Flaw in Stowe/LeSage Heating
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Achieving Critical Mass. Anarchist Communism, EMC squared and the Arc of the Covenant. How to construct a home-made nuclear weapon.
Next: Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
From: Bilge on 1 Mar 2005 00:30 Paul Stowe: >On 28 Feb 2005 12:00:16 -0800, "TC" <tclarke(a)ist.ucf.edu> wrote: [...] >> It seems to me that this phenonmena would have been noted >> in laboratory cryogenic experiments as it would presented an >> additional difficulty in cooling to temperatures near 0K. > > Have they ever achieved absolute zero? The last low temperature record I saw was 100 pK. That's 100 x 10^-12 K.
From: TC on 1 Mar 2005 09:03 Paul Stowe wrote: > On 28 Feb 2005 19:07:59 -0800, "TC" <tclarke(a)ist.ucf.edu> wrote: > >> Have they ever achieved absolute zero? Bilgr says: The last low temperature record I saw was 100 pK. That's 100 x 10^-12 K. > > It's impossible to achieve. It can only be approached asymptotically. > Not if there is no energy input into the region. Perhaps I should say the elminiation of energy input is impossible since there are no zero temperature laboratories and no perfect insulators. Tom
From: TC on 1 Mar 2005 09:11 Bilge wrote: > TC: > >I was looking at Paul Stowe's > >"An Overview of the Concept of Attenuation [Pushing] Gravity" > >http://www.mountainman.com.au/index_ps.htm > >He derives from the LeSage theory that the heat output > >of a body resulting from gravity should be > >q = kM/R where k is a constant, M the mass and R the radius > >of the body. Stowe has clarified that q is heat flux/unit area, not total heat flux as I had misread. > >It occured to me to ask what the temperature of a laboratory > >scale body would be from this mechanism It seems that there will be a small effect using Stowe's formulas. A 1 meter radius sphere of iron would have a minimum temperature of 0.19K absent other heating or cooling. But I remain troubled. Stowe's formulas just do not ring true for me. The energy flux/area is proportional to M/r which in gravitational context is escape velocity/potential when multiplied by proper constant, a property of the whole body, not of a differential area of the body. I also wonder where the original data for table in http://www.mountainman.com.au/news99_b.htm comes from. Also in http://www.mountainman.com.au/le_sage.htm "Derivation of Newtonian Gravitation from LeSage's Attenuation Concept" The derivation of the the expression for energy input is not given "Big step here derivation not shown!" Is the derivation available anywhere? In the book "Pushing Gravity"? Also Bilge supplies: > http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath131/kmath131.htm Which derives very different conclusions from the LeSage model at great odds with Stowe's results. Has Stowe ever refuted these arguments? Tom
From: Paul Stowe on 1 Mar 2005 10:15 On 1 Mar 2005 06:11:20 -0800, "TC" <tclarke(a)ist.ucf.edu> wrote: >Bilge wrote: >> TC: >>> I was looking at Paul Stowe's >>> "An Overview of the Concept of Attenuation [Pushing] Gravity" >>> http://www.mountainman.com.au/index_ps.htm > >>> He derives from the LeSage theory that the heat output >>> of a body resulting from gravity should be >>> q = kM/R where k is a constant, M the mass and R the radius >>> of the body. > > Stowe has clarified that q is heat flux/unit area, not total > heat flux as I had misread. > >>> It occured to me to ask what the temperature of a laboratory >>> scale body would be from this mechanism > > It seems that there will be a small effect using Stowe's formulas. > A 1 meter radius sphere of iron would have a minimum temperature > of 0.19K absent other heating or cooling. Ummm, 0.019 ýK but, OK... > But I remain troubled. Stowe's formulas just do not ring true > for me. The energy flux/area is proportional to M/r which in > gravitational context is escape velocity/potential when multiplied > by proper constant, a property of the whole body, not of a > differential area of the body. Indeed. An analogous example, you have a distributed radioactive gas such that there existing in space a gamma flux of q'/z (where q' is the source term in energy per unit volume & z the linear attenuation coefficient