🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 9, 7:03 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> 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-le...
>
>
>
> << 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 ìB)
> 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 alhttp://authors.library.caltech.edu/5534/1/SIGprd04.pdfhttp://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.

I have no idea what that second passage pertains to.  But since there
is mention of dark matter in it, which is just a name given to the
pixies that supposedly account for an effect that so far only exists
on paper, it can only be yet more mental masturbation. I think these
people, these cosmologists, who are so friggin smart, ought to turn
their talents towards solving the worldwide economic crisis.  But we
couldn't expect that from them, they're quite happy working in a realm
where "You can't disprove it, thus we must be right."  That shit won't
fly in the real world. If the theory is wrong in economics, then it's
readily observable.