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/

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?

I think that there is an objective physic in existence that we cannot
fathom yet. We tend to make a physic out of our subjective
observations (relative). Do you really think that relative-based
observations (a partial set) can describe the overall objectivity (the
whole set)?

Can't anybody realise that velocities and addition of velocities depend
upon a rest-based theory called relativity that cannot synchronize
clocks except for rest-based relativity?

When did this universe last have rest? Ans: When we invented it.

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.

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'.

Yes.. that is the vein I am thinking in.


Acceleration is not limited to speed.

Indeed, I might have used a broader expression saying
we impart energy to the system. But it is energy with
a vector component.


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

In the case of Lorentz, Van Der Waal or London, the term force
seems correct. That is the reason I used it. Yes... it seems
unweildly. It may be a poor choice. But dicipline seems to demand
retaining the root term from Coulomb force until some other
derivation is shown.

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

I can not... but intuitivly, I assumed that a computer could.
http://www.kfa-juelich.de/zam/ZAMPeo...hing/UNAM_2005


I think that there is an objective physic in existence that we cannot
fathom yet. We tend to make a physic out of our subjective
observations (relative). Do you really think that relative-based
observations (a partial set) can describe the overall objectivity (the
whole set)?

No. In fact, my intent was to encompass the whole set. I should have
mentioned the sister thread 'Electro London Gravity'.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...dee0ace?hl=en&

Can't anybody realise that velocities and addition of velocities depend
upon a rest-based theory called relativity that cannot synchronize
clocks except for rest-based relativity?

I have not found this a viable statement. Even Einstein conditions
his version of it... ~and *apparent* incompatabiliy with Maxwell's
equations and the principle of relativity. Tho it is not a simple
relation, the *appearance* seems well accounted for we compare
the various points of view (gauges) we might apply to the issue.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing


When did this universe last have rest? Ans: When we invented it.

LOL

While it is true that relativity theory describes a timely form of
cause and effect, it is just locally applicable with locally applied
time.

The neighborhood of a few interacting molecules seems fairly
local. One need not venture far to be out of the near-field
where Van der Waals and London forces apply.

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.

Oh ???
Abstract The unexpected dynamic shift of the center of
mass for a rotating hemisphere is shown to produce a general
relativistic dipole field in the macroscopic scale. This
prompts us the question of what might be its cosmological implications.
....
http://www.physica.org/xml/article.a...v059a00339.xml


That is a interesing take on the issue but philosophy along the
lines of:
http://wine1.sb.fsu.edu/chm1045/note...l/IMG00002.GIF
from:
http://wine1.sb.fsu.edu/chm1045/note...l/Forces02.htm
....is more what I had in mind. )

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...

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.

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

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.

You are so far forward on your skis that you missed
a high crime right under your nose.


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.

So... where is the force term ?
When I push on a object, I expect it to push back?

Hint: We can't apply force to an object.
We must apply force *between* a pair of objects.

Now... !!! You can use your field equations to
show why the exponents in the these expression are
really the same.

Field intensity: 1/r^2
a = 1/2 mv^2

That assumes the two objects are far enough apart
to ignore Lorentz, Van der Waal and London force.

You are mis-spellin the word TWO
TOO means in addition to; also; furtha-more.

including a^2/s^4.
Hmmm.. That looks to be some dialect of the English
language that would be encouraging to see fall out
of all those Goo-Goo expressions.


Goo-Goo to you TOO ;-)
Soo...


Regards Sue
Ken S. Tucker

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 ),
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.

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

Sue...




I think that there is an objective physic in existence that we cannot
fathom yet. We tend to make a physic out of our subjective
observations (relative). Do you really think that relative-based
observations (a partial set) can describe the overall objectivity (the
whole set)?

Can't anybody realise that velocities and addition of velocities depend
upon a rest-based theory called relativity that cannot synchronize
clocks except for rest-based relativity?

When did this universe last have rest? Ans: When we invented it.

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.

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:

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...


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

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, and of course that makes it's fusion with
QT difficult because QT is a theory about relations,
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.
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

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.

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.

Noncontinum solution?
Didn't we know that was necessary from Maxwell's
scalar and vector components that have to be
patched-up with a retarded time before we are
even 1/4 wavelength from the structure?
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node46.html

The special theory of relativity assumes the existence of a unique
class of global coordinate systems - called inertial coordinates - with
respect to which the speed of light in vacuum is everywhere equal to
the constant c. It was natural, then, to express physical laws in terms
of this preferred class of coordinate systems, characterized by the
global invariance of the speed of light. In addition, the special
theory also strongly implied the fundamental equivalence of mass and
energy, according to which light (and every other form of energy) must
be regarded as possessing inertia. However, it soon became clear that
the global invariance of light speed together with the idea that energy
has inertia (as expressed in the famous relation E2 = m2 + |p|2) were
incompatible with one of the most firmly established empirical results
of physics, namely, the exact proportionality of inertial and
gravitational mass, which Einstein elevated to the status of a
Principle. This incompatibility led Einstein, as early as 1907, to the
belief that the global invariance of light speed, in the sense of the
special theory, could not be maintained. Indeed, he concluded that we
cannot assume, as do both Newtonian theory and special relativity, the
existence of any global inertial systems of coordinates (although we
can carry over the existence of a local system of inertial coordinates
in a vanishingly small region of spacetime around any event).
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm




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.

....and well it should if it insists that couplings
that are not light must propagate like light
anyway.


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.

I am assuming that would be a different way to
express the advanced and retarded solutions
for expressing the 1/r^3 magnetic and 1/r^2
Coulomb components.

The 'obsession' with time and speed of light
that is inhereted thru the use of a space-time
continum, seems more a help than a hinderace.

Contrast with:
http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~keithr/mo...al/node11.html
http://www.fisica.uniud.it/~ercolessi/md/md/node52.html

Eleventeen ways from Sunday we can show that
constant c electromagnetic field equations are
compatable with a relativistic paradigm, but
proof or conformance with the coupling modes
for light, doesn't necessarly tell us anything
about other coupling modes necessary to Coulomb,
VDW, London and gravity.

The space-time continum paradigm is tripping over
its own shoelaces before it even produces a model
for the simple 1/r^3 force, magnetism... and that
effect is part of its own foundation. :-/

Sue...


Regards Sue
Ken S. Tucker

Sue... mis-wrote:


The 'obsession' with time and speed of light
that is inhereted thru the use of a space-time
continum, seems more a
[hinderace] than a [help].
--

I can mess up like that consistantly by trying to
write balanced equations.

:-)
Sue...