Electo London Gravity ?
sue jahn
<< New Regimes in Cold Gases Via Laser-Induced Long Range Interactions
G. Kurizki, S.Giovanazzi, D. O'Dell, and A.I. Artemiev, Lecture Notes in Physics 602, 382 (Springer 2002).
The modification of the properties of a Bose-Einstein or a Fermi-Dirac atomic gas due to laser-induced dipole-dipole interactions
between the atoms are considered. Nearly-isotropic illumination of the sample by spectrally-fluctuating laser beams averages out the
static r-3 dipole-dipole interaction, leaving the retarded 1/r "self-gravitating" attraction in the near zone. The analogies of
ultracold many-atom systems, self-bound by such laser-induced "gravity", with compact stars ("Bose stars" or "White Dwarfs") are
emphasized. Even a single plane-wave laser induces dipole-dipole interactions capable of causing a cigar-shaped Bose condensate to
exhibit self binding and density modulations >>
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/chemphys/gershon/rand_scat.html
<<36. A. K. T. Assis, "Gravitation as a fourth order electromagnetic effect," In: Advanced Electromagnetism: Foundations, Theory and
Applications, T. W. Barrett and D. M. Grimes (eds.), (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995), pp. 314-331. Abstract: We present a
generalized Weber's law for electromagnetism including terms of fourth and higher orders in 1/c. These extra terms when applied to
the force between two neutral dipoles yield an equivalent to Newton's law of universal gravitation as a fourth order electromagnetic
effect.
Self-Binding Transition in Bose Condensates with Laser-Induced ``Gravitation''>>
http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/gravitation-4th-order-p314-331(1995).pdf
Self-Binding Transition in Bose Condensates with Laser-Induced ``Gravitation''
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0010045
<<
Distance and Angle Dependence of Non-bonded Interactions.
With fixed magnitude charges:
POINT CHARGE with POINT CHARGE 1/r
POINT CHARGE with DIPOLE Cos (angle) x 1/r2
DIPOLE with DIPOLE F(angle)* x 1/r3
POINT CHARGE with QUADRAPOLE ~1/r3
DIPOLE with QUADRAPOLE ~1/r4
QUADRAPOLE with QUADRAPOLE ~1/r5
With polarizable charge centers:
POINT CHARGE w/ POLARIZABLE DIPOLE ~ 1/r4
INDUCED DIPOLE-DIPOLE ~ 1/r6
INDUCED DIPOLE-OCTUPOLE ~ 1/r8
INDUCED QUADRAPOLE-QUADRAPOLE ~ 1/r10
* where F(angle) is a function of the cosines and sines of the angles
between the dipole moments and the separation vector. >>
http://bmbiris.bmb.uga.edu/wampler/tutorial/prot3.html
------
Force attenuation symetry range
London 1/d^7 3 dimensional short range
Magnetism 1/d^3 2 dimensional short (non isotropic)
E&M 1/d^2 2 dimensional long (non isotropic)
Coulomb 1/d^2 3 dimensional long
Gravity 1/d^2 3 dimensional long
------
The Ultimate Crackpot Theory Of Gravity
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/t-1433_The_Ultimate_Crackpot_Theory_Of_Gravity.html
Sue...
sue jahn
of the potential energy as the atoms are brought infinitely far apart, v(r) -> 0 as r -> ?. The attractive part of
the potential (the second term) is consistent with a London interaction (induced dipole - induced dipole), but
the form of the repulsive part (the first term) is chosen to be the 12-th power of the inverse distance merely
for mathematical convenience. It would be more realistic for most molecules to use an exponential form for
the repulsive part but it leads to a problem at very short distances since the diverging -1/r6 attractive part will
eventually dominate, leading to a collapse of the two atoms. There are ways around this, but they make the
potential form much more complicated. The L-J potential function describes quite well the interaction
between rare gas atoms, such as Ar-Ar. The Morse potential which has exponential attractive part and
exponential repulsive part is more appropriate for describing the interaction between atoms forming a
chemical bond. We will use the L-J potential here and, first of all, we will use Matlab to gain more familiarity
with the L-J potential function. (The Morse potential is used in next weeks exercise). First, define a Matlab
function for the potential. It is convenient to choose units of energy and length in such a way that both
parameters in the L-J potential, ? and ?, get the numerical value of unity.>>
http://theochem.org/teaching/computerlabs/classicaldynA.pdf
"sue jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:42b9c325$0$18649$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
<<The de Sitter spacetime as attractor solution in eighth-order gravity
A B Mayer and H -J Schmidt
Osservatoria Astron. di Roma, Italy
Print publication: Issue 11 (November 1993)
Abstract. From the Lagrangian R Square Operator Square Operator R
one gets an eighth-order theory of gravitation. It has more promising
properties than the previously discussed sixth-order ones. The de
Sitter solution has the attractor property; we explicitly show how the
modes decay. Further, exactly one power law and one pole-like
solution exist. Adding the Einstein-Hilbert and other lower order
terms with suitably chosen coefficients, we get a theory without tachyons,
with the correct Newtonian limit and with cosmological solutions possessing
more than one inflationary phase. (Whether double inflation is typical still remains open). >>
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/10/11/026
sue jahn
"sue jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:42b9c325$0$18649$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
>
The potential energy now falls off as 1/r^2
Dipole-dipole interactions
Note that the potential energy between two dipoles falls off as 1/r^6 power.
Dipole-dipole interactions are short-range interactions
Dipole-induced dipole interactions
where again we have a 1/r6 dependence.
Induced dipole-induced dipole interactions
This instantaneous dipole can then induce a dipole in a neighboring
atom, resulting in an attractive potential that also has a 1/r6 dependence.
Lennard-Jones potential
A commonly used analytical form that lumps together all
dipole-dipole interactions and includes both the attractive and
the repulsive terms is the Lennard-Jones potential where the
repulsive term is approximated as having a 1/r^12 dependence:
>>
http://tigger.uic.edu/classes/phys/phys461/phys450/ANJUM03/lecture_notes3_aa.htm
<< In contrast the 1/r^6 predominates when the separation r increases in magnitude.
Hence the term describes the long--range attractive tail of the potential
between two particles. The Lennard--Jones force between two
molecules is given the equation: >>
http://polymer.bu.edu/Wasser/robert/work/node8.html
----
Sue...
Sue...
<<
Magnetic Symmetry Breaking
A magnet can be used as an analogy to illustrate the concept of
spontaneous symmetry breaking which is important to the understanding
of electroweak unification and further unifications. When the magnet is
strongly magnetized in one direction, it would be hard to guess that
the underlying interaction is actually symmetric under rotation. The
magnetic field from the magnet is certainly very different if it is
rotated 90 degrees, or 180 degrees. The underlying symmetry can only be
seen if the energy of the system is raised - heating the magnet to its
Curie temperature would remove the directional magnetic field and
restore the rotational symmetry of the material. This is an apt analogy
for the electroweak unification, since the symmetry between the Coulomb
force and the weak interaction is certainly not evident at low
temperatures. Only at high enough temperatures so that the available
energies are in excess of the
Snowflake analogy
>>
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/unify.html#c4
Availability on CD ROM
If you are interested, the full current content of HyperPhysics can be
provided to you on cross-platform CD for the cost of $50. It can be
accessed by Mac or PC with your web browser exactly as you access it on
the web. The proceeds from the CDs will contribute to further
development of the HyperPhysics environment. It has been kept free from
University or commercial financial support in order to maintain freedom
to develop it in flexible ways. Some grant support may be sought to
provide the CD version to a cohort of teachers for a pilot project, but
so far the development cost has beem borne privately.
>><<
While copying and modifying the material for personal use or class
presentation use is permitted under the terms of this offering, all
rights to the material are reserved and no part of the material may be
reproduced for any commercial purpose. >>
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html
-----
Sue...
Significant Zero
Could you explain an apparent inconsistency in you data Sue as you have
Coulomb at 1/d^2 and POINT CHARGE with POINT CHARGE 1/r. I thought
Coulumb was a point to point charge definition. ?
--
Significant Zero E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field, two
unbound field effects
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Maybe updates. The spuds, beans and onions are coming up nicely. Ooh
ah.{:-)
| ----
| Sue...
|
|
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112083320...@damia.uk.clara.net...
Gossip Your Honor, pure unadulterated Gossip :o)
I am sure there are many inconsistancis in between the various
tables because they come from various sources. I was trying
to find if things get fuzzy in the VDW and London effect.
It appears they do because we may see distance profiles stated
anywhere from r^6 to r^12, Whaddaya expect from induced dipoles
that may wink in and out of existance depending on what other dipoles do.
To your point. We should have no ambiguity with the far-field effects.
Might we clear up the matter with the statements?::
Gravitational force diminishes by 1/r^2 above the earths surface.
Gravitational force diminishes by 1/r^1 below the earths surface.
and from the source document:
<<As the non-bonded interaction between atoms and groups
involves less than full formal charge and involves polarization
contributions, the distance dependence falls of more quickly
than the 1/r dependence of Coulomb's law. In these more
complicated cases, where the charges can not be represented
by single point locations, the interactions are also less isotropic,
falling off not just as a function of distance, but also as a
function of orientation: >>
As the source document involves forces *within* some kind
of fluid or solid, a polymer scientist probaby has little need
for the far-field situation. 1/r^2.
Sue...
Pardon my careless interchange of d distance and r radius.
Significant Zero
|
| "Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:112083320...@damia.uk.clara.net...
| >
| > "sue jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
| > news:42cb8a9d$0$18640$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
| > |
| > | "sue jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
| > news:42b9c325$0$18649$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
| To your point. We should have no ambiguity with the far-field effects.
| Might we clear up the matter with the statements?::
| Gravitational force diminishes by 1/r^2 above the earths surface.
| Gravitational force diminishes by 1/r^1 below the earths surface.
I thought that below the surface it fell to zero at the center of the
partical at the center of the earth but still followed a 1/r^2 as far as the
feet of a person in a lift was concerned ?
|
| and from the source document:
| <<As the non-bonded interaction between atoms and groups
| involves less than full formal charge and involves polarization
| contributions, the distance dependence falls of more quickly
| than the 1/r dependence of Coulomb's law.
Coulomb's law has a 1/d^2 dependence and an electric field has 1/r^2
dependence AFAIK so where is the 1/r dependence coming from ?
| In these more
| complicated cases, where the charges can not be represented
| by single point locations, the interactions are also less isotropic,
| falling off not just as a function of distance, but also as a
| function of orientation: >>
|
| As the source document involves forces *within* some kind
| of fluid or solid, a polymer scientist probaby has little need
| for the far-field situation. 1/r^2.
|
|
| Sue...
| Pardon my careless interchange of d distance and r radius.
I thought it made no difference unless you were inside the the point source.
?
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112089849...@echo.uk.clara.net...
>
> "sue jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:42ce9741$0$18636$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
> |
> | "Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:112083320...@damia.uk.clara.net...
> | >
> | > "sue jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> | > news:42cb8a9d$0$18640$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
> | > |
> | > | "sue jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> | > news:42b9c325$0$18649$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
> snip
> | To your point. We should have no ambiguity with the far-field effects.
> | Might we clear up the matter with the statements?::
> | Gravitational force diminishes by 1/r^2 above the earths surface.
> | Gravitational force diminishes by 1/r^1 below the earths surface.
>
> I thought that below the surface it fell to zero at the center of the
> partical at the center of the earth but still followed a 1/r^2 as far as the
> feet of a person in a lift was concerned ?
That is what I get for trying to speak a foreign language.
Graviational force is maximum at the earth's surface because
100% of it's mass is concentrated below your toes..
Gravitational force is zero at the earth's center because any
plane cut through a test mass has 50% of the earths mass
on either side.
Force is directly proportional to the distance from center.
Is 1/r or 1/r^1 the way to say that ? My spelling is much better
than my math. :o)
Above the earth's surface, the force diminishes by 1/r^2.
You can not increase the concentration of mass below your
toes greater than 100% by moving farther from the center
after you pass the surface and head toward outer space.
>
> |
> | and from the source document:
> | <<As the non-bonded interaction between atoms and groups
> | involves less than full formal charge and involves polarization
> | contributions, the distance dependence falls of more quickly
> | than the 1/r dependence of Coulomb's law.
>
> Coulomb's law has a 1/d^2 dependence and an electric field has 1/r^2
> dependence AFAIK so where is the 1/r dependence coming from ?
Let's sort this out with the planet earth first. Questions above.
>
>
> | In these more
> | complicated cases, where the charges can not be represented
> | by single point locations, the interactions are also less isotropic,
> | falling off not just as a function of distance, but also as a
> | function of orientation: >>
> |
> | As the source document involves forces *within* some kind
> | of fluid or solid, a polymer scientist probaby has little need
> | for the far-field situation. 1/r^2.
> |
> |
> | Sue...
> | Pardon my careless interchange of d distance and r radius.
>
> I thought it made no difference unless you were inside the the point source.
In some cases we are.
Eh! If I knew the Chineese symbol for it I would toss that in
too just ta keep ya on yer toes. :o)
Sue...
Significant Zero
It is claimed at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html
that Gravity source strength equals 4 pi GM = I_s and the surface intensity
is 4 pi GM/4 pi r^2 so 4 pi GM/4 pi r^2 = I_e = GM/r^2 = g so g = 9.80665 m
s ^-2 = I_e at r_e which I hope means the same as m s-2 with ^ meaning a
superscript exponent to you and others and in long hand meters per second
per second ? So twice the center to surface radius from the center is 2r_e
and the intensity there is I_2r_e = g_e/4 and three times the center to
surface radius is 3r_e so at 3r_e we have I_3r_e = g_e/9
So the gravitational field intensity at
0r = GM ?
1/2r = GM/1/2r^2 ?
1r = g = 9.80665 ms^-2 = GM/r^2
2r = GM/2r^2 = 2.4516625 m s^-2
3r = GM/3r^2 = 1.0896277 m s ^-2
So 1/r^2 seems a good ? approximate for above the surface ? Mind you the
atmosphere may alter the 1/r^2 slope of the field slightly above the surface
and seems to fit in nicely with Electric field slopes, Electric field
propagation dispersion in the far field and Coulomb at 1/d^2. Have not had
chance to look up details yet but could near field be fitted into r0 to r1
as far as gravity, E-fields goes ? I still have not been able to fit 1/r^1
in as that just seems to state it is what it is. ? Sorry about no jokes at
the moment still a bit pissed off. {:-(
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112092519...@dyke.uk.clara.net...
No... That does not look right for 1/2 and 0 radius.
If I ascii-ised this wrong
1/2 (R^2 - r^2) = 1/2 R^2 (1 - (r/R)2^)
it is about 2/3 down the page:
http://cseligman.com/text/planets/integration.htm
>
> So 1/r^2 seems a good ? approximate for above the surface ? Mind you the
> atmosphere may alter the 1/r^2 slope of the field slightly above the surface
> and seems to fit in nicely with Electric field slopes, Electric field
> propagation dispersion in the far field and Coulomb at 1/d^2. Have not had
> chance to look up details yet but could near field be fitted into r0 to r1
> as far as gravity, E-fields goes ?
It *seems* to work (for chemists?) when you consider everything
below the surface to be induced dipoles. It might help to consider that
the inside of a permanent is a 2 dimensional version with permanent dipoles
(2 D domains) instead of induced dipoles. (3 D domains)
I still have not been able to fit 1/r^1
Indeed. Finding an approiate URL took a bit of time. Worms
and moles must not surf the internet very much, or they have
higher aspirations. :o)
> in as that just seems to state it is what it is. ? Sorry about no jokes at
> the moment still a bit pissed off. {:-(
Understood. :o(
Warm regards,
Sue...
Ken S. Tucker
IIRC...
It's neat that inside a massive spherical
shell the gravitational field is zero, so you'd
be weightless. That's similiar in principle
to why there's no electric field in a charged
conducting hollow sphere.
Anyway, as one tunnels to the center of
the Earth, one actually is going into a
massive sphere and the gravity from the part
above you can be considered to be a massive
spherical shell with nil gravity.
I think that's from Gauss's law.
Ken
PS:Still building house, and having a computer
glitch so I'm a infrequent poster and mainly a
lurker.
Sue...
Don't skimp on the structural details. We
are having quite a challenge getting the
field intensity down to
a trillion trillion trillion'th of Coulomb force.
We may have to release a beta version that is
a trillion trillion'th of Coulomb force.
You'll be glad you've got some good stout
timbers if we do that. :o)
Sue...
Ken S. Tucker
Sue... wrote:
If in fact, gravitation is equivalent to a
relativistic modification of Coulombs force,
as I find, then the LIGO experiment will
be null, and so far that's true.
If the expected positive result is found then
it will be more difficult to unify GR and EM,
and the classical application of GR stands as
currently employed by GRist's, although
that's a simplification of GR (IMO).
Advanced applications of GR are able to explain
Coulombs force, forces between bar magnets,
and the requirement for quantized action "h",
as it should, since it's so fundamental, but what
is lacking is proof.
At the heart of the issue is how energy is conveyed
through spacetime, aka using the spacetime field.
TV proves we can convey EM info through space-
time, yet the classical GR metric solutions do not
include an explanation of that well known fact about
spacetime, yet we're able to theorize the conveyance
of gravitation radiation through spacetime using
classical GR spacetime metrics. That task has been
assigned to particle physics i.e. photons.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Significant Zero
calculating g you
So could we agree that (phy-astr.gsu.edu) information on the source
intensity being 4 pi GM at the centre of the earth as being misleading? and
that it is in fact zero at the dynamic centre but my have a positive value
at the average or mathmatical centre as this would be a more useful value in
some cases?
Perhaps if the average centre of mass of an isotropic field generator was
expressed something as 1/0r+1 = GM or something perhaps.
| > 1/2r = GM/1/2r^2 ?
This should be intensity for1/2r = g/x with x being some planet density
factor that
for earth is about 1 and is about 2 for a small hydrogen cloud of about
earth
volume with g taking the appropriate value. ?
| > 1r = g = 9.80665 ms^-2 = GM/r^2
| > 2r = GM/2r^2 = 2.4516625 m s^-2
| > 3r = GM/3r^2 = 1.0896277 m s ^-2
|
| No... That does not look right for 1/2 and 0 radius.
| If I ascii-ised this wrong
| 1/2 (R^2 - r^2) = 1/2 R^2 (1 - (r/R)2^)
| it is about 2/3 down the page:
| http://cseligman.com/text/planets/integration.htm
|
w_r = p_r = (3/8 pi G)g_R^2(1-(r/R)^2) with w being weight and p the
pressure per unit area at r distance from the centre of mass being only true
for a uniform density case like the small hydrogen cloud I mentioned above.
|
| >
| > So 1/r^2 seems a good ? approximate for above the surface ? Mind you the
| > atmosphere may alter the 1/r^2 slope of the field slightly above the
surface
| > and seems to fit in nicely with Electric field slopes, Electric field
| > propagation dispersion in the far field and Coulomb at 1/d^2. Have not
had
| > chance to look up details yet but could near field be fitted into r0 to
r1
| > as far as gravity, E-fields goes ?
|
| It *seems* to work (for chemists?) when you consider everything
| below the surface to be induced dipoles. It might help to consider that
| the inside of a permanent is a 2 dimensional version with permanent
dipoles
| (2 D domains) instead of induced dipoles. (3 D domains)
2D domains at 1/r^3 and 3D domains at 1/r^2
|
| I still have not been able to fit 1/r^1
| Indeed. Finding an approiate URL took a bit of time. Worms
| and moles must not surf the internet very much, or they have
| higher aspirations. :o)
1/r^1 = 1 so anything with 1/r^1 is an inertial ballistic object ? so I
don't know why that guy was quoting Coloumbe at 1/r below. ?
Culombio ley tiene un 1/ d^ 2 dependencia y un campo eléctrico tiene 1/ r^ 2
¿dependencia AFAIK así donde está el 1/ r dependencia viene de?
Can you understand that translation ?
sue jahn
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message news:1120945540.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Yes, I can't seem to make solid spinning objects
have any radiation in the farfield. So LIGO might
work but I can't imagine any thing for it to hear.
>
> If the expected positive result is found then
> it will be more difficult to unify GR and EM,
> and the classical application of GR stands as
> currently employed by GRist's, although
> that's a simplification of GR (IMO).
>
> Advanced applications of GR are able to explain
> Coulombs force, forces between bar magnets,
> and the requirement for quantized action "h",
> as it should, since it's so fundamental, but what
> is lacking is proof.
Yes. We have good quantitative results by summing
up the forces from all the domains in a permanent
magnet to arrive at a total force but moving a collection
of Coulomb sea urching in a circular path doesn't
quite produce the right mental image. Need little
tornados or bundles or sumsuch. I guess if nature
had stuff to build stuff with there wouldn't be any
need to invent stuff. :o)
>
> At the heart of the issue is how energy is conveyed
> through spacetime, aka using the spacetime field.
You are on the elephant's side. I am on the elephants
belly. Same elephant tho.
>
> TV proves we can convey EM info through space-
> time, yet the classical GR metric solutions do not
> include an explanation of that well known fact about
> spacetime, yet we're able to theorize the conveyance
> of gravitation radiation through spacetime using
> classical GR spacetime metrics. That task has been
> assigned to particle physics i.e. photons.
Well... that is what ya get for letting Maxwell throw out
the baby with the bathwater. :o)
Sue...
>
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
>
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112094593...@doris.uk.clara.net...
Yes... I'll agree that it is oversimplified.
> and
> that it is in fact zero at the dynamic centre
It is dynamic, whether induced or atomic domains.
> but may have a positive value
> at the average or mathmatical centre as this would be a more useful value in
> some cases?
By average or mathmatical centre I think you mead geometric centre.
For true spherical bodies:
The earth-moon barycentre does not coincide with the earth's
geometric center. If you were at the earth's geometric center
you would fall toward the moon.
> Perhaps if the average centre of mass of an isotropic field generator was
> expressed something as 1/0r+1 = GM or something perhaps.
> | > 1/2r = GM/1/2r^2 ?
What seems to be missing there is R and r
See:
1/2 (R^2 - r^2) = 1/2 R^2 (1 - (r/R)2^)
Gotta break here 'cause I see homework below
=======
Sue...
>
> This should be intensity for1/2r = g/x with x being some planet density
> factor that
> for earth is about 1 and is about 2 for a small hydrogen cloud of about
> earth
> volume with g taking the appropriate value. ?
Sheeshs? I haven't a clue. <O)
sue jahn
"sue jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:42d04ecf$0$18643$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
Pressure? Density ? Are you sure we are ready to consider that. I gave the
link only because I couldn't find 1/2 (R^2 - r^2) = 1/2 R^2 (1 - (r/R)2^)
very redily. Certainly pressure is a factor for a planet but could we not ignore
it for something the size of a Cavendish balance ?
> >
> > |
> > | >
> > | > So 1/r^2 seems a good ? approximate for above the surface ? Mind you the
> > | > atmosphere may alter the 1/r^2 slope of the field slightly above the
> > surface
> > | > and seems to fit in nicely with Electric field slopes, Electric field
> > | > propagation dispersion in the far field and Coulomb at 1/d^2. Have not
> > had
> > | > chance to look up details yet but could near field be fitted into r0 to
> > r1
> > | > as far as gravity, E-fields goes ?
> > |
> > | It *seems* to work (for chemists?) when you consider everything
> > | below the surface to be induced dipoles. It might help to consider that
> > | the inside of a permanent is a 2 dimensional version with permanent
> > dipoles
> > | (2 D domains) instead of induced dipoles. (3 D domains)
> >
> > 2D domains at 1/r^3 and 3D domains at 1/r^2
> >
> > |
> > | I still have not been able to fit 1/r^1
> > | Indeed. Finding an approiate URL took a bit of time. Worms
> > | and moles must not surf the internet very much, or they have
> > | higher aspirations. :o)
> >
> > 1/r^1 = 1 so anything with 1/r^1 is an inertial ballistic object ? so I
> > don't know why that guy was quoting Coloumbe at 1/r below. ?
It is the same as gravity. If you were a proton in the center of an
electron cloud half the e- minus would be on you right, half on your left.
If you were on the surface of the e- cloud, 100% the electrons would
be on one side of you. Same as gravity, 1/r^1 inside the cloud.
1/r^2 as you move away from the cloud.
Absoutely! ¿ bla bal ? is spanish for
~ bla bla ~ which is academic for
"I don't know what the f*** is am saying" :o)
Sue...
Significant Zero
Fraid not, to calculate the gravity slope inside a body of any significant
mass you have to integrate the mass at many levels to obtain a slope like an
upside down tick as far as that paper goes anyway. Trudge through "The
internal Pressure of Planets" and near the end there is the internal
gravity slopes for various planets.
Its not 1/r^1 see the internal gravity slope graph I mention above its more
complex than that, inside a planet anyway. I will thing about your example
as I don't think that equates to the field law slope inside a planet. I
think your example at particle level to equate to a planet would have to be
stating the coulomb force experienced by an electron as it burrowed into the
centre of a proton and to make the gravity and coulomb examples parallel you
would have to be talking about the forces experienced by a proton as it
burrowed its way to a cloud of electrons which would not be 1/r but a
complex slope as per gravity so the bloke who quoted 1/r below has not
thought about it enough ?
¿Hace ese malo que puedo escribir chistes sucios a usted en español?
BTW I can even write English this just my pc babbling but it can read some
languages as well{:-)
Significant Zero
Never cleared it but never mind, just me being an anorak{:-)
snip
| For true spherical bodies:
| The earth-moon barycentre does not coincide with the earth's
| geometric center. If you were at the earth's geometric center
| you would fall toward the moon.
|
|
| > Perhaps if the average centre of mass of an isotropic field generator
was
| > expressed something as 1/0r+1 = GM or something perhaps.
| > | > 1/2r = GM/1/2r^2 ?
|
| What seems to be missing there is R and r
Rest and recreation {:-)
| See:
| 1/2 (R^2 - r^2) = 1/2 R^2 (1 - (r/R)2^)
|
| Gotta break here 'cause I see homework below
| =======
coward {:-)
|
| Sue...
|
| >
| > This should be intensity for1/2r = g/x with x being some planet density
| > factor that
| > for earth is about 1 and is about 2 for a small hydrogen cloud of about
| > earth
| > volume with g taking the appropriate value. ?
| Sheeshs? I haven't a clue. <O)
Put you to sleep with that I see {:-)
This is whats indicated from your link that field propagation in areas
inhabited by complex geometrys like those possesed by particle over any
distance is a very very complex sum that is dependant on the field
character, particle type and density.
Simple 1/r^x laws seem only to apply over any distance, when I find myself
with nothing to do for a year or two I might try and construct a formula for
gravity through a varying density that is itself dependant on the density
but seems a bit recursive at the moment. I'll take my anorak of ok {:-)
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112098635...@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
I am not sure I agree with that, when I compare a cannon ball in
a hollow at the earth's center with a canon ball surrounded by
molten iron. (Corning an de Beers are helping with the obvious heat
problems)
One ball is under tremendous pressure, the other is not. They
are the same mass. If incompressable, they are the same density.
Again, I am not disagreeing about planet sized objects, only
small homgenous objects.
I have to stick up for that bloke just now because his polymer calculations
look right. Let's see if we can eliminate the pressure and density calculations by
modeling small stuff first. Does that work?
Sue..
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112098635...@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
(r)ock bearing a diamond but with my luck it
is the other way 'round. :o)
>
> | See:
> | 1/2 (R^2 - r^2) = 1/2 R^2 (1 - (r/R)2^)
> |
> | Gotta break here 'cause I see homework below
> | =======
>
> coward {:-)
"The soldier that knows when to run away, lives to
fight another day" Harumph! :o)
Sue...
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112098635...@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
You won't like to hear this, but I am not sure protons have gravity either.
Perhap they do if we can detect FQHE.
Regarding R and r
The mathymatishun in you, wants to see a smooth curve but see here:
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/circles/u6l3e5.gif
Missing on that graph is a nearly vertical red line representing
force below the surface. The equation for the entire red line is
probably "uglier than a mud fence covered with toads"
--Mark Twain
http://www.motherearthnews.com/library/1979_September_October/The_Last_Laugh
Sue...
Significant Zero
But thats it when is something incompressable and we are into singularities
and other stuff but its not at the center the dificulty with 1/r^2 is its
near the surface.
|
| Again, I am not disagreeing about planet sized objects, only
| small homgenous objects.
If its true for planets why would it not be true for particles and small
objects although the effect may be immeasurably small in these cases ?
I'll go with you but I don't think there will be any experimental data as to
the measure of gravity at the particle level ? and as far as the forces
experienced by a proton as it traverses a cloud of electrons might be a bit
outside current capabilities but I'll go with ideas and try and see what
makes sense.
|
| Sue..
snip
Significant Zero
They do but it would just be a component of the charge and would probably be
immeasurable small between two hydrogen atom ? Clue me FQHE I'm terrible
with abbreviations sometimes.
|
| Regarding R and r
| The mathymatishun in you, wants to see a smooth curve but see here:
| http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/circles/u6l3e5.gif
|
| Missing on that graph is a nearly vertical red line representing
| force below the surface.
The force below the surface is equal to the acceleration and that is what
that upside down tick is displaying.?
| The equation for the entire red line is
| probably "uglier than a mud fence covered with toads"
| --Mark Twain
|
http://www.motherearthnews.com/library/1979_September_October/The_Last_Laugh
You like MT {:-)
Just me being dislexic {:-) it should read
BTW I cant even write English this is just my PC babbling but it can read
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112101388...@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net...
"Something" doesn't have to be at the center, to appear at the
barycentre. There is nothing at a binary star's barycenter but
that is where things in the farfield fall to.
> |
> | Again, I am not disagreeing about planet sized objects, only
> | small homgenous objects.
>
> If its true for planets why would it not be true for particles and small
> objects although the effect may be immeasurably small in these cases ?
First, I think you and I need to get on the same planet... or star
system at the very least. The pressure at the barycenter of a
rotating double star should be very near the same as empty
space... but that is where things *fall to* from a distance.
Are you quite sure you did not find some old hydraulic and
Deep sea books at the thrift store and you just want to put them
to good use ? :o)
>
snip
Ya mean Van der Waal and London and BEC experiments don't count ?
> and as far as the forces
> experienced by a proton as it traverses a cloud of electrons might be a bit
> outside current capabilities but I'll go with ideas and try and see what
> makes sense.
I was just illustrating how when you are *within* the collection of entities
you divide and conquer. Whether you are surrounded by galaxies or
surrounded by fishing sinkers, the gravity is zero. If all the galaxies or
all the fishing sinkers are to your left, then you will be pulled to the left.
Sue...
============
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112101388...@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net...
>
> "sue jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:42d0fd5a$0$18637$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
>
> |
> | Regarding R and r
> | The mathymatishun in you, wants to see a smooth curve but see here:
> | http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/circles/u6l3e5.gif
> |
> | Missing on that graph is a nearly vertical red line representing
> | force below the surface.
>
> The force below the surface is equal to the acceleration and that is what
> that upside down tick is displaying.?
No. You need to draw a line from 0,0 up toward the
one o'clock position to meet with the highest point on the
red line.
Sorry..
I should have included some words.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/circles/U6L3e.html
>
>
> | The equation for the entire red line is
> | probably "uglier than a mud fence covered with toads"
> | --Mark Twain
> |
> http://www.motherearthnews.com/library/1979_September_October/The_Last_Laugh
>
> You like MT {:-)
No. I just quote him a lot around durty ole men to remind 'em
that I know how to hold either end of that sword... ouch! ;o)
>
snip
> | > | > >
> | > | > > Culombio ley tiene un 1/ d^ 2 dependencia y un campo eléctrico
> tiene
> | > 1/ r^ 2
> | > | > > ¿dependencia AFAIK así donde está el 1/ r dependencia viene de?
> | > | > >
> | > | > > Can you understand that translation ?
> | > |
> | > | Absoutely! ¿ bla bal ? is spanish for
> | > | ~ bla bla ~ which is academic for
> | > | "I don't know what the f*** is am saying" :o)
> | >
> | > ¿Hace ese malo que puedo escribir chistes sucios a usted en español?
Stay where your are. The people with the good jobs and free healthcare will
be there momentairly. Pay no attention to the badges. They have been to
costume party. :o)
> | >
> | > BTW I can even write English this just my pc babbling but it can read
> some
> | > languages as well{:-)
>
> Just me being dislexic {:-) it should read
>
> BTW I cant even write English this is just my PC babbling but it can read
> some
> |languages as well{:-)
Who would have tho't someone would be a national leader of the
English speaking people that doen't even speak the languge?
<< There are two kinds of linguistic missteps, the typos and the thinkos.
Typos are the processing glitches that intercede between a thought
and its expression. They can make you look foolish, but they aren't
really the signs of an intellectual or ethical deficiency, the way thinkos
are. It's the difference between a sentence that expresses an idea
badly and a sentence that expresses a bad idea. >>
http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~nunberg/nucular.html
Sue...
>
>
>
Significant Zero
Ok if you want to consider the case of binarys and how the field gradient
looks in their case we have to either consider the average mass about the
barycenter or take a vector of their period. Allthough the average mass is
hollow and not isotropic we could consider it through the plane of its
rotation and say that when we can draw a line throught the centers of the
two masses we have a gravity slope line as per a solid planet, an inverted
tick or something simlair. Other views will have there own slope lines and
the pressure profile will not match a solid planet at all.?
Van der Waal and London are the subtractive components that bring coulomb
more inline with the force of gravity?
|
| > and as far as the forces
| > experienced by a proton as it traverses a cloud of electrons might be a
bit
| > outside current capabilities but I'll go with ideas and try and see what
| > makes sense.
|
| I was just illustrating how when you are *within* the collection of
entities
| you divide and conquer. Whether you are surrounded by galaxies or
| surrounded by fishing sinkers, the gravity is zero. If all the galaxies or
| all the fishing sinkers are to your left, then you will be pulled to the
left.
|
Yes but I thought we were talking about the gravity slope inside source as
not a 1/r^2 field effect and no hint of a 1/r field
The field slope inside a gravity source follows a complex law of pressure
and mass distribution.
Significant Zero
I have lost you here as we are debating what happens inside a planet or body
and this according to the link you gave earlier is an inverted tick and does
not match 1/r^2 or 1/r
~ acceleration inside earth
/\ surface
/
/
center
|
| Sorry..
| I should have included some words.
| http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/circles/U6L3e.html
Not really relevant below ground is it.
|
| >
| >
| > | The equation for the entire red line is
| > | probably "uglier than a mud fence covered with toads"
| > | --Mark Twain
| > |
| >
http://www.motherearthnews.com/library/1979_September_October/The_Last_Laugh
| >
| > You like MT {:-)
|
| No. I just quote him a lot around durty ole men to remind 'em
| that I know how to hold either end of that sword... ouch! ;o)
I'll read your examples more carefully then as they are presumable making a
point in that area.
| >
| snip
| > | > | > >
| > | > | > > Culombio ley tiene un 1/ d^ 2 dependencia y un campo eléctrico
| > tiene
| > | > 1/ r^ 2
| > | > | > > ¿dependencia AFAIK así donde está el 1/ r dependencia viene
de?
| > | > | > >
| > | > | > > Can you understand that translation ?
| > | > |
| > | > | Absoutely! ¿ bla bal ? is spanish for
| > | > | ~ bla bla ~ which is academic for
| > | > | "I don't know what the f*** is am saying" :o)
| > | >
| > | > ¿Hace ese malo que puedo escribir chistes sucios a usted en español?
|
| Stay where your are. The people with the good jobs and free healthcare
will
| be there momentairly. Pay no attention to the badges. They have been to
| costume party. :o)
I must decode it back into English I had no idea it would bring that
response as I thought it was just a knickers twang or it was in English{:-)
|
| > | >
| > | > BTW I can even write English this just my pc babbling but it can
read
| > some
| > | > languages as well{:-)
| >
| > Just me being dislexic {:-) it should read
| >
| > BTW I cant even write English this is just my PC babbling but it can
read
| > some
| > |languages as well{:-)
|
| Who would have tho't someone would be a national leader of the
| English speaking people that doen't even speak the languge?
|
Who are you referring to ?
| << There are two kinds of linguistic missteps, the typos and the thinkos.
| Typos are the processing glitches that intercede between a thought
| and its expression. They can make you look foolish, but they aren't
| really the signs of an intellectual or ethical deficiency, the way thinkos
| are. It's the difference between a sentence that expresses an idea
| badly and a sentence that expresses a bad idea. >>
Difficult to tell between them sometimes.{:-)
| http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~nunberg/nucular.html
|
| Sue...
|
--
Significant Zero E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field, two
unbound field effects
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Maybe updates. (1-(1/(1/3))^2)/(1 + (1/(1/3))^2) = - 0.08 = FTL ? -p<+p or
(m*-v)<(m*+v) or (m*-c^2)<(m*+c^2) =g?
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112102792...@echo.uk.clara.net...
>
snip
You are still loosing me. Whether the moon was a cloud of fishing sinkers
(low pressure) or a ball of lead (high pressure) would the tides be able
to tell one from the other? Yes or No ?
You keep invoking a *gradient*. Permanent or induced dipoles adjust
themselves or adjust their neighbors to establish or be harmonious
within the slope of a gradient. So I am confused why you want to
calculate it for them. Did you minions run out of things to do or are
you hunting up some more hard labour to kill off a few more ? :o)
>
>
>
> | >
> | snip
> | >
> | > I'll go with you but I don't think there will be any experimental data
> as to
> | > the measure of gravity at the particle level ?
> |
> | Ya mean Van der Waal and London and BEC experiments don't count ?
>
> Van der Waal and London are the subtractive components that bring coulomb
> more inline with the force of gravity?
***OK... I see where you are headed.***
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TaylorSeries.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CauchyRemainder.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NewtonsDividedDifferenceInterpolationFormula.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series
<< Given a Taylor series
(1)
the error [remaining Coulomb force ? ] after n terms is given by
(2)
Using the mean-value theorem, this can be bounded by
(3)
for some (Abramowitz and Stegun 1972, p. 880).
Note that the Lagrange remainder is also sometimes taken to refer to the remainder when terms up to the st power are taken in the
Taylor series, and that a notation in which , , and is sometimes used (Blumenthal 1926; Whittaker and Watson 1990, pp. 95-96). >>
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LagrangeRemainder.html
<shrug> [PDF209kb] Computational Chemistry - part I: Force field methods
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
Taylor-series expansion. - Bond-stretching, eg v(l) = k/2 * (ll ... forces, thus
also named "London force". I. Fluctuations in the electron clouds form .
50 page overhead projector presentation 209KB <shrug>
http://www.tomasoberg.com/pdf/compchem_030131.pdf
In the farfield I think we end up with something a lot like energy
spread over aperture, just as in magnetic. Working out all the details
of every type of bond or coupling is probably not necessary.
IE... we can borrow it from some LQG theorist. :o)
<< In fact, it is easy to describe these modes.
To build representations of the diffeo algebra, we first of all
need to expand all fields in a Taylor series around "the observer's
trajectory" q(t), viz.
f(x) = \sum_m f_m(t) (x-q(t))^m
(We need some conditions on the Taylor functions f_m(t) to
ensure that f(x) is independent of t). Classically, we can
reformulate the field equations for f(x) as a hierarchy of equations
for the Taylor coefficients - awkward but in principle straightforward.
Upon quantization, the passive modes q(t) become physical - they have
canonical momenta and are represented on the Hilbert space - in pretty
much the same way as the Liouville mode.>>
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000082.html
<<The KT complexes constructed in the previous section were all classical in
the sense that the abelian charges of the DGRO algebra vanish. To quantize
the theory, we introduce a Fock vacuum annihilated by all negative Fourier
modes; see [10] for an explicit description on how this is carried out. To avoid
ill defined expressions acting on the Fock vacuum, all expressions must be
normal ordered with respect to frequency; this is denoted by double dots
( : : ). It follows immediately from (3.20) that the following operators define>>
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0210023
>
> |
> | > and as far as the forces
> | > experienced by a proton as it traverses a cloud of electrons might be a
> bit
> | > outside current capabilities but I'll go with ideas and try and see what
> | > makes sense.
> |
> | I was just illustrating how when you are *within* the collection of
> entities
> | you divide and conquer. Whether you are surrounded by galaxies or
> | surrounded by fishing sinkers, the gravity is zero. If all the galaxies or
> | all the fishing sinkers are to your left, then you will be pulled to the
> left.
> |
>
> Yes but I thought we were talking about the gravity slope inside source as
> not a 1/r^2 field effect and no hint of a 1/r field
> The field slope inside a gravity source follows a complex law of pressure
> and mass distribution.
I understand that. But can we walk before we run? :o)
We can model a pretty big ball of iron before the center
liquifys er ahhh what ever it does under pressure. Eh ?
Sue...
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112102793...@echo.uk.clara.net...
What happen inside is induced dipoles in the planet coupled to induced
dipoles in the miner's body. All you have to do is ratio the dipoles above him
to the dipoles below him to calculate his weight. At earth center it is
50% above 50% below for a weight of zero.
>
>
> ~ acceleration inside earth
>
> /\ surface
> /
> /
> center
That *%#!0# patent examiner has you hooking rockets on our
poor little miner...don't he? You trying to smash his helmet on
the cave ceiling or ya gonna let him stand in the shaft before ya
light the fuse? :o)
There ain't no *acceleration* in those VDW and London
calculations... just FORCE. :o)
>
>
> |
> | Sorry..
> | I should have included some words.
> | http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/circles/U6L3e.html
>
> Not really relevant below ground is it.
>
> |
> | >
> | >
> | > | The equation for the entire red line is
> | > | probably "uglier than a mud fence covered with toads"
> | > | --Mark Twain
> | > |
> | >
> http://www.motherearthnews.com/library/1979_September_October/The_Last_Laugh
> | >
> | > You like MT {:-)
> |
> | No. I just quote him a lot around durty ole men to remind 'em
> | that I know how to hold either end of that sword... ouch! ;o)
>
> I'll read your examples more carefully then as they are presumable making a
> point in that area.
A point ? Ouch again!
>
> | >
> | snip
> | > | > | > >
> | > | > | > > Culombio ley tiene un 1/ d^ 2 dependencia y un campo eléctrico
> | > tiene
> | > | > 1/ r^ 2
> | > | > | > > ¿dependencia AFAIK así donde está el 1/ r dependencia viene
> de?
> | > | > | > >
> | > | > | > > Can you understand that translation ?
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Absoutely! ¿ bla bal ? is spanish for
> | > | > | ~ bla bla ~ which is academic for
> | > | > | "I don't know what the f*** is am saying" :o)
> | > | >
> | > | > ¿Hace ese malo que puedo escribir chistes sucios a usted en español?
> |
> | Stay where your are. The people with the good jobs and free healthcare
> will
> | be there momentairly. Pay no attention to the badges. They have been to
> | costume party. :o)
>
> I must decode it back into English I had no idea it would bring that
> response as I thought it was just a knickers twang or it was in English{:-)
Decode the holy grail first.
(1-(1/(1/3))^2)/(1 + (1/(1/3))^2) = - 0.08 = FTL ? -p<+p or
> (m*-v)<(m*+v) or (m*-c^2)<(m*+c^2) =g?
>
> |
> | > | >
> | > | > BTW I can even write English this just my pc babbling but it can
> read
> | > some
> | > | > languages as well{:-)
> | >
> | > Just me being dislexic {:-) it should read
> | >
> | > BTW I cant even write English this is just my PC babbling but it can
> read
> | > some
> | > |languages as well{:-)
> |
> | Who would have tho't someone would be a national leader of the
> | English speaking people that doen't even speak the languge?
> |
>
> Who are you referring to ?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dubya+english&btnG=Google+Search
Sue...
Significant Zero
If the mass was the same, no.
My fishing sinkers are the same density as balls of lead so I am puzzled
|
| You keep invoking a *gradient*. Permanent or induced dipoles adjust
| themselves or adjust their neighbors to establish or be harmonious
| within the slope of a gradient. So I am confused why you want to
| calculate it for them. Did you minions run out of things to do or are
| you hunting up some more hard labour to kill off a few more ? :o)
Outside the earth's surface there is a acceleration gradient of 1/r^2.
Inside the surface the acceleration falls to zero at the centre but does not
follow a 1/r^2 or 1/r^1 law
Yes, I was just trying to get your claims of 1/r out of the debate because
you have not explained were it fits.
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112103319...@echo.uk.clara.net...
<< Results 1 - 10 of about 3,830 for "acceleration gradient" . (0.16 seconds) >>
Wheeew! You like livin' on the edge don't cha ?
As I said to Ken S. Tucker,
~You and he are examining the side of the elephant, I am examining
it's belly. Same elephant... but it sure is confusing when the mahut
shouts turn left.~ :o)
<< Inverse Square Law, Gravity
As one of the fields which obey the general inverse square law,
the gravity field can be put in the form shown below, showing that
the **acceleration** of gravity, g, is an expression of the intensity
of the gravity field. >>
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html
It would appear I am the one out of step but I plead brevity
under duress. (I already got that joke before you keyed it
so consider it just another relavistic causality violation) ;o)
The URL does say something about *force* .
Ah Ha! here is the complete red curve:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalForce.html
[see also]
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalAcceleration.html
<< which can be written as the gradient of a gravitational potential >>
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalField.html
OK I have almost driven my little ant up the side of the elephant
where you and KST are, but I'm not helpin you pranksters put
rockets on the tusks.
=======================================
So... Does the complete red curve and a force/acceleration
formula resolve this issue?
OK I think we got it with the complete red curve.
Gawd! Just preparing to write the equation was uglier than
toads on a mud fence. Let's wait'll we find where somebody
already wrote it. Unless we really need it.
After all your're the one obsessed with curves and now ya
have one... not French mind ya but you can afford some
extra haggis surely. ;o)
Sue...
sue jahn
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1120755114.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<< The potential in eq. (2.3) has an infinite range.
In practical applications, it is customary to establish a
cutoff radius Rc and disregard the interactions between
atoms separated by more than Rc. This results in simpler
programs and enormous savings of computer resources,
because the number of atomic pairs separated by a distance
r grows as r2 and becomes quickly huge. >>
http://www.fisica.uniud.it/~ercolessi/md/md/node16.html
<<(Science: chemistry) Electrodynamic forces arise between
atoms, molecules and assemblies of molecules due to their
vibrations giving rise to electromagnetic interactions,
these are **attractive** when the vibrational frequencies and
absorptions are identical or similar, **repulsive** when
nonidentical. Other interactions originally proposed by
van der Waals were included in this name, but these are
usually separated into the Coulomb's force, the Keesom
force and the London force. Only the last is of electrodynamic
nature. Probably important in holding lipid membranes into
that structure and possibly in other interactions, for example
cell adhesion. Electrodynamic forces between large scale
assemblies can be of relatively long range nature. >>
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/van_der_waals_attraction
<< The term 1/r6 describes attractive interactions between atoms,
and it dominates at long distance. This term is based on van der
Waals dipole-dipole interaction. Fig. 1 shows the repulsive,
attractive interactions, and LJ potential for carbon-carbon interaction.
The applicability of the LJ potential is limited to weak van der
Waals interactions and is commonly used to model systems where
these interactions are important. >>
http://www.mse.ufl.edu/~ssinn/Backgrounds/back03_pe2.html
<<Abstract
The nonadiabatic energy correction term of the hydrogen
molecule at large separation is discussed to determine whether
or not the nuclear motion induces the inter-atomic interaction
potential. Nonadiabatic vibrational motion of nuclei induces the
internal charge polarization of atoms to give the novel correction
term to the London R-6 force. The correction term is (4/M) (1/R3),
which is important at large R despite the overwhelming magnitude
of nuclear mass. >>
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/109577034/ABSTRACT
<< This theory assumes the differential equations of traditional
classical electrodynamics but changes the homogeneous boundary
condition on Maxwell's equations to correspond to the presence of
random classical electromagnetic radiation with a Lorentz-invariant
spectrum. The van der Waals force calculations are performed exactly
within the nonrelativistic equations of motion for the particles represented
as point-dipole oscillators. The classical results are found to agree
identically to all orders in the fine-structure constant alpha with the
nonrelativistic quantum electrodynamic calculations of Renne.
To fourth order, there is agreement with the perturbation-theory
work of Casimir and Polder. >>
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v7/i6/p1832_1
<<The Lennard-Jones potential VLJ fitted to r0 and
V (r0) gives B2/r3
0 = ?0.899 for Ar and ?1.92 for Kr (er-
rors of 63% and 37%); it also wags a long-range tail with
London coeffcients 2 |V (r0)| r6
0 that are too large by 83%
for Ar and by 84% for Kr. If the parameters r0 and V (r0)
in Eq.(1) for VLJ are chosen to give the correct second
virial coeffcient B2/r3
0 for a range of temperatures [23],
then V (r0) is too shallow by 16 % for Ar and 15% for
Kr, and the London coeffcients of the long-range tail are
too large by 70% for Ar and by 64% for Kr. With only
two parameters, Lennard-Jones fits are procrustean.
>><<
For a wide class of atom pairs, the hybrid form (6)
can reliably represent the best spectroscopically deter-
mined potentials over all relevant distance scales. It also
yields accurate second virial coeffcients and heats of va-
porization. Its simplicity recommends it as a teaching
tool and as a practical form for computation. Given the
differences between it and the Lennard-Jones, harmonic,
Morse, Varnshi, and Hulburt-Hirschfelder potentials, it
would be worthwhile to examine the consequences of
these differences in Monte Carlo searches for low-energy
states of biomolecules and in numerical simulations of
phase transitions and reactions far from equilibrium.>>
http://arxiv.org/abs/q-bio.BM/0410018
=========
Sue...
Significant Zero
The red curve in your link above is for a sphere of uniform density which
the earth is not so the graph for the earth still shows an inverted tick for
r<R and whats inside a proton or small sphere is unprovable at the moment. I
think its a line with a small kink you think its straight <shrug>
| and a force/acceleration
| formula resolve this issue?
If you wish
Your sex abuse crack on the other thread has burned sex jokes out of me at
the moment. Some animal rights lot brought building work to a stop at Oxford
recently by making this sort of allegation about men on the firm. There is a
male witch hunt on here and its not funny for any bloke as I guess it was
not funny for female witches? in the middle ages, but some of us never seem
to learn. {:-( More pissed off.
|
| Sue...
|
|
Significant Zero
Acceleration against an energy state change (surface) equals force?
The above graph is correct as you have been looking at uniformed bodies and
the acceleration is down not up.
snip
| A point ? Ouch again!
Just a mathematical point as no real physical points exist except
subjectively {:-).
snip
| Decode the holy grail first.
|
| (1-(1/(1/3))^2)/(1 + (1/(1/3))^2) = - 0.08 = FTL ? -p<+p or
| > (m*-v)<(m*+v) or (m*-c^2)<(m*+c^2) =g?
The first bit is the product of the reaction of an accelerating mass and by
recursion equalling FTL? and the second is the asymmetric response to a
symmetric effect ?.
snip
| > | Who would have tho't someone would be a national leader of the
| > | English speaking people that doen't even speak the languge?
| > |
| >
| > Who are you referring to ?
| http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dubya+english&btnG=Google+Search
|
Some of his twit is mind blowing" It's clearly a budget - it's got lots of
numbers in it." G.W. Bush that's the sort of guy we need running another
country not the S.H types who never make jokes and just tear your toenails
off, give me GWB every time over SH, GWB a hoot with a boot and a man after
my own bum. I expect if you are a Cubanio then you might have some
historical issue with the US P. but then every body has their cross to bear
and I hope for your sake you can get over it, codolences to go with the
fishing.
snip
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112107810...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
Well awl rite... shukkins! I wuz hopeing we could start out with
the hard stuff first... but ya talked me out of it.
If you insist, we'll just consider small homogenous masses but you
don't realise how much this is gonna disappoint me. For consolation
you ought ta gimme part of a jews-harp, a piece of blue bottle-glass
to look through, a spool cannon, a key that wouldn't unlock anything,
a fragment of chalk, a glass stopper of a decanter, a tin soldier,
a couple of tadpoles, six fire-crackers, a kitten with only one eye,
a brass door-knob, a dog-collar -- but no dog -- the handle of a
knife, four pieces of orange-peel, and a dilapidated old window sash
and twelve marbles. :o)
Sorry... I choose the pic for the degee of eye rolling, didn't notice the age.
oops!
Sue...
>
> |
> | Sue...
> |
> |
>
>
>
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112107810...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
OK... If you say so. I'd much rather call it force unless we can
can quantify time and displacement.
>
> snip
>
> | A point ? Ouch again!
>
> Just a mathematical point as no real physical points exist except
> subjectively {:-).
>
> snip
>
> | Decode the holy grail first.
> |
> | (1-(1/(1/3))^2)/(1 + (1/(1/3))^2) = - 0.08 = FTL ? -p<+p or
> | > (m*-v)<(m*+v) or (m*-c^2)<(m*+c^2) =g?
>
> The first bit is the product of the reaction of an accelerating mass and by
> recursion equalling FTL?
Big deal! I am moving FTL right now wrt one of the particles at fnal.
If I was a bit closer to one of those particles, Coulombly speaking,
it would be a big big deal.
Don't cry. I understand. That mean old Maxwell made you do that
didn't he. He thinks simply accelerating particles makes 'em radiate.
I guess it never occured to him what kind of gloves he was gonna
wear before he took a firm grasp on a particle to accelerate it. ;-)
and the second is the asymmetric response to a
> symmetric effect ?.
Sounds like a chaotic butterfly makin' cyclones.
>
> snip
>
> | > | Who would have tho't someone would be a national leader of the
> | > | English speaking people that doen't even speak the languge?
> | > |
> | >
> | > Who are you referring to ?
> | http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dubya+english&btnG=Google+Search
> |
>
> Some of his twit is mind blowing" It's clearly a budget - it's got lots of
> numbers in it." G.W. Bush that's the sort of guy we need running another
> country not the S.H types who never make jokes and just tear your toenails
> off, give me GWB every time over SH, GWB a hoot with a boot and a man after
> my own bum. I expect if you are a Cubanio then you might have some
> historical issue with the US P. but then every body has their cross to bear
> and I hope for your sake you can get over it, codolences to go with the
> fishing.
Before 9/11 WTC Dubya had big plans to go to Mars. I am just sorry for
his sake that he had to settle for a quick junt out to a carrier instead.
Hopefully he'll get his travel plans back on schedule soon. ;o)
http://www.wepsite.de/Dubya_USS_Abraham_Lincoln_Chip_Bok_May_2_2003.gif
http://www.wepsite.de/Dubya_economyBorgman_May_5_2003.jpg
Sue...
