Re: Electro-London Inertia

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:54:38 -0400, Ken S. Tucker <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Sue... wrote: 
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.

The wiki URL you posted in another thread, inspired a
bit of window shopping and I sort of like the way this
outfit looks on induced dipoles:


I should have provided that ref to you, so you
don't think I'm a TOTAL lunatic, but just partly
loony:-). That wiki on GR is pretty good, the
authors are trying hard, I follow the discussion.

<<Phenomena which can be modeled by null dust solutions include:
a beam of massless neutrinos (treated according to classical physics),
a very high-frequency electromagnetic wave,
a beam of incoherent electromagnetic radiation.
In particular, a plane wave of incoherent electromagnetic
radiation is a linear superposition of plane waves, all moving
in the same direction but having randomly chosen phases and
frequencies. (Even though the Einstein field equation is
nonlinear, a linear superposition of comoving plane waves is
possible.) Here, each electromagnetic plane wave has a well
defined frequency and phase, but the superposition does not.
Individual electromagnetic plane waves are modeled by null
electrovacuum solutions, while an incoherent mixture can be
modeled by a null dust. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_dust_solution

I don't read the shorthand well enough to know it that is
what you are modeling below.  I am not at all comfortable
with the freewheeling interchange of E and B *outside the
particle* but that may be valid way to derive forces from
incoherent radiation. A null dust seems to be the best
description of induced dipoles.
Sue...


I think no one is satisfied yet. It seems GR is
being treated as a extension of Newtons continuum
theory,


The matter that fills the universe requires that
we consider a continuum.

and of course that makes it's fusion with
QT difficult because QT is a theory about relations,


The forces between charges requires that we consider
the relation between the entities.

and not about points on a continuum. OTOH I see GR
as naturally a relation theory, such as relating
two simple charges "a" and "b" below.


So yes. You can't have biscuits with jam using
all bread or all jam. :o)

Sue...

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Regards Sue
> Ken S. Tucker





--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Electro-London Inertia
    ... > Hi Sue, Ken here... ... radiation is a linear superposition of plane waves, ... > "a" and some other charges. ... > the Electrovacuum EFE's", I mean that. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Electro-London Inertia
    ... > Ken S. Tucker wrote: ... >> Sue... ... > radiation is a linear superposition of plane waves, ... >> the Electrovacuum EFE's", I mean that. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Electro-London Inertia
    ... >> Sue... ... >>> radiation is a linear superposition of plane waves, ... each electromagnetic plane wave has a well ... >> being treated as a extension of Newtons continuum ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: To Sue about Inertia. (kst)
    ... > Sue... ... >> Ken S. Tucker wrote: ... charges "relate" at c. ... A space-time model won't even work for magnetism ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Gravitons=>Photons ??
    ... >> Sue... ... >>> wave in a terrestrial or extraterrestrial receiver, ... Charges are relational ... either a continuum theory or a relational theory, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)