Re: Electro-London Inertia


Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Thanks for lookin Sue...
>
> Sue... wrote:
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > sue jahn wrote:
> > > > 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...
> > >
> > > Hi Sue, have a quick glance at
> > >
> > > http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf
> >
> > OK...
> > I got lost in the tensor notaton but gained enoungh
> > footing to see that equation 4 looks ~similar~ to
> > 3d + 1t induced dipole equations.
>
> Good, I wrote/derived equation (4) so it applied
> to 3D space and still hold. When extended by
> covariant equations into 4D it becomes quite
> sophisticated but revealing details.
>
> ((I had to put in Eqs(1)...(3)
> to add some pedigree
> so the Grist's will
> respect me)).
>
> The whole idea on *boiling down* to (4) and then
> showing how intimate that is with GR above, then
> using EM, and seeing how Newtons gravity emerges
> is to show a reasonable idea of how we can see
> in a few steps an intro to Unified Field Theory.
>
> > I was not able to, but perhaps you can,
> > repeat the evolution and show that
> > electromagnetism repels.
> > That would require swapping b with -b?
> > I couldn't find a good excuse to do that. :o(
> > Sue...
>
> Wow, Sue, a penetrating question, never expected it!
> (I suspect you already know some of the answer and
> so I think your question is a bit rhetorical, but I'll
> respond as if it isn't,, ok :-).

Well... it seemed a fair test for a mulit body
solution but after some tho't I realised it will
depend on the temperature of the masses. Heat
will do the swapping of b with -b and that will
affect both the EM pressure and gravitational
attraction... hopefully in equal ammounts.


>
> AE in GR suggested and subsequently proved,
>
> Energy =(c^4/G)*Length.

That could make sense:
http://planck.com/threepenny/html/chap03.html

>
> Have fun and put that another way,
>
> DE = (c^4/G)*DL .
>
> That in conjuction with Eq.(4) per ref,
>
> S^2 = X^2 + ab Eq(4)
>
> accounts for the source of electrostatic forces,
> as well as gravitational forces.
>
> I think I can demo that off Eq.(4) using some
> basic algebra if you want.

Factors like 10^42 don't fall out of basic algebra. :o)
I need to digest both those papers together and be
convinced we aren't just basing every thing on a
Cavendish balance and electrometer measurement and
never actually deriving one from the other.
Either you have reduced Gibbon's work by about
36 pages... or we overlooked something real important.
http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon

:o)
Sue...
>
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Gr and red shifts
    ... > Sue... ... >> Ken S. Tucker wrote: ... >>> Brad is at the top of a tower and Ken is at the bottom. ... >> are in fact titled as an effect of gravity on nuclear ...
    (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
    ... > Sue... ... >> Ken S. Tucker wrote: ... material-space to know energy thresholds. ... Liberals abhor circular thought. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Gravitons=>Photons ??
    ... > Sue... ... >> Ken S. Tucker wrote: ... >>> What about the Nobel Prize commitee, they saw evidence, ... Charges are relational ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Gravitons=>Photons ??
    ... > Sue... ... >> Ken S. Tucker wrote: ... >>> either a continuum theory or a relational theory, ... > The compression of *like* charges builds up sufficient ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)