Significant Zero
You did not reply to above but it set me thinking about how a particle might
look with a binary internal structure and we end up with some sort of planer
cyclic gravitational quadrapole field although in this case its only
attractive and if gravity is an electric field we have a macro structure
that might be an echo of a micro electric field structure ?
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | You keep invoking a *gradient*. Permanent or induced dipoles
adjust
| > | > | themselves or adjust their neighbors to establish or be harmonious
| > | > | within the slope of a gradient. So I am confused why you want to
| > | > | calculate it for them. Did you minions run out of things to do or
are
| > | > | you hunting up some more hard labour to kill off a few more ? :o)
| > | >
| > | > Outside the earth's surface there is a acceleration gradient of
1/r^2.
| > | > Inside the surface the acceleration falls to zero at the centre but
does
| > not
| > | > follow a 1/r^2 or 1/r^1 law
| > |
What does 1/r^1 mean to you ?
Better mood with you now so do you have anything to add {:-) ?
|
| Well awl rite... shukkins! I wuz hopeing we could start out with
| the hard stuff first... but ya talked me out of it.
| If you insist, we'll just consider small homogenous masses but you
| don't realise how much this is gonna disappoint me. For consolation
| you ought ta gimme part of a jews-harp, a piece of blue bottle-glass
| to look through, a spool cannon, a key that wouldn't unlock anything,
| a fragment of chalk, a glass stopper of a decanter, a tin soldier,
| a couple of tadpoles, six fire-crackers, a kitten with only one eye,
| a brass door-knob, a dog-collar -- but no dog -- the handle of a
| knife, four pieces of orange-peel, and a dilapidated old window sash
| and twelve marbles. :o)
There yours but don't blame me when you cant get your car out of your garage
due to your magpie tendencies {:-) But I will let you off talking about
small
masses and we can talk about the moon which is much more romantic and has
more data so we wont starve {:-)
That lot should blog the maths bunch for a few minutes.
Apologise accepted, love you again, bitch {:-)
Put me right off my stroke...ing see below{:-)
Check me out on this picture as we may have a simpler way than the heavy
maths.
The earth, and at one side we have the moon stationary and at the other we
have a hydrogen atom stationary. Let them go and the both hit the earth
surface at the same time ? discounting motion of earth induced by moon and
atmosphere.
Same as above but moon in normal orbit but hydrogen atom at other side in
same orbit as moon and same speed ?
|
| Sue...
|
| >
| > |
| > | Sue...
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
| >
|
|
Significant Zero
Interesting
How do you quantify force except by time and displacment ?
| >
| > snip
| >
| > | A point ? Ouch again!
| >
| > Just a mathematical point as no real physical points exist except
| > subjectively {:-).
| >
| > snip
| >
| > | Decode the holy grail first.
| > |
| > | (1-(1/(1/3))^2)/(1 + (1/(1/3))^2) = - 0.08 = FTL ? -p<+p or
| > | > (m*-v)<(m*+v) or (m*-c^2)<(m*+c^2) =g?
| >
| > The first bit is the product of the reaction of an accelerating mass and
by
| > recursion equalling FTL?
| Big deal! I am moving FTL right now wrt one of the particles at fnal.
| If I was a bit closer to one of those particles, Coulombly speaking,
| it would be a big big deal.
Great it was just a remaining point from a SR gung ho were the point was no
FTL so I arithmaticed it out of their math {:-)
Just seems to give loads of possibilities if you don't put your mind in that
rat trap.
| Don't cry. I understand. That mean old Maxwell made you do that
| didn't he. He thinks simply accelerating particles makes 'em radiate.
| I guess it never occured to him what kind of gloves he was gonna
| wear before he took a firm grasp on a particle to accelerate it. ;-)
No I was fighting with an SRist at the time, FTL had never been a hang up of
mine {:-) Who's Maxwell {:-)
|
| and the second is the asymmetric response to a
| > symmetric effect ?.
| Sounds like a chaotic butterfly makin' cyclones.
Its one of the operating bases of gravity as well so get out your butterfly
net {:-)
|
| >
| > snip
| >
| > | > | Who would have tho't someone would be a national leader of the
| > | > | English speaking people that doen't even speak the languge?
| > | > |
| > | >
| > | > Who are you referring to ?
| > | http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dubya+english&btnG=Google+Search
| > |
| >
| > Some of his twit is mind blowing" It's clearly a budget - it's got lots
of
| > numbers in it." G.W. Bush that's the sort of guy we need running another
| > country not the S.H types who never make jokes and just tear your
toenails
| > off, give me GWB every time over SH, GWB a hoot with a boot and a man
after
| > my own bum. I expect if you are a Cubanio then you might have some
| > historical issue with the US P. but then every body has their cross to
bear
| > and I hope for your sake you can get over it, codolences to go with the
| > fishing.
|
| Before 9/11 WTC Dubya had big plans to go to Mars. I am just sorry for
| his sake that he had to settle for a quick junt out to a carrier instead.
| Hopefully he'll get his travel plans back on schedule soon. ;o)
| http://www.wepsite.de/Dubya_USS_Abraham_Lincoln_Chip_Bok_May_2_2003.gif
| http://www.wepsite.de/Dubya_economyBorgman_May_5_2003.jpg
|
Your just bitching about the number of air miles he's got saved\pinched {:-)
just think of the laughs he's generated, he's the Tony Hancock of the US.
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112108630...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
One of the articles of the group I just posted went into some detail
about whether the force is attractive or repussive. As I recall it is
attractive if coherrent, repulsive if not. Induced dipoles must
there very existance be coherrent. (not sinusoidal assuming
you take spread spectrum PN codes and the patterns SETI
looks for to be coherrent) Sickels are what you ride not
what make quadrapoles. Well the *permanent dipoles*, atoms
ARE cyclic but when a whole mob of them starts shouting at
ensemble that thinks it is an *induced dipole* ~sneak effect~
~pairs of eggs~
... the resultant doesn't *appear* very cyclic. A fourier
transform would extract the original signals from atomic
oscillators and show that it was indeed comprised of many
cyclic components.
>
>
>
> | > | >
> | > | > |
> | > | > | You keep invoking a *gradient*. Permanent or induced dipoles
> adjust
> | > | > | themselves or adjust their neighbors to establish or be harmonious
> | > | > | within the slope of a gradient. So I am confused why you want to
> | > | > | calculate it for them. Did you minions run out of things to do or
> are
> | > | > | you hunting up some more hard labour to kill off a few more ? :o)
> | > | >
> | > | > Outside the earth's surface there is a acceleration gradient of
> 1/r^2.
> | > | > Inside the surface the acceleration falls to zero at the centre but
> does
> | > not
> | > | > follow a 1/r^2 or 1/r^1 law
> | > |
>
> What does 1/r^1 mean to you ?
Are you ask why I say 0.511MeV instead of .511MeV ?
The exponent is just a notational convention because we are
using it in a series of exponents. Eh! consider yerself lucky I remembered the caret.
Besides... I don't have to pay by the byte like you so, why conserve.
:o)
I'd like to see some of that *light bending* data from there.
===========
> The earth, and at one side we have the moon stationary and at the other we
> have a hydrogen atom stationary. Let them go and the both hit the earth
> surface at the same time ? discounting motion of earth induced by moon and
> atmosphere.
> Same as above but moon in normal orbit but hydrogen atom at other side in
> same orbit as moon and same speed ?
===========
--> H E M <--
[the particles definitely have the earth hemmed-in :o) ]
--> H E
M
I am not sure where you are going with that. The earth and
moon are creating and anhilating a gazillion particles while
you are moveing that H. Couldn't we practice first by
weighing an aircraft carrier before and after a mosquito
lands on it?
Sue...
> |
> | Sue...
> |
> | >
> | > |
> | > | Sue...
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>
>
>
>
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:11210886...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
>
snip
It is a good question. I am sure at some subatomic level you can
quantify the force between your bum and your chair in those terms
but a cushion maker might not appreciate that kind of data in helping
you select a soft meduim or firm cushion.
Let's call it instinct... or copying what others do. The workers actually
producing some meaningful calculations are in chemistry and biosciences.
Most of the data we are reading is not in terms of acceleration and I don't
see what we gain converting it. AFAIK all of the moving mass is in
orbits predetermined orbits where we can't alter it anyway.
Dubya likes democracy. So let's do democracy
Results 1 - 10 of about 14 for "london acceleration". (0.26 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 912 for "london force". (0.20 seconds)
...Look's your party need to hire a few more slimey lobbyists
and political consultants. :o)
>
> | >
> | > snip
> | >
> | > | A point ? Ouch again!
> | >
> | > Just a mathematical point as no real physical points exist except
> | > subjectively {:-).
> | >
> | > snip
> | >
> | > | Decode the holy grail first.
> | > |
> | > | (1-(1/(1/3))^2)/(1 + (1/(1/3))^2) = - 0.08 = FTL ? -p<+p or
> | > | > (m*-v)<(m*+v) or (m*-c^2)<(m*+c^2) =g?
> | >
> | > The first bit is the product of the reaction of an accelerating mass and
> by
> | > recursion equalling FTL?
> | Big deal! I am moving FTL right now wrt one of the particles at fnal.
> | If I was a bit closer to one of those particles, Coulombly speaking,
> | it would be a big big deal.
>
> Great it was just a remaining point from a SR gung ho were the point was no
> FTL so I arithmaticed it out of their math {:-)
> Just seems to give loads of possibilities if you don't put your mind in that
> rat trap.
>
> | Don't cry. I understand. That mean old Maxwell made you do that
> | didn't he. He thinks simply accelerating particles makes 'em radiate.
> | I guess it never occured to him what kind of gloves he was gonna
> | wear before he took a firm grasp on a particle to accelerate it. ;-)
>
> No I was fighting with an SRist at the time, FTL had never been a hang up of
> mine {:-) Who's Maxwell {:-)
Maxwell was Weber's understudy. Doncha know nuttin ? :o)
>
> |
> | and the second is the asymmetric response to a
> | > symmetric effect ?.
> | Sounds like a chaotic butterfly makin' cyclones.
>
> Its one of the operating bases of gravity as well so get out your butterfly
> net {:-)
>
snip
>
> Your just bitching about the number of air miles he's got saved\pinched {:-)
> just think of the laughs he's generated, he's the Tony Hancock of the US.
LOL He wanted to "restore honor and dignity to the White House.
Forsaking the White House for a 7/24 traveling snake oil show it is the
best strategy he has come up with to keep at least one of his promises. :o)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=honor+dignity+white+house&btnG=Google+Search
Sue...
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112108630...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
>
snip
>
> Check me out on this picture as we may have a simpler way than the heavy
> maths.
>
> The earth, and at one side we have the moon stationary and at the other we
> have a hydrogen atom stationary. Let them go and the both hit the earth
> surface at the same time ? discounting motion of earth induced by moon and
> atmosphere.
> Same as above but moon in normal orbit but hydrogen atom at other side in
> same orbit as moon and same speed ?
Take 2
On your desk is a model locomotive.
('cause ya can't post here with out a train)
On the tip of it's smoke stack is a hydrogen atom.
On the moon's retroreflector is another hydrogen atom.
The proton on the smokestack it trying to push the
proton on the retroreflector away.
The electron on the smokestack it trying to pull the
proton on the retroreflector closer.
Is the contest a tie? No
The attractive phase will deform the orbits so the
charges line up.
RA-----AR
The attractive entities have a shorter path.
So... If we knew how much shorter we should
be able to calculate the repulsive snd attractive
components and subtract.
What if we work backwards? Ratio the force
of gravity to the coulomb force and determine
what the distance needs to be. If it is completely
unreasonable then we need to look under a different
rock. As every schoolchild knows (or thinks it knows),
the weight of an avocado is about 1 kg if the moles
don't get to it. Each mole eats 6.0221367 x 10^23
atoms of fruit if they do.
So I calculate that moles and avocados should weigh
about 1/6 on the moon than on the train. :o)
Howzat ?
Sue...
<<Fig. 3-6. (a) A contour map of the electron density distribution in a
plane containing the nucleus for the n = 1 level of the H atom. The
distance between adjacent contours is 1 au. The numbers on the
left-hand side on each contour give the electron densityin au.
The numbers on the right-hand side give the fraction of the total
electronic charge which lies within a sphere of that radius.
Thus 99% of the single electronic charge of the H atom lies within a
sphere of radius 4 au (or diameter = 4.2 ´10-8 cm). >>
http://www.chemistry.mcmaster.ca/esam/Chapter_3/section_2.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/AvogadrosNumber.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalForce.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/CoulombForce.html
Significant Zero
Well he should unless he's after a snow job because as far as I know good
expanded foam has compressibility data.
|
| Let's call it instinct... or copying what others do. The workers actually
| producing some meaningful calculations are in chemistry and biosciences.
|
| Most of the data we are reading is not in terms of acceleration and I
don't
| see what we gain converting it. AFAIK all of the moving mass is in
| orbits predetermined orbits where we can't alter it anyway.
We work from mass and inertial data to determine acceleration that is
keeping mass in orbit ?
|
| Dubya likes democracy. So let's do democracy
| Results 1 - 10 of about 14 for "london acceleration". (0.26 seconds)
| Results 1 - 10 of about 912 for "london force". (0.20 seconds)
|
| ...Look's your party need to hire a few more slimey lobbyists
| and political consultants. :o)
What units does your force come in ?
Reading Weber, Reading Weber, study, study, study, forgotten it all start
again, Reading Weber.....{:-) can I go to the loo miss ?
| >
| > |
| > | and the second is the asymmetric response to a
| > | > symmetric effect ?.
| > | Sounds like a chaotic butterfly makin' cyclones.
| >
| > Its one of the operating bases of gravity as well so get out your
butterfly
| > net {:-)
| >
| snip
|
| >
| > Your just bitching about the number of air miles he's got saved\pinched
{:-)
| > just think of the laughs he's generated, he's the Tony Hancock of the
US.
And a great leader just in case the FBI are on the way {:-)
Significant Zero
Why would the sum of incoherence be repulsive and coherence attractive ?
| Induced dipoles must
| there very existance be coherrent. (not sinusoidal assuming
| you take spread spectrum PN codes and the patterns SETI
| looks for to be coherrent) Sickels are what you ride not
| what make quadrapoles. Well the *permanent dipoles*, atoms
| ARE cyclic but when a whole mob of them starts shouting at
| ensemble that thinks it is an *induced dipole* ~sneak effect~
| ~pairs of eggs~
| ... the resultant doesn't *appear* very cyclic. A fourier
| transform would extract the original signals from atomic
| oscillators and show that it was indeed comprised of many
| cyclic components.
You misunderstood my application of quadrapoles but no matter lets go with
the pairs of eggs for the time being but I think you might find the sum of
these eggs plus whatever, may sum to neutral over any extended period so you
may be looking for some other mechanism to provide a field that sums to
attraction. ?
Alright what does 1/r mean to you ? do you have an R to work against or do
you go from DIV by zero error to x^infinity as a result ?
Do you mean snuggle, snuggle or something else {:-)
^
H E M
\/
H and M rotating about E
Slight mod to your diag. below
| --> H E
| M
|
| I am not sure where you are going with that. The earth and
| moon are creating and anhilating a gazillion particles while
| you are moveing that H.
MInor detail, just as far as the theory of gravitation goes.
| Couldn't we practice first by
| weighing an aircraft carrier before and after a mosquito
| lands on it?
Alright just substitute the aircraft carrier for the moon and the mosquito
for the hydrogen atom then if your hands are a bit shaky.{:-)
The point I'm trying to make and get you to confirm is does the orbital
radius only depend on the mass of the orbited IYHO.
Force
acceleration
+
| /
| /
| /
| /
|/________
0 Mass +
increase
And are the two scales linear and proportionate for any experimentaly tested
body ?
|
| Sue...
|
|
| > |
| > | Sue...
| > |
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | Sue...
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
|
|
Significant Zero
Why?
epR-----Rpe
peR-----Rep
epA----Aep
peA----Ape
|
| So... If we knew how much shorter we should
| be able to calculate the repulsive snd attractive
| components and subtract.
|
| What if we work backwards? Ratio the force
| of gravity to the coulomb force and determine
| what the distance needs to be. If it is completely
| unreasonable then we need to look under a different
| rock. As every schoolchild knows (or thinks it knows),
| the weight of an avocado is about 1 kg if the moles
| don't get to it. Each mole eats 6.0221367 x 10^23
| atoms of fruit if they do.
|
| So I calculate that moles and avocados should weigh
| about 1/6 on the moon than on the train. :o)
|
| Howzat ?
Looks good but I will now have to argue that it wont work see above and I'm
thinking
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:11211072...@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net...
>
> epR-----Rpe
>
> peR-----Rep
>
> epA----Aep
>
> peA----Ape
Yeah. That is why. :o)
It show how the orbital deformation gets
started.
>
> |
> | So... If we knew how much shorter we should
> | be able to calculate the repulsive snd attractive
> | components and subtract.
> |
> | What if we work backwards? Ratio the force
> | of gravity to the coulomb force and determine
> | what the distance needs to be. If it is completely
> | unreasonable then we need to look under a different
> | rock. As every schoolchild knows (or thinks it knows),
> | the weight of an avocado is about 1 kg if the moles
> | don't get to it. Each mole eats 6.0221367 x 10^23
> | atoms of fruit if they do.
> |
> | So I calculate that moles and avocados should weigh
> | about 1/6 on the moon than on the train. :o)
> |
> | Howzat ?
>
> Looks good but I will now have to argue that it wont work see above and I'm
> thinking
My spoonbending instructor says it still has a few rough spots
in it. Something about the ripeness of the avacado. If someone
doesn't beat me to the punch I might put a bit more polish on it.
Sue...
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:11211057...@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net...
>
snip
> | > |
> | > | OK... If you say so. I'd much rather call it force unless we can
> | > | can quantify time and displacement.
> | > |
> |
> |
> | <How do you quantify force except by time and displacment ?>
> | It is a good question. I am sure at some subatomic level you can
> | quantify the force between your bum and your chair in those terms
> | but a cushion maker might not appreciate that kind of data in helping
> | you select a soft meduim or firm cushion.
>
> Well he should unless he's after a snow job because as far as I know good
> expanded foam has compressibility data.
Results 1 - 10 of about 55 for "compressibility data" acceleration. (0.28 seconds)
LOL A contrarian Eh?
>
> |
> | Let's call it instinct... or copying what others do. The workers actually
> | producing some meaningful calculations are in chemistry and biosciences.
> |
> | Most of the data we are reading is not in terms of acceleration and I
> don't
> | see what we gain converting it. AFAIK all of the moving mass is in
> | orbits predetermined orbits where we can't alter it anyway.
>
> We work from mass and inertial data to determine acceleration that is
> keeping mass in orbit ?
>
> |
> | Dubya likes democracy. So let's do democracy
> | Results 1 - 10 of about 14 for "london acceleration". (0.26 seconds)
> | Results 1 - 10 of about 912 for "london force". (0.20 seconds)
> |
> | ...Look's your party need to hire a few more slimey lobbyists
> | and political consultants. :o)
>
> What units does your force come in ?
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Newton.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Force.html
Don't *ask* 'cause I am all out of rolling eye pics.
>
LOL I don't know that *through* reading is so important.
You do, of course, have to be convinced that relativistic
field equations don't necessary depend on AE's funny clocks.
Sue...
Sue...
Indeed there is. It is in Newtons.
>
> |
> | Let's call it instinct... or copying what others do. The workers actually
> | producing some meaningful calculations are in chemistry and biosciences.
> |
> | Most of the data we are reading is not in terms of acceleration and I
> don't
> | see what we gain converting it. AFAIK all of the moving mass is in
> | orbits predetermined orbits where we can't alter it anyway.
>
> We work from mass and inertial data to determine acceleration that is
> keeping mass in orbit ?
Do you think gravity keeps electrons in orbit ?
>
> |
> | Dubya likes democracy. So let's do democracy
> | Results 1 - 10 of about 14 for "london acceleration". (0.26 seconds)
> | Results 1 - 10 of about 912 for "london force". (0.20 seconds)
> |
> | ...Look's your party need to hire a few more slimey lobbyists
> | and political consultants. :o)
>
> What units does your force come in ?
Newtons
Don't ask I am fresh out rolling eye pics.
>
> | >
> | > |
> | > | and the second is the asymmetric response to a
> | > | > symmetric effect ?.
> | > | Sounds like a chaotic butterfly makin' cyclones.
> | >
> | > Its one of the operating bases of gravity as well so get out your
> butterfly
> | > net {:-)
> | >
> | snip
> |
> | >
> | > Your just bitching about the number of air miles he's got saved\pinched
> {:-)
> | > just think of the laughs he's generated, he's the Tony Hancock of the
> US.
>
> And a great leader just in case the FBI are on the way {:-)
Awe, I ain't skeered o' those secret agents. It
is the relavnazi storm troopers that disturb my sle
Significant Zero
Newtons are in acceleration and the force is 1kg weight in Paris unless
sombody pinches it and the you would have no force. {:-).
| >
| > |
| > | Let's call it instinct... or copying what others do. The workers
actually
| > | producing some meaningful calculations are in chemistry and
biosciences.
| > |
| > | Most of the data we are reading is not in terms of acceleration and I
| > don't
| > | see what we gain converting it. AFAIK all of the moving mass is in
| > | orbits predetermined orbits where we can't alter it anyway.
| >
| > We work from mass and inertial data to determine acceleration that is
| > keeping mass in orbit ?
| Do you think gravity keeps electrons in orbit ?
| >
| > |
| > | Dubya likes democracy. So let's do democracy
| > | Results 1 - 10 of about 14 for "london acceleration". (0.26 seconds)
| > | Results 1 - 10 of about 912 for "london force". (0.20 seconds)
| > |
| > | ...Look's your party need to hire a few more slimey lobbyists
| > | and political consultants. :o)
| >
| > What units does your force come in ?
| Newtons
I prefer accelerated Croutons as they are more readily available and
eatable.
snip
| > And a great leader just in case the FBI are on the way {:-)
| Awe, I ain't skeered o' those secret agents. It
| is the relavnazi storm troopers that disturb my sle
|
Perhaps the storms are over for a bit and we only have to put up with the
occasional burst of hail.
Significant Zero
|
| "Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:11211057...@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net...
| >
| snip
| > | > |
| > | > | OK... If you say so. I'd much rather call it force unless we can
| > | > | can quantify time and displacement.
| > | > |
| > |
| > |
| > | <How do you quantify force except by time and displacment ?>
| > | It is a good question. I am sure at some subatomic level you can
| > | quantify the force between your bum and your chair in those terms
| > | but a cushion maker might not appreciate that kind of data in helping
| > | you select a soft meduim or firm cushion.
| >
| > Well he should unless he's after a snow job because as far as I know
good
| > expanded foam has compressibility data.
| Results 1 - 10 of about 17,800 for "compressibility data" newtons. (0.24
seconds
| Results 1 - 10 of about 55 for "compressibility data" acceleration. (0.28
seconds)
| LOL A contrarian Eh?
Definitely
| >
| > |
| > | Let's call it instinct... or copying what others do. The workers
actually
| > | producing some meaningful calculations are in chemistry and
biosciences.
| > |
| > | Most of the data we are reading is not in terms of acceleration and I
| > don't
| > | see what we gain converting it. AFAIK all of the moving mass is in
| > | orbits predetermined orbits where we can't alter it anyway.
| >
| > We work from mass and inertial data to determine acceleration that is
| > keeping mass in orbit ?
| Is gravity what keeps electrons in orbit?
Alright Electro London gravity as a remainder of Electric field, Coulomb
force and what keeps electrons cuddling up to protons{:-) So the answer is
partly.
| >
| > |
| > | Dubya likes democracy. So let's do democracy
| > | Results 1 - 10 of about 14 for "london acceleration". (0.26 seconds)
| > | Results 1 - 10 of about 912 for "london force". (0.20 seconds)
| > |
| > | ...Look's your party need to hire a few more slimey lobbyists
| > | and political consultants. :o)
| >
| > What units does your force come in ?
| Newtons
| http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Newton.html
| http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Force.html
Newton's are as a result of the acceleration of 1 kg which is itself
defined by gravity so we end up using something to measure gravity that
contains a component that has been defined by itself. Acceleration which is
somewhat more independent of gravity seems a better tool to measure it with
otherwise you are carrying this 1 kg weight about with all your
measurements.
Remember acceleration due to gravity is independent of the mass being
accelerated so it seems cleaner to me ?
I'm not saying you cant use force to smash the window but you have to use
acceleration on the hammer first.
Good just roll your own its much more attractive.
| >
| LOL I don't know that *through* reading is so important.
| You do, of course, have to be convinced that relativistic
| field equations don't necessary depend on AE's funny clocks.
I have a fairly clear and uncomplicated picture of how atoms (clocks)
frequencies are modified by their environment so I don't think I need AE's
clocks in my picture but I might leave a few about just to annoy you so I
can watch *your* eyes roll{:-)
|
| Sue...
|
|
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:11211199...@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net...
that depends on gravity. :o)
>
> | >
> | > |
> | > | Dubya likes democracy. So let's do democracy
> | > | Results 1 - 10 of about 14 for "london acceleration". (0.26 seconds)
> | > | Results 1 - 10 of about 912 for "london force". (0.20 seconds)
> | > |
> | > | ...Look's your party need to hire a few more slimey lobbyists
> | > | and political consultants. :o)
> | >
> | > What units does your force come in ?
> | Newtons
> | http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Newton.html
> | http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Force.html
>
> Newton's are as a result of the acceleration of 1 kg which is itself
> defined by gravity so we end up using something to measure gravity that
> contains a component that has been defined by itself. Acceleration which is
> somewhat more independent of gravity seems a better tool to measure it with
> otherwise you are carrying this 1 kg weight about with all your
> measurements.
> Remember acceleration due to gravity is independent of the mass being
> accelerated so it seems cleaner to me ?
we shoudn't express the electron mass as MeV ?
The units we use will not automatically make us *aware* when they are
appropriate. If we state a proton has a different mass and weight that
seems clear enough.
> I'm not saying you cant use force to smash the window but you have to use
> acceleration on the hammer first.
where if use it's mass and angular velocity (does it have one ?) we get a
meaningless result.
Can we compromise ? How 'bout tons or stone?
or units of 1.01 million tons?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html
Yes my little pretty,. they do have that tendency on a level nightstand.
http://thewizardofoz.warnerbros.com/movie/img/photos/photo5.jpg
Sue...
>
> |
> | Sue...
> |
> |
>
>
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:11211199...@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net...
>
> "Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1121111309....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> | > | > |
> | > | > | OK... If you say so. I'd much rather call it force unless we can
> | > | > | can quantify time and displacement.
> | > | > |
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | <How do you quantify force except by time and displacment ?>
> | > | It is a good question. I am sure at some subatomic level you can
> | > | quantify the force between your bum and your chair in those terms
> | > | but a cushion maker might not appreciate that kind of data in helping
> | > | you select a soft meduim or firm cushion.
> | >
> | > Well he should unless he's after a snow job because as far as I know
> good
> | > expanded foam has compressibility data.
> | Indeed there is. It is in Newtons.
>
> Newtons are in acceleration and the force is 1kg weight in Paris unless
> sombody pinches it and the you would have no force. {:-).
Measure the distance from your house to Giza.
Measure the distance form your pub to Giza.
Subtract the two.
Calculate a few angles and you'll know the distance
to the pub.
Do you want to analyze the trajectory of every particle in
the moon to calculate the force that holds it in orbit. ?
I think you are just stalling 'cause you don't want to do
the calculation we have at hand. The reason I suspect
that is because that is what I am doing, >o:)
Sigh... what a shame the relatanazis snatched him saying his hail Mary's
Su
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:11211199...@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net...
>
> I prefer accelerated Croutons as they are more readily available and
> eatable.
>
> snip
Croutons are good with eggs ?
Something about this "long range" business is not working.
The orbits are squshy or they couldn't mold each other
into egg shapes but look what happens when they are not.
Imagine a pair of eggs to represent our induced dipoles.
R--A r=5 A--R
We spray the eggs with pixie dust so they hold there shape
and double the distance
R--A r=10 A--R
Every shoolchild knows (or thinks he knows) that the
force would diminish by 1/r^2
But there ain't no pixie dust.
R-A r=10 A-R
Notice a hyphen has been removed to show they
can't deform each other so well at this distance.
The dipole moments will be weaker in addition
to the path loss so the force can't be long-range.
More like 1/r^4 or better Eh ?
There is something we are missing about how
an ensemble stays "leaky" enough to produce a
long range force. It may be something related
to the spookier aspects of magnetism or one
charge shielding another... or
maybe it just doesn't work. :o(
I'll try to go back over some of the papers that
actually claimed a gravity-like mechanism and
see if something was overlooked.
(that is governmentspeak for "see if *I* overlooked
something ) :o)
Sue...
Significant Zero
Yes but lets eat the first elephant first.{:-)
| The units we use will not automatically make us *aware* when they are
| appropriate.
No but inappropriate units may help us be unaware of when they are
inappropriate.
|If we state a proton has a different mass and weight that
| seems clear enough.
Well ok for the moment but there lots of elephants cooking in the kitchen.
| > I'm not saying you cant use force to smash the window but you have to
use
| > acceleration on the hammer first.
| We can correctly express the binding force of an electron in Newtons
| where if use it's mass and angular velocity (does it have one ?) we get a
| meaningless result.
|
| Can we compromise ? How 'bout tons or stone?
| or units of 1.01 million tons?
| http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html
We may be trying to eat what may be my personal red herring but if I rough
out my build up of units you might see what I'm on about and the reason.
Time and distance gives us speed, velocity and acceleration. We find a field
and call it gravity and when we measure test objects our measurements are
independent of the weight of these test objects so we might conclude that
weight is irrelevant to the measurement of gravity.
We might and I do, infer that weight is not relevent in the measurement of
fields and they can be defined and measured by there acceleration thus
keeping things simple and less confusing. If we wish to measure force we
throw a few test objects into our field and measure their acceleration, they
all measure the same acceleration thus confirming that the weight of objects
is irrelevent to the measurement of the effects of fields on objects. Later
we measurer the effect that objects have on objects that have been in a
field and we call the effect we observe force and that this is dependant on
weight. Later we relies that objects are really fields in disguise and we
can then go mental and resort to fantasy to maintain our mental stability, a
common condition.
Are you still ok out there. ? Think of me as a kook if it helps {:-)
Shall we go out to dinner at the palace, I'll put my blue skin on the red
one frightens people.}:-)
|
| Sue...
| >
| > |
| > | Sue...
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
Significant Zero
|
| "Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:11211199...@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net...
| >
| > I prefer accelerated Croutons as they are more readily available and
| > eatable.
| >
| > snip
|
| Croutons are good with eggs ?
Egg soup.
|
| Something about this "long range" business is not working.
|
| The orbits are squshy or they couldn't mold each other
| into egg shapes but look what happens when they are not.
|
| Imagine a pair of eggs to represent our induced dipoles.
| R--A r=5 A--R
| We spray the eggs with pixie dust so they hold there shape
| and double the distance
| R--A r=10 A--R
| Every shoolchild knows (or thinks he knows) that the
| force would diminish by 1/r^2
|
| But there ain't no pixie dust.
| R-A r=10 A-R
| Notice a hyphen has been removed to show they
| can't deform each other so well at this distance.
| The dipole moments will be weaker in addition
| to the path loss so the force can't be long-range.
| More like 1/r^4 or better Eh ?
Yes the effect of eggs is short range but as egg shells are made out of the
coulomb *field* the remaining acceleration due to that field is still
running at 1/r^2. 1/r^2 is an indicator of the slope or acceleration of the
field not its intensity.?
| There is something we are missing about how
| an ensemble stays "leaky" enough to produce a
| long range force. It may be something related
| to the spookier aspects of magnetism or one
| charge shielding another... or
| maybe it just doesn't work. :o(
A field is generated by ? this field has a slope of 1/r^2.
?*1 = a field intensity of 1 = gravity.
?*1000 = a field intensity of 1000 = coloumb.
London etc = ?*999.
?*(1000-(999 to other jobs)) = ?*1 = gravity.
|
| I'll try to go back over some of the papers that
| actually claimed a gravity-like mechanism and
| see if something was overlooked.
| (that is governmentspeak for "see if *I* overlooked
| something ) :o)
Your an FBI agent ?{:-)
|
| Sue...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:11211570...@sabbath.news.uk.clara.net...
I don't see that but you must so I'll ponder it a bit more.
Plausible ponderous masses do demand profuse periods
of pontification and pondering.
>
> | There is something we are missing about how
> | an ensemble stays "leaky" enough to produce a
> | long range force. It may be something related
> | to the spookier aspects of magnetism or one
> | charge shielding another... or
> | maybe it just doesn't work. :o(
>
> A field is generated by ? this field has a slope of 1/r^2.
> ?*1 = a field intensity of 1 = gravity.
> ?*1000 = a field intensity of 1000 = coloumb.
> London etc = ?*999.
> ?*(1000-(999 to other jobs)) = ?*1 = gravity.
Contrarian!
> A field is generated by p this field has a slope of 1/r^2.
> p*1 --> a field intensity of 1 = gravity.
> p*1000 --> a field intensity of 1000 = coloumb.
> London etc = p*999.
> p*(1000-(999 to other jobs)) = p*1 = gravity.
Hmmm... certainly looks move plausible that way.
I think you are saying some component of the
Coulomb field is radiating even without the molecular
motion. I wan't thinking that way but a homogenous
universe might demand it.
The process of subtracting the unwanteds would naturally
produce more that adding up the wanteds. But there is
the assumption there is something to begin subtract from.
A trillion, trillion, trillion times > gravity suggests there IS
...but that isn't a mechanism. <Shrug> There are plenty
of quantum spookies we can blame it on but blue prints
would be nice.
http://www.der-kreuzritter.de/bilder/trebuchet/anima.gif
>
> |
> | I'll try to go back over some of the papers that
> | actually claimed a gravity-like mechanism and
> | see if something was overlooked.
> | (that is governmentspeak for "see if *I* overlooked
> | something ) :o)
>
> Your an FBI agent ?{:-)
I just neeed to ze th papahs! schnell!
http://www.rowanandmartinslaughin.com/wolfgang.jpg
Sue...
>
> |
> | Sue...
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
>
>
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112115535...@sabbath.news.uk.clara.net...
I see your point. Then we only need to invent a mechanism
to digest the bones. :o)
>
> | The units we use will not automatically make us *aware* when they are
> | appropriate.
>
> No but inappropriate units may help us be unaware of when they are
> inappropriate.
>
> |If we state a proton has a different mass and weight that
> | seems clear enough.
>
> Well ok for the moment but there lots of elephants cooking in the kitchen.
I think one just stepped on me. :o(
>
> | > I'm not saying you cant use force to smash the window but you have to
> use
> | > acceleration on the hammer first.
> | We can correctly express the binding force of an electron in Newtons
> | where if use it's mass and angular velocity (does it have one ?) we get a
> | meaningless result.
> |
> | Can we compromise ? How 'bout tons or stone?
> | or units of 1.01 million tons?
> | http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html
>
> We may be trying to eat what may be my personal red herring but if I rough
> out my build up of units you might see what I'm on about and the reason.
>
> Time and distance gives us speed, velocity and acceleration. We find a field
> and call it gravity and when we measure test objects our measurements are
> independent of the weight of these test objects so we might conclude that
> weight is irrelevant to the measurement of gravity.
> We might and I do, infer that weight is not relevent in the measurement of
> fields and they can be defined and measured by their acceleration thus
> keeping things simple and less confusing. If we wish to measure force we
> throw a few test objects into our field and measure their acceleration,
Astronautical physique is quantified that way. A calibrated spring
I recall.
they
> all measure the same acceleration thus confirming that the weight of objects
> is irrelevent to the measurement of the effects of fields on objects. Later
> we measurer the effect that objects have on objects that have been in a
> field and we call the effect we observe force and that this is dependant on
> weight. Later we realies that objects are really fields in disguise and we
> can then go mental and resort to fantasy to maintain our mental stability, a
> common condition.
http://www.scripting.com/images/worryAboutDubya.gif
> Are you still ok out there. ? Think of me as a kook if it helps {:-)
http://www.skypilotclub.com/ar_images/itsasign.jpg OK >:o)
>
> |
> | > can watch *your* eyes roll{:-)
> | Yes my little pretty,. they do have that tendency on a level nightstand.
> | http://thewizardofoz.warnerbros.com/movie/img/photos/photo5.jpg
>
> Shall we go out to dinner at the palace, I'll put my blue skin on the red
> one frightens people.}:-)
What a delightful idea! Nothing with frames of reference I hope.
http://www.beyondtheveil.net/images/illusion11.gif
Sue...
>
> |
> | Sue...
> | >
> | > |
> | > | Sue...
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>
>
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112115535...@sabbath.news.uk.clara.net...
Kook? Not at all I am just concened we will dull our keyboards
on asciimath and stick figures when we must conserve them for
the dispatch of errant windmills.
Perhaps we might find the flaw with a similar endeavour and save
a few lancestr...er ahhh keystrokes. <o).
Gravity as the Second-Order Relativistic-Manifestation of Electrostatic-Force
Authors: R.C.Gupta
Comments: Total 8 pages including 1 figure, 1 table & 28 references
Report-no: IET/MED/17-05-05
Subj-class: General Physics
<<It is well known that magnetic force between
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0505194
Full-text: PDF only 86 KB
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0505194
If Hobba get's too wilely for ya I've girlfiend in that line of
work that can give ya some pointers. :o)
http://right-thoughts.us/images/uploads/bucca_wrestling2.jpg
Sue...
sue jahn
"sue jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:42d3bc92$0$18640$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
<< The clue to link gravitational and electrostatic forces lies
in the relativistic velocity addition due to
inherent asymmetry hidden in it. In fact the velocity addition
must be made relativistically before the length >>
This *asymmetry* looks quite a bit like
http://departments.weber.edu/physics/schroeder/mrr/MRRtalk.html
or comparing
a clock that *goes* as it is *judged* with a light-clock
which results in funny twins.
Nevertheless, Gupta explores other mechanisms an has calculations
of just the type we have procrastinated.
"Good Things Come To Those Who Wait"
Sue...
Significant Zero
Spot on baby.
|
| >
| > | The units we use will not automatically make us *aware* when they are
| > | appropriate.
| >
| > No but inappropriate units may help us be unaware of when they are
| > inappropriate.
| >
| > |If we state a proton has a different mass and weight that
| > | seems clear enough.
| >
| > Well ok for the moment but there lots of elephants cooking in the
kitchen.
| I think one just stepped on me. :o(
Eat it, and teach a lesson {:-)
They are getting the trick then but observation of object distance over time
is clearer and more basic and is a better squantative defintion of fields.
|
| they
| > all measure the same acceleration thus confirming that the weight of
objects
| > is irrelevent to the measurement of the effects of fields on objects.
Later
| > we measurer the effect that objects have on objects that have been in a
| > field and we call the effect we observe force and that this is dependant
on
| > weight. Later we realies that objects are really fields in disguise and
we
| > can then go mental and resort to fantasy to maintain our mental
stability, a
| > common condition.
| http://www.scripting.com/images/worryAboutDubya.gif
| > Are you still ok out there. ? Think of me as a kook if it helps {:-)
| http://www.skypilotclub.com/ar_images/itsasign.jpg OK >:o)
| >
You'll recover, just keep taking the green tables{:-)
| > |
| > | > can watch *your* eyes roll{:-)
| > | Yes my little pretty,. they do have that tendency on a level
nightstand.
| > | http://thewizardofoz.warnerbros.com/movie/img/photos/photo5.jpg
| >
| > Shall we go out to dinner at the palace, I'll put my blue skin on the
red
| > one frightens people.}:-)
|
| What a delightful idea! Nothing with frames of reference I hope.
| http://www.beyondtheveil.net/images/illusion11.gif
Definatly not, they are for the mathmaticaly enabled who have difficulty
with meals of elephants due to their size,
thats not the elephants. {:-)
|
| Sue...
|
| >
| > |
| > | Sue...
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | Sue...
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
| >
|
|
|
Significant Zero
Only had a quick look and reads ok but might have disagreement with him
about orders as I might see inertial field within field as first order
electric as second order and magnetic as third order etc
|
| If Hobba get's too wilely for ya I've girlfiend in that line of
| work that can give ya some pointers. :o)
| http://right-thoughts.us/images/uploads/bucca_wrestling2.jpg
|
You dont think I'm inviting Bill to that, I'll rassel them all myself to
lose. If Bill wants in he'll have to fight his own way in.{:-)
| Sue...
|
|
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112118105...@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net...
>
snip
Yeah... something about his short range couplings does look like
the chemists that know better. I sort of wonder if the took that
bogus "contraction effect" then wiggled the Van der Waals type
couplings (r^6 to r^12 take your pick) to get a reasonable number.
>
> |
> | If Hobba get's too wilely for ya I've girlfiend in that line of
> | work that can give ya some pointers. :o)
> | http://right-thoughts.us/images/uploads/bucca_wrestling2.jpg
> |
>
> You dont think I'm inviting Bill to that, I'll rassel them all myself to
> lose. If Bill wants in he'll have to fight his own way in.{:-)
LOL
Sue...
>
> | Sue...
> |
> |
>
>
>
Significant Zero
And pissing, if you forget the pissing you explode.{:-)
|
| >
| > | There is something we are missing about how
| > | an ensemble stays "leaky" enough to produce a
| > | long range force. It may be something related
| > | to the spookier aspects of magnetism or one
| > | charge shielding another... or
| > | maybe it just doesn't work. :o(
| >
| > A field is generated by ? this field has a slope of 1/r^2.
| > ?*1 = a field intensity of 1 = gravity.
| > ?*1000 = a field intensity of 1000 = coloumb.
| > London etc = ?*999.
| > ?*(1000-(999 to other jobs)) = ?*1 = gravity.
|
| Contrarian!
| > A field is generated by p this field has a slope of 1/r^2.
| > p*1 --> a field intensity of 1 = gravity.
| > p*1000 --> a field intensity of 1000 = coloumb.
| > London etc = p*999.
| > p*(1000-(999 to other jobs)) = p*1 = gravity.
You p and I'll keep watch {:-)
|
| Hmmm... certainly looks move plausible that way.
| I think you are saying some component of the
| Coulomb field is radiating even without the molecular
| motion. I wan't thinking that way but a homogenous
| universe might demand it.
|
| The process of subtracting the unwanteds would naturally
| produce more that adding up the wanteds. But there is
| the assumption there is something to begin subtract from.
|
| A trillion, trillion, trillion times > gravity suggests there IS
| ...but that isn't a mechanism. <Shrug> There are plenty
| of quantum spookies we can blame it on but blue prints
| would be nice.
| http://www.der-kreuzritter.de/bilder/trebuchet/anima.gif
|
The blue prints are under the bed, tell no one.
The mechanism is why and how fields work.
GR had a clue I think but has been perverted.
| >
| > |
| > | I'll try to go back over some of the papers that
| > | actually claimed a gravity-like mechanism and
| > | see if something was overlooked.
| > | (that is governmentspeak for "see if *I* overlooked
| > | something ) :o)
| >
| > Your an FBI agent ?{:-)
| I just neeed to ze th papahs! schnell!
Ah! that! government the next knock may be the fbi on your door{:-)
I will ask them if they will let me interrogate you in bed because I feel a
bit tired.
| http://www.rowanandmartinslaughin.com/wolfgang.jpg
That was a quick sex change but no matter I can use the helmet as a piss
pot.
|
| Sue...
|
| >
| > |
| > | Sue...
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
Significant Zero
Have you yet worked out, if you take coulomb intensity and subtract =>1/r^3
do you get a remainder 1/^2 intensity that fits gravity ? it would need
equivalent source intensities which may be a problem as radius of
measurement and source details may be hard to match. Needs some thinking
about ?
Significant Zero
Yes now I look closely at what I posted I sort of answered myself but I
meant to make the paths the same and see what you answered{:-)
There are at lest three effects that combine to produce gravity.
Attraction, repulsion field asymetry,
Attraction, repulsion atom partical asymetry
Field intensity subtraction product
|
| >
| > |
| > | So... If we knew how much shorter we should
| > | be able to calculate the repulsive snd attractive
| > | components and subtract.
| > |
| > | What if we work backwards? Ratio the force
| > | of gravity to the coulomb force and determine
| > | what the distance needs to be. If it is completely
| > | unreasonable then we need to look under a different
| > | rock. As every schoolchild knows (or thinks it knows),
| > | the weight of an avocado is about 1 kg if the moles
| > | don't get to it. Each mole eats 6.0221367 x 10^23
| > | atoms of fruit if they do.
| > |
| > | So I calculate that moles and avocados should weigh
| > | about 1/6 on the moon than on the train. :o)
| > |
| > | Howzat ?
| >
| > Looks good but I will now have to argue that it wont work see above and
I'm
| > thinking
|
| My spoonbending instructor says it still has a few rough spots
| in it. Something about the ripeness of the avacado. If someone
| doesn't beat me to the punch I might put a bit more polish on it.
|
Do it.
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:11211940...@lotis.uk.clara.net...
I almost forgot. That is not isotropic so is it not an electic dipole
at the magnetic nulls of each atom ? (rhetorical musing)
> do you get a remainder 1/^2 intensity that fits gravity ? it would need
> equivalent source intensities which may be a problem as radius of
> measurement and source details may be hard to match. Needs some thinking
> about ?
Indeed! Who can we hire or conscript? :o)
Sue...
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:11211940...@lotis.uk.clara.net...
That could mean different things but in
general similar aproaches seem to follow along those lines.
<<Many scholars would agree that, had it not been for active
networks, the simulation of Lamport clocks might never have
occurred. The notion that end-users synchronize with the
investigation of Markov models is rarely outdated. A theoretical
grand challenge in theory is the important unification. >><<
The curve in Figure 3 should look familiar; it is better known
as H2(n) = n. On a similar note, the many discontinuities
in the graphs point to muted block size introduced. >>
ht tp://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/rooter.pdf
So you have some gauge of the clarity we hold on this
issue. :o)
Sue...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCIgen
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:11211940...@lotis.uk.clara.net...
<< "Gravitation as a fourth order electromagnetic effect," In: Advanced
Electromagnetism: Foundations, Theory and Applications, T. W.
Barrett and D. M. Grimes (eds.), (World Scientific, Singapore,
1995), pp. 314-331. Abstract: We present a generalized Weber's
law for electromagnetism including terms of fourth and higher orders
in 1/c. These extra terms when applied to the force between two
neutral dipoles yield an equivalent to Newton's law of universal
gravitation as a fourth order electromagnetic effect. >>
http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/gravitation-4th-order-p314-331(1995).pdf
<<Abstract: It is a known fact that there is no magnetic field outside an
infinite solenoid carrying a constant current, although there is a magnetic
vector potential non-null outside it. The existence of the Aharonov-
Bohm effect (AB) is usually considered as a proof of the relevance
of the vector potential for quantum mechanics. In this paper we will
..see that there is a non null electric field outside an infinite solenoid
carrying a constant current and its possible relevance to the analysis
of the Aharonov-Bohm effect. When calculating, we introduce the
Galilean invariance of Maxwell's equations and then we obtain the
contribution to the AB effect due to electric potential. >>
http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Revista-Facultad-Ingenieria-(Chile)-V9-p29-34(2001).pdf
http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/wpapers.htm
My spoonbending instructor says:
"If ya don't put some bike parts in it it'll never get
off the ground."
Sue...
Significant Zero
Call for volunteers {:-) My first thoughts would be KST but he seems to
have his own agenda.
First thing is to get electric field theory sorted and try and determine
acceleration, intensity and mass ratios for 1/r^2 and orders >3 that we know
about and then see if a bit of subtraction works.
Parts of GR tensors may fit in somewhere.
Significant Zero
|
| So you have some gauge of the clarity we hold on this
| issue. :o)
We or you, what *I* write means something to me how about you?
Sue...
So you have some gauge of the clarity *I* hold on this
issue. :o)<-- recycled grin
Honestly... I am back to Assis and his 4th order derivation
to see how he gets some long-range to leak out. The notation
is not easy for me. :o(
Gupta really popped by bubble when I recognised the Purcell
use of light delays to make the magnetism which makes the
light delays. No way that can work but it is a pretty piece.
LOL
Sue...
Significant Zero
Nor for me.{:-(
Gupta really popped by bubble when I recognised the Purcell
use of light delays to make the magnetism which makes the
light delays. No way that can work but it is a pretty piece.
LOL
Never studied Purcell thanks to your advice.
Lots of last laugh {:-)
When you write 4th order you do mean ^4 ?
See I have a much greater problem with notation than you do.{:-(
Lets go rassle in mud for a bit of relaxation{:-)
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:11212415...@damia.uk.clara.net...
>
snip
>
> Gupta really popped by bubble when I recognised the Purcell
> use of light delays to make the magnetism which makes the
> light delays. No way that can work but it is a pretty piece.
> LOL
>
> Lots of last laugh {:-)
> When you write 4th order you do mean ^4 ?
The fourth order is sort of like the third reich or the new
world order. ::O)) GOTCHA!
Yeah... this is confusing.
Gupta claims 4th order Einstein/Maxwell so
Maxwell r^3 + two induced dipoles r^4 = r^7 London
Assis calaims 4the order Electromagnetic so
Weber r^3/4 + two induced dipoles r^4 = r^7/8 London
About page 10 Assis has about 20 line expansion using same
terms we were using R--A <force> A--R
Also includes real gravity calculation, as does Gupta.
Assis, "Gravitation as a fourth order electromagnetic effect,"
http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/gravitation-4th-order-p314-331(1995).pdf
It is 379KB but you might search far and wide to find someone else that uses:
R--A <force> A--R and matches the book you may still have...
or perhaps owe a fine for. >:o)
> See I have a much greater problem with notation than you do.{:-(
> Lets go rassle in mud for a bit of relaxation{:-)
I am all for it... just as soon as the bubble bath and Cabernet Sauvignon
arrives. How did you say you shipped that ? :o)
Sue...
Significant Zero
Was it really as woolly and technophib as that below ?
I've been got {:-)
|
| Yeah... this is confusing.
| Gupta claims 4th order Einstein/Maxwell so
| Maxwell r^3 + two induced dipoles r^4 = r^7 London
|
| Assis calaims 4the order Electromagnetic so
| Weber r^3/4 + two induced dipoles r^4 = r^7/8 London
|
| About page 10 Assis has about 20 line expansion using same
| terms we were using R--A <force> A--R
| Also includes real gravity calculation, as does Gupta.
1.4 divergence, curl, laplacian ? didnt seem to find it there but could be
hidden in the notation {:-)
Small example so I can find your place.
|
| Assis, "Gravitation as a fourth order electromagnetic effect,"
| http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/gravitation-4th-order-p314-331(1995).pdf
| It is 379KB but you might search far and wide to find someone else that
uses:
| R--A <force> A--R and matches the book you may still have...
| or perhaps owe a fine for. >:o)
|
|
|
| > See I have a much greater problem with notation than you do.{:-(
| > Lets go rassle in mud for a bit of relaxation{:-)
|
| I am all for it... just as soon as the bubble bath and Cabernet Sauvignon
| arrives. How did you say you shipped that ? :o)
By air my love with plenty of kerosene to keep the fires burning.{:-)
|
| Sue...
|
|
|
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:11212868...@doris.uk.clara.net...
>
snip
>
> Was it really as woolly and technophib as that below ?
Lamport clocks are as woolly as sea lampreys.
http://www.maes.umn.edu/images/genA.jpg
Ya don't want 'em on ya!
No Joy! Maybe it iced up. Try again using JP4 with FSII.
http://www.csgnetwork.com/jetfuel.html
http://www.pattywagstaff.com/images/other/RibbonKolasa_thumb.jpg
Sue...
>
> |
> | Sue...
> |
> |
> |
>
>
Significant Zero
| Quantum states in the Earth's gravitational field can be observed,
| when ultra-cold neutrons fall under gravity. In an experiment at the
| Institut Laue-Langevin in Grenoble, neutrons are reflected and
| trapped in a gravitational cavity above a horizontal mirror. The
| population of the ground state and the lowest states follows, step
| by step, the quantum mechanical prediction. An efficient neutron
| absorber removes the higher, unwanted states. The quantum states
| probe Newtonian gravity on the micrometer scale and we place
| limits for gravity-like forces in the range between 1 micron
| and 10 microns. >>
| http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0301145
Good paper as it seems the sort of data I was looking for from the gravity
experiment I posted.
Still reading it but do you read it as them saying they cant detect grav.
forces at 1um-10um ?
|
| Sue...
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112115535...@sabbath.news.uk.clara.net...
OK you take the first bite:
Quantum states in the Earth's gravitational field can be observed,
when ultra-cold neutrons fall under gravity. In an experiment at the
Institut Laue-Langevin in Grenoble, neutrons are reflected and
trapped in a gravitational cavity above a horizontal mirror. The
population of the ground state and the lowest states follows, step
by step, the quantum mechanical prediction. An efficient neutron
absorber removes the higher, unwanted states. The quantum states
probe Newtonian gravity on the micrometer scale and we place
limits for gravity-like forces in the range between 1 micron
and 10 microns. >>
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0301145
Sue...
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:11212919...@doris.uk.clara.net...
Counts the kink in fig 6 and see if it doesn't look like the near-field effects we
have been studying.
Elsewhere you mumbled: :o)
<< 1.4 divergence, curl, laplacian ? didnt seem to find it there but could be
hidden in the notation {:-) >>
<<4. Conceptual and philosophical differences
The main difference between these two formulations of electromagnetism lies in the mechanism
of interaction between the charges. According to Weber's electrodynamics we have
a direct action between each pair of charges, no matter their distance nor their motion.
We do not need to speak in electric nor in magnetic fields. While Weber starts with force
between the charges directly,Maxwell's approach is interaction via the field. Maxwell believed
that each charge generated electric and magnetic fields, which would move in space
tipically at light velocity. These fields would act on the other charges. According to him
there would not be any direct action between two charges separated in space. The action
between them would be performed by the fields. Maxwell believed in a material medium
filling all space, the ether, which would be the responsible for carrying the action of one
charge until the other and vice-versa. For instance, his last two sentences in the Treatise
state ([13], vol. 2, article 866, p. 493, our emphasis): 'In fact, whenever energy is transmitted
http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Pramana-J-Phys-V55-p393-404(2000).pdf
http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/wpapers.htm
Sue...
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:11212919...@doris.uk.clara.net...
<<An upper limit to non-Newtonian attractive
forces is obtained from the measurement
of quantum states of neutrons in the
Earth's gravitational field. This limit
improves the existing constraints in the
nanometer range. >><<
5. Conclusions
An upper limit to an additional attractive force is
established from the measurement of quantum states of
neutrons in the Earth's gravitational field. Relatively
high sensitivity of the experiment [7] to a hypothetical
additional force is due to the following factors: firstly,
no "background'" electromagnetic interactions; secondly,
the characteristic size of the neutron wave function
in the quantum states fits well to the range of interest
for the short-range forces; finally, non-negligible
probability to find neutrons (quantum-mechanical
object) at distances much closer to the mirror than the
average value of 10 痠.
The limit [Eq. (6)] improves the existing constraints
[4] in the nanometer range even if this experiment was
neither conceived nor optimized to establish this limit.
However, it can be easily improved in the same kind of
experiment with some evident modifications, for
instance, one can choose a mirror material (coating)
with higher density.>>
http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/jres/110/3/j110-3nes2.pdf
Sue...
Significant Zero
You are a better study than I, cant see the connection at the moment it
might have been shoved out the other end of my 256 byte FIFO.
Aha! Nitty gritty {:-) Webers fine for fundamental interactions submicro but
for macro stuff I think Maxwell is needed with his fields so Weber explains
the mechanism of fields and Maxwell the behaviour of objects in fields ?
What about Maxwell do you think needs fixing if you consider most effects as
happening in a local vacuum state and/or dilectric.
Surly you don't think that over a finite distance change in action is
instantaneous ?
|
| Sue...
|
|
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:11213514...@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net...
>
> "sue jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:42d596e9$0$18639$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
> |
> | > | > | I understand your concern but is that not the same argument that
> | > | > | we shoudn't express the electron mass as MeV ?
> | > | >
> | > | > Yes but lets eat the first elephant first.{:-)
> | > |
> | > | OK you take the first bite:
> | > | Quantum states in the Earth's gravitational field can be observed,
> | > | when ultra-cold neutrons fall under gravity. In an experiment at the
> | > | Institut Laue-Langevin in Grenoble, neutrons are reflected and
> | > | trapped in a gravitational cavity above a horizontal mirror. The
> | > | population of the ground state and the lowest states follows, step
> | > | by step, the quantum mechanical prediction. An efficient neutron
> | > | absorber removes the higher, unwanted states. The quantum states
> | > | probe Newtonian gravity on the micrometer scale and we place
> | > | limits for gravity-like forces in the range between 1 micron
> | > | and 10 microns. >>
> | > | http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0301145
> | >
> | > Good paper as it seems the sort of data I was looking for from the
> gravity
> | > experiment I posted.
> | > Still reading it but do you read it as them saying they cant detect
> grav.
> | > forces at 1um-10um ?
> | >
> |
That is sort of a chess board statement. It's meaning will invert for macro
and mico so I won't confuse the issue by assuming a POV.
The absurrbdity of the twins pardox should stand testiment to the self
evident notion that you can't assign properties to nothing ( short of H W D )
> What about Maxwell do you think needs fixing if you consider most effects as
> happening in a local vacuum state and/or dilectric.
I think the shortcommings need better understanding and they need to be taught.
Of course, fewer people would study physics if you expose the tricks. ;-)
> Surly you don't think that over a finite distance change in action is
> instantaneous ?
Both are useful because Maxwell lets you quantify some experiments
that will be the same in all FoR. For gravity and a complete light
description is seems possible you must work in the Coulomb gauge,
or use Weber's equations.
"If no mass or energy is moved there is nothing whatsoever to violate the
conservation principle". But then think twice about that statement. Are
we describing an "action"? No... only in Maxwell's ether where he thought
there was a action involved modifiying a substance so included terms for
"retarded potential".
In Weber's "fields" the inertia of the charges explains the propagation
delay so no further delay needs be included which you would have to
term "a delay intrinsic to nothing" That is absurb sounding whether
Maxwell or Weber says it.
Sue...
> |
> | Sue...
> |
> |
>
>
sue jahn
"sue jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:42d5b7de$0$18639$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
So... for some real world results:
Test masses were matched by Gaussian smoothing over the
normal distribution as a `point-spread' function, achieved by convolution.
The presence of neutrons was verified in each test mass using
International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol.
The test mass maximally compliant with the selection critera comprised
distribution of the unweighted and weighted data for core, maize kernel
and mean duration resulted in an array of a an apple an
an arrow and alarm clock.
During the drop test stage, the test masses are accelerated downward,
thereby allowing digital cameras to compare trajectories in a test for
ds and dsdvitiy and third order dsvitity
Through dimensionless dsdvity transfer coefficients were in excellent
agreement with the values predicted and in excellent agreement with
experimental data of Nezvinhorakvsky, Protazrasov, Dimdimopopulos
and Chi.
Conclusion
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like an apple.
Sue...
Significant Zero
Yes agreed but if ~Weber defines the base structure with contact ED at
infinitely small at no delay and ~Maxwell uses this to construct fields at
finite delay at electron charge level scale and then ~GR kicks in at normal
scale this might with a bit of pushing and shoving fit the bill ?
|
| > What about Maxwell do you think needs fixing if you consider most
effects as
| > happening in a local vacuum state and/or dilectric.
|
| I think the shortcommings need better understanding and they need to be
taught.
| Of course, fewer people would study physics if you expose the tricks. ;-)
| > Surly you don't think that over a finite distance change in action is
| > instantaneous ?
|
| Both are useful because Maxwell lets you quantify some experiments
| that will be the same in all FoR. For gravity and a complete light
| description is seems possible you must work in the Coulomb gauge,
| or use Weber's equations.
Nicely not answered {:-) but I have not yet found the delay function in
Weber as contact theory must presumably have some means of delaying
interactions ?
|
| "If no mass or energy is moved there is nothing whatsoever to violate the
| conservation principle". But then think twice about that statement. Are
| we describing an "action"? No... only in Maxwell's ether where he thought
| there was a action involved modifiying a substance so included terms for
| "retarded potential".
Varying phase relationships seems a necessary function of existence from my
pov whether they be retarded or advanced seem to a large extent dependant on
you pov as far as measurment goes anyway..
|
| In Weber's "fields" the inertia of the charges explains the propagation
| delay so no further delay needs be included which you would have to
| term "a delay intrinsic to nothing" That is absurb sounding whether
| Maxwell or Weber says it.
Thanks that explains Webers delay but it may still be difficult to explain
delay other than by something like. The existence of time and distance are
all
that are needed to demonstrate and prove existence. Time and distance
introduce a delay that defines energy and the propagation of the energy
effect in time and distance introduce a delay or somesutch..
|
| Sue...
|
|
| > |
| > | Sue...
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
Significant Zero
No, no, no you just haven't been reading what I've been writing {:-)
Time flies like a brick and fruit flies get in everything.
Just checking if I was awake was you {:-) ?
I'm still trying to understand the neutron stuff despite your attemps to
distract me {:-)
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:11213768...@damia.uk.clara.net...
Existance of subatomic stuff yet to learn like FQHE? Most certainly.
Maxwells aether is benign or some implentation of Weber? No Way :o)
From picometer to kilometer, near field and far, the real world requires
corrections. You know what you get when you put lipstick on a pig.
>
> |
> | > What about Maxwell do you think needs fixing if you consider most
> effects as
> | > happening in a local vacuum state and/or dilectric.
> |
> | I think the shortcommings need better understanding and they need to be
> taught.
> | Of course, fewer people would study physics if you expose the tricks. ;-)
> | > Surly you don't think that over a finite distance change in action is
> | > instantaneous ?
> |
> | Both are useful because Maxwell lets you quantify some experiments
> | that will be the same in all FoR. For gravity and a complete light
> | description is seems possible you must work in the Coulomb gauge,
> | or use Weber's equations.
>
> Nicely not answered {:-)
I am practicing for a run for public office. :-)
On double secret background and if you swear on a stack of MTW's
not to tell a soul I'll tell ya the honest truth:
Maxwell's demon is still within him, possessing his every evil stroke of
the pen and blotter. 9/11, the tsunami, storms, floods, quakes and
famine... Yep you guessed... Maxwell's demon. :o)
> but I have not yet found the delay function in
> Weber as contact theory must presumably have some means of delaying
> interactions ?
The inertia of interacting charges seems to work fine.
Compton effect.
The mass and tension of a wire determines the speed a wave
moves along a piano string.
>
> |
> | "If no mass or energy is moved there is nothing whatsoever to violate the
> | conservation principle". But then think twice about that statement. Are
> | we describing an "action"? No... only in Maxwell's ether where he thought
> | there was a action involved modifiying a substance so included terms for
> | "retarded potential".
>
> Varying phase relationships seems a necessary function of existence from my
> pov whether they be retarded or advanced seem to a large extent dependant on
> you pov as far as measurment goes anyway.
Well... putting delays where there is no need or mechanism hardly seems
necessary. (politics excepted )
>
> |
> | In Weber's "fields" the inertia of the charges explains the propagation
> | delay so no further delay needs be included which you would have to
> | term "a delay intrinsic to nothing" That is absurb sounding whether
> | Maxwell or Weber says it.
>
> Thanks that explains Webers delay
Every ant has the same elephant to study. :o)
> but it may still be difficult to explain
> delay other than by something like. The existence of time and distance are
> all
> that are needed to demonstrate and prove existence. Time and distance
> introduce a delay that defines energy and the propagation of the energy
> effect in time and distance introduce a delay or somesutch..
If you want to prove you existence, just go ask "The Missus" if
she might be putting on a little weight. How much longer you exist
is debatable but you will know for sure that you do.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~efotheringham/Media/internet%20dominatrix.jpg
Sue...
>
> |
> | Sue...
> |
> |
> | > |
> | > | Sue...
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>
>
Significant Zero
Do you read this as quantification of the gravity field at about a
fundamental wave length of 10 um ?
but no indication that its an electric field ?
I'm thinking can Weber be used as a mediator for Maxwell ?
| From picometer to kilometer, near field and far, the real world requires
| corrections. You know what you get when you put lipstick on a pig.
|
No, is it one female bitching about another?{:-)
This seems to avoid the question of what is the photon traversing in-between
identifiable particles and suggests an independence by the photon from that
area of traverse
|
| The mass and tension of a wire determines the speed a wave
| moves along a piano string.
Fine so there must be a medium in which the mediating photons travel, so is
a photon a modulation of the medium or not ?
|
| >
| > |
| > | "If no mass or energy is moved there is nothing whatsoever to violate
the
| > | conservation principle". But then think twice about that statement.
Are
| > | we describing an "action"? No... only in Maxwell's ether where he
thought
| > | there was a action involved modifiying a substance so included terms
for
| > | "retarded potential".
| >
| > Varying phase relationships seems a necessary function of existence from
my
| > pov whether they be retarded or advanced seem to a large extent
dependant on
| > you pov as far as measurment goes anyway.
|
| Well... putting delays where there is no need or mechanism hardly seems
| necessary. (politics excepted )
The medium provides the delay in which the fields\objects move ?
|
| >
| > |
| > | In Weber's "fields" the inertia of the charges explains the
propagation
| > | delay so no further delay needs be included which you would have to
| > | term "a delay intrinsic to nothing" That is absurb sounding whether
| > | Maxwell or Weber says it.
| >
| > Thanks that explains Webers delay
|
| Every ant has the same elephant to study. :o)
Yes I do see that you can concoct a mechanism in which things independent of
the medium move and have inertia as an intrinsic property and then they can
emit and absorb energy packets that may or may not be independent of the
medium and this process mediates force. If this describes Webers position I
will debate its validity with you if you wish?
|
| > but it may still be difficult to explain
| > delay other than by something like. The existence of time and distance
are
| > all
| > that are needed to demonstrate and prove existence. Time and distance
| > introduce a delay that defines energy and the propagation of the energy
| > effect in time and distance introduce a delay or somesutch..
|
| If you want to prove you existence, just go ask "The Missus" if
| she might be putting on a little weight. How much longer you exist
| is debatable but you will know for sure that you do.
We don't have that sort of violent relationship and lack of understanding of
each others states. Why do you think I fight with you.{:-)
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112144847...@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net...
>
snip
> | > | > | Count the kinks in fig 6 and see if it doesn't look like the
> | > near-field
> | > | > effects we
> | > | > | have been studying.
> | > | >
>
> Do you read this as quantification of the gravity field at about a
> fundamental wave length of 10 um ?
> but no indication that its an electric field ?
I read it as height above the mirror and was speculating
that the kinks were VDW London and magnetic.
I tho't this was a pretty good attempt
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
Taffy my dear, Taffy. The ole gal use something like Taffy.
Would you feel better to know that one of the elements
that populate the periodic table, also fills all of space to
transport forces that you believe requires magic, otherwise?
That is asking nature to build stuff with stuff she hasn't built yet.
...fundamentally speaking.
>
> |
> | The mass and tension of a wire determines the speed a wave
> | moves along a piano string.
>
> Fine so there must be a medium in which the mediating photons travel, so is
> a photon a modulation of the medium or not ?
No! I won't tell you till you tell me when an where you
saw your first photon. :o)
Experiment
Procure:
comb, head of hair, pithball, magician's hoop
Let us know what you hit when the magician's hoop
is swept throught the path. Better yet, bottle it and
we'll sell it on eBay. :o)
It sound's more like Maxwell.
<< independent of the medium>>
This is just the question: Are the red squares independent of the black squares
on a chess board.?
Water is a material medum. But it sets no constranints on what a medium
must be comprised of.
If an e- e+ pair is created and separated, the force between them cannot
be attributed to either pieces of themselves drawing into a thin string or
something else. Occakam, Weber and relativity would favor the taffy.
Maxwell assumed the "something else" and built non-relativistic equations
with near and far field anomalies.
>
> |
> | > but it may still be difficult to explain
> | > delay other than by something like. The existence of time and distance
> are
> | > all
> | > that are needed to demonstrate and prove existence. Time and distance
> | > introduce a delay that defines energy and the propagation of the energy
> | > effect in time and distance introduce a delay or somesutch..
> |
> | If you want to prove you existence, just go ask "The Missus" if
> | she might be putting on a little weight. How much longer you exist
> | is debatable but you will know for sure that you do.
>
> We don't have that sort of violent relationship and lack of understanding of
> each others states. Why do you think I fight with you.{:-)
GAWD! Why am I discussing physics? I should be writing a user manual
for her. :o)
>
Significant Zero
|
| "Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:112144847...@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net...
| >
| snip
| > | > | > | Count the kinks in fig 6 and see if it doesn't look like the
| > | > near-field
| > | > | > effects we
| > | > | > | have been studying.
| > | > | >
| >
| > Do you read this as quantification of the gravity field at about a
| > fundamental wave length of 10 um ?
| > but no indication that its an electric field ?
|
| I read it as height above the mirror and was speculating
| that the kinks were VDW London and magnetic.
Yes but the kinks being distributed bunching at different heights above the
mirror might indicant that the strength had a modulated character that might
be attributed to quantum modulation of the strength of gravity at about 10
um and this bunching is then call VDW London and magnetic etc. ?
Yes you may be right haven't had time to read it yet but the abstract looks
interesting.
You mean an element called the cosmos or lot of very little ones called
thingys {:-)
I always thought that Taffy was another name for fields made of thingys that
were themselves made of length and duration?
| That is asking nature to build stuff with stuff she hasn't built yet.
| ...fundamentally speaking.
I though the known particles were taffy in a box with a bow on ?
|
| >
| > |
| > | The mass and tension of a wire determines the speed a wave
| > | moves along a piano string.
| >
| > Fine so there must be a medium in which the mediating photons travel, so
is
| > a photon a modulation of the medium or not ?
|
| No! I won't tell you till you tell me when an where you
| saw your first photon. :o)
Age zero at a hospital.
|
| Experiment
| Procure:
| comb, head of hair, pithball, magician's hoop
| Let us know what you hit when the magician's hoop
| is swept throught the path. Better yet, bottle it and
| we'll sell it on eBay. :o)
Field of thingys with + or - leanings that play with the metal of my
magician's hoop and give me a voltage ?
But surly taffy is the same as "something else" ?
Or how do you define Taffy ?
|
| >
| > |
| > | > but it may still be difficult to explain
| > | > delay other than by something like. The existence of time and
distance
| > are
| > | > all
| > | > that are needed to demonstrate and prove existence. Time and
distance
| > | > introduce a delay that defines energy and the propagation of the
energy
| > | > effect in time and distance introduce a delay or somesutch..
| > |
| > | If you want to prove you existence, just go ask "The Missus" if
| > | she might be putting on a little weight. How much longer you exist
| > | is debatable but you will know for sure that you do.
| >
| > We don't have that sort of violent relationship and lack of
understanding of
| > each others states. Why do you think I fight with you.{:-)
|
| GAWD! Why am I discussing physics?
Because you like fighting with and hopefully dominating males I've always
thought {:-)
| I should be writing a user manual
| for her. :o)
|
We have been together for >35 years so we must know something about male
female relationships {:-)
We could give advice but that would be interfering so we don't.{:-)
| >
|
|
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112146030...@doris.uk.clara.net...
>
snip
> | > | > | > | Count the kinks in fig 6 and see if it doesn't look like the
> | > | > near-field
> | > | > | > effects we
> | > | > | > | have been studying.
> | > | > | >
> | >
> | > Do you read this as quantification of the gravity field at about a
> | > fundamental wave length of 10 um ?
> | > but no indication that its an electric field ?
> |
> | I read it as height above the mirror and was speculating
> | that the kinks were VDW London and magnetic.
>
> Yes but the kinks being distributed bunching at different heights above the
> mirror might indicant that the strength had a modulated character that might
> be attributed to quantum modulation of the strength of gravity at about 10
> um and this bunching is then call VDW London and magnetic etc. ?
We are agreeing? What are you doing on MY side of the elephant?
snip
> | > http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Pramana-J-Phys-V55-p393-404(2000).pdf
> | > | > | > | http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/wpapers.htm
> | > | > | >
snip
> | > |
> | > | Existance of subatomic stuff yet to learn like FQHE? Most certainly.
> | > | Maxwells aether is benign or some implentation of Weber? No Way :o)
> | >
> | > I'm thinking can Weber be used as a mediator for Maxwell ?
> | I tho't this was a pretty good attempt
> | http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
>
> Yes you may be right haven't had time to read it yet but the abstract looks
> interesting.
If ya fix the things broke in Weber and
ya fix the things broke in Maxwell
they should predict the same thing.
...assuming all elephants have big ears.
>
snip
> | > |
> | > | > but I have not yet found the delay function in
> | > | > Weber as contact theory must presumably have some means of delaying
> | > | > interactions ?
> | > |
> | > | The inertia of interacting charges seems to work fine.
> | > | Compton effect.
> | >
> | > This seems to avoid the question of what is the photon traversing
> in-between
> | > identifiable particles and suggests an independence by the photon from
> that
> | > area of traverse
> |
> | Taffy my dear, Taffy. The ole gal use something like Taffy.
> | Would you feel better to know that one of the elements
> | that populate the periodic table, also fills all of space to
> | transport forces that you believe requires magic, otherwise?
> |
>
> You mean an element called the cosmos or lot of very little ones called
> thingys {:-)
> I always thought that Taffy was another name for fields made of thingys that
> were themselves made of length and duration?
And THAT is the big rub. If you pump the universe full of these
thingys so we don't have to hire magicians to make our radios
and eyeballs work, how will the thingys know:
-how to be where they are needed
-how to remain totally undetectable
-how to be homogenous.
If I were making a career choice, I'd by far choose to be
a charge before a thingy. :o)
Maxwell OTOH, probably tho't thingys were like minions
and would be falling over each other to race around in
circles just to make his vortex equations work out.
The arrogant elitist. Harumph! :o)
>
> | That is asking nature to build stuff with stuff she hasn't built yet.
> | ...fundamentally speaking.
>
>
> I though the known particles were taffy in a box with a bow on ?
Nope:
Caffeine
Nicotine
Sugar
Grease
>
> |
> | >
> | > |
> | > | The mass and tension of a wire determines the speed a wave
> | > | moves along a piano string.
> | >
> | > Fine so there must be a medium in which the mediating photons travel, so
> is
> | > a photon a modulation of the medium or not ?
> |
> | No! I won't tell you till you tell me when an where you
> | saw your first photon. :o)
>
> Age zero at a hospital.
That does not count. At that age you could not write a convincing paper
to show that the room lighting was not comprised of charged combs and
your retina comprised of pith balls. :o)
>
> |
> | Experiment
> | Procure:
> | comb, head of hair, pithball, magician's hoop
> | Let us know what you hit when the magician's hoop
> | is swept throught the path. Better yet, bottle it and
> | we'll sell it on eBay. :o)
>
> Field of thingys with + or - leanings that play with the metal of my
> magician's hoop and give me a voltage ?
Awl right... We'll have another look at Weber's work to see if
it needs vortices. If not:
http://www.alancaseyentertainment.com.au/magician.JPG
Sue...
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112146030...@doris.uk.clara.net...
>
> "sue jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:42d806bd$0$18649$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
> |
> | "Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:112144847...@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net...
> | >
> | snip
> | Would you feel better to know that one of the elements
> | that populate the periodic table, also fills all of space to
> | transport forces that you believe requires magic, otherwise?
> |
>
> You mean an element called the cosmos or lot of very little ones called
> thingys {:-)
> I always thought that Taffy was another name for fields made of thingys that
> were themselves made of length and duration?
<< Awl right... We'll have another look at Weber's work to see if
it needs vortices. If not:
http://www.alancaseyentertainment.com.au/magician.JPG
>>
--How to make taffy--
<< In his famous article of 1864 in which he completed his electromagnetic theory of light,
Maxwell presented similar points of view. After saying that the most natural theories of
electromagnetism are based on forces acting directly between the charges he said:
In these theories the force acting between the two bodies is treated with reference
only to the condition of the bodies and their relative position, and without
any express consideration of the surrounding medium. These theories assume,
more or less explicitly, the existence of substances the particles of which have
the property of acting on one another at a distance by attraction or repulsion.>>
<<We do not need to speak in electric nor in magnetic fields. While Weber starts with force
between the charges directly,Maxwell's approach is interaction via the field. Maxwell believed
that each charge generated electric and magnetic fields, which would move in space
tipically at light velocity. These fields would act on the other charges. According to him
there would not be any direct action between two charges separated in space. The action
between them would be performed by the fields. Maxwell believed in a material medium
filling all space, the ether, which would be the responsible for carrying the action of one
charge until the other and vice-versa. For instance, his last two sentences in the Treatise
state ([13], vol. 2, article 866, p. 493, our emphasis): 'In fact, whenever energy is transmitted
from one body to another in time, there must be a medium or substance in which
the energy exists after it leaves one body and before it reaches the other, for energy, as
Torricelli [16] remarked, 'is a quintessence of so subtle a nature that it cannot be contained
in any vessel except the inmost substance of material things.' >>
<<6. Experimental distinction between Weber's force and Lorentz's force
In most situations, especially those related with closed circuits, Weber's force and
Lorentz's one will yield the same result. We proved this, for instance, considering the similar
predictions of Amp`ere's force between current elements (which can be derived from
Weber's force but not fromLorentz's one) as compared with Grassmann-Biot-Savart's one
(which can be derived from Lorentz's force but not fromWeber's one): [30-34] and [27].
But here we analyse a possible experiment to distinguish these two theories and which
highlights the main conceptual difference between these two electrodynamics.
A stationary uniformly charged spherical shell, made of a dielectric... >>
http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Pramana-J-Phys-V55-p393-404(2000).pdf
IOW... Weber assumes no vorti-thingys to cavort in the vortices.
Sue...
snip
Significant Zero
|
| "Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:112146030...@doris.uk.clara.net...
| >
| snip
| > | > | > | > | Count the kinks in fig 6 and see if it doesn't look like
the
| > | > | > near-field
| > | > | > | > effects we
| > | > | > | > | have been studying.
| > | > | > | >
| > | >
| > | > Do you read this as quantification of the gravity field at about a
| > | > fundamental wave length of 10 um ?
| > | > but no indication that its an electric field ?
| > |
| > | I read it as height above the mirror and was speculating
| > | that the kinks were VDW London and magnetic.
| >
| > Yes but the kinks being distributed bunching at different heights above
the
| > mirror might indicant that the strength had a modulated character that
might
| > be attributed to quantum modulation of the strength of gravity at about
10
| > um and this bunching is then call VDW London and magnetic etc. ?
|
| We are agreeing? What are you doing on MY side of the elephant?
When your eating elephants you eat any bits you find lying about that you
fancy{:-) growl
|
| snip
| > | >
http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Pramana-J-Phys-V55-p393-404(2000).pdf
| > | > | > | > | http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/wpapers.htm
| > | > | > | >
| snip
| > | > |
| > | > | Existance of subatomic stuff yet to learn like FQHE? Most
certainly.
| > | > | Maxwells aether is benign or some implentation of Weber? No Way
:o)
| > | >
| > | > I'm thinking can Weber be used as a mediator for Maxwell ?
| > | I tho't this was a pretty good attempt
| > | http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
| >
| > Yes you may be right haven't had time to read it yet but the abstract
looks
| > interesting.
| If ya fix the things broke in Weber and
| ya fix the things broke in Maxwell
| they should predict the same thing.
| ...assuming all elephants have big ears.
You say what's broke, as you appear to know them much better than I and then
we'll fix them perhaps ?
These are the questions that need answering.
1) they are everywhere the cosmos is and called length and duration.
2) they are carriers of energy differences via length and duration changes
3) in their raw form they are called time and space but sometimes they gang
up and call themselves particles.
4) how many to a bucketful one or lots (still counting) {:-)
5) no ends just knots in the fabric.
|
| If I were making a career choice, I'd by far choose to be
| a charge before a thingy. :o)
Good choice as I remember when working you were only allowed to charge for
charges, its only as I have no need to charge that I can move beyond charges
to what's in-between the moon and earth were there are no particles. The
accountants would have had a fit if I had invoice for examining what to them
was apparently nothing as you could not put it in any Coulomb {:-)
|
| Maxwell OTOH, probably tho't thingys were like minions
| and would be falling over each other to race around in
| circles just to make his vortex equations work out.
| The arrogant elitist. Harumph! :o)
|
It sounds like you have one of Maxwell's demons sitting on your shoulder
whispering 'screw old Maxwell up'
| >
| > | That is asking nature to build stuff with stuff she hasn't built yet.
| > | ...fundamentally speaking.
| >
| >
| > I though the known particles were taffy in a box with a bow on ?
| Nope:
| Caffeine
| Nicotine
| Sugar
| Grease
Good diet, you sound like a hell of an interesting gal in body as well as
mind. {:-)
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | The mass and tension of a wire determines the speed a wave
| > | > | moves along a piano string.
| > | >
| > | > Fine so there must be a medium in which the mediating photons
travel, so
| > is
| > | > a photon a modulation of the medium or not ?
| > |
| > | No! I won't tell you till you tell me when an where you
| > | saw your first photon. :o)
| >
| > Age zero at a hospital.
|
| That does not count. At that age you could not write a convincing paper
| to show that the room lighting was not comprised of charged combs and
| your retina comprised of pith balls. :o)
I did but they flushed it down the loo saying it was crap, philistines{:-)
|
| >
| > |
| > | Experiment
| > | Procure:
| > | comb, head of hair, pithball, magician's hoop
| > | Let us know what you hit when the magician's hoop
| > | is swept throught the path. Better yet, bottle it and
| > | we'll sell it on eBay. :o)
| >
| > Field of thingys with + or - leanings that play with the metal of my
| > magician's hoop and give me a voltage ?
|
| Awl right... We'll have another look at Weber's work to see if
| it needs vortices. If not:
| http://www.alancaseyentertainment.com.au/magician.JPG
Ok. Vortices as a function of Magnetic fields? used any place else in your
mind?
Electric field ~ no vortice, test loop has vortices in metal, add test loop
to Electric field with motion equals electric potential and magnetic field
(vortices) if allowed to complete. ?
|
|
| Sue...
--
Significant Zero E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field, two
unbound field effects
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Maybe updates. (1-(1/(1/3))^2)/(1 + (1/(1/3))^2) = - 0.08 = FTL ? -p<+p or
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112152374...@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...> news:42d5823d$0$18639$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
Hmmm... there are lots of internet bad guys that operate under
the loose laws of Brazil. Maybe the UK is doing what others
should do... boycott countries with lax laws.
You might try accessing from the html page:
http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/wpapers.htm
>
> | > | R--A <force> A--R and matches the book you may still
> have...
> | > | or perhaps owe a fine for. >:o)
> | > |
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | > See I have a much greater problem with notation than you do.{:-(
> | > | > Lets go rassle in mud for a bit of relaxation{:-)
> | > |
> | > | I am all for it... just as soon as the bubble bath and Cabernet
> Sauvignon
> | > | arrives. How did you say you shipped that ? :o)
> | >
> | > By air my love with plenty of kerosene to keep the fires burning.{:-)
> | No Joy! Maybe it iced up. Try again using JP4 with FSII.
> | http://www.csgnetwork.com/jetfuel.html
>
> If its more than two shillings and six pence a gallon it too expensive.
>
> | http://www.pattywagstaff.com/images/other/RibbonKolasa_thumb.jpg
>
> I nearly did that with a Cessna once, instructor got a bit jumpy.
Oh My! I know that instructor... ' still hasn't recovered. :o)
Sue...
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112152374...@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>
snip
> | But here we analyse a possible experiment to distinguish these two
> theories and which
> | highlights the main conceptual difference between these two
> electrodynamics.
> | A stationary uniformly charged spherical shell, made of a dielectric... >>
> | http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Pramana-J-Phys-V55-p393-404(2000).pdf
> |
> | IOW... Weber assumes no vorti-thingys to cavort in the vortices.
>
> define and explain of necessity has to be considered as voti-thingys just
> fairly straight thingys that can be bent into vorti-thingys by circumstance.
>
>
> So we have an electron <10E-18m and 1m vacuum and then another electron
> <10E-18m pushing each other away .
>
> e>............<e what are the dots made of other than thingys or thingy ?
Weber would say the dots are intrinsic properties of the e and e.
Maxwell would say the dots are the aether.
> and do you think it\they need explaining although I do agree that it\they
> can be dealt with to a degree by inclusion in the details of particles
> perhaps and is this not what Weber is doing ? OTOH is webers approach a bit
> like a lump delay line cut in half and assigned to each end and pretend the
> middle bit don't exist ?
That seems a fair way to say it. Then you contrast with the magnet broken
in half also.
If free electrons *really* can display some rotary mechanism, then it
needs explaining. OTOH if atomic oscillators are the smallest entities
where we can show *something* moving in a circular motion, we
shouldn't let Maxwell's approach bias our thinking.
Sue...
>
>
> |
> |
> |
> | Sue...
> |
> | snip
> |
> |
> |
>
>
Significant Zero
| > | > | >
| > | > | snip
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Check me out on this picture as we may have a simpler way than
the
| > heavy
| > | > | > maths.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > The earth, and at one side we have the moon stationary and at
the
| > other
| > | > we
| Electromagnetism: Foundations, Theory and Applications, T. W.
| Barrett and D. M. Grimes (eds.), (World Scientific, Singapore,
| 1995), pp. 314-331. Abstract: We present a generalized Weber's
| law for electromagnetism including terms of fourth and higher orders
| in 1/c. These extra terms when applied to the force between two
| neutral dipoles yield an equivalent to Newton's law of universal
| gravitation as a fourth order electromagnetic effect. >>
| http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/gravitation-4th-order-p314-331(1995).pdf
|
Still wont let me on.
| <<Abstract: It is a known fact that there is no magnetic field outside an
| infinite solenoid carrying a constant current, although there is a
magnetic
| vector potential non-null outside it. The existence of the Aharonov-
| Bohm effect (AB) is usually considered as a proof of the relevance
| of the vector potential for quantum mechanics. In this paper we will
|
| ..see that there is a non null electric field outside an infinite solenoid
| carrying a constant current and its possible relevance to the analysis
| of the Aharonov-Bohm effect. When calculating, we introduce the
| Galilean invariance of Maxwell's equations and then we obtain the
| contribution to the AB effect due to electric potential. >>
|
http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Revista-Facultad-Ingenieria-(Chile)-V9-p29-
34(2001).pdf
You have more pull in that area than I have no comprende says the server.
|
| http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/wpapers.htm
|
| My spoonbending instructor says:
| "If ya don't put some bike parts in it it'll never get
| off the ground."
|
| Sue...
Significant Zero
Got it, reading.
Significant Zero
| libraries. "Fixing them" usually involves rewriting a version that
overcomes
| the part of the field equation that is offending. I recently saw a
nanofabrication
| application that used different Green's functions.
|
If I knew what you meant I might comment I have a problem with words with
more than 5 letters {:-)
| Wow! That is !some! tall order for wee bitty unicorn.
|
| > |
| > | If I were making a career choice, I'd by far choose to be
| > | a charge before a thingy. :o)
| >
| > Good choice as I remember when working you were only allowed to charge
for
| > charges, its only as I have no need to charge that I can move beyond
charges
| > to what's in-between the moon and earth were there are no particles. The
| > accountants would have had a fit if I had invoice for examining what to
them
| > was apparently nothing as you could not put it in any Coulomb {:-)
|
| LOL
|
| >
| > |
| > | Maxwell OTOH, probably tho't thingys were like minions
| > | and would be falling over each other to race around in
| > | circles just to make his vortex equations work out.
| > | The arrogant elitist. Harumph! :o)
| > |
| >
| > It sounds like you have one of Maxwell's demons sitting on your shoulder
| > whispering 'screw old Maxwell up'
|
| Turnabout is fair play.
|
| >
| > | >
| > | > | That is asking nature to build stuff with stuff she hasn't built
yet.
| > | > | ...fundamentally speaking.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > I though the known particles were taffy in a box with a bow on ?
| > | Nope:
| > | Caffeine
| > | Nicotine
| > | Sugar
| > | Grease
| >
| > Good diet, you sound like a hell of an interesting gal in body as well
as
| > mind. {:-)
| http://www.spookshop.com/images/hauntedhouse/exorcist_girl.jpg
You have surpassed expectations, I'd paint your portrait anytime from behind
a blowlamp and a pot of varnish.{:-) like the feet.
| That is the idea. Maxwell used a vortex of ether on a hunch. Except
| for atoms, it *seems* arbitrary. Can we describe everyhing else but
| atoms without something rotating. We *say* electrons have a spin,
| but is it only because they exhibit the same force as a circulating
| charge ? Can we truly detect anything rotating in a free electron?
|
|
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22free+electron+spin+resonance%22&spel
l=1
Perhaps the more fundamental question for me is can we detect anything
rotating in an electric field between two well separated electrons or even
protons. ?
|
| Sue...
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112153304...@demeter.uk.clara.net...
Hmmm... You server may have the site or country blocked.
<< "They used phishing techniques to make the scam work,"
said Joviel Britto, a spokesman for the Brazilian Federal Police.
"They sent an email and after you put your information in,
they could pick up money from your bank account."
>><<
Last month, security experts said that Brazil was a hacking
hot spot of the world. According to security company Sophos,
banks that were targeted in the Trojan horse attacks included
Banco do Brasil, HSBC and Unibanco. >>
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/security/0,39020375,39171009,00.htm
If I can find another source for the paper I will post it.
Sue...
sue jahn
"Significant Zero" <paulps...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:112153591...@demeter.uk.clara.net...
>
> |
> | That is the idea. Maxwell used a vortex of ether on a hunch. Except
> | for atoms, it *seems* arbitrary. Can we describe everyhing else but
> | atoms without something rotating. We *say* electrons have a spin,
> | but is it only because they exhibit the same force as a circulating
> | charge ? Can we truly detect anything rotating in a free electron?
> |
> |
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22free+electron+spin+resonance%22&spel
> l=1
>
> Perhaps the more fundamental question for me is can we detect anything
> rotating in an electric field between two well separated electrons or even
> protons. ?
Sigh... you DO like that running before walking don'tcha?
Sue...
Significant Zero
Got your mail and it seems to tie up gravity for me as his paper is so far
ahead of what I can manage that I can only cheer him and you if you wish me
to. I've put a link on my web page and will puzzle about the details of the
paper over the next months-years but I'm not sure I can contribute much in
that area. It seems clear gravity is an electric field. Mind you I did have
some daft ideas about anti g fields that went with gravity as an electric
field they we might chat about at sometime if your interested perhaps after
you become famous. {:-)
Significant Zero
Just my boyish nature {:-) Which way would you like me to go ?
Just a feeling but spin is an intrinsic property of particles but can be
passed to the field (medium) So I expect electrons to have spin. I even
expect Mesons if ever identifiable as a particle to have some type of spin
but I could be wrong on this.
|
| Sue...
|
|