. Can you?
JJ
Don H <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:JM0Dc.64436$sj4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Don H
tends to eliminate it to produce neutrality (ie. a balance of positive and
negative forces, or their randomisation from an aligned format).
Magnetism requires energy input to achieve, and retention depends on (a) the
maintenance of energy input, and/or (b) type of material used
(ferromagnetic, etc). A thunder storm exhibits the neutralising tendency
every time there is a lightning discharge.
As to gravitation, this is possibly demonstrated in conversion of
gas-to-liquid-to-solid; the coagulation involved. Condensation of water
droplets on dust particles; or on ionised ones, also - the latter brings
electromagnetism into the picture, with increased effect. Mercury, the
liquid metal, is another possible example.
Experiments on mutual attraction of objects could be done in space
stations - away from the Earth's gravity.
==========================================
"Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:xhJCc.63224$sj4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
1Z
> =========================
> (1) Gravity is the mutual attraction of one mass to another, and is due to a
> natural tendency of masses to coalesce
>(energy efficiency?).
All dynamics boils down to the principle of least action.
> It could (also) be due to two magnetically neutral bodies being attracted
> by each other's (random) positive/negative charges, and a trend towards
> maximum neutrality.
There is something a bit like this called the van der Waals force.
It has nothing to do with gravity.
> Large (celestial) bodies tend to get larger by attracting smaller bodies.
Mass, not size.
>
> (2) Magnetism = Gravity & Alignment, where an induced or natural alignment
> of atoms gives dipolarity (N/S); or a positive/negative charge
> concentration.
> Magnetism is thus merely an enhanced form of gravity, where poles attract
> (repulsion being discounted as attraction elsewhere).
> A strongly magnetised body can attract a larger unmagnetised body.
Magnetism is caused by moving electric charge.
Every atom contains moving electric charge as the
electrons orbit the nucleus. The usual tendency is
for the magnetic contribution of each electron to cancel
out. Magnetic materials are an exception.
> (3) Atomic Matter
>- can acquire temporary or permanent magnetism, depending
> on various factors: heat, dynamics, crystalline structure, etc.
> An atom is a potential magnet (protons, neutrons, electrons).
> The revolution of the Earth produces a magnetic field, while the Earth
> rotates (if rotation ceased, the field would disappear?);
The Earth's magnetic field is though to be
due to the conductive fluids that make up
much of its bulk.
> the rotation
> enables and facilitates alignment of atoms.
> The deviation of the magnetic poles from the geographic poles (rotation on
> axis) is due to inertia or drag of a fluid medium.
> Reversal of the Earth's polarity could be due to the SOFA effect
> (shoal-of-fish-analogy), whereby if one or some magnetised atoms start to
> move in a particular direction, then others will tend to follow.
Nope, chaotic fluid dynaimcs.
>This is
> also the basis of induced magnetism.
> =====================================
As usual with this kind of contribution, one wonders why you feel
the need to invent ideas out of thin air rather than studying up
on what is known.
Don H
mainly from books acquired from second-hand bookshops (due to lack in modern
shops), encyclopaedias, etc. Studying what is known can lead to its
constant repetition, without challenge. One advantage I may have, as a
non-scientist, is that I don't have any preconceptions, and am also willing
to leave myself open to criticism. If this stimulates discussion, then OK.
=======
The Unified Field Theory, as I see it, tries to reconcile three field
forces -
(1) Gravitation, (2) Magnetism, and (3) Electronics.
I'm suggesting these are basically the same:
(1) Gravitation is relatively weak, because it is the attraction between two
bodies whose positive and negative charges are already in balance (neutral),
but whose respective charges can be subject to attraction by outside
entities. Only when we get a case such as the sun's pull on the earth, or
the earth on us, does gravitation appear strong.
(2) Magnetism (name derived from locality in Greece) is essentially an
*internal* alignment of atoms such that their positive and negative charges
reinforce each other, respectively. This can increase the "gravitational"
pull on external entities.
(3) Electronics, or the "electric field", is what originated with "static
electricity", and is an *external* force, and not, traditionally, with the
same permanency (or power?) as Magnetism. But its electron charge produces
the same (+ , -) result.
Hence, what we call by different names, due to different historical origins,
amounts to one and the same force, but can be of different power.
While some kind of energy input is necessary to create the alignment of
atoms in magnetism and electronics, the "normal" structure of materials is
neither a concentration nor imbalance of + or -, but neutral, 0, and Nature
tends to revert to this condition.
===============================
"1Z" <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fd762132.04062...@posting.google.com...
> "Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:<xhJCc.63224$sj4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > DH's "Unified Field Theory"...??
> > =========================
.................
Don H
==============================
The possible inertia or drag effect of the magnetic centre of the earth in
relation to the geographic (rotational) poles would seem to be confirmed by
a diagram in the excellent Pelican book entitled "Magnetism" by E.W.Lee
(1963), where, on page 266, it shows the progressive route taken by the
magnetic north pole over geological time.
The diagram (Figure 60) shows an arc roughly linking the pole locations,
and times go from - Cambrian 500 million years ago; Devonian 320;
Carboniferous 280; Oligocene 50; to Miocene 35. The arc moves increasingly
closer to the geographic north pole (as it is today), with eg. the
Carboniferous "near the northern coast of China". The present (?) location
of the magnetic north pole is NNW of the Boothian Peninsula in North
America; while the south magnetic pole is in Victoria Land, Antarctica
(Penguin "Dictionary of Geography"; 1949).
Assuming that the geographic, or rotational, north pole has always been
in much the same position, and not "wandered" as has the magnetic, then the
shifting of the magnetic pole seems to be what we could expect if initially
it was created when the earth was rotating somewhat faster and had a more
fluid interior. The supposed inertia or drag effect would account for the
difference between the two north poles, but the gap would tend to narrow as
(a) internal friction (mantle versus core?), and (b) cooling of the interior
(causing increased viscosity), took effect - magnetic north would
increasingly "catch up with" geographic north. That the south magnetic pole
was not the exact antipodes of magnetic north, could also be due to the
"drag effect".
It has been assumed the earth's magnetic field has always (approximately)
coincided with the axis of the earth's rotation. Maybe this is not the
case, and that, while the earth's axis of rotation has always been much the
same, only the magnetic field has varied?
===================================================
Don H
on "Magnetism" (by E.W. Lee), when I concocted the idea of SOFA (see
below) - yet it seems to fit in with "spontaneous magnetism", which, though
it can involve drop in temperature, is a mutual alignment process "which
spreads rather like an advancing avalanche throughout the whole substance"
all because an initial two atoms "as it were, ...take notice of each other".
=======================================
"Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:xhJCc.63224$sj4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> =========================
1Z
> I'd agree my ideas may be a bit "half-baked", but I have done some study,
> mainly from books acquired from second-hand bookshops (due to lack in modern
> shops), encyclopaedias, etc. Studying what is known can lead to its
> constant repetition, without challenge. One advantage I may have, as a
> non-scientist, is that I don't have any preconceptions, and am also willing
> to leave myself open to criticism. If this stimulates discussion, then OK.
> =======
> The Unified Field Theory, as I see it, tries to reconcile three field
> forces -
> (1) Gravitation, (2) Magnetism, and (3) Electronics.
> I'm suggesting these are basically the same:
>
> (1) Gravitation is relatively weak, because it is the attraction between two
> bodies whose positive and negative charges are already in balance (neutral),
> but whose respective charges can be subject to attraction by outside
> entities. Only when we get a case such as the sun's pull on the earth, or
> the earth on us, does gravitation appear strong.
Gravity is due to mass, not charge.
>
> (2) Magnetism (name derived from locality in Greece) is essentially an
> *internal* alignment of atoms such that their positive and negative charges
> reinforce each other, respectively. This can increase the "gravitational"
> pull on external entities.
Magnetism is due to moving charge. It is not gravitational or even
"gravitational".
> (3) Electronics, or the "electric field", is what originated with "static
> electricity", and is an *external* force, and not, traditionally, with the
> same permanency (or power?) as Magnetism. But its electron charge produces
> the same (+ , -) result.
