Re: Einstein's Mistakes



Sue... wrote: 
surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

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?



You are thinking of an accelerometer where all parts of the
accelerometer
have equivalent inductive (in the broadest sense) coupling. Simply
measure the acceleration as an increase in velocity and the condundrum
resolves.


You beat me to it. However, I was going to word it a bit differently. ;)

Richard Perry

.

Relevant Pages