in inverse meters) and an embedded piece of spherical matter (a gamma ray attenuator) such that its radius [r] yields a a total mean free path of 2zr of 0.0001. Thus, the attenuating of gammas passing thru the sphere deposits energy into the sphere. This is, for a 2zr of 0.0001, a uniform process affecting every volume element equally. This is called (and known in the trade) as the weak solution. Mathematically the weak solution is when the condition, e^-zt = 1 - zt For a situation where the above condition is not met, the energy is dopsited in an exponential manner with the most in the first mean free path. In the case of LeSagian gravity, as have been formally proven, Newton's equation IS the weak solution to this problem. > I also wonder where the original data for table in > http://www.mountainman.com.au/news99_b.htm comes from. That data is readily available. > Also in http://www.mountainman.com.au/le_sage.htm > "Derivation of Newtonian Gravitation from LeSage's Attenuation Concept" > The derivation of the the expression for energy input is not given > "Big step here derivation not shown!" Is the derivation available > anywhere? > In the book "Pushing Gravity"? Look just above that section. You'll find, f_d = f_in[2GM/c^2r_o] Where f is power flux (watts/m^2) and the other terms are as expected. Then f_d is the corresponding observed power emission and f_in the LeSagian full field input value. You don't have either of these thus you say, IF the equation is true and we have a good measured value for f_d we can solve for f_in. I originally used the Earth's value since it is very well known. I dicovered however that a body as big, and as poor a thermal conductor as the Earth requires ~25 Billon years to reach a thermal equilibrium state. Thus, I then used data from the Moon (taken in the Apollo heat flow experiments) ~0.01. This gives a f_in of ~1.6E+08. Then k is, k = (2G/c^2)f_in Now, you can instead use Jupiter and get the same basic value. We switched to Jupiter for the normalizer in our piublished paper since its values is better sustantiated that just two measurements from Moon. Now, once you have this, you ask the next question, does it match others. Thus the table. Now to your specific question, the answer is no, I abandoned this soon after I posted that piece. Dimensionally it is correct (assuming q has dimensions of kg/sec) and numerically it matches. But, I never was able to fully derive it since a piece of the puzzle is still missing. I thought it 'cool' enough to mention, in hopes that someone else might get it. > Also Bilge supplies: > >> http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath131/kmath131.htm > > Which derives very different conclusions from the LeSage model at > great odds with Stowe's results. > > Has Stowe ever refuted these arguments? See "Pushing Gravity". It DOES address several of these issues (and not just our papers). Also Barry went to a significant effort to address the in the following series. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/1afcda5a7882c43/b437f7783528c72f?q=%22LeSage+Shadows%22&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fas_q%3D%26num%3D100%26scoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26ie%3DUTF-8%26as_epq%3DLeSage+Shadows%26as_oq%3D%26as_eq%3D%26as_ugroup%3D%26as_usubject%3D%26as_uauthors%3D%26lr%3D%26as_drrb%3Dq%26as_qdr%3D%26as_mind%3D1%26as_minm%3D1%26as_miny%3D1981%26as_maxd%3D1%26as_maxm%3D3%26as_maxy%3D2005%26safe%3Doff%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#b437f7783528c72f Shadow, a.k.a. Bilge just blew smoke in response... Paul Stowe
From: Paul Stowe on 1 Mar 2005 12:39
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:26:58 GMT, Paul Stowe <ps(a)acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote: [Snip...] See "Pushing Gravity" >> It doesn't address the core issues of the enormous ultramundane >> velocities required to avoid tangential acceleration One way for this is TVF's "Gravity" pages 93-122 of above, >> and the enormous energy depostion - heating rates - that that >> would require. Another is Slablinski's "Force, Heat and Drag in a Graviton Model" pages 123-128 in same... > It is addressed, see references given... As I said... > Paul Stowe |