About this 1/r vs 1/r^2 thing ...

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: About this 1/r vs 1/r^2 thing ...

Unread postby Nereid » Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:08 am

David Talbott wrote:
Nereid wrote:Oh, and let's keep in mind that all this modelling is based on classical physics, with the exception of small additions of atomic theory to parts of plasma physics. How you choose to understand this, knowing that classical physics is 'wrong' in some important ways - how you relate models to reality perhaps - goes way beyond what's in this thread (so far).
I don't know of any instance in which the primary electrical theorists either claim or unwittingly imply that classical physics is "wrong". If you've found some suggestion to this effect, could you direct me to the discussion?

Dave,

The most obvious case - that I can think of off the top of my head - is the acceptance of Arp's intrinsic redshift idea. Implicitly - whether 'unwittingly imply' applies, I cannot say - there's rather a lot; for example, thermodynamics, in the Electric Sun hypothesis (however discussion of all those will be in other threads than this).

More generally, in this forum, there seems to be an (uncritical?) acceptance (by mods/admins, not primary electrical theorists of course) of a great many alternative physics ideas that are manifestly inconsistent with classical physics.
jjohnson wrote:Question 1: is it "legal" (useful?) to posit a reference frame which is not moving relative to a photon. in order to examine, describe or otherwise investigate that photon?

I don't think so. The concept of 'photon' is so intricately tied to quantum mechanics that I doubt much investigation could be done without having to address some of the mind-twisting aspects of QM.
Question 2: If a hydrogen atom is very cold and therefore must radiate at a very long wavelength, and its electron is in its lowest energy orbital, what happens to the electron each time it emits one more photon? The atom loses some angular momentum? A lower orbital becomes possible and necessary? How long can this keep up? Or does the rate of photon emission just get slower and slower? SInce this is subatomic stuff, my intuition says learn QM and figure it out for yourself, but an electron does not have an inexhaustible supply of enough internal or orbital energy to keep radiating forever. It may not be correct to think of an atom as a blackbody - in fact, it seems unlikely to me that it could be one, as a blackbody requires sufficient electrons to emit smoothly and continuously over a wide frequency range.

They're very good questions Jim (as usual)! But, as you say, rather a long way from this thread.

On the topic of the source of observed photons, there are some which arise from nuclei, rather than electrons. For example, INTEGRAL has detected a nuclear transition line, from the decay of aluminium-26 in the interstellar medium.

To return to what started this thread, and to recap ... similar like-charged plasma filaments in galaxies attract each other at 1/r more strongly than gravity 1/r^2.

This is, ultimately, a question about theories. For example, "plasma filaments" - what are these but constructs of human minds, built on theoretical concepts like 'charge'? The 'function of r' behaviour of the forces we've been considering are derivable from, ultimately, the postulates (or assumptions) that the theories are founded on; such derivations are almost entirely mathematical in form. The connection of these theories to 'realilty' is via observations (treating experimental results as observations, if only because we cannot - yet - arbitrarily change the charge of the electron, or its mass, say). For 'galaxies' the connection is remote; we can only connect our observations to some distant 'reality' via quantitative models - of varying degrees of complexity - which seek to transform quantitative data from various instruments into 4D functions (two of 'space' - the sky coordinates - one of wavelength/frequency/energy, and one of time; adding polarisation makes them 5D or 6D functions); Solar's post provides an excellent example of this.

Interestingly, all of us - including electrical theorists - make use of theories of physics other than those called classical physics. For example, line emission (and absorption) is, today, universally understood in terms of transitions between energy states in atoms (or ions, or molecules; occasionally nuclei), which in turn is founded on quantum mechanics (and special relativity).
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: About this 1/r vs 1/r^2 thing ...

Unread postby Goldminer » Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:18 pm

Nereid wrote:To return to what started this thread, and to recap ... similar like-charged plasma filaments in galaxies attract each other at 1/r more strongly than gravity 1/r^2.

This is, ultimately, a question about theories. For example, "plasma filaments" - what are these but constructs of human minds, built on theoretical concepts like 'charge'?


Well, not exactly, Nereid . . . Plasma filaments are observed in laboratory experiments, and Lightening, to name a couple of observations; unless you think the observations are figments of the observer's minds. Extending them to universal observations then, doesn't seem such a leap, does it now?
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
Goldminer
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: About this 1/r vs 1/r^2 thing ...

Unread postby Nereid » Thu Apr 14, 2011 4:41 am

Goldminer wrote:
Nereid wrote:[snip]
This is, ultimately, a question about theories. For example, "plasma filaments" - what are these but constructs of human minds, built on theoretical concepts like 'charge'?

Well, not exactly, Nereid . . . Plasma filaments are observed in laboratory experiments, and Lightening, to name a couple of observations; unless you think the observations are figments of the observer's minds.

Lightning - as in a bright, sometimes flickering, forked flash of light in the sky, from clouds to ground (to give it a shorthand) - is indeed an observed phenomenon, in that people with normal vision will nearly all report seeing pretty much the same thing.

Lightning as a plasma filament (or plasma filaments)? No, that's not an observation (note that I used the word 'ultimately'): 'plasma', in the sense it's used here, is a construct of human minds, built on theoretical concepts like 'charge'.
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: About this 1/r vs 1/r^2 thing ...

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Apr 14, 2011 4:15 pm

Nereid opined: Lightning as a plasma filament (or plasma filaments)? No, that's not an observation (note that I used the word 'ultimately'): 'plasma', in the sense it's used here, is a construct of human minds, built on theoretical concepts like 'charge'.

* You're engaging in off-topic, irrelevant, boring, legalese-like obscurantism again. Most folks likely will be satisfied that plasma and charge have been scientifically observed to exist and that electric discharges consist largely of plasma, and plasma consists largely of charged particles. And most will also likely have little or no interest in reading a debate on whether or not they do exist.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4411
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: About this 1/r vs 1/r^2 thing ...

Unread postby jacmac » Sat Apr 16, 2011 3:38 pm

I do believe that the 1/r ratio and the 1/r2 ratio of forces is basically the same for gravity and the EM forces based on the geometry of the two sources.

I do have a couple of questions about items above.

Jim,
You said a few posts back:
That is, as you point out, 1/r² for a "point" source; 1/r if the source is a long line, and CONSTANT IF THE SOURCE IS THE INFINITE PLANE.

This, I think, is very interesting, and something I have now just learned from you. Thanks. So, if the source(s) is two infinite planes the distance between them has no effect(constant) on the strength of the attraction , or repulsion if we talk of a plasma event like a "double layer." ?
The "double layer" at the boundary of our heliosphere, for example, is so large that it could act as if it were ALMOST infinite. The "double layer" could widen or narrow to accommodate changes in local plasma events while maintaining an "ALMOST constant" effect between the Solar side and the Galaxy side of itself. Is this then a mechanism by which the heliosphere is self adjustable ?

Solrey,
Regarding the interesting links you offered above (thanks for those), the only one that had a cross section is the one about the Triskelion shape. I do also understand the idea of a spiraling Birkeland current. What I am looking for help on is the basic cross section, or down the barrel view, of what a single typical Birkeland current might look like just as it relates to the relative position of the negative electrons and the positive ions making up the "two concentric charge sheath layers." What is the cross section of the straw? I am going to take a wild guess that the electrons tend to be on the outer and the positive ions on the inner. Is there a simple model of these currents, perhaps as found in the laboratory ?

Thanks,
Now back to my current reading about why the electron of an atom does not continue to be attracted closer to the nucleus of the same atom. I am, apparently, on the threshold of quantum physics. Cover me, I'm going in...

Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 595
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: About this 1/r vs 1/r^2 thing ...

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:48 am

JacMac said: Now back to my current reading about why the electron of an atom does not continue to be attracted closer to the nucleus of the same atom.

* I think this post, http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4284&p=50186#p50026, explains that the electron's electric field attracts it to the proton's electric field, but its magnetic field repels it from the proton's magnetic field. So the electron settles at the position where the attractive and repelling forces balance. Russian Professor Kanarev is the one who has discovered these findings, which don't involve relativity and they supersede quantum mechanics. Neutrons serve as a screens between protons, which would otherwise repel each other and would not form nuclei.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4411
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: About this 1/r vs 1/r^2 thing ...

Unread postby Nereid » Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:18 am

Lloyd wrote:You're engaging in off-topic, irrelevant, boring, legalese-like obscurantism again.

Just out of curiousity Lloyd, why do you think what I wrote is:
- off-topic?
- irrelevant?
- boring? (actually I don't really care about why you think it's boring)
- legalese-like obscurantism?

After all, this is a scientific part of this forum, isn't it? and it deals with published Electric Universe theory, does it not? (source)
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: About this 1/r vs 1/r^2 thing ...

Unread postby jjohnson » Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:03 pm

jacmac - I don't know about two infinite planes of charge (assuming they are parallel and a finite, constant distance apart), but if they have the same charge polarity (both planes being + or - and repelling, then the acceleration vectors would essentially double in strength, and all are normal to the two planes. I do not know if double layers have to be parallel, or if roughly parallel is good enough for them to store energy in the fields between the separated charges. (That's the mechanism whereby energy is stored; it is not stored in the charged particles.)

The reference source for the discussion of standard charge configurations (point, infinite line and infinite plane) and the mathematical description of field strength along a line normal to the charged source, is Schaum's Outlines: Electromagnetics, 2d Ed., Joseph Edminister, Prof. Emeritus of Electrical Engineering, 1993, McGraw Hill. Acoustical sound pressure level fields around point and extended sources are analogous in many respects. Note that there are charge arrangements as well as mass arrangements that are not precisley one of the 3 standard ones, such as a clump, or a finite line, or a line of variable real thickness, or a finite plane of arbitrary outline or "shape, or curved planes, etc.

For practical reasons, most gravitational problems tend to be realized using point or spherical sources, the latter being simplified by assuming the total mass can be represented as if it all falls at the center of mass. A rotating spiral or elliptical galaxy is a different matter altogether, as the gravity field of interest is more or less within the plane of the galactic structure, and less often above or outside the plane, except with colliding galaxy simulations, which are complex models indeed.

Jim
jjohnson
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Previous

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests