Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: review of field line plotter...
Replies: 15   Last Post: Feb 1, 2014 7:51 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Chris M. Thomasson

Posts: 171
Registered: 8/29/13
review of field line plotter...
Posted: Nov 25, 2013 11:22 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Basically, here is the context:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.lang.javascript/HRo8xyf1Mgw/p3cEcAJMc1gJ

for a pre-alpha version of my online field plotter:

http://webpages.charter.net/appcore/fractal/field


Here is the copy of the text within the first link:
___________________________________________________
> "Tiger Sharktopus" wrote in message
> news:47928ac0-c079-409d-9f3f-
> 4e2cc0485405@googlegroups.com...



>> On Monday, November 18, 2013 8:17:46 PM UTC-8,
>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>
>> I have created a pre-alpha version of my online
>> gravitational field line

explorer:
>> [...]

> Chris -- this is some really cool stuff.

Thank you so much for the very kind comment.

:^)


FWIW, I noticed that the code is allowing for
negative masses! This is because I derived it
directly from an experimental electromagnetic
field plotter I am also working on and totally
forgot that the negative charges would be
interpreted as negative masses. Yikes!


However, there does seem to be some sort of
connection between plotting all positive
charges, and plotting all positive masses.
Of course, the field lines travel in opposite
directions, but the end graphical results are
strikingly similar...




> I have some questions about gravitational pull
> as you think about it. It appears that you
> are using the theory of relativity to determine
> that at some point there is a threshold for
> gravitational lensing.


I hope the following does not come across as
100% totally moronic. I am not a physicist!

:^o


AFAICT, the ?intersections? between the gravitational
and associated equipotential field lines heading
toward a positive mass point ends up creating some
sort of ?3d like grid?. This grid seems to be going
down, deeper and deeper toward the mass. The
circumferences of concentric ?circular shapes? formed
by the equipotential field lines get smaller when
they are closer to the point of mass. IMVHO, this is
fairly similar to a contour map that measures how
?deep? a given region of terrain is. In this case,
the depth of a region describes how close it is to
the mass. So, it seems as if the shape of the ?gravity
grid? has the capability to make the paths of passing
electromagnetic field lines want to ?fall down? into
the mass...


Lets say a photon P originating from a source O is
traveling through space along a path that happens
to be vectored toward a massive object M. Even
though P has no mass, its momentum along the path
seems to get attracted to its nearest contour line
of M's gravity grid. The depth of this contour line
influences the level of attraction it has on the
path of P. If the depth is very shallow, the ?falling?
effect will be so small that its "virtually" non-
existent. However, when P travels close enough to
one of the ?deeper? contour lines emanating from
M, the alteration of its path will become more
intensely directed down toward M. The end result
of this process can influence an observer of P to
erroneously conclude that it must have originated
from a source in a region of space that is nowhere
near O.




Now, I am not exactly sure what you mean by
?threshold?. Can you clarify it a bit?


AFAICT, the gravity grid generated by M should extend
out across space. Therefore, it should ?always? have
an effect on the paths of every photon passing though
it. So, in a sense, there is no ?threshold??


Humm...


[...]
___________________________________________________


Well, how wrong am I... Is it over 95%!

:^o

?




Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.