🚀 go-pugleaf

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...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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."

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 freedon 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 prescxription for the
fields is not a mere logical possibility, as in the usual theory, but
a postulational requirement."