Most Thorough Model

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Most Thorough Model

Impacts by Electric Discharge or Collision?
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16025&p=117181#p117175
GaryN: I don't believe any large objects have ever hit the Earth or any other planet or moon or asteroid, Coulombs laws will not allow it. If not deflected by repulsive forces, they will ablate, (where there is an atmosphere), discharge and explode before they can ever make physical contact.

Gary, if electric forces prevent asteroids and planets from colliding with each other, then how do little meteorites manage to penetrate the field and hit the Earth? Have you done any calculations to prove your point? How strong would an electric field have to be to stop a high-velocity asteroid from colliding with Earth? Let's say we have one a km in diameter and another one 100 km in diameter. I'll ask Charles if he has a calculation for that too. Here are some of Charles' counter-arguments to TB EU theories.

Impact Craters
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7315&start=120#p76229
LK: Other TPODs propose that most impact craters are formed from similar megalightning, rather than from bolide impacts. Do you think the craters are likely formed by lightning or bolide impacts?
CC: I think that all of the perfectly circular craters are formed by thermonuclear explosions. The instantaneous temperatures and pressures in the impact of a rock even only a couple of meters across, but traveling at 70 km/s, will be sufficient for nuclear fusion. The craters are circular, instead of oblong, because they were caused by the relativistic ejecta from the fusion event, not the trajectory of the impacter. And there is nothing to be found of the meteor because it was all reduced to plasma by the explosion.

Tunguska
LK: Have you read any of the TPODs about the Tunguska event of 1908? They say a meteor from one of the major meteor streams caused the Tunguska event, that it had a different electrical voltage than that of the Earth's surface, which produced a megalightning bolt, which pulverized the meteor in the air and impacted the ground in Siberia, knocking down trees etc, and causing electrical effects, but not forming a crater.
CC: Meteors that explode in the air are more difficult to explain, but I don't think that megalightning is the answer. A meteor will certainly be charged, having passed through the ionosphere, which is positively charged. But any net charge is always around the outside of an object, due to electrostatic repulsion. Discharging the potential might char the surface, but it isn't going to blow the thing apart. If you want an electrical explosion, the current has to pass through the center, like a transformer blowing up when struck by lightning, because the wires lead through the center. in a monolithic charged body, this shouldn't be possible.
[In his Airbursts paper he later explained that microfractures could provide an electric current path through a meteor's center to cause explosion in the air.]

EDM
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=102034&sid=83e9ccce2f0bd0b55c3653e0f2f6abfb#p102021
LK: Thornhill said electric discharge machining removed material from the northern and deposited it in the southern.
CC: Machining a flat surface takes very tightly controlled discharges. For this to happen in nature would be simply amazing.

Filaments Paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15482
... The Universe is actually full of filaments of various sizes and shapes.4,5 Both gravity and hydrostatic pressure object to this form, leaving only EM as the driving force. Some EM theorists have generalized the concept of Birkeland currents to explain the prevalence of filaments, but without establishing the electromotive forces at play, and without demonstrating that the currents would require material filaments. An electric current actually prefers a vacuum,6 and would evacuate the material in a filament by ohmic heating. So electric currents neither prefer filaments, nor cause them. Rather, the filaments are caused by their electrostatic properties.
... Then we just have to look for things that would encourage filaments to form, and then the rest happens automatically. This is expected in the collision of two gas clouds — the friction will be relaxed if they resolve into jets that tunnel through the opposing clouds. As they do, they'll stretch the Debye sheaths into comas, as in Figure 4, establishing a linear body force. So hydrodynamic jets produce electrostatic filaments.

EU Plasma Ball Model Intractable Problem
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?%20f=3&t=15624&sid=4ee5a2aae8d30c50ef9b65042da55552&start=30#p104389
I can see differences between the Sun and a plasma ball. Most notably, a plasma ball sports a finite number of arc discharges, with distinct foot-points, on the central electrode and on the surrounding shell, whereas in the heliosphere, we don't see such arc discharges between the Sun and the heliopause, terminating at bright foot-points. SAFIRE demonstrated that if you turn down the voltage, the arc discharges through the "atmosphere" go away, and you can be left with just a finite number of glow discharges on the surface of the central electrode (known as anode or cathode "spots"), which they asserted were statistically similar to granules. (?) But they didn't succeed in getting tightly-grouped anode spots -- the currents prefer consolidation, due to the magnetic pinch effect, and due to thermionic emissions in the increased temperatures at the spots. These factors create a fundamental instability that results in an all-or-nothing condition across the surface of the electrode. So all of the current flows through the spots, and there is a finite number of them, and they refuse to be bunched together. SAFIRE has not figured out a way around this, and it's quite possible that there just isn't a way around it. This fundamental instability traces back to distinct steps in the resistance as the current crosses the threshold from a dark to a glow discharge, and from a glow to an arc discharge. If a greater current density results in less resistance, you get even more current, and even less resistance, resulting in all of the current flowing through that one discrete channel. If it were not for this, EM would behave very differently. So rather than a plasma ball supporting the EU model of the Sun, it actually reveals intractable problems with it.

Flaws in Scott's Electric Sun
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=11164&sid=d4a92bf796df9a1a5379d5e11740ab9f&start=75#p81167
So if C-D is +ions exerting electric force on A-B, due to the repulsion of like charges, A-B is exerting the same force back on C-D. But if C-D has a force that is pushing it away from the Sun, what is going to keep it from getting sent out with the solar wind? It isn't gravity, which is no match for the electric force. It isn't the negative charge in D-E, because that is pulling outward also. C-D-E can be thought of as a self-contained unit that could slide in or out, limited only by its inertia, and ever so slightly by gravity. But with the electrostatic repulsion between A-B and C-D, only an equal force pushing back in would hold it in place, resulting in the back-up of potential behind the "barrier". In other words, what holds back the water behind the dam? The internal strength of the dam. What if the dam can freely slide down the riverbed? Then the force of the water pushes the dam down the river, and effectively speaking, the dam might as well not be there.
Lloyd

Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

from CC:
..impact of a rock even only a couple of meters across, but traveling at 70 km/s..

I don't know how those figures are obtained. These are the kind of values I find on the 'Net:

Objects less than a few kilograms will burn up completely in the atmosphere.

Objects a few kg to 7000 kg will slow down due to the atmospheric drag. These reach their terminal velocity –

The Big One

Objects ~9,000 kg will keep some of their initial velocity – impact at ~2-4 km/s (1.5 miles per second!)

Really big objects(~10^6 kg) won’t be noticeably slowed, impact at near their initial velocities (>11 km/s!)

The bigger rocky objects will usually break up in the atmosphere due to pressure stresses, and also from ablation and the pulsed electric/magnetic fields created during ablation, which can shatter the rock. The smaller pieces will have the much lower terminal velocity.

I'll address the other issues when I have the opportunity.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

GaryN

Posts: 2623
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

SEAMOUNTS, VOLCANOES, EARTHQUAKES

Charles now has an interesting explanation of seamounts in his Volcanoes paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=10527. He says they start at subduction zones (which don't involve plates diving into the mantle, but just sliding under other plates horizontally), but progress toward the centers of ocean basins where the route from the Moho to the surface is progressively shorter, I think.

He discusses the Yellowstone hotspot. I found that this site, https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/yellowstone/monitoring_2006_caldera_uplift.html, says the ground rose 2 feet there from 1923-85, then subsided, I don't know how much, then rose 5 inches from 1997-2003. The image at https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vsc/images/image_mngr/0-99/img81.gif looks like the concentric circles typical of impact craters. John Casey found that major volcanic eruptions and earthquakes occur mainly during solar sunspot minima. I think the solar wind decreases quite a bit then and he thinks tidal influences of the gas giant planets also contribute. Maybe Charles has an idea why they occur during sunspot minima?

He thinks if a borehole could be drilled all the way to the Moho, it would freeze up the Yellowstone hotspot, so it would no longer be a threat. But the Kola borehole was only able to go nearly 13 km deep when the rock was too plastic to continue. Maybe that would be good enough to circumvent and freeze over the Yellowstone hotspot. If so, maybe such boreholes would make other volcanoes go dormant too. Maybe it would also work on earthquake faults. If so, then I think we should promote that to the max. Boreholes would also be valuable for scientific study.

PS, Wikipedia says:
The upward movement of the Yellowstone caldera floor between 2004 and 2008 — almost 3 inches (7.6 cm) each year — was more than three times greater than ever observed since such measurements began in 1923. From 2004 to 2008, the land surface within the caldera moved upward as much as 8 inches (20 cm) at the White Lake GPS station. By the end of 2009, the uplift had slowed significantly and appeared to have stopped. In January 2010, the USGS stated that "uplift of the Yellowstone Caldera has slowed significantly"[36] and that uplift continues but at a slower pace.
Lloyd

Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Charles says a borehole wouldn't have to go all of the way to the Moho to act like a lightning rod to draw electric currents away from the Yellowstone Supervolcano area. So he thinks 5 km deep should do the job. He says it should work for any volcano that's in a populated area. Little volcanoes like on Hawaii don't seem to be a problem needing fixing, but the occasional big ones surely do need fixing. Indonesia is one of the worst. Those in Italy are potential problems too. John Casey found that quakes and eruptions occur mostly during sunspot minima, so it would be good to fix them before the next minimum comes in a few years. I discussed his findings in the Little Ice Age thread.

He adds that preventing earthquakes would require dropping a nuke down the shaft to create a shock wave that triggers the final quake. So it wouldn't be advisable until methods are developed to predict quakes so that people could be evacuated until it's over. He thinks the best test case would be the fault running through Istanbul, which is near the surface, and thus wouldn't require a deep borehole to get a shock wave to heal the fault.

I'm wondering if continental plate motions could be stopped by such a method. Then there would be no more dangerous earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. The only dangers left would be tornadoes, hurricanes and impacts. Charles has an idea for stopping tornadoes and I think it may work for hurricanes too. So that would leave just one natural threat.
Lloyd

Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Greetings,
Why does a model have to be all inclusive?
Why not a mix and match?

To me the evidence from the seafloor ages map shows spreading from mid-ocean ridges, with North America splatt kerbab on top of the North Pacific ridge, I've seen seismic evidence that the oceanic crust extends for hundreds of km underneath the continental crust down Mexico way... so why couldn't a catastrophic Venus fly-by encounter have happened as suggested by Velikovsky to provide some 'lift' to enable such a huge lateral shift in a whole continent, just add that model on top of a global catastrophic flood scenario suggested by the observable huge amounts of sediment, which contain mostly marine life forms; then combine these models with impact events; then for trying to find underlying causes for instability in the solar system, or such things as alternate electric models for how it all works, examine the traditional understandings that might be blocking progress in science, like possibly non-constant constants, as Dirac and many many other scientists have contemplated

So all these models can still coexist with each other including the Expanding Earth model as suggested by Dirac's equations, remember Dirac' decline-in-the-gravitational-constant hypothesis is very gradual but extremely good in explaining so many things...
I agree about Carey and Neil Adams, the graphics are good, but I don't feel the EE theories with new mass are convincing...

Of course you won't get much support from mainstream with suggestions to investigate the physical constants or BB etc, if someone changed the rules of chess while the world's top players were playing a tournament, the top players would get quite unhappy...

To propose electric models for the whole universe is going against a huge number of vested interests, just the textbook industry for one is ginormous.. I know there's no physics force called inertia, but you can see evidence of it when radical change is proposed

Lloyd, did you read "Velikovsky Reconsidered", it shows evidence of this inertia... also "The Velikovsky Affair"?... both books are very enlightening in regard to the politics of mainstream vs new ideas...

They really demonstrate how hard it is to propose new models like Velikovsky did with his proposal that Venus could have done a fly-by...

I looked at the Shock Dynamics diagram of a model of water with ink drops, as a demonstration of the subsurface geography near the Tonga Trench, but I can't see it... how such a surface model could realistically explain the Trench... of course a single impact model to explain everthing is very radical, so I'm trying not to dismiss it out of hand

The electric liquid hydrogen sun model as proposed by Robitaille is also very interesting, he is supposed to have 40 lines of evidence... I watched him on youtube, and I liked him, he seems genuine and his track record is impressive... I downloaded twenty or thirty of his papers, but haven't read them all yet.... of course his sun model is radically different to the current nuclear fusion model. I haven't had enough time to check it out...

The parallels from Robitaille to Eddington, from Wegener to Lyell, from Einstein, Heisenberg, de Broglie, Bohr etc to Newton, from Galileo to Ptolemy show science is generally very conservative with new models

modern physics is full of abstract things called fields...
thinking about fields, makes me think of sheep, they graze in one field, grow fat, live and munch the green grass, maybe talk among themselves about things inside, maybe outside the fence, but are nevertheless enclosed in one particular space.

then, by some reason unknown to the sheep,the gate is opened, and by some quantum randomness, one particular sheep ventures through the gate... the others, seeing this brave new step, quickly follow, first reluctantly, then in a stampede, still doing jumps at the position of the open gate, the majority not thinking for themselves, but faithfully following the leader, trusting that x number of fellow sheep can't be wrong.
sketch1946

Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

The Resistance of a Vacuum
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=8819

Charles here explains very well, I think, why a vacuum has no electrical resistance, contrary to what EU theorists (if I remember right) and most conventional scientists think. Elsewhere on this forum Charles has claimed that, in space, electric currents should flow more easily in a vacuum than in gas clouds or other matter. I guess he meant negatively charged matter, since electric currents are also negatively charged. Whereas, I imagine current would flow better in positive charged matter than in vacuum.
Lloyd

Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Lloyd wrote:current would flow better in positive charged matter than in vacuum.

