🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 3, 8:37 am, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 12:23 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 11:29 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 2, 9:34 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 2, 10:07 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > ==========
>
> > > >  In my estimation precisely
>
> > > > > this same error is committed in the case of the gravitational
> > > > > interactions that we observe. If a complexity of electromagnetic
> > > > > interactions can cause neutral objects to repel each other (ordinary
> > > > > collisions), then it must also be possible for a similar complexity of
> > > > > electromagnetic interactions to cause neutral masses to attract one
> > > > > another. And indeed, in the case of oppositely charged masses, they do
> > > > > attract, not just the charges of opposite sign, but the entire neutral
> > > > > mass to which these charges are bound.
>
> > > > Welcome to the horse's ass club. The view and the smell
> > > > isn't so great but we are confident you can get there
> > > > quicker by letting the horse get there first.  ;-)
>
> > > > Sue...
>
> > > I left of the clincher.  Go back to Einstein's famous thought
> > > experiment of the observer in an elevator.  In this case Einstein
> > > argues that such an observer cannot distinguish his inertial
> > > acceleration from a gravitational field. From this argument he argues
> > > in favor of the equivalence principle, stating that gravitational
> > > forces are exactly the same as inertial forces because they are
> > > completely indistinguishable. From this is derived the equivalence of
> > > inertial and gravitational mass.
>
> > > Well there is no mystery here when it is accepted that gravitational
>
> >  forces are electro-magnetic in origin.
>
> > I prefer the term "electro-dynamic"   'till I see
> > Maxwell's equations model a London force.
> > There are some assumptions about an axis of
> > symmetry and Lorentz invariance at scales
> > of 10^(-32) times the Coulomb force that  I can't
> > dismiss out of hand, although the distinction
> > may indeed be insignificant.
>
> > Maxwell on steroids for molecular dynamics:http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
>
> > > ...In the case of the observer on
> > > the elevator, as already explained, the forces are exclusively
> > > electromagnetic. It is actually electromagnetic repulsion accelerating
> > > the observer. So here Einstein is equating gravity, an attractive
> > > force, to a repulsive electromagnetic force.  I'm certain that had he
> > > percieved his blunder here, he would have immediately recanted all
> > > of his papers on GR, and immediately set out to correct that error.
> > > What's ironic here is that he did indeed notice an error in his logic,
> > > and spent about 30 years in the attempt to unify electromagnetism and
> > > gravity.  
> > > He did not however have the correct electromagnetic theory
> > > at his disposal, namely the direct particle interaction theory that
> > > conforms to the metrical approach.  
> > > This theory wasn't relativised
> > > until Feynman, and so it simply wasn't available to Einstein during
> > > those 30 years.
>
> > So says  Wal Thornhill:
> > << Einstein published his theory of gravitation, or
> > general theory of relativity, in 1916. And so a new
> > paradigm, or set of beliefs, was established. It was
> > not until 1930 that Fritz London explained the weak,
> > attractive dipolar electric bonding force (known as
> > Van der Waals' dispersion force or the "London force")
> > that causes gas molecules to condense and form liquids
> > and solids. Like gravity, the London force is always
> > attractive and operates between electrically neutral
> > molecules. And that precise property has been the most
> > puzzling distinction between gravity and the powerful
> > electromagnetic forces, which may repel as well as attract.>>

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=r4k29syp

>
> > I suppose a cart and horse are "unified"  regardless of
> > their orientation but this suggestion makes his design
> > for a blouse look like a good idea.
>
> > <<   A second problem which at present is the subject of
> > lively interest is the identity between the gravitational
> > field and the electromagnetic field. The mind striving after
> > unification of the theory cannot be satisfied that two fields
> > should exist which, by their nature, are quite independent.
> > A mathematically unified field theory is sought in which the
> > gravitational field and the electromagnetic field are interpreted
> > only as different components or manifestations of the same
> > uniform field, the field equations where possible no longer
> > consisting of logically mutually independent summands.
> > The gravitational theory, considered in terms of mathematical
> > formalism, i.e. Riemannian geometry, should be generalized
> > so that it includes the laws of the electromagnetic field. >>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-le...
>
> > Blouse patent:http://www.google.com/patents?id=zRpsAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=...
>
> > It his difficult to conceive a mind that could see so much
> > more than his contemporaries yet miss so much that
> > we take for granted.  But whatever will we do with
> > our  20/20 hindsight if we don't use it to play tricks on
> > ourselves.
>

>
> Sue, I believe that people don't actually click the links and read the
> material. I prefer to quote the relevant passages.

<< That being said:

"By seeking the simplest differential equations
which can be obeyed by an affine correlation there is
reason to hope that a generalization of the gravitation
equations will be found which includes the laws of
the electromagnetic field.
This hope has in fact been fulfilled although I do not
know whether the formal connection so derived can really
be regarded as an enrichment of physics
as long as it does not yield any new physical connections.
In particular a field theory can, to my mind, only be
satisfactory when it permits the
elementary electrical bodies to be represented as
solutions free from singularities."
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.pdf
>>


<< Abstract
We consider the consequences of a neutral dark-matter
particle with a nonzero electric and/or magnetic dipole
moment. Theoretical constraints, as well as constraints
from direct searches, precision tests of the standard-model,
the cosmic microwave background and matter power spectra,
and cosmic gamma rays, are included. We find that a
relatively light particle with mass between an MeV and a
few GeV and an electric or magnetic dipole as large
as ~3 x 10 to the -16 e cm (roughly 1.6 x 10 to the -5 μB)
satisfies all experimental and observational bounds. Some
of the remaining parameter space may be probed with
forthcoming more sensitive direct searches and with the
Gamma-Ray Large Area Space Telescope. >>
Sigurdson, Kris et al
http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5534/1/SIGprd04.pdf
http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5534/

Sue...

>
> Regarding Einstein's last thought in that passage concerning the
> requirement of a theory representing charged bodies free of
> singularities:  From Feynman (#2 below):
>
> http://prola.aps.org/pdf/RMP/v21/i3/p425_1
>
> "(1) There is no such concept as "the" field, an independent entity
> with degrees of freedom of its own
> (2) There is no action of an elementary charge upon itself and
> consequently no problem of an infinity of energy of the
> electromagnetic field.
> (3) The symmetry between past and future in the prescription for the
> fields is not a mere logical possibility, as in the usual theory, but
> a postulational requirement."