Re: plausable theory of gravity
From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) (net_at_nospam.com)
Date: 08/15/04
- Next message: Eric Gisse: "Re: 3rd Party Relativity"
- Previous message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: How Much Longer Can SRians Ignore Their Fundamental Error."
- In reply to: Lloyd Burris: "Re: plausable theory of gravity"
- Next in thread: Lloyd Burris: "Re: plausable theory of gravity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 20:46:02 -0700
Dear Lloyd Burris:
"Lloyd Burris" <lloyd_burris@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:72abd3f5.0408141808.247ef25a@posting.google.com...
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:<1cpTc.40923$xk.39488@fed1read01>...
> > Dar Lloyd Burris:
> >
> > "Lloyd Burris" <lloyd_burris@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:72abd3f5.0408132313.3d050d09@posting.google.com...
> > > thoovler@excite.com (Igor) wrote in message
> > news:<d434b6c6.0408101456.192177d3@posting.google.com>...
> > ...
> > > > The forces you are describing have already been accounted for.
> > > > They're known as Van der Waals forces and only really apply at very
> > > > small distances between individual atoms. They're responsible for
the
> > > > phenomenon of coherence (among other things), but are way too weak
to
> > > > have any effect at astronomical scales.
> > >
> > > Sure but these forces are the same ones that cause magnetism. If I
> > > understand it the earths magnetic field protects us from some very
bad
> > > stuff from the sun.
> >
> > Not really. It redirects most of those charged "bad" particles to the
> > poles. If anything, it directs *more* material to the Earth. The Van
> > Allen belts cast quite a "shadow". Photons and neutral particles are
> > unaffected by these fields.
> >
> > > If these forces are so weak then why is the earths
> > > magnetic field strong enough to protect our planet? If they are they
> > > strong enough to protect our planet why could they not be strong
> > > enough to form gravity?
> >
> > I'm not going to disagree with the sentiment, but magnetism is created
by
> > charges and relativity. Neutrons are not charged, have mass, and are
> > affected by gravity. Magnetism is insufficient as a description of
> > gravity. The causes of magnetism (of themselves) are insufficient as a
> > description of gravity. So far, only mass (more correctly,
mass/energy) is
> > suffcient for a description of gravity.
>
> I agree magnetism is insufficient as a description of gravity. My
> argument with magnetism is that anything magnetic in space would be
> pulled toward the earth by magnetism but other forces should I say
> fields i,ve been corrected several times account for gravity. I said
> magnetism was just one thing to be taking into account when
> calculating gravity even though it might be very small. I,ve been
> corrected on that too. I was told small forces/fields that act on a
> atomic scale does not account for gravity because they are too weak.
> Thats where I disagree.
It is good to keep an open mind. Gravity is the weakest of the forces, so
weak is what we should be looking for. But "magnetism" should have a
preference for a conductor over an insulator, and gravity has no such
preference. Keep in mind that magnetism is just electric charge and motion
"disguised".
David A. Smith
- Next message: Eric Gisse: "Re: 3rd Party Relativity"
- Previous message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: How Much Longer Can SRians Ignore Their Fundamental Error."
- In reply to: Lloyd Burris: "Re: plausable theory of gravity"
- Next in thread: Lloyd Burris: "Re: plausable theory of gravity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|