Electricity and magentism were shown to be fundamentally the same
by Maxwell in the 19thC.
> Hence, what we call by different names, due to different historical origins,
> amounts to one and the same force, but can be of different power.
>
Don H
it gravitation? If an atom (at least originally) was imagined as a
miniature solar system with nucleus of proton/neutron, encircled by
electron(s), then the analogy is valid - for its gravitation also.
(2) Any atom has a total charge (+/-), under normal circumstances, of zero.
But it can also act as a miniature magnet (N/S), where polarity is aligned
so neighbouring atoms reinforce each other. Usually, some external force or
energy input is needed to produce this change.
(3) Magnetism and Electricity are possibly merely "aligned gravity", thus
giving a stronger force than "normal"; but are basically "unstable"
conditions, and Nature tends to revert to randomism and neutrality, if
possible. Put two bar magnets end to end, with N/S matching S/N, and a kind
of neutrality is achieved. Even the field of a single magnet is called the
demagnetising field.
(4) The ancient Chinese view of Nature had the forces of Yin and Yang; male
and female; a duality seen throughout the natural world, constantly
produced, only to merge again into the unity of all things.news:JM0Dc.64436$sj4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Don H
and charge, being different - coincidence?
What is a "charge"? I'd claim it is energy input which has created either
atomic alignment (magnetism), or a form of "free" alignment (electric
current) - each seeking its counterpart. In both cases, a form of
"enhanced, but dipolar, gravity" exists; an essentially unstable state,
seeking randomness and neutrality.
Even a "moving" charge (magnet/current) involves motion in a uniform, not
random, direction; as with the motion of the solar system - or its analogous
equivalent, an atom?
All masses attract, an *energised, aligned, non-neutral, mass*
(magnetic/electronic) attracts even more - even its "repulsion" is seeking
its counterpart. Electrons have mass, but enhanced by a negative charge.
In summary, I'd claim that gravitation (or mutual mass attraction (MMA),
in neutral state) is the basic force, but is enhanced, by
energy-input/alignment, to produce magnetism and electricity (static and
dynamic), these latter being unstable and tending to revert to a random and
neutral condition. Gravitation or MMA is the overall force which holds an
atom together.
=========================================news:fd762132.04070...@posting.google.com...
> Gravity is due to mass, not charge.
> Magnetism is due to moving charge. It is not gravitational or even
> "gravitational".
> Electricity and magentism were shown to be fundamentally the same
> by Maxwell in the 19thC.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_force
1Z
> Yet all three obey the inverse square law, with only mass, pole strength,
> and charge, being different - coincidence?
It may have soemthing to do with the 3-dimensionality of space.
It doesn't mean gravity and electromagnetism are the same.
> What is a "charge"? I'd claim it is energy input which has created either
> atomic alignment (magnetism), or a form of "free" alignment (electric
> current) - each seeking its counterpart. In both cases, a form of
> "enhanced, but dipolar, gravity" exists; an essentially unstable state,
> seeking randomness and neutrality.
Gravity and electromagnetism are not the same.
> Gravitation or MMA is the overall force which holds an
> atom together.
Nope, electromagnetism and nuclear forces.
Don H
"gravity"? And will a "graviton" ever be found; or is it a superfluous
hypothesis? The "pentaquark" is the latest empirical discovery, it seems.
The union of two diquarks and an antiquark, giving a theta pentaquark. Why
does "ordinary matter" (protons, neutrons) thus "glue" together to become
"exotic matter" - unless under the influence of that gravitational tendency
(MMA) which underlies all mass/matter? With "color" balanced out to give a
"neutral" state?
[ See : "NewScientist" (Australia) 3rd July 2004, for articles on
pentaquark, speed of light, and string theory. ]
=======================================
"1Z" <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fd762132.04070...@posting.google.com...
news:<HHiGc.80204$sj4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
1Z
> ...but what are "nuclear forces" (strong, weak): a manifestation of
> "gravity"?
No.
>And will a "graviton" ever be found; or is it a superfluous
> hypothesis? The "pentaquark" is the latest empirical discovery, it seems.
> The union of two diquarks and an antiquark, giving a theta pentaquark. Why
> does "ordinary matter" (protons, neutrons) thus "glue" together to become
> "exotic matter" - unless under the influence of that gravitational tendency
> (MMA) which underlies all mass/matter?
You are just confusing yourself with this insistence on subsuming
everything under gravity.
Don H
(I) there is one universal underlying force which causes attraction between
masses, call it Gravity or Mutual Mass Attraction (MMA); it is what causes
internal cohesion in atoms, molecules, etc., at one extreme, to linkage of
sun and planets, at the other.
(II) Under special circumstances, this MMA can manifest itself as dipolar or
other forces, due to increase in energy level, alignment, etc; but such
polarisation of North/South or Positive/Negative is essentially unstable,
and will eventually resolve itself back to a random and neutral condition.
Even within atoms there is normally a neutral condition (ie. not an overall
positive or negative charge).
(III) The force of MMA between most entities obeys the inverse square law,
but between the basic internal atomic relation of quarks, obeys the
"superconductivity law" - as here we are dealing with the most basic fabric
of Matter itself. It is thus an extreme case.
(IV) the Theory of Relativity seems based on Light and its characteristics
(esp. speed), and it might be useful to build a "Light Decelerator" to
determine whether Photons actually exist, and isolate them. (The bending of
a beam of light as it passes the Sun indicates that light has mass?) Is the
speed of light in a vacuum always constant - or maybe it varies, but we
haven't yet been able to detect the minor variation?
(V) Mass and Energy are manifestations of one Substance comprising the
Universe; in a "closed system" their total mass/energy is conserved; and
they are convertible one to the other. The remainder of the Universe being
empty space.
(VI) It is a rule of science (Occam's Razor) that hypotheses should not be
multiplied needlessly, and the above views could be as valid as anything
else, to explain phenomena.
====================================
"1Z" <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fd762132.0407...@posting.google.com...
1Z
> I suppose what I'm getting at is -
>
> (I) there is one universal underlying force which causes attraction between
> masses, call it Gravity or Mutual Mass Attraction (MMA); it is what causes
> internal cohesion in atoms, molecules, etc., at one extreme, to linkage of
> sun and planets, at the other.
Gravity does link suns and planets together; it has no role in holding atoms
together as I have pointed out.
> (II) Under special circumstances, this MMA can manifest itself as dipolar or
> other forces, due to increase in energy level, alignment, etc; but such
> polarisation of North/South or Positive/Negative is essentially unstable,
> and will eventually resolve itself back to a random and neutral condition.
> Even within atoms there is normally a neutral condition (ie. not an overall
> positive or negative charge).
It is true that things tend towards a minimum of potential energy
(in various different forms for the various fundamental forces).
It is not true that neutral charge has anything at all to do with gravity.
> (III) The force of MMA between most entities obeys the inverse square law,
> but between the basic internal atomic relation of quarks, obeys the
> "superconductivity law" - as here we are dealing with the most basic fabric
> of Matter itself. It is thus an extreme case.
Quarks have noting to do with superconductivity.
> (IV) the Theory of Relativity seems based on Light and its characteristics
> (esp. speed), and it might be useful to build a "Light Decelerator" to
> determine whether Photons actually exist, and isolate them. (The bending of
> a beam of light as it passes the Sun indicates that light has mass?)
It has energy, which is equivalent. E=mc^2
>Is the
> speed of light in a vacuum always constant - or maybe it varies, but we
> haven't yet been able to detect the minor variation?
The hypothesis that it is constant has stood up for nearly a century.
> (V) Mass and Energy are manifestations of one Substance comprising the
> Universe; in a "closed system" their total mass/energy is conserved; and
> they are convertible one to the other. The remainder of the Universe being
> empty space.
>
> (VI) It is a rule of science (Occam's Razor) that hypotheses should not be
> multiplied needlessly, and the above views could be as valid as anything
> else, to explain phenomena.
They are not as vaid as anything else. Gravity (I) is far too weak to
hold atoms together, for instance. When are you going to stop imagining
and start learning ?
