"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
Jonathan wrote:

Comments and criticism welcome.

Uncle Al's new bull**** meters have their dials buffered in heavy
mineral oil.

It should be obvious to most the defining role that
inverse square relationships play in the physical
universe.


You're arguments are disingenuine.

Doesn't work for magnetic dipoles,

But a dipole is two point charges, and
what relationships do point charges follow?
Inverse square of course, a dipole just turns
them into inverse cubed.

power lines, capacitor plates,

But electric fields do.


lasers,

But light and electromagnetism follows an inverse square.


Casimir effect, Strong force, Weak force


But the nuclear force and protons do.


... artillery shells,


But sound follows an inverse square law.
As does pressure and chemical bonds.
Not to mention it's flight.





rain.

You mean when under the influence of gravity??
Or the chemical bonds or what?

Tell us about Brownian motion, Fickian diffusion, and 3-D
random walk.

My goodness, such motion occurs for instance when
the inverse square laws of molecular forces are
allowed to randomly push on a relativly small object
in suspension. But nice try anyways.


And of the intuitive picture that the
larger the mass, the larger it's gravity well or
basin of attraction.

Neutron stars are about 15 miles in diameter, 1.8x10^11 surface gees.
Compare the masses, diameters, and gravitations of Jupiter and Saturn.

I swear if I said the sky was blue, I'd get a response
just as absurd. Which mass has a greater effect
at the same distances, a larger one or a smaller one?

You seem to be disagreeing with me when I simply
state that gravity gets weaker with distance.

Please, for once, don't argue just to hear your own
noise.



So that any random path through
space is more likely to find itself pulled into the
larger gravity well, than the smaller one.

Hyperbolic orbits, gravitational slingshots.


I get it. But I specifically referred to likelihood.
Which means a statistical view, which does
not care much about one-off examples.
With which you base all of your responses.

Non sequetor I think the term is.
All of your response is illogical.



Another inverse square law, the power law, has an
equally dominant role in ...living systems.


BULL****. Animal basal metabolism is proportional to 3/4 power of
body mass.


Let me quote wiki....

"Metabolism is the set of chemical reactions that happen in living
organisms to ...."

"Classically, chemical reactions encompass changes that strictly
involve the motion of electrons in the forming and breaking
of chemical bonds....."

"A chemical bond is the attraction caused by the
electromagnetic force.....

In physics, the electromagnetic force is the force that the
electromagnetic field exerts on electrically charged particles.

The electromagnetic field is a physical field produced by
electrically charged objects.

The electric field surrounding a point charge is given by
Coulomb's law:


And do YOU know what form Coulomb's law takes?

Of course, an inverse square law.

The inverse square law defines, gravity, matter and light.
That pretty much covers the physical universe Mr Argue
over anything no matter what.



BULL****. If the universe is not reductionist

What does that mean? I don't speak gibberish.
Are you saying the universe has no components?
That you are unable to distinguish between
a part and a system?

then it can be modeled
by reductionist propositions

Ya, in the way it's modeled now.
With eleventy thousand different
scientific disciplines.

but not accurately modeled by
reductionist propositions.

Not clearly, or simply modeled that is.
One simply cannot totally remove the
observer from the observed. Unless
you're claiming othewise. Which you
no doubt will since I since the reverse.

When you were ten years old, you must
have been a unsufferably annoying child.


Jonathan

s





pookie pookie

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm