LR v SR

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Koenig]: does that not tend to indicate that the Quark is not the smallest "unit" as scale decreases??<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Scale is infinitely divisible in MM. Quarks are nothing special and have structure of their own, as one experiment already indicates. See Sci.News 149, 102 (1996): Scattering experiments show more recoil than expected, as if something “solid” within a quark produced a rebound. The authors point out this suggests substructure to quarks. -|Tom|-

[N.B. Make sure every "quote" command has a corresponding "/quote". I've had to edit your last two posts to make it clear what was quoted and what was new. "Edit" your old messages (without changing them) to see what they now look like.]

I quote Tom here:-

"Scale is infinitely divisible in MM. Quarks are nothing special and have structure of their own, as one experiment already indicates. See Sci.News 149, 102 (1996): Scattering experiments show more recoil than expected, as if something “solid” within a quark produced a rebound. The authors point out this suggests substructure to quarks. -|Tom|-"

Ko's reply:-
Now if those "sub-quark" stuctures possess individual charge values adding together to give the accepted total charge value of their parent Quark, then it follows that the Modulus value of the total charge in the atom nucleus is greater than the currently accepted value is it not?

[apologies for my poor use of this message board conventions. I am having to "unlearn" a few habits that work on different message boards. ]

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Now if those "sub-quark" stuctures possess individual charge values adding together to give the accepted total charge value of their parent Quark, then it follows that the Modulus value of the total charge in the atom nucleus is greater than the currently accepted value is it not?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I have no idea what that means. -|Tom|-

I have no idea what that means. -|Tom|-


Ko's reply.

A neutron has zero charge overall, but its quarks are said to have fractional, cancelling out charges. The Modulus value of a neutron is 2/3 + 1/3 +1/3
(1 1/3 total)

i.e. add up all the sub charges regardless of sign.

Now if there is another level of complexity, i.e. "subquarks" that have even smaller fractional charges, the Modulus of the charges is Greater than 1 1/3.

What I am trying to do is get away from looking at a hydrogen nucleus as having just +1 charge. Thats just the arithmetical sum of its charges, not the total modulus of ALL the subcharges in it.

Now if the Universe is infinite on the micro scale, is it possible that the different layers of complexity add charge that tends towards a limit value.

[massive intake of breath] That limit would be the "mass" of the nucleon.

I might try to explain the difference (vast) between weak Gravity and a (detectable) static electric field by this line of reasoning:-

If the attractive force between unlike charges is less (by a tiny fraction)than the repulsive forces between like charges, then the net difference could be the weak force of gravity.

Now if Gavity is a vector sum of all the static electric fields created by the totality of all the individual charges in matter, we have some kind of explanation of why LR sees the local gravitational field as a prefered frame of reference.

If Gravity is FTL, then so are static electric fields. Doesn't that meen a potential difference is sensed instantaneously?

Has anyone measured the time delay in a telegraph signal with a continuous single(no exchanges)wire?

The delay in telephone calls (say USA- H.K.) is the speed of light time taken to bounce a radio (EM radiation) off a geosynchronous satellite.










<b></b><b></b>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Koenig]: If the attractive force between unlike charges is less (by a tiny fraction)than the repulsive forces between like charges, then the net difference could be the weak force of gravity.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Many people have had that thought. But it leaves most properties of gravitation, including all GR properties, unexplained. For starters, how would gravity work between two charge-neutral bodies? How does it get its dependence on mass (as opposed to charge)? Why does electrostatic force behave so differently from gravitational force?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Now if Gravity is a vector sum of all the static electric fields created by the totality of all the individual charges in matter, we have some kind of explanation of why LR sees the local gravitational field as a prefered frame of reference.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I'm partial to the more complete model in <i>Pushing Gravity</i> that gives a more intuitive explanation and also gives all the GR effects as a bonus.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If Gravity is FTL, then so are static electric fields. Doesn't that meen a potential difference is sensed instantaneously?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

No because the potential field is a different entity from the force mechanism. E.g., for gravitation, gravitational force is apparently produced by tiny FTL gravitons, which reshape the potential field (same as "light-carrying medium) and make its gradient (density) linear with distance from a source mass, much like an extended atmosphere. (Many models have suggested that the potential field is some type of optical medium, and that "space-time curvature" is just refraction in that medium.)

Assuming such a model, then disturbances in the light-carrying medium (potential field) obviously propagate at speed c even while forces operate nearly instantaneously. -|Tom|-