> > On Oct 23, 2009, at 4:26 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: > >> Horace Heffner wrote: >>> This is to examine the feasibility that gravity has a role in fusion >>> at some distance. The Coulomb force between two particles is: >>> >>> Fc = Cc * q1 * q2 / r^2 >>> >>> where Cc is the Coulomb constant 8.99x10^9 m/F, the charge q1 or q2 >>> of a particle is typically +-1.602x10^-19 C, and r is the particle >>> separation. >>> >>> The gravitational force between two masses is: >>> >>> Fg = Gc * m1 * m2 / r^2 >>> >> >> How do you know that those formulas are valid at those scales? > > At what scales? No scale is specified.
Subatomic. > > > >> Newton's law is only an aproximation. It assumes point masses. > > > The above should work fine over the volume of any portion of a > wavefunction. It's Coulomb's law, and the gravitational equivalent, > not Newton's. > > >> So, to ve >> valid, that formula has contourn conditions. Namely, that r must be >> greater than the radius of the two masses. > > Not true. Why you say that? Do you know according to which law an apple falls inside a hole on the Earth, by example? > > >> Because in Reality there are >> no point masses. > > Irrelevant. Mean forces can be summed over the wavefunctions. Where on Coulomb's and Newton's laws do we find wavefunctions? > > >> Newton's law ceases to be valid when the point of equilibrium(the >> point >> of zero gravity) between two "point masses" lie on the inside of >> one of >> the "point" masses. > > > Not true. It appears you are confusing Newton's laws with Coulomb's law. ?? It appears to me that you are confusing Newton with Coulomb. > > >> If this were not the case, the force would tend to >> infinite at small scales(when r tends to zero), which again is >> something >> that does not make sense. > > When the centers of charge of two wavefunctions overlap, the net > force is zero, which is just fine. Which wavefunctions? where on those formulas are the wavefunctions to be found? > > >> So, it's perfectly possible to think that "in between"(when r is >> approaching 0), gravity could behave in a manner completely different >> than at scales when r is clearly greater than the radius of the >> "point" >> masses. > > No, gravity and charge behave normally, they are just distributed in > space. You have not convinced me, at all. Your started with formulas for point forces, and are now talking about distributions in space for those forces. Are they point forces, or not? Or are they summatories of point forces? If so, with which criteria are you adding them? And why should we presuppose all this, including the fact that those summatories, which are yet to be presented, are statistically equivalent to the behaviour of point forces? > > >> It could behave exponentially, to a point, and reach an >> equilibrium afterwards. Or it can become repulsive, when r is less >> than >> a given value. > > Where is the evidence for this? If you are referring to spin coupling > then, again, the electromagnetic coupling overwhelms the gravimagnetic. Where's the evidence for YOUR assumptions? > > >> >> On the other hand, the same happens with the Coulomb force. Why are >> you >> inclined to talk about the Coloumb force at those scales, when the >> electron orbiting then nucleus clearly violates it? > > Show the violation. The electron must collapse on the nucleus if it behaves according to the Couloumb force. And the protons should escape away from it. > > >> The Coloumb force >> again has contourn conditions, and could cease to be valid(indeed, it >> ceases to be) when r tends to zero. The Coloumb force also assumes >> point >> charges, which again is something that does not exist in Reality. > > > Again, at small distances the Coulomb force is valid but takes on a > statistical nature, as does the gravitational force between chunks of > the wavefunction. The effective charge in a volume is equal to the > probability of the charge being found there times q. The equivalent > is true of the mass. Similar ratios, all greater than 10^30, apply. > Gravity is totally unimportant. That's according to your statistical interpretation, that's still to be presented, and is nowhere to be found on the inital premises and formulas you presented. So, in the end, you're using a statistical approach to make some formulae fit in, that is, to try to model the behaviour of something you think should behave the way you think.
