Horace Heffner wrote: > > On Oct 24, 2009, at 5:58 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: > >> Horace Heffner wrote: >>> On Oct 23, 2009, at 11:38 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> OK here's Newton's law of gravitation defined: >>>>> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation >>>>> >>>>> When bodies are large with respect to the distance between them, or >>>>> even "overlap", forces on every tiny volume of a given body are >>>>> computed as the sum of forces over many small units of volume of the >>>>> surrounding space. This summation is an integration process, with the >>>>> volumes being examined in the limit where they approach zero volume. >>>>> In the limit the number of chunks of volume dV becomes infinite and >>>>> their volumes become zero - i.e. points. This is just basic >>>>> calculus. This is how Coulomb's law (and Newton's gravitational >>>>> equivalent) is applied for non-point objects. It works for ordinary >>>>> volumes, like spheres, even inside them, and it works for wave >>>>> functions. >>>>> >>>> Yes, but you seem to ignore that this working gives a different result >>>> (rate of change or strength) in each of those cases you mention. >>>> >>> You ignore that *both* the Coulomb and Newton laws apply in every >>> case, i.e. for every pair of tiny volumes between which forces are >>> computed, and thus the huge *ratio* of forces remains at about >>> 10^30. The fact that all kinds of wild fields and force equations >>> result from macro sized bodies is completely irrelevant to the >>> accuracy of the fundamental laws. >>> >> >> Let's say that to me, that remains to be demonstrated. > > > OK, I'll give up on that.
Thank you. It's not a minor point, as in the end it encompasses the history of physical theories and of its evolution. > > >> >>> >>>> And particularly on the subatomic scale, as you said, this different >>>> result is to be associated with a wave function. This wave function >>>> then, >>>> in the case of the Coloumb force, does prevent the electron from >>>> collapsing into the nucleus, and prevents the protons to be >>>> escaping from >>>> it. >>>> >>> So what? The solar system runs for billions of years without >>> collapsing. Does this invalidate Newton's laws of gravitation? No. >>> There is no reason to expect the Coulomb force to disappear at small >>> radii just because it is balanced by other forces. The law is still >>> valid, there are merely other forces at work at close range which >>> have to be added also. Even if it did, similar effects would happen >>> to the gravitational force as well, so it is *remains* insignificant >>> compared to the Coulomb force. The two forces are coupled to a given >>> volume in very similar ratios, not varying in ratio by anything like >>> 10^30 for any pair of charged particles at a given distance r. >>> >> >> What I'm thinking is that those "other forces" you mention are no >> more than gravity in disguise. Gravity in another "mode" of operation. >> When in the past the method of integration of point forces for >> gravity was defined, it was defined based on the mode of action of >> gravity at macroscopic scales. And maybe that is not the best way to >> see it at microscopic scales. >> Newton proceeded partially by induction(i.e. based on known data) >> when deriving the law of gravity, and after that, others proceeded by >> deduction, assuming that the same basic law applies at all scales. >> After that, others arranged some "wave functions" to make things fit >> with the classical laws when they didn't(in the atom), and invented >> other forces when that wasn't enough(in the nucleus). >> >> In the same way as, in a sense, gravity changes "mode" when entering >> the Earth, something similar could be happening at the atomic level. >> >> Please consider the following scenario. I'll talk here about two >> forces, but you'll see later that they can be unified: >> - An electron approaches a proton, attracted by both, the electric >> force and the gravitational force(to a much weaker extent). >> - Approaching the Bohr radius, an inversion process start to manifest >> for the gravitational force: it starts to increasingly repel instead >> of attract. Let's not hypothesize now about the reasons for that to >> be happening, just let me describe the theory. >> - At the Bohr radius, the repulsive gravitational force equals the >> Coulomb force, and the electron is stable in its orbit. >> - Inside the Bohr radius, the repulsive force continue growing up to >> a certain point, that lies somewhere in the middle between the orbit >> of the electron and the center of the nucleus. >> - After that point, gravity becomes attractive again(but much >> strongly), and after that, its strength diminishes(not increases) >> with distance to the center. And that's the nuclear force. >> >> The Bohr radius is then the result of the interaction of the Coulomb >> force with the "repulsive mode" of the gravitational force. The other >> orbitals are other points of equilibrium of these "two" forces. > > This has no sense of reality for me. Even as a repulsive force, > gravity has the net same 1/r^2 *apparent attractive* effect from > spherical "shadowing". If gravity and the Coulomb force are both > 1/r^2 forces then they remain in the roughly 10^30 ratio range with > regards to fusion (the topic of this thread) because you can't have > charge without mass. > > That said, I don't know why people think gravity as push makes more > sense than gravity as pull. There is no hesitation to believe that > Coulomb force as *attraction* exists between opposite charges, i.e. > that virtual photon exchange can result in a *negative momentum* > transaction. I see no reason to think gravitons can not achieve the > same thing, or that negative gravitational charge can not or does not > exist. In fact, I see both negative energy and the MOND equations as > strong indications that negative gravitational charge exists, as well > as the great voids of space which yet have magnetic fields. Of > course I have described why I think all that here before: > > http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FullGravimag.pdf > <http://mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/FullGravimag.pdf> > > >> >> >> To see this more clearly, it's good to think about "spheres of >> influence". Please let me give you an example: >> If we think of the Moon-Earth system as a whole, and refer all to the >> center of the Earth, we can see that gravity(related to that center), >> could be repulsive: something that is under the gravitational >> influence of the Moon, will be seen as being repulsed from the Earth. >> And somewhere in the middle between the two celestial bodies, a point >> of unstable equilibrium will exist, from which everything is repulsed >> in one or the other direction. >> Continuing the analogy, if we go now to the interior of the Earth, >> we'll notice that, although gravity is still attractive there, its >> strength now changes directly with distance, not inversely with the >> square of the distance. This is similar as the way the nuclear force >> operates. >> >> So, we have two interfaces: >> At a point between two celestial bodies, the "sphere of influence" >> changes, and so the direction of action changes. That's equivalent to >> a point somewhere in the middle of the electron orbit and the center >> of the nucleus. >> >> At another point(at the surface of the bodies), a different inversion >> process occurs, and now the force, that continues acting on the same >> direction, suffers a "change of mode": It becomes in a direct >> relation to distance, not an inverse square relation. That's the >> domain of the nuclear force. >> >> This is another (good) way to see it: >> >> Center of the Earth (stable equilibrium) <- surface of the Earth <-- >> Point in between (unstable equilibrium) --> surface of the Moon -> >> center of the Moon (stable equilibrium) >> >> Center of the nucleus (stable equilibrium, nuclear force domain) <- >> "surface" of the nucleus <-- Point in between (unstable equilibrium) >> --> "surface" of the electron -> center of the electron (stable >> equilibrium) >> >> The arrows with two hyphens (<--) mean "force changes with the >> inverse of the square of the distance". >> And the one hyphen arrow (<-) means "force changes with the direct of >> the distance". > > Why don't you just provide a formula for what you think the > gravitational force is? Physical laws are most clearly described as > formulas, so that with any set of given inputs we can determine the > outcome. This eliminates endless discussion on how to apply them. > > > >> >> >> As you can see, I think that the electrical force and the >> gravitational force can be unified, so we have only one force, with >> just different modes of operation according to scale, > > I don't see this at all. This is too nebulous. You need to > quantify.Have you seen the "cymatics" video once I know. I'm working on that. I first want to have the ideas as clearly defined as possible, and then work on a mathematical model, to try to express them precisely and quantitatively. That mathematical model will have to be based on waves... my idea is that, at subatomic scales, gravity inversion occurs as a kind of resonant condition, that produces discrete intervals between points of stable and unstable equilibrium. You have surely seen cymatics in action at least once: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymatics http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&source=hp&q=cymatics The mathematics of cymatics, that's the best I can think of at the moment, to create a mathematical model for my ideas. I will take a closer and detailed look at your Gravimagnetic theory. I must study and learn a good deal of stuff yet, to able to produce a mathematical formalism. Best regards, Mauro > > >> "environment" and "sphere of influence". In the atomic domain, the >> electric mode of operation predominates to a point. In the celestial >> domain, the gravitational mode predominates to a point. But they are >> only aspects of one and the same fundamental "force". >> >> In my humble opinion, this is the right path to grand unification. >> The reasons for the behavior or different modes of manifestation of >> this one underlying "force" must be sought in the domain of waves and >> wave interactions, and I'm working on that at the moment. The >> integration of the other forces must also arise as a consequence of a >> wave model of this fundamental force, and of its interactions. > > > > The reason I started this thread, is that at the time I was working on > this model of the up quark deflated state: > > http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FullGravimag.pdf > <http://mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/FullGravimag.pdf> > > later described here: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg35331.html > > which at the time of starting this thread included formulas for both > the gravitational force and gravitational binding energy between the > up quark and the electron in the deflated state. When I ran the model > it quickly became clear that gravitation played no significant role > whatsoever, regardless the tiny distances or huge energies and gammas > involved. The magnetic force (which is just the retarded Coulomb > force) from spin coupling dominates all the other forces interacting > with an energetic electron at close range. > > >> >> >> Enjoy the pickles. > > > BTW, I avoid all pickles that have alum in them - my brain is in bad > enough shape as it is without aluminum salts deposited in it. > > I like the sweet kind, like Farmen's Cucumber Chips, which have no alum. > > Big dill pickles with alum are fun for lighting up inside using > electrodes. Google (glowing dill pickle experiment). I did the > experiment. It worked. The pickle glowed from the inside. > > >> >> >> Best regards, >> Mauro >> >>> >>>> If this very particular wave function(supposing this is so), or >>>> another >>>> factor, at those scales has effects so dramatic on the strength of the >>>> Coulomb force, >>>> >>> >>> You confuse the fundamental force at work with macro effects. >>> >>> >>> >>>> why it could not have effects also on the gravitational >>>> force? >>>> >>> >>> However the forces are summed, they remain in about the same ratio. >>> Where there is charge there is mass, and they remain in roughly the >>> same ratio. Fusion is about overcoming the Coulomb barrier, thus is >>> an issue of forces between charges. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Particularly: Why are we going to accept that the comparision >>>> between the >>>> strengths of these forces is valid at those scales, when at least >>>> one of >>>> these forces clearly suffers alterations, >>>> >>> >>> The fundamental force does *not* change, as noted before. You have >>> to distinguish between what is fundamental law and the sums that are >>> result of the application of that law and thus merely the result of >>> any whimsical body shapes and motions desired. It still sums nicely >>> across small volumes, though relativistic adjustments have to be made >>> if the speeds involved are high enough. Even so, when things get >>> relativistic, there is not a large difference in interacting particle >>> gammas because the mass ratios are only 3 orders of magnitude apart, >>> so the interactions keep the gammmas in a similar range, not varying >>> anything like 30 orders of magnitude. Gravity remains insignificant >>> when it comes to overcoming the Coulomb barrier, and that is the >>> point of my posting. >>> >>> Here is an analogy. We can say F = m*g for every particle in the >>> body. We can't say that law breaks down, is invalid, just because >>> every person does not weigh the same, or just because we each have >>> centers of gravity located in various places, or some of us have very >>> different weight distribution from others. In all cases the whole is >>> the sum of the parts, but the sums are not necessarily equal. We also >>> can't say the law is invalid because we weigh less on a mountain top, >>> because that just changes g, so the sum of the masses of all our >>> atoms changes there. The law remains valid. Further we can't say >>> that law breaks down just because we want to sum over the parts of an >>> atom, or quantum waveform. It still applies to the parts. >>> >>> >>> >>>> even independently of the fact >>>> that these alterations are explained or associated (or not) with a >>>> wave >>>> function? >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> Mauro >>>> >>> You have raised so many red herrings that we are in need of a pickle >>> jar. 8^) There may well be some valid criticisms of my point that >>> gravity is irrelevant to fusion, that gravity is insignificant >>> compared to the Coulomb force that prevents fusion, but I can't see >>> that they have been raised yet. >>> > Best regards, > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ > <http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/> > > > >
