Prev: What is the disagreement to aether?
Next: Time flow
From: Uncle Al on 17 Feb 2010 14:57
Ste wrote:
>
> Just wondering if anyone has ever come across this before:
>
> http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/MFSPears/
>
> Seems like quite a compelling theory, with numbers matching apparently
> too nicely for it to be totally devoid of sense.

"Abstract: Gravity is electrostatic."

The author is commended for ending the horror three words into his
abstract.

1) A grounded Faraday cage does not shield gravity.
2) A grounded conductive solid wall Faraday room with layers of EM
and magnetic capacitive, inductive, independent multifoliar soft
ferromagnetic, and impedance of free space lossy materials does not
shield gravity. That's an Eotvos balance capsule boys and girls, good
to 1 part in 20 trillion relative sensitivity
3) A closed Type I or II superconductive envelope does not shield
gravity, internally or otherwise. Podkletnov lied.
4) idiot

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
From: Ste on 17 Feb 2010 15:01
On 17 Feb, 17:28, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 12:20 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Just wondering if anyone has ever come across this before:
>
> >http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/MFSPears/
>
> > Seems like quite a compelling theory, with numbers matching apparently
> > too nicely for it to be totally devoid of sense.
>
> I haven't looked at it closely, and I can't right now because I have
> to give a presentation in about an hour, but it looks incredibly
> crankish, and I don't really want to give it a longer look.  If you
> can show me that he demonstrates these things, though, I would give it
> a second look:
>
> 1) That he can reproduce the calculation of the perhihelion of mercury
> with his model (which Newtonian gravity, that falls off exactly as 1/
> r^2, just like in electrostatics, cannot)

From what I can tell, there are some small deviations from Newtonian
gravity.



> 2) That he can account for what is really producing the time dilation
> in GPS satelites which matches the predictions of GR (since in his
> model, it can't be gravity).

I think an explanation for that really depends on the physical cause
of "time dilation".



> 3) That it predicts black holes of the correct radius

I don't think he deals with black holes.

I'm not endorsing it as true, but it certainly seemed surprising to me
that he was able to derive an almost exact value for Big G from a
handful of existing constants and empirical measurements.
From: Ste on 17 Feb 2010 15:02
On 17 Feb, 17:31, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> Dear Ste:
>
> On Feb 17, 10:20 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Just wondering if anyone has ever come across
> > this before:
>
> >http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/MFSPears/
>
> > Seems like quite a compelling theory, with
> > numbers matching apparently too nicely for
> > it to be totally devoid of sense.
>
> I especially like how he derived the "velocity" of light from
> permittivity and permeability, and seemed to want to take credit for
> this as a personal success and "justification".  His method fails to
> describe the attraction of neutrons by gravity.  So it is yet another
> dead end, unfortunately.

He does actually describe the attraction of neutrons by gravity.
From: mpalenik on 17 Feb 2010 15:15
On Feb 17, 3:01 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 Feb, 17:28, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 12:20 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Just wondering if anyone has ever come across this before:
>
> > >http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/MFSPears/
>
> > > Seems like quite a compelling theory, with numbers matching apparently
> > > too nicely for it to be totally devoid of sense.
>
> > I haven't looked at it closely, and I can't right now because I have
> > to give a presentation in about an hour, but it looks incredibly
> > crankish, and I don't really want to give it a longer look.  If you
> > can show me that he demonstrates these things, though, I would give it
> > a second look:
>
> > 1) That he can reproduce the calculation of the perhihelion of mercury
> > with his model (which Newtonian gravity, that falls off exactly as 1/
> > r^2, just like in electrostatics, cannot)
>
> From what I can tell, there are some small deviations from Newtonian
> gravity.
>
> > 2) That he can account for what is really producing the time dilation
> > in GPS satelites which matches the predictions of GR (since in his
> > model, it can't be gravity).
>
> I think an explanation for that really depends on the physical cause
> of "time dilation".
>
> > 3) That it predicts black holes of the correct radius
>
> I don't think he deals with black holes.
>
> I'm not endorsing it as true, but it certainly seemed surprising to me
> that he was able to derive an almost exact value for Big G from a
> handful of existing constants and empirical measurements.

Ok, the point was actually that even at a cursory glance, I can tell
his model would get those things wrong. Not to mention the other
ridiculous, demonstrably false statements.
From: Brad Guth on 17 Feb 2010 15:15
On Feb 17, 9:20 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Just wondering if anyone has ever come across this before:
>
> http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/MFSPears/
>
> Seems like quite a compelling theory, with numbers matching apparently
> too nicely for it to be totally devoid of sense.

Well, there's an average of roughly 2e20 N worth of capacitance force
or energy existing between Earth and our moon(Selene).

~ BG
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: What is the disagreement to aether?
Next: Time flow