Don H
I came across this statement -
"...for spheres charged equally with electricity of the same sign, the lines
(of force) cannot go from one sphere to the other. Instead, they go to the
walls of the room as shown (fig.2)...."
It was then that it 'clicked' for me: "repulsion" is NOT the key thing -
it is attraction elsewhere. If Gravity is all about attraction, then this
would still apply, with magnetic *attraction* as an enhanced form of
gravity, more directionally applied.
If magnetism is an "unnatural" state, then the object magnetised would seek
to "neutralise" itself; hence the lines-of-force seek opposite polarity,
wherever it can be found - the "neutral" (induced) walls of the room - even
its own magnetic field ("the demagnetising field"). It will even "repel"
same polarity in its search for this.
=========================================
Don H
21.
He says analogous. I, perhaps, carry that a bit further.
Quote: "Quarks are held together by strings made of quantized flux lines of
a field, called the QCD field, which are analogous to the quantized magnetic
flux lines in a superconductor...."
My basic hypothesis is - that "gravity" is everywhere.
========================================>...............
Quarks have noting to do with superconductivity.
1Z
> No? See page 112 of Solim's book "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity", Figure
> 21.
> He says analogous. I, perhaps, carry that a bit further.
Carrying things a bit further can make all the difference between falsehood
and truth.
> Quote: "Quarks are held together by strings made of quantized flux lines of
> a field, called the QCD field, which are analogous to the quantized magnetic
> flux lines in a superconductor...."
> My basic hypothesis is - that "gravity" is everywhere.
True in a sense, but not in the sense you are straining for.
Don H
like the old Alchemists search for the Philosopher's Stone, or the Elixir of
Life - a search for something which doesn't exist; but which may have useful
spin-offs.
Incidentally, although Smolin talks much about quantum theory, he never
defines what is "a quantum", even in the Glossary. And in Chapter 14, where
he explores the implications of the "anthropic question", the word "life" is
not defined. To me, "life" is "merely" the ability of a chemical formula to
replicate itself; a virus is the link between inanimate and animate.
The human brain did not evolve to solve the mystery of the cosmos, but as a
food-getting tool, and reproductive accessory. Our basic instincts will
probably cause our demise - but the universe will go on without us.
===========
Our God is Us
===========
The Human Race admires its face,
Gazes at Mirrored reflection.
Of all Universes, our Psalmic verses,
Sing praises at ours's Selection.
Anthropic love, it knows no bounds,
Of Universe, we're the Darlings.
Some God external, made Worlds eternal,
And Laws re Suns and Quark-things.
Nature's Red in Tooth and Claw,
All Species become Extinct.
Humans hold sway, but'll soon pass that way,
Irrespective that they Think'd.
==========================
"1Z" <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fd762132.04071...@posting.google.com...
1Z
> Maybe the search for "quantum gravity" or a "unified field theory", is
> like the old Alchemists search for the Philosopher's Stone, or the Elixir of
> Life - a search for something which doesn't exist; but which may have useful
> spin-offs.
Various intermediate unifactions have been achieved.
> Incidentally, although Smolin talks much about quantum theory, he never
> defines what is "a quantum",
A quantum is an indivisible amount of something.
Don H
atmosphere?
When something is heated, energy is imparted to the atoms or molecules so
they vibrate more vigorously; such activity needs more room to function
(like a hyperactive child - "go outside and play"), and as heated air (for
example) finds it easier to expand upwards (less pressure than from the
sides), it does so. It then tends to leave a vacuum behind, so colder air
from the sides comes in to replace it.
If, according to MMA, all matter tends to attract, then heat is one means
by which this is defied, like the polarity of magnetism. Nature will try to
remedy the situation by eventual dissipation of heat, until an equilibrium
is reached with the environment.
============
There are many forms MMA can take, of which Gravity is perhaps the most
noticeable. There's Cohesion, whereby a substance attracts others of its
kind, as in surface tension, condensation, coagulation. And there's
Adhesion, ie. attraction between different substances, as in the meniscus
formed in a narrow tube between water and glass; capillarity. There's the
crystalline structure of many elements; and the internal force holding an
atom together. Elasticity is another case. Even our own bodies - why don't
they fall apart?
