"bz" wrote in message 8.139...
"sue jahn" wrote in
:


"bz" wrote in message
98.139... snip
....
...http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034....
I am still working on understanding that paper, I don't understand what
ANY of that stuff has to do with 'g' as it is not [as far as we know]
electric or magnetic. Is there some particular gauge that gives us the
gravity metric, advanced, retarded or normal?



20. A. K. T. Assis, "Deriving gravitation from electromagnetism,"
Canadian Journal of Physics, Vol. 70, pp. 330-340 (1992). Abstract:
We present a generalized Weber force law for electromagnetism
including terms of fourth and higher orders in v/c. We show that these
extra terms yield an attractive force between two neutral dipoles in
which the negative charges oscillate around the positions of
equilibrium. This attractive force can be interpreted as the usual
Newtonian gravitational force as it is of the correct order of
magnitude, is along the line joining the dipoles, follows Newton's
action and reaction law, and falls off as the inverse square of the
distance.

http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/wpapers.htm


But gravity is isotropic [AFAWK] and all of my attempts to build isotropic
dipoles have flopped. [They keep falling over.]

*Induced dipoles* operate in any position. They automatically
conform to all kinds of variables.


That would seem to leave a bit of a black hole in their theory.

Webber almost makes more sense with his 'electrostatic attaction slightly
greater than electrostatic repulsion'. But anti matter shoots holes in
that.

I don't think you understand how induced dipoles work.
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
http://chsfpc5.chem.ncsu.edu/~franze...hop/fc/fc.html

There are no reports of London forces going on strike during a PET
scan.

Sue...


applause
[takes bow. Has wardrobe malfunction and falls from podium]
Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!

For your next trick, Janet, [sound theme song from the RHPS and lets do
the time warp again]

please critique ...
http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/FallingClocks.html

The clock mechanism is not specified so that it can relate to any
physical phenomena.. So I conclude it is actualy the article which
falls. )

I did think their building clocks with the 'specific gravity' of air was
interesting. I think they are sending up a trial balloon to see who is in
caloots.

What does maxwell/einstein say about two orbital clocks in counter
rotating motion in essentially the same orbital [we must assume they
miss each other].

Probably nothing. Maxwell/Einstein is about the forces between relative
moving particles so why should it talk about clocks?

BBBut, I thought AE went to a lot of trouble to talk about clocks....






--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

"sue jahn" wrote in
:


"bz" wrote in message
8.139...
"sue jahn" wrote in
:


"bz" wrote in message
98.139... snip
....
...http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034....
I am still working on understanding that paper, I don't understand
what ANY of that stuff has to do with 'g' as it is not [as far as we
know] electric or magnetic. Is there some particular gauge that
gives us the gravity metric, advanced, retarded or normal?



20. A. K. T. Assis, "Deriving gravitation from electromagnetism,"
Canadian Journal of Physics, Vol. 70, pp. 330-340 (1992). Abstract:
We present a generalized Weber force law for electromagnetism
including terms of fourth and higher orders in v/c. We show that
these extra terms yield an attractive force between two neutral
dipoles in which the negative charges oscillate around the positions
of equilibrium. This attractive force can be interpreted as the usual
Newtonian gravitational force as it is of the correct order of
magnitude, is along the line joining the dipoles, follows Newton's
action and reaction law, and falls off as the inverse square of the
distance.

http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/wpapers.htm


But gravity is isotropic [AFAWK] and all of my attempts to build
isotropic dipoles have flopped. [They keep falling over.]

*Induced dipoles* operate in any position. They automatically
conform to all kinds of variables.

"can be interpreted as the usual Newtonian gravitational force as it is of
the correct order of magnitude, is along the line joining the dipoles."

I thought they were postulating some kind of virtual photons being emitted by
the dipoles and the coupling was drawing things together.

A quick read can be wrong.

That would seem to leave a bit of a black hole in their theory.

Webber almost makes more sense with his 'electrostatic attaction
slightly greater than electrostatic repulsion'. But anti matter shoots
holes in that.

I don't think you understand how induced dipoles work.
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html

If you think van der waals forces are enough to give us gravity, you should
be able to take the Van Der Waals gas law and the ideal gas law equations and
derive the force of gravity.

(p+a/v^2) (v-b) = RT and PV = nRT or RT = PV/n

so (p+a/v^2)(v-b)=PV/n ... hm not sure how to get g out of there.
a is the measure of attractive force between molecules and b is the effective
volume of one mole of gas.
a = v^2 (b n p - n p v + P V)/n(v-b)

If we assume v=V and p=P then
a = - p v^3/(n(b-v)) - p v^2

I still don't see g hiding anywhere there, but perhaps it is in de-skies.

http://chsfpc5.chem.ncsu.edu/~franze...hop/fc/fc.html

see the equation following:
In the limit that áw kT the entire progression can be calculated using
They lost me in that last transform.


There are no reports of London forces going on strike during a PET
scan.

Depends on what kinda pets you have with you. You did mention snakes in
another post. I prefer turtles, myself.






--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

"bz" wrote in message 98.139...
"sue jahn" wrote in
:


"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
In sci.physics.relativity, sue jahn

wrote
on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:45:27 -0400
:

"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
"sue jahn" wrote in
:


"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
The Ghost In The Machine
wrote in news
in particular specifies a LHC top proton energy of 7 TeV,
which well exceeds the required energy for lightspeed.
However, last I looked (I'm having trouble finding it now)
the beam frequency was consistent with *photons* traveling
around the ring (within perhaps a few parts per million
or billion), as opposed to protons going many times FTL.

Within 36 ppb of c, if my figures are correct.

We have a syncrotron at lsu, see www.camd.lsu.edu, that runs at
about 1.5 GeV, which, if my calculations are correct, should, if
c were not the speed limit, give us electrons traveling at about
76.6 c. But the electrons are traveling at about 0.99983 c
[again, if my calculations are correct].

...and what happens to enforce the speed limit? ;-)

You know whacha get when you cross an elephant with a rhino?
'El-if-I-know'

No one knows for sure.

Ghost seems to know.
Did you read his post?

I have half a clue. However, that doesn't mean I know
*why* everything conforms to SR/GR and not to Newtonian
mechanics. I may never know why. :-)

In any event, it's the wrong question anyway; the theory
must fit the observations, not the other way around.
This is what is observed.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/...ynchrotron.gif

Only in the portions of the syncrotron where the beam is being bent.

In the linear accelerator sections, the beam is gaining energy.

Then we don't need colliders. ;-)



From:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/sc...ration_el.html

and
Bz: "Absent relativist mass, the electrons would be going about 77 c."

1.5 GeV electrons should be going 76.6 c in a purely Newtonian universe.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...msg/9fe549e357
2c6600?hl=en&

so ... E_kin = 1/2 mv^2 is closer than Bz's interpretation.
Just at the moment Bz has a vertical shaft running at multiple

The shafts are YOUR addition the the experiment. I was perfectly happy
sending the clock times back and forth in morse code at 30 wpm.

Threre are a 100 other was to demonstrate that particular
absurdity but that is one of the more popular ones. It in not
MY addition.

Sue...


speeds to keep twins metabolism in compliance and he can
show you Coulomb forces in the acceleratior that will move
our sun at least into Venus's orbit. So

E_kin = 1/2 mv^2 is plenty close enough... ;-)

Sue...


One of the observations ...is that synchrotrons, tokamaks,
and other such devices can't seem to get particles going
past lightspeed, even when one pours energy into them far
in excess of what the Newtonian limit requires.

For example, m_p = the mass of a proton = 1.672 621 71(29) * 10^-27 kg,
according to

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mp .

1/2 * m_p * c^2 = 7.51638712 * 10^-11 J = 469.13602 MeV.

That's all the energy one needs to accelerate a proton to lightspeed --
in theory. (Newtonian theory, anyway.)


[rest snipped]






--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

"sue jahn" wrote in
:


"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
"sue jahn" wrote in
:


"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
in message ...
In sci.physics.relativity, sue jahn

wrote
on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:45:27 -0400
:

"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
"sue jahn" wrote in
:


"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
The Ghost In The Machine
wrote in news
in particular specifies a LHC top proton energy of 7 TeV,
which well exceeds the required energy for lightspeed.
However, last I looked (I'm having trouble finding it now)
the beam frequency was consistent with *photons* traveling
around the ring (within perhaps a few parts per million
or billion), as opposed to protons going many times FTL.

