Re: Electo London Gravity ?


"Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1120925197.39104.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:42cfcff7$0$18642$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |
> | "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1120898491.23195.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | >
> | > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > news:42ce9741$0$18636$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > |
> | > | "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > news:1120833200.30126.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > | >
> | > | > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > | > news:42cb8a9d$0$18640$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > | > |
> | > | > | "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > | > news:42b9c325$0$18649$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > 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)
>
> 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

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...

>
> |
> | 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 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...
> | > | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Can gravity become infinitely small?
    ... gravity from becoming infinitely small. ... points in all directions can be zero, ... time and energy are discrete". ... Find some mystical meaning in "plank mass". ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Can gravity become infinitely small?
    ... I make the assumption that gravity is not continuous, ... Zero is an acceptable value. ... supposing that space and time are granular (in digital signal ... caused by the mass becomes inferior to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "Einsteins Unfortunate Legacy #2"
    ... revealed to be a force resulting from the release of mass energy due to ... However, as to the assertion re gravity quoted above, I would like to ... work titled "The Quantum as a Physical Entity". ... the energy of expansion and contraction ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is gravity, I have no clue
    ... so all things warp, and warping is what gravity is, warping around ... mass in the fabric ... energy, and the formula does not work. ... Why is it that spiral galaxies have a lot of dark matter and elliptic ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Einstein was Precisely Backward, Deliberately
    ... Space dragging to mass, Space twisting to mass, Geodetic precession ... to mass, Time to 4D and Gravity caused by mass or Gravity, a ... Quote Einstein's exact words on this. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading