Inverse square law

[Lucy Skywalker]

Somewhere in the EU pages I am sure I read something about the Inverse Square Law not applying to magnetic fields as it does to gravitational ones - and that that is why, with increasing distances, the electromagnetic powers seriously start to outweigh the gravitational ones. But I cannot find the reference and don't know where to look. Or maybe I completely misunderstood

I would be very glad for some clarification with references please! If an explanation is in Electric Sky, can you give me a page number? Inverse Square is not in the index and I've only just started reading it.

Thank you everyone.

BTW I have now incorporated what I gathered about Venus' net outgoing radiation, from everyone's responses on this Forum, into my EU page here. Thank you again. I have incorporated the basic EU premises into my understanding as a Climate Skeptic. I have also put in a note pointing to the EU hypothesis in the middle of my Skeptics' Climate Science Primer that I have recently updated with major revision and edits. Venus was important for me in Climate Science because - see here.

[Jarvamundo]

EM & G both diminish with R^-2

You may be describing the Biot-Savart Force - R^-1 - "Long range attraction" of currents in space? Described here by Peratt.
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/Perat ... Cosmic.pdf

Looks like a fairly dynamic process, check out fig 3 [Amperes Law Forces], the short range repulsive of R^-3 then moves to long range attractive R^-1.

To me, just from this graph of the nature of currents flowing in plasma, you can intuitively build a simple mental picture of how plasma at long ranges will draw together, pinch, but once drawn still repel at short ranges, thus kinking up Lerner's pinch-style animations. Ofcourse it gets more complex than that, but if currents are flowing (for which our radio surveys are telling us) then r-1 dominates the r-2 of 'gravity gas' coalescing.... and a filamentary universe is a direct prediction of that graph.

[Lucy Skywalker]

Jarvamundo, thanks for that.

However, I had a look at Figure 3 and it was still not clear to me, neither did the Abstract at the beginning clarify matters. I find this material difficult to follow, too difficult to extract the information I want, at this stage.

Yet I have a fairly strong memory I saw the information saying that the forces decrease linearly with distance, not via the inverse square law, in a reasonably central place, described reasonably simply.

I'm starting to read Electric Sky which promises well and I shall enjoy - but I'm still a comparative beginner regarding the physics of electromagnetism, let alone the maths.

[DustyDevil]

Jarvamundo, thanks for that.

However, I had a look at Figure 3 and it was still not clear to me, neither did the Abstract at the beginning clarify matters. I find this material difficult to follow, too difficult to extract the information I want, at this stage.

Yet I have a fairly strong memory I saw the information saying that the forces decrease linearly with distance, not via the inverse square law, in a reasonably central place, described reasonably simply.

I'm starting to read Electric Sky which promises well and I shall enjoy - but I'm still a comparative beginner regarding the physics of electromagnetism, let alone the maths.

Lucy Skywalker, Jarvamundo is pointing you in the right direction. Ordinarily, the electromagnetic force decreases according to the inverse square law, the same as Newtonian gravity. The following link explains this briefly:

Fundamental Forces
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... unfor.html

However, in the case of 2 currents, when these currents flow through parallel conductors, then the forces of attraction -- or repulsion -- decrease linearly with distance. The Electric Universe hypothesizes that stars and galaxies form along cosmic sized Birkeland currents. If this is the case, then the forces of attraction between such parallel cosmic currents would easily dominate the weaker gravitational forces.

Here's another link that explain the physics of this situation at a very basic level:

Magnetic Force Between Wires
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... irfor.html

I hope this helps.

[Lucy Skywalker]

I hope this helps.

It sure does, it resolves the issue nicely, though I still wish I could remember where I saw the original.

Thank you very much for the second time DustyDevil.

[Lucy Skywalker]

Aha.

My colleague who rightly picked me up for getting the stuff entirely wrong, actually tracked down my source. It's on Scott's website's Missing Dark Matter page

Ninety nine percent of the universe is made up of tenuous clouds of ions and electrons called electric plasma. Plasmas respond to the electrical physical laws codified by James Clerk Maxwell and Oliver Heaviside in the late 1800's. An additional single law due to Hendrick Lorentz explains the mysterious stellar velocities described above.
d/dt(mv) = q(E + v x B)
Simply stated, this law says that a moving charged particle's momentum (direction) can be changed by application of either an electric field, E, or a magnetic field, B, or both. Consider the mass and charge of a proton for example. The electrostatic force between two protons is 36 orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational force (given by Newton's equation). It's not that Newton's Law is wrong. It is just that in deep space it is totally overpowered by the Maxwell-Lorentz forces of electromagnetic dynamics.

Notice, in the equation in the previous paragraph, that the change in a charged particle's momentum (left hand side of the equation) is directly proportional to the strength of the magnetic field, B, the particle is moving through. The strength of the magnetic field produced by an electric current (e.g., a cosmic sized Birkeland current) falls off inversely as the first power of the distance from the current. Both electrostatic and gravitational forces fall off inversely as the square of the distance. This inherent difference in the spatial distribution of electromagnetic forces as compared to gravitational forces may indeed be the root cause of the inexplicable velocity profiles exhibited by galaxies.

Unfortunately, enthusiasm got the better of me and I referred to that bit (a) out of context and (b) without having fully grasped the issue myself. It would not have mattered but the place I did this was my precious and otherwise-sound (IMHO) revised Primer for (skeptical) Climate Science. I should have known better.

This is the classic way in which new and important areas of research get a bad name for themselves

I am thoroughly ashamed of myself

[Lloyd]

You should be ashamed of yourself for being ashamed of yourself!

[mharratsc]

I agree with Lloyd, Lucy- you're doing your part to bring new insights to a group of people who might not otherwise see an association with a branch of physics that has a direct bearing on a topic of interest that is very important to them.

You're kind of a beacon in the darkness, sorta!

WTG!

[Lucy Skywalker]

Thanks Lloyd and mharratsc for thumbs-up.

I was also smiling at myself, making the kind of mistakes I try to avoid like the plague because once people's trust is lost it's a helluva road to rebuild it. As a pioneer bridge-builder as well as one who intends to practice true scientific method, I tend to think I need to quadruple check my steps.

I see so many special-interest science groups who are being wrongly sidelined by the mainstream of science, but so far there is little cross-referencing between them, often due to the kind of slip-ups I just made here being used as excuses to look no further. Yet together they/we could wreak a very important paradigm shift in Science orthodoxy, a shift I believe we need for the challenges we face on the planet.

IMHO you cannot completely leave the observer of the experiment out of the scientific results of that experiment, as quantum physics showed, and as ordinary psychology shows - or else that observer will come back to bite you. IMHO the science establishments are paying the price for hundreds of years in which they felt that "true science" can actually exclude us real people watching the science.

[mharratsc]

All very true, Lucy.

I'm just a layperson on the sidelines, but I can tell you that it doesn't take a spyglass to see that science is led like a bull by the nose- controlled by the guys with the money. What few true revelations seem to be occurring that get published seem to be from small, independent researchers.

That isn't to say that the 'Big Guys' aren't discovering things themselves, but I think that since there is such a vested interest that much of it isn't published until 'discovery rights' or patents or copyrights or whatever get hammered out first... and stuff like that can take some time in a contested field. :\

The internet is the undoing of that control paradigm, however. It is an open forum (much to the Republic of China's dismay) and information can spread like wildfire through it!

[Lucy Skywalker]

Here's a longer quotation from Electric Sky pp 44-45

The Lorentz force, as defined in his equation, changes a charged particle's momentum. This change is directly proportionally to the strength of the magnetic field through which the particle is moving. The strength of the magnetic field produced by an electric current (e.g., a cosmic-sized Birkeland current) falls off inversely as the first power of the distance from the current. Both electrostatic and gravitational forces between stars fall off inversely as the square of the distance. This inherent difference in the spatial distribution of electromagnetic forces as compared to gravitational forces may indeed be the root cause of the "inexplicable" velocity profiles exhibited by galaxies.

A cosmologist defended the gravity-only approach in a discussion with me by saying, "A long straight line of mass also exhibits gravitational attraction that falls off inversely with distance just as magnetism does around a long wire." My answer to him was (and is) - we have never observed a long straight line of mass in space. No railroad tracks have ever been seen out there. What we do see are long filaments of magnetized plasma produced by long electrical currents. Although they can produce strong electromagnetic forces, these filaments do not have enough mass to produce a significant gravitational field. Those magnetic forces do not die off with increasing distance from their source as precipitously as gravitational fields do from their centers (which are stars - point sources, not railroad tracks in space).

mharratsc
I would regard myself as a layperson somewhat on the sidelines too

The Internet is incredible. What fascinates me is that we have Microsoft dynamically balanced against Open Source - and I think we need both. I think the same is true in Science. I think that we need Academia Versus Internet, the same way we need two legs to walk, or (in the old days) two major parties for democracy to work. Etc.

[mharratsc]

Bipartisan Science... I like it!!

[psi]

Somewhere in the EU pages I am sure I read something about the Inverse Square Law not applying to magnetic fields as it does to gravitational ones - and that that is why, with increasing distances, the electromagnetic powers seriously start to outweigh the gravitational ones. But I cannot find the reference and don't know where to look. Or maybe I completely misunderstood

I would be very glad for some clarification with references please! If an explanation is in Electric Sky, can you give me a page number? Inverse Square is not in the index and I've only just started reading it.

Thank you everyone.

BTW I have now incorporated what I gathered about Venus' net outgoing radiation, from everyone's responses on this Forum, into my EU page here. Thank you again. I have incorporated the basic EU premises into my understanding as a Climate Skeptic. I have also put in a note pointing to the EU hypothesis in the middle of my Skeptics' Climate Science Primer that I have recently updated with major revision and edits. Venus was important for me in Climate Science because - see here.

Lucy you are a gem. I was just posting on the Venus-EU-AGW link in another thread. I can't wait to read your synthesis. I hope I'll be able to follow it.

[fosborn]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... pr=goog-sl#



Steve Smith »
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... ?f=5&t=568

[jacmac]

Interesting topic folks; inverse square vs inverse linear.

Although I am a definite fan, believer, supporter of the EU model, I would agree with the cosmologist(quoted in THE ELECTRIC SKY) about the linear reduction of the gravitational force with distance of two lines of mass, even though we don't know of any bodies with that shape.

I am not that strong on the science but the point i think is to compare apples with apples.

If the inverse squared rule for a magnetic field changes to an inverse linear rule for a long line of magnetic field [as with a Birkeland current] it is, i believe, because the geometry changes. I would expect the same for a gravity field.

There are plenty of other ways for electromagnetism to dominate gravity.

Jack