Subject: Re: The Ultimate Unity of Science and Religion.
From: richhall@seanet.com (Richard F. Hall)
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 04:46:58 MST
In article <505kv8$c24@news1.mnsinc.com> "Jon E. Trevathan" writes:
>From: "Jon E. Trevathan"
>Subject: The Ultimate Unity of Science and Religion.
>Date: 30 Aug 1996 02:51:20 GMT
>Between scientists and the followers of religion there has always
>been controversy and strife for the reason that the latter have
>proclaimed religion superior in authority to science and considered
>scientific announcement opposed to the teachings of religion.
>Scientist, in turn, have condemned many religious teachings as mere
>superstition and ignorance. I believe that Religion and Science
>are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated as both
>reveal complementary aspects of a single truth.
Science is the discovery of God. What we have done since Biblical days is to
discover God. One of my favorite sermons is: You think you know God... You
don't even know your wife!
>As to science, I believe it may be likened to a mirror
>wherein the infinite forms and images of the true reality of
>existing things are progressively revealed and reflected. It is
>the very foundation of all development. Without this basis of
>investigation, physical progress is impossible. If a scientific
>teaching appears to differ from a spiritual truth, consider that
>the criterion of science is the senses which can be defective.
>Because science may be liable to mistake, it cannot be infallible
>and cannot be a true standard of judgment.
>Nonetheless, religion must ultimately conform to reason and be in
>accord with the ultimate conclusions of science as both must
>converge into one ultimate truth or realty. For religion, reason
>and science are realities; therefore, these three, being realities,
>must eventually conform and be reconciled. As both science and
>religion are indissolubly welded and joined in the divine reality,
>those statements and teachings of religion which are found to be
>unreasonable and contrary to science, must be examined to determine
>whether they are the outcomes of superstition and imagination.
>Innumerable doctrines and beliefs of this character have arisen in
>the past ages and are present today.
>I have already acknowledged that science cannot be a true standard
>of judgment. However, religious doctrines and dogmas as the
>interpretive understanding of men are also suspect. I am convinced
>that many, if not most, of the controversies arise because
>religious leaders and clergy neither understood the meaning of the
>religious texts nor comprehended the symbols therein. But, when
>the truth becomes clear and the symbols are explained, science will
>be found to in no way contradict religious belief; but, on the
>contrary, science and the intelligence will affirm it.
>Religion must stand the analysis of reason. It must agree with
>scientific fact and proof so that science will sanction religion
>and religion fortify science. If religious belief and doctrine is
>at variance with reason, it proceeds from the limited mind of man
>and not from God; therefore, it is unworthy of belief and not
>deserving of attention; the heart finds no rest in it, and real
>faith is impossible. Reason is the first faculty of man, a divine
>attribute and gift. How can man believe that which he knows to be
>opposed to reason? Is this possible? Can the heart accept that
>which reason denies?
>It is not my point that reason should serve as the ultimate standard
>of judgment. The human world is an ocean of varying opinions. If
>reason were the perfect standard and criterion of knowledge, opinions
>would not be at variance and philosophers would not disagree.
>The point is that Science and Religion are expressions of one divine
>reality. If we can agree that reality is one and not multiple, there
>should be a convergence of science and religion. Thus, every apparent
>discrepancy between science and religion should challenge us to an
>independent investigation of both our doctrinal and scientific
>premises and assumptions and provide us with an opportunity for
>intellectual and spiritual growth.
>I believe that the teachings of the Bahai Faith will eventually
>remove this form of dissension and discord from among mankind and
>reconcile science with religion by revealing the pure teachings of
>the divine reality. That which is found to be real and conformable
>to reason will be accepted, and whatever science and reason
>ultimately cannot support will be rejected as imitation and not
>reality. When this test is applied, differences of belief will
>disappear. All will become as one family, one people, and the same
>susceptibility to the divine bounty and education will be witnessed
>among mankind.
Subject: radioactive timing of South African Pluton
From: Ralph Sansbury
Date: 31 Aug 1996 14:56:07 GMT
> From: karish@gondwana.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish) Newsgroups:
> sci.geo.geology > By choosing a closed system that is unlikely to
> have undergone chemical re-equilibration since the rock was formed,
> it is possible to measure the relative concentrations of the parent
> isotopes (U-235, U-238) and the daughter isotopes (Pb-206, Pb-207)
> to calculate the ate of the system. Zircon crystals are very
> resistant to chemical and thermal alteration. They incorporate
> uranium more readily than lead when they >crystallize, so the
> proportion of inherited lead is low.
I was looking for a more through argument. The following is based on a
few geology and physics books I have. Please confirm or correct:
If the particular zircon in
> question is unlikely to have undergone and is resitant to chemical
> etc alteration then perhaps the ratio of intermediate isotopes to
> the uranium isotopes should remain constant in this sample etc.after
> sufficient time to pass to reach equilibrium. The argument should
> include measurements and their error at least for typical(?) samples
> of zircon and then good reasons to assume that this zircon is like
> the other zircons. The meaning of equilibrium here is that a
> radioactive isotope is diminished by half after a certain amount of
> time, say 2 years, and that it produces in this time another
> radioactive isotope of some other element which is reduced by half
> after, say 1 year, which produces in this time a stable isotope.
> After 1 year the remaining amount of the first element is roughly
> 3/4 of the original and so 1/4 of the original amount of the first
> element has been transformed into the second element but this 1/4 is
> diminished by half, so 1/2 times 1/4, while the other half of this-
> half of 1/4 of the original- has been transformed into the stable
> element. During the next year the first element has been reduced to
> 1/2 of the original amount, and an additional 1/4 of the original
> amount of the first element is transformed into the second element
> again 1/8 while the previous 1/8 diminishes to 1/16 etc.. Note the
> ratio of the remaining first element to the remaining second element
> is 1/4 to 1/8 for the first year and 1/4 to 1/8 for the second year
> roughly or essentially the ratio of their half lives; I gather this
> is what is meant by equilibrium. Also during the second year we
> obtain another roughly 1/8 of the stable element so the stable
> element ratio increases to 1/4 while the first radioactive element
> decreases to 1/2. After another year, the remaining amount of the
> first element is 3/4 of this 1/2, that is, 3/8 and so 1/8 of the
> first element is transformed into the second element and half of
> this, 1/16 is transformed into the stable element so now we have 1/4
> plus 1/16 of the stable isotope and so after the next year we have
> 3/8 of the stable isotope and only 1/4 of the first element etc.
> That is the number of grams we would measure of the stable isotope
> of some element and the number of grams measured of the radioactive
> first element would be in the ratio of 3/8 to 1/4. After not a very
> large number of such half lives the first radioactive isotope will
> be converted almost completely into the stable element isotope. Now
> if you have two radioisotopes of one element like U238 and U235 with
> different rates of decay that lead to two different stable isotopes
> of another element like Lead206 and lead 207 respectively. And if
> you assume that the current amounts of these isotopes when found
> without uranium being in the close vicinity are derived from an
> earlier complete conversion of these uranium isotopes then the
> present proportion of these isotopes 24.1% and 22.1% are equal to
> the intial proportions of U238 and U235. Then the observed
> proportions of the uranium isotopes is equal to this original
> proportion times the quotient of the different exponential rate
> functions of time; that is times the exponential of the difference
> in rates times the unknown time.
> The biotite age indicates the last
> time at which the temperature was high enough to release argon. This
> temperature is about 250 degrees Celsius, which is not high enough
> to cause the rock to >be re-magnetized.
I gather that rocks having
> formed from slowly cooled molten elements inside the earth did not
> contain any argon at the beginning since only rocks chilled rapidly
> as lavas erupting on the ocean floor would be able to trap an
> elusive unreactive gas like argon. So when any argon is found in a
> sample that plus the K40 it is found with gives the time of decay of
> K40 and so the sample. I guess the enormous rock formation from
> which you took pieces of zircon was formed from molten silicon
> compounds that pushed upward in columns called dikes from larger
> spheroidal cavities of these molten compounds near the mantle
> core(liquid outer core) boundary.( the liquid outer core is inferred
> from seismic waves received from an earthquake around the earth).
> This formation is different from its surroundings by reason of the
> specific silicon compounds found in it as opposed to those in its
> surroundings. I'm trying to picture it; perhaps it looks something
> like the Palisades sill on the Hudson River opposite New York except
> that it is not dark gray veined basalt but lighter red flecked grey
> granite looking; perhaps it is differently exposed by erosion of
> layers of rock above and/or around it and that it contains 5 times
> more Uand Th and ten times more K40 than such gabbro-basalt
> formations.. The radioactively determined average age of solid
> silicon compounds like biotite, hornblende and, in smaller amounts I
> suppose, zircons found in this formation and other places are
> related to the temperatures at which they crystallized from the
> slowly cooling molten silicon compounds; those crystals with the
> highest melting points were the first to cool or form solid crystals
> then sinking to the bottom of the molten material. Also I wonder
> what part pressure and hardness plays here and if pressure is
> germane to the argument regarding "remagnetizability".?
Could you give a similarly thorough explanation of the magnetization
argument.
Subject: radioactive timing of South African Pluton
From: Ralph Sansbury
Date: 31 Aug 1996 14:55:04 GMT
> From: karish@gondwana.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish) Newsgroups:
> sci.geo.geology > By choosing a closed system that is unlikely to
> have undergone chemical re-equilibration since the rock was formed,
> it is possible to measure the relative concentrations of the parent
> isotopes (U-235, U-238) and the daughter isotopes (Pb-206, Pb-207)
> to calculate the ate of the system. Zircon crystals are very
> resistant to chemical and thermal alteration. They incorporate
> uranium more readily than lead when they >crystallize, so the
> proportion of inherited lead is low.
I was looking for a more through argument. The following is based on a
few geology and physics books I have. Please confirm or correct:
If the particular zircon in
> question is unlikely to have undergone and is resitant to chemical
> etc alteration then perhaps the ratio of intermediate isotopes to
> the uranium isotopes should remain constant in this sample etc.after
> sufficient time to pass to reach equilibrium. The argument should
> include measurements and their error at least for typical(?) samples
> of zircon and then good reasons to assume that this zircon is like
> the other zircons. The meaning of equilibrium here is that a
> radioactive isotope is diminished by half after a certain amount of
> time, say 2 years, and that it produces in this time another
> radioactive isotope of some other element which is reduced by half
> after, say 1 year, which produces in this time a stable isotope.
> After 1 year the remaining amount of the first element is roughly
> 3/4 of the original and so 1/4 of the original amount of the first
> element has been transformed into the second element but this 1/4 is
> diminished by half, so 1/2 times 1/4, while the other half of this-
> half of 1/4 of the original- has been transformed into the stable
> element. During the next year the first element has been reduced to
> 1/2 of the original amount, and an additional 1/4 of the original
> amount of the first element is transformed into the second element
> again 1/8 while the previous 1/8 diminishes to 1/16 etc.. Note the
> ratio of the remaining first element to the remaining second element
> is 1/4 to 1/8 for the first year and 1/4 to 1/8 for the second year
> roughly or essentially the ratio of their half lives; I gather this
> is what is meant by equilibrium. Also during the second year we
> obtain another roughly 1/8 of the stable element so the stable
> element ratio increases to 1/4 while the first radioactive element
> decreases to 1/2. After another year, the remaining amount of the
> first element is 3/4 of this 1/2, that is, 3/8 and so 1/8 of the
> first element is transformed into the second element and half of
> this, 1/16 is transformed into the stable element so now we have 1/4
> plus 1/16 of the stable isotope and so after the next year we have
> 3/8 of the stable isotope and only 1/4 of the first element etc.
> That is the number of grams we would measure of the stable isotope
> of some element and the number of grams measured of the radioactive
> first element would be in the ratio of 3/8 to 1/4. After not a very
> large number of such half lives the first radioactive isotope will
> be converted almost completely into the stable element isotope. Now
> if you have two radioisotopes of one element like U238 and U235 with
> different rates of decay that lead to two different stable isotopes
> of another element like Lead206 and lead 207 respectively. And if
> you assume that the current amounts of these isotopes when found
> without uranium being in the close vicinity are derived from an
> earlier complete conversion of these uranium isotopes then the
> present proportion of these isotopes 24.1% and 22.1% are equal to
> the intial proportions of U238 and U235. Then the observed
> proportions of the uranium isotopes is equal to this original
> proportion times the quotient of the different exponential rate
> functions of time; that is times the exponential of the difference
> in rates times the unknown time.
> The biotite age indicates the last
> time at which the temperature was high enough to release argon. This
> temperature is about 250 degrees Celsius, which is not high enough
> to cause the rock to >be re-magnetized.
I gather that rocks having
> formed from slowly cooled molten elements inside the earth did not
> contain any argon at the beginning since only rocks chilled rapidly
> as lavas erupting on the ocean floor would be able to trap an
> elusive unreactive gas like argon. So when any argon is found in a
> sample that plus the K40 it is found with gives the time of decay of
> K40 and so the sample. I guess the enormous rock formation from
> which you took pieces of zircon was formed from molten silicon
> compounds that pushed upward in columns called dikes from larger
> spheroidal cavities of these molten compounds near the mantle
> core(liquid outer core) boundary.( the liquid outer core is inferred
> from seismic waves received from an earthquake around the earth).
> This formation is different from its surroundings by reason of the
> specific silicon compounds found in it as opposed to those in its
> surroundings. I'm trying to picture it; perhaps it looks something
> like the Palisades sill on the Hudson River opposite New York except
> that it is not dark gray veined basalt but lighter red flecked grey
> granite looking; perhaps it is differently exposed by erosion of
> layers of rock above and/or around it and that it contains 5 times
> more Uand Th and ten times more K40 than such gabbro-basalt
> formations.. The radioactively determined average age of solid
> silicon compounds like biotite, hornblende and, in smaller amounts I
> suppose, zircons found in this formation and other places are
> related to the temperatures at which they crystallized from the
> slowly cooling molten silicon compounds; those crystals with the
> highest melting points were the first to cool or form solid crystals
> then sinking to the bottom of the molten material. Also I wonder
> what part pressure and hardness plays here and if pressure is
> germane to the argument regarding "remagnetizability".?
Could you give a similarly thorough explanation of the magnetization
argument.
Subject: Re: President Clinton Statement on Mars Meteorite Discovery
From: Wil Milan
Date: 31 Aug 1996 08:15:02 -0700
I was surprised he didn't declare Martians a new protected minority and
announce a new multi-billion dollar spending program to curry votes from
them.
Wil M.
Ron Baalke wrote:
>
> THE WHITE HOUSE
>
> Office of the Press Secretary
>
> _____________________________________________
> For Immediate Release
> August 7, 1996
>
> REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
> UPON DEPARTURE
>
> The South Lawn
>
> 1:15 P.M. EDT
>
> THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon.
> I'm glad to be joined by my science and
> technology adviser, Dr. Jack Gibbons, to make
> a few comments about today's announcement by
> NASA.
>
> This is the product of years of
> exploration and months of intensive study by
> some of the world's most distinguished
> scientists. Like all discoveries, this one
> will and should continue to be reviewed,
> examined and scrutinized. It must be
> confirmed by other scientists. But clearly,
> the fact that something of this magnitude is
> being explored is another vindication of
> America's space program and our continuing
> support for it, even in these tough financial
> times. I am determined that the American
> space program will put it's full intellectual
> power and technological prowess behind the
> search for further evidence of life on Mars.
>
> First, I have asked Administrator
> Goldin to ensure that this finding is subject
> to a methodical process of further peer
> review and validation. Second, I have asked
> the Vice President to convene at the White
> House before the end of the year a bipartisan
> space summit on the future of America's space
> program. A significant purpose of this
> summit will be to discuss how America should
> pursue answers to the scientific questions
> raised by this finding. Third, we are
> committed to the aggressive plan we have put
> in place for robotic exploration of Mars.
> America's next unmanned mission to Mars is
> scheduled to lift off from the Kennedy Space
> Center in November. It will be followed by a
> second mission in December. I should tell
> you that the first mission is scheduled to
> land on Mars on July the 4th, 1997 --
> Independence Day.
>
> It is well worth contemplating how
> we reached this moment of discovery. More
> than 4 billion years ago this piece of rock
> was formed as a part of the original crust of
> Mars. After billions of years it broke from
> the surface and began a 16 million year
> journey through space that would end here on
> Earth. It arrived in a meteor shower 13,000
> years ago. And in 1984 an American scientist
> on an annual U.S. government mission to
> search for meteors on Antarctica picked it up
> and took it to be studied. Appropriately, it
> was the first rock to be picked up that year
> -- rock number 84001.
>
> Today, rock 84001 speaks to us
> across all those billions of years and
> millions of miles. It speaks of the
> possibility of life. If this discovery is
> confirmed, it will surely be one of the most
> stunning insights into our universe that
> science has ever uncovered. Its implications
> are as far-reaching and awe-inspiring as can
> be imagined. Even as it promises answers to
> some of our oldest questions, it poses still
> others even more fundamental.
>
> We will continue to listen closely
> to what it has to say as we continue the
> search for answers and for knowledge that is
> as old as humanity itself but essential to
> our people's future.
>
> Thank you.
Subject: Magnetism as Gravity Measured by Magnetic Materials
From: Ralph Sansbury
Date: 31 Aug 1996 17:05:23 GMT
The basic idea here is that gravity may be due to radially oriented
electrostatic dipoles inside the earth's atomic nuclei; the negative
pole, with some multiple of the electron's charge, is the inner pole and
the outer pole has enought positive charge so that the total charge is
that of a proton; the distance between oppositely charged poles is
between 10^-12 and 10^-18meters inside the earth's atomic nuclei; the
value of each dipole increases with the distance between it and all other
dipoles so the force between any two dipoles is proportional to the
distance between the dipoles squared taking into account their relative
orientation; this means that the instantaneous dipole-dipole force which
varies inversely as the fourth power between colinear dipoles reduces to
an inverse square force; the different sizes of dipoles determined by
different pairwise interactions and their different forces when summed
together over all pairwise interactions yields a single force and implies
a single unique dipole in each nucleus intermediate to the pairwise
extremes given above and closer to the the measured values of nuclear
radii in different contexts, about 10^-15 meters.
From this premise it is possible to derive all of the substantiated
predictions of General Relativity, most of which have to do with the
explicit interaction of gravity with electrical and magnetic forces,
without recourse to the assumption that the force of gravity is a functon
not only of properties of the force source like its size, density,
location but also of its velocity and acceleration. The dependence in GR
of the gravitational field on the velocity and acceleration of the force
source leads to counter intuitive and subjectivist space time distortions
beyond Einstein's fantasies eg. those of Hawking, Penrose, Whitten etc..
To make the same predictions as GR we must also correct a similar
mistaken assumption in Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic forces.
Maxwell had to withdraw his claims of a crowded if not distorted ether
filled with invisible cams that propagated not only characteristics of
the source like its volume, density,and location but also of its motion;
the mathematics gave accurate predictions so perhaps one could ignore the
cams or isomorphic mechanisms. It was like the grin of the cheshire cat
in Lewis Carroll's Wonderland also of the 1860s. But one can't accept
Maxwell's mathematics and ignore its absurd implications. The mathematics
predicted the observed radiation but it also implied a mechanism for
transmitting the effects for which there was no independent evidence,
which was thus invisible but had the rigidity of iron. Such absurd
implications were swept under the rug and not until Feynman's QED theory
of Einstein's photons and probabilistic theory of light and its
interactions with matter was the problem resolved -by substituting
photons for waves at all frequencies. In Maxwell's theory, the fact that
the source of a radiated force, a moving charge, was oscillating in a
repetitive pattern helped; just like the regular pattern of planets
orbiting the sun and the solar system orbiting the center of the galaxy
etc helped Einstein's use of a similar assumption in GR.
Maxwell's absurd implications can be avoided without Feynman's
circumlocutions that permit some general description of the interaction
of light with matter but prevent one from knowing the specific
interactions of specific photons or their source with the receiver. If
one acknowledges that light is not a moving thing but the result of
instantaneous forces at a distance on charged matter whose inertia etc.,
delays the appearance of received radiation, then the interaction of
light with matter can be described in terms of what actually happens and
not merely probabalistically. Is such a theory of light consistent with
measurements of the speed of light? Yes in all but one case the observed
values can be so interpreted; the exception is Roemer's crude measurement
which is far enough from the other values to be regarded as a non
coincidence. Roemer's measurement is also an inconsistent one when moons
of Jupiter besides Io eg Europa are taken into account.
Similarly the absurd or probabilistic implications of GR can be
avoided by finding an alternative to the assumption that the
gravitational field is a function of the velocity and acceleration of the
source of the field. This alternative is the assumption of instantaneous
electrical interactions that account for the delay in the appearance of
received electromagnetic radiation, for the apparent bending of light
and frequency shifts of radar due to the sun, of gamma rays due to the
earth, etc..
Getting back to the basics of the proposed alternative theory.
The proposed electrostatic dipoles also exist in current carrying wires,
transverse to and proportional to the driving force of the current,
inside the atomic nuclei and free electrons of current carrying wires
formerly characterized as their spin.These dipoles which also increase
with the distance between interacting wires and decrease with the
currents in other wires as explained below produce the magnetic field of
a current carrying wire. (Experiments suggesting that electrons and
atomic nuclei do not have electrostatic dipoles do so only after the
effects of spin have been taken into account) These dipoles are
superimposed on the dipoles associated with gravity. Electrostatic
dipoles in the atomic nuclei of ferromagnetic materials can also explain
the magnetic field of these materials; unlike materials composed of any
of the other elements, the atoms in these materials are bound together by
their electrons in configurations that prevent to some extent the nuclear
dipoles from changing direction so as to line up with the gravitational
field of the earth of which they are a part; that is they prefer to line
up with the nuclear dipoles around them in the same domain or in the
entire bulk material of which they are a part. To make the nuclear
dipoles in such materials line up completely with the gravitational field
of the earth it is necessary that the bulk material containing the
nuclear dipoles also changes orientation - as in a compass needle.
Now a magnetized piece of iron or steel held below a piece of paper
with iron filings on it can cause the iron filings to line up in a
certain way giving rise to Faraday's notion of invisible lines of force;
a piece of copper, silicon or what have you will not be able to produce
the same effect on the iron filings; the reason for this is that the
electrostatic dipoles in the nuclei of silicon and of these other
materials change direction constantly so as to line up with the earth's
radius from these atoms toward the center of the earth etc; The force of
gravity can be shown to be nothing more than the collective force of an
enormous number of such electrostatic dipoles.
The Argument: 1) We argue that the spin of electrons and nuclei can be
better characterized in terms of charge polarization inside the electrons
and nuclei; 2)that electrostatic shielding involving the relative
displacement of free electrons and lattice ions in conductive materials
producing a relatively large dipole does not shield against the effects
of charge polarization inside the free electrons and lattice nuclei of
such materials when they are carrying a current, ie their so called
magnetic effects; 3) that the electrostatic dipoles associated with the
gravitational effects of satellites, planets, stars, galaxies, clusters,
superclusters etc were produced by a primordial force whose initial
effect was the forward motion of the atomic nuclei within a large
collection of nuclei and charge polarization transverse to the forward
motion and subsequently a torque on these collections of transverse
electrostatic dipoles which moved together causing the galaxies etc to
spin and spin off stars and stars to spin off planets and planets to spin
off satellites etc.; 4)that the attraction of planets to the sun requires
a dipole inside nuclei tracking the sun in addition to the one whose
orientation is constantly changing so as to be directed toward the center
of the planet etc.; 5)that Cavendish's measurement of the horizontal
gravitational force between lead balls is due to the attraction between
the transverse component of radial oriented dipoles inside the atomic
nuclei of the attracted balls; that to sustain the dipoles in the atomic
nuclei of planets and stars the transverse dipole component fields may
sustain one another; that is the radial and
Subject: Re: Magnetism as Gravity Measured by Magnetic Materials
From: Ralph Sansbury
Date: 31 Aug 1996 17:21:18 GMT
and stars the transverse dipole component fields may sustain one
another; that is the radial and longitudinal dipoles transverse to a
force in the latitudinal direction produce fields at right angles to one
another; 6)that the longitudinal dipole field can produce a radial dipole
and the radial dipole field can produce a longitudinal dipole and thereby
the radial and longitudinal fields can be selfsustaining (Note in
Newton's theory the radial force of gravity comes first and the orbital
motion of the earth is due to this force and a uniform velocity that was
assumed always there or produced by a First Mover who then went away.
Here we are assuming that a primordial force was partitioned into ever
smaller circular movements and forces and that the force causing the
earth ot orbit the sun and spin is a part of this total primordial force.
Gravity then comes second and results from the dipoles produced by this
force on particles held in orbit by electrical forces; The resulting
dipoles may be self sustaining or the primordial force, perhaps initiated
a finite number of years ago with a big explosion remains, however far
removed from the earth and acts to sustain the Hubble accelerative
expansion and may act directly and constantly to sustain the
electrostatic dipoles inside every atom after thermal collsions.); 7)that
Einstein's explanation of the bending of starlight by the sun etc can be
otherwise explained in terms of a small relative delay in response to em
radiation due to the greater residual dipole in atomic nuclei on the side
of the earth facing the sun; similarly for the red shift of radar
reflections from planets.
Regarding the magnetic effects of current carrying wires:
Electrostatic dipoles inside atomic nuclei and free electrons can produce
the magnetic force observed between parallel (or however oriented)
current carrying wire segments r meters apart where the currents are
nevA and nev'A' say. The Amperian force per unit length between the two
parallel current segments then is 10^-7 times (nevA)(nev'A) divided by
r^2. which could also be written as (9 times 10^9 divided by
((3)(10^9))^2) times (r)(v/v')(nevA)(r)(v'/v)(nev'A') divided by r^4
which is the force per unit length between nA and nA' electrostatic
dipoles which are larger the greater r is and the greater v is compared
to v' etc.. That is the electrostatic dipoles are in part due to the emf
causing the speed, v, of the electron and in part due to the lack of
interference from other dipoles. When the current in one wire is much
larger than the current in another wire, the interference effect on the
smaller current is greater and so the increase in its dipoles is less
than the increase in the dipoles in the wire carrying the larger current.
The expansion of the dipoles inside the atomic nuclei and free electrons
can be represented as K(S)res and k(s)reS where K(S) is the ratio of one
dipole before consideration of the other eg S over s+S or over s; k(s),
similarly. The mechanism for the expansion of the dipole can be described
in terms of the elliptization of an orbital system ie of an initially
circularlly orbiting particle made to move in a transverse ellipse
perpendicular to an applied tangential electrostatic force at some point
on the orbit. The assumption that there is only one orbiting charge and
that the the magnitude of the charge being polarized is that of a single
electron or positron can be modified; perhaps the simplest assumption is
that the proton consists of a negative charge of -e and a positive charge
of +2e so that the net charge is as observed.
Regarding the electrostatic force that produced the residual
electrostatic dipoles in atoms that accounts for gravity: A primordial
electrostatic force, perhaps as part of a big bang explosion, produced
the motion of the superclusters, the galaxies, the present 200km/sec
orbiting of the sun around our galaxy's center, the 29.9km/sec earth
around the sun the .465km/sec spin of the earth about its center. Note
the throwing, batting or cueing of a ball is ultimately an electrostatic
force between the outer electrons in the hand, bat or tip and the
surface of the ball. Such forces may have produced the initial linear
motion of atoms and the elliptization of circularly orbiting particles
inside atomic nuclei and free electrons. This produced a separation of
centers of positive charge and negative charge inside atomic nuclei etc..
Such dipoles produced in the big bang perhaps in galactic clumps of
atoms interacting with the primordial linear force gave rise to a torque
accounting for the spin of galaxies etc. and the spinning off of planets
from the stars and satellites from the planets. It may be that the
radially and longitudinally oriented dipoles once produced by a
latitudinally directed force are capable by their mutual interactions of
sustaining themselves as in the dipole chain model of ferroelectrics(see
Feynman v2p5-5). It may also be that the force producing the Hubble
accelerative expansion or other motion of galaxies, the orbit of the
solar system and the orbit of planets about the sun etc is an ever
present force which is needed to sustain the dipoles inside atomic nuclei
as well as the accerlerative and component motions of the galaxies.
Regarding the size of the electrostatic dipoles: According to
Cavendish even as interpreted above the gravitational constant for a
small lead ball horizontally pulled toward a larger fixed lead ball was
about 6.67 times 10^-11; and according to Eratosthenes (from the
different shadows of sticks at noon on the solstice day at Alexandria and
at Syene 948km south, the curvature of the assumed spherical earth) the
earth's radius was nearly today's value R=6,371km.; and according to
Galileo and Newton the earth pulls objects down such that the downward
acceleration is, whatever the object, GM/R^2=9.8 meters per sec^2; from
these three observations, Cavendish inferred the density of the earth to
be nearly 5.5kg/cubic meter, the accepted value now based on
improvements in Cavendish's method; Hence the force of the earth whose
mass then is 5.98 times 10^24kg on a proton of mass 1.67 times 10^-27kg
on the earth's surface R=6.37(10^6) meters away from the earth's mass
concentrated at the center is .24 times 6.67 times 10^-11+24-27-12 =
1.6(10^-26) Newtons. Compare this to the gravitational force between two
protons one meter apart which is (6.67)(10^-11) times [(1.67)(10^-27)]^2
which if set equal to the force between electrostatic dipoles of unknown
length s , (9)(10^9)(es)^2 implies s=(.9)(10^-18). We are assuming that
the charge displaced is 'e' when in fact it might be some multiple of 'e'
greater than one. The mass of protons are known from their deflection
when propelled by an electric field through a magnetic field in mass
spectrometers; that is from the degree of charge polarization inside the
nuclei due to the electric field propelling them and the strength of the
magnetic field relative to the degree of charge polarization in the
nuclei due to gravity and the gravitational strength of the earth.
Now consider how many atoms there are in the earth and how many
protons plus neutrons in the average atom eg a total of 28 if all silicon
on average. (56 if all iron , 12 if all oxygen etc..) There are 6.02
times 10^26 atoms of silicon in 28kg so if the mass of the earth has
(5.98 times 10^24)/28 times 6.02 times 10^26 atoms and each of these
times has 28 (= 14protons plus 14 neutrons) yields 3.6 times 10^51
dipoles. Hence the force between half these dipoles concentrated at a
point R/2 meters from the surface and a single dipole at the earth's
surface is (9)(10^9)(3.6/2)(10^51) times
[(6.37/2)(10^6)(1.6)(10^-19)(.9)(10^-18)]^2 divided by
[(6.37/2)(10^6)]^4. This reduces to (3.32)(10^60-38-36-12)=(3.32)(10^-26)
Newtons compared to (1.6)(10^-26) as calculated above in the usual way.
Most of the force pulling the proton downward comes from dipoles on
the same radius
to the earth's center and on nearby radii whose net downward force is
projected through small angles on the proton's radius. The number of such
dipoles is within a few orders of magnitude of the 10^51 total. Since the
concentrated dipole in the center of the earth is not a real entity we do
not have to take into account the strong interference effect of it on
the dipole in the surface proton compared to the weak interference effect
of the single proton dipole on the hypothetical concentrated total
dipole. When we compute the pairwise force between our surface proton and
one about 10^6 meters away we are implicitly weighting the importance of
this force relative to protons a few meters away etc by the R^-4 term for
the force; that is when we sum all these pairwise forces the implicit
10^(-18+6) dipole length is given much less weight than the 10^-18 length
dipoles etc.. Also the degree to which the unique intermediate dipole in
the atomic nuclei, that would give the same result as these pairwise
constructs, can expand due to the primordial force proposed, is limited
by the electrostatic force between the core of the atomic nuclei and the
proposed oppositely charged orbiting particle or particles around the
core. Hence the intermediate value of the unique dipole that would give
the same sum of forces as the sum over the pairwise dipoles is probably
closer to 10^-18 eg 10^-16 which is in the range of measured values of
various atomic nuclei in various experimental contexts; also as we
mentioned the amount of charge displaced might be more then 'e' so that
the distance between poles could be smaller.
Regarding the attraction of the planets to the sun: This requires
an additional dipole inside the planet's nuclei oriented along lines
between these nuclei and the sun roughly parallel to each other and to a
line from the center of the planet to the sun. If the sun threw off
such material that coalesced and formed planets and then attracted it
back toward the sun and in the case of the earth, the earth's dipoles are
oriented with their positive pole on the outside which explains the
accumulation of free charge on the surface of the earth and the similar
potential gradient of the atmosphere; if this was the case then the outer
pole of the sun's dipoles is negative. Thus the outer positive pole of
the earth's atomic dipoles are attracted to the negative outer pole of
the sun's atomic dipoles.. At a greater distance from the planet the
dipoles associated with the spin of the planet and facing the sun may be
substantially weakened by oppositely directed spin dipoles on the dark
side of the planet. This demands that we add a solar dipole component in
the planet's atomic nuclei of a size that is similar to the spin dipole
component oriented along the planet's radii and that the solar component
dipole in each atomic nucleus changes orientation as the planet changes
its position with respect to the sun just as the spin component dipole
changes orientation as the earth's radius on which it is situated changes
direction as the earth spins. The need for such an added dipole is that
it would help to explain why the earth does not fall apart under the
influence of the sun's attraction of one side and its repulsion of the
other. That is the side of the earth nearest the sun is more attracted to
the sun but also because of the added dipole in the atomic nuclei, the
atoms of the earth nearest the sun are more attracted to each other when
compared to atoms on the dark side of the earth. Both of these effects
larglely cancel so that the net gravitational force on the sunny side of
the earth is the same as that on the dark side except for the observed
tidal effects. Similar considerations apply for dipoles in the atomic
nuclei of the the earth, other planets and the sun tracking the center of
the galaxy.
Now the largest distance between atomic nuclear dipoles on the earth
implicitly determining the maximal size of the dipoles is about 10^6
meters whereas the distances for planets to the sun is 5.79(10^10) for
mercury, (1.49)(10^11) for earth to 5.9(10^12) meters for pluto and for
the sun to the galactic center 10^4 parsecs= (3)(10^20) meters. Lets see
what the atomic nuclear dipoles in the sun and earth must be to give the
observed gravitational force between them and if they are small enough
to be consistent with the known distances between atoms at various
temperatures etc..That is we must be able to write the total dipoles as
keRs and KeRS where k and K are functions of the relative influence of
the total dipoles on each other etc; the totall dipoles here are
proportional to the masses(note the planet masses are
22,4.87,5.97,.64,1899.7,568.8,86.9,103.0, .013 times 10^24kg vs the
sun's(2)(10^30)kg.); that is to the number of protons plus neutrons,
denoted, protons-neutrons, in each mass. Since the sun is .75H+.25He so
that 1.75kg of sun contains 6.02 times 10^26 molcules each of which
contains on average 1.75 protons-neutrons so 1kg of sun contains 6.02
times 10^26 protons-neutrons in a volume that is larger of course than
that of 1 kg of a solid planet; but 1kg of any planet or the sun
contains the same number of protons -neutrons. There are about 2(10^30)
kg in the sun. Hence the sun contains 6.02 times 10^26 times M = 12 times
10^56 and earth contains 6.02 times 10^26 times m = 3.59times 10^51 unit
dipoles in the earth.The total dipoles are: k(s)RS is 1.2(10^57)k(s)RS*
and K(S)Rs is 3.59(10^51)K(S)Rs*.
Hence GmM/R^2 = 9(10^9)mM[6.02)(10^26)]^2 times kK times s*S* times
(N)(2.56)10^-38 divided by R^2. If N=1,this implies
kKs*S*=(.0079)10^-61-11+38 = (10^-36) approximately. Now RkS* and RKs*
are the magnitudes of the dipoles associated with the sun and planet
respectively where R is about 10^11 to 10^13 meters.. But we also know
that the earth's dipoles cannot be larger than atomic nuclei about 10^-15
=RKs* that Ks*=10^-26 which implies kS*=10^-10 and RkS*=10^-10+11 so the
dipoles on the sun are 10 meters in length.
This sounds impossible. Perhaps the charge of the dipole could be
somehow larger so that instead of the sun's dipoles being eS* etc., it
could be e*S* where e* is the charge on say 1000 electrons or more and
S* could be that much smaller. After all at the high temperatures
(T=5.77(10^3) to 1.5(10^7) degrees Kelvin of the sun the average kinetic
energy is (1.5)(1.38)(10^-23)T Joules =.5mv^2 where 1.602(10^-19)Joules
=1ev and 9.1(10^-31)kg times v^2 gives the speed of an electron at this
temperature; that is about (10^-20)Joules /(10^-30) at the low 5770
degree value of T suggesting v=10^5 meters per second for this
temperature; but below the sun's surface then with much greater
temperatures, v is far in excess of the 10^6 meter/sec velocity of the
electron around the hydrogen or helium nuclei. This suggests that
dipoles much larger than those proposed for atomic nucle are possible
within plasmas between groups of electrons and groups of ions, protons
or helium nuclei separated by distances that can still be many orders of
magnitude smaller than ten meters.
Similar reasoning could explain the dipole attraction between the
solar system and the center of the galaxy. But what about the moon 3.84
times 10^8 meters away which suggests that if RKS* = (10^8)KS*=10-15 say
that (10^8)ks* = 10^-36+15 suggesting that Rks*=10^-13 meters. Perhaps
this is a problem or perhaps the tidal effects of the moon on the earth
and vice versa and perhaps the amount of charge polarized inside the
earth's atomic nuclei is larger than we first considered; that is, Ne ,
where N is greater than on.
What is the relationship of gravity to the net spin of the planet,
satellite, star, galaxy etc. and to the number of atoms contained in
each? Clearly as in Newtonian gravity theory the gravitational
attractive force of a planet etc is proportional to the number of atoms.
It is then proportional to the angular momentum but if the angular
velocity was increased and the mass was decreased so that the angular
momentum remained the same would the attractive force remain the same?
Blackett suggests such a possibility and a correlation between magnetic
field and gravitational field in the May 1947 issue of Nature regarding
the planets, the sun, and a few stars. An extension of this idea is that
a primordial electrostatic force produced a linear momentum of galaxies
or clusters of galaxies which was partitioned first into the angular
momenta of the spinning galaxies and then into the spinning stars and
then into the spinning planets and their satellites. That is the strength
of the magnetic field is a function of the total of the angular momentum
components and the linear momentum component and the number of
protons-neutrons in the mass considered.The total force may also be
evident in each of these objects down to the planetary satellites.If for
example the total force produces charge polarization inside atomic nuclei
and electrons initially in a high temperature plasma state, the effect
of the assumed linear force on charge polarized nuclei and plasmas would
be to cause a torque on individual nuclei but also on large clumps of
electrons and nuclei. This mechanism could provide a rationale for the
approximate covariation of gravity with angular momentum that Blackett,
Wilson and others had observed and an explanation of why the relationship
might not be more exact. Thus any accelerated object, eg a bullet, a
rocket, a plane, a car, a frisbee, a skidding or spinning billiard ball
etc has electrostatic dipoles produced in its atomic nuclei transverse
to and proportional to the accelerating force which even if mechanical is
still ultimately electrostatic; The tendency of linearly propelled
atomic nuclei to then rotate may add to the aerodynamic efficiency of
spinning projectiles. The resulting dipole field may or may not be self
sustaining against thermal disturbances as in the dipole chain model of
ferroelectrics (Feynman v2p5-5, 11-10).
In the above mentioned ferroelectric model the dipoles are assumed to
be composed of poles, concentrations of charge that are fairly constant
over time unlike our model of charge polarization inside atomic nucle
which changes rapidly with the position of the orbiting charged
particle(s) inside the nuclei but which averaged over the orbital time
period represents a displacement of centers of negative and positive
charge in a specific direction. In both models the dipole-dipole
interaction is the same but the interaction of one dipole with a single
pole of the other is different in the two models. In our model the action
of one dipole on the single pole of another is to produce a transverse
elliptical motion of the single pole, rather than as in the ferroelectric
model to produce a motion of the pole only in the direction of the dipole
field and thereby to sustain a dipole field. It is conceivable that the
longitudinal and radial dipoles initially created by the primordial force
acting in the latitdinal direction causing the planet to spin could also
sustain the dipoles then produced; that is the longitudinal dipole field
would act to produce radial dipoles after thermal collisions etc and vice
versa. Perhaps this occurs more readily in spherical spinning objects.
But it is also conceivable that the force producing the accelerative
motions of the galaxies and so in some small component part, the spin of
the earth is constantly creating the dipoles anew; that the First Mover
or the force producing the accelerative Hubble expansion of the galaxies
is always however far away "with" us also in the sense of sustaining the
electrostatic dipoles of the gravitational force in our atoms.
For explanatory purposes suppose the primordial force acted only on a
clump of atoms that became the spinning earth when dipoles produced in
the atomic nuclei transverse to the initial linear force responded then
to the linear primordial force by also spinning. The spinning might
continue in the absence of friction by inertia. But what prevents the
dipoles from disappearing due to thermal collisions of atomic nuclei with
the inner shell of electrons, if there is no force to produce them? Now
working backwards suppose the linear primordial force is associated with
the movement of the solar system in the galaxy; then further backward
with the movement of the galaxy in a cluster etc. and that the primordial
force remains. The existence of this primordial force then is the cause
of the movement of galaxies is the cause of the movement of stars is
the cause of the sustained dipoles in the atomic nuclei of the planets of
stars that have planets which otherwise would be reduced to zero after a
few seconds of thermal collisions. When the moon was spun off the earth
and when we launch a satellite by rocket, the satellite is accelerated to
a velocity that exceeds the velocity that would bring it back to earth
but at all times during this transitional state and once it is in orbit
around the earth it is also being acted upon by the force which causes
the spinning of the earth and the earth's orbital and galactic motions
and so it responds like everything else to this force when the force that
launched it is removed; that is the nuclear dipoles in its atoms are
sustained, even when they have superimposed on them during the time of
launching other dipoles, and its motion with the earth around the sun etc
is sustained as well as its motion toward the earth constantly just
enough to keep it in orbit.
Returning to the Blackett and Wilson conjecture, the reason for the
relation between gravity magnetism and angular momentum may be due to the
component of the ever present force that is manifest in the linear and
angular velocity components of the motion of the astronomical body. The
more atomic nuclei there are in the body and the greater its velocity
components the greater the gravitational and magnetic fields of the body.
Hence a spinning motion given to a ball by a momentary force may produce
initially additional charge polarization in its atomic nuclei in radial
oriented directions but without repetition of this force perhaps through
the self sustaining interaction of radial and longitudinal dipole fields
the charge polarization in the atomic nuclei quickly becomes zero due to
thermal collisions. In the case of the planets, measurements of their
magnetic fields is complicated by the fact that different parts and
layers of the gaseous planets rotate at different velocities and for the
planets near the sun the sun's magnetic field has an influence on the
measurements. The fact that the gaseous planet Jupiter has a magnetic
field ten times stronger near its equator than the earth even though it
is several hundred times larger in mass and the fact that the direction
of the field is opposite to its surface rotation is perhaps
understandable in terms of different directions of rotation in different
regions and is consistent with the Blackett and Wilson theory; Also the
similarity of Neptune to Jupiter except that Neptune is about one
twentieth of the mass of Jupiter and the similar ratio of their magnetic
fields to the ratio of their masses can be so understood.
With repetition of the force causing linear motion or spin, the dipoles
can be sustained. This would imply that an airplane traveling from Europe
to the US for example is kept up not only by Bernoulli's principle but
also by a small antigravitational repelling force between the atomic
nuclear dipoles in the plane and those of the Earth below that should
increase with the Bernoulli effect with the speed of the plane. By the
same token, a plane traveling from the US to Europe would be heavier the
faster it traveled but would have then also a greater degree of lift.
If in small spinning objects in particular,eg baseballs, the field of
the longitudinal dipoles could sustain the radial dipoles and the field
of the radial dipoles could sustain the longitudinal dipoles then the
initial outside force could be removed and the objects at least until
frictional forces had acted for enough time could depending on their
direction of spin become heavier or lighter as the airplane described
above. A related phenomenon might be Henry Wallace's patent 3 626 605 of
a kinemassic machine, a pair of wheels of brass like giroscopes which are
rotated at a speed of 20,000/60 rps and at the same time one is rotated
about another axis the wheels appear to be propelled upward of become
lighter (New Scientist 2/14/80). I haven't read the patent and do not
understand exactly what occurs as described in the magazine. The rotation
speed is several times greater than that suggested by Blackett for a
bronze sphere 1 meter in diameter which Blackett said should produce a
magnetic field of 10^-8 Gauss. DePalma, Kidd, Strachan, and Laithewaite
have, I am told, reported similar gravitational anomalies of spinning
objects but I don't know the details or references. Any information on
this would be appreciated and could be sent to Box 492 NY NY10185 or
rns@concentric.net.
Regarding the Gravitational red shifts and bending of electromagnetic
radiation. Before considering the esoteric experiments conisder the
commonplace observation of improvement in the reception of radio
frequencies at night from reception during the day. This is attributed to
greater radio activity during the day but it could also be attributed to
a decrease in the distance between colliding free electrons and lattice
ions, nuclei and their surrounding electron shells in the receiver
antennas when the antenna is on the sunny side of the earth.
When a star is obsdrved against the background of stars at say
midnight its position seems to be about 3/3600 degrees ahead of its
position when its position is determined at the time of year it is
visible during an eclipse near the sun at noon; that is the greater
residual nuclear dipole seems to make possible a difference in the delay
of reception; a longer delay as the earth truns more before light from
the particular star becomes visible. That is the proposed theory explains
the bending of light, by gravity without requiring a distrotion in the
trhee dimensional Cartesian coordinate system representing physical space
for out of the ordinary observations according to Einstein's ingenious
formula A similar explanation applies to the red shift in radar
reflections from venus and mercury when they are on the opposite side of
the sun; that is the gravitational effect of the sun is not to change the
time scale of light wave disturbances in the ether near the sun so as to
increase the time between successive peaks and valleys of a sine
oscillation but to influence the radar receiving antennas on the earth so
that they do not respond as quickly to changes in oscillating forces on
the free electrons in their antennas resulting in a lower frequency for
the received oscillation of charge in the radar antenna. Similarly for
other red shift experiments like Brault's on the gravitational red shift
of solar lines (Bull Amer Phys Soc. 8,28 1963). The red shift of gamma
rays as a function of their heighth 22.5 meters above the earth's surface
and the gravitational field of the earth may have a similar explanation.
That is the shift should be greater the greater the distance between the
source and the receiver at least during the day; if the experiment is
performed at night the results should be a lesser delay. But the cause of
the delay is not the gravitational field of the Earth but the effect of
the sun's gravitational field on the earth's gravitational field Recent
variations in the gravitational constant when electostatic means are used
to create stability in balance measurements may be explained more clearly
in terms of these effects than of GR effects.
Subject: Re: Magnetism as Gravity Measured by Magnetic Materials
From: Ralph Sansbury
Date: 31 Aug 1996 17:22:53 GMT
and stars the transverse dipole component fields may sustain one
another; that is the radial and longitudinal dipoles transverse to a
force in the latitudinal direction produce fields at right angles to one
another; 6)that the longitudinal dipole field can produce a radial dipole
and the radial dipole field can produce a longitudinal dipole and thereby
the radial and longitudinal fields can be selfsustaining (Note in
Newton's theory the radial force of gravity comes first and the orbital
motion of the earth is due to this force and a uniform velocity that was
assumed always there or produced by a First Mover who then went away.
Here we are assuming that a primordial force was partitioned into ever
smaller circular movements and forces and that the force causing the
earth ot orbit the sun and spin is a part of this total primordial force.
Gravity then comes second and results from the dipoles produced by this
force on particles held in orbit by electrical forces; The resulting
dipoles may be self sustaining or the primordial force, perhaps initiated
a finite number of years ago with a big explosion remains, however far
removed from the earth and acts to sustain the Hubble accelerative
expansion and may act directly and constantly to sustain the
electrostatic dipoles inside every atom after thermal collsions.); 7)that
Einstein's explanation of the bending of starlight by the sun etc can be
otherwise explained in terms of a small relative delay in response to em
radiation due to the greater residual dipole in atomic nuclei on the side
of the earth facing the sun; similarly for the red shift of radar
reflections from planets.
Regarding the magnetic effects of current carrying wires:
Electrostatic dipoles inside atomic nuclei and free electrons can produce
the magnetic force observed between parallel (or however oriented)
current carrying wire segments r meters apart where the currents are
nevA and nev'A' say. The Amperian force per unit length between the two
parallel current segments then is 10^-7 times (nevA)(nev'A) divided by
r^2. which could also be written as (9 times 10^9 divided by
((3)(10^9))^2) times (r)(v/v')(nevA)(r)(v'/v)(nev'A') divided by r^4
which is the force per unit length between nA and nA' electrostatic
dipoles which are larger the greater r is and the greater v is compared
to v' etc.. That is the electrostatic dipoles are in part due to the emf
causing the speed, v, of the electron and in part due to the lack of
interference from other dipoles. When the current in one wire is much
larger than the current in another wire, the interference effect on the
smaller current is greater and so the increase in its dipoles is less
than the increase in the dipoles in the wire carrying the larger current.
The expansion of the dipoles inside the atomic nuclei and free electrons
can be represented as K(S)res and k(s)reS where K(S) is the ratio of one
dipole before consideration of the other eg S over s+S or over s; k(s),
similarly. The mechanism for the expansion of the dipole can be described
in terms of the elliptization of an orbital system ie of an initially
circularlly orbiting particle made to move in a transverse ellipse
perpendicular to an applied tangential electrostatic force at some point
on the orbit. The assumption that there is only one orbiting charge and
that the the magnitude of the charge being polarized is that of a single
electron or positron can be modified; perhaps the simplest assumption is
that the proton consists of a negative charge of -e and a positive charge
of +2e so that the net charge is as observed.
Regarding the electrostatic force that produced the residual
electrostatic dipoles in atoms that accounts for gravity: A primordial
electrostatic force, perhaps as part of a big bang explosion, produced
the motion of the superclusters, the galaxies, the present 200km/sec
orbiting of the sun around our galaxy's center, the 29.9km/sec earth
around the sun the .465km/sec spin of the earth about its center. Note
the throwing, batting or cueing of a ball is ultimately an electrostatic
force between the outer electrons in the hand, bat or tip and the
surface of the ball. Such forces may have produced the initial linear
motion of atoms and the elliptization of circularly orbiting particles
inside atomic nuclei and free electrons. This produced a separation of
centers of positive charge and negative charge inside atomic nuclei etc..
Such dipoles produced in the big bang perhaps in galactic clumps of
atoms interacting with the primordial linear force gave rise to a torque
accounting for the spin of galaxies etc. and the spinning off of planets
from the stars and satellites from the planets. It may be that the
radially and longitudinally oriented dipoles once produced by a
latitudinally directed force are capable by their mutual interactions of
sustaining themselves as in the dipole chain model of ferroelectrics(see
Feynman v2p5-5). It may also be that the force producing the Hubble
accelerative expansion or other motion of galaxies, the orbit of the
solar system and the orbit of planets about the sun etc is an ever
present force which is needed to sustain the dipoles inside atomic nuclei
as well as the accerlerative and component motions of the galaxies.
Regarding the size of the electrostatic dipoles: According to
Cavendish even as interpreted above the gravitational constant for a
small lead ball horizontally pulled toward a larger fixed lead ball was
about 6.67 times 10^-11; and according to Eratosthenes (from the
different shadows of sticks at noon on the solstice day at Alexandria and
at Syene 948km south, the curvature of the assumed spherical earth) the
earth's radius was nearly today's value R=6,371km.; and according to
Galileo and Newton the earth pulls objects down such that the downward
acceleration is, whatever the object, GM/R^2=9.8 meters per sec^2; from
these three observations, Cavendish inferred the density of the earth to
be nearly 5.5kg/cubic meter, the accepted value now based on
improvements in Cavendish's method; Hence the force of the earth whose
mass then is 5.98 times 10^24kg on a proton of mass 1.67 times 10^-27kg
on the earth's surface R=6.37(10^6) meters away from the earth's mass
concentrated at the center is .24 times 6.67 times 10^-11+24-27-12 =
1.6(10^-26) Newtons. Compare this to the gravitational force between two
protons one meter apart which is (6.67)(10^-11) times [(1.67)(10^-27)]^2
which if set equal to the force between electrostatic dipoles of unknown
length s , (9)(10^9)(es)^2 implies s=(.9)(10^-18). We are assuming that
the charge displaced is 'e' when in fact it might be some multiple of 'e'
greater than one. The mass of protons are known from their deflection
when propelled by an electric field through a magnetic field in mass
spectrometers; that is from the degree of charge polarization inside the
nuclei due to the electric field propelling them and the strength of the
magnetic field relative to the degree of charge polarization in the
nuclei due to gravity and the gravitational strength of the earth.
Now consider how many atoms there are in the earth and how many
protons plus neutrons in the average atom eg a total of 28 if all silicon
on average. (56 if all iron , 12 if all oxygen etc..) There are 6.02
times 10^26 atoms of silicon in 28kg so if the mass of the earth has
(5.98 times 10^24)/28 times 6.02 times 10^26 atoms and each of these
times has 28 (= 14protons plus 14 neutrons) yields 3.6 times 10^51
dipoles. Hence the force between half these dipoles concentrated at a
point R/2 meters from the surface and a single dipole at the earth's
surface is (9)(10^9)(3.6/2)(10^51) times
[(6.37/2)(10^6)(1.6)(10^-19)(.9)(10^-18)]^2 divided by
[(6.37/2)(10^6)]^4. This reduces to (3.32)(10^60-38-36-12)=(3.32)(10^-26)
Newtons compared to (1.6)(10^-26) as calculated above in the usual way.
Most of the force pulling the proton downward comes from dipoles on
the same radius
to the earth's center and on nearby radii whose net downward force is
projected through small angles on the proton's radius. The number of such
dipoles is within a few orders of magnitude of the 10^51 total. Since the
concentrated dipole in the center of the earth is not a real entity we do
not have to take into account the strong interference effect of it on
the dipole in the surface proton compared to the weak interference effect
of the single proton dipole on the hypothetical concentrated total
dipole. When we compute the pairwise force between our surface proton and
one about 10^6 meters away we are implicitly weighting the importance of
this force relative to protons a few meters away etc by the R^-4 term for
the force; that is when we sum all these pairwise forces the implicit
10^(-18+6) dipole length is given much less weight than the 10^-18 length
dipoles etc.. Also the degree to which the unique intermediate dipole in
the atomic nuclei, that would give the same result as these pairwise
constructs, can expand due to the primordial force proposed, is limited
by the electrostatic force between the core of the atomic nuclei and the
proposed oppositely charged orbiting particle or particles around the
core. Hence the intermediate value of the unique dipole that would give
the same sum of forces as the sum over the pairwise dipoles is probably
closer to 10^-18 eg 10^-16 which is in the range of measured values of
various atomic nuclei in various experimental contexts; also as we
mentioned the amount of charge displaced might be more then 'e' so that
the distance between poles could be smaller.
Regarding the attraction of the planets to the sun: This requires
an additional dipole inside the planet's nuclei oriented along lines
between these nuclei and the sun roughly parallel to each other and to a
line from the center of the planet to the sun. If the sun threw off
such material that coalesced and formed planets and then attracted it
back toward the sun and in the case of the earth, the earth's dipoles are
oriented with their positive pole on the outside which explains the
accumulation of free charge on the surface of the earth and the similar
potential gradient of the atmosphere; if this was the case then the outer
pole of the sun's dipoles is negative. Thus the outer positive pole of
the earth's atomic dipoles are attracted to the negative outer pole of
the sun's atomic dipoles.. At a greater distance from the planet the
dipoles associated with the spin of the planet and facing the sun may be
substantially weakened by oppositely directed spin dipoles on the dark
side of the planet. This demands that we add a solar dipole component in
the planet's atomic nuclei of a size that is similar to the spin dipole
component oriented along the planet's radii and that the solar component
dipole in each atomic nucleus changes orientation as the planet changes
its position with respect to the sun just as the spin component dipole
changes orientation as the earth's radius on which it is situated changes
direction as the earth spins. The need for such an added dipole is that
it would help to explain why the earth does not fall apart under the
influence of the sun's attraction of one side and its repulsion of the
other. That is the side of the earth nearest the sun is more attracted to
the sun but also because of the added dipole in the atomic nuclei, the
atoms of the earth nearest the sun are more attracted to each other when
compared to atoms on the dark side of the earth. Both of these effects
larglely cancel so that the net gravitational force on the sunny side of
the earth is the same as that on the dark side except for the observed
tidal effects. Similar considerations apply for dipoles in the atomic
nuclei of the the earth, other planets and the sun tracking the center of
the galaxy.
Now the largest distance between atomic nuclear dipoles on the earth
implicitly determining the maximal size of the dipoles is about 10^6
meters whereas the distances for planets to the sun is 5.79(10^10) for
mercury, (1.49)(10^11) for earth to 5.9(10^12) meters for pluto and for
the sun to the galactic center 10^4 parsecs= (3)(10^20) meters. Lets see
what the atomic nuclear dipoles in the sun and earth must be to give the
observed gravitational force between them and if they are small enough
to be consistent with the known distances between atoms at various
temperatures etc..That is we must be able to write the total dipoles as
keRs and KeRS where k and K are functions of the relative influence of
the total dipoles on each other etc; the totall dipoles here are
proportional to the masses(note the planet masses are
22,4.87,5.97,.64,1899.7,568.8,86.9,103.0, .013 times 10^24kg vs the
sun's(2)(10^30)kg.); that is to the number of protons plus neutrons,
denoted, protons-neutrons, in each mass. Since the sun is .75H+.25He so
that 1.75kg of sun contains 6.02 times 10^26 molcules each of which
contains on average 1.75 protons-neutrons so 1kg of sun contains 6.02
times 10^26 protons-neutrons in a volume that is larger of course than
that of 1 kg of a solid planet; but 1kg of any planet or the sun
contains the same number of protons -neutrons. There are about 2(10^30)
kg in the sun. Hence the sun contains 6.02 times 10^26 times M = 12 times
10^56 and earth contains 6.02 times 10^26 times m = 3.59times 10^51 unit
dipoles in the earth.The total dipoles are: k(s)RS is 1.2(10^57)k(s)RS*
and K(S)Rs is 3.59(10^51)K(S)Rs*.
Hence GmM/R^2 = 9(10^9)mM[6.02)(10^26)]^2 times kK times s*S* times
(N)(2.56)10^-38 divided by R^2. If N=1,this implies
kKs*S*=(.0079)10^-61-11+38 = (10^-36) approximately. Now RkS* and RKs*
are the magnitudes of the dipoles associated with the sun and planet
respectively where R is about 10^11 to 10^13 meters.. But we also know
that the earth's dipoles cannot be larger than atomic nuclei about 10^-15
=RKs* that Ks*=10^-26 which implies kS*=10^-10 and RkS*=10^-10+11 so the
dipoles on the sun are 10 meters in length.
This sounds impossible. Perhaps the charge of the dipole could be
somehow larger so that instead of the sun's dipoles being eS* etc., it
could be e*S* where e* is the charge on say 1000 electrons or more and
S* could be that much smaller. After all at the high temperatures
(T=5.77(10^3) to 1.5(10^7) degrees Kelvin of the sun the average kinetic
energy is (1.5)(1.38)(10^-23)T Joules =.5mv^2 where 1.602(10^-19)Joules
=1ev and 9.1(10^-31)kg times v^2 gives the speed of an electron at this
temperature; that is about (10^-20)Joules /(10^-30) at the low 5770
degree value of T suggesting v=10^5 meters per second for this
temperature; but below the sun's surface then with much greater
temperatures, v is far in excess of the 10^6 meter/sec velocity of the
electron around the hydrogen or helium nuclei. This suggests that
dipoles much larger than those proposed for atomic nucle are possible
within plasmas between groups of electrons and groups of ions, protons
or helium nuclei separated by distances that can still be many orders of
magnitude smaller than ten meters.
Similar reasoning could explain the dipole attraction between the
solar system and the center of the galaxy. But what about the moon 3.84
times 10^8 meters away which suggests that if RKS* = (10^8)KS*=10-15 say
that (10^8)ks* = 10^-36+15 suggesting that Rks*=10^-13 meters. Perhaps
this is a problem or perhaps the tidal effects of the moon on the earth
and vice versa and perhaps the amount of charge polarized inside the
earth's atomic nuclei is larger than we first considered; that is, Ne ,
where N is greater than on.
What is the relationship of gravity to the net spin of the planet,
satellite, star, galaxy etc. and to the number of atoms contained in
each? Clearly as in Newtonian gravity theory the gravitational
attractive force of a planet etc is proportional to the number of atoms.
It is then proportional to the angular momentum but if the angular
velocity was increased and the mass was decreased so that the angular
momentum remained the same would the attractive force remain the same?
Blackett suggests such a possibility and a correlation between magnetic
field and gravitational field in the May 1947 issue of Nature regarding
the planets, the sun, and a few stars. An extension of this idea is that
a primordial electrostatic force produced a linear momentum of galaxies
or clusters of galaxies which was partitioned first into the angular
momenta of the spinning galaxies and then into the spinning stars and
then into the spinning planets and their satellites. That is the strength
of the magnetic field is a function of the total of the angular momentum
components and the linear momentum component and the number of
protons-neutrons in the mass considered.The total force may also be
evident in each of these objects down to the planetary satellites.If for
example the total force produces charge polarization inside atomic nuclei
and electrons initially in a high temperature plasma state, the effect
of the assumed linear force on charge polarized nuclei and plasmas would
be to cause a torque on individual nuclei but also on large clumps of
electrons and nuclei. This mechanism could provide a rationale for the
approximate covariation of gravity with angular momentum that Blackett,
Wilson and others had observed and an explanation of why the relationship
might not be more exact. Thus any accelerated object, eg a bullet, a
rocket, a plane, a car, a frisbee, a skidding or spinning billiard ball
etc has electrostatic dipoles produced in its atomic nuclei transverse
to and proportional to the accelerating force which even if mechanical is
still ultimately electrostatic; The tendency of linearly propelled
atomic nuclei to then rotate may add to the aerodynamic efficiency of
spinning projectiles. The resulting dipole field may or may not be self
sustaining against thermal disturbances as in the dipole chain model of
ferroelectrics (Feynman v2p5-5, 11-10).
In the above mentioned ferroelectric model the dipoles are assumed to
be composed of poles, concentrations of charge that are fairly constant
over time unlike our model of charge polarization inside atomic nucle
which changes rapidly with the position of the orbiting charged
particle(s) inside the nuclei but which averaged over the orbital time
period represents a displacement of centers of negative and positive
charge in a specific direction. In both models the dipole-dipole
interaction is the same but the interaction of one dipole with a single
pole of the other is different in the two models. In our model the action
of one dipole on the single pole of another is to produce a transverse
elliptical motion of the single pole, rather than as in the ferroelectric
model to produce a motion of the pole only in the direction of the dipole
field and thereby to sustain a dipole field. It is conceivable that the
longitudinal and radial dipoles initially created by the primordial force
acting in the latitdinal direction causing the planet to spin could also
sustain the dipoles then produced; that is the longitudinal dipole field
would act to produce radial dipoles after thermal collisions etc and vice
versa. Perhaps this occurs more readily in spherical spinning objects.
But it is also conceivable that the force producing the accelerative
motions of the galaxies and so in some small component part, the spin of
the earth is constantly creating the dipoles anew; that the First Mover
or the force producing the accelerative Hubble expansion of the galaxies
is always however far away "with" us also in the sense of sustaining the
electrostatic dipoles of the gravitational force in our atoms.
For explanatory purposes suppose the primordial force acted only on a
clump of atoms that became the spinning earth when dipoles produced in
the atomic nuclei transverse to the initial linear force responded then
to the linear primordial force by also spinning. The spinning might
continue in the absence of friction by inertia. But what prevents the
dipoles from disappearing due to thermal collisions of atomic nuclei with
the inner shell of electrons, if there is no force to produce them? Now
working backwards suppose the linear primordial force is associated with
the movement of the solar system in the galaxy; then further backward
with the movement of the galaxy in a cluster etc. and that the primordial
force remains. The existence of this primordial force then is the cause
of the movement of galaxies is the cause of the movement of stars is
the cause of the sustained dipoles in the atomic nuclei of the planets of
stars that have planets which otherwise would be reduced to zero after a
few seconds of thermal collisions. When the moon was spun off the earth
and when we launch a satellite by rocket, the satellite is accelerated to
a velocity that exceeds the velocity that would bring it back to earth
but at all times during this transitional state and once it is in orbit
around the earth it is also being acted upon by the force which causes
the spinning of the earth and the earth's orbital and galactic motions
and so it responds like everything else to this force when the force that
launched it is removed; that is the nuclear dipoles in its atoms are
sustained, even when they have superimposed on them during the time of
launching other dipoles, and its motion with the earth around the sun etc
is sustained as well as its motion toward the earth constantly just
enough to keep it in orbit.
Returning to the Blackett and Wilson conjecture, the reason for the
relation between gravity magnetism and angular momentum may be due to the
component of the ever present force that is manifest in the linear and
angular velocity components of the motion of the astronomical body. The
more atomic nuclei there are in the body and the greater its velocity
components the greater the gravitational and magnetic fields of the body.
Hence a spinning motion given to a ball by a momentary force may produce
initially additional charge polarization in its atomic nuclei in radial
oriented directions but without repetition of this force perhaps through
the self sustaining interaction of radial and longitudinal dipole fields
the charge polarization in the atomic nuclei quickly becomes zero due to
thermal collisions. In the case of the planets, measurements of their
magnetic fields is complicated by the fact that different parts and
layers of the gaseous planets rotate at different velocities and for the
planets near the sun the sun's magnetic field has an influence on the
measurements. The fact that the gaseous planet Jupiter has a magnetic
field ten times stronger near its equator than the earth even though it
is several hundred times larger in mass and the fact that the direction
of the field is opposite to its surface rotation is perhaps
understandable in terms of different directions of rotation in different
regions and is consistent with the Blackett and Wilson theory; Also the
similarity of Neptune to Jupiter except that Neptune is about one
twentieth of the mass of Jupiter and the similar ratio of their magnetic
fields to the ratio of their masses can be so understood.
With repetition of the force causing linear motion or spin, the dipoles
can be sustained. This would imply that an airplane traveling from Europe
to the US for example is kept up not only by Bernoulli's principle but
also by a small antigravitational repelling force between the atomic
nuclear dipoles in the plane and those of the Earth below that should
increase with the Bernoulli effect with the speed of the plane. By the
same token, a plane traveling from the US to Europe would be heavier the
faster it traveled but would have then also a greater degree of lift.
If in small spinning objects in particular,eg baseballs, the field of
the longitudinal dipoles could sustain the radial dipoles and the field
of the radial dipoles could sustain the longitudinal dipoles then the
initial outside force could be removed and the objects at least until
frictional forces had acted for enough time could depending on their
direction of spin become heavier or lighter as the airplane described
above. A related phenomenon might be Henry Wallace's patent 3 626 605 of
a kinemassic machine, a pair of wheels of brass like giroscopes which are
rotated at a speed of 20,000/60 rps and at the same time one is rotated
about another axis the wheels appear to be propelled upward of become
lighter (New Scientist 2/14/80). I haven't read the patent and do not
understand exactly what occurs as described in the magazine. The rotation
speed is several times greater than that suggested by Blackett for a
bronze sphere 1 meter in diameter which Blackett said should produce a
magnetic field of 10^-8 Gauss. DePalma, Kidd, Strachan, and Laithewaite
have, I am told, reported similar gravitational anomalies of spinning
objects but I don't know the details or references. Any information on
this would be appreciated and could be sent to Box 492 NY NY10185 or
rns@concentric.net.
Regarding the Gravitational red shifts and bending of electromagnetic
radiation. Before considering the esoteric experiments conisder the
commonplace observation of improvement in the reception of radio
frequencies at night from reception during the day. This is attributed to
greater radio activity during the day but it could also be attributed to
a decrease in the distance between colliding free electrons and lattice
ions, nuclei and their surrounding electron shells in the receiver
antennas when the antenna is on the sunny side of the earth.
When a star is obsdrved against the background of stars at say
midnight its position seems to be about 3/3600 degrees ahead of its
position when its position is determined at the time of year it is
visible during an eclipse near the sun at noon; that is the greater
residual nuclear dipole seems to make possible a difference in the delay
of reception; a longer delay as the earth truns more before light from
the particular star becomes visible. That is the proposed theory explains
the bending of light, by gravity without requiring a distrotion in the
trhee dimensional Cartesian coordinate system representing physical space
for out of the ordinary observations according to Einstein's ingenious
formula A similar explanation applies to the red shift in radar
reflections from venus and mercury when they are on the opposite side of
the sun; that is the gravitational effect of the sun is not to change the
time scale of light wave disturbances in the ether near the sun so as to
increase the time between successive peaks and valleys of a sine
oscillation but to influence the radar receiving antennas on the earth so
that they do not respond as quickly to changes in oscillating forces on
the free electrons in their antennas resulting in a lower frequency for
the received oscillation of charge in the radar antenna. Similarly for
other red shift experiments like Brault's on the gravitational red shift
of solar lines (Bull Amer Phys Soc. 8,28 1963). The red shift of gamma
rays as a function of their heighth 22.5 meters above the earth's surface
and the gravitational field of the earth may have a similar explanation.
That is the shift should be greater the greater the distance between the
source and the receiver at least during the day; if the experiment is
performed at night the results should be a lesser delay. But the cause of
the delay is not the gravitational field of the Earth but the effect of
the sun's gravitational field on the earth's gravitational field Recent
variations in the gravitational constant when electostatic means are used
to create stability in balance measurements may be explained more clearly
in terms of these effects than of GR effects.
Subject: (no subject)
From: Ralph Sansbury
Date: 31 Aug 1996 18:01:36 GMT
The basic idea here is that gravity may be due to radially oriented
electrostatic dipoles inside the earth's atomic nuclei; the negative
pole, with some multiple of the electron's charge, is the inner pole and
the outer pole has enought positive charge so that the total charge is
that of a proton; the distance between oppositely charged poles is
between 10^-12 and 10^-18meters inside the earth's atomic nuclei; the
value of each dipole increases with the distance between it and all other
dipoles so the force between any two dipoles is proportional to the
distance between the dipoles squared taking into account their relative
orientation; this means that the instantaneous dipole-dipole force which
varies inversely as the fourth power between colinear dipoles reduces to
an inverse square force; the different sizes of dipoles determined by
different pairwise interactions and their different forces when summed
together over all pairwise interactions yields a single force and implies
a single unique dipole in each nucleus intermediate to the pairwise
extremes given above and closer to the the measured values of nuclear
radii in different contexts, about 10^-15 meters.
From this premise it is possible to derive all of the substantiated
predictions of General Relativity, most of which have to do with the
explicit interaction of gravity with electrical and magnetic forces,
without recourse to the assumption that the force of gravity is a functon
not only of properties of the force source like its size, density,
location but also of its velocity and acceleration. The dependence in GR
of the gravitational field on the velocity and acceleration of the force
source leads to counter intuitive and subjectivist space time distortions
beyond Einstein's fantasies eg. those of Hawking, Penrose, Whitten etc..
To make the same predictions as GR we must also correct a similar
mistaken assumption in Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic forces.
Maxwell had to withdraw his claims of a crowded if not distorted ether
filled with invisible cams that propagated not only characteristics of
the source like its volume, density,and location but also of its motion;
the mathematics gave accurate predictions so perhaps one could ignore the
cams or isomorphic mechanisms. It was like the grin of the cheshire cat
in Lewis Carroll's Wonderland also of the 1860s. But one can't accept
Maxwell's mathematics and ignore its absurd implications. The mathematics
predicted the observed radiation but it also implied a mechanism for
transmitting the effects for which there was no independent evidence,
which was thus invisible but had the rigidity of iron. Such absurd
implications were swept under the rug and not until Feynman's QED theory
of Einstein's photons and probabilistic theory of light and its
interactions with matter was the problem resolved -by substituting
photons for waves at all frequencies. In Maxwell's theory, the fact that
the source of a radiated force, a moving charge, was oscillating in a
repetitive pattern helped; just like the regular pattern of planets
orbiting the sun and the solar system orbiting the center of the galaxy
etc helped Einstein's use of a similar assumption in GR.
Maxwell's absurd implications can be avoided without Feynman's
circumlocutions that permit some general description of the interaction
of light with matter but prevent one from knowing the specific
interactions of specific photons or their source with the receiver. If
one acknowledges that light is not a moving thing but the result of
instantaneous forces at a distance on charged matter whose inertia etc.,
delays the appearance of received radiation, then the interaction of
light with matter can be described in terms of what actually happens and
not merely probabalistically. Is such a theory of light consistent with
measurements of the speed of light? Yes in all but one case the observed
values can be so interpreted; the exception is Roemer's crude measurement
which is far enough from the other values to be regarded as a non
coincidence. Roemer's measurement is also an inconsistent one when moons
of Jupiter besides Io eg Europa are taken into account.
Similarly the absurd or probabilistic implications of GR can be
avoided by finding an alternative to the assumption that the
gravitational field is a function of the velocity and acceleration of the
source of the field. This alternative is the assumption of instantaneous
electrical interactions that account for the delay in the appearance of
received electromagnetic radiation, for the apparent bending of light
and frequency shifts of radar due to the sun, of gamma rays due to the
earth, etc..
Getting back to the basics of the proposed alternative theory.
The proposed electrostatic dipoles also exist in current carrying wires,
transverse to and proportional to the driving force of the current,
inside the atomic nuclei and free electrons of current carrying wires
formerly characterized as their spin.These dipoles which also increase
with the distance between interacting wires and decrease with the
currents in other wires as explained below produce the magnetic field of
a current carrying wire. (Experiments suggesting that electrons and
atomic nuclei do not have electrostatic dipoles do so only after the
effects of spin have been taken into account) These dipoles are
superimposed on the dipoles associated with gravity. Electrostatic
dipoles in the atomic nuclei of ferromagnetic materials can also explain
the magnetic field of these materials; unlike materials composed of any
of the other elements, the atoms in these materials are bound together by
their electrons in configurations that prevent to some extent the nuclear
dipoles from changing direction so as to line up with the gravitational
field of the earth of which they are a part; that is they prefer to line
up with the nuclear dipoles around them in the same domain or in the
entire bulk material of which they are a part. To make the nuclear
dipoles in such materials line up completely with the gravitational field
of the earth it is necessary that the bulk material containing the
nuclear dipoles also changes orientation - as in a compass needle.
Now a magnetized piece of iron or steel held below a piece of paper
with iron filings on it can cause the iron filings to line up in a
certain way giving rise to Faraday's notion of invisible lines of force;
a piece of copper, silicon or what have you will not be able to produce
the same effect on the iron filings; the reason for this is that the
electrostatic dipoles in the nuclei of silicon and of these other
materials change direction constantly so as to line up with the earth's
radius from these atoms toward the center of the earth etc; The force of
gravity can be shown to be nothing more than the collective force of an
enormous number of such electrostatic dipoles.
The Argument: 1) We argue that the spin of electrons and nuclei can be
better characterized in terms of charge polarization inside the electrons
and nuclei; 2)that electrostatic shielding involving the relative
displacement of free electrons and lattice ions in conductive materials
producing a relatively large dipole does not shield against the effects
of charge polarization inside the free electrons and lattice nuclei of
such materials when they are carrying a current, ie their so called
magnetic effects; 3) that the electrostatic dipoles associated with the
gravitational effects of satellites, planets, stars, galaxies, clusters,
superclusters etc were produced by a primordial force whose initial
effect was the forward motion of the atomic nuclei within a large
collection of nuclei and charge polarization transverse to the forward
motion and subsequently a torque on these collections of transverse
electrostatic dipoles which moved together causing the galaxies etc to
spin and spin off stars and stars to spin off planets and planets to spin
off satellites etc.; 4)that the attraction of planets to the sun requires
a dipole inside nuclei tracking the sun in addition to the one whose
orientation is constantly changing so as to be directed toward the center
of the planet etc.; 5)that Cavendish's measurement of the horizontal
gravitational force between lead balls is due to the attraction between
the transverse component of radial oriented dipoles inside the atomic
nuclei of the attracted balls; that to sustain the dipoles in the atomic
nuclei of planets and stars the transverse dipole component fields may
sustain one another; that is the radial and longitudinal dipoles
transverse to a force in the latitudinal direction produce fields at
right angles (continued in a longer post of 413 segments)
Subject: Magnetism as Gravity Measured by Magnetic Materials
From: Ralph Sansbury
Date: 31 Aug 1996 18:05:40 GMT
The basic idea here is that gravity may be due to radially oriented
electrostatic dipoles inside the earth's atomic nuclei; the negative
pole, with some multiple of the electron's charge, is the inner pole and
the outer pole has enought positive charge so that the total charge is
that of a proton; the distance between oppositely charged poles is
between 10^-12 and 10^-18meters inside the earth's atomic nuclei; the
value of each dipole increases with the distance between it and all other
dipoles so the force between any two dipoles is proportional to the
distance between the dipoles squared taking into account their relative
orientation; this means that the instantaneous dipole-dipole force which
varies inversely as the fourth power between colinear dipoles reduces to
an inverse square force; the different sizes of dipoles determined by
different pairwise interactions and their different forces when summed
together over all pairwise interactions yields a single force and implies
a single unique dipole in each nucleus intermediate to the pairwise
extremes given above and closer to the the measured values of nuclear
radii in different contexts, about 10^-15 meters.
From this premise it is possible to derive all of the substantiated
predictions of General Relativity, most of which have to do with the
explicit interaction of gravity with electrical and magnetic forces,
without recourse to the assumption that the force of gravity is a functon
not only of properties of the force source like its size, density,
location but also of its velocity and acceleration. The dependence in GR
of the gravitational field on the velocity and acceleration of the force
source leads to counter intuitive and subjectivist space time distortions
beyond Einstein's fantasies eg. those of Hawking, Penrose, Whitten etc..
To make the same predictions as GR we must also correct a similar
mistaken assumption in Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic forces.
Maxwell had to withdraw his claims of a crowded if not distorted ether
filled with invisible cams that propagated not only characteristics of
the source like its volume, density,and location but also of its motion;
the mathematics gave accurate predictions so perhaps one could ignore the
cams or isomorphic mechanisms. It was like the grin of the cheshire cat
in Lewis Carroll's Wonderland also of the 1860s. But one can't accept
Maxwell's mathematics and ignore its absurd implications. The mathematics
predicted the observed radiation but it also implied a mechanism for
transmitting the effects for which there was no independent evidence,
which was thus invisible but had the rigidity of iron. Such absurd
implications were swept under the rug and not until Feynman's QED theory
of Einstein's photons and probabilistic theory of light and its
interactions with matter was the problem resolved -by substituting
photons for waves at all frequencies. In Maxwell's theory, the fact that
the source of a radiated force, a moving charge, was oscillating in a
repetitive pattern helped; just like the regular pattern of planets
orbiting the sun and the solar system orbiting the center of the galaxy
etc helped Einstein's use of a similar assumption in GR.
Maxwell's absurd implications can be avoided without Feynman's
circumlocutions that permit some general description of the interaction
of light with matter but prevent one from knowing the specific
interactions of specific photons or their source with the receiver. If
one acknowledges that light is not a moving thing but the result of
instantaneous forces at a distance on charged matter whose inertia etc.,
delays the appearance of received radiation, then the interaction of
light with matter can be described in terms of what actually happens and
not merely probabalistically. Is such a theory of light consistent with
measurements of the speed of light? Yes in all but one case the observed
values can be so interpreted; the exception is Roemer's crude measurement
which is far enough from the other values to be regarded as a non
coincidence. Roemer's measurement is also an inconsistent one when moons
of Jupiter besides Io eg Europa are taken into account.
Similarly the absurd or probabilistic implications of GR can be
avoided by finding an alternative to the assumption that the
gravitational field is a function of the velocity and acceleration of the
source of the field. This alternative is the assumption of instantaneous
electrical interactions that account for the delay in the appearance of
received electromagnetic radiation, for the apparent bending of light
and frequency shifts of radar due to the sun, of gamma rays due to the
earth, etc..
Getting back to the basics of the proposed alternative theory.
The proposed electrostatic dipoles also exist in current carrying wires,
transverse to and proportional to the driving force of the current,
inside the atomic nuclei and free electrons of current carrying wires
formerly characterized as their spin.These dipoles which also increase
with the distance between interacting wires and decrease with the
currents in other wires as explained below produce the magnetic field of
a current carrying wire. (Experiments suggesting that electrons and
atomic nuclei do not have electrostatic dipoles do so only after the
effects of spin have been taken into account) These dipoles are
superimposed on the dipoles associated with gravity. Electrostatic
dipoles in the atomic nuclei of ferromagnetic materials can also explain
the magnetic field of these materials; unlike materials composed of any
of the other elements, the atoms in these materials are bound together by
their electrons in configurations that prevent to some extent the nuclear
dipoles from changing direction so as to line up with the gravitational
field of the earth of which they are a part; that is they prefer to line
up with the nuclear dipoles around them in the same domain or in the
entire bulk material of which they are a part. To make the nuclear
dipoles in such materials line up completely with the gravitational field
of the earth it is necessary that the bulk material containing the
nuclear dipoles also changes orientation - as in a compass needle.
Now a magnetized piece of iron or steel held below a piece of paper
with iron filings on it can cause the iron filings to line up in a
certain way giving rise to Faraday's notion of invisible lines of force;
a piece of copper, silicon or what have you will not be able to produce
the same effect on the iron filings; the reason for this is that the
electrostatic dipoles in the nuclei of silicon and of these other
materials change direction constantly so as to line up with the earth's
radius from these atoms toward the center of the earth etc; The force of
gravity can be shown to be nothing more than the collective force of an
enormous number of such electrostatic dipoles.
The Argument: 1) We argue that the spin of electrons and nuclei can be
better characterized in terms of charge polarization inside the electrons
and nuclei; 2)that electrostatic shielding involving the relative
displacement of free electrons and lattice ions in conductive materials
producing a relatively large dipole does not shield against the effects
of charge polarization inside the free electrons and lattice nuclei of
such materials when they are carrying a current, ie their so called
magnetic effects; 3) that the electrostatic dipoles associated with the
gravitational effects of satellites, planets, stars, galaxies, clusters,
superclusters etc were produced by a primordial force whose initial
effect was the forward motion of the atomic nuclei within a large
collection of nuclei and charge polarization transverse to the forward
motion and subsequently a torque on these collections of transverse
electrostatic dipoles which moved together causing the galaxies etc to
spin and spin off stars and stars to spin off planets and planets to spin
off satellites etc.; 4)that the attraction of planets to the sun requires
a dipole inside nuclei tracking the sun in addition to the one whose
orientation is constantly changing so as to be directed toward the center
of the planet etc.; 5)that Cavendish's measurement of the horizontal
gravitational force between lead balls is due to the attraction between
the transverse component of radial oriented dipoles inside the atomic
nuclei of the attracted balls; that to sustain the dipoles in the atomic
nuclei of planets and stars the transverse dipole component fields may
sustain one another; that is the radial and longitudinal dipoles
transverse to a force in the latitudinal direction produce fields at
right angles
Subject: Re: Utter Futility of Arguing With Creationists
From: bashford@psnw.com (Douglas Bashford)
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 18:11:46 GMT
I notice this is posted to:
alt.atheism,talk.atheism,talk.origins,sci.skeptic,sci.misc,
alt.philosophy.objectivism,sci.philosophy.meta,talk.philosophy.humanism,
talk.philosophy.misc,alt.catastrophism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,
sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology
You guys wouldn't exagerate a bit, would you?
So?
Re: Utter Futility of Arguing With Creationists
This entire creationism v. science science debate is
logically invalid. Why? This little thing known as
evidence-as-proof. Apples and oranges. The whole
discussusion. Not philosophically valid.
Why? Your so called "debate" is not carried on in the
halls of science, religion, nor philosophy. What do they
know that you guys don't?
Do you remember this:
>zoner@indirect.com wrote:
>: geo@3-cities.com writes:
>: >From: geo@3-cities.com
>: >Subject: Re: PROOF OF GREAT FLOOD: Early man predicts ice age (bible: Gen 7:1...) ???
>: >Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 14:34:14 GMT
>: >zoner@indirect.com wrote:
>: >>Time, that not you or anyone actually knows happened! You didn't witness
>: >>anything! If you did, send me the video.
>: I have the Bible, written by God, who WAS there, what do YOU have? A bunch of
>: nonsensical theories about how life formed, not proof at all.
>You know, Zoner, you're getting more and more laughable. I know you're
>getting my posts, because you're responding to posts going to exactly the
>. You also ignore anything that
>actually asks you to provide even semi-reasoned responses to questions
>2) How many times do I have to repeat this: Simply saying, "The bible says
>so." is not supporting evidence, especially for providing support for your
>literal creationist view. As was shown in a previous post, (and I've
>mentioned a couple times) the Pope, head person of the entire Roman Catholic
>3) This is probably the 5th or 6th time I've seen you claim "no proof at
>all" for evolution since I first posted for you a list of items of
>observational evidence,
etc, etc....sorry I didn't read the entire post...
This matter of evidence.
If Zoner happens to belong to the non-scientific, non-Biblical
Creation Science Cult, then all your points are valid. However,
if he claims only Christianity as evidence, your arguments are
scientifically and logically invalid.
As reference, I suggest you look up the three unprovable assumptions
in the philosophy of science. This philosophy is the Western
communication's default philosophy, the foundations that our thinking
is built upon. Stuff related to cogito ergo cogito sum, the very
basics; these three unprovable assumptions.
I think you will find that evaluating one philosophy using a different
philosophy (with an entire different set of evidence-as-proof) is
logically, philosophically, and scientifically invalid.
For example, science could never say: "God did not create the
universe." Nor "That painting is not art." These questions are
clearly and utterly outside of the philosophy of science.
So:
>Simply saying, "The bible says
>so." is not supporting evidence, especially for providing support for your
>literal creationist view."
In fact within Zoner's philosophy it may very well be evidence. If
so, you will utterly lose if you attempt to prove that your
philosophy is more valid than his.
In part, this is also because your three unprovable assumptions are
equally as unprovable as his Bible-as-evidence assumptions.
Normally we need not preface each statement with; "According to
the philosophy of science..." However, in the context of comparing
different philosophies this had better be made explicit.
I don't think science can touch:
>: I have the Bible, written by God, who WAS there,
blah blah. Science can't touch that. Nor can creationism
touch science. Apples and oranges. They are BOTH invalid
investigating the other.
Why? Each of those philosophies has a separate system of
system of evidence-as-proof, and it it likely niether will
EVER provide logical evidence that one superior to the other.
--Doug