Re: Electo London Gravity ?


"Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1121086301.32746.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:42d2574b$0$18637$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |
> | "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1121078109.29029.3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | >
> | > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > news:42d1a5f5$0$18636$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > |
> | > | "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > news:1121033194.12075.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > | >
> | > | > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > | > news:42d1953d$0$18640$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > | > |
> | > | > | "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > | > news:1121027929.10233.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | snip
> | > | > | > | > | > | it for something the size of a Cavendish balance ?
> | > | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > Fraid not, to calculate the gravity slope inside a body
> of
> | > any
> | > | > | > | > significant
> | > | > | > | > | > mass you have to integrate the mass at many levels to
> obtain
> | > a
> | > | > slope
> | > | > | > | > like an
> | > | > | > | > | > upside down tick as far as that paper goes anyway.
> Trudge
> | > | > through
> | > | > | > "The
> | > | > | > | > | > internal Pressure of Planets" and near the end there is
> the
> | > | > | > internal
> | > | > | > | > | > gravity slopes for various planets.
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | I am not sure I agree with that, when I compare a cannon
> ball
> | > in
> | > | > | > | > | a hollow at the earth's center with a canon ball
> surrounded by
> | > | > | > | > | molten iron. (Corning an de Beers are helping with the
> | > obvious
> | > | > heat
> | > | > | > | > | problems)
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | One ball is under tremendous pressure, the other is not.
> They
> | > | > | > | > | are the same mass. If incompressable, they are the same
> | > density.
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > But thats it when is something incompressable and we are
> into
> | > | > | > singularities
> | > | > | > | > and other stuff but its not at the center the dificulty with
> | > 1/r^2
> | > | > is
> | > | > | > its
> | > | > | > | > near the surface.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | "Something" doesn't have to be at the center, to appear at the
> | > | > | > | barycentre. There is nothing at a binary star's barycenter
> but
> | > | > | > | that is where things in the farfield fall to.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | Again, I am not disagreeing about planet sized objects,
> only
> | > | > | > | > | small homgenous objects.
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > If its true for planets why would it not be true for
> particles
> | > and
> | > | > small
> | > | > | > | > objects although the effect may be immeasurably small in
> these
> | > cases
> | > | > ?
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | First, I think you and I need to get on the same planet... or
> star
> | > | > | > | system at the very least. The pressure at the barycenter of a
> | > | > | > | rotating double star should be very near the same as empty
> | > | > | > | space... but that is where things *fall to* from a distance.
> | > | > | > | Are you quite sure you did not find some old hydraulic and
> | > | > | > | Deep sea books at the thrift store and you just want to put
> them
> | > | > | > | to good use ? :o)
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > Ok if you want to consider the case of binarys and how the field
> | > | > gradient
> | > | > | > looks in their case we have to either consider the average mass
> | > about
> | > | > the
> | > | > | > barycenter or take a vector of their period. Allthough the
> average
> | > mass
> | > | > is
> | > | > | > hollow and not isotropic we could consider it through the plane
> of
> | > its
> | > | > | > rotation and say that when we can draw a line throught the
> centers
> | > of
> | > | > the
> | > | > | > two masses we have a gravity slope line as per a solid planet,
> an
> | > | > inverted
> | > | > | > tick or something simlair. Other views will have there own slope
> | > lines
> | > | > and
> | > | > | > the pressure profile will not match a solid planet at all.?
> | > | > |
> | > | > | You are still loosing me. Whether the moon was a cloud of fishing
> | > sinkers
> | > | > | (low pressure) or a ball of lead (high pressure) would the tides
> be
> | > able
> | > | > | to tell one from the other? Yes or No ?
> | > | >
> | > | > If the mass was the same, no.
> | > | > My fishing sinkers are the same density as balls of lead so I am
> puzzled
>
> You did not reply to above but it set me thinking about how a particle might
> look with a binary internal structure and we end up with some sort of planer
> cyclic gravitational quadrapole field although in this case its only
> attractive and if gravity is an electric field we have a macro structure
> that might be an echo of a micro electric field structure ?

