Re: Latter Day MMX - discussion of LIGO


Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Sue... wrote:
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf
>
> > This is still troubling to me:
> > S^2 = X^2 + q (repelling charges, a = b),
> > S^2 = X^2 - q (attracting charges, a = -b).
>
> Ahem :-) minor correction,
>
> S^2 = X^2 + q^2 (repelling charges, a = b),
> S^2 = X^2 - q^2 (attracting charges, a = -b).

Ah! I think I recognise that:

<< This situation must therefore be analysed by random
walk statistics, which for N particles contributing equally
and distributed in space in perpendicular directions x, y,
and z, predicts a vector sum by Pythagoras' theorem
(assigning the 50% of energy contributions towards
us a positive sign in the expansions of the brackets,
and the 50% which are away from us are assigned a
negative sign, which means that the 3 given by the
expansion for each original term in brackets cancels
down to just 1 term per particle):

[X/(gravitational acceleration)]2 = (1x1 + 1x2 + ...)2 +
(1y1 + 1y2 + ...)2 + (1z1 + 1z2 + ...)2 = N.

Hence, X = (gravitational acceleration).N1/2. N can be
calculated from the know density of matter (average
mass of a star, multiplied by the number in a galaxy,
divided by the average volume of space which each galaxy
has to itself; which gives density, and this is multiplied by
the volume of a sphere with a radius equal to the distance
travelled by light during the age of the universe; which roughly
gives the entire mass of the universe, and this in turn is
divided by the mass of a hydrogen atom to give the number
of particles of either charge because about 90% of the mass
of the universe is hydrogen; the final result is 1080 particles,
so N1/2 is about 1040, which is indeed the factor we need). T
he ratio of electromagnetic to gravitational force is thereby
proven to be N1/2, where N is the number of like charges in
the universe. Calculation proves that this rigorous theory is
correct, giving us unified electromagnetism and gravity. >>
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/cook3.htm

Sue...

>
> > It is *close* but not right for induced dipoles.
>
> That's right, that brief essay was limited to showing
> the residual attractive Coulomb force has a slightly
> greater magnitude than the repulsive by a GR effect.
>
> Just as changes in relative charge currents by SR
> show "magnetic effects" when applied to Coulombs
> basic law, the essay shows how changes in
> "polarity" effect the symmetry of Coulomb's law,
> that Fredifizzx converted from my ascii scawl to
> a professional form the essay has.
>
> > IOW, when you try to build a bar magnet with it
> > I don't think it will work. It might be close.
>
> Of course it will work. The essay is obedient to EM
> until a scale of 10^33 *Force Coulomb or so is reached,
> as gravitation is quite feeble.
>
> > Here it is described as a function of time:
> >
> > << 4. INDUCED DIPOLE FORCES:
> >
> > Forces between essentially non-polar molecules are
> > the weakest of all intermolecular forces. "Temporary
> > dipoles" are formed by the shifting of electron clouds
> > within molecules. These temporary dipoles attract or
> > repel the electron clouds of nearby non-polar molecules.
> >
> > The temporary dipoles may exist for only a fraction of a
> > second but a force of attraction also exist for that fraction
> > of time. The strength of induced dipole forces depends on
> > how easily electron clouds can be distorted. Large atoms
> > or molecules with many electrons far removed from the
> > nucleus are more easily distorted.>>
> > http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/160Aintermolec.html
> >
> > ...but we know from QM and magnetism that it is really
> > a spatial more than a temporal modulation.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
> >
> > Now *that* you can build a magnet with.
> > ...and probably more complex things too
> > if you can only describe the complex motions.
> > Sue...
>
> Agreed: With the conceptual and phenomenalogical
> GR solution of the Coulomb force providing our gravitation
> we next should include spin and thus Planck's "h".
> And we need that to comply with GR.
>
> I'm studying a 3 charge system, ((what is that called,
> a threesome?)) where "intrinsic spin" becomes invariant.
>
> > > that gravitation has an electromagnetic basis, hence the feeble
> > > radiation currently attributed to g-waves will appear as EMR.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Speculations on the Neutrino Theory of Light
    ... No, from the standpoint of GR, the effect of gravitation, ... Neutral particle with positive rest mass and spin 1, ... charactizes the photon. ... simplified to an electron orbital variation. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Introduction to the theory of gravitation
    ... gravitation is a dipole ... with a large number of magnets it will finally settle at certain ... mass of magnetic dipoles resembles the gravitation dipoles only to a ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Any Known Similarities between the electron and the photon?
    ... What if the electron is acting like a photon? ... looking at the atom from the ... Photons are masseless spin-1 bosons. ... gravitation has no discernable effect ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: CODATAs Value for Hydrogens Rydberg Constant R_H
    ... ideas similar to what Ken Tucker has alluded to. ... Steve which ideas did I allude too? ... should be applied to the electron rest mass. ... test particle coasts on a geodesic that is "this" if the central body has ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Latter Day MMX - discussion of LIGO
    ... > as gravitation is quite feeble. ... that was clearly different than magnetism. ... >> dipoles" are formed by the shifting of electron clouds ... >> repel the electron clouds of nearby non-polar molecules. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)