Sue... wrote:
wrote:
sue jahn wrote:
Sue: paraphrase style in brackets [].

Woodward:
Roughly, the modern instantaneous action argument
goes as follows. In general relativity theory

matter "there" tells space "here" how to curve,
Sue:
[induced dipoles there tell induced dipoles here their shape]


and space "here" tells matter "here" how to move.
Sue:
[induced dipoles here attract induced dipoles there]


(Matter "here" also tells space "there" how to curve.)


Thus, in order to talk about any situation in dynamics
we must specify the distribution and motion of matter
throughout space. (Strictly speaking, we must provide
"initial data" on some suitably chosen "three dimensional
spacelike hypersurface".) The usual field equations for
gravity (Einstein's equations) are not enough, by
themselves, to do this it turns out. Because of the
finite propagation velocity built into them, we might
specify some distribution of matter that subsequently
leads to idiotic results. To make sure this doesn't
happen, our distribution of matter has to satisfy some
additional equations called "constraint" equations.
The neat thing about these constraint equations is that,
unlike the field equations, they're instantaneous.
(Technically, they're "elliptic" rather than "hyperbolic"
differential equations.) It's then claimed that inertia
is conveyed by the constraint equations -- instantaneously.
The use of constraint equations to communicate real physical
influences instantaneously is justified by appeal to the
instantaneous propagation of stationary electric fields
in the Coulomb gauge.
Appologies to:
James F. Woodward
http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/
http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/gen...ertia/nord.htm


The mystery in such a substitution is what mechanism
similar to...

============

RA AR
+- -+
-+ +-

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembo...ntermolec.html
http://web.umr.edu/~gbert/INTERACT/intermolecular.HTM
http://polymer.bu.edu/Wasser/robert/work/node9.html

============

...what mechanism can increase the attractive force
before an object and decrease the attractive force
behind an object, in proportion to the applied force
of acceleration?



Sue...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ric/elepe.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/elefor.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034





--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

xxein:

[Sue: ...what mechanism can increase the attractive force before an
object and decrease the attractive force behind an object, in
proportion to the applied force of acceleration?]

Gravity. The multi-orbital behavior 'moons'.

Acceleration is not limited to speed.

You wish to use the term "force" for this? I don't particularly mind,
but Einteinians do.

Can you define acceleration in a many-bodied gravitational system?

Actually, after a little prodding and harassment from KST ),

If you think I'm sexist, you should meet me in person,
I'm worse, :-).

I think we can.
If we gauge the force used to separate a pair of planets or
Cavendish weights, it is not hard to see the mechanism of
induced dipoles providing the reaction force we measure and
a conformance with both the inverse square law and
the the acceleration law.

1/r^2
a = 1/2 mv^2

When the two masses are far apart and we use a thin wire
or rod to conduct the force between, is is not so easy
to see how induced dipoles enter into the reaction force
or 'inertia'. The solution might be very simple.

All the other induced dipoles in the universe have
a 'grip' on the masses that will change only as
they approach more populus regions of space.

Some may object over concerns of instaneous action at
distance but that doesn't need to apply where the
coupling to existing Coulomb lines are locally modifed
as the structure of the induced dipole adapts to
the field.

I think that's the ticket. That adaptation results
in a gravitational attraction as a GR modification
to electrostratic force.

So... your holistic, or all is one, nutshell notion
seems it could be considered integral to inertial
behavior.

Yes, well written, that's what I think. Mach's
Principle is more clearly understood using
Maxwell's eqs when GR is accounted for.

Unfortunately, if we are correct, it would
predict a null result for the LIGO experiment,
and sofar that is the result. IOW's the g-waves
emit in EM spectrum.

Sue...

If you want I'll expand on the above.
....

While it is true that relativity theory describes a timely form of
cause and effect, it is just locally applicable with locally applied
time. It is very good... if you like a local physics that cannot
describe or correlate to quantums or strings. (I hate strings)

In a nutshell, we are in one, and nobody seems to realise it.

A preface in an abstract stating the UNIVERSE=1
is a very reasonble invariant, I've used it.
Agreeably
Ken

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Sue... wrote:
wrote:
sue jahn wrote:
Sue: paraphrase style in brackets [].

Woodward:
Roughly, the modern instantaneous action argument
goes as follows. In general relativity theory

matter "there" tells space "here" how to curve,
Sue:
[induced dipoles there tell induced dipoles here their shape]


and space "here" tells matter "here" how to move.
Sue:
[induced dipoles here attract induced dipoles there]


(Matter "here" also tells space "there" how to curve.)