One of the articles of the group I just posted went into some detail
about whether the force is attractive or repussive. As I recall it is
attractive if coherrent, repulsive if not. Induced dipoles must
there very existance be coherrent. (not sinusoidal assuming
you take spread spectrum PN codes and the patterns SETI
looks for to be coherrent) Sickels are what you ride not
what make quadrapoles. Well the *permanent dipoles*, atoms
ARE cyclic but when a whole mob of them starts shouting at
ensemble that thinks it is an *induced dipole* ~sneak effect~
~pairs of eggs~
.... the resultant doesn't *appear* very cyclic. A fourier
transform would extract the original signals from atomic
oscillators and show that it was indeed comprised of many
cyclic components.




>
>
>
> | > | >
> | > | > |
> | > | > | You keep invoking a *gradient*. Permanent or induced dipoles
> adjust
> | > | > | themselves or adjust their neighbors to establish or be harmonious
> | > | > | within the slope of a gradient. So I am confused why you want to
> | > | > | calculate it for them. Did you minions run out of things to do or
> are
> | > | > | you hunting up some more hard labour to kill off a few more ? :o)
> | > | >
> | > | > Outside the earth's surface there is a acceleration gradient of
> 1/r^2.
> | > | > Inside the surface the acceleration falls to zero at the centre but
> does
> | > not
> | > | > follow a 1/r^2 or 1/r^1 law
> | > |
>
> What does 1/r^1 mean to you ?
Are you ask why I say 0.511MeV instead of .511MeV ?
The exponent is just a notational convention because we are
using it in a series of exponents. Eh! consider yerself lucky I remembered the caret.
Besides... I don't have to pay by the byte like you so, why conserve.
:o)

>
> | > | << Results 1 - 10 of about 3,830 for "acceleration gradient" . (0.16
> | > seconds) >>
> | > | Wheeew! You like livin' on the edge don't cha ?
> | > | As I said to Ken S. Tucker,
> | > | ~You and he are examining the side of the elephant, I am examining
> | > | it's belly. Same elephant... but it sure is confusing when the mahut
> | > | shouts turn left.~ :o)
> | > |
> | > | << Inverse Square Law, Gravity
> | > | As one of the fields which obey the general inverse square law,
> | > | the gravity field can be put in the form shown below, showing that
> | > | the **acceleration** of gravity, g, is an expression of the intensity
> | > | of the gravity field. >>
> | > | http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html
> | > |
> | > | It would appear I am the one out of step but I plead brevity
> | > | under duress. (I already got that joke before you keyed it
> | > | so consider it just another relavistic causality violation) ;o)
> | > |
> | > | The URL does say something about *force* .
> | > |
> | > | Ah Ha! here is the complete red curve:
> | > | http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalForce.html
> | > | [see also]
> | > | http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalAcceleration.html
> | > | << which can be written as the gradient of a gravitational potential
> >>
> | > | http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalField.html
> | > |
> | > | OK I have almost driven my little ant up the side of the elephant
> | > | where you and KST are, but I'm not helpin you pranksters put
> | > | rockets on the tusks.
> | > | =======================================
> | > |
> | > | So... Does the complete red curve
> | >
> | > The red curve in your link above is for a sphere of uniform density
> which
> | > the earth is not so the graph for the earth still shows an inverted tick
> for
> | > r<R and whats inside a proton or small sphere is unprovable at the
> moment. I
> | > think its a line with a small kink you think its straight <shrug>
>
> Better mood with you now so do you have anything to add {:-) ?
>
> |
> | Well awl rite... shukkins! I wuz hopeing we could start out with
> | the hard stuff first... but ya talked me out of it.
> | If you insist, we'll just consider small homogenous masses but you
> | don't realise how much this is gonna disappoint me. For consolation
> | you ought ta gimme part of a jews-harp, a piece of blue bottle-glass
> | to look through, a spool cannon, a key that wouldn't unlock anything,
> | a fragment of chalk, a glass stopper of a decanter, a tin soldier,
> | a couple of tadpoles, six fire-crackers, a kitten with only one eye,
> | a brass door-knob, a dog-collar -- but no dog -- the handle of a
> | knife, four pieces of orange-peel, and a dilapidated old window sash
> | and twelve marbles. :o)
>
> There yours but don't blame me when you cant get your car out of your garage
> due to your magpie tendencies {:-) But I will let you off talking about
> small
> masses and we can talk about the moon which is much more romantic and has
> more data so we wont starve {:-)
I'd like to see some of that *light bending* data from there.

>
> |
> | >
> | > | and a force/acceleration
> | > | formula resolve this issue?
> | >
> | > If you wish
> | >
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | > | > | snip
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > I'll go with you but I don't think there will be any
> | > experimental
> | > | > data
> | > | > | > as to
> | > | > | > | > the measure of gravity at the particle level ?
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | Ya mean Van der Waal and London and BEC experiments don't
> count ?
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > Van der Waal and London are the subtractive components that
> bring
> | > | > coulomb
> | > | > | > more inline with the force of gravity?
> | > | > |
> | > | > | ***OK... I see where you are headed.***
> | > | > |
> | > | > | http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TaylorSeries.html
> | > | > | http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CauchyRemainder.html
> | > | > |
> | > | >
> | >
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NewtonsDividedDifferenceInterpolationFormula.ht
> ml
> | > | > | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series
> | > | > |
> | > | > | << Given a Taylor series
> | > | > |
> | > | > | (1)
> | > | > |
> | > | > | the error [remaining Coulomb force ? ] after n terms is given by
> | > | > |
> | > | > | (2)
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Using the mean-value theorem, this can be bounded by
> | > | > |
> | > | > | (3)
> | > | > |
> | > | > | for some (Abramowitz and Stegun 1972, p. 880).
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Note that the Lagrange remainder is also sometimes taken to refer
> to
> | > the
> | > | > remainder when terms up to the st power are taken in the
> | > | > | Taylor series, and that a notation in which , , and is sometimes
> used
> | > | > (Blumenthal 1926; Whittaker and Watson 1990, pp. 95-96). >>
> | > | > | http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LagrangeRemainder.html
> | > | > |
>
> That lot should blog the maths bunch for a few minutes.
>
> | > | > |
> | > | > | <shrug> [PDF209kb] Computational Chemistry - part I: Force field
> | > methods
> | > | > | File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
> | > | > | Taylor-series expansion. - Bond-stretching, eg v(l) = k/2 * (ll
> ...
> | > | > forces, thus
> | > | > | also named "London force". I. Fluctuations in the electron clouds
> form
> | > .
> | > | > | 50 page overhead projector presentation 209KB <shrug>
> | > | > | http://www.tomasoberg.com/pdf/compchem_030131.pdf
> | > | > |
> | > | > | In the farfield I think we end up with something a lot like energy
> | > | > | spread over aperture, just as in magnetic. Working out all the
> details
> | > | > | of every type of bond or coupling is probably not necessary.
> | > | > | IE... we can borrow it from some LQG theorist. :o)
> | > | > |
> | > | > | << In fact, it is easy to describe these modes.
> | > | > | To build representations of the diffeo algebra, we first of all
> | > | > | need to expand all fields in a Taylor series around "the
> observer's
> | > | > | trajectory" q(t), viz.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | f(x) = \sum_m f_m(t) (x-q(t))^m
> | > | > |
> | > | > | (We need some conditions on the Taylor functions f_m(t) to
> | > | > | ensure that f(x) is independent of t). Classically, we can
> | > | > | reformulate the field equations for f(x) as a hierarchy of
> equations
> | > | > | for the Taylor coefficients - awkward but in principle
> | > straightforward.
> | > | > | Upon quantization, the passive modes q(t) become physical - they
> have
> | > | > | canonical momenta and are represented on the Hilbert space - in
> pretty
> | > | > | much the same way as the Liouville mode.>>
> | > | > | http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000082.html
> | > | > |
> | > | > | <<The KT complexes constructed in the previous section were all
> | > classical
> | > | > in
> | > | > | the sense that the abelian charges of the DGRO algebra vanish. To
> | > quantize
