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


<guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1142378043.241353.21530@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Hobba wrote:
<guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1142186669.718487.251110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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.

Then that is what you should have said. I am getting a little sick of
the
rot you write and when I point out it is rot you claim I should have had
some kind of psychic ability to understand what you meant even though
that
is not what you said. The symbols used are bog standard in physics - one
does not need to define standard terms eg one knows $ means dollar
without
saying so providing one know some pretty basic stuff.


Well i don't know what an inverse triangle squared means, nor do I
remember or care to remember the symbols for permittivy and
permeability and density of charge.

That you do not understand what a bunch of buzzwords incoherently strung
together means is hardly surprising - but it has nothing to do with knowing
what standards terms in physics mean. Ether learn them or take up finger
painting.


You're being full dishonest knowing most people do not memorize these
variables.


Just like they do not memorize what $ means I suppose. It is obvious you
did not understand them is the first place so have nothing to memorize. As
Dirk said 'You are a retard with an attitude. What do you expect?'

Bill






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".

You are the one that mentioned 4x4..

No you did and said Gravity needs a 4x4 tensor called the metric.

and then gave the following link for tensors:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node117.html



Further the formula has a deltax and a deltaX which I know not nor do
they explain the meaning.

Delta X has a standrd meaning like a $ sign.

I believe they start by saying that i & j in the formula represent "n"
integers with each vector field.
---------------------------------------

The above does not even make sence - like much of what you wirte.

Correct, there explanation on tensors is very little, I cannot copy and
paste a single quote from the link you provided that would even
slightly explain there stupid complex formulas.


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.


The above is utter nonsense.

Ok as you wish, the basic abc is nonsense. Spacetime did not begin with
a singularity.
In fact the manifold continuum existed and was formed before hand.



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.

Them simply learn the basics of the English language - they are bog
standard
words.


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.

When you can communicate coherently then we can delve into the detail -
you
have not even reached that stage.


As I said not one location speaks of tensor, it's your link thus your
in error not me.


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,

You obviously have no idea what a 'singularity' is.


Your simply trying to be negative, you know space was formed after the
singularity, no dimension existed before the big bang's singularity.

If i say the flower is red. And another says you don't know what red
is, then there is no doubt that person is simply trying to be negative
or is conceided.

Bill

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