There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: "The Einstein Hoax"
Next: ALL DIZEAZZEZ ARE DEZERVED ! ESPECIALLY THE CANCER GOODY, BACKBONE OF THE JUICY DIZEAZZEZ INDUSTRY
From: mpc755 on 11 Apr 2010 13:53 On Apr 11, 1:26 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > THe real question is, what, in terms of LeSage's model is inertial/ > gravitational mass? We measure this by Newton's second law, i.e. by > the inertial response... Thus the strong equivilence principle. But, > as you should clearly see in the above expressions, mass (M) is NOT! > the primary player in the process, interaction area is. As I've said, > massiveness is an emergent quantity. Thus, in terms of LeSage's > process, mass is NOT! a fundamental property. It is in inertia, not > gravity, that the answer to this is found. And, inertia is not > gravity. To answer this question you do need some sort of > unification. > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. Aether is displaced by matter. Displacement creates pressure. Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. > > I am NOT! saying this is, in fact, the case BUT! now we get down into > the nitty-gritty underlying foundational questions of possible > different variants of the LeSage models. Matt Edwards for example > perfers a Casmir type effect for the apparent momentum attenuation in > the field. > The Casimir Effect is caused by gravity. Each and every nucleus which is the matter which is the plate displaces the aether. The aether displaced by one plate extends past the other plate. The pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the plates forces the plates together.
From: Timo Nieminen on 11 Apr 2010 16:54 On Apr 12, 3:26 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 10, 4:01 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > On Apr 11, 8:17 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 6, 9:57 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Timo Nieminen wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 6 Apr 2010, PaulStowewrote: > > > > > > > Yup, that an interesting problem, isn't it... The exposure of more > > > > > > attenuating area ican increase the effect per unit volume because its > > > > > > a 4 pi omni-directional flux and, being constant per unit volume has > > > > > > some counter intuitive aspects. > > > > > > Problem 2: Not that counter-intuitive. 6.74N is what you'd have if the > > > > > flux were unidirectional. Not being unidirectional will reduce the maximum > > > > > force possible, and make things worse. Not much worse, but it certainly > > > > > doesn't help. > > > > > In Edwards (pg 187), you have max flux = Q * pi * (r/R)^2 for a spherical > > > > body that absorbs completely. Given that Q is defined as the incident flux > > > > per unit area, it is odd that shielding from one side gives a net flux > > > > larger than this, but I assume this is in the definition of "net flux" as > > > > a different kind of flux. > > > > The maximum attenuation is terms of field flux is given in equation > > > 12 (mentioned above) BUT! R^2 must, at all times but physically equal > > > or greater than pir^2 (if r' is the physical radius of a spherical > > > body) and and R = r' then the 'visible' area pir^2 is less than piR^2, > > > meaning, the sphere is physically blocking the view or horizon of some > > > physical area. IOW, you cannot lose more than you have to begin > > > with. This was assumed to be understood. > > > Yes, the _maximum_ possible flux is Q*pi (for R=r). (It's explicitly > > stated in Edwards that r<=R.) > > > > > OK, with this, you get a maximum force, next to a completely shielding > > > > body, of 6.74 * pi = 21 N per kg. > > > > Qnet = Q but this is the maximum impinging flux, not a force, or an > > > acceleration. The 'force' for this would be, > > > > F = QAa/R^2 > > > > Where A and a are the physical shadowing areas and R the physical > > > distance between them. So, given the constraint mentioned above, QA/ > > > R^2 must be simply Q, as a maximum (A/R^2 <= 1). Thus, given the case > > > where a is unity, the maximum mutual 'force' between them would be > > > 6.74 Nt on the surface. But, this is an 'idealized' black body > > > interaction case, not likely to be seen in any real physical > > > situation. > > > And for the case where only one body completely shields, and the 2nd > > body (the small one) is weakly absorbing, then a = mass * u, since a > > is the absorption cross-section for the body. For weak absorption by > > the 2nd body, the maximum possible gravitational force is 6.74N/kg. > > For complete absorption by the 2nd body, the maximum possible is > > 6.74kg/m^2. > > > Yes, we're not likely to see this, since it is an extreme limiting > > case. That's the problem, it's the maximum force possible, and all > > gravitational forces we observe are likely to be less - much less - > > than these values. Measuring g here I find that the observed force is > > 9.78N/kg (uncorrected for centripetal acceleration, but that doesn't > > make enough difference), in excess of the strong-weak limit. Since I > > can make a plate of area 1m^2 with a mass of 1kg, I can also easily > > observe forces in excess of the strong-strong limit. > > THe real question is, what, in terms of LeSage's model is inertial/ > gravitational mass? We measure this by Newton's second law, i.e. by > the inertial response... Thus the strong equivilence principle. But, > as you should clearly see in the above expressions, mass (M) is NOT! > the primary player in the process, interaction area is. Yes. And so le Sage theories assume that the interaction cross-section is proportional the mass, in the weak absorption limit. Yes, this is a theoreticial weakness in le Sage, a big assumption that isn't explained. But it isn't relevant to the point at hand. The real question is: Why are the theoretically predicted _maximum possible_ gravitational forces so much less than observed gravitational forces in real life? > > Since I observe forces in excess of the _maximum possible_ > > gravitational force predicted using your values of Q and u, either the > > theory is wrong, or your values of Q and u are wrong. > > Not if you throw out M as an invariant property. Also Q is the > LeSagian the momentum interaction parameter. Nothing says it cannot > be field density (z) multiplied by a differntial change in c per event > squared, i.e., > > Q = z(dc)^2 > > I am NOT! saying this is, in fact, the case BUT! now we get down into > the nitty-gritty underlying foundational questions of possible > different variants of the LeSage models. Matt Edwards for example > perfers a Casmir type effect for the apparent momentum attenuation in > the field. You're happy to say that your quantitative calculations mean something when they match observation, and claim such match as support for your theory. Why should calculations based on exactly the same theory, using correct mathematics, with no contradictory assumptions, suddenly be meaningless? Maybe it is possible to come up with a fundamentally different le Sage- like theory that doesn't suffer from this problem, but then it's an entirely different theory, and its possible success doesn't save the current version at all. > > > > (Eqn (19), on pg 188, is wrong; this should be F = Qu m2 pi (r/R)^2, not > > > > F = Qu^2 m2 pi (r/R)^2. Just repeat the weak limit calculation, replacing > > > > the weak limit net flux with the strong limit net flux, and this is what > > > > you get. > > > > Equation 19 is the mixed bag, where a perfectly 'black body' is > > > interacting with a normal (weakly attenuating) object. So, OK, the > > > constraint for the strong limit applies, and A/R^2 <= 1, thus a black > > > body exerts a maximum force of QuM between them. But, again, the > > > 'strong' attenuator does not have mass in any definable sense. What > > > does this say about LeSage's model? Black holes are gravitationally > > > extremely weak objects... and would tend to NOT! influence their > > > surrounding much at'tall... > > > No, "black holes" have the maximum possible gravitational force. If > > they don't influence their surroundings much at all, nothing does, > > gravitationally. They have less gravitational force per unit mass, due > > to shielding, but adding mass never reduces the gravitational force in > > a le Sage theory. > > Maybe I should have said 'black bodies' to indicate this model's > version. It doesn't matter what you _call_ them, what matters is that they have enough mass to provide very close to complete shielding from one side. Complete shielding gives maximum possible force, and this maximum possible force is far too low to account for observations. Therefore, either the theory just fails, or the parameters used are wrong. > > Check the numbers for yourself. Using your value of u, and typical > > densities, the linear absorption coefficient (i.e., what is usually > > called the linear absorption coefficient, not your "linear > > attenutation coefficient" which is something else altogether) is > > lambda = u*density = approx 0.01 m^-1. That is, going through ordinary > > terrestrial matter, we expect a unidirectional beam of le Sage > > corpuscles to fall in intensity as exp(-lambda*distance) = > > exp(-0.01*distance in metres). This means that most le Sage corpuscles > > would be absorbed after travelling a few 100m into the Earth, which is > > only a tiny fraction of the thickness of the Earth - almost none would > > make it through. Meanwhile, F = Q(uM)(um)/R^2 => (Qu^2)Mm/R^2 => GMm/ > > R^2 assumes weak absorption - contradicted by this value of u*density. > > The strong absorption limit meanwhile gives a maximum gravitational > > force of 6.74N per kg or per m^2 (depending on whether the 2nd body is > > weakly or strongly absorbing), both of which are observed to be > > exceeded. > > I have been a radiation transport specialist since 1980 and am the > primary author of both ProShield and SmartShield (discrect Ordinate > transport model [QADCGGP] based) and am very well aware of > fundamentals. Thus I have always said u is a mass 'attenuation' > coefficient NOT! an absorption coefficient since the principle > underlying processes remain undefined! Le Sage central force gravitation by a body requires a net corpuscle flux towards the centre of the body. This means that corpuscles are removed within the body. "Absorption" is a good word to use to described this process, and "attenuation" is not, since that brings the baggage of whether scattering is included. Scattering would matter if you're talking about a unidirectional beam (which you're not, since the ambient flux is omnidirectional). > Further, yes, u is, at > 3.146E-6, incongruent with a mass density of 5525 kg/m^3 Earth's bulk > density for example. So the value you use for u is wrong. All that needs to be said is whether or not that means the theory is fundamentally dead, or whether or not it might be saved by a different value of u. Which is it? If the latter, what might the correct value of u be? > It is not for a field density of the order of > 8.854E-12 kg/m^3 however (which is the EM density). In fact, 3E-6 x > 9E-12 => 2.7E-17 1/m (linear 'attenuation' coefficient). But given the _definition_ of u, and it's relation to linear absorption, this is completely irrelevant. > However, > this raises the big question as to 'what, exactly, is matter?'. That may be, but there isn't any point in trying to sanswer this through a le Sage theory until the le Sage theory actually works. -- Timo
From: Paul Stowe on 11 Apr 2010 20:33 On Apr 11, 1:54 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > On Apr 12, 3:26 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Yes, we're not likely to see this, since it is an extreme limiting > > > case. That's the problem, it's the maximum force possible, and all > > > gravitational forces we observe are likely to be less - much less - > > > than these values. Measuring g here I find that the observed force is > > > 9.78N/kg (uncorrected for centripetal acceleration, but that doesn't > > > make enough difference), in excess of the strong-weak limit. Since I > > > can make a plate of area 1m^2 with a mass of 1kg, I can also easily > > > observe forces in excess of the strong-strong limit. > > > THe real question is, what, in terms of LeSage's model is inertial/ > > gravitational mass? We measure this by Newton's second law, i.e. by > > the inertial response... Thus the strong equivilence principle. But, > > as you should clearly see in the above expressions, mass (M) is NOT! > > the primary player in the process, interaction area is. > > Yes. And so le Sage theories assume that the interaction cross-section > is proportional the mass, in the weak absorption limit. That is the way we cast it, yes. B-e-c-a-u-s-e the primary focus of the article you're referencing was to demonstrate that Newton's equation can arrise from the process. > Yes, this is a theoreticial weakness in le Sage, a big assumption that > isn't explained. But it isn't relevant to the point at hand. It not only relevant, its central, because one can write the weak limit as field density times cross section area times travel length. Thus you'd still have 'mass' but its NOT! normal rho times volume. Let me make this clear by asking the question, what's the mass of the Earth, Sun, Jupiter, ... etc? If you use Newton's equation then the answer is circular, you're depending on the equation to provide the answer! IOW it can't be anything BUT! You have assumed that which you sought. Majorana detected a slight defect in mass in his experiments in the twenties. AFAICT no one has every attempted to replicate his tests. My point above seemed totally lost on you, ok, fine, but the fact remains, heating, drag, and Newton's equation do match so far. > The real question is: Why are the theoretically predicted _maximum > possible_ gravitational forces so much less than observed > gravitational forces in real life? Because we don't deal with the black body situations. When observed 'from a distance' and you can't tell which of these equations are, in fact, valid, F = QAa/r^2 or F = Q(uM)(um)/r^2? If! you 'assume' the later and its the former you just get a mass estimate but, otherwise, no difference in behavior... > > > Since I observe forces in excess of the _maximum possible_ > > > gravitational force predicted using your values of Q and u, either the > > > theory is wrong, or your values of Q and u are wrong. > > > Not if you throw out M as an invariant property. Also Q is the > > LeSagian the momentum interaction parameter. Nothing says it cannot > > be field density (z) multiplied by a differntial change in c per event > > squared, i.e., > > > Q = z(dc)^2 > > > I am NOT! saying this is, in fact, the case BUT! now we get down into > > the nitty-gritty underlying foundational questions of possible > > different variants of the LeSage models. Matt Edwards for example > > perfers a Casmir type effect for the apparent momentum attenuation in > > the field. > > You're happy to say that your quantitative calculations mean something > when they match observation, and claim such match as support for your > theory. Why should calculations based on exactly the same theory, > using correct mathematics, with no contradictory assumptions, suddenly > be meaningless? What do you mean? LeSage like 'Big Bang' (BB) encompass several possible variants. In the case of LeSage models what's common to all is a momentum/energy defect due to field interactions resulting in differential pressure acting between 'gravitating' objects. > Maybe it is possible to come up with a fundamentally different le Sage- > like theory that doesn't suffer from this problem, but then it's an > entirely different theory, and its possible success doesn't save the > current version at all. Is BB with inflation an 'entirely different theory' than the concept of BB in general? > > > No, "black holes" have the maximum possible gravitational force. If > > > they don't influence their surroundings much at all, nothing does, > > > gravitationally. They have less gravitational force per unit mass, due > > > to shielding, but adding mass never reduces the gravitational force in > > > a le Sage theory. > > > Maybe I should have said 'black bodies' to indicate this model's > > version. > > It doesn't matter what you _call_ them, what matters is that they have > enough mass to provide very close to complete shielding from one side. > > Complete shielding gives maximum possible force, and this maximum > possible force is far too low to account for observations. Therefore, > either the theory just fails, or the parameters used are wrong. Or, perhaps the system is self limiting to the weak region. We have NOT! been out & about to observe such things first hand. > > > Check the numbers for yourself. Using your value of u, and typical > > > densities, the linear absorption coefficient (i.e., what is usually > > > called the linear absorption coefficient, not your "linear > > > attenutation coefficient" which is something else altogether) is > > > lambda = u*density = approx 0.01 m^-1. That is, going through ordinary > > > terrestrial matter, we expect a unidirectional beam of le Sage > > > corpuscles to fall in intensity as exp(-lambda*distance) = > > > exp(-0.01*distance in metres). This means that most le Sage corpuscles > > > would be absorbed after travelling a few 100m into the Earth, which is > > > only a tiny fraction of the thickness of the Earth - almost none would > > > make it through. Meanwhile, F = Q(uM)(um)/R^2 => (Qu^2)Mm/R^2 => GMm/ > > > R^2 assumes weak absorption - contradicted by this value of u*density. > > > The strong absorption limit meanwhile gives a maximum gravitational > > > force of 6.74N per kg or per m^2 (depending on whether the 2nd body is > > > weakly or strongly absorbing), both of which are observed to be > > > exceeded. > > > I have been a radiation transport specialist since 1980 and am the > > primary author of both ProShield and SmartShield (discrect Ordinate > > transport model [QADCGGP] based) and am very well aware of > > fundamentals. Thus I have always said u is a mass 'attenuation' > > coefficient NOT! an absorption coefficient since the principle > > underlying processes remain undefined! > > Le Sage central force gravitation by a body requires a net corpuscle > flux towards the centre of the body. This means that corpuscles are > removed within the body. "Absorption" is a good word to use to > described this process, and "attenuation" is not, since that brings > the baggage of whether scattering is included. Scattering would matter > if you're talking about a unidirectional beam (which you're not, since > the ambient flux is omnidirectional). > > > Further, yes, u is, at > > 3.146E-6, incongruent with a mass density of 5525 kg/m^3 Earth's bulk > > density for example. > > So the value you use for u is wrong. All that needs to be said is > whether or not that means the theory is fundamentally dead, or whether > or not it might be saved by a different value of u. Which is it? If > the latter, what might the correct value of u be? > > > It is not for a field density of the order of > > 8.854E-12 kg/m^3 however (which is the EM density). In fact, 3E-6 x > > 9E-12 => 2.7E-17 1/m (linear 'attenuation' coefficient). > > But given the _definition_ of u, and it's relation to linear > absorption, this is completely irrelevant. > > > However, > > this raises the big question as to 'what, exactly, is matter?'. > > That may be, but there isn't any point in trying to answer this > through a le Sage theory until the le Sage theory actually works. Fine, show that Qu(v/c), Q(uM)(um)/r^2, and (M/Rc2pi)(Qu)^2) with the very same Q & u do not yield the results set forth, matching Pioneer's drag, Newton's equation, and the net thermal output of Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune. The model is internally self consistent AND, all stellar objects masses ARE CALCULATED ASSUMING G is constant, holds, AND IS VALID. If, it is in fact not so, then you may, in fact, get unexpected results like the 'observed' spiral galaxy rotation profiles, etc. Otherwise there not much more to say but, I'll grant that you are the very first here to actually delve into the model sufficiently to even understand that matter's mass isn't fundamental to LeSage's model. That's at least a start, and, I assure you, you're not the first to broach the topic. At least this may have been an informative discussion to others. And, all of the coincidences are just amazing... Regards, Paul Stowe > -- > Timo
From: mpc755 on 11 Apr 2010 20:48 On Apr 11, 8:33 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 11, 1:54 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 12, 3:26 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Yes, we're not likely to see this, since it is an extreme limiting > > > > case. That's the problem, it's the maximum force possible, and all > > > > gravitational forces we observe are likely to be less - much less - > > > > than these values. Measuring g here I find that the observed force is > > > > 9.78N/kg (uncorrected for centripetal acceleration, but that doesn't > > > > make enough difference), in excess of the strong-weak limit. Since I > > > > can make a plate of area 1m^2 with a mass of 1kg, I can also easily > > > > observe forces in excess of the strong-strong limit. > > > > THe real question is, what, in terms of LeSage's model is inertial/ > > > gravitational mass? We measure this by Newton's second law, i.e. by > > > the inertial response... Thus the strong equivilence principle. But, > > > as you should clearly see in the above expressions, mass (M) is NOT! > > > the primary player in the process, interaction area is. > > > Yes. And so le Sage theories assume that the interaction cross-section > > is proportional the mass, in the weak absorption limit. > > That is the way we cast it, yes. B-e-c-a-u-s-e the primary focus of > the article you're referencing was to demonstrate that Newton's > equation can arrise from the process. > > > Yes, this is a theoreticial weakness in le Sage, a big assumption that > > isn't explained. But it isn't relevant to the point at hand. > > It not only relevant, its central, because one can write the weak > limit as field density times cross section area times travel length. > Thus you'd still have 'mass' but its NOT! normal rho times volume. > Let me make this clear by asking the question, what's the mass of the > Earth, Sun, Jupiter, ... etc? If you use Newton's equation then the > answer is circular, you're depending on the equation to provide the > answer! IOW it can't be anything BUT! You have assumed that which > you sought. Majorana detected a slight defect in mass in his > experiments in the twenties. AFAICT no one has every attempted to > replicate his tests. My point above seemed totally lost on you, ok, > fine, but the fact remains, heating, drag, and Newton's equation do > match so far. > > > The real question is: Why are the theoretically predicted _maximum > > possible_ gravitational forces so much less than observed > > gravitational forces in real life? > > Because we don't deal with the black body situations. When observed > 'from a distance' and you can't tell which of these equations are, in > fact, valid, F = QAa/r^2 or F = Q(uM)(um)/r^2? If! you 'assume' the > later and its the former you just get a mass estimate but, otherwise, > no difference in behavior... > > > > > > > Since I observe forces in excess of the _maximum possible_ > > > > gravitational force predicted using your values of Q and u, either the > > > > theory is wrong, or your values of Q and u are wrong. > > > > Not if you throw out M as an invariant property. Also Q is the > > > LeSagian the momentum interaction parameter. Nothing says it cannot > > > be field density (z) multiplied by a differntial change in c per event > > > squared, i.e., > > > > Q = z(dc)^2 > > > > I am NOT! saying this is, in fact, the case BUT! now we get down into > > > the nitty-gritty underlying foundational questions of possible > > > different variants of the LeSage models. Matt Edwards for example > > > perfers a Casmir type effect for the apparent momentum attenuation in > > > the field. > > > You're happy to say that your quantitative calculations mean something > > when they match observation, and claim such match as support for your > > theory. Why should calculations based on exactly the same theory, > > using correct mathematics, with no contradictory assumptions, suddenly > > be meaningless? > > What do you mean? LeSage like 'Big Bang' (BB) encompass several > possible variants. In the case of LeSage models what's common to all > is a momentum/energy defect due to field interactions resulting in > differential pressure acting between 'gravitating' objects. > > > Maybe it is possible to come up with a fundamentally different le Sage- > > like theory that doesn't suffer from this problem, but then it's an > > entirely different theory, and its possible success doesn't save the > > current version at all. > > Is BB with inflation an 'entirely different theory' than the concept > of BB in general? > > > > > No, "black holes" have the maximum possible gravitational force. If > > > > they don't influence their surroundings much at all, nothing does, > > > > gravitationally. They have less gravitational force per unit mass, due > > > > to shielding, but adding mass never reduces the gravitational force in > > > > a le Sage theory. > > > > Maybe I should have said 'black bodies' to indicate this model's > > > version. > > > It doesn't matter what you _call_ them, what matters is that they have > > enough mass to provide very close to complete shielding from one side. > > > Complete shielding gives maximum possible force, and this maximum > > possible force is far too low to account for observations. Therefore, > > either the theory just fails, or the parameters used are wrong. > > Or, perhaps the system is self limiting to the weak region. We have > NOT! been out & about to observe such things first hand. > > > > > > > Check the numbers for yourself. Using your value of u, and typical > > > > densities, the linear absorption coefficient (i.e., what is usually > > > > called the linear absorption coefficient, not your "linear > > > > attenutation coefficient" which is something else altogether) is > > > > lambda = u*density = approx 0.01 m^-1. That is, going through ordinary > > > > terrestrial matter, we expect a unidirectional beam of le Sage > > > > corpuscles to fall in intensity as exp(-lambda*distance) = > > > > exp(-0.01*distance in metres). This means that most le Sage corpuscles > > > > would be absorbed after travelling a few 100m into the Earth, which is > > > > only a tiny fraction of the thickness of the Earth - almost none would > > > > make it through. Meanwhile, F = Q(uM)(um)/R^2 => (Qu^2)Mm/R^2 => GMm/ > > > > R^2 assumes weak absorption - contradicted by this value of u*density. > > > > The strong absorption limit meanwhile gives a maximum gravitational > > > > force of 6.74N per kg or per m^2 (depending on whether the 2nd body is > > > > weakly or strongly absorbing), both of which are observed to be > > > > exceeded. > > > > I have been a radiation transport specialist since 1980 and am the > > > primary author of both ProShield and SmartShield (discrect Ordinate > > > transport model [QADCGGP] based) and am very well aware of > > > fundamentals. Thus I have always said u is a mass 'attenuation' > > > coefficient NOT! an absorption coefficient since the principle > > > underlying processes remain undefined! > > > Le Sage central force gravitation by a body requires a net corpuscle > > flux towards the centre of the body. This means that corpuscles are > > removed within the body. "Absorption" is a good word to use to > > described this process, and "attenuation" is not, since that brings > > the baggage of whether scattering is included. Scattering would matter > > if you're talking about a unidirectional beam (which you're not, since > > the ambient flux is omnidirectional). > > > > Further, yes, u is, at > > > 3.146E-6, incongruent with a mass density of 5525 kg/m^3 Earth's bulk > > > density for example. > > > So the value you use for u is wrong. All that needs to be said is > > whether or not that means the theory is fundamentally dead, or whether > > or not it might be saved by a different value of u. Which is it? If > > the latter, what might the correct value of u be? > > > > It is not for a field density of the order of > > > 8.854E-12 kg/m^3 however (which is the EM density). In fact, 3E-6 x > > > 9E-12 => 2.7E-17 1/m (linear 'attenuation' coefficient). > > > But given the _definition_ of u, and it's relation to linear > > absorption, this is completely irrelevant. > > > > However, > > > this raises the big question as to 'what, exactly, is matter?'. > > > That may be, but there isn't any point in trying to answer this > > through a le Sage theory until the le Sage theory actually works. > > Fine, show that Qu(v/c), Q(uM)(um)/r^2, and (M/Rc2pi)(Qu)^2) with the > very same Q & u do not yield the results set forth, matching Pioneer's > drag, Newton's equation, and the net thermal output of Jupiter, > Saturn, and Neptune. The model is internally self consistent AND, all > stellar objects masses ARE CALCULATED ASSUMING G is constant, holds, > AND IS VALID. If, it is in fact not so, then you may, in fact, get > unexpected results like the 'observed' spiral galaxy rotation > profiles, etc. > > Otherwise there not much more to say but, I'll grant that you are the > very first here to actually delve into the model sufficiently to even > understand that matter's mass isn't fundamental to LeSage's model. > That's at least a start, and, I assure you, you're not the first to > broach the topic. > Aether is displaced based on mass per volume. The more massive an object is per volume the less aether it contains, the more aether is displaced. The more aether is displaced the greater the pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the matter.
From: Timo Nieminen on 11 Apr 2010 22:00
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010, Paul Stowe wrote: > On Apr 11, 1:54 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > On Apr 12, 3:26 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Yes, we're not likely to see this, since it is an extreme limiting > > > > case. That's the problem, it's the maximum force possible, and all > > > > gravitational forces we observe are likely to be less - much less - > > > > than these values. Measuring g here I find that the observed force is > > > > 9.78N/kg (uncorrected for centripetal acceleration, but that doesn't > > > > make enough difference), in excess of the strong-weak limit. Since I > > > > can make a plate of area 1m^2 with a mass of 1kg, I can also easily > > > > observe forces in excess of the strong-strong limit. > > > > > THe real question is, what, in terms of LeSage's model is inertial/ > > > gravitational mass? We measure this by Newton's second law, i.e. by > > > the inertial response... Thus the strong equivilence principle. But, > > > as you should clearly see in the above expressions, mass (M) is NOT! > > > the primary player in the process, interaction area is. > > > > Yes. And so le Sage theories assume that the interaction cross-section > > is proportional the mass, in the weak absorption limit. > > That is the way we cast it, yes. B-e-c-a-u-s-e the primary focus of > the article you're referencing was to demonstrate that Newton's > equation can arrise from the process. The equivalence principle demands it. You want to match observation, you need to have cross-section proportional to the mass, for masses in the weak absorption limit. It isn't just an extra assumption thrown in in order to get Newton's law of universal gravitation. > > Yes, this is a theoreticial weakness in le Sage, a big assumption that > > isn't explained. But it isn't relevant to the point at hand. > > It not only relevant, its central, because one can write the weak > limit as field density times cross section area times travel length. > Thus you'd still have 'mass' but its NOT! normal rho times volume. In the weak field limit, it is. You present the derivation yourself, in Edwards. When shielding becomes significant, the equivalence principle breaks down (in le Sage). Doesn't matter, because the weak absorption limit tells you about the interaction between matter of some particular mass, and the corpuscle flux. > > The real question is: Why are the theoretically predicted _maximum > > possible_ gravitational forces so much less than observed > > gravitational forces in real life? > > Because we don't deal with the black body situations. When observed > 'from a distance' and you can't tell which of these equations are, in > fact, valid, F = QAa/r^2 or F = Q(uM)(um)/r^2? If! you 'assume' the > later and its the former you just get a mass estimate but, otherwise, > no difference in behavior... Go back to the beginning. (a) You start with an omnidirectional flux of le Sage corpuscules. You assume their speed is c, and you say that the flux is Q. (b) Gravitation works due to shielding by a mass producing an anisotropy in this flux of corpuscles. (c) In the weak absorption limit, the interaction cross section of a mass m is u*m. Is there anything wrong with (a)-(c) above? (d) The maximum possible force on a weakly absorbing mass of mass m results from the maximum possible anisotropy in the flux. Anything wrong with this? (e) The maximum possible anistropy results from a mass large enough to completely absorb all of the incident flux. In this case, the net flux is Q_net = pi * Q inwards. (Straight from Edwards.) Anything wrong with this? Combine them, and you get a maximum force of 6.74N/kg. There is most certainly something wrong with this result - it contradicts reality. Either the theory is fundamentally broken, and should be rejected, or your numbers are wrong (Q, u, and speed). > > Complete shielding gives maximum possible force, and this maximum > > possible force is far too low to account for observations. Therefore, > > either the theory just fails, or the parameters used are wrong. > > Or, perhaps the system is self limiting to the weak region. We have > NOT! been out & about to observe such things first hand. So, you want to save the theory using magic? If there is "self-limiting", it isn't included in the derivation of heating or Newton's law of universal gravitation. So none of the numbers so far work. Back to the beginning, with a large dose of completey unknown physics (the "self-limiting"). Just what would this help explain? -- Timo |