Sue... schrieb:
On May 9, 11:00 am, Thomas Heger wrote:
Hi Ng
after thinking about this for a while I have to state, that the em-force
and gravity describe exactly the same 'mechanism'.
To about 8 orders of magnitude, that seems to be the case.
Charge and gravity do not act on the same property. And these terms
(mass and charge) are observed in different directions. What we call a
force is in Gr a geometric relation and could be described as the form
of a worldline. A charged particle is something we observe as a comoving
thing in space and compare its movement to an other co-moving object.
When we think about gravity, we think about the form of a worldline in
timelike direction and how that is influenced by other masses. So why is
the same mechanism of that different result?
First we're comparing different things. Second the idea of 'force' is
mainly wrong. My model is based on a flat spacetime and timelike
hyper-sheets that are piled up in timelike steps. Particles are certain
patterns within that model. This pattern has a trajetory or path through
that spacetime.
The curvature in timelike direction is almost zero, because light gets
deflected only within a massive body and the deflection participates
only according to density and the shadow volume, what is quite small.
TSo the same effect in spacelike direction acts different. The reason is
about how timelike steps are performed. My model uses quaternions and
rotation for that. I call that 'influence'. In timelike direction the
circle is zero, and in spacelike direction it's a maximum. This is why
you may think about spacetime as being oriented. To twist that
perpendicular to it's orientation is much tougher that aligned to that.
You could do that, but would need a lot of force. This is related to
various other phenomena of the same type: speed of light, the strong
force, lifetime of particles: you can perform timelike steps only in one
direction. This the direction of proper time. The reason for this is our
definition of time, on what we base all of our observations. In
spacetime on lightlike geodesics lights proper time stand still, or its
distribution in that direction is instantanious. But a small residue
remains and let us perform timelike steps. So light is so fast because
time is so 'slow', what make timelike patterns massive and spacelike
patterns charged.
It's not that obvious, but we define space according to ourselfs and
relate the world to us. But we are objects too. So we define space
according to our own understanding and call what's stable a massive
object. That is a definition and make everything relative to ourself. If
we could move through spacetime, we could see that matter and radiation
are mainly the same thing, but a view from different sides. So the force
of gravity is as much an artifact as charge and describe different
aspects of the same phenomenon.
Thomas Heger
s.
It's is different to us, since we give certain relations different
names. Gravity is acting on masses, that are somehow objects. Those are
stable somethings over some time. Atom in general are small and not
quite heavy (about 10^-27 kg and 10^-15 m in diameter ) Light is fast (3
10^8 m/s). That are in total small numbers, since the light is
influenced only within the objects). And it's not directed, since time
has no orientation.
If we think about charge, we assign something different to that
mechanism. That is how *space* behaves. That is how we describe movement
of these somethings in spacelike direction in near interaction with
something else. I call that a pattern (usually we call that a particle).
That has mass too. But if we're talking about charge, we address, how
that pattern is build. Those numbers are big: speed of light again and
the shadow area of that particle if watched from an other (now this is
big and spreading over some space, since we're talking about small
distances). These are big numbers since spacetime is somehow 'stiff'.
Yes. The numbers are about 22 orders of magnitude larger than we can
test experimentally.
That is oriented, since spacetime is anti-symmetric. But it's the same
mechanism. So we could possibly derive G by the maxwell equations.
Maxwell's equations assume one axis of symmetry that doesn't
necessarily
exist so molecular dynamics equations that can model London forces
are better suited for gravity/inertia modeling.
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
Sue...
(details in my new 'book'?. Still not much math within, but a lot of
drawings and links)
http://docs.google.com/Present?docid=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
TH