On Oct 17, 2008, at 10:09 PM, Michel Jullian wrote:
Ah, yes, this is what I was missing. Even though I still believe the
surface charge density is uniform on _most_ of the thin conducting
disk surface (as it is on the plates of a parallel plate capacitor), I
now realize the non-uniform charges
2008/10/17 Horace Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Oct 16, 2008, at 11:17 PM, Michel Jullian wrote:
>
>> 2008/10/16 Horace Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>
>>> On Oct 16, 2008, at 7:17 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
>>>
But if you get closer and closer to a finite disk of charge, whether
on
On Oct 16, 2008, at 11:17 PM, Michel Jullian wrote:
2008/10/16 Horace Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Oct 16, 2008, at 7:17 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
But if you get closer and closer to a finite disk of charge, whether
on-axis or off-axis, it will look more and more like an infinite
sheet
2008/10/16 Horace Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Oct 16, 2008, at 7:17 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
>
>> But if you get closer and closer to a finite disk of charge, whether
>> on-axis or off-axis, it will look more and more like an infinite
>> sheet of charge, because the 1/r^2 law makes the ef
On Oct 16, 2008, at 7:17 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
But if you get closer and closer to a finite disk of charge, whether
on-axis or off-axis, it will look more and more like an infinite
sheet of charge, because the 1/r^2 law makes the effect of the most
remote charges rapidly negligible compare
But if you get closer and closer to a finite disk of charge, whether
on-axis or off-axis, it will look more and more like an infinite
sheet of charge, because the 1/r^2 law makes the effect of the most
remote charges rapidly negligible compared to that of the closest ones
right under you.
So the
On Oct 15, 2008, at 11:54 PM, Michel Jullian wrote:
2008/10/15 Horace Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
...
Agreed! It appears I am mistaken about the field lines near the
plane of a
finite 2D disc. I was confused by thinking I knew the field lines
at a
charged surface become normal to the sur
2008/10/15 Horace Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
...
> Agreed! It appears I am mistaken about the field lines near the plane of a
> finite 2D disc. I was confused by thinking I knew the field lines at a
> charged surface become normal to the surface as you approach the surface (in
> the limit). Th
... bobbing parabolas ...
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
I wrote: " ... matter with some z axis velocity and a stable circular
orbit will essentially sustain simple harmonic motion in the z
axis ... ".
That should say: " ... matter with some z axis velocity and a stable
circular orbit will essentially sustain oscillating in the z axis ...
". T
On Oct 14, 2008, at 7:54 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:08:35
-0800:
Hi,
[snip]
I disagree. You are ignoring the 1/r^2 nature of gravity or
electrostatic charge.
The field near a line charge is 1/r normal to the line. The field
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:08:35 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>I disagree. You are ignoring the 1/r^2 nature of gravity or
>electrostatic charge.
>
>The field near a line charge is 1/r normal to the line. The field
>near a plane charge is uniform and normal to the plane
On Oct 14, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Michel Jullian wrote:
This "theory" seems to be a hoax based on out of context extracts from
real scientific papers. It was debunked here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/06/27/is-the-
sun-from-another-galaxy/
Interesting! Thanks for the ref
This "theory" seems to be a hoax based on out of context extracts from
real scientific papers. It was debunked here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/06/27/is-the-sun-from-another-galaxy/
Note the above debunking is not devoid of flaws either, e.g. it
asserts that the solar sys
On Oct 14, 2008, at 3:13 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
I agree on all points except your coincidental remark that "We are in
a galaxy colliding with the Milky Way", isn't the Milky Way our
galaxy (as etymology indicates) any more?
Michel
We are a member of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, which is
I agree on all points except your coincidental remark that "We are in
a galaxy colliding with the Milky Way", isn't the Milky Way our
galaxy (as etymology indicates) any more?
Michel
2008/10/14 Horace Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Oct 13, 2008, at 3:59 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
>
>> Agreed
On Oct 13, 2008, at 3:59 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
Agreed. I think the misunderstanding arises from Robin talking about
the field _inside_ the disk, and the two of us talking about the field
_near_ the disk, i.e. that felt by matter ejected out of the disk
thickness.
Michel
This is true. I
Agreed. I think the misunderstanding arises from Robin talking about
the field _inside_ the disk, and the two of us talking about the field
_near_ the disk, i.e. that felt by matter ejected out of the disk
thickness.
Michel
2008/10/13 Horace Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The field near a line ch
On Oct 13, 2008, at 2:02 AM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:31:05
-0800:
Hi,
[snip]
But it is so for a very thin disc, therefore a very thin disc can not
exist in the vicinity of the black hole. A thin disc's field is not a
1/r^2 field
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:31:05 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>But it is so for a very thin disc, therefore a very thin disc can not
>exist in the vicinity of the black hole. A thin disc's field is not a
>1/r^2 field, nor even a 1/r field, but rather a uniform field
>di
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:35:02 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>The BH being a relatively small object, and there being
>near-continuous collisions in the accretion disk, it seems to me that
>matter from the disk attracted to the BH and missing it can make their
>closest appro
On Oct 12, 2008, at 7:11 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:19:12
-0800:
Hi,
[snip]
My initial point was that Michel's explanation of jet formation was
unlikely to
be correct IMO, because there is little or no matter ejected at an
The BH being a relatively small object, and there being
near-continuous collisions in the accretion disk, it seems to me that
matter from the disk attracted to the BH and missing it can make their
closest approach from basically all directions (in 3D, not just 2D),
and therefore get slingshot-eject
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:19:12 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
My initial point was that Michel's explanation of jet formation was unlikely to
be correct IMO, because there is little or no matter ejected at an angle between
that of the disc and that of the jet. His explanatio
On Oct 12, 2008, at 1:24 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:49:52
-0800:
Hi,
[snip]
This is because the electric field about an infinite plane of uniform
charge is given by:
E = a rho/(2 * epsilon_0)
so it is just a matter of appl
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:49:52 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>This is because the electric field about an infinite plane of uniform
>charge is given by:
>
>E = a rho/(2 * epsilon_0)
>
>so it is just a matter of applying the gravimagnetic isomorphism to
>obtain the re
26 matches
Mail list logo
