"Brian Quincy Hutchings", "1treePetrifiedForestLane"
<***@hotmail.com> talked to himself because:
hanson wrote:
Basically, a simple case can be made for the
"explanation" of gravity by mathematical inference.
Run the numbers. Dims & numerical size fit exactly:
_____ G = a * e^2 / m_pl^2 ______ [1]
It says that Newton's "G" is the result of the ratio
of the electric charge per its Planck mass.
Or, Gravitation is a manifestation of the number of
electric charges on a given mass
or, Gravitation is a manifestation of the (quantified?)
charge density on a given mass.
The experimental case for e/m has been measured
by Millikan's Oil drop experiment way back in 1909.
The illbegotten steam roller of Einstein's SR/GR
Gedanken farts suppressed any further investigation
into the now obvious connection between e, m & G.
So, Gravity appears to be a manifestation of the
presence of EM charges on mass entities.
Experiments with capacitors type gizmos may yield
further insights about the cause of Gravity.
One may also take into consideration that (+) & (-)
electric elementary unit charges may be opposite
but NOT quite of the same strength. This symmetry
may be broken at the level of 10^(-39) and produce
a scenario that
the electric attractive force between ( + - ) EM charges
is stronger by a fraction of 1/10^39 then the repelling
force is between like (+ +) or (- -) charges...
In that case one then could measure an EXCESS of
attractive force between Mol sized quantities of
electrically neutral masses, as is commonly seen in
the here and now local and celestial realm... and...
... one is home free to explain Gravity.... by electing to
see Gravity as being a vanishing residual or differential
effect of the electric charge behavior.
Relating to that, in 1970, Prokhovnik raised the notion
that the density (rho) of atoms in free (cosmological)
space and the size of the Hubble constant H explain
Gravity simply as being ___ G = H^2 / rho __. [2]
One may combine expressions [1] and [2] and arrive
yet at another set of explanations for the cause of
gravity.
A classical problem for gravity explanations arises
from e^2 = a*hbar*c, which connects the electric charge
to the HUP's uncertainty of the photon's energy, which
when measured as E = h*f, caused Einstein grief &
say in
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] no nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta, aka h*f?'.
"Brian Quincy Hutchings" wrote:
atoms have angular monetum.
hanson wrote: ... So what?....
You repeat that every 2nd day.
"Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:
they are waves through the medium of free space,
which hath atoms.
hanson worte:
Why are you answering the question in a different
thread?... ahahaha... Sunday afternoon.... and you
are drunk again, aren't you, Quincy.... ahahahaha..
Now wincey Quincy, how does your "atoms have
angular momentum & being waves through the
medium of free space" explain the nature of Gravity?
You may resort to your "thus"- and "hath"-English
if you believe that it will enhance the intelligence
of your response, but stay in the same thread
like "1 tree in a Petrified Forest Lane" would do.
"Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:
I haven't the time to see your formalism,
but it might be okay with my (obvious) statements:
that "they are waves through the medium of free
space, which hath atoms."
hanson wrote:
Quincy, I am not interested in you judging the
formalism of Planck & Prok in [1] & [2]. But tell
how does your "atoms have angular momentum &
being waves through the medium of free space"
explain the nature of Gravity?
Quincy Hutchings wrote:
welcome to the world of Einsteinmania,
plus Alfven; tehy ain't wrongsville.
hanson wrote:
ahahaha.... Quincy, you have no scenario to explain
Gravity because you are a village idiot and a drunken
one at that, who simply uses some buzz words, but
who has no idea what they mean... just like you did
earlier with these:
|||Quincy asks: " do I have to kiss the Dingleberries?
||| Quincy says: Too bad, I can't just go "backwards
||| Quincy says: in time, and kill the mofo Einstein in the
||| Quincy says: patent office.
||||Quincy says: E=mcc is "just" an elaboration of KE=mvv
||||Quincy says: I want to believe in wormholes
||||Quincy says: that are absolute F and FS."
ahahaha... Now Quincy, you tanked up Village idiot,
bring on your other very frequently used buzzword, your
"Quaternion" about which you don't know neither shit,
nor Jack Shit and much less do you know how to explain
gravity.
ahahahahaha.... ahahahaha.... Village idiot Quincy listen:
Go converse with some likes of yours, "imperial thinkers",
who like you do impress themselves with buzz words,
such as the faith-based ZNR Semite anti Oligarch Brad
Guth and/or the bigoted raciost pig, kike "G=EMC^2" Bert
Glazier. __ You will feel great amongst your equals ___.
Till then, Qunicy, thank for the laughs... ahahahahanson
"Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:
tha is correct; special relativity is really just quaternions,
as shown by Einstien's Jewish assistant,
Lanczos, in _Variational Machanics_ (Dover).
qaudratic eqautions using quaternions,
teh original vector mechanics lingo by Hamilton,
also teh creator of the first (other) phase-space,
or configuration space, the Hamiltonian.
of course, as far as I know,
garvity is just an ermergent property of the discoveries
of the Alfven school in plasma labs. perhaps,
your "abovesville" might be a very simplified form of that.
hanson wrote:
.... ahahahaha... but Quincy, all you did now, is combining
your previous individual buzz-words into a huge
word-salad and mentioning the authors of your buzzwords
... yet nowhere have you provided an explanation for
the cause of gravity....
LOL. Thanks for the laughs, though.... ahahahanson
"Brian Quincy Hutchings"wrote:
<Quincy changed the subject line to>
Re: the naked-vector cause of gravity, ask Alfven; don't try to
parse hoho! ... although special relativity is "just quaternions,
and obviously not lightconeheads," in the calculational sense,
that doesn't interest mee too much, because ** I'm a geometer**.
yes, I should become more practiced with them, and will be,
but so should you be.
when Gibbs divided teh quaternions into an outer product space
(called vector machanics, again) and an inner product space,
it was to simplify some few important things, and had apparently
swept the engineering field, but it lost quite a bit, notably the
facility with rotations.
firstly, i propose to dump the "imaginary" nomenclature,
even though it is very clear to math-folks, and to go
with "the real, scalar part, and its associated naked vector,
with it's three components, i, j and k, usual noncommutative
rule applied, thak you.
hanson wrote:
Quincy, bring on example/s, equation/s & NUMBERS,
not just your math-ass philosophy word salad insistence
that some "naked-vector causes gravity". Don't be an
embarrassment to the math- and geometer folks.
But now Quincy, by you talking to yourself you have shown
that you are an embarrassment, and not just the drunken
village idiots. Give it a rest now, Quincy... and THANKS
for the laughs, though... ahahahaha... hahahahanson
Quincy Hutchings wrote:
I don't have any pressing need to do quaternions,
relativity, or jumping jacks.
hanson wrote:
IOW, you can't, which is cool too. I enjoyed your
tormented laments though. Thanks for the laughs.
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson