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: mingstb on 10 Mar 2005 01:44 Why, hello again Dinky. Still not capable of posting any substantive physics? Still not willing to take those bets? Bye again, coward. greywolf42
From: mingstb on 10 Mar 2005 01:52 TC wrote: > mingstb(a)sim-ss.com wrote: > > > ming...(a)sim-ss.com wrote: > > > > Bilge wrote: > > > > > TC: > > > > > > 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? > > > > > No. > > > > LOL! > > > > But that pathetic and ignorant site was completely refuted by > > > > myself. Paul didn't have to. > > > > If your refutation is in the threads to which Stowe provided the > > > URLs then you didn't refute very much. You pointed out how the > > > terminology in the mathpages article differs from that used by > > > "LeSagians" and made some other minor corrections. > > > However, you did not demonstrate how a LeSagian theory can > > > avoid making the absurd physical predictions that the mathpages > > > article points out. > > > > You mean the "predictions" that "Shadow" made? LOL! Those aren't > > LeSagian predictions. > > Of course not. The issue is whether LeSagian theory is a consistent > physical theory that agrees with observation. LOL! The only way to find that out is to actually *use the theory* to make predictions. Using other theories (or mere hand-waving) is useless. > > That's why "Shadow" and Bilge "both" cut and ran. ;) > > > And it is obvious that you didn't actually read the replies. > > Otherwise you would have understood the reason for my > > references to one and two-body effects. > > Are you Mingst or Stowe? It seems to me Stowe first mentioned > the one/two body thing. I am Mingst. We both made reference to one and two-body effects. > No I didn't read the entire thread. There was only one post that attempted anything of substance: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2080fab1f8cc1d21 > > Perhaps you'd care to be a bit more specific. Please point out a > > specific argument of mine that you felt "failed." > > I can't find the URL pointing to that thread right now. > Can you resupply? > > But it wasn't that your argument failed, but that it missed the point. That's called weaseling. What *specific* point did I not address? greywolf42
From: TC on 10 Mar 2005 11:40 mingstb(a)sim-ss.com wrote: > TC wrote: <snipped to get to the points> > > > To what experiments are you referring? The Eotvos experiment is a > > > measure of two units of mass of different chemical compositions. > I see that you didn't provide an actual reference. I had provided. http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm bu this one seems even better for history One Hundred Years of the Eotvos Experiment http://www.kfki.hu/~tudtor/eotvos1/onehund.html <snip again> > > Are you denying that 6 moles of neutrons and 6 moles of protons > > in the form of a mole of carbon weighs less than 6 moles of neutrons > > and 6 moles of protons in the form of 6 moles of deuterium? > > [6 moles of electrons are also needed in each case] > No. Again, are you alluding to theoretical claims about binding > energy? How do you account for the non-theoretical difference in weight? <snip to an absurdity> > > Binding energy is observed. It is why nuclear weapons go boom. > I see you again have no experimental support to give. How do you account for the energy released by nuclear weapons - and by nuclear reactors? > And I don't disagree with the conversion between mass and energy. It > is irrelevant to this discussion, however. Snip to the statement that makes it relevant. > > So LeSagian interaction couples to binding energy as in GR? > The LeSagian interaction couples to inertial mass. Period. Whether a > different theory uses "binding energy" to calculate that mass doesn't > matter (pun intended). So does inertial mass include binding energy? Or does the "Period" exclude it? > > > Only GR postulates a distinction between "gravitational" mass and > > > "inertial" mass. > > Where do you get that from. > Newton's Principia, for one. Take a look at Newton's empirical > relationship. The mass in F = - G mM/r^2 is inertial mass. Otherwise > Kepler's orbital equations (from which Newton derived the above) don't > work. You make my point. To show equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass you need a reducto type argument. The equivalence, the identity, of the two is built into GR. > > GR is based on principle of equivalence > > which equates the two. > GR *calls* it the 'Principle of Equivalence'. But only GR makes any > claims that there are two kinds of mass. Why do you think Eotvos started his experimentation to test the equivalence of the two types of mass in 1889, long before GR? >From reference above: "Inspired by the beauty of the Newtonian system, Baron Roland von Eötvös experimentally investigated the proportionality of inertial and gravitating masses in 1889, and reported his results in the Proceedings of the Hungarian Academy in 1890 [1]. In this work he improved Bessel's accuracy 1/60 000 to 1/20 000 000." And this implies Bessel peformed similar experiments even earlier. <snip noting that not all of "Newton's" gravity theory is in the Principia. Later workers made significant contributions.> > > [snip for clarity] > > > Again, totally irrelevant to the issue. The phase of matter is > > > immaterial to LeSagian gravitational theory (also to Newtonian > > > theory). > > Then why is there an "r" in the expression. If the phas is > irrelevant > > then it follows that the density does not matter. > Matter phase is not density. What do you mean by "matter phase" if density is not part of it? > One can have liquid, gas or solid all at > the same density. Phase is irrelevant. Mass density is often > relevant. One can have solids are varying density, liquids at varying density and of course gas at different densities. ....... <snip> > > There you go. So why the "r" in the expression for heating by > > LeSagian gravity? > Because gravitational heating is not gravitational force. That hardly seems a reason for a particular form on an equation. <snip> > Do you understand the concept that if body A interacts with the > corpuscle flux, that it will heat even if no other body is near it? If the interaction is absorptive, which I had assumed it was, yes. But now you say it can be non-absorptive, scattering, in which case there might not be any heating. > > > Now place a second body of equal mass a distance 'd' away from the > > > first body. The first body will continue to absorb just as much > > > energy as it did before. But it will begin to gravitate. > > It will do no such thing. Under LeSagian theory it shadows the > > second body. > Momentum shadowing *IS* the direct cause gravitation -- in LeSagian > theory. And the shadowing will modify the heating rate. > > > Now make the second body 1000000 times the mass of the first body. > > > The first body *still* absorbs the same energy from the LeSagian > > > aether as it did before. > > No it doesn't. It is shadowed quite a bit by the larger body > > reducing the flux it sees. > Neither body removes any significant fraction of the momentum. A > gravitational field of 1 g is a variation on the order of 1 part in > 10^9 of the incoming momentum flux. I see a factor of a million in your example, this could easily cancel out much of the 10^9 factor. <snip to disputed point> > > > .... you cannot > > > determine the heating of a body from any orbital situation. > > You can bound the heating from the orbital situation. > No, you cannot. Mathematics will not allow you to determine two > unknowns (Phi and mu) from only one equation. You have a known. The force - the momentum flux attributed to gravity. You have a lower bound on the speed of the ultramundane particles set by lack of aberration. > > The imbalance of flux that causes F cannot be larger than > > the total flux absent a second body. This provides a lower > > bound on the heating. The heating has to be at least as large > > as the momentum flux (the force F) times the speed of the > > ultramundane particles. > Heating is not flux. Did you read what I wrote? Of course it is not, you must multiply momentum flux by a velocity to get a heating or energy flow. > Even if heating is dependent upon flux, it is > also dependent upon the constant, mu. Is mu, in effect, the ratio of absorption to elastic scattering of the ultramundane particles? {snip higher levels} > > > > How is momentum transfered without absorption of ultramundane > > > > particles? > > > However it is done in the real universe, of course. > > You mean to say that LeSagian theory has action at a distance > > or that it takes the view of GR that motion is along geodesics of > > space time? > Not at all, of course. Your strawman is quite silly. Not a strawman, but my best understanding of how gravity works, pre and post 1915. <snip> > > > One can easily > > > work out the macroscopic effects, without having to first know the > > > microscopic detail. Scattering is just as valid a Newtoninan > method > > > for transfer of momentum as total absorption. > > Oh. But doesn't scattering spoil the shadowing affect that leads > > to the LeSagian explanation of gravity? > No. Why would you expect it to? There is an omnidirectional rain of ultramundane particles. If these are scattered elastically then even the presence of a massive body will not modify the flux of the ultramundane near the body. Particles that do no penetrate the body are replaced by particles from the other direction that scatter from the body and wind up going in the same direction. So there is no shadowing for elastic scattering. > > [snip reiteration of the one body/two body discussion] snip more > But you may try reading the only substantive response was on the > "Shadows" sub-thread: > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2080fab1f8cc1d21 I'll comment on that in other subthread. Tom
From: TC on 10 Mar 2005 11:54 mingstb(a)sim-ss.com wrote: > TC wrote: Clarke: If your refutation is in the threads to which Stowe provided the > > > > URLs then you didn't refute very much. You pointed out how the > > > > terminology in the mathpages article differs from that used by > > > > "LeSagians" and made some other minor corrections. > > > > However, you did not demonstrate how a LeSagian theory can > > > > avoid making the absurd physical predictions that the mathpages > > > > article points out. > > > You mean the "predictions" that "Shadow" made? LOL! Those aren't > > > LeSagian predictions. > > Of course not. The issue is whether LeSagian theory is a consistent > > physical theory that agrees with observation. > LOL! The only way to find that out is to actually *use the theory* to > make predictions. Using other theories (or mere hand-waving) is > useless. Other theories do pretty well. <snip> > There was only one post that attempted anything of substance: > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2080fab1f8cc1d21 > > > Perhaps you'd care to be a bit more specific. Please point out a > > > specific argument of mine that you felt "failed." > > I can't find the URL pointing to that thread right now. > > Can you resupply? > > But it wasn't that your argument failed, but that it missed the > point. > That's called weaseling. What *specific* point did I not address? Let's look at two points: The speed of the ultramundane particles: ________________ Shadows: the possibility and consequences of > ultra-mundane particles moving at various speeds, including c or much > greater than c, is addressed in detail; Mingst: "Shadows" simply makes the false claim that the speeds must be vastly greater than 'c' (using hand-waving arguments, coupled with hilariously erroneous mathematical manipulations). _______________ How is this a refutation? It is just as statement - without reason - that shadows is wrong. And of course if you read http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath131/kmath131.htm you find reasons for the estimates of ultramundance particle velocities given. Reflection versus scattering: ___________________ Shadows: the effects of reflection versus absorption are discussed. Mingst: Acutally, all "Shadows" does is make a bald assertion that reflection won't work: "(Note that we can exclude from consideration all the reflected particles, because these contribute nothing to the net force on a body, e.g., with perfect reflection there would be no net force at all. Thus we need consider only the absorbed particles.)" And the above claim is flatly untrue. ___________________ The above counterclaim is flatly untrue. So this is hardly a refutation, either. Enough for now. Tom
From: mingstb on 11 Mar 2005 01:49
TC wrote: > mingstb(a)sim-ss.com wrote: > > TC wrote: > > <snipped to get to the points> > > > > > To what experiments are you referring? The Eotvos experiment is > > > > a measure of two units of mass of different chemical compositions. > > > I see that you didn't provide an actual reference. > > I had provided. > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm > bu this one seems even better for history > One Hundred Years of the Eotvos Experiment > http://www.kfki.hu/~tudtor/eotvos1/onehund.html This is not a reference to the point under discussion. Your "creative" snip alters the subject of your avoidance. I wasn't referring to questions about the actual Eotvos experiment. The quote under discussion was: "Eotvos type experiments have shown that most things that make up matter gravitate. Including binding energy." Where is your experimental support for the claim about binding energy gravitating? > > > > There are no "binding energy" experiments within the Eotvos type. > > > > Because energy (of any form) is not an observable property. It is > > > > always calculated. Are you alluding to theoretical claims? > > > > Are you denying that 6 moles of neutrons and 6 moles of protons > > > in the form of a mole of carbon weighs less than 6 moles of > > > neutrons and 6 moles of protons in the form of 6 moles of > > > deuterium? [6 moles of electrons are also needed in each case] > > > No. Again, are you alluding to theoretical claims about binding > > energy? > > How do you account for the non-theoretical difference in weight? I presume that you are attempting to imply that there are experiments (non-theoretical) to back up your claims. But since you can't seem to provide any, you are reduced to such pitiful word games. > <snip to an absurdity> > > > > Please, be specific. Which experiment? I believe you will find that > > > > the calculation of energy is completely circular. > > > > Binding energy is observed. It is why nuclear weapons go boom. > > > I see you again have no experimental support to give. > > How do you account for the energy released by nuclear weapons - and > by nuclear reactors? I see you still have no experimental support for your assertion that binding energy is a measurable quantity. > > And I don't disagree with the conversion between mass and energy. It > > is irrelevant to this discussion, however. Such claims always start > > with a given mass. > > Snip to the statement that makes it relevant. I agree that it wasn't relevant to the point under discussion. > > > So LeSagian interaction couples to binding energy as in GR? > > > The LeSagian interaction couples to inertial mass. Period. Whether > > a different theory uses "binding energy" to calculate that mass > > doesn't matter (pun intended). > > So does inertial mass include binding energy? Or does the "Period" > exclude it? Inertial mass is inertial mass. Whether it does or does not include "binding energy" is irrelevant to LeSagian gravitation. Also to Newtonian gravitation. All that matters is the inertial mass. > > > > Only GR postulates a distinction between "gravitational" mass and > > > > "inertial" mass. > > > > Where do you get that from. > > > Newton's Principia, for one. Take a look at Newton's empirical > > relationship. The mass in F = - G mM/r^2 is inertial mass. > > Otherwise Kepler's orbital equations (from which Newton derived > > the above) don't work. > > You make my point. To show equivalence of inertial and gravitational > mass you need a reducto type argument. There is no need for "equivalence" of a concept that does not exist in the theory. > The equivalence, the identity, of > the two is built into GR. And into Newtonian gravitation. And into Lesagian gravitation. On this issue, there is no difference between theories. > > > GR is based on principle of equivalence > > > which equates the two. > > > GR *calls* it the 'Principle of Equivalence'. But only GR makes any > > claims that there are two kinds of mass. > > Why do you think Eotvos started his experimentation to test the > equivalence of the two types of mass in 1889, long before GR? Because he wanted to see if he could disprove Newton's empirical and LeSage's theoretical assumptions. It's called science. > From reference above: > "Inspired by the beauty of the Newtonian system, > Baron Roland von Eötvös experimentally investigated the > proportionality of inertial and gravitating masses in 1889, > and reported his results in the Proceedings of the > Hungarian Academy in 1890 [1]. In this work he improved > Bessel's accuracy 1/60 000 to 1/20 000 000." > And this implies Bessel peformed similar experiments even earlier. > <snip noting that not all of "Newton's" gravity theory is in the > Principia. Later workers made significant contributions.> Still totally irrelevant. Good experimental technique, though. Had Eotvos found a difference between feathers and lead, all three types of theory (Newton, LeSage, and GR) would be knocked into a cocked hat. > > > It is Newton's theory of gravity that > > > distinguishes them. > > >Your assertion is incorrect and unsupported. Feel free to > >cite section number in the Principia to support your position. No response, I see. > > > > Such efforts are irrelevant to non-GR theory. There > > > > is no reason for non-GR theories to see a difference. > > > > You have it absolutely backwards. > > > Feel free to cite section number in the Principia to support your position. No citiation, I see. > > > > Again, totally irrelevant to the issue. The phase of matter is > > > > immaterial to LeSagian gravitational theory (also to Newtonian > > > > theory). > > > > Then why is there an "r" in the expression. If the phas is > > > irrelevant then it follows that the density does not matter. > > > Matter phase is not density. > > What do you mean by "matter phase" if density is not part of it? The same thing that all physicists mean by "phase": solid, liquid, gas and plasma. > > One can have liquid, gas or solid all at > > the same density. Phase is irrelevant. Mass density is often > > relevant. > > One can have solids are varying density, liquids at varying density > and of course gas at different densities. Yes. And the only