Re: Gravity and Magnetism

From: Andr? Michaud (srp_at_microtec.net)
Date: 07/31/04 

Date: 31 Jul 2004 14:40:53 -0700

geraldkelleher@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.0407310433.8b85cf4@posting.google.com>...
> srp@microtec.net (Andr? Michaud) wrote in message news:<562f286c.0407260845.43ac208a@posting.google.com>...
> > guskz@hotmail.com (Peter K.) wrote in message news:<7f35df4b.0407251350.7b50bb92@posting.google.com>...
> > > I was wrong about some aspects of gravity and magnetism (otherwise all
> > > magnets would be polarized pointing down towards the Earth) but these
> > > adverse aspects remain:
> > >
> > > 1. A gyroscope with uneven mass (like Earth) constantly spun by a
> > > magnetic force would not spin and tilt where the magnetic force is but
> > > insead it would displace it's spin and tilt from the magnetic force
> > > with that of it's own center of mass (displaced since it's mass is
> > > uneven such as Earth's mass): Gravity's poles are also shifted
> > > likewise from Earth's magnetic poles....therefore couldn't Earth
> > > magnetic poles be generating the orbiting)?
> >
> > It seems that magnetism is not the force that sustains orbiting.
> >
> > The real cause of gravitation is still not fully understood, but
> > the two theories that found credit, Newton's theory and Einstein's
> > theory exclude magnetism as the cause.
> >
>
> Again Mr Michaud,you are very informative and I enjoyed reading of
> Alfred Korzybski and his work.

Really! Quite an experience isn't it?

I recall having gone sleepless for a whole week reading S & S, as my
whole thinking processes realigned. I was younger then, and still
looking for a clear footing.

You may be interested in knowing that the inspiration for his
multiordinal theory of the relations between language and physical
reality was a chapter in one of Henri Poincaré's book "La valeur
de la science" (I don't know the English title, of if it even is
still available in English), more precisely chapter XI, where
Poincaré highlights the difficulty (and the need) of wording
physical laws with more and more precision as our knowledge of
physical reality increases.

Korzybski started from there and completely analyzed the question,
including the role played by the neocortex, the ultimate correlator,
the only tool we have to ultimately apprehend reality.

The only lack I found in his analysis was caused by his not having
had access to Pavlov's work from 1929 to 1936 where he actually
discovered how language relates in the neocortex to non-verbal
perceptions of outside physical reality and emotions.

You may be interested to know that according to Pavlov's conclusions,
that he reached after 1929, the highest cognitive functions of the
human brain are the end result of a process initiated by the
memorization of the sequences of motion that must be executed
by the phonating organs to pronounce each word.

The impregnation of these sequences is accompanied by the establishment
in the brain hemispheres of cerebral structures physiologically
associating each word to the sensory perceptions or emotions that the
individual associates to them, thus allowing their analysis and
generalization. The whole collection of the cerebral structures thus
created in the verbal hemisphere constituting, according to him,
the seat of conceptual thinking.

It was later found (by Paul Chauchard, one of those who continued
Pavlov's research, in France) that the major verbal structures of
the neocortex (thus, the thinking process) are irretrievably set
before the age of about 18.

But due to the political situation in Russia at the time, Korzybsky,
then living in the US, had access only to Anrep and Gannt's
translations of Pavlov's work done before 1929.

Had he been made aware of this discovery by Pavlov, I think that
he may have succeeded in changing things, because he would have
understood the futility of trying to explain the need of systematic
requestioning to the elite, as he did, the majority of whom had by
nature grown beyond the point where they could integrate such
knowledge.

He would have understood that the way to go was sensitizing the
upcoming generation, to establish the permanent re-questioning
modus operandi before their mental processes finally congealed,
as irreversibly happens to all of us.

Although a few always became aware through all sorts of
circumstances, their numbers always was insufficient to
generalize the trend.

Korzybski was the first to really understand the problem. But
he tried to inform the totally close-minded orthodox elite instead
of trying to sensitize the more receptive upcoming generation.
 
> Let me ask you a question Mr Michaud that you may answer in your own
> time and in your own way if you so choose.
>
> The Sun and the planets of the solar system orbits the galactic center
> at a constant rate. With the planets moving in orbit around the
> Sun,what would the resultant geometry of the motion of the planets be
> in order to maintain a fixed motion with the Sun around the galactic
> axis.
>
> Funnily enough it would look similar to Kepler's second law of orbital
> motion as the trajectory of the planets approach and recede from the
> galactic axis over the course of an annual orbit.Perhaps the motion of
> the planets in accordance with Kepler's planetary laws have a more
> satisfying aspect than total reliance on the Sun centered system by
> incorporating aspects of rotation about the galactic axis.

I fully agree. I think that Kepler's laws apply universally at that
level, and I even think that they apply inside atoms.

I had a glimpsed of this as I experimented with applying Kepler's
third law to the Bohr hydrogen atom.

Redefining a big G with logically calculated (based on the
inverse square law of attraction) invariant masses for the
constituting 3 quarks that make up the proton (used as a central
body), I obtained a force of 8.238721759E-8 Newton from the
gravitational equation applied to the hydrogen atom electron,
contrary to what is asserted in all physics textbooks.

If you are curious about it, here is how it goes

d = down quark
u = up quark
e = electron
Q = unit charge
k = Coulomb constant (1/(4 pi epsilon_0))
T = 1/nu_0 = 1 /6.57968391E15 Hz = 1.519829851E-16 sec
alpha_0 = Bohr radius
alpha = fine structure constant
c = speed of light

Calculating the invariant masses of stable elementary particles
(electron, quark up and quark down) on the assumption that the
electron charge somehow relates to distance.

m_i[d,u,e] = (k/alpha_0)(3Q / (n alpha c))^2 (n=1,2,3)

This is a generalized equation, but it is totally derived from
the Coulomb equation.

Note: these masses fall within the experimental limits for quarks
up and down cited in the European Physical Journal C, Vol. 15, 2000

Calculating the invariant mass of the proton (on the assumption
that the remainder of proton's effective mass is relativistic mass
induced by near light velocity of the locally orbiting up and down
quarks)

m_ip = 2 m_iu + m_id = 1.229766563E-29 kg

Calculating the G applicable to the proton as a central body
according to Kepler's third law.

G_p = (4 pi^2 alpha_0^3) / (m_ip T^2) = 2.059446471E31 N . m^2 . kg^-2

Calculating the force at the Bohr radius from the gravitational
equation with the invariant masses involved and this particular
value of G :

F = (G_p m_ip m_ie) / alpha_0^2 = 8.238721758E-8 N

Which is the same as given by the standard Coulomb equation:

F = (k Q^2) / alpha_0^2 = 8.238721806E-8 N

André Michaud

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is the Standard Model
    ... >> physics, and don't get too hung up over what to call it. ... >> say, the ideal gas law, your understanding of it will not depend on the ... >> and Boyle's law, what constitutes an ideal gas, and that it can be derived ... The principle of relativity is a postulate. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is the Standard Model
    ... >> physics, and don't get too hung up over what to call it. ... >> say, the ideal gas law, your understanding of it will not depend on the ... >> and Boyle's law, what constitutes an ideal gas, and that it can be derived ... The principle of relativity is a postulate. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Self-reference, physics content in definitions, and claimed tautologies
    ... Physics is an experimental science. ... We had strong evidence from classical mechanics it was true and ... >> is a tautology because Ohms law applies to resistors and a resistor is ... >> that on the surface these things looked like tautologies but in fact ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is the Standard Model
    ... physics, and don't get too hung up over what to call it. ... say, the ideal gas law, your understanding of it will not depend on the ... >communication requires well-defined basic terms. ... >Wittgenstein held that the main duty of the philosopher is to seek the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What is the Standard Model
    ... physics, and don't get too hung up over what to call it. ... say, the ideal gas law, your understanding of it will not depend on the ... >communication requires well-defined basic terms. ... >Wittgenstein held that the main duty of the philosopher is to seek the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)