Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 03/02/05 

Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:01:15 +0100

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Creighton Hogg wrote:
>
>>On 1 Mar 2005, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Creighton Hogg wrote:
>>>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>You
>>>>realize you are talking to someone who insists that the Minkowski
>>>>metric
>>>>is not flat?
>>>
>>>Of course it's not "flat", nor is it curved,
>>>it is however nonorthogonal, and I'd be careful
>>>about describing 4D nonorthogonal spacetime as
>>>flat without a definition.
>>> Of course Riemann's B^a_bcd=0 is true, but
>>>that detail escapes most.
>>
>>Flat is defined as the Riemann curvature being uniformly zero.
>>Everyone understands that.
>
>
> Are *flat* metrics transformable to a
> cartesian metric? Is that always true?

Yes, I would say. Stop obfuscating.

[snip]

>>>The gluon exchange becomes elastic, the nucleus
>>>is streched to an ellipsoid, and the nucleus is
>>>eventually shredded under higher power, the
>>>Strong Force mediating gluon itself becomes a
>>>mere elastic band stretched to the breaking
>>>point.
>>
>>Nope, not elastic at all. The potential rise is linear at long
>>distances,
>>with a spring it's quadratic. Gluon screening leads to an
>>essentially
>>constant force at long distances. Not exactly Hooke's law, is it?
>>In
>>addition, at short distances there is no repulsive force, as you'd
>>expect
>>from a compressed spring. This description fails pretty badly.
>
>
> For a good read, check out this site...
>
> http://solomon.as.utexas.edu/~duncan/magnetar.html

Which has nothing to do with your claims about "gluon becomes
a mere elastic band" above.

Stop obfuscating.

[snip]

>>>In my view, Bjoern's thesis, using diagrams
>>>depicting the gluon as a sort of elastic is
>>>intuitively valid, given the effect of ultra
>>>magnetic fields, that have physical evidence
>>>from the recent Gamma Burst, albiet
>>>inconclusive, but reasonable.
>>
>>Ken, Bjoern's thesis contained the standard feynman diagram depiction
>>that
>>has been used for many, many years. It had nothing to do with
>>springs.
>>It was not an attempt to depict the gluon as a sort of elastic. It
>>was just standard notation.

I see that you conveniently ignored this.

>>>Mr. Hogg, I sure hope you now know that a
>>>gluon exchange is springy:-).
>>
>>Except that it isn't.
>
>
> All you need is more Tesla.

Plain nonsense.

Bye,
Bjoern