germaine property to this discussion is density. > ...... <snip> > > > > Gauss' law assures us that the distribution within a given mass has > > > > no effect on a body outside the mass. It simply becomes a result of > > > > the total mass of the body. > > > > There you go. So why the "r" in the expression for heating by > > > LeSagian gravity? > > > Because gravitational heating is not gravitational force. > > That hardly seems a reason for a particular form on an equation. We were discussing gravitational force, and Gauss' laws applicability, here. Please try to keep straight gravitational force, corpuscular heating, drag and aberration. They are all four physical observables that result from LeSagian theories. Please strive for specificity. > <snip> > > Do you understand the concept that if body A interacts with the > > corpuscle flux, that it will heat even if no other body is near it? > > If the interaction is absorptive, which I had assumed it was, yes. > But now you say it can be non-absorptive, scattering, in which > case there might not be any heating. Bingo. And the most likely real situation is somewhere inbetween complete absorption and perfect elasticity. Only observations allow us to quantify the amount. > > > > Now place a second body of equal mass a distance 'd' away from > > > > the first body. The first body will continue to absorb just > > > > as much energy as it did before. But it will begin to gravitate. > > > > It will do no such thing. Under LeSagian theory it shadows the > > > second body. > > > Momentum shadowing *IS* the direct cause gravitation -- in LeSagian > > theory. > > And the shadowing will modify the heating rate. Not significantly. Gravitational interaction rate must needs be very weak. In that weak solution, there is no noticable effect on the heating rate from shadowing (gravitation). > > > > Now make the second body 1000000 times the mass of the first > > > > body. The first body *still* absorbs the same energy from the > > > > LeSagian aether as it did before. > > > > No it doesn't. It is shadowed quite a bit by the larger body > > > reducing the flux it sees. > > > Neither body removes any significant fraction of the momentum. A > > gravitational field of 1 g is a variation on the order of 1 part in > > 10^9 of the incoming momentum flux. > > I see a factor of a million in your example, this could easily cancel > out much of the 10^9 factor. Leaving less than 1 part in 1,000 change in the heating rate. As I said... not significant. {Replacing Jim's snip of the explanatory math} ====================== > > > > The deposition of energy into the first matter body is a function of > > > > the product of momentum flux density (Phi_0) and the mass interaction > > > > coefficient of that body (mu_s). The gravitaional force is given by: > > > > > F = -Phi_0 (mu_s)^2 m M / d^2 > > > > or, conventionally: > > > > F = -G m M / d^2 > > > > > No gravitation calculation can give you aught else but the factor G. > > > > It cannot give you the product (Phi_0) (mu_s). Hence, ====================== > > > > ... you cannot > > > > determine the heating of a body from any orbital situation. > > > > You can bound the heating from the orbital situation. > > > No, you cannot. Mathematics will not allow you to determine two > > unknowns (Phi and mu) from only one equation. > > You have a known. The force - the momentum flux attributed to > gravity. You fail elementary algebra. One cannot determine the momentum flux (Phi_0) from the gravitational force -- because you don't know mu_0. > You have a lower bound on the speed of the ultramundane > particles set by lack of aberration. You fail elementary logic. Aberration cannot be examined in isolation from dyanmic drag. Lesagian theories *ALWAYS* have all four resulting physical manifestations: gravitational force, flux heating, drag and aberration. Dynamical drag opposes orbital aberration -- and can balance same (i.e. Bode's law). > > > The imbalance of flux that causes F cannot be larger than > > > the total flux absent a second body. This provides a lower > > > bound on the heating. The heating has to be at least as large > > > as the momentum flux (the force F) times the speed of the > > > ultramundane particles. > > > Heating is not flux. > > Did you read what I wrote? Of course it is not, you must > multiply momentum flux by a velocity to get a heating or > energy flow. Momentum flux is not force -- which was your prior claim. > > Even if heating is dependent upon flux, it is > > also dependent upon the constant, mu. > > Is mu, in effect, the ratio of absorption to elastic scattering of > the ultramundane particles? No. But it *is* affected by that ratio. Mu is the mass attenuation coefficient. As described in the mathematics and detailed explantions that existed below -- which you snipped. {replacing explanatory mathematics, snipped by TC} > > Your simple assertion is simply wrong. As noted > > in the only substantive discussion in my rebuttal > > (identified below): > >==================== > >My argument is based on only two things. 1) "Shadows" did not use Le Sagian > >theory to determine the predictions of Le Sagian theory -- it simply > >asserted what the equations should be. 2) "Shadows" never justified it's > >hand-waving assertions. The latter is what Shadow now claims are "perfectly > >general arguments". But (s)he still provides no basis for ignoring actual > >Le Sagian equations. > > > > > >Gravitational Force Law: p 188 (one of several ways) > > F_g = Phi_0 mu_s^2 m M / r2 = G m M / r^2 > > > >Drag from Inertial Motion: p 197 > > F_d = sqrt(3) Phi_0 mu_s m v / vg > > > >In the above equations, Phi_0 is the momentum flux of the Le Sagian aether > >(kg/m-sec2), and mu_s is the mass attenuation coefficient (m2/kg). The > >ratio between the two forces is therefore given by the equation: > > > > Fd/Fg = [sqrt(3)/mu_s M] (v/vg) > > > >The overall form of the above equations does not change from one Le Sagian > >to the next. There is always a "mu_s" term (or variant) that prevents one > >from determining the drag-to-gravity ratio from purely gravitational > >permutations. {In Darwin's theory, it is (v a b).} > > > >Shadow simply ignores the little problem. > >==================== > > > > > How is momentum transfered without absorption of ultramundane > > > > > particles? > > > > > However it is done in the real universe, of course. > > > > You mean to say that LeSagian theory has action at a distance > > > or that it takes the view of GR that motion is along geodesics of > > > space time? > > > Not at all, of course. Your strawman is quite silly. > > Not a strawman, but my best understanding of how gravity works, > pre and post 1915. Gravity works the same as it always has, in the real universe. Regardless of our theories about same. Your strawman is still quite silly. > > > You build up this apparatus of ultramundane particles and then > > > say its not them that cause the gravitational force after all? > > > > Never said any such thing. Your inability to respond substantively is > > noted. > > > > One can easily > > > > work out the macroscopic effects, without having to first know > > > > the microscopic detail. Scattering is just as valid a > > > > Newtoninan method for transfer of momentum as total absorption. > > > > Oh. But doesn't scattering spoil the shadowing affect that leads > > > to the LeSagian explanation of gravity? > > > No. Why would you expect it to? > > There is an omnidirectional rain of ultramundane particles. If these > are scattered elastically then even the presence of a massive > body will not modify the flux of the ultramundane near the body. There are other types of scattering (non-absorption) than simple billiard-ball collisions. To my knowledge, the only person who ever postulated such a Lesagian variant was Darwin. And even Darwin obtained a net force. > Particles that do no penetrate the body are replaced by particles > from the other direction that scatter from the body and wind up going > in the same direction. So there is no shadowing for elastic scattering. But they aren't "scattered" back to the other body. So, I'm afraid that you'll have to back up your claim with real mathematics. But if you'd rather not, that's OK. Because no one I know is postulating such a situation. {snip higher levels} > > > > A priori, the attraction of gravity can result from > > > > any combination of scattering and absorption (full or partial). It > > > > requires actual observation (i.e. experiment) to determine the value > > > > of mu_s. (See the prior reference in "Pushing Gravity" for the full > > > > detail.) > > > > > > I'm awaiting interlibrary loan. But I have grave doubts. > > > > The true mark of a believer. But not of science. {snip higher levels} > > > > Some LeSagian calculations are gravitation (i.e. they include the > > > > derived parameter "G"). Some LeSagian calculations do not use "G". > > > > Gravitation is only one aspect of the LeSagian model. Heating is > > > > another. Drag is another. Orbital dynamics is another. > > > > > > Fantasy is yet another, I suspect. > > > > The last refuge of a losing argument. I'm terribly sorry that a real > > theory is more difficult to blow off > > than disconnected pieces of > > strawman. I'm afraid I don't have time to bother with one who snips every explanatory equation as soon as it is made -- and as if it had never been provided. Enjoy yourself. Bye.... greywolf42 |