There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
Next: Question about energy eigenvalues of a Hamiltonian, in general
From: NoEinstein on 14 May 2010 21:14 On May 14, 7:46 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Timo: This is in reply to the END of your previous comment: Send me a drawing of the relative size, weight and spacing of the balls. I can approximate the gravity, especially, if I know how close the big ball is to the closest one on the beam. There will be a more pronounced gravity effect if the balls are fairly close togetherlike six inches. Air turbulence will be the limiting factor for how close. Also, since I dont know the torsion characteristics of the wire, nor its length, I have little idea what the osculation frequency will be. Ideally, you should put exactly 90 degrees of initial twist in the beam, measured with highest accuracy. Its important that the wire stay perpendicular, and be twisted 90 degrees. I recommend that you install a surveyors plumb Bob in line with the axis of the wire so that you can be sure the beam wasnt pulled sideways when you rotated it. A longer wire will be more forgiving of the accuracy of the initial twist. TIME how long it takes for the twisted beam to come to rest. Keep as much air motion out of the room as possible. Do that with the unheated ball, and tell me the time required for the beam to come to rest, and the number of osculations. Also, tell me the metal type you are using, and how hot you can safely heat the entire ball. Is 330C the highest you can go? That ball will loose heat to the air so quickly that the average ball temperature should be what is used. Do you have an infrared, photonic thermometer? If so, you need to record the ball temperature about once per minute during the likely fifteen minutes or so for the beam to come to rest. My guess is that the heated ball will come to rest in 80% to 90% of the time it took for the unheated ball. In a fifteen minute experiment, you should easily be able to record the quicker time. Once you get that, THEN you can start doing the higher math to figure the likely increase in gravity. If you can document everything very well; even repeating BOTH experiments, you should publish the results in a technical journal, so a dozen or more interested physicists can tackle the gravity implications. This is important basic science, that can have far ranging implications in understanding the Universe, and conquering the Universe! NoEinstein > > On May 14, 8:01 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 13, 2:29 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > What you arent considering (relative to your 1,000 fold gravity > > difference) is that those stars, with the masses that you state, > > arent rotating about the midpoint between their centers. > > The size of the orbit - which we can directly measure since this > binary system is very close to us - and the orbital period - which we > can also directly measure - together give us the combined mass of the > two stars. Where the centre of the orbital motion lies along a line > joining them tells us where the centre of mass is, and how that > combined mass is divided between them. The figures of m_A = 2M, m_B = > 1M come from this. So, you now know where the centre of motion is, > relative to the 2 stars. If, according to your theory, this > calculation should be done differently, do it. > > > And you > > arent including the surface area of each star in the equation. > > Brighter stars will have a larger surface area per unit mass. Also, > > though the TOTAL gravity of a star is equal to the product of the > > luminosity and the surface area, > > No, "luminosity" is the total emitted power. It already includes the > surface area. "Luminosity" = "surface brightness" times surface area. > As I said in the previous post. Sirius A radiates about 1000 times as > much power as Sirius B. This already includes the effect of surface > area. Yes, Sirius A has a much larger surface area - that's why it's > brighter. Go and look for yourself - Sirius A is the brightest star in > the night sky, and Sirius B isn't visible to the naked eye. It's a big > difference in luminosity. > > Look up the numbers for yourself, at your fingertips via www. > > > the fraction of the gravity thats > > holding two objects together is the illuminated area, or the > > percentage of the total stars light that actually hits the other > > star. It is the addition of photons to the facing sides of stars that > > allows the ether pressure on the opposing sides to hold the two stars > > together. Please re read my original post, There is no PULL of > > gravity; only the PUSH of flowing ether! > > You're the one who said that the gravity is proportional to the photon > emission. You didn't give any other usable quantitative model of the > strength of gravity. If the gravitational force should be found some > other way, perhaps you should have said so, and said how. All I did > was test the quantitative model that you gave me. If it's the wrong > model, why did you give it? If it's the wrong model, give the right > one. > > One star emits 1000 times as many photons as the other, yet only > appears to have twice the gravity. This is compatible with > conventional physics, including conventional theories of gravitation. > If it isn't compatible with your theory, then perhaps reality has cast > its vote, the only vote which counts in science. > > > The easiest way for you to confirm my theory would be to heat the > > larger ball in the Cavendish experiment as hot as possible. The > > torsion slowing should occur quicker with the hot ball than with the > > same ball cold. No other measurements are required. Do THAT > > experiment, and find that the heated ball has more gravity, and you > > can sit back and let the astronomers and scientists all over the world > > quantify the temperature-variant gravity! I, the generalist, provided > > the spark of inspiration. If others get to determine more of the > > specifics, they can share in the glory. NoEinstein > > As I keep asking, and as you keep refusing to say: How large is the > effect supposed to be? In other words, how sensitive does the > experiment need to be to detect it? There isn't much point in trying > it without knowing this. Since you claim that gravity is proportional > to "photon emission", for masses above some threshold mass (which you > haven't explained or given even an approximate value for yet), and > radiation by hot bodies is well known and understood, why can't you > say how large the effect should be? A simple calculation, surely, and > should be trivial for you. Why not just answer? > > For example, double the absolute temperature of the balls; easy to do, > just heat to about 330C. 16 times the radiated power, at double the > peak frequency, as compared with a room temperature ball. How much > larger should the gravitational force be?
From: Timo Nieminen on 14 May 2010 23:45 On May 15, 11:14 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 14, 7:46 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > For example, double the absolute temperature of the balls; easy to do, > > just heat to about 330C. 16 times the radiated power, at double the > > peak frequency, as compared with a room temperature ball. How much > > larger should the gravitational force be? > > Send me a drawing of the relative size, weight and spacing of the > balls. I can approximate the gravity, especially, if I know how close > the big ball is to the closest one on the beam. There will be a more > pronounced gravity effect if the balls are fairly close togetherlike > six inches. No, I'm not asking what should the result be in a particular Cavendish apparatus. I'm asking about the gravitational force between two balls, and how large your predicted temperature dependence is supposed to be. You say: > Once you get that, THEN you can > start doing the higher math to figure the likely increase in gravity. but this is what needs to come _first_. It is very useful to have some idea of how large some effect you're planning to measure is. If somebody asks you to help measure the length of something (accurately), you want to know whether to bring along a long tape measure, a metre ruler, vernier calipers, a micrometer, or something else. How large is your predicted effect? Given this, one can see if existing apparatus is sufficient, or if not, what apparatus is needed. > Air turbulence will be the limiting factor for how > close. It is possible to do experiments in vacuum. Is it necessary to do the experiment in vacuum? Thus the question, how large is the effect supposed to be? > Also, tell me the metal type you > are using, and how hot you can safely heat the entire ball. Is 330C > the highest you can go? Of course 330C isn't the hottest possible. 330C is double room temperature, convenient for giving a quantitative prediction (16 times radiated power, at 2 times the peak frequency). If the experiment should yield a large enough effect at 330C (or even lower), then it might well be better to do it at a lower temperature. Less convection, etc. How large should the effect be at 330C? This is very useful information in order to determine the best temperature to try the experiment at. Why should it take "higher math" to give a quantitative result? What higher math? Of course, since you yourself have spoken many times of your superior math skills, it shouldn't be a significant obstacle to you even if "higher math" is required. Even with only a fraction of your ability, it should be possible to do this easily enough, surely in less than an hour. So why not just say how large the effect is supposed to be?
From: BURT on 15 May 2010 02:05 On May 14, 8:45 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > On May 15, 11:14 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 14, 7:46 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > For example, double the absolute temperature of the balls; easy to do, > > > just heat to about 330C. 16 times the radiated power, at double the > > > peak frequency, as compared with a room temperature ball. How much > > > larger should the gravitational force be? > > > Send me a drawing of the relative size, weight and spacing of the > > balls. I can approximate the gravity, especially, if I know how close > > the big ball is to the closest one on the beam. There will be a more > > pronounced gravity effect if the balls are fairly close togetherlike > > six inches. > > No, I'm not asking what should the result be in a particular Cavendish > apparatus. I'm asking about the gravitational force between two balls, > and how large your predicted temperature dependence is supposed to be. > > You say: > > > Once you get that, THEN you can > > start doing the higher math to figure the likely increase in gravity. > > but this is what needs to come _first_. It is very useful to have some > idea of how large some effect you're planning to measure is. If > somebody asks you to help measure the length of something > (accurately), you want to know whether to bring along a long tape > measure, a metre ruler, vernier calipers, a micrometer, or something > else. > > How large is your predicted effect? Given this, one can see if > existing apparatus is sufficient, or if not, what apparatus is needed. > > > Air turbulence will be the limiting factor for how > > close. > > It is possible to do experiments in vacuum. Is it necessary to do the > experiment in vacuum? Thus the question, how large is the effect > supposed to be? > > > Also, tell me the metal type you > > are using, and how hot you can safely heat the entire ball. Is 330C > > the highest you can go? > > Of course 330C isn't the hottest possible. 330C is double room > temperature, convenient for giving a quantitative prediction (16 times > radiated power, at 2 times the peak frequency). > > If the experiment should yield a large enough effect at 330C (or even > lower), then it might well be better to do it at a lower temperature. > Less convection, etc. How large should the effect be at 330C? This is > very useful information in order to determine the best temperature to > try the experiment at. > > Why should it take "higher math" to give a quantitative result? What > higher math? Of course, since you yourself have spoken many times of > your superior math skills, it shouldn't be a significant obstacle to > you even if "higher math" is required. Even with only a fraction of > your ability, it should be possible to do this easily enough, surely > in less than an hour. So why not just say how large the effect is > supposed to be? How does the aether push speed up in increasing strength of gravity? Mitch Raemsch
From: John Murphy on 15 May 2010 03:20 On 15 May, 07:05, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 14, 8:45 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > On May 15, 11:14 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 14, 7:46 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > For example, double the absolute temperature of the balls; easy to do, > > > > just heat to about 330C. 16 times the radiated power, at double the > > > > peak frequency, as compared with a room temperature ball. How much > > > > larger should the gravitational force be? > > > > Send me a drawing of the relative size, weight and spacing of the > > > balls. I can approximate the gravity, especially, if I know how close > > > the big ball is to the closest one on the beam. There will be a more > > > pronounced gravity effect if the balls are fairly close togetherlike > > > six inches. > > > No, I'm not asking what should the result be in a particular Cavendish > > apparatus. I'm asking about the gravitational force between two balls, > > and how large your predicted temperature dependence is supposed to be. > > > You say: > > > > Once you get that, THEN you can > > > start doing the higher math to figure the likely increase in gravity. > > > but this is what needs to come _first_. It is very useful to have some > > idea of how large some effect you're planning to measure is. If > > somebody asks you to help measure the length of something > > (accurately), you want to know whether to bring along a long tape > > measure, a metre ruler, vernier calipers, a micrometer, or something > > else. > > > How large is your predicted effect? Given this, one can see if > > existing apparatus is sufficient, or if not, what apparatus is needed. > > > > Air turbulence will be the limiting factor for how > > > close. > > > It is possible to do experiments in vacuum. Is it necessary to do the > > experiment in vacuum? Thus the question, how large is the effect > > supposed to be? > > > > Also, tell me the metal type you > > > are using, and how hot you can safely heat the entire ball. Is 330C > > > the highest you can go? > > > Of course 330C isn't the hottest possible. 330C is double room > > temperature, convenient for giving a quantitative prediction (16 times > > radiated power, at 2 times the peak frequency). > > > If the experiment should yield a large enough effect at 330C (or even > > lower), then it might well be better to do it at a lower temperature. > > Less convection, etc. How large should the effect be at 330C? This is > > very useful information in order to determine the best temperature to > > try the experiment at. > > > Why should it take "higher math" to give a quantitative result? What > > higher math? Of course, since you yourself have spoken many times of > > your superior math skills, it shouldn't be a significant obstacle to > > you even if "higher math" is required. Even with only a fraction of > > your ability, it should be possible to do this easily enough, surely > > in less than an hour. So why not just say how large the effect is > > supposed to be? > > How does the aether push speed up in increasing strength of gravity? > > Mitch Raemsch The aether is a medium that will accommodate any postualte that suits it! -- Harbinger.
From: BURT on 15 May 2010 04:15
On May 15, 12:20 am, John Murphy <london.accommodation.homest...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > On 15 May, 07:05, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 14, 8:45 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > On May 15, 11:14 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 14, 7:46 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > > For example, double the absolute temperature of the balls; easy to do, > > > > > just heat to about 330C. 16 times the radiated power, at double the > > > > > peak frequency, as compared with a room temperature ball. How much > > > > > larger should the gravitational force be? > > > > > Send me a drawing of the relative size, weight and spacing of the > > > > balls. I can approximate the gravity, especially, if I know how close > > > > the big ball is to the closest one on the beam. There will be a more > > > > pronounced gravity effect if the balls are fairly close togetherlike > > > > six inches. > > > > No, I'm not asking what should the result be in a particular Cavendish > > > apparatus. I'm asking about the gravitational force between two balls, > > > and how large your predicted temperature dependence is supposed to be.. > > > > You say: > > > > > Once you get that, THEN you can > > > > start doing the higher math to figure the likely increase in gravity. > > > > but this is what needs to come _first_. It is very useful to have some > > > idea of how large some effect you're planning to measure is. If > > > somebody asks you to help measure the length of something > > > (accurately), you want to know whether to bring along a long tape > > > measure, a metre ruler, vernier calipers, a micrometer, or something > > > else. > > > > How large is your predicted effect? Given this, one can see if > > > existing apparatus is sufficient, or if not, what apparatus is needed.. > > > > > Air turbulence will be the limiting factor for how > > > > close. > > > > It is possible to do experiments in vacuum. Is it necessary to do the > > > experiment in vacuum? Thus the question, how large is the effect > > > supposed to be? > > > > > Also, tell me the metal type you > > > > are using, and how hot you can safely heat the entire ball. Is 330C > > > > the highest you can go? > > > > Of course 330C isn't the hottest possible. 330C is double room > > > temperature, convenient for giving a quantitative prediction (16 times > > > radiated power, at 2 times the peak frequency). > > > > If the experiment should yield a large enough effect at 330C (or even > > > lower), then it might well be better to do it at a lower temperature. > > > Less convection, etc. How large should the effect be at 330C? This is > > > very useful information in order to determine the best temperature to > > > try the experiment at. > > > > Why should it take "higher math" to give a quantitative result? What > > > higher math? Of course, since you yourself have spoken many times of > > > your superior math skills, it shouldn't be a significant obstacle to > > > you even if "higher math" is required. Even with only a fraction of > > > your ability, it should be possible to do this easily enough, surely > > > in less than an hour. So why not just say how large the effect is > > > supposed to be? > > > How does the aether push speed up in increasing strength of gravity? > > > Mitch Raemsch > > The aether is a medium that will accommodate any postualte that suits > it! > > -- > Harbinger.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - In that case it is blank slate like string dimensions are. Mitch Raemsch |