Positively charged matter would tend to grab ahold of the electrons, and not want to let go, so that matter would present a lot of resistance to the flow of electrons.

Neutral matter is a good conductor only if the outer-most electron shells are weakly bound to the atom, such as in the heavier elements, which are all conductors. In the lighter elements, the electrons are closer to the nucleus, and thus have a stronger attraction to the nucleus (i.e., with a stronger binding potential, requiring more force to tear the electrons away from the atom). So those are resistors.

Negatively charged plasma wouldn't attract free electrons, and thus no time would be lost to electron/atom collisions or captures, and the electrons would flow rapidly. So negatively charged plasma would be the best conductor, second only to a pure vacuum (if that were possible).
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

CharlesChandler

Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

there is no reason why an electric discharge couldn't launch rocks into space, which would later fall as meteors.

how does anyone know the meteors didn't come from here....Clearly discharge of those magnitudes would likely alter the materials....mostly iron I would imagine. 3x26=78. Were close enough.

hence iridium layer.

and they say iridium loves iron, probably because it was iron. Space meteorites are likely rich due to exposure to extreme electrical discharge as well.
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman

Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Most Thorough Model

Solar Model Experiment
Charles has an interesting experiment to test his model of the Sun at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9720 . Here's his introduction to it.

While it goes without saying that many of the extreme conditions inside and outside of the Sun are beyond experimental duplication, it might be possible to replicate some of the behaviors in a scale model. Specifically, the central contention is that the Sun is a cathode sitting on a current divider. There is a positive charge deeper inside the Sun, and another in the heliosphere. The negative layer on top emits electrons that move toward the heliosphere, but they move slowly at first, as they are in the middle of a tri-polar field, with positive charges in both directions. As they move away from the current divider, they accelerate.

The effect of a current in this configuration is that the discharge from the sphere will not pinch down into discrete discharge channels, as they do in a plasma ball for example. Rather, the slow drift away from the cathode will emanate from all points, as the Coulomb force will keep the electrons evenly distributed. Only as the electrons move away from the current divider will they accelerate to the point that they start to pinch into discrete channels (such as the tips of helmet streamers).

Furthermore, the present model asserts that high-pressure plasma emits 5525 K blackbody radiation, while the tenuous granular layer is responsible for specific absorption lines in the BB spectrum. It might be possible to build a sphere and cover it with tungsten foil, which could be heated to 5525 K, such that it would produce the correct blackbody radiation. A tenuous atmosphere will then absorb lines in that radiation. That much is well-understood, and need not be reproduced to prove that it is so. But it might be useful to get the tenuous atmosphere to cling to the cathode, as a "cathode sheath," to see if tufting can be reproduced.

A possible design for an apparatus that might demonstrate these behaviors can be found here.
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Files/SolarCathodeTest.pdf
Lloyd

Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Charles, whilst it's fairly easy to imagine a current flowing down a wire it's difficult to imagine what the current does when it goes into a vacuum. So is it electrons forming a plasma or does the current join some type of 'ambient torsion field '? From Lloyds link above http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=8819 "the resistance of a vacuum"
thanks john
johnm33

Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:43 am

Re: Most Thorough Model

johnm33 wrote:Charles, whilst it's fairly easy to imagine a current flowing down a wire it's difficult to imagine what the current does when it goes into a vacuum.

Electric currents are just the flow of electrons. The electrons can either hop-skip-and-jump from one atom to the next in the crystal lattice of a wire, spending most of their time traveling through the free space between the atoms, or they can get to the last atom in line and just keep going, venturing off into the free space of a vacuum tube to get to the other electrode.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

CharlesChandler

Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Charles, Wikipedia says: The [DC] drift velocity [of electrons in wire] is on the order of millimeters per hour. AC voltages cause no net movement; the electrons oscillate back and forth in response to the alternating electric field (over a distance of a few micrometers).

So do you have an idea how the electromagnetic waves travel close to light speed in wire, while the electrons travel slowly if at all?
Lloyd

Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Lloyd wrote:So do you have an idea how the electromagnetic waves travel close to light speed in wire, while the electrons travel slowly if at all?

When one charged particle moves relative to another, it exerts a force on the other immediately. So a force can be transmitted very quickly, even with very little net movement. For example, in the game of pool, if you do a tight rack of 15 balls, and then smack the one in front with the cue ball, instantaneously the balls at the other side of the rack are accelerated, even if the balls in the middle barely moved.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

CharlesChandler

Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Charles, have you analyzed that in depth before? I haven't, but I'm thinking about it now.
_We're comparing a wire to a line of pool balls that are touching each other.
_The cue ball hits one of the end balls, causing the other end ball to bounce away.
_That seems to resemble DC, but for AC there would need to be two cue balls, one for each end. Right?
_Or, if there's just one cue ball, the other end of the line of balls is solidly touching a barrier, so the cue ball hits the free end ball and the force transmits to the other end, hits the barrier, then transmits back to the free end, maybe in time to bounce the cue ball back.
_It seems that the atoms making up a wire aren't solidly touching each other, nor are the electrons. Are they?
_So how would the force be transmitted? Would it be by their electric fields?
_And why would the electric force transmit at light speed?
_Is the electric field related to photons?
_If there were a line of magnets in place of the pool balls, and if they're confined, like ring magnets on a horizontal non-magnetic shaft with like polarity between magnets, they would space themselves apart, kind of like atoms in a wire, I guess.
_If a like-pole magnet were propelled and hit one of the end magnets, would the force transmit through the line of magnets as fast as the force transmitted through the pool balls?
_And how does the force transmit through the line of magnets, when they don't even touch each other?
_I see you're working on the Titius-Bode Law again. Isn't there a similarity between the planets' electrical spacing and this example of magnets spacing themselves apart?

By the way, I see you discuss globular star systems in that paper ( http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15369 ). Do you have an idea how globular clusters form? You say galaxies become spiral after a series of implosions and explosions, so I wonder how the globular star clusters form in that process. They seem to populate galactic halos mostly.
Last edited by Lloyd on Mon Sep 04, 2017 9:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lloyd

Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Lloyd wrote:_It seems that the atoms making up a wire aren't solidly touching each other, nor are the electrons. Are they?
_So how would the force be transmitted? Would it be by their electric fields?
_And why would the electric force transmit at light speed?

Yes, it's by their electric fields. To work the analogy a bit here, imagine that the pool balls aren't touching each other, but rather, that they're connected by tight rubber bands. Now hit one of them with the cue ball. It moves. And as soon as it does, the tensile force that it is exerting on the next ball in line, through the rubber band, is instantly changed. So the next ball starts moving, even before it has been impacted. And when it moves, the tensile force on the next rubber band is affected. Thus the movement can propagate through the whole rack, not at the speed at which the balls are moving, but rather, at the speed at which tensile force can be transmitted through the rubber bands.

This explains a well known, but poorly understood phenomenon observed on the solar surface on a regular basis. Solar flares create shock waves in the surrounding plasma. That's easy to understand. What's hard to understand is that they start out traveling at a supersonic speed, and then they accelerate. Shock waves are 'posed to propagate at the speed of sound, and that's pretty much by definition. So the supersonic speed is problematic for the Newtonian regime. And by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, energy is 'posed to dissipate with distance from the source of the energy. So waves aren't 'posed to accelerate moving away from whatever initiated them. This can only be evidence that the plasma has a net charge. The motion of a charged particle alters the electric force that it is exerting on neighboring charges, as soon as the motion starts. So the speed of propagation is limited to the speed of light, not the speed of sound.

Lloyd wrote:_Is the electric field related to photons?

Photons are fluctuations in the electric field.

Lloyd wrote:_If there were a line of magnets in place of the pool balls, and if they're confined, like ring magnets on a horizontal non-magnetic shaft with like polarity between magnets, they would space themselves apart, kind of like atoms in a wire, I guess.

Yes.

Lloyd wrote:_If a like-pole magnet were propelled and hit one of the end magnets, would the force transmit through the line of magnets as fast as the force transmitted through the pool balls?

The speed of propagation is a function of the strength of the field between the objects, minus the inertial forces in the objects that have to be overcome to get them moving. The elasticity of solid objects (such as pool balls) transmits force very rapidly, because the atoms are packed tightly together in the crystal lattice. So they don't have very far to go before they affect the next atom in line, and the electric force is very powerful as close range. The propagation of motion through the ring magnets would be the same, if the magnetic force between them was as strong, compared to their mass, as the electric force between atoms in a crystal lattice.

Lloyd wrote:_And how does the force transmit through the line of magnets, when they don't even touch each other?

Action at a distance.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

CharlesChandler

Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

PreviousNext