PDA

View Full Version here: : A simple math question.


xelasnave
06-08-2009, 09:19 AM
As many of you know I views about gravity.
I have thought of possible ways to present the notion using math.
I constructed a thought experiment here it is.
We are in a sphere in the remotest part in space.. in one of those voids will do...size of sphere lets make it S or better still 300,000 klms in diameter.
In our sphere we have many tiny windows that alow observation of energy and or particles coming from one tradjectory passing thru the center of the sphere... I use this window approach to approximately quantify the number of possible tragectories... the number of windows will give us an approximate number probably short of the reality but at this point it offers a starting point.
It is easy to work out the number of "windows" on this basis.
Next I wondered what energy or particles we could expect to observe on one tradgectory... and this could be a range from the lowest possible energy that we could measure a mid range and a high range.
The idea being that at the center of our sphere we could estimate what energy or particles will pass by... and then multiply our energy finding by the number of windows to show what energy is "available" or passes the point...
This approach is similar to the way Hershel worked out the Sun's energy output... he imagined a sphere with a diameter of the Earth's orbit..he them used a "window" in the form of a block of ice to calculate the energy that reached that "window" worked out how many window he could get in his huge sphere and multiplied the energy finding on the ice window to get an approximate energy output from the Sun.
What I suggest is sort of the reverse.
I need a list of all the energies etc we could expect but the principle could start with using say just the energies expected from say nuetrinos that would pass by.
I hope I have been clear enough for this to be understood sorry to be so hasty.
alex:):):)

renormalised
06-08-2009, 09:47 AM
That's not going to tell you much of anything about gravity, but what it will tell you is how much radiation is passing through every square metre of the surface of the sphere....assuming your "windows" are 1m^2 in size.

Now you have the problem of capturing all the possible wavelengths of radiation passing through those "windows" and identifying each wavelength. You can name your numbers here....there's literally billions of possible wavelengths. You have to be more specific about what you're trying to find.

rally
06-08-2009, 09:51 AM
Alex,

I think to make this thought experiment work you would also need to know (or approximate) the flux density.
That is how many of your 'particles' are travelling in a given direction over a specified period of time.
Then, in terms of the energy you want to calculate, not all of these particles could ever be made to give up all or any of their energy.
Most neutrinos will travel unhindered through a block of solid lead 1,000 light years thick !

Rally

renormalised
06-08-2009, 09:58 AM
If you want the simple formula for calculating flux, here it is...

F = L/4piR^2....where F=flux, L=Luminosity of the source, R=radius of the sphere through which the flux is passing.

xelasnave
06-08-2009, 09:59 AM
Thank you Carl for considering and repling to my post I rezally do appreciate you taking the time to do so.

My answer is finially.. I am trying to quantify all the energies that pass by or thru a single point in remote space.
My idea that gravity works somewhat like a pressure system due to the many particles etc that pass by a point (Le Sages original idea)
I felt that if one trajectorty could be quantified we coulkd multiply its energy level by the number of tragecoties available and consider if there could be enough energy to somehow "push".
If I could work out a ruff answer I could maybe relate it to the slowing of the pioneer craft and maybe (very ambitious but its a plan) work out the rate the pioneer will slow in the future and make a math based prediction of the rate of slowing ...all in an effort to support the LeSage approach to gravity...
alex
Thanks again.
alex

xelasnave
06-08-2009, 10:04 AM
Thank you Rally for your input I hope all is wonderful in your Universe.
I thought the flow from one dirrection could be assumed to be the same as the flow from the exact opposite direction...
in otherwords E should equal E or push from one side of the Universe should equal the push from the other side of the Universe..
P=P
and of course P = E ...in an effort to use real science of course
alex

alex

renormalised
06-08-2009, 10:11 AM
Essentially, you want the flux of gravitons passing any particular unit area of your sphere. The equation for that I wrote in my last reply. However, what you will have to do here is knowing what the flux is, it will have to be multiplied by the varying wavelengths (hence energies) of all the gravitons passing through that unit area, because not all gravitons will have the same energies or wavelengths.

Big problem here....we don't know what the wavelengths for a graviton will be (except as a theoretical exercise) because we've never seen them in real life. We assume they may exist based on the outcomes of the Standard Model of Particle Physics and on QM models.

Then you have to explain why gravitons "push". You have to come up with the observational evidence and theoretical modeling which will support this contention and refute what is already known.

renormalised
06-08-2009, 10:19 AM
It won't work like that simply because you will have to have a completely homogeneous universe in order to have equal amounts of push from either side. That being the case, all matter would have to be spread equally in all directions and that would mean no galaxies, or anything else.

This has to be done on a completely different scale here, Alex. You need to start with the fundamental equations for your theory and then apply them to larger and larger systems, all along checking that your equations obey the laws of physics as they are known. Even if they modify those laws in the long run, they have to have some basis in the facts as they're known. Unless, of course, it's something coming completely out of "left field" which changes everything. But then it would have to be a work of genius, and be something that completely turns everything on it's head whilst satisfying every observation and theoretical assumption made.

sjastro
06-08-2009, 10:36 AM
Alex,

(1) Do you want to know the individual energies of each particle or as expressed in previous posts as a flux?

(2) Do all these particles have the same mass? (I don't need to know actual mass value.)

Steven

xelasnave
06-08-2009, 10:39 AM
Thanks again Carl
I cant explain why anything would push I guess but I can not come close in an effort to expalin how attraction could work either I opt for push as I think it would be a one way message whereas attraction would seem to require a "message" and a "reply".

I dont seek to refute what is already known as I dont know all that is already known.
I have a simplistic view of how it may be ..I see "space time" as a grid and that there must be "something" that "bends" the grid and so my interest in what may be available in the physical.

I had given up on the gravity stuff but when Ron started the site I felt bound to keep going although in truth I have done little for the site he built and lost a bit of interest when we got our "Australias Leading Time Detective" as I felt that took us into a nutty realm... but in an effort to be oppen mined I did not offer any objection to his contributions even though the ideas I felt were beyond support.
I could not decry his input given my wild ideas and realise that I will be seen as similar given the off the wall ideas on gravity and my theory (idea) on everything.
I just want to know how everything works and how it works and no matter how much I read I find I end up with more questions when I started... a point covered yesterday.
I live in hope that before I pass away I will have all the answers as there probably wont be any for me when I am dead.

Rally mentioned the "strike rate" of nutrinos.:thumbsup:

I suspect they probably are of a number we could reasonably consider for human purposes as infinite and even these would do nicely for the push concept..
I know they have vats of laundry fluid undergroud trying to see the odd one pass by as part of the dark matter investigations.

Thier limited interaction is what I need for the push gravity idea but no doubt they would not be exclusive.

Maybe I am hinting at the physical makeup of dark matter which I constantly write off as an invention to support the notion of, in my view, the mythical force of attraction:D.

And yes I have been living on the boat alone and scarring myself with ventures out to sea in contemplation of the intended trip up the coast... AND so sitting there when at anchor gives me more time to think maybe than is healty.

thanks again... it would appear that the list of questions from one question just keeps on growing:eyepop:.

alex:):):)
alex:):):)

xelasnave
06-08-2009, 10:53 AM
I can do that:lol::lol::lol:
I offer in support of my genius status the fact that many who hold the status of genius are to others complete nutters:screwy: and if there is one thing I feel confident about is I have the nutter side well in place:lol::lol::lol:.
AND I get the inspiration part as well but when it comes to the 90% perspiration I cant provide it as the brain is almost past its use by date you see;).

The push and shielding effect of even the most smallest bits of matter would see matter move toward other matter because the area between them has less "stuff" due to a shielding effect on the passing flow and each body would seek to move to the place of least resistence...

Alex:):):):)

renormalised
06-08-2009, 10:54 AM
I think the main problem here is you're trying to get LeSage's ideas to work, by modifying them somehow to fit in with current theory or a modification thereof, but I don't think it's going to work. Just in casually reading what's on the net, there are too many objections and problems to LeSage's ideas for them to work. You have both thermodynamic and simple physical problems which just don't add up, and can't be explained away.

I'm not saying you shouldn't try, but in order to be able to do this, you're going to need a pretty damn good grounding in and understanding of higher mathematics. Plus, a very vivid imagination and the ability to be able to put that to numbers. In essence, to be able to visualise the equations needed to prove your ideas as pictures of reality.

renormalised
06-08-2009, 11:05 AM
That makes no sense, based just on simple observation. If you have two objects "pushing" on one another i.e. there's a force mitigating the push between each of the objects, how can you therefore have an attraction??. You can't have a shielding effect simply because the force of the push must, by definition, be coming from everywhere surrounding each object. There's nowhere for any "shielding" to occur. You are, by invoking a shielding effect, saying that your gravity is essentially a point source effect that is radiated away from the surface of your objects at different intensities, depending on their location, and in a specific direction.

There's absolutely no observational evidence for that, anywhere in physical reality. If that were the case, not only would the universe be littered with all sorts of weird gravitational point sources and anomalies, but nothing would appear as it does. In actual fact, the universe wouldn't exist....it would've collapsed in on itself before it even got started.

xelasnave
06-08-2009, 11:16 AM
Thanks Steven for your consideration of this matter.

I guess I can answer both questions this way.
I want to reasonably quantify what physical intereractions are possible at a point..any point.
I doubt if all particles will have the same mass nor will all "energies" have the same energy and my effort is really to quantify what may be available to push and bend the space time grid... I dont know enough as you know and I appologise for not being able to express my approach and intention with more detail... but on the up side as I said I have a longer list of questions to think about.

I suppose to a degree if we take open space as the place for our sphere it would be reasonable to expect a flow of energy and particles from all directions..if the flow is diminished it will be primarily because there is something in the way of this flow... and so the flow will bend the space time grid (I visualise) to the "something" ...and so I hope to relate the idea to GR rather than say GR is a waste of time because I really dont think that... but I get preoccupied with how things work on a physical level .. I dont understand GR very well but It seems it claims no force is responsible for its genius but I wonder about what forces are at play.. GR I think does not rely on attraction or push whereas I seek the reason space behaves in the way we observe...
I felt space was a push environment and that is why I predicted the pioneer would slow up as really in effect once outside the heliosphere they are greatly exposed to "push" from all sides and that should finally have the effect of slowing them ..I have not looked at them for a while or if they still get signals as to where they are but the last time I looked they were slowing... as I expected given my views on the "pressure" of the open space they have moved into.

I thought if I could quantify the pressure even in a limited degree I could maybe suggest how much more they would slow and set the prediction to a tune of math support and a point in time where they should be able to be observed at the new slower speed..assuming they are still trackable etc etc.

But in truth it is beyond me I suspect given the quantity of information that must go into making a model of my view.

Also I felt the sphere approach may be able to be modelled on a computer so one could place things like galaxies etc in the model to see if the problem of faster orbital speeds of out lying stars could be solved by a push model... if such a model showed behaviour similar to observations I feel that would give the push universe a little hope..or kill it..which suits me more actually in so far as I could think about somethiing else for a change.

alex:):):)

xelasnave
06-08-2009, 11:22 AM
A model would not even necissarily need specific quantification of energies mass etc I guess to see if a computer model would work ..the avaialable energies etc at a point in open space would be a constant and the variable could be it ability to interact with matter and even that could be rounded off to see if such a model could produce faster star orbits for the outlying stars. I have a model in my head so to speak and "see" how an external flow would solve the faster star issue very simply and remove the need of dark matter or acknowledge that its there and it works via a push and shielding system.
I have to go now but I will come back later when I am on the boat..the 3g or next g whatever wireless works on board so I have a net link on board now..fantastic really... and being able to see google earth when considering the next port is magic..not that I have gone to another port yet...
alex

xelasnave
06-08-2009, 11:35 AM
Its is not the objects that push Carl it is all of space that pushes.

I will try to explain how I see it.

If the push comes from everywhere as I suspect then any two objects will shield each other..they dont push each other the push is all over but the push will be shielded by each object on the other...draw two circles and lines coming from the edge of the page in fact lines everywhere but if the line meets either circle stop it there..what you will draw will show a region between the two circles that has less lines... it is not a vacuum but that is a simple way to visualise the effect I suggest..the shielded regions will have less flow and the matter will tend to move there.. in a more or less choice of taking the path of less resistence.

Sorry that I cant offer a more descriptive and graspable view but forget entirely that each object pushes or interacts with the other... it is space its flow (and lack of it in the shielded region) that pushes them together.
ANyways I have to go and thank you all very much for your tolerance, understanding and wonderfully helpful input...

alex:):):)
alex

xelasnave
06-08-2009, 11:42 AM
My observational evidence ... If galaxies were not in a push environment they would simply fly apart and I think others call that energy "dark energy" but upon my understanding that view is accepted..well its not my view that is accepted it is the view put forward on dark energy ..or so I believe.
I think the Corona of the Sun is produced from the interaction off the outflow of the Sun meeting the flow coming in ... it couls explain where all the energy comes from that makes the Corona hotter.. Bojan did say why this wont work but I cant recall why the idea was a dude..but I think it sounds reasonable..at least I offer where the extra energy comes from ...
I think the border we call the heliosphere may well be similar.. the energy out is met again with energy coming in...and you have to stand well back to see this but drawings along the lines suggested may offer the idea up better than I can in text.
I feel the fault is mine is describing things.

alex

renormalised
06-08-2009, 11:49 AM
Just having a quick think here....your "push" gravity between two "particles" in this instance (and in all instances) is in violation of the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics i.e. the order of a system, over time, will collapse into complete randomness...the entropy of the system increases over time.

In which case, the ordered system of a gravity "shield" would collapse and the random push of the "ultramundane particles" would dominate. The shielding requires that an ordered system of "less gravity or less ultramundane particles" be present between the two objects and is sustainable long enough for those particles to attract one another. Just through simple energy exchange between the particles and the radiation of that energy to their surroundings, the entropy in the gap would increase....and if given LeSage's quoted speed for these particles, almost instantly. There'd be no shielding effect that would last long enough to attract particles together. In this case, the universe would fly apart.

renormalised
06-08-2009, 11:59 AM
I know what you're trying to say, Alex, but it has to work on the particles as well as space itself. Something must be the force carrier in this instance. What you're trying to say is that spacetime flows around an object and the area immediately in the "shadow" of that object is the area of low energy/gravity shielding. That occurs around all objects and because of that shielded area, they attract one another. Problem with that is the objects would have to be in very close range of one another for each object's shield to interact and attract one another. Unless the force mitigating particles or the geometric warp of the spacetime field caused by the shielding effect and the flow of spacetime, moved at infinite velocity. In which case, you would get "standing waves" of areas of high gravity immediately preceding an object in the spacetime flow, and areas of low gravity proceeding it. It would also mean that gravity would be highly directional and dependent on the flow direction of spacetime. In actual fact, for it to work, spacetime would have to flow in all directions simultaneously...and that would negate any standing wave or gravity shielding hypothesis.

There's no observational data supporting your conclusions.

renormalised
06-08-2009, 12:15 PM
Why would they fly apart?? Just because there's a factor called "dark energy" that is imparting an acceleration effect to spacetime doesn't mean that without a "push" effect they'll scream off into the wide blue yonder. Gravity, as explained perfectly well by Newton and Einstein, does the job nicely and fits (nearly) all the observational evidence that we have. Sure, there are some anomalies with aspects of how gravity works in relation to accelerated motions in the outer reaches of spiral galaxies (and possibly in the case of the Pioneer probes, yet there's been nothing w.r.t. the Voyagers)...and this is where MOND is being proposed...but whether it holds itself will be up to careful observation and theoretical deliberation.

The corona of the Sun is heated by the interactions of magnetic fields with the gases present in the corona. The magnetic fields get twisted by the Sun's differential rotation and the ionised gases in the corona generating their own fields. The magnetic fields reach a point of maximum PE and twisting, then they snap back into their low energy states...the energy thereby being released into the gas and heating it up. There's little or no dampening effect by the gases of the corona on the magnetic fields as the corona gas is exceptionally rarified. That's why it heats up so dramatically.

renormalised
06-08-2009, 12:26 PM
Well...gotta go get some lunch, then I'm into study (mostly) for the afternoon. Steven might take this up with you for a bit.

sjastro
06-08-2009, 12:39 PM
Alex,

All I am doing is giving you a mathematical equation based on your thought experiment and that Newtonian gravity doesn't exist.

I'm not endorsing your beliefs.:)

To make the maths simpler let's assume the push particles are all the same mass. This is not such an unreasonable assumption if the push particle is a fundamental particle in which case they would all have the same mass.

Since Newtonian gravity doesn't exist in your model I don't have to worry about a Newtonian gravitational potential inside the sphere messing up the energy of the particle as it moves inside the sphere.

Since Newtonian gravitational potentials don't exist neither does GR. The geometry of the space inside the sphere is perfectly flat. So I know the particle will travel in a straight line as it passes through the centre.