=======================================news:%QiHc.84856$sj4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Immortalist
> Why does hot air rise, so that we get convection currents in the
> atmosphere?
If one places a copper ball in a pail of water it will sink, whereas a wooden
ball will float. Whether or not a given object will sink or float in a fluid is
determined by the buoyant force on the object. The buoyant force is essentially
caused by the difference between the pressure at the top of the object, which
pushes it downward, and the pressure at the bottom, which pushes it upward. Since
the pressure at the bottom is always greater than at the top, every object
submerged in a fluid necessarily feels an upward buoyant force. Of course,
objects also feel a downward force due to gravity, and the difference between the
gravitational force and buoyant force on a submerged object determines whether
that object will sink, or rise to the surface. If the weight is greater than the
buoyant force, the object sinks, and vice versa. It was Archimedes (supposedly
while in his bath), who realized that submerged objects always displace fluid
upwards (the level of water in the bathtub rose when Archimedes got in). Thus, he
reasoned that the buoyant force on an object must be equal to the weight of fluid
that object displaces. If the weight of an object is greater than the weight of
displaced fluid, it will sink, wherease if the weight of the object is less than
the weight of displaced fluid, it will rise.
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node67.html
-Cold air cannot come down unless hot air rises to take its
place.
-Motion of fluids (liquids and gasses) is in fact a
molecule by molecule process.
Well, let us think of a balloon, as our system.
he gas inside it has a random movement and
is less dense than the air outside our balloon.
Let it free to move. The balloon flows upward. Why ??
Well, as you know, the gravity force, acting downward,
results in a force from the bottom to the top, and the
balloon goes up !! Over the superior face of the balloon
you have a great mass of air, acting upon it. But,
against it, under the inferior face of the balloon there
will act a bigger mass of air, that weights more. The
difference in weights results in a force upward.
And the balloon goes up.
If there were no gravity force, there will be no forces
acting upon the balloon.
The same happens with our hotter air surrounded
by the colder air. The random movement of the hotter
air - considered as a system - has no effect upon the
resulting force. And the colder air flows down, to the
place where the hotter air was before ( otherwise
a vacuum will be produced...what impels the colder
air to flow and fill that empty place ). I did not mention
here the action of winds or other atmospheric phenomena
just to make things easier.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00435.htm
Don H
Place a wooden ball inside a metal cube and nothing would happen. Buoyancy
only operates in a fluid, and presumably this is because "water tends to
find its own level", as the saying goes. Hence, water can flow underneath a
ship or cork, thus lifting it up until the weight of the vessel or cork
equals the displacement; and a balance, of pressure due to weight, is
reached.
=============================
"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:grednbOKArp...@comcast.com...
Immortalist
> Yes, interesting. "Buoyancy" only functions in a fluid (gas or liquid).
> Place a wooden ball inside a metal cube and nothing would happen. Buoyancy
> only operates in a fluid, and presumably this is because "water tends to
> find its own level", as the saying goes. Hence, water can flow underneath a
> ship or cork, thus lifting it up until the weight of the vessel or cork
> equals the displacement; and a balance, of pressure due to weight, is
> reached.
The weight of the object cannot be greater that the upward area specific force.
Don H
electron, but likes to go as a paired molecule. On the basis of MMA theory,
this is because, analogous to a bar magnet, there's greater stability and
neutrality in being two "magnets" joined, than in being single.
It is interesting to read in the Foreword to The New Penguin Dictionary
of Science, the statement - "Gravity perplexed me..."; apparently a still
unresolved problem. Yet, although Mutual Mass Attraction doesn't explain
why or how things attract each other, it might put "Gravity" itself into
context - as just one example of MMA, rather than something unique. MMA is
everywhere!
Question: If it only requires an astronaut to go into orbit for him/her to
become weightless, why is the Moon not also weightless? (Probably due to
its much larger mass.)news:9zgJc.1409$K53...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> ..............