Thus, in order to talk about any situation in dynamics
we must specify the distribution and motion of matter
throughout space. (Strictly speaking, we must provide
"initial data" on some suitably chosen "three dimensional
spacelike hypersurface".) The usual field equations for
gravity (Einstein's equations) are not enough, by
themselves, to do this it turns out. Because of the
finite propagation velocity built into them, we might
specify some distribution of matter that subsequently
leads to idiotic results. To make sure this doesn't
happen, our distribution of matter has to satisfy some
additional equations called "constraint" equations.
The neat thing about these constraint equations is that,
unlike the field equations, they're instantaneous.
(Technically, they're "elliptic" rather than "hyperbolic"
differential equations.) It's then claimed that inertia
is conveyed by the constraint equations -- instantaneously.
The use of constraint equations to communicate real physical
influences instantaneously is justified by appeal to the
instantaneous propagation of stationary electric fields
in the Coulomb gauge.
Appologies to:
James F. Woodward
http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/
http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/gen...ertia/nord.htm


The mystery in such a substitution is what mechanism
similar to...

============

RA AR
+- -+
-+ +-

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembo...ntermolec.html
http://web.umr.edu/~gbert/INTERACT/intermolecular.HTM
http://polymer.bu.edu/Wasser/robert/work/node9.html

============

...what mechanism can increase the attractive force
before an object and decrease the attractive force
behind an object, in proportion to the applied force
of acceleration?



Sue...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ric/elepe.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/elefor.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034





--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

xxein:

[Sue: ...what mechanism can increase the attractive force before an
object and decrease the attractive force behind an object, in
proportion to the applied force of acceleration?]

Gravity. The multi-orbital behavior 'moons'.

Acceleration is not limited to speed.

You wish to use the term "force" for this? I don't particularly mind,
but Einteinians do.

Can you define acceleration in a many-bodied gravitational system?

Actually, after a little prodding and harassment from KST ),

If you think I'm sexist, you should meet me in person,
I'm worse, :-).

I think we can.
If we gauge the force used to separate a pair of planets or
Cavendish weights, it is not hard to see the mechanism of
induced dipoles providing the reaction force we measure and
a conformance with both the inverse square law and
the the acceleration law.

1/r^2
a = 1/2 mv^2

When the two masses are far apart and we use a thin wire
or rod to conduct the force between, is is not so easy
to see how induced dipoles enter into the reaction force
or 'inertia'. The solution might be very simple.

All the other induced dipoles in the universe have
a 'grip' on the masses that will change only as
they approach more populus regions of space.

Some may object over concerns of instaneous action at
distance but that doesn't need to apply where the
coupling to existing Coulomb lines are locally modifed
as the structure of the induced dipole adapts to
the field.

I think that's the ticket. That adaptation results
in a gravitational attraction as a GR modification
to electrostratic force.

So... your holistic, or all is one, nutshell notion
seems it could be considered integral to inertial
behavior.

Yes, well written, that's what I think. Mach's
Principle is more clearly understood using
Maxwell's eqs when GR is accounted for.

Unfortunately, if we are correct, it would
predict a null result for the LIGO experiment,
and sofar that is the result. IOW's the g-waves
emit in EM spectrum.

Sue...

If you want I'll expand on the above.
...

While it is true that relativity theory describes a timely form of
cause and effect, it is just locally applicable with locally applied
time. It is very good... if you like a local physics that cannot
describe or correlate to quantums or strings. (I hate strings)

In a nutshell, we are in one, and nobody seems to realise it.

A preface in an abstract stating the UNIVERSE=1
is a very reasonble invariant, I've used it.
Agreeably
Ken

xxein: UNIVERSE=1 what? Stasis or dymamic? (Just an aside.)

I'll trust that you can help me with the below.

I am missing one (only one? I wish!) piece of math. Given a simple G,
M (in meters) and R, I can figure the 'ideal' timerates, escape
velocities etc., but I don't know how to figure out a specific velocity
under a specific circumstance --- that being: Even though the
integration and derivitive calc for acceleration, velocity and time is
very straightforward wrt a particular R, I don't know the calculus to
figure the grander scale where R varies.

The prime example is - how fast is a rock moving if dropped from 2
Earth radii to just as it approaches 1 Earth radii? Rem: this is the
ideal with no atmosphere and no otherwise motion between them (just a
pure m(1),m(test).

Having a general form of this with G, M, R and c will help me tie a lot
of loose ends.

The last time I asked (a few years ago), Ande452 only gave me a hint as
to powers (like I was supposed to know how to use them in a calc - or I
should take calc(XVI)). He acted like it was a mundane piece of
information with no scientific value except for a specific calculation.

Well, I sorely miss this relation and feel in my bones that it is very
important relation that may be a semi-Rosetta stone for understanding
this universe. I also feel that it can spell trouble for SR-GR in that
it might expose an unequality of great proportion if given a proper
consideration.

Otoh, it may help unite the different theories.

But, without any regard to any event, I want it as a tool to play with.

Can you express it so, or cite? This would be like the best of sex to
me (temporarily, until I need more).

Thx in advance for whatever you can provide. I just hope it is not
theory dependent (?).

wrote:
[...]
A preface in an abstract stating the UNIVERSE=1
is a very reasonble invariant, I've used it.
Agreeably
Ken

xxein: UNIVERSE=1 what? Stasis or dymamic? (Just an aside.)

Even in organic terms, you or me, an ant or a bee
has 1 universe.

I'll trust that you can help me with the below.

I am missing one (only one? I wish!) piece of math. Given a simple G,
M (in meters) and R, I can figure the 'ideal' timerates, escape
velocities etc., but I don't know how to figure out a specific velocity
under a specific circumstance --- that being: Even though the
integration and derivitive calc for acceleration, velocity and time is
very straightforward wrt a particular R, I don't know the calculus to
figure the grander scale where R varies.

The prime example is - how fast is a rock moving if dropped from 2
Earth radii to just as it approaches 1 Earth radii? Rem: this is the
ideal with no atmosphere and no otherwise motion between them (just a
pure m(1),m(test).

Having a general form of this with G, M, R and c will help me tie a lot
of loose ends.

That type of question is important in *Celestrial Mechanics*,

Escape Velocity = sqrt(2GM/R)

is what you want to understand.

In GR defining "M" and "R" is a bit more complicated.

The last time I asked (a few years ago), Ande452 only gave me a hint as
to powers (like I was supposed to know how to use them in a calc - or I
should take calc(XVI)). He acted like it was a mundane piece of
information with no scientific value except for a specific calculation.

Well, I sorely miss this relation and feel in my bones that it is very
important relation that may be a semi-Rosetta stone for understanding
this universe. I also feel that it can spell trouble for SR-GR in that
it might expose an unequality of great proportion if given a proper
consideration.

Otoh, it may help unite the different theories.
But, without any regard to any event, I want it as a tool to play with.

Sounds good, that same type of enquiry led to GR,
to start.

Can you express it so, or cite? This would be like the best of sex to
me (temporarily, until I need more).
Thx in advance for whatever you can provide. I just hope it is not
theory dependent (?).

Well spacecraft use Newtons Laws successfully.
Ken

wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Sue... wrote:
wrote:
sue jahn wrote:
Sue: paraphrase style in brackets [].

Woodward:
Roughly, the modern instantaneous action argument
goes as follows. In general relativity theory

matter "there" tells space "here" how to curve,
Sue:
[induced dipoles there tell induced dipoles here their shape]


and space "here" tells matter "here" how to move.
Sue:
[induced dipoles here attract induced dipoles there]


(Matter "here" also tells space "there" how to curve.)


Thus, in order to talk about any situation in dynamics
we must specify the distribution and motion of matter
throughout space. (Strictly speaking, we must provide
"initial data" on some suitably chosen "three dimensional
spacelike hypersurface".) The usual field equations for
gravity (Einstein's equations) are not enough, by
themselves, to do this it turns out. Because of the
finite propagation velocity built into them, we might
specify some distribution of matter that subsequently
leads to idiotic results. To make sure this doesn't
happen, our distribution of matter has to satisfy some
additional equations called "constraint" equations.
The neat thing about these constraint equations is that,
unlike the field equations, they're instantaneous.
(Technically, they're "elliptic" rather than "hyperbolic"
differential equations.) It's then claimed that inertia
is conveyed by the constraint equations -- instantaneously.
The use of constraint equations to communicate real physical
influences instantaneously is justified by appeal to the
instantaneous propagation of stationary electric fields
in the Coulomb gauge.
Appologies to:
James F. Woodward
http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/
http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/gen...ertia/nord.htm


The mystery in such a substitution is what mechanism
similar to...

============

RA AR
+- -+
-+ +-

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembo...ntermolec.html
http://web.umr.edu/~gbert/INTERACT/intermolecular.HTM
http://polymer.bu.edu/Wasser/robert/work/node9.html

============

...what mechanism can increase the attractive force
before an object and decrease the attractive force
behind an object, in proportion to the applied force
of acceleration?



Sue...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ric/elepe.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/elefor.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034





--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

xxein:

[Sue: ...what mechanism can increase the attractive force before an
object and decrease the attractive force behind an object, in
proportion to the applied force of acceleration?]

Gravity. The multi-orbital behavior 'moons'.

Acceleration is not limited to speed.

You wish to use the term "force" for this? I don't particularly mind,
but Einteinians do.

Can you define acceleration in a many-bodied gravitational system?

Actually, after a little prodding and harassment from KST ),

If you think I'm sexist, you should meet me in person,
I'm worse, :-).

I think we can.
If we gauge the force used to separate a pair of planets or
Cavendish weights, it is not hard to see the mechanism of
induced dipoles providing the reaction force we measure and
a conformance with both the inverse square law and
the the acceleration law.

1/r^2
a = 1/2 mv^2

When the two masses are far apart and we use a thin wire
or rod to conduct the force between, is is not so easy
to see how induced dipoles enter into the reaction force
or 'inertia'. The solution might be very simple.

All the other induced dipoles in the universe have
a 'grip' on the masses that will change only as
they approach more populus regions of space.

Some may object over concerns of instaneous action at
distance but that doesn't need to apply where the
coupling to existing Coulomb lines are locally modifed
as the structure of the induced dipole adapts to
the field.

I think that's the ticket. That adaptation results
in a gravitational attraction as a GR modification
to electrostratic force.

So... your holistic, or all is one, nutshell notion
seems it could be considered integral to inertial
behavior.

Yes, well written, that's what I think. Mach's
Principle is more clearly understood using
Maxwell's eqs when GR is accounted for.

Unfortunately, if we are correct, it would
predict a null result for the LIGO experiment,
and sofar that is the result. IOW's the g-waves
emit in EM spectrum.

Sue...

If you want I'll expand on the above.
...

While it is true that relativity theory describes a timely form of
cause and effect, it is just locally applicable with locally applied
time. It is very good... if you like a local physics that cannot
describe or correlate to quantums or strings. (I hate strings)

In a nutshell, we are in one, and nobody seems to realise it.

A preface in an abstract stating the UNIVERSE=1
is a very reasonble invariant, I've used it.
Agreeably
Ken

xxein: UNIVERSE=1 what? Stasis or dymamic? (Just an aside.)

I'll trust that you can help me with the below.

I am missing one (only one? I wish!) piece of math. Given a simple G,
M (in meters) and R, I can figure the 'ideal' timerates, escape
velocities etc., but I don't know how to figure out a specific velocity
under a specific circumstance --- that being: Even though the
integration and derivitive calc for acceleration, velocity and time is
very straightforward wrt a particular R, I don't know the calculus to
figure the grander scale where R varies.

The prime example is - how fast is a rock moving if dropped from 2
Earth radii to just as it approaches 1 Earth radii? Rem: this is the
ideal with no atmosphere and no otherwise motion between them (just a
pure m(1),m(test).

Having a general form of this with G, M, R and c will help me tie a lot
of loose ends.

Ahhh... you want to play hard-ball by putting the term 'c'
in the relation. We can get there from a global assumption
about conservation like e = mc^2. Look at KST's evolution
above whe

For example, take a pair of charges "a" and "b" and
they have some configurational energy,

p = a*b/s, in ergs for example.

Slap the behind (dividing by volume) and get the
energy density,

T00= p/s^3 == a*b/s^4.

Now, pause and ponder this,

T00= (a/s^2)*(b/s^2) = E(a)*E(b) = a*b/s^4,

where E(a) & E(b) are Electric fields of charge
"a" and some other charges.

"the above departs from the classical solution
to EFE's that uses a continum, but who cares, that's
pretty junky now. "

KST has good instincts about finding the shortest path
to a solution but that grand assumption about the
conservation of energy in the universe is troubling?
But you'd rather see the evolution begin with universe
having an impedance of 377 ohms, as in this
relation?

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif from:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html

Here is such an evolution that is incomplete.
It considers the forces which diminish by
1/r, 1/r^2 and 1/r^3 anisotropcally.

'Electromagnetic energy and momentum '
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node90.html

You want rigorous field equations that will include forces
diminishing by up to 1/r^12 so can see where the Coulomb
force is a trillon, trillon, trillon times greater than
gravity and inertia?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/elefor.html
Ha! ROFL... That could end up looking like:
'The Ewald Sum'
http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~keithr/mo...al/node11.html
or you might need a big computer
http://www.kfa-juelich.de/zam/ZAMPeo...hing/UNAM_2005


The last time I asked (a few years ago), Ande452 only gave me a hint as
to powers (like I was supposed to know how to use them in a calc - or I
should take calc(XVI)). He acted like it was a mundane piece of
information with no scientific value except for a specific calculation.

Well, I sorely miss this relation and feel in my bones that it is very
important relation that may be a semi-Rosetta stone for understanding
this universe. I also feel that it can spell trouble for SR-GR in that
it might expose an unequality of great proportion if given a proper
consideration.

It seems it would spell trouble for GR SR because they are not
well behaved when things move at other than c.


Otoh, it may help unite the different theories.

Yes, at least on a macro scale it seem to move in the right direction.

But, without any regard to any event, I want it as a tool to play with.

Is this a fair name for the tool?

"Long Range Interactions in Many-Particle Simulation" (pdf)
P. Gibbon and G. Sutmann.
http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/datapoo...long_range.pdf

Can you express it so, or cite? This would be like the best of sex to
me (temporarily, until I need more).

Thx in advance for whatever you can provide. I just hope it is not
theory dependent (?).

The forces between dipoles is a rather simple and well
established 'theory'. ;-)

Sue...

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
wrote:
[...]
A preface in an abstract stating the UNIVERSE=1
is a very reasonble invariant, I've used it.
Agreeably
Ken

xxein: UNIVERSE=1 what? Stasis or dymamic? (Just an aside.)

Even in organic terms, you or me, an ant or a bee
has 1 universe.

I'll trust that you can help me with the below.

I am missing one (only one? I wish!) piece of math. Given a simple G,
M (in meters) and R, I can figure the 'ideal' timerates, escape
velocities etc., but I don't know how to figure out a specific velocity
under a specific circumstance --- that being: Even though the
integration and derivitive calc for acceleration, velocity and time is
very straightforward wrt a particular R, I don't know the calculus to
figure the grander scale where R varies.

The prime example is - how fast is a rock moving if dropped from 2
Earth radii to just as it approaches 1 Earth radii? Rem: this is the
ideal with no atmosphere and no otherwise motion between them (just a
pure m(1),m(test).

Having a general form of this with G, M, R and c will help me tie a lot
of loose ends.

That type of question is important in *Celestrial Mechanics*,

Escape Velocity = sqrt(2GM/R)

is what you want to understand.


xxein: No. If dropped from 2R instead of infinity. Like if you drop
something from the Empire State Bldg. instead of ten meters the splat
velocity will be greater. Sqrt(2GM/R) is a drop from infinity. What
is the splat velocity from 2R to R? Remember that R changes throughout
the fall. The sqrt(2GM/R)is probably a math shorthand for some
intergral that indicates "from R(=inf) to R(=surface of a mass), splat
v=sqrt(2GM/R)". Repeat with "from R(=2R) to R(=X=any point above or
including the surface of a mass), splat v=???".

Do you understand what I am asking now?

Sue... wrote:
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Sue... wrote:
wrote:
sue jahn wrote:
Sue: paraphrase style in brackets [].

Woodward:
Roughly, the modern instantaneous action argument
goes as follows. In general relativity theory

matter "there" tells space "here" how to curve,
Sue:
[induced dipoles there tell induced dipoles here their shape]


and space "here" tells matter "here" how to move.
Sue:
[induced dipoles here attract induced dipoles there]


(Matter "here" also tells space "there" how to curve.)


Thus, in order to talk about any situation in dynamics
we must specify the distribution and motion of matter
throughout space. (Strictly speaking, we must provide
"initial data" on some suitably chosen "three dimensional
spacelike hypersurface".) The usual field equations for
gravity (Einstein's equations) are not enough, by
themselves, to do this it turns out. Because of the
finite propagation velocity built into them, we might
specify some distribution of matter that subsequently
leads to idiotic results. To make sure this doesn't
happen, our distribution of matter has to satisfy some
additional equations called "constraint" equations.
The neat thing about these constraint equations is that,
unlike the field equations, they're instantaneous.
(Technically, they're "elliptic" rather than "hyperbolic"
differential equations.) It's then claimed that inertia
is conveyed by the constraint equations -- instantaneously.
The use of constraint equations to communicate real physical
influences instantaneously is justified by appeal to the
instantaneous propagation of stationary electric fields
in the Coulomb gauge.
Appologies to:
James F. Woodward
http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/
http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/gen...ertia/nord.htm


The mystery in such a substitution is what mechanism
similar to...

============

RA AR
+- -+
-+ +-

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembo...ntermolec.html
http://web.umr.edu/~gbert/INTERACT/intermolecular.HTM
http://polymer.bu.edu/Wasser/robert/work/node9.html

============

...what mechanism can increase the attractive force
before an object and decrease the attractive force
behind an object, in proportion to the applied force
of acceleration?



Sue...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ric/elepe.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/elefor.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034





--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

xxein:

[Sue: ...what mechanism can increase the attractive force before an
object and decrease the attractive force behind an object, in
proportion to the applied force of acceleration?]

Gravity. The multi-orbital behavior 'moons'.

Acceleration is not limited to speed.

You wish to use the term "force" for this? I don't particularly mind,
but Einteinians do.

Can you define acceleration in a many-bodied gravitational system?

Actually, after a little prodding and harassment from KST ),

If you think I'm sexist, you should meet me in person,
I'm worse, :-).

I think we can.
If we gauge the force used to separate a pair of planets or
Cavendish weights, it is not hard to see the mechanism of
induced dipoles providing the reaction force we measure and
a conformance with both the inverse square law and
the the acceleration law.

1/r^2
a = 1/2 mv^2

When the two masses are far apart and we use a thin wire
or rod to conduct the force between, is is not so easy
to see how induced dipoles enter into the reaction force
or 'inertia'. The solution might be very simple.

All the other induced dipoles in the universe have
a 'grip' on the masses that will change only as
they approach more populus regions of space.

Some may object over concerns of instaneous action at
distance but that doesn't need to apply where the
coupling to existing Coulomb lines are locally modifed
as the structure of the induced dipole adapts to
the field.

I think that's the ticket. That adaptation results
in a gravitational attraction as a GR modification
to electrostratic force.

So... your holistic, or all is one, nutshell notion
seems it could be considered integral to inertial
behavior.

Yes, well written, that's what I think. Mach's
Principle is more clearly understood using
Maxwell's eqs when GR is accounted for.

Unfortunately, if we are correct, it would
predict a null result for the LIGO experiment,
and sofar that is the result. IOW's the g-waves
emit in EM spectrum.

Sue...

If you want I'll expand on the above.
...

While it is true that relativity theory describes a timely form of
cause and effect, it is just locally applicable with locally applied
time. It is very good... if you like a local physics that cannot
describe or correlate to quantums or strings. (I hate strings)

In a nutshell, we are in one, and nobody seems to realise it.

A preface in an abstract stating the UNIVERSE=1
is a very reasonble invariant, I've used it.
Agreeably
Ken

xxein: UNIVERSE=1 what? Stasis or dymamic? (Just an aside.)

I'll trust that you can help me with the below.

I am missing one (only one? I wish!) piece of math. Given a simple G,
M (in meters) and R, I can figure the 'ideal' timerates, escape
velocities etc., but I don't know how to figure out a specific velocity
under a specific circumstance --- that being: Even though the
integration and derivitive calc for acceleration, velocity and time is
very straightforward wrt a particular R, I don't know the calculus to
figure the grander scale where R varies.

The prime example is - how fast is a rock moving if dropped from 2
Earth radii to just as it approaches 1 Earth radii? Rem: this is the
ideal with no atmosphere and no otherwise motion between them (just a
pure m(1),m(test).

Having a general form of this with G, M, R and c will help me tie a lot
of loose ends.

Ahhh... you want to play hard-ball by putting the term 'c'
in the relation. We can get there from a global assumption
about conservation like e = mc^2. Look at KST's evolution
above whe

For example, take a pair of charges "a" and "b" and
they have some configurational energy,

p = a*b/s, in ergs for example.

Slap the behind (dividing by volume) and get the
energy density,

T00= p/s^3 == a*b/s^4.

Now, pause and ponder this,

T00= (a/s^2)*(b/s^2) = E(a)*E(b) = a*b/s^4,

where E(a) & E(b) are Electric fields of charge
"a" and some other charges.

"the above departs from the classical solution
to EFE's that uses a continum, but who cares, that's
pretty junky now. "

KST has good instincts about finding the shortest path
to a solution but that grand assumption about the
conservation of energy in the universe is troubling?
But you'd rather see the evolution begin with universe
having an impedance of 377 ohms, as in this
relation?

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif from:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html

Here is such an evolution that is incomplete.
It considers the forces which diminish by
1/r, 1/r^2 and 1/r^3 anisotropcally.

'Electromagnetic energy and momentum '
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node90.html

You want rigorous field equations that will include forces
diminishing by up to 1/r^12 so can see where the Coulomb
force is a trillon, trillon, trillon times greater than
gravity and inertia?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/elefor.html
Ha! ROFL... That could end up looking like:
'The Ewald Sum'
http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~keithr/mo...al/node11.html
or you might need a big computer
http://www.kfa-juelich.de/zam/ZAMPeo...hing/UNAM_2005


The last time I asked (a few years ago), Ande452 only gave me a hint as
to powers (like I was supposed to know how to use them in a calc - or I
should take calc(XVI)). He acted like it was a mundane piece of
information with no scientific value except for a specific calculation.

Well, I sorely miss this relation and feel in my bones that it is very
important relation that may be a semi-Rosetta stone for understanding
this universe. I also feel that it can spell trouble for SR-GR in that
it might expose an unequality of great proportion if given a proper
consideration.

It seems it would spell trouble for GR SR because they are not
well behaved when things move at other than c.


Otoh, it may help unite the different theories.

Yes, at least on a macro scale it seem to move in the right direction.

But, without any regard to any event, I want it as a tool to play with.

Is this a fair name for the tool?

"Long Range Interactions in Many-Particle Simulation" (pdf)
P. Gibbon and G. Sutmann.
http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/datapoo...long_range.pdf

Can you express it so, or cite? This would be like the best of sex to
me (temporarily, until I need more).

Thx in advance for whatever you can provide. I just hope it is not
theory dependent (?).

The forces between dipoles is a rather simple and well
established 'theory'. ;-)

Sue...

xxein: See my follow-up to KST. It should have a very macro answer in
the proper context.

wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
wrote:
[...]
A preface in an abstract stating the UNIVERSE=1
is a very reasonble invariant, I've used it.
Agreeably
Ken

xxein: UNIVERSE=1 what? Stasis or dymamic? (Just an aside.)

Even in organic terms, you or me, an ant or a bee
has 1 universe.

I'll trust that you can help me with the below.

I am missing one (only one? I wish!) piece of math. Given a simple G,
M (in meters) and R, I can figure the 'ideal' timerates, escape
velocities etc., but I don't know how to figure out a specific velocity
under a specific circumstance --- that being: Even though the
integration and derivitive calc for acceleration, velocity and time is
very straightforward wrt a particular R, I don't know the calculus to
figure the grander scale where R varies.

The prime example is - how fast is a rock moving if dropped from 2
Earth radii to just as it approaches 1 Earth radii? Rem: this is the
ideal with no atmosphere and no otherwise motion between them (just a
pure m(1),m(test).

Having a general form of this with G, M, R and c will help me tie a lot
of loose ends.

That type of question is important in *Celestrial Mechanics*,

Escape Velocity = sqrt(2GM/R)

is what you want to understand.


xxein: No. If dropped from 2R instead of infinity. Like if you drop
something from the Empire State Bldg. instead of ten meters the splat
velocity will be greater. Sqrt(2GM/R) is a drop from infinity. What
is the splat velocity from 2R to R? Remember that R changes throughout
the fall. The sqrt(2GM/R)is probably a math shorthand for some
intergral that indicates "from R(=inf) to R(=surface of a mass), splat
v=sqrt(2GM/R)". Repeat with "from R(=2R) to R(=X=any point above or
including the surface of a mass), splat v=???".

Do you understand what I am asking now?

I'll assume you were just being complete including c.
Let's try to ignore it.
Force increases with radius below surface.
Force diminishes by the square of the radius above
surface.
The curve is ugly and the equation not much prettier.
I think the problem might be the interpretation of
the word infinity. It is not the same as setting
the focal length of a lens to infinity.
If an object occupies 2 degress of your field of
view, you can always double your distance and
half the apparent angular size. This is how we
'expect' to approach infinity.

Not so with Coulomb force and gravity You have to
put on your Machian hat and consider the whole
universe is always acting on the test mass. The
earth acts to distribute the force of the universe
assymetrically over the test mass to produce the
acceleration vector.

We can't approach infinity. We approach 377 ohms
impedance because the universe is homogenous.
As far as we know, we can't move to a position
where the charges that comprise the universe
will not try to drag photons out of us.

That isn't the compact equation you seek, but
perhaps the different POV about the mathematical
use of the term 'infinity' will help to get there.

Sue...

wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
wrote:
[...]
A preface in an abstract stating the UNIVERSE=1
is a very reasonble invariant, I've used it.
Agreeably
Ken

xxein: UNIVERSE=1 what? Stasis or dymamic? (Just an aside.)

Even in organic terms, you or me, an ant or a bee
has 1 universe.

I'll trust that you can help me with the below.

I am missing one (only one? I wish!) piece of math. Given a simple G,
M (in meters) and R, I can figure the 'ideal' timerates, escape
velocities etc., but I don't know how to figure out a specific velocity
under a specific circumstance --- that being: Even though the
integration and derivitive calc for acceleration, velocity and time is
very straightforward wrt a particular R, I don't know the calculus to
figure the grander scale where R varies.

The prime example is - how fast is a rock moving if dropped from 2
Earth radii to just as it approaches 1 Earth radii? Rem: this is the
ideal with no atmosphere and no otherwise motion between them (just a
pure m(1),m(test).

Having a general form of this with G, M, R and c will help me tie a lot
of loose ends.

That type of question is important in *Celestrial Mechanics*,

Escape Velocity = sqrt(2GM/R)

is what you want to understand.


xxein: No. If dropped from 2R instead of infinity. Like if you drop
something from the Empire State Bldg. instead of ten meters the splat
velocity will be greater. Sqrt(2GM/R) is a drop from infinity. What
is the splat velocity from 2R to R? Remember that R changes throughout
the fall. The sqrt(2GM/R)is probably a math shorthand for some
intergral that indicates "from R(=inf) to R(=surface of a mass), splat
v=sqrt(2GM/R)". Repeat with "from R(=2R) to R(=X=any point above or
including the surface of a mass), splat v=???".

Do you understand what I am asking now?

Yes I do, books on this subject are available
at a library by people who have written this
stuff up clearly and you can verify are
qualified to answer you.

Anyway, IIRC, the differences in g-potential
convert to kinetic energy, (Newtonian approx),

E = m*v^2/2 = m*PHI2 - m*PHI1

But that is modified in GR.

You may want to post that question in a new
thread because the're quite a number of people
who are very good at teaching.
Ken

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:54:38 -0400, Ken S. Tucker
wrote:


Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Sue... wrote:
...
Many thanks for the obeservation about the term 'force'.
At some point, a poor choice between force, energy, acceleration
or potential can hide the trees in the forest. The correct choice
would show the clearest relation between mass, gravity and inertia
yet be something a bit more formal than a professor riding in
a lift.
Sue...

Hi Sue, Ken here...

Your cuddling to the Electo-vacuum solution to the EFE's
(Einstein Field Equations), however in agreement with
your inclination, the solution departs from a continuum.
That is to say, the EFE's do require relations in the
way you are seeking.

The wiki URL you posted in another thread, inspired a
bit of window shopping and I sort of like the way this
outfit looks on induced dipoles:

I should have provided that ref to you, so you
don't think I'm a TOTAL lunatic, but just partly
loony:-). That wiki on GR is pretty good, the
authors are trying hard, I follow the discussion.

Phenomena which can be modeled by null dust solutions include:
a beam of massless neutrinos (treated according to classical physics),
a very high-frequency electromagnetic wave,
a beam of incoherent electromagnetic radiation.
In particular, a plane wave of incoherent electromagnetic
radiation is a linear superposition of plane waves, all moving
in the same direction but having randomly chosen phases and
frequencies. (Even though the Einstein field equation is
nonlinear, a linear superposition of comoving plane waves is
possible.) Here, each electromagnetic plane wave has a well
defined frequency and phase, but the superposition does not.
Individual electromagnetic plane waves are modeled by null
electrovacuum solutions, while an incoherent mixture can be
modeled by a null dust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_dust_solution

I don't read the shorthand well enough to know it that is
what you are modeling below. I am not at all comfortable
with the freewheeling interchange of E and B *outside the
particle* but that may be valid way to derive forces from
incoherent radiation. A null dust seems to be the best
description of induced dipoles.
Sue...

I think no one is satisfied yet. It seems GR is
being treated as a extension of Newtons continuum
theory,

The matter that fills the universe requires that
we consider a continuum.
and of course that makes it's fusion with
QT difficult because QT is a theory about relations,

The forces between charges requires that we consider
the relation between the entities.

and not about points on a continuum. OTOH I see GR
as naturally a relation theory, such as relating
two simple charges "a" and "b" below.

So yes. You can't have biscuits with jam using
all bread or all jam. )

Sue...

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

For example, take a pair of charges "a" and "b" and
they have some configurational energy,

p = a*b/s, in ergs for example.

Slap the behind (dividing by volume) and get the
energy density,

T00= p/s^3 == a*b/s^4.

Now, pause and ponder this,

T00= (a/s^2)*(b/s^2) = E(a)*E(b) = a*b/s^4,

where E(a) & E(b) are Electric fields of charge
"a" and some other charges.

Sue, the above departs from the classical solution
to EFE's that uses a continum, but who cares, that's
pretty junky now.

If you like that's Tuckers "noncontinuum solution to
the Electrovacuum EFE's", I mean that.

Once T00 is defined that way, we can enjoy G00 by

G_uv = T_uv , G00 = T00.

OO scary equation, I'm shakin in my boots.

Twist & shout,

G00 = NABLA^2 g00 = T00.

Solve for g00 and find,

g00 = 1 + (a/s)(b/s),

provided the charges don't masturbate, so terms
like self energization "a^2/s" are excluded
including a^2/s^4.

Sue want's a solution using discrete charges
I figure we should give girls what they need.

At this point we have a closed logic system
consistent with the EFE's and discrete, where
discrete means charge "a" is in a different
location than "b", and the metric is defined
by the relation. See, the continuum died.

With Sues ableness to put things behind us,
we can proceed to observe the asymmetry of
the relative geodesics of charges "a" and
"b".

I'll stop here, take questions, and if you
want, show how nonsymetrical metrics give
the EM field.

Regards Sue
Ken S. Tucker




--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

sue jahn wrote:
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:54:38 -0400, Ken S. Tucker
wrote:


Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Sue... wrote:
...
Many thanks for the obeservation about the term 'force'.
At some point, a poor choice between force, energy, acceleration
or potential can hide the trees in the forest. The correct choice
would show the clearest relation between mass, gravity and inertia
yet be something a bit more formal than a professor riding in
a lift.
Sue...

Hi Sue, Ken here...

Your cuddling to the Electo-vacuum solution to the EFE's
(Einstein Field Equations), however in agreement with
your inclination, the solution departs from a continuum.
That is to say, the EFE's do require relations in the
way you are seeking.

The wiki URL you posted in another thread, inspired a
bit of window shopping and I sort of like the way this
outfit looks on induced dipoles:

I should have provided that ref to you, so you
don't think I'm a TOTAL lunatic, but just partly
loony:-). That wiki on GR is pretty good, the
authors are trying hard, I follow the discussion.

Phenomena which can be modeled by null dust solutions include:
a beam of massless neutrinos (treated according to classical physics),
a very high-frequency electromagnetic wave,
a beam of incoherent electromagnetic radiation.
In particular, a plane wave of incoherent electromagnetic
radiation is a linear superposition of plane waves, all moving
in the same direction but having randomly chosen phases and
frequencies. (Even though the Einstein field equation is
nonlinear, a linear superposition of comoving plane waves is
possible.) Here, each electromagnetic plane wave has a well
defined frequency and phase, but the superposition does not.
Individual electromagnetic plane waves are modeled by null
electrovacuum solutions, while an incoherent mixture can be
modeled by a null dust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_dust_solution

I don't read the shorthand well enough to know it that is
what you are modeling below. I am not at all comfortable
with the freewheeling interchange of E and B *outside the
particle* but that may be valid way to derive forces from
incoherent radiation. A null dust seems to be the best
description of induced dipoles.
Sue...

I think no one is satisfied yet. It seems GR is
being treated as a extension of Newtons continuum
theory,

The matter that fills the universe requires that
we consider a continuum.
and of course that makes it's fusion with
QT difficult because QT is a theory about relations,

The forces between charges requires that we consider
the relation between the entities.

and not about points on a continuum. OTOH I see GR
as naturally a relation theory, such as relating
two simple charges "a" and "b" below.

So yes. You can't have biscuits with jam using
all bread or all jam. )

Sue...

Hi Sue, have a quick glance at

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf

that Fredifizzx helped me with.
It's only 2 pages, but it connects a few dots.

Also G. Hansen's post to "what is about gravity that
slows light" today is really good.
Regards
Ken