🚀 go-pugleaf

Sue... wrote: > > Joe Fischer wrote:
> > On Thu,  RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Make that zero *net* force rather than no force, and throw in an order
> > >of fries please. Zero macroscopic force doesn't imply zero microscopic
> > >force. Each and every charge within the mass is being forced
> > >continuously, though the average of all of the forces may vector sum to
> > >zero.
> >
> >          Ok.
> >
> > >The forces on these charges are in turn due to electromagnetic
> > >interactions with absolutely every other charge in the universe that
> > >fall within their light cones.
> >
> >           Nonsense, although "the electrodynamics of
> > moving bodies" pays tribute to Euclidean space,
> > those who know relativity understand fully that
> > "space" has no attributes.

"Space" has size, volume & content, especially where a particle is.
                                                          ```Brian.

> > > Distant matter not only influences the
> > >motions of charges, but it is the only influence on the motion of
> > >charges.  The word distant is also a relative term. All particles are
> > >distant wrt any given charge, the only difference being the actual
> > >magnitude of their separation. If distant galaxies have no effect on the
> > >motion of local charges, then neither do near charges, because wrt any
> > >charge whatsoever, all of the others are distant. Empirically we observe
> > >that light (which is just em radiation, which is in turn just an
> > >electromagnetic interaction between charges) does in fact extend
> > >completely across the known universe. QED.
> >
> >         So now light is also the carrier of inertia and gravity?
> >
> >         The concept of spacetime is exactly the opposite
> > of what the novice may think.    Instead of a controlling
> > "medium", it is a stretchable maginary map, showing that
> > space has _NO_ attributes,

"Space" has size, volume & content, especially where a particle is.
                                                          ```Brian.

> > -=-  and that there are no "forces"
> > acting at a distance.
> >        This may be difficult for Newtonians because Euclidean
> > space is essential for Newtonian mechanics.
> >
> 
> <<      I am sorry that I cannot agree that light or any other
>  electromagnetic "charge" could be responsible for gravity
>  and inertia, because that would be an easy explanation,
>  but a more complicating -- wrong -- explanation.
> I would agree with you both counts. >>
> Columated EM radition is repulsive, not attractive.
> There is no transfer of energy with gravity.
>
> That said, EM radiation represents only a portition
> of all possible spatial and temporal encodings
> that the motion of charges can produce.   To fomulate
> time dependent field equations, a false assumpution.
> is made that the Z spatial axis is interchangable with time.
> It is only approximate. This leaves many other derivatives
> of the Coulomb force unaccounted for in both QM and GR.
> Van der Waals and London forces are short-range examples.
> ...Just as magnetism is the short-range (1/r^3)  component of EM.
>
> In a sense, we are saying it is not the repulsive long-range (1/r*2)
> component that responsible for gravity and inertia, it is all the long-
> range components remaining when you subtract the EM
> component.
>
> << one then considers the Coulomb interaction of similar
> charge distributions centered on the ions, but now with the
> same sign as the original ions. These distributions exactly
> cancel those that we have considered before, so that the
> total interactions that we shall obtain will be those of the
> original system made of point charges only. The interaction
> of the cancelling distributions is computed in reciprocal space.
> The required Fourier transforms are particularly simple
> when the (arbitrary) shape of the distributions is chosen
> to be a gaussian. >>
 -=-SNiP-=-
> << In itself, the principle of equivalence would allow field
> equations of almost unlimited complexity. Einstein could
> have included terms in the equations involving four spacetime
> derivatives, or six spacetime derivatives, or any even number
> of spacetime derivatives, but he limited himself to second-
> order differential equations.  >>
 -=-SNiP-=- > 
> Sue...
> 2.
> >
> > Joe Fischer
Re: Einstein's Mistakes.