Re: Does a Magnet's force weaken witht the distance cube?


Bill Hobba wrote:
<guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1142096036.545244.141960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Hobba wrote:
<guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1141921016.284062.228380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Hobba wrote:
<guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1141834335.950690.17520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html#isq


The link above shows Gravity, Light(photons), and Charge (I believe
sound waves also): all these weaken with the distance square.

How about Magnets...I think there's is the distance cube which is
strange since EM waves are made of photons and photons above weaken
with the distance square???

Then you thought wrong - magnets also obey the inverse square law. Of
course since magnetic monopoles have never been found the fact they
would
obey similar rules to charges is deduced.

Why would an opposite pole change it to 1/r^3 (from 1/r^2 for a
monopole), and same question for charges?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also from the same link, it makes me believe all these three forces
(Gravity, photons, charge) are the very same with the ***ONLY***
difference methaporicaly speaking is they each have a different
mass(energy)???

Then you are wrong. EM (unified by Maxwell in the 19th century) is
one
field described by a 4 vector. Gravity needs a 4x4 tensor called the
metric.

Do you mean EM uses x,y,z,t = 4 vector

No.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node117.html


very little explanation is provided, the variables aren't even defined

So when it says 'where phi is the scalar potential and A is the vector
potential' it is not defining variables? As usual you comprehension ability
needs work. All symbols used in the link are bog standard to physics -
either learn them or - well - take up finger painting.

Its amazing, not ONCE have you not been nit picky. You obviously know
that I can read and what I ment is all the other variables in the same
equation.




What is a 4x4 tensor is it 4 vectors x 4 vectors?


No.
http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/tc.html


found info about tensors but not 4x4 tensor, as well not much
explanation given for tensors

seems they us a matrix to formulate tensors ....perhaps 4 individual
coordinates made up of 4 vectors form a 4x4 algebreic matrix ?

A 4X4 tensor is not 4 individual coordinates as was explained in the link.
As usual your inability to comprehend is showing. Review
http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/Sec5.html


I'll give you a million$ if even one place says "4x4".

Further the formula has a deltax and a deltaX which I know not nor do
they explain the meaning.
I believe they start by saying that i & j in the formula represent "n"
integers with each vector field.
---------------------------------------

Secondly to teach someone the proper concept of a manifold, the tensor
should begin with the singularity (since it is the origin of spacetime)
and then gradually demonstrate how each vector builds up tensors into
finally forming the spacetime manifold.

If you do not understand it has it occurred to you that you need to study
the basics first? And without knowing such why do you feel compelled to
post
'Gravity most possibly a RESIDUAL Binding Force'. This is a bog standard
symptom of 'Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing
One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments'
http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html

I can't find it but look-up the web link that speaks of web link above
where "unskilled" people write 200 sentences in order to describe
meanings and in this case the meaning of unskilled and unaware.

To treat this condition as the article says: 'Paradoxically, improving the
skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence,
helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.' So here is a
book that explains the basics:
http://www.motionmountain.net/

Study it before posting in the future.

You pay so much attention to detail that you don't notice the whole
picture ONCE again.

Not one single location in the above link even speaks of tensors,
therefore if someone was to study it from beginning to end, he would
not gain one "ounce" more knowledge about tensors.

I believe that the basics of stress tensors is that they are based on
the "gradual" accumulation of each dimensional vectors that form
spacetime into a manifold.

the singularity, then 1axis, the 2nd axis, 3rd axis and finally the
time vector where as each new dimensional vector is a
cotangent/covariant of the prior vector.



Bill


is mass a 4x4 tensor?

No.





Therefore could Gravity, charge, photons be virtually the same in
the
same metaphorical way as light and EM waves are the same (both made
of
photons).

Check out Kaluza Klein theory.


Therefore the main difference between Gravity, charge, and photons
would be the Energy(mass) that they contain.

For Gravity = mass (= energy) = density * volume,
For Charge = intensity * volume,
For Photons = intensity *volume

???

No.


Ok no, but I believe that Energy from mass = density * volume and both
Energy from charge and photons can be expressed as intensity (of the
charge or of the photon) * volume?

Whatever gave you that idea?


density and intensity are both scalared multiples of energy.

Therefore if we exclude volume for the sake of simplification only the
the main characteristics between all three would be F = density or
intensty divided distance square?

No.

Bill




Bill






.

Relevant Pages
Loading