Re: Electo London Gravity ?


"Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1120945934.40694.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:42d010d9$0$18638$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |
> | "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 ? so this should be zero intensity and zero mass but for
> 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?

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)
>
> | > 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. ?
>
> |
> | > 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)
>
> 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...
> | > |
> | > | > ?
> | > | >
> | > | > |
> | > | > | > --
> | > | > | > 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: Electo London Gravity ?
    ... |> So the gravitational field intensity at ... intensity being 4 pi GM at the centre of the earth as being misleading? ... Perhaps if the average centre of mass of an isotropic field generator was ... | instead of induced dipoles. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Reasons for interstellar wars.
    ... The intensity of light on a laser propelled sail is many times the ... Put it another way: Earth ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Solar warming v. Global warming
    ... Mars has been closely observed for many years. ... >> further away from the sun than the earth and so receives less ... > But if the sunlight varies, it varies at Mars distance too. ... It is not just the variability but the intensity. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Reasons for interstellar wars.
    ... vehicle that would survive it at short range. ... intensity of sunlight hitting the Earth. ... Put it another way: Earth ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
Loading