mass and charge
Thomas Cuny
like charge repels
unlike charge attracts
like mass attracts
are met for charge when charge is a magnetic dipole and arranged as follows:
N N N S
| | or | |
| | | |
S S S N
and are met for mass when mass is a magnetic dipole and arranged as follows:
N----S N----S
I would like to know of any papers that discuss mass and charge as
geometricly restricted magnetic dipoles.
Gordon D. Pusch
> The rules:
> like charge repels
> unlike charge attracts
> like mass attracts
>
> are met for charge when charge is a magnetic dipole and arranged as follows:
>
> N N N S
> | | or | |
> | | | |
> S S S N
>
> and are met for mass when mass is a magnetic dipole and arranged as follows:
>
>
> N----S N----S
Too bad that:
1.) Electric and gravitational fields obey Gauss's law that total flux
through a closed surface is proportional to total charge or mass enclosed,
whereas the total flux from a dipole source is _IDENTICALLY_ zero; hence,
your proposal would make it _PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE_ to satisfy either
Maxwell's First Equation or Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.
2.) Dipole-dipole forces obey an inverse fourth-power force, whereas the
electrostatic force and the gravitational force are both inverse square law
forces, so your proposal cannot possibly reproduce the experimentally
observed distance dependency of the electrostatic force between charges
or the gravitational force between masses.
> I would like to know of any papers that discuss mass and charge as
> geometricly restricted magnetic dipoles.
All such papers are written by raving crackpots who do not understand the
experimentally observed properties of electricity, magnetism, and gravitation,
and who refuse to recognize that their pet proposal is utterly doomed to
failure because it does not agree with observed reality. The following
article should provide some insight into these individual's psychologies:
<http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html>.
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
Thomas Cuny
The laws of classical particle physics do not hold when distance
approaches 0. I am only interested in laws that always hold.
Gordon D. Pusch
Fine. Maxwell's equations happen to be one of those laws that "always hold."
Your proposal violates Maxwell's First Equation, and hence stands falsified.
Moreover, whatever you come up with STILL has to reduce to Newtonian Gravitation
in the appropriate limit. It is PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBLE for your proposal to reduce to
Newtonian Gravitation in the appropriate limit, because it results in the WRONG
FORCE LAW IN THAT LIMIT.
Once again, I urge you to examine <http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html>.
I also urge you to examine <http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html>.
Gordon D. Pusch
> The rules:
> like charge repels
> unlike charge attracts
> like mass attracts
>
> are met for charge when charge is a magnetic dipole and arranged as follows:
>
> N N N S
> | | or | |
> | | | |
> S S S N
>
> and are met for mass when mass is a magnetic dipole and arranged as follows:
>
>
> N----S N----S
Here's another reason why your pet idea doesn't work: Dipole forces are
_NON-CENTRAL_, and depend on the relative angles each dipole makes to
the vector between the two dipoles, being attractive for some relative
angles and repulsive for others. Gravity and the Coulomb force are both
_CENTRAL_ forces: They are attractive or repulsive in =ALL= directions.
Here's an counter-example that should illustrate the fundamental flaw
in your pet idea: Put _THREE_ like charges together in any non-colinear
triangular configuration; experimentalloy, they are observed to =ALL=
repel each other, in accordance with Coulomb's law. Now, try to find
a configuration of dipoles that has that same property: Notice that
it is IMPOSSIBLE to do so and still maintain your pet notion of what
constitutes "like" and "unlike."
Here's a second counter-example: Put _THREE_ masses together in a non-colinear
triangular configuration; experimentalloy, they are observed to =ALL= attract
each other, in accordance with Newton's Law of Gravitation. Now, try to find
a configuration of dipoles that has that same property: Notice that it is
IMPOSSIBLE to do so and still maintain your pet notion for how the dipoles
should be oriented.
And then of course, there is the _OTHER_ major problem with your pet scheme,
namely that dipole-dipole forces have the =WRONG= distance dependence, PERIOD.
If you are still a rational human being, now that your pet scheme has
been shown to be utterly untenable, you will abandon it and pursue something
with some hope of not being utter rubbish. Based on your posts so far, I do
=NOT= expect that you will behave like a rational human being, but instead
to continue to beat your dead horse, just like the two other crackpots with
ill-founded notions very similar to yours do.
Yes indeed: Not only are your ideas _provably_ wrong, but they are not even
wrong in an _original_ way! Other nutballs have beaten you to it first ---
and they were just as wrong as you are, for the same set of reasons.
Y.Porat
ok Pusch
you quite convined me that the above guy is wrong. now .......
when will we live to see something *positive* from you/
ie not just to make your carrier from cryticising but to .....
hear about some innovation made by yourself?
to let us a bit further from your 'virtual photons'
W bossons coulers of quarkes etc etc .-rather than
to make some innovations.
i heared a rumour that it is much more difficult to stand by
and critisize (i try all the possibilities of spelling
critisize instead of looking in thr dictionary- lazy me (:-))
some egoistic motivation for a getting older person:
history does not remember any of the criticisers.-
it remembers only the innovators.!
or may be you preffer the easyest way.(to make a carrier )
all the best
Y.Porat
-------------------
Y.Porat
> t...@highstream.net (Thomas Cuny) writes:
>
>
Thomas Cuny
> Yes indeed: Not only are your ideas _provably_ wrong, but they are not even
> wrong in an _original_ way! Other nutballs have beaten you to it first ---
> and they were just as wrong as you are, for the same set of reasons.
>
>
> -- Gordon D. Pusch
>
> perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
Well don't keep me in suspense. Tell me who the other nuts are.