Prev: What is the disagreement to aether?
Next: Time flow
From: mpalenik on 17 Feb 2010 15:18
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.

There was a guy in the 19th century who derived the fine structure
constant from pure theoretical considerations. He got exactly 1/136,
which was about what people thought it was at the time.

Later, some more accurate measurements came out, and they measured
something closer to 1/137. He redid his calculations and it turned
out there was an error, his calculations *actually* showed that the
fine structure constant was 1/137.

With even better measurements in modern times, we know that it is
neither of those and have the denominator measured out to many decimal
places.
From: PD on 17 Feb 2010 15:33
On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

What you are observing is numerology, the ability to approximately
produce numbers from other numbers by an arbitrary and capricious
arrangement of them.

Some things you should ask yourself:
- G is supposed to be a *universal* constant, applicable in all
situations. Yet it is derived here from a *particular* arrangement of
two very special particles and the relationship falls apart as soon as
you substitute any two other particles.
- It is claimed that the equality stems from balancing the
electrostatic and gravitational forces, and yet there is no
observation that the two particles *would* be balanced in the
configuration shown (and in fact they are not). Thus there is a claim
of equality where there isn't any evidence of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology

You might also check on Bode-Titius.

From: Uncle Al on 17 Feb 2010 17:52
Brad Guth wrote:
>
> 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).

Which is it, stooopid, force or energy?

Do you really think the average reader is so goddamned stooopid to
believe the immense sustained charge separation over 230,000 miles
distance separation necessary for your idiot claim sustains without
every pair of pith balls on Earth diverging?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
From: eric gisse on 17 Feb 2010 18:34
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."

No.

Remember how you said you don't know much about physics? Learn some physics,
then learn why these ideas are wrong.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: What is the disagreement to aether?
Next: Time flow