Dave wrote:
show me a program that uses the weak force.

Didn't the weak force and the electromagnetic force get
united into the "electroweak" force in the late 60's?
In which case, aren't the two forces interchangable?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Nov 12, 5:54*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave wrote:
show me a program that uses the weak force.

Didn't the weak force and the electromagnetic force get
united into the "electroweak" force in the late 60's?
In which case, aren't the two forces interchangable?
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Yes tho some use the term electroweak incorrectly as equal to the weak
force aloneinstead of the combination force ( I may have described
that incorrectly).
Some have now reduced the number of forces down to three where some
also infere
that it can be reduced to one.( gravity being a subset of
electromagnetism) Problem is that electroweak bundles the mathematical
terms
as if the weak force is the only other action whereas the weak force
is a bundling of all mathematical factors( a constant by any other
name)
required in addition to the other forces to allow all forces to sum to
zero.(Newton) I have not seen anything that quantifies the eddy
current
as being equal in itself as being equal to the missing vector but then
science has not found the weak force to prove that it is in singular
form and equal to the vector required for equilibrium. If somebody
would pick up my theorem that could easily be solved by taking the
periphary of the eddy current traveling at the speed of light
(frrequency dependant)
Regards
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Nov 12, 5:54 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave wrote:
show me a program that uses the weak force.

Didn't the weak force and the electromagnetic force get
united into the "electroweak" force in the late 60's?
In which case, aren't the two forces interchangable?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

only at temperatures over 10^15K... see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction

so if you are living just after the big bang maybe you could consider them
the same.

Dave wrote:
so if you are living just after the big bang maybe you could consider them
the same.

How can you possibly believe that the universe was
9 billion years old in earth years before earth
years even existed? We *are* living just after the
big bang.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave wrote:
so if you are living just after the big bang maybe you could consider
them the same.

How can you possibly believe that the universe was
9 billion years old in earth years before earth
years even existed? We *are* living just after the
big bang.

Cecil:

I can be a bit dense, yanno?

Could you elaborate a bit ... I lost you somewhere? I mean I understand
time could not be measured in earth years before the earth existed ...
but after it did exist (and we invented time based on its' spinning)
can't we just extrapolate backwards? Or, what?

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
Could you elaborate a bit ... I lost you somewhere? I mean I understand
time could not be measured in earth years before the earth existed ...
but after it did exist (and we invented time based on its' spinning)
can't we just extrapolate backwards? Or, what?

As you know, relativistic effects change the length of
seconds. Just after the Big Bang, everything must have
been traveling close to the speed of light. (The inflation
of the universe is supposed to have happened at much faster
than the speed of light.) But what if seconds were
simply extremely long due to velocity. As the particles
slowed down, seconds got shorter until today we have the
shortest second ever to exist - shorter than it was
yesterday. Now take today's short second, lay them end
to end, and extrapolate the age of the universe. You
get a number that is much too large. Conceptually, but
not to scale:

BB|------------------------------------|first second ...
.... |--|today's second

What if the first second was actually one trillion of
our present-day seconds? Extrapolation would lead to
an error of 12 magnitudes in the length of that first
second.

Not only are there time effects - there are also space
effects. Things are not getting farther away from each
other - light-years are getting longer as we speak, i.e.
space itself is expanding, i.e. the standard meter in
the National Bureau of Standards is getting longer as
we speak.

What happens when me measure the light frequency of
distant galaxies while, during the travel of that
light, light-years were getting longer and seconds
were getting shorter? Hint: same thing that happens
when the time base knob on an oscilloscope gets loose
and slips. (That actually happened to me and the
result was an epiphany about space/time.)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
What happens when me measure the light frequency of
distant galaxies while, during the travel of that
light, light-years were getting longer and seconds
were getting shorter? Hint: same thing that happens
when the time base knob on an oscilloscope gets loose
and slips. (That actually happened to me and the
result was an epiphany about space/time.)

OK. Reading you clear now.

Just one of those "DUH!" moments I have. Thanks for your time; I am
embarrassed ...

Regards,
JS