Ken S. Tucker wrote:
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

OK...
I got lost in the tensor notaton but gained enoungh
footing to see that equation 4 looks ~similar~ to
3d + 1t induced dipole equations.

I was not able to, but perhaps you can,
repeat the evolution and show that
electromagnetism repels.
That would require swapping b with -b?
I couldn't find a good excuse to do that. (

Sue...


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

Thanks for lookin Sue...

Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
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

OK...
I got lost in the tensor notaton but gained enoungh
footing to see that equation 4 looks ~similar~ to
3d + 1t induced dipole equations.

Good, I wrote/derived equation (4) so it applied
to 3D space and still hold. When extended by
covariant equations into 4D it becomes quite
sophisticated but revealing details.

((I had to put in Eqs(1)...(3)
to add some pedigree
so the Grist's will
respect me)).

The whole idea on *boiling down* to (4) and then
showing how intimate that is with GR above, then
using EM, and seeing how Newtons gravity emerges
is to show a reasonable idea of how we can see
in a few steps an intro to Unified Field Theory.

I was not able to, but perhaps you can,
repeat the evolution and show that
electromagnetism repels.
That would require swapping b with -b?
I couldn't find a good excuse to do that. (
Sue...

Wow, Sue, a penetrating question, never expected it!
(I suspect you already know some of the answer and
so I think your question is a bit rhetorical, but I'll
respond as if it isn't,, ok :-).

AE in GR suggested and subsequently proved,

Energy =(c^4/G)*Length.

Have fun and put that another way,

DE = (c^4/G)*DL .

That in conjuction with Eq.(4) per ref,

S^2 = X^2 + ab Eq(4)

accounts for the source of electrostatic forces,
as well as gravitational forces.

I think I can demo that off Eq.(4) using some
basic algebra if you want.

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Thanks for lookin Sue...

Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
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

OK...
I got lost in the tensor notaton but gained enoungh
footing to see that equation 4 looks ~similar~ to
3d + 1t induced dipole equations.

Good, I wrote/derived equation (4) so it applied
to 3D space and still hold. When extended by
covariant equations into 4D it becomes quite
sophisticated but revealing details.

((I had to put in Eqs(1)...(3)
to add some pedigree
so the Grist's will
respect me)).

The whole idea on *boiling down* to (4) and then
showing how intimate that is with GR above, then
using EM, and seeing how Newtons gravity emerges
is to show a reasonable idea of how we can see
in a few steps an intro to Unified Field Theory.

I was not able to, but perhaps you can,
repeat the evolution and show that
electromagnetism repels.
That would require swapping b with -b?
I couldn't find a good excuse to do that. (
Sue...

Wow, Sue, a penetrating question, never expected it!
(I suspect you already know some of the answer and
so I think your question is a bit rhetorical, but I'll
respond as if it isn't,, ok :-).

Well... it seemed a fair test for a mulit body
solution but after some tho't I realised it will
depend on the temperature of the masses. Heat
will do the swapping of b with -b and that will
affect both the EM pressure and gravitational
attraction... hopefully in equal ammounts.



AE in GR suggested and subsequently proved,

Energy =(c^4/G)*Length.

That could make sense:
http://planck.com/threepenny/html/chap03.html


Have fun and put that another way,

DE = (c^4/G)*DL .

That in conjuction with Eq.(4) per ref,

S^2 = X^2 + ab Eq(4)

accounts for the source of electrostatic forces,
as well as gravitational forces.

I think I can demo that off Eq.(4) using some
basic algebra if you want.

Factors like 10^42 don't fall out of basic algebra. )
I need to digest both those papers together and be
convinced we aren't just basing every thing on a
Cavendish balance and electrometer measurement and
never actually deriving one from the other.
Either you have reduced Gibbon's work by about
36 pages... or we overlooked something real important.
http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon

)
Sue...

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Hi Sue and all,

Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Thanks for lookin Sue...
[big snip}

Wow, Sue, a penetrating question, never expected it!
(I suspect you already know some of the answer and
so I think your question is a bit rhetorical, but I'll
respond as if it isn't,, ok :-).

Well... it seemed a fair test for a mulit body
solution but after some tho't I realised it will
depend on the temperature of the masses. Heat
will do the swapping of b with -b and that will
affect both the EM pressure and gravitational
attraction... hopefully in equal ammounts.

Yes I think that's true. I simplify to naked static
charges in,

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

but certainly a more detailed analysis provides
radiation when "a" and "b" change the're radar
distance "S", as temperature would create.

AE in GR suggested and subsequently proved,

Energy =(c^4/G)*Length.

That could make sense:
http://planck.com/threepenny/html/chap03.html

Well, I'm a cynic, so I the hit the math and
simed on computers and found the deflection of
light corresponded to the removal a length
equivalent to the GR prediction Mass=1.47 km,
in the case of the Sun.
I'm ok with classical GR, as far as it goes.

Have fun and put that another way,

DE = (c^4/G)*DL .

That in conjuction with Eq.(4) per ref,

S^2 = X^2 + ab Eq(4)

accounts for the source of electrostatic forces,
as well as gravitational forces.

I think I can demo that off Eq.(4) using some
basic algebra if you want.

Factors like 10^42 don't fall out of basic algebra. )
I need to digest both those papers together and be
convinced we aren't just basing every thing on a
Cavendish balance and electrometer measurement and
never actually deriving one from the other.
Either you have reduced Gibbon's work by about
36 pages... or we overlooked something real important.
http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon

Sue, sit down and play with a pair of magnets,
there's real forces there that separate those
magnets in space and time. I see how GR explains
why that happens. The big amplifier is found in,

DE = (c^4/G)*DL .

(makes SR's mc^2 look like a fart!)

Let's pull GR's Unitivity solution,

S^2 = X^2 + ab Eq(4).

DS =/= DX , DL = DS - DX.

EM FORCE = DE/DX = (c^4/G)* DL/DX.

From the analysis of a "charge couple" in GR,
we can see from Eq.(4) how GR predicts EM force
and, in turn, gravitation as a residual EM effect.
That's why GR works for me.

I believe what I write because I see an over-all
organization in the universe, where attraction
is a wee bit greater than repulsion, I'll bet
Sue would call that Love = residual attraction.

Ken S. Tucker
kxsxt

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Hi Sue and all,

Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Thanks for lookin Sue...
[big snip}

Wow, Sue, a penetrating question, never expected it!
(I suspect you already know some of the answer and
so I think your question is a bit rhetorical, but I'll
respond as if it isn't,, ok :-).

Well... it seemed a fair test for a mulit body
solution but after some tho't I realised it will
depend on the temperature of the masses. Heat
will do the swapping of b with -b and that will
affect both the EM pressure and gravitational
attraction... hopefully in equal ammounts.

Yes I think that's true. I simplify to naked static
charges in,

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

but certainly a more detailed analysis provides
radiation when "a" and "b" change the're radar
distance "S", as temperature would create.

AE in GR suggested and subsequently proved,

Energy =(c^4/G)*Length.

That could make sense:
http://planck.com/threepenny/html/chap03.html

Well, I'm a cynic, so I the hit the math and
simed on computers and found the deflection of
light corresponded to the removal a length
equivalent to the GR prediction Mass=1.47 km,
in the case of the Sun.
I'm ok with classical GR, as far as it goes.

Have fun and put that another way,

DE = (c^4/G)*DL .

That in conjuction with Eq.(4) per ref,

S^2 = X^2 + ab Eq(4)

accounts for the source of electrostatic forces,
as well as gravitational forces.

I think I can demo that off Eq.(4) using some
basic algebra if you want.

Factors like 10^42 don't fall out of basic algebra. )
I need to digest both those papers together and be
convinced we aren't just basing every thing on a
Cavendish balance and electrometer measurement and
never actually deriving one from the other.
Either you have reduced Gibbon's work by about
36 pages... or we overlooked something real important.
http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon

Sue, sit down and play with a pair of magnets,

OK, I am playing. How does this look?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_integral

there's real forces there that separate those
magnets in space and time. I see how GR explains
why that happens. The big amplifier is found in,

Whatchu mean *time* you krazy kanook! )

====================================|
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Introduction
Coulomb's law
The electric scalar potential

Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Introduction
Faraday's law
Electric scalar potential?
====================================|
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin.../lectures.html


DE = (c^4/G)*DL .

(makes SR's mc^2 look like a fart!)

That IS a big number... Hmmm
OK, ~10^42 might fall out of that.


Let's pull GR's Unitivity solution,

S^2 = X^2 + ab Eq(4).

DS =/= DX , DL = DS - DX.

EM FORCE = DE/DX = (c^4/G)* DL/DX.

From the analysis of a "charge couple" in GR,
we can see from Eq.(4) how GR predicts EM force
and, in turn, gravitation as a residual EM effect.
That's why GR works for me.

I believe what I write because I see an over-all
organization in the universe, where attraction
is a wee bit greater than repulsion, I'll bet
Sue would call that Love = residual attraction.

No... Sue says *love* is what makes people crazy
enough to see 4d clocks respond to 3d motion.
More dicipline we need!
http://www.users.qwest.net/~efotheri...dominatrix.jpg

Sue...


Ken S. Tucker
kxsxt

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Hi Sue and all,
|
| Sue... wrote:
| Ken S. Tucker wrote:
| Thanks for lookin Sue...
| [big snip}
|
| Wow, Sue, a penetrating question, never expected it!
| (I suspect you already know some of the answer and
| so I think your question is a bit rhetorical, but I'll
| respond as if it isn't,, ok :-).
|
| Well... it seemed a fair test for a mulit body
| solution but after some tho't I realised it will
| depend on the temperature of the masses. Heat
| will do the swapping of b with -b and that will
| affect both the EM pressure and gravitational
| attraction... hopefully in equal ammounts.
|
| Yes I think that's true. I simplify to naked static
| charges in,
|
| http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf
|
| but certainly a more detailed analysis provides
| radiation when "a" and "b" change the're radar
| distance "S", as temperature would create.
|
| AE in GR suggested and subsequently proved,
|
| Energy =(c^4/G)*Length.
|
| That could make sense:
| http://planck.com/threepenny/html/chap03.html
|
| Well, I'm a cynic, so I the hit the math and
| simed on computers and found the deflection of
| light corresponded to the removal a length
| equivalent to the GR prediction Mass=1.47 km,
| in the case of the Sun.
| I'm ok with classical GR, as far as it goes.
|
| Have fun and put that another way,
|
| DE = (c^4/G)*DL .
|
| That in conjuction with Eq.(4) per ref,
|
| S^2 = X^2 + ab Eq(4)
|
| accounts for the source of electrostatic forces,
| as well as gravitational forces.
|
| I think I can demo that off Eq.(4) using some
| basic algebra if you want.
|
| Factors like 10^42 don't fall out of basic algebra. )
| I need to digest both those papers together and be
| convinced we aren't just basing every thing on a
| Cavendish balance and electrometer measurement and
| never actually deriving one from the other.
| Either you have reduced Gibbon's work by about
| 36 pages... or we overlooked something real important.
| http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon
|
| Sue, sit down and play with a pair of magnets,
| there's real forces there that separate those
| magnets in space and time. I see how GR explains
| why that happens. The big amplifier is found in,
|
| DE = (c^4/G)*DL .
|
| (makes SR's mc^2 look like a fart!)
|
| Let's pull GR's Unitivity solution,
|
| S^2 = X^2 + ab Eq(4).
|
| DS =/= DX , DL = DS - DX.
|
| EM FORCE = DE/DX = (c^4/G)* DL/DX.
|
| From the analysis of a "charge couple" in GR,
| we can see from Eq.(4) how GR predicts EM force
| and, in turn, gravitation as a residual EM effect.
| That's why GR works for me.
|
| I believe what I write because I see an over-all
| organization in the universe, where attraction
| is a wee bit greater than repulsion, I'll bet
| Sue would call that Love = residual attraction.

