Re: Sue's Experiment


guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Sue... wrote:
guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Sue... wrote:
guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

snip

Therefore if the rubber is indeed PERFECT cross-sectioned description
of space's curvature, then #1 maybe correct, and therefore as density
increases after a specific treshold gravity would start to decrease and
not increase (= two completely independent dents in the rubber ***
model".

Read the last two paragraphs which explain why it is far from perfect.

Sue...

snip

You seem to have said the rubber *** model brings the lines
(topological) closer together where as curvature of space and TENSORS
do not? Or are you trying to add another new hypotheses?

??????

Neither...
Grab the ends of a bungee cord and increase the
distance between them and chant three times:
"Sound doesn't go very far"

Then...

Grab a charged comb in one hand, a pithball in the
other. Increase the distance between them and chant
three times:
"light goes a long way; gravity goes a long way"

You're increasing the tension with the bungee cord = same as increasing
the charge or intensity of the comb

No... I said nothing about extra strokes of Schrodingers cat hair.
This is whrere you are running in the ditch. I am demonstrating
one force directly proportional to distance in contrast to another
force that is *inversely* proportional to distance.

There are not many material objects that exhibit the inverse
relation because it extends to infinity. 1/r^2



to increase the distance of a bungee "without" increasing the tension,
you would get a LONGER bungee cord and therefore the longer distance
between both ends.


The tensor calculus and topology is useless unless
you apply it to the relevant forces. The elastic force
INCREASED with distance. The Coulomb force
DECREASED with distance.


Once again, you are trying to deny old popular theory with a new
hypothesis.
It is not the electric nor the magnetic force that "curve space".

The more the mass the more the tension in the rubber the more the
gravity. No electric force in Einstein's relativity or spacetime
theory.

Replace all the springs on your automobile with
pairs of magnets and you will get the idea.

You can if you like say "suppose the volume of
milk in my bottle increased whenever I pour a glass".
You can concoct elaborate kitchens based on the
principle. But where will you find the magic bottles
to actually construct such a kitchen?

the bottle is not an elastic model or collision.

Gravity, Coulomb force and light diminish by 1/r^2.
so does sound, look it up.

You can't ingnore that in a model any more than
you can can ingore that self replentishing milk bottles
don't exist.

You can build springs and magnets with Coulomb force.
You can't build Coulomb force with springs and magnets.


Electric force is not a popular theory on curved space, it's a new
hypotheses only.

It is as old as Einstein. Why do you think he was deriving
gravity in the Lorenz electromagnetic gauge?

Is the 1905 paper about the Acoustics of moving bodies?


As for permittivity and permeability would not excist without
elasticity of the material (dielectric and coil) and tension in the
material (dielectric and coil.....google search "dielectric
displacement(stress)" and your love for "dipoles")

Replace the springs on your car with magnet pairs.
If it still works, post pictures and graphs then I consider
Googling something for you.

Sue...





Sue...

.

Quantcast