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


<guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1142189220.449766.47990@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Hobba wrote:
<guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1142096677.425220.207700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Hobba wrote:
<guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1141921767.804453.128640@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.

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

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.


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.


A scalar as a 5th dimensions

Your inability to comprehend is showing again - that has nothing to do
with
it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza-Klein_theory
quote:

1. "Theodor Kaluza who extended general relativity to a
five-dimensional spacetime"
2. ....."the final part(meaning 5th dimension) an extra scalar field
now termed the "radion".

When giving direct quotes give direct quotes not mangled bits with you
own
words added whose sole purpose is to try and support what the article
does
not support - all such tactics do is provide further evidence for the
obvious - you comprehension abilty is appalling. The quote is:
'The resulting equations can be separated out into further sets of
equations, one of which is equivalent to Einstein field equations,
another
set equivalent to Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field and
the
final part an extra scalar field now termed the "radion".'

Is it my fault I can read better than you.

It is obvious your comprehension ability is appalling.

Often in discussions with your type it reaches a point like this. Can I
prove those who claim that obvious drivel make perfect sense, I am the one
that does not understand what they do etc, etc are wrong in the sense of
them agreeing with anything I say? Of course not. In the final analysis
people have read what I have to say, what you have to say, and can make up
their own minds.

Bye for now.
Bill


and the FINAL PART is an extra scalar field

also means

and the FINAL PART is the radion which is an extra scalar field and an
extra 5th dimension.

Look up the definition for radion from the same web link at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radion



3. Meaning of scalar and 5th dimension, quote: "The distance a particle
can travel before reaching its initial position is said to be the size
of the dimension."

If you meant size then you should have said size - the fact you did not
does
cause something to spring to mind however - let me think - oh yea got
it -
clutching at straws.


"a size" is nothing more than a length which is very abstract, since
this size is related to the size of a curvature therefore a perimeter
(otherwise you cannot return to the "initial position" as the theory
describes. And what better word for perimeter of spacetime other than
width (instead of size)...and to that I compared it to the width of a
balloon.

I appreciate your words "clutching at straws" because mine are that you
"never look at the whole picture", you over focus on improper details
and that you are "dishonest" for you will not acknowledge that I did
indeed interpret the theory properly.





#3 above speaks of a scalar and not a vector ....

Nothing in that article says anything about 'scalar as 5th
iemnstions' -

You seriously have a reading problem:

They say that the Radion is a scalar field (and not a vector field) and
that the Radion is a 5th dimension.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radion

what you wrote does not even make semantic sense - if you believe it
does -
as Tom would say - shrug. Either say what you meant in terms of
something
that does make sense - or well take up --------.


I would replied to your finger painting insulst with a kiddygarden
insult due to your inability to read but I will not since I admire your
research into such theories as this one.


example of vectors: x,y,z vectors form the balloon
exampe of scalar : the width of the balloon = scalar and the 5th
dimension


You easily say "no" that's not what they really mean but I haven't
found any arguments while reading the article that contradict it?

That because you do not understand the terms you bandy about.


I explained to you the terms and EXACTLY from where I got them with
direct quotes, it's you who cannot read and properly comprehend and
willl remain dishonest about all three of these facts.

Bill




seems too strange for my tastebuds,
strange how it can make a function out of the 4 other vectors with
it
also being a vector but a scalar instead??
Are they saying something like 5th dimension = scalar*x*y*z*t ?

No.



It seems almost (using 3d instead 4d as an example) like saying the
scalar width of an inflated baloon made of x,y,z dimensions forms
another dimension? Are they saying that intensity or density forms
a
5th dimension?

How about reading some articles on it and this time making an effort
to
understand what they say? To start you off here is one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza-Klein_theory

Bill





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.

Bill








.

Relevant Pages