Re: Electo London Gravity ?


"Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1121155351.32460.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:42d30163$0$18646$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |
> | "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1121119930.8243.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | >
> | > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > news:42d2cab0$0$18646$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > |
> | > | "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > news:1121105795.2849.1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > | >
> | > | snip
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | OK... If you say so. I'd much rather call it force unless we
> can
> | > | > | > | can quantify time and displacement.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | > | <How do you quantify force except by time and displacment ?>
> | > | > | It is a good question. I am sure at some subatomic level you can
> | > | > | quantify the force between your bum and your chair in those terms
> | > | > | but a cushion maker might not appreciate that kind of data in
> helping
> | > | > | you select a soft meduim or firm cushion.
> | > | >
> | > | > Well he should unless he's after a snow job because as far as I know
> | > good
> | > | > expanded foam has compressibility data.
> | > | Results 1 - 10 of about 17,800 for "compressibility data" newtons.
> (0.24
> | > seconds
> | > | Results 1 - 10 of about 55 for "compressibility data" acceleration.
> (0.28
> | > seconds)
> | > | LOL A contrarian Eh?
> | >
> | > Definitely
> | >
> | > | >
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Let's call it instinct... or copying what others do. The workers
> | > actually
> | > | > | producing some meaningful calculations are in chemistry and
> | > biosciences.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Most of the data we are reading is not in terms of acceleration
> and I
> | > | > don't
> | > | > | see what we gain converting it. AFAIK all of the moving mass is in
> | > | > | orbits predetermined orbits where we can't alter it anyway.
> | > | >
> | > | > We work from mass and inertial data to determine acceleration that
> is
> | > | > keeping mass in orbit ?
> | > | Is gravity what keeps electrons in orbit?
> | >
> | > Alright Electro London gravity as a remainder of Electric field, Coulomb
> | > force and what keeps electrons cuddling up to protons{:-) So the answer
> is
> | > partly.
> | That's comforting. We are not trying to make gravity with something
> | that depends on gravity. :o)
> | >
> | > | >
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Dubya likes democracy. So let's do democracy
> | > | > | Results 1 - 10 of about 14 for "london acceleration". (0.26
> seconds)
> | > | > | Results 1 - 10 of about 912 for "london force". (0.20 seconds)
> | > | > |
> | > | > | ...Look's your party need to hire a few more slimey lobbyists
> | > | > | and political consultants. :o)
> | > | >
> | > | > What units does your force come in ?
> | > | Newtons
> | > | http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Newton.html
> | > | http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Force.html
> | >
> | > Newton's are as a result of the acceleration of 1 kg which is itself
> | > defined by gravity so we end up using something to measure gravity that
> | > contains a component that has been defined by itself. Acceleration which
> is
> | > somewhat more independent of gravity seems a better tool to measure it
> with
> | > otherwise you are carrying this 1 kg weight about with all your
> | > measurements.
> | > Remember acceleration due to gravity is independent of the mass being
> | > accelerated so it seems cleaner to me ?
> | I understand your concern but is that not the same argument that
> | we shoudn't express the electron mass as MeV ?
>
> Yes but lets eat the first elephant first.{:-)

OK you take the first bite:
Quantum states in the Earth's gravitational field can be observed,
when ultra-cold neutrons fall under gravity. In an experiment at the
Institut Laue-Langevin in Grenoble, neutrons are reflected and
trapped in a gravitational cavity above a horizontal mirror. The
population of the ground state and the lowest states follows, step
by step, the quantum mechanical prediction. An efficient neutron
absorber removes the higher, unwanted states. The quantum states
probe Newtonian gravity on the micrometer scale and we place
limits for gravity-like forces in the range between 1 micron
and 10 microns. >>
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0301145

Sue...


>
> | The units we use will not automatically make us *aware* when they are
> | appropriate.
>
> No but inappropriate units may help us be unaware of when they are
> inappropriate.
>
> |If we state a proton has a different mass and weight that
> | seems clear enough.
>
> Well ok for the moment but there lots of elephants cooking in the kitchen.
>
> | > I'm not saying you cant use force to smash the window but you have to
> use
> | > acceleration on the hammer first.
> | We can correctly express the binding force of an electron in Newtons
> | where if use it's mass and angular velocity (does it have one ?) we get a
> | meaningless result.
> |
> | Can we compromise ? How 'bout tons or stone?
> | or units of 1.01 million tons?
> | http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html
>
> We may be trying to eat what may be my personal red herring but if I rough
> out my build up of units you might see what I'm on about and the reason.
>
> Time and distance gives us speed, velocity and acceleration. We find a field
> and call it gravity and when we measure test objects our measurements are
> independent of the weight of these test objects so we might conclude that
> weight is irrelevant to the measurement of gravity.
> We might and I do, infer that weight is not relevent in the measurement of
> fields and they can be defined and measured by there acceleration thus
> keeping things simple and less confusing. If we wish to measure force we
> throw a few test objects into our field and measure their acceleration, they
> all measure the same acceleration thus confirming that the weight of objects
> is irrelevent to the measurement of the effects of fields on objects. Later
> we measurer the effect that objects have on objects that have been in a
> field and we call the effect we observe force and that this is dependant on
> weight. Later we relies that objects are really fields in disguise and we
> can then go mental and resort to fantasy to maintain our mental stability, a
> common condition.
> Are you still ok out there. ? Think of me as a kook if it helps {:-)
>
> |
> | >
> | > |
> | > | > | > | > snip
> | > | > | > | > | Decode the holy grail first.
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | (1-(1/(1/3))^2)/(1 + (1/(1/3))^2) = - 0.08 = FTL ? -p<+p
> or
> | > | > | > | > | > (m*-v)<(m*+v) or (m*-c^2)<(m*+c^2) =g?
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > The first bit is the product of the reaction of an
> accelerating
> | > mass
> | > | > and
> | > | > | > by
> | > | > | > | > recursion equalling FTL?
> | > | > | > | Big deal! I am moving FTL right now wrt one of the particles
> at
> | > fnal.
> | > | > | > | If I was a bit closer to one of those particles, Coulombly
> | > speaking,
> | > | > | > | it would be a big big deal.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > Great it was just a remaining point from a SR gung ho were the
> point
> | > was
> | > | > no
> | > | > | > FTL so I arithmaticed it out of their math {:-)
> | > | > | > Just seems to give loads of possibilities if you don't put your
> mind
> | > in
> | > | > that
> | > | > | > rat trap.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | Don't cry. I understand. That mean old Maxwell made you do
> that
> | > | > | > | didn't he. He thinks simply accelerating particles makes 'em
> | > radiate.
> | > | > | > | I guess it never occured to him what kind of gloves he was
> gonna
> | > | > | > | wear before he took a firm grasp on a particle to accelerate
> it.
> | > ;-)
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > No I was fighting with an SRist at the time, FTL had never been
> a
> | > hang
> | > | > up of
> | > | > | > mine {:-) Who's Maxwell {:-)
> | > | > | Maxwell was Weber's understudy. Doncha know nuttin ? :o)
> | > | > |
> | > | >
> | > | > Reading Weber, Reading Weber, study, study, study, forgotten it all
> | > start
> | > | > again, Reading Weber.....{:-) can I go to the loo miss ?
> | > | Don't *ask* 'cause I am all out of rolling eye pics.
> | >
> | > Good just roll your own its much more attractive.
> | > | >
> | > | LOL I don't know that *through* reading is so important.
> | > | You do, of course, have to be convinced that relativistic
> | > | field equations don't necessary depend on AE's funny clocks.
> | >
> | > I have a fairly clear and uncomplicated picture of how atoms (clocks)
> | > frequencies are modified by their environment so I don't think I need
> AE's
> | > clocks in my picture but I might leave a few about just to annoy you so
> I
> | > can watch *your* eyes roll{:-)
> | Yes my little pretty,. they do have that tendency on a level nightstand.
> | http://thewizardofoz.warnerbros.com/movie/img/photos/photo5.jpg
>
> Shall we go out to dinner at the palace, I'll put my blue skin on the red
> one frightens people.}:-)
>
> |
> | Sue...
> | >
> | > |
> | > | Sue...
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Electo London Gravity ?
    ... We are not trying to make gravity with something ... >> Time and distance gives us speed, velocity and acceleration. ... >> independent of the weight of these test objects so we might conclude that ... >> weight is irrelevant to the measurement of gravity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Electo London Gravity ?
    ... We are not trying to make gravity with something ... > |> Remember acceleration due to gravity is independent of the mass being ... > independent of the weight of these test objects so we might conclude that ... > weight is irrelevant to the measurement of gravity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Electo London Gravity ?
    ... We are not trying to make gravity with something ... > |> Remember acceleration due to gravity is independent of the mass being ... > independent of the weight of these test objects so we might conclude that ... > weight is irrelevant to the measurement of gravity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Electo London Gravity ?
    ... |> Alright Electro London gravity as a remainder of Electric field, ... |> Newton's are as a result of the acceleration of 1 kg which is itself ... |> otherwise you are carrying this 1 kg weight about with all your ... weight is irrelevant to the measurement of gravity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Acceleration Without Time
    ... > The equivalence principle is about weight in gravity and weight ... > in non-gravitational acceleration. ... But it doesn't for weight in gravity. ... or that the clocks higher up are moving at speeds faster than clocks ...
    (sci.physics)