Within 36 ppb of c, if my figures are correct.

We have a syncrotron at lsu, see www.camd.lsu.edu, that runs
at about 1.5 GeV, which, if my calculations are correct,
should, if c were not the speed limit, give us electrons
traveling at about 76.6 c. But the electrons are traveling at
about 0.99983 c [again, if my calculations are correct].

...and what happens to enforce the speed limit? ;-)

You know whacha get when you cross an elephant with a rhino?
'El-if-I-know'

No one knows for sure.

Ghost seems to know.
Did you read his post?

I have half a clue. However, that doesn't mean I know
*why* everything conforms to SR/GR and not to Newtonian
mechanics. I may never know why. :-)

In any event, it's the wrong question anyway; the theory
must fit the observations, not the other way around.
This is what is observed.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/...ynchrotron.gif

Only in the portions of the syncrotron where the beam is being bent.

In the linear accelerator sections, the beam is gaining energy.

Then we don't need colliders. ;-)

MaTTer of Echo-gnomics.
Cheaper to take two 0.9c gnomes and collide them than to make a 0.994 c
gnome to collide with a fixed gnome.

From:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/sc...neration_el.ht
ml

and
Bz: "Absent relativist mass, the electrons would be going about 77
c."

1.5 GeV electrons should be going 76.6 c in a purely Newtonian
universe.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ty/msg/9fe549e
357 2c6600?hl=en&

so ... E_kin = 1/2 mv^2 is closer than Bz's interpretation.
Just at the moment Bz has a vertical shaft running at multiple

The shafts are YOUR addition the the experiment. I was perfectly happy
sending the clock times back and forth in morse code at 30 wpm.

Threre are a 100 other was to demonstrate that particular
absurdity but that is one of the more popular ones. It in not
MY addition.

It soy-tainly weren't mine.
It goes against my grain.
If it ain't Mayan, it must be your'n.

.....




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

"bz" wrote in message 98.139...
"sue jahn" wrote in
:


"bz" wrote in message
8.139...
"sue jahn" wrote in
:


"bz" wrote in message
98.139... snip
....
...http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034....
I am still working on understanding that paper, I don't understand
what ANY of that stuff has to do with 'g' as it is not [as far as we
know] electric or magnetic. Is there some particular gauge that
gives us the gravity metric, advanced, retarded or normal?



20. A. K. T. Assis, "Deriving gravitation from electromagnetism,"
Canadian Journal of Physics, Vol. 70, pp. 330-340 (1992). Abstract:
We present a generalized Weber force law for electromagnetism
including terms of fourth and higher orders in v/c. We show that
these extra terms yield an attractive force between two neutral
dipoles in which the negative charges oscillate around the positions
of equilibrium. This attractive force can be interpreted as the usual
Newtonian gravitational force as it is of the correct order of
magnitude, is along the line joining the dipoles, follows Newton's
action and reaction law, and falls off as the inverse square of the
distance.

http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/wpapers.htm


But gravity is isotropic [AFAWK] and all of my attempts to build
isotropic dipoles have flopped. [They keep falling over.]

*Induced dipoles* operate in any position. They automatically
conform to all kinds of variables.


Fair warning: I only have a few weeks experience with this *mechanism*
so may not be able to answer with the certaintly I would like. Keep an
open mind and be prepared to do a little digging. Nearly every month
something related shows up on axriv so it isn't a dead horse.

"can be interpreted as the usual Newtonian gravitational force as it is of
the correct order of magnitude, is along the line joining the dipoles."

I thought they were postulating some kind of virtual photons being emitted by
the dipoles and the coupling was drawing things together.

The best analogy I can offer is dipole-dipole coupling is like sinusoidal
waves in a shaded pole magnet.

Induced dipole to Induced dipole coupling is more like spread spectrum
waves because they can adapt to each other simply by squishing orbitals.


A quick read can be wrong.

That would seem to leave a bit of a black hole in their theory.

