"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
If General relativity is truly general, then it should easily
predict magnetic, Van der Waals and London Forces.
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Introduction
Coulomb's law
The electric scalar potential
Gauss' law
Poisson's equation
Ampère's experiments
The Lorentz force
Ampère's law
Magnetic monopoles?
Ampère's circuital law
Helmholtz's theorem
The magnetic vector potential
The Biot-Savart law
Electrostatics and magnetostatics
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Introduction
Faraday's law
Electric scalar potential?
Gauge transformations
The displacement current
Potential formulation
Electromagnetic waves
Green's functions
Retarded potentials
Advanced potentials?
Retarded fields
Summary
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin.../lectures.html
Next: Smoothed Particle Mesh Ewald
Up: Long Ranged Electrostatic (Coulombic)
Previous: Coulomb Sum with Distance
http://www.cse.clrc.ac.uk/msi/softwa...N2/node65.html
GR's mathematical space is a co-ordinate system with inertia
*defined* into its rules of construction. The presence
of mass alters the co-ordinate system.
True, we are given no mechanism how mass alters
abstract lines and how the abstract lines alter the
motion of mass.
If we say induced dipoles are the mechanism which
directs force to the centre of a magnet and which
directs force to the barycentre of a mass, is that
really mechanistically more correct than saying
the abstract space is altered?
The GR proponent might paraphrase the now tired exchange
with the woman who won't go to bed for $50 but will
for $500,000:
~We have established that mechanisms are described
in abstract terms... we are just arguing about what is
an acceptable degree of abstraction.~
IMHO... GR is not an acceptable degree of abstraction
because it offers no foundation to a deeper understanding
that one can have with an understanding of induced
dipoles. At the surface of the earth or the surface of
a bar magnet, GR seems devoid of any formalism
to transition between 1/r^2 and r attenuations.
If Machian rather than Newtonian inerta is operational
at atomic scales, then GR would seem to be hopelessly
in error.
Is that from Eccles-ass-teasers?
Androcles.
Sue...
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral