Einstein's Mistakes

Sue... wrote: Joe Fischer wrote:
On Thu, RP wrote:

Make that zero *net* force rather than no force, and throw in an order
of fries please. Zero macroscopic force doesn't imply zero microscopic
force. Each and every charge within the mass is being forced
continuously, though the average of all of the forces may vector sum to
zero.

Ok.

The forces on these charges are in turn due to electromagnetic
interactions with absolutely every other charge in the universe that
fall within their light cones.

Nonsense, although "the electrodynamics of
moving bodies" pays tribute to Euclidean space,
those who know relativity understand fully that
"space" has no attributes.

"Space" has size, volume & content, especially where a particle is.
```Brian.

Distant matter not only influences the
motions of charges, but it is the only influence on the motion of
charges. The word distant is also a relative term. All particles are
distant wrt any given charge, the only difference being the actual
magnitude of their separation. If distant galaxies have no effect on the
motion of local charges, then neither do near charges, because wrt any
charge whatsoever, all of the others are distant. Empirically we observe
that light (which is just em radiation, which is in turn just an
electromagnetic interaction between charges) does in fact extend
completely across the known universe. QED.

So now light is also the carrier of inertia and gravity?

The concept of spacetime is exactly the opposite
of what the novice may think. Instead of a controlling
"medium", it is a stretchable maginary map, showing that
space has _NO_ attributes,

"Space" has size, volume & content, especially where a particle is.
```Brian.

-=- and that there are no "forces"
acting at a distance.
This may be difficult for Newtonians because Euclidean
space is essential for Newtonian mechanics.


I am sorry that I cannot agree that light or any other
electromagnetic "charge" could be responsible for gravity
and inertia, because that would be an easy explanation,
but a more complicating -- wrong -- explanation.
I would agree with you both counts.
Columated EM radition is repulsive, not attractive.
There is no transfer of energy with gravity.

That said, EM radiation represents only a portition
of all possible spatial and temporal encodings
that the motion of charges can produce. To fomulate
time dependent field equations, a false assumpution.
is made that the Z spatial axis is interchangable with time.
It is only approximate. This leaves many other derivatives
of the Coulomb force unaccounted for in both QM and GR.
Van der Waals and London forces are short-range examples.
...Just as magnetism is the short-range (1/r^3) component of EM.

In a sense, we are saying it is not the repulsive long-range (1/r*2)
component that responsible for gravity and inertia, it is all the long-
range components remaining when you subtract the EM
component.

one then considers the Coulomb interaction of similar
charge distributions centered on the ions, but now with the
same sign as the original ions. These distributions exactly
cancel those that we have considered before, so that the
total interactions that we shall obtain will be those of the
original system made of point charges only. The interaction
of the cancelling distributions is computed in reciprocal space.
The required Fourier transforms are particularly simple
when the (arbitrary) shape of the distributions is chosen
to be a gaussian.
-=-SNiP-=-
In itself, the principle of equivalence would allow field
equations of almost unlimited complexity. Einstein could
have included terms in the equations involving four spacetime
derivatives, or six spacetime derivatives, or any even number
of spacetime derivatives, but he limited himself to second-
order differential equations.
-=-SNiP-=-
Sue...
2.

Joe Fischer
Einstein's Mistakes.