Re: Electro-London Inertia
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 5 Oct 2005 23:25:11 -0700
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Sue... wrote:
> ...
> > Many thanks for the obeservation about the term 'force'.
> > At some point, a poor choice between force, energy, acceleration
> > or potential can hide the trees in the forest. The correct choice
> > would show the clearest relation between mass, gravity and inertia
> > yet be something a bit more formal than a professor riding in
> > a lift.
> > Sue...
>
> Hi Sue, Ken here...
>
> Your cuddling to the Electo-vacuum solution to the EFE's
> (Einstein Field Equations), however in agreement with
> your inclination, the solution departs from a continuum.
> That is to say, the EFE's do require relations in the
> way you are seeking.
>
> For example, take a pair of charges "a" and "b" and
> they have some configurational energy,
>
> p = a*b/s, in ergs for example.
>
> Slap the behind (dividing by volume) and get the
> energy density,
>
> T00= p/s^3 == a*b/s^4.
>
> Now, pause and ponder this,
>
> T00= (a/s^2)*(b/s^2) = E(a)*E(b) = a*b/s^4,
>
> where E(a) & E(b) are Electric fields of charge
> "a" and some other charges.
>
> Sue, the above departs from the classical solution
> to EFE's that uses a continum, but who cares, that's
> pretty junky now.
>
> If you like that's Tuckers "noncontinuum solution to
> the Electrovacuum EFE's", I mean that.
Noncontinum solution?
Didn't we know that was necessary from Maxwell's
scalar and vector components that have to be
patched-up with a retarded time before we are
even 1/4 wavelength from the structure?
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em1/lectures/node46.html
<< The special theory of relativity assumes the existence of a unique
class of global coordinate systems - called inertial coordinates - with
respect to which the speed of light in vacuum is everywhere equal to
the constant c. It was natural, then, to express physical laws in terms
of this preferred class of coordinate systems, characterized by the
global invariance of the speed of light. In addition, the special
theory also strongly implied the fundamental equivalence of mass and
energy, according to which light (and every other form of energy) must
be regarded as possessing inertia. However, it soon became clear that
the global invariance of light speed together with the idea that energy
has inertia (as expressed in the famous relation E2 = m2 + |p|2) were
incompatible with one of the most firmly established empirical results
of physics, namely, the exact proportionality of inertial and
gravitational mass, which Einstein elevated to the status of a
Principle. This incompatibility led Einstein, as early as 1907, to the
belief that the global invariance of light speed, in the sense of the
special theory, could not be maintained. Indeed, he concluded that we
cannot assume, as do both Newtonian theory and special relativity, the
existence of any global inertial systems of coordinates (although we
can carry over the existence of a local system of inertial coordinates
in a vanishingly small region of spacetime around any event). >>
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
>
> Once T00 is defined that way, we can enjoy G00 by
>
> G_uv = T_uv , G00 = T00.
>
> OO scary equation, I'm shakin in my boots.
>
> Twist & shout,
>
> G00 = NABLA^2 g00 = T00.
>
> Solve for g00 and find,
>
> g00 = 1 + (a/s)(b/s),
>
> provided the charges don't masturbate, so terms
> like self energization "a^2/s" are excluded
> including a^2/s^4.
>
> Sue want's a solution using discrete charges
> I figure we should give girls what they need.
>
> At this point we have a closed logic system
> consistent with the EFE's and discrete, where
> discrete means charge "a" is in a different
> location than "b", and the metric is defined
> by the relation. See, the continuum died.
....and well it should if it insists that couplings
that are not light must propagate like light
anyway.
>
> With Sues ableness to put things behind us,
> we can proceed to observe the asymmetry of
> the relative geodesics of charges "a" and
> "b".
>
> I'll stop here, take questions, and if you
> want, show how nonsymetrical metrics give
> the EM field.
I am assuming that would be a different way to
express the advanced and retarded solutions
for expressing the 1/r^3 magnetic and 1/r^2
Coulomb components.
The 'obsession' with time and speed of light
that is inhereted thru the use of a space-time
continum, seems more a help than a hinderace.
Contrast with:
http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~keithr/moldy-manual/node11.html
http://www.fisica.uniud.it/~ercolessi/md/md/node52.html
Eleventeen ways from Sunday we can show that
constant c electromagnetic field equations are
compatable with a relativistic paradigm, but
proof or conformance with the coupling modes
for light, doesn't necessarly tell us anything
about other coupling modes necessary to Coulomb,
VDW, London and gravity.
The space-time continum paradigm is tripping over
its own shoelaces before it even produces a model
for the simple 1/r^3 force, magnetism... and that
effect is part of its own foundation. :-/
Sue...
>
> Regards Sue
> Ken S. Tucker
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Electro-London Inertia
- From: Sue...
- Re: Electro-London Inertia
- References:
- Re: Electro-London Inertia
- From: xxein
- Re: Electro-London Inertia
- From: Sue...
- Re: Electro-London Inertia
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Electro-London Inertia
- Prev by Date: Re: Electron at rest - magnetic field?
- Next by Date: Re: Electro-London Inertia
- Previous by thread: Re: Electro-London Inertia
- Next by thread: Re: Electro-London Inertia
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
