Re: The electromagnetic paradox and our new space-time.


Bill Hobba wrote:
> "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:3lci36F12613vU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:lZ_He.70442$oJ.44313@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > |
> > | "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > | news:3lak4rF1102dfU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > | > "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > | > news:7yBHe.69418$oJ.62074@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > | > |
> > | > | "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > | > | news:3l5fkjF112006U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > | > | > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > | > | > news:xYdHe.68189$oJ.52659@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > | > | > |
> > | > | > | "Rolf Guthmann" <rolfguthmann@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > | > | > | news:1122662663.260555.61500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > | > | >
> > | > | > [snip]
> > | > | > | > In Chapter 8, we saw that gravity originates in atoms, in
> > the
> > | > | > asymmetry
> > | > | > | > imposed by space-time on the Coulomb forces.
> > | > | > |
> > | > | > | Purely for the benefit of those that may be reading this and
> > to
> > | > ensure
> > | > | > they
> > | > | > | understand that silliness such as the above can be refuted it
> > is
> > | > very
> > | > | > well
> > | > | > | known EM is desribed classically by a 4 vector and gravity by
> > a
> > | > | > tensor - so
> > | > | > | Coulomb forces can never explain gravity.
> > | > | >
> > | > | > Hmm... I wonder what F_uv = A_v;u - A_u;v is if not a tensor?
> > | > Seems
> > | > | > that we can take it to be generally covariant.]
> > | > |
> > | > | Freddy Fuv depends on Au, a 4 vector, in the same way as the
> > Riemann
> > | > | curvature scalar depends on Guv a tensor - not the other way
> > around.
> > | > The
> > | > | above is just the most general reason I can think of for gravity
> > not
> > | > to be
> > | > | EM - al sorts of reasons abound eg faraday cages screen EM but not
> > | > gravity.
> > | >
> > | > I wonder what happens if we take two equally charged objects and put
> > one
> > | > in a faraday cage. If you try to move them together and they still
> > | > repel doesn't it seem like space-time is highly curved wrt charges?
> > |
> > | Why would you think EM involves curvature at all? It may if Kaluza
> > Klein
> > | theories are correct - but they may not be true.
> >
> > Some people see Coulomb forces, I see space-time being "tilted" by
> > charges.
> >
> > | > And
> > | > the cage ain't screening jack is it? That experiment smells a bit
> > like
> > | > the opposite of gravity.
> > |
> > | Why? The screening is outside the cage - gravity is not affected.
> >
> > ? Does the Faraday cage screen the charge or not?
>
> Of course it does Fredi - this is basic physics taught to me in grade 8
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage

Wiki, oo the ultimate...........

Well that's a hoot.
So you can't see any light while sitting in your
cage, that makes sense!

Hobba solve the Lagrange I posted!

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OBarr: The Absolute Reference Frame.
    ... Bill Hobba wrote: ... What is the maximum velocity for a gluon? ... charges are found on quarks? ... proton, which is composed of a group of particles ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr: The Absolute Reference Frame.
    ... Bill Hobba wrote: ... What is the maximum velocity for a gluon? ... charges are found on quarks? ... is not good communication skills. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)