Blackholes Forum Message Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
 Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...The Space and Astronomy Agora Re: Electricity Is The 5th Dimension; Magnetism Is The 6th. Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Alexander on January 25, 2001 01:01:39 UTC

No, magnetism is not 6-dimension. It is 3-dimensional quantity, called relativity. If you take electric charge and move it, space shrinks and thus electric field becomes more dense in the direction of motion. This difference is called magnetic field. You do not need 6th dimension for it.

You also said:"You orbit for a long time at that distance, but eventually your orbit deteriorates and you fall. This is true of any orbiting body at any distance less than 4,000 miles above the earth. 4,000 miles is also the earth's radius. Beyond that distance your orbit is permanent; that is to say, you do not fall. "

This is incorrect. There is no difference if you orbit 3,999 miles up, or 4,000. Your orbit does NOT detiriorate in vacuum regardless radius. On low altitudes from Earth (less than 100 miles) the atmosphere gets densier and drags you. Losing energy you gradually spiral down.

You also wrote:"Why don't their orbits collapse; why don't they all (stellar objects, galaxies, stars, et al) collapse upon and/or collide with each other, through mutual gravitational attraction? (As Isaac Newton himself asked, and considered to be the major unresolved flaw in his own revolutionary system... *Two and a quarter centuries later, Einstein resolved Newton's problem with the Cosmological Constant - a repelling force paralleling conventionally perceived gravity, but acting in the opposite direction...) "

Again incorrect, moving objects have positive KINETIC energy to compensate for negative gravitational potential energy, so they CAN NOT fall (see high school mechanics textbooks). And Newton mechanics is more than enough to describe and explain how they orbit each other without falling. No need even in introducing Einstein GRT (gen. rel. theory), not to say about lambda (cosm. constant). And even GRE predicts that the entire Universe does not have to collapse as it has positive energy of motion. No lambda is needed.

You also mention that e-magnetic radiation keeps planets from falling onto Sun: "The Electro-Magnetic fields of the planets (for example) are reciprocally conflicting with the electromagnetic field of the Sun (emits about one billion tons of radiantly transitory matter every four minutes). Hence, planets cannot fall into the Sun; due to their mutual opposition from (and toward) it - and they cannot escape it either"

as I have mentioned above, planets CAN NOT fall onto Sun as they ARE MOVING. No need of repelling or conflicting e/magnetic radiation.

As you can easily calculate, radiation pressure on planets of 4 billion kg of hydrogen burned by Sun into light every second is negligible compared to gravity of Sun, so it has no effect on planetary motion whatsoever.

You also mention, that you never get answer of why c is squared in E=mc^2 equation. This is very simple. Symmetry of motion (independance of physics from velocity of any physics lab) results in Loretz equations (relativity) which in turn results in the energy of moving body to be m0c^2/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), which results in the equation E=m0c^2 at v=0, which means that moving with zero velocity mass m has energy mc^2.

Still, what do you state (or ask)?