Webber almost makes more sense with his 'electrostatic attaction
slightly greater than electrostatic repulsion'. But anti matter shoots
holes in that.

I don't think you understand how induced dipoles work.
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html

If you think van der waals forces are enough to give us gravity, you should
be able to take the Van Der Waals gas law and the ideal gas law equations and
derive the force of gravity.

(p+a/v^2) (v-b) = RT and PV = nRT or RT = PV/n

Not that simple. It is like having amperes law for a magnet (1/r^3)
but you need to reshape the Coulomb force as Maxwell and Weber
do to produce a very weak but attractive 1/r^2 force.

Think about radiation recoil/pressure as a repulsive complement to EM sine waves.

Think about gravity as an attractive compement to Electo-London SS waves.


so (p+a/v^2)(v-b)=PV/n ... hm not sure how to get g out of there.

The ratio of Coulomb force to gravity is huge. 10^32o 42 or sumsuch.

a is the measure of attractive force between molecules and b is the effective
volume of one mole of gas.
a = v^2 (b n p - n p v + P V)/n(v-b)

Remember the attraction between a pair of magnets gives little clue of
the repulsion due to radiation recoil/pressure.


If we assume v=V and p=P then
a = - p v^3/(n(b-v)) - p v^2

I still don't see g hiding anywhere there, but perhaps it is in de-skies.


http://chsfpc5.chem.ncsu.edu/~franze...hop/fc/fc.html

see the equation following:
In the limit that áw kT the entire progression can be calculated using
They lost me in that last transform.

Indeed. Most evolutions end up with a page or two of EigenFokkers
and satanic symbols but I have found a few URL's with as many words
as musical notes and deposited [scattered ;-) them in the Electro London
thread.



There are no reports of London forces going on strike during a PET
scan.

Depends on what kinda pets you have with you. You did mention snakes in
another post. I prefer turtles, myself.

It is no more snake oil than rockets under your chair and it does make a
bit of intuitive sense.

Sue...







--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 02:00:08 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
H@
wrote


So I can zoom of at 0.9c in my space ship with full confidence
that I wont feel any pain as my feet shrink to a fraction of
their normal size.

Assuming you're willing to wait for about a month to a year to
accelerate to 0.9 c, yes, you won't feel a thing. (Except for
the acceleration, of course.)

I, however, will notice that you:

[a] are moving very slowly, and
[b] are squished in the direction of travel.

But you shouldn't believe everything you see Ghost.
Do you believe everything dished out by FOX?



great!

geez, you people are really funny!
How did Einstein get away with this for so long?

You'll have to ask him. Since he's dead, there may be some
slightly practical difficulties in doing so... :-)

[.sigsnip]


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.

In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
H@
wrote
on Tue, 02 Aug 2005 01:57:06 GMT
:
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 02:00:08 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
H@
wrote


So I can zoom of at 0.9c in my space ship with full confidence
that I wont feel any pain as my feet shrink to a fraction of
their normal size.

Assuming you're willing to wait for about a month to a year to
accelerate to 0.9 c, yes, you won't feel a thing. (Except for
the acceleration, of course.)

I, however, will notice that you:

[a] are moving very slowly, and
[b] are squished in the direction of travel.

But you shouldn't believe everything you see Ghost.
Do you believe everything dished out by FOX?

300000000 m/s / 100 N/kg / (24 hr/day * 60 min/hr * 60 sec/min)
= 34.72 days. [Newtonian]

100 N/kg = just over 10 "g"'s. Fighter pilots can handle
about 10 g's head-to-butt, for short periods. One might
contemplate higher accelerations if stretched out, but
I don't know the maximum.

It wouldn't be comfortable.

As for time dialation:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...s/muonatm.html

gives a point of data for the approximate energy of muons
reaching sea level of 4 GeV, and

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ativ/muon.html

some theoretical calculations on survival calculations thereof.

Since the rest energy (m_mu * c^2) of a muon is 105 MeV, this
"proves" superluminal muons -- except that they wouldn't survive
to ground level as muons.

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mmuc2mev

[rest snipped]

--
#191,
Conclusion: a brutal ride.It's still legal to go .sigless.