Re: Electo London Gravity ?


"sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:42d04ecf$0$18643$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "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.

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.

> >
> > |
> > | > 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 ?

Absoutely! ¿ bla bal ? is spanish for
~ bla bla ~ which is academic for
"I don't know what the f*** is am saying" :o)

Sue...

> >
> > | > |
> > | > | 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
Loading