Re: Einstein's Mistakes


RP wrote:
> Joe Fischer wrote:
> > On Thu, RP <no_mail_no_spam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Make that zero *net* force rather than no force, and throw in an order
> >>of fries please. Zero macroscopic force doesn't imply zero microscopic
> >>force. Each and every charge within the mass is being forced
> >>continuously, though the average of all of the forces may vector sum to
> >>zero.
> >
> >
> > Ok.
> >
> >
> >>The forces on these charges are in turn due to electromagnetic
> >>interactions with absolutely every other charge in the universe that
> >>fall within their light cones.
> >
> >
> > Nonsense, although "the electrodynamics of
> > moving bodies" pays tribute to Euclidean space,
> > those who know relativity understand fully that
> > "space" has no attributes.
>
> Space has no attributes because there simply is no such thing. Descartes.
> Did I mention space at all in my argument? If so please point that
> reference out so I can clarify that I wasn't suggesting anything other
> than a displacement. I don't believe that I even mentioned the word though.
>
> >
> >
> >>Distant matter not only influences the
> >>motions of charges, but it is the only influence on the motion of
> >>charges. The word distant is also a relative term. All particles are
> >>distant wrt any given charge, the only difference being the actual
> >>magnitude of their separation. If distant galaxies have no effect on the
> >>motion of local charges, then neither do near charges, because wrt any
> >>charge whatsoever, all of the others are distant. Empirically we observe
> >>that light (which is just em radiation, which is in turn just an
> >>electromagnetic interaction between charges) does in fact extend
> >>completely across the known universe. QED.
> >
> >
> > So now light is also the carrier of inertia and gravity?
>
> Not light per se. I was only making the argument that em waves, in the
> form of light, do equate to interactions between charges with distance
> between them. All em interactions occur via em waves. What an em wave
> is OTOH is the topic of another conversation.
>
> >
> > The concept of spacetime is exactly the opposite
> > of what the novice may think.
>
> Lucky for me I'm not a novice.
>
> > Instead of a controlling
> > "medium", it is a stretchable maginary map, showing that
> > space has _NO_ attributes, and that there are no "forces"
> > acting at a distance.
>
> There is no space, and there are no forces. Thus no forces acting at a
> distance. OTOH, there are still actions at a distance, though forces are
> replaced with changes in the metric. There are changes in the metric
> over a distance. A matter of interpretation really, but to be precise,
> forces are entirely man made devices, while the metric is just a
> mathematical expression of empirically observed interactions.
> The latter is more satisfactory in that it ascribes no properties to
> particles other than their relative motions.
>
> > This may be difficult for Newtonians because Euclidean
> > space is essential for Newtonian mechanics.
>
> Not really, it's simply all that he had to work with at the time.
> Newtonian mechanics, or any other mechanics for that matter, can be
> charted out on any sort of space imaginable. All that is required is the
> appropriate transform.
>
> >
> > I am sorry that I cannot agree that light or any other
> > electromagnetic "charge" could be responsible for gravity
> > and inertia, because that would be an easy explanation,
> > but a more complicating -- wrong -- explanation.
> >
> > Joe Fischer
>
> Fortunately there are many who would disagree with you, and because of
> that it is inevitable that one day gravity will proved to be a special
> case of electromagnetism. I've already provided the logical basis for
> that unification, namely the distinction between the microscopic reality
> and the macroscopic trends. Newton's domain is wholly superficial and
> thus his forces are far from fundamental.

Unifying apples and oranges into a bowl of fruit doesn't convert an
orange into an apple.

Consider two experiments: The first has a block released from rest in a
gravitational field. The second is a block of electrically charged
material free to move in an electric field. In both experiments an
accelerometer is attached to the block. In the first experiment, the
accelerometer reads zero; in the second experiment it does not read
zero. How do you explain the discrepancy if gravity is a kind of EM
effect?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Einsteins Mistakes
    ... Zero macroscopic force doesn't imply zero microscopic ... >The forces on these charges are in turn due to electromagnetic ... The word distant is also a relative term. ... >motion of local charges, then neither do near charges, because wrt any ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins Mistakes
    ... >>>The forces on these charges are in turn due to electromagnetic ... The word distant is also a relative term. ... do equate to interactions between charges with distance ... All em interactions occur via em waves. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins Mistakes
    ... Zero macroscopic force doesn't imply zero microscopic force. ... interactions with absolutely every other charge in the universe that fall within their light cones. ... motions of charges, but it is the only influence on the motion of charges. ... "medium", it is a stretchable maginary map, showing that space has _NO_ attributes, and that there are no "forces" acting at a distance. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins Mistakes
    ... >>The forces on these charges are in turn due to electromagnetic ... The word distant is also a relative term. ... charge distributions centered on the ions, ... derivatives, or six spacetime derivatives, or any even number ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Charge
    ... >> In contrast, masses always attract. ... > different charges, may we say that such masses or fields are forces ... The propagator carries with it some ... Different interactions (e.g. electromagnetism and gravity and the ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast