i don't understand what you mean by equaling m1 & m2 ?
also, what is a dielectric field?
The tendency of all bodies to approach one another with a strength proportional to the quantity of matter they contain -- the quantity of matter they contain being ascertained by the strength of their tendency to approach one another. This is a lovely and edifying illustration of how science, having made A the proof of B, makes B the proof of A.from The Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce
m1 = a cannonball or the planet earth.
m2 = the planet earth or a cannonball.
This is the basis of the empirical experimentation that gave us F equals G times m1 times m2 divided by the distance, in radius, squared
. One 'm' is the planet earth, and the other 'm' is a cannonball, in the case of this equation, interchangeable. Hence, the equation becomes the scientific law for cannonball-like objects' reactions to earth's attractive forces, as they play upon cannonball-like objects, where an assumption is made that there is no differentiation between a cannonball-like object and the earth, as to their masses and dynamics.
And so, these assumptions are carried to their most absurd extremes in that we are to assume that both have the same dynamic forces, based merely upon the mass so attributed to the cannonball-like objects' mass, as determined by the amount of force measured by its assumed mutual attraction to earth.
Whereas the mass of the cannonball-like object is so small in relation to the earth, its mass simultaneously being reckoned via the same equation, is considered insignificant by token of the huge ratio of the masses. And, its dynamic force, i.e., gravity, assumed to be playing a rational part in a mutual attraction, so small as to be literally unmeasurable. But, the fallout of the assumption, unfounded in my opinion, is that the earth has a mass commensurate with that of the solid iron cannonball.
With these assumptions taking the position of basic physical law in our view, we go on to project, mathematically, the masses of all celestial bodies, based on their relative positions and activities, though none has ever actually been measured, nor could be at present, in any way. Having made such assumptions of the realities of gravity and mass as a given, we have projected this image to the infinite ends of both the micro and macro scales. Is it little wonder that the mathematics has strained to come to terms with such a potential of error? But, as I say, ungrounded assumption is law. No number of imaginary dimensions will ever sort it out.
If gravity is, as I would posit, a dynamic with its origin in something other than the presence of some amount of mass, and the structure and masses of cannonball-like objects having little or no bearing upon the structure and dynamics of planets, or other gravitors, and with planets' masses so overestimated under the cannonball model, then a total rethinking, going back prior to the projections of 'F', after Newton, is needed.
Science will eventually have to join me and Phineas Freak and prepare to at last enter the third dimension.
The dielectric field is a field of stress within a so-called static electric field. At this point, it is simply a way of viewing activities in the ethers, ethers which of course had officially to stop existing when certain assumptions were made following Michelson and Morley's interferometer experiment of 1895. The initial assumption in the experiment was that the so-called luminiferous ether was of a stationary structure throughout all space (a quite large assumption, in my opinion). The idea came down that the experiment proved that an ether did not exist. I would posit that the experiment simply proved that the ether involved was not stationary, but was a fluid medium which had a motion that moved parallel and more or less equal to the position of the experiment. In other words, spinning along with this planet, a vortex within a space filled with vortices.
Edited by Alder Logs, 13 April 2013 - 11:59 AM.