And QVC helps because then we can model EM as a curvature of spacetime
also. In fact, when playing with those magnets, it is pretty easy to
see that those magnets are highly curving spacetime wrt the magnets. No
magic required! ;-)

FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps

http://www.vacuum-physics.com

"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Ken S. Tucker wrote:
| Hi Sue and all,
|
| Sue... wrote:
| Ken S. Tucker wrote:
| Thanks for lookin Sue...
| [big snip}
|
| Wow, Sue, a penetrating question, never expected it!
| (I suspect you already know some of the answer and
| so I think your question is a bit rhetorical, but I'll
| respond as if it isn't,, ok :-).
|
| Well... it seemed a fair test for a mulit body
| solution but after some tho't I realised it will
| depend on the temperature of the masses. Heat
| will do the swapping of b with -b and that will
| affect both the EM pressure and gravitational
| attraction... hopefully in equal ammounts.
|
| Yes I think that's true. I simplify to naked static
| charges in,
|
| http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf
|
| but certainly a more detailed analysis provides
| radiation when "a" and "b" change the're radar
| distance "S", as temperature would create.
|
| AE in GR suggested and subsequently proved,
|
| Energy =(c^4/G)*Length.
|
| That could make sense:
| http://planck.com/threepenny/html/chap03.html
|
| Well, I'm a cynic, so I the hit the math and
| simed on computers and found the deflection of
| light corresponded to the removal a length
| equivalent to the GR prediction Mass=1.47 km,
| in the case of the Sun.
| I'm ok with classical GR, as far as it goes.
|
| Have fun and put that another way,
|
| DE = (c^4/G)*DL .
|
| That in conjuction with Eq.(4) per ref,
|
| S^2 = X^2 + ab Eq(4)
|
| accounts for the source of electrostatic forces,
| as well as gravitational forces.
|
| I think I can demo that off Eq.(4) using some
| basic algebra if you want.
|
| Factors like 10^42 don't fall out of basic algebra. )
| I need to digest both those papers together and be
| convinced we aren't just basing every thing on a
| Cavendish balance and electrometer measurement and
| never actually deriving one from the other.
| Either you have reduced Gibbon's work by about
| 36 pages... or we overlooked something real important.
| http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon
|
| Sue, sit down and play with a pair of magnets,
|
| OK, I am playing. How does this look?:
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_integral
|
| there's real forces there that separate those
| magnets in space and time. I see how GR explains
| why that happens. The big amplifier is found in,
|
| Whatchu mean *time* you krazy kanook! )
|
| ====================================|
| Time-independent Maxwell equations
| Introduction
| Coulomb's law
| The electric scalar potential
|
| Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
| Introduction
| Faraday's law
| Electric scalar potential?
| ====================================|
| http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin.../lectures.html
|
|
| DE = (c^4/G)*DL .
|
| (makes SR's mc^2 look like a fart!)

Depends on how big the m is. ;-)

| That IS a big number... Hmmm
| OK, ~10^42 might fall out of that.

Ken might be just a tad high on that. ;-) Christoph Schiller's max
force = c^4/4G. LOL!

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0309118

Try to equate that to the vacuum expectation value of 246 GeV. Maybe
works OK in 8D.

FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps

http://www.vacuum-physics.com

FrediFizzx wrote:
snip

And QVC helps because then we can model EM as a curvature of spacetime
also. In fact, when playing with those magnets, it is pretty easy to
see that those magnets are highly curving spacetime wrt the magnets. No
magic required! ;-)

*Homogenous* space-time you mean?

If you don't see 1/r^3... then you don't see magnets.
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html

Half the volume of your 4d space-time is null and
it is too easy to put things there which don't exist.

Thus, charges *appear* to emit only retarded
waves, which agrees with our everyday experience.
Clearly, in this model we have side-stepped the
problem of a time asymmetric Green's function by
adopting time asymmetric boundary conditions to
the universe; i.e., the distant charges in the
universe absorb retarded waves and reflect advanced
waves. This is possible because the absorption takes
place at the end of the universe (i.e., at the
``big crunch,'' or whatever) and the reflection
takes place at the beginning of the universe (i.e.,
at the ``big bang''). It is quite plausible that
the state of the universe (and, hence, its interaction
with electromagnetic waves) is completely different
at these two times. It should be pointed out that
the Feynman-Wheeler model runs into trouble when one
tries to combine electromagnetism with quantum mechanics.
These difficulties have yet to be resolved, so at
present the status of this model is that it is
``an interesting idea'' but it is still not fully
accepted into the canon of physics.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node46.html

'Space-Time'
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node13.html

But... If we put all the matter and all the space into
a blender, and push the 'puree' button, your SI MKS
compatable paradigm looks pretty close to me. )

In cgs, we don't have imagine spin faries making
permeability out where no structures exist to
support it and we don't have to explain how to
make four telescopes share one photon.

ESO Press Release 16/02: Four Eyes Are Better.
VLT Interferometer Passes Another Technical Hurdle.
(26/September/2002).
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-16-02.html

Sue...



FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps

http://www.vacuum-physics.com

Hi Sue Fred and all...

Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Hi Sue and all,

Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Thanks for lookin Sue...
[big snip}

Wow, Sue, a penetrating question, never expected it!
(I suspect you already know some of the answer and
so I think your question is a bit rhetorical, but I'll
respond as if it isn't,, ok :-).

Well... it seemed a fair test for a mulit body
solution but after some tho't I realised it will
depend on the temperature of the masses. Heat
will do the swapping of b with -b and that will
affect both the EM pressure and gravitational
attraction... hopefully in equal ammounts.

Yes I think that's true. I simplify to naked static
charges in,

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

but certainly a more detailed analysis provides
radiation when "a" and "b" change the're radar
distance "S", as temperature would create.

AE in GR suggested and subsequently proved,

Energy =(c^4/G)*Length.

That could make sense:
http://planck.com/threepenny/html/chap03.html

Well, I'm a cynic, so I the hit the math and
simed on computers and found the deflection of
light corresponded to the removal a length
equivalent to the GR prediction Mass=1.47 km,
in the case of the Sun.
I'm ok with classical GR, as far as it goes.

Have fun and put that another way,

DE = (c^4/G)*DL .

That in conjuction with Eq.(4) per ref,

S^2 = X^2 + ab Eq(4)

accounts for the source of electrostatic forces,
as well as gravitational forces.

I think I can demo that off Eq.(4) using some
basic algebra if you want.

Factors like 10^42 don't fall out of basic algebra. )
I need to digest both those papers together and be
convinced we aren't just basing every thing on a
Cavendish balance and electrometer measurement and
never actually deriving one from the other.
Either you have reduced Gibbon's work by about
36 pages... or we overlooked something real important.
http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon

Sue, sit down and play with a pair of magnets,

OK, I am playing. How does this look?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_integral

More complicated than needed at first.

there's real forces there that separate those
magnets in space and time. I see how GR explains
why that happens. The big amplifier is found in,

Whatchu mean *time* you krazy kanook! )

I'm not kanook, my step parents are half North
American!

====================================|
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Introduction
Coulomb's law
The electric scalar potential

Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Introduction
Faraday's law
Electric scalar potential?
====================================|
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin.../lectures.html


DE = (c^4/G)*DL .

(makes SR's mc^2 look like a fart!)

That IS a big number... Hmmm
OK, ~10^42 might fall out of that.

Yup, E=mc^2 , E = L*c^4/G,

Let's pull GR's Unitivity solution,

S^2 = X^2 + ab Eq(4).

DS =/= DX , DL = DS - DX.

EM FORCE = DE/DX = (c^4/G)* DL/DX.

From the analysis of a "charge couple" in GR,
we can see from Eq.(4) how GR predicts EM force
and, in turn, gravitation as a residual EM effect.
That's why GR works for me.

I believe what I write because I see an over-all
organization in the universe, where attraction
is a wee bit greater than repulsion, I'll bet
Sue would call that Love = residual attraction.

No... Sue says *love* is what makes people crazy
enough to see 4d clocks respond to 3d motion.
More dicipline we need!
http://www.users.qwest.net/~efotheri...dominatrix.jpg

Ok, I get to wear the spikey, unless otherwise!!!

Sue...


Ken S. Tucker
kxsxt

FrediFizzx wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Ken S. Tucker wrote:
| Hi Sue and all,
|
| Sue... wrote:
| Ken S. Tucker wrote:
| Thanks for lookin Sue...
| [big snip}
|
| Wow, Sue, a penetrating question, never expected it!
| (I suspect you already know some of the answer and
| so I think your question is a bit rhetorical, but I'll
| respond as if it isn't,, ok :-).
|
| Well... it seemed a fair test for a mulit body
| solution but after some tho't I realised it will
| depend on the temperature of the masses. Heat
| will do the swapping of b with -b and that will
| affect both the EM pressure and gravitational
| attraction... hopefully in equal ammounts.
|
| Yes I think that's true. I simplify to naked static
| charges in,
|
| http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf
|
| but certainly a more detailed analysis provides
| radiation when "a" and "b" change the're radar
| distance "S", as temperature would create.
|
| AE in GR suggested and subsequently proved,
|
| Energy =(c^4/G)*Length.
|
| That could make sense:
| http://planck.com/threepenny/html/chap03.html
|
| Well, I'm a cynic, so I the hit the math and
| simed on computers and found the deflection of
| light corresponded to the removal a length
| equivalent to the GR prediction Mass=1.47 km,
| in the case of the Sun.
| I'm ok with classical GR, as far as it goes.
|
| Have fun and put that another way,
|
| DE = (c^4/G)*DL .
|
| That in conjuction with Eq.(4) per ref,
|
| S^2 = X^2 + ab Eq(4)
|
| accounts for the source of electrostatic forces,
| as well as gravitational forces.
|
| I think I can demo that off Eq.(4) using some
| basic algebra if you want.
|
| Factors like 10^42 don't fall out of basic algebra. )
| I need to digest both those papers together and be
| convinced we aren't just basing every thing on a
| Cavendish balance and electrometer measurement and
| never actually deriving one from the other.
| Either you have reduced Gibbon's work by about
| 36 pages... or we overlooked something real important.
| http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon
|
| Sue, sit down and play with a pair of magnets,
|
| OK, I am playing. How does this look?:
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_integral
|
| there's real forces there that separate those
| magnets in space and time. I see how GR explains
| why that happens. The big amplifier is found in,
|
| Whatchu mean *time* you krazy kanook! )
|
| ====================================|
| Time-independent Maxwell equations
| Introduction
| Coulomb's law
| The electric scalar potential
|
| Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
| Introduction
| Faraday's law
| Electric scalar potential?
| ====================================|
| http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin.../lectures.html
|
|
| DE = (c^4/G)*DL .
|
| (makes SR's mc^2 look like a fart!)

Depends on how big the m is. ;-)

| That IS a big number... Hmmm
| OK, ~10^42 might fall out of that.

Ken might be just a tad high on that. ;-) Christoph Schiller's max
force = c^4/4G. LOL!

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0309118

Indeed! Page 4 *does* equate c^4 to ~10^42

Beyond that... Ugggh,
There is a bit too much based on what has not
been disproven about angels dancing on pins.

A narrative always seems to take that course
whenever the the name Schwarzschild appears
absent the definition of a clock and accelerometer.

Sigh... :-(




Try to equate that to the vacuum expectation value of 246 GeV. Maybe
works OK in 8D.

8d ? Yikes! Are you a kanook too?
I should probably find out what that means to
a Canadian. It might be worse than I intend.


can~uck n. a.
picky, marked by extreme care in treatment of details; "a
meticulous craftsman"; "almost worryingly meticulous in his business
formalities"
punctilious

marked by precise accordance with details; "was worryingly
meticulous about trivial details"; "punctilious in his attention to
rules of etiquette"
http://www.redgreen.com/files/layout/washing.jpg

)
Sue...


FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps

http://www.vacuum-physics.com