> | > | > | the theory, we introduce a Fock vacuum annihilated by all negative
> | > Fourier
> | > | > | modes; see [10] for an explicit description on how this is carried
> | > out. To
> | > | > avoid
> | > | > | ill defined expressions acting on the Fock vacuum, all expressions
> | > must be
> | > | > | normal ordered with respect to frequency; this is denoted by
> double
> | > dots
> | > | > | ( : : ). It follows immediately from (3.20) that the following
> | > operators
> | > | > define>>
> | > | > | http://www.arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0210023
> | > | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > and as far as the forces
> | > | > | > | > experienced by a proton as it traverses a cloud of electrons
> | > might
> | > | > be a
> | > | > | > bit
> | > | > | > | > outside current capabilities but I'll go with ideas and try
> and
> | > see
> | > | > what
> | > | > | > | > makes sense.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | I was just illustrating how when you are *within* the
> collection
> | > of
> | > | > | > entities
> | > | > | > | you divide and conquer. Whether you are surrounded by galaxies
> or
> | > | > | > | surrounded by fishing sinkers, the gravity is zero. If all the
> | > | > galaxies or
> | > | > | > | all the fishing sinkers are to your left, then you will be
> pulled
> | > to
> | > | > the
> | > | > | > left.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > Yes but I thought we were talking about the gravity slope inside
> | > source
> | > | > as
> | > | > | > not a 1/r^2 field effect and no hint of a 1/r field
> | > | > | > The field slope inside a gravity source follows a complex law of
> | > | > pressure
> | > | > | > and mass distribution.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | I understand that. But can we walk before we run? :o)
> | > | > | We can model a pretty big ball of iron before the center
> | > | > | liquifys er ahhh what ever it does under pressure. Eh ?
> | > | > |
> | > | >
> | > | > Yes, I was just trying to get your claims of 1/r out of the debate
> | > because
> | > | > you have not explained were it fits.
> | > |
> | > | OK I think we got it with the complete red curve.
> | > | Gawd! Just preparing to write the equation was uglier than
> | > | toads on a mud fence. Let's wait'll we find where somebody
> | > | already wrote it. Unless we really need it.
> | > |
> | > | After all your're the one obsessed with curves and now ya
> | > | have one... not French mind ya but you can afford some
> | > | extra haggis surely. ;o)
> | >
> | > Your sex abuse crack on the other thread has burned sex jokes out of me
> at
> | > the moment. Some animal rights lot brought building work to a stop at
> Oxford
> | > recently by making this sort of allegation about men on the firm. There
> is a
> | > male witch hunt on here and its not funny for any bloke as I guess it
> was
> | > not funny for female witches? in the middle ages, but some of us never
> seem
> | > to learn. {:-( More pissed off.
> | Sorry... I choose the pic for the degee of eye rolling, didn't notice the
> age.
> | oops!
>
> Apologise accepted, love you again, bitch {:-)
> Put me right off my stroke...ing see below{:-)
>
> Check me out on this picture as we may have a simpler way than the heavy
> maths.
>
===========
> The earth, and at one side we have the moon stationary and at the other we
> have a hydrogen atom stationary. Let them go and the both hit the earth
> surface at the same time ? discounting motion of earth induced by moon and
> atmosphere.
> Same as above but moon in normal orbit but hydrogen atom at other side in
> same orbit as moon and same speed ?
===========

--> H E M <--
[the particles definitely have the earth hemmed-in :o) ]
--> H E
M

I am not sure where you are going with that. The earth and
moon are creating and anhilating a gazillion particles while
you are moveing that H. Couldn't we practice first by
weighing an aircraft carrier before and after a mosquito
lands on it?

Sue...


> |
> | Sue...
> |
> | >
> | > |
> | > | Sue...
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>
>
>
>


.

Quantcast