Since there are "windows" on the sphere, a flux model is not applicable as the particles are not actually hitting anything as they pass freely through the sphere towards the centre.

As there are no collisions and no Newtonian potentials, the energy of the particle is its kinetic energy (KE).

By definition KE= 0.5xmxv^2. where m is the mass, v is the velocity.

Since your sphere has a diameter of 300,000 km the distance of any window to the centre is 150,000 km. All I need to do is measure the time interval it takes the particle to move from the window to the centre. Even if the particle is traveling at very high speeds approaching c I don't have to worry about time dilation as I am measuring the time interval in the spheres frame of reference.

The equation is calculated as follows.

The kinetic energy of particle a is KEa=0.5xmx(150000/Ta)^2.
The kinetic energy of particle b is KEb=0.5xmx(150000/Tb)^2

Ta, Tb are the time intervals of each particle to reach the centre.

Hence KEa/KEb= Tb^2/Ta^2

In other words the ratio of the KE's of particles a and b equals the inverse ratio of the the squares of their time intervals.

So for example if particle "a" takes half the time to reach the centre compared to particle "b", it must have 4 times the KE.
Using this equation you would be able show the distribution of the KE of all particles.

Now any smart physicist will immediately notice a flaw in the argument. I stated the push particle was a fundamental particle. A physicist will argue the velocity should also be a property of the fundamental particle, in which case all particles should have the same velocity (same KE). Otherwise the simulated effects of gravity will vary from place to place in the Universe.
Similarly the same case would occur if the mass varied.

So I'm afraid the push gravity model doesn't look terribly promising.

Regards

Steven

xelasnave
06-08-2009, 02:35 PM
Steven thank you again.
velocity is of course a major consideration but on the positive we are dealing on a single level with particles so small a variance in velocity will not contribute a major change to the overall outcome.

However what I am realising is that there are so many particles and "energy" sources the difficulty will be setting an upper limit.

AND how busy must space be... at a single point to calculate everything that may pass by is a major task...

Now dont give up on the push universe ..it is the elusive theory of everything so it is not just going to fall in our laps..we need to be patient and work hard ..one day may not be enough time is what I am saying.

Thinking about it I would find it difficult to imagine that push or radiation energy is not a relevant factor in considering the properties of space..and even though others seem to have it all worked out why could we not improve on the current thinking.

But seriously thank you for taking your time on this. I highly value everything you say as I try and listen to folk who appear reasonable and competenant in their approach to any issue.

I have to go again and will think long and hard upon all that has been said today.

alex

renormalised
06-08-2009, 03:11 PM
Problem Alex.....assuming these particles are fundamental, then they must have the same properties of mass, velocity, KE/PE, spin, charge or whatever. Any variations in these parameters means they're not fundamental particles. In order for your theory to hold water, so to speak, they need to be fundamental particle, otherwise the gravitational metric for your model will change depending on your location within spacetime. If that was to occur, then nothing would appear as it does. Stars wouldn't shine, planets wouldn't form and gravity could take on any value it liked. The universe wouldn't exist...period. Depending on the metric it would either collapse ot fly apart.

xelasnave
06-08-2009, 03:18 PM
Ok I am convinced so lets go with a fundamental particle as I dont want the stars not to shine just to get my theory up and running:D.

So we need a model using a standard approach I gather you suggest.
If we do that it really makes things simple and that is what I sort of suggested earlier ..in order to test the idea if we had a computer model that simply stayed on a basic level it would show if stars would comply with observation or not..only problem is I cant built a computer model..yet.

thank again

alex:):):)

xelasnave
06-08-2009, 04:02 PM
I took the time to look at some utube stuff lectures from Berkley and think it is so wonderful that a mug can access such stuff. How good is the net.. never did I think I could attend a lecture at Berkley.. but it was great... views of where physics is going and overview on the standard model... great stuff.
I liked this....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM7SnUlw-DU&feature=related
alex

renormalised
06-08-2009, 04:10 PM
That's the problem, Alex. Your particles (hence, LeSage's) can't be fundamental particles. Look at Steven's post above. The derived formulae for KE (Kinetic Energy) for your system bear that out. You can't have differing values for KE or velocity for any particles, if they're fundamental. They must all have the same characteristics, no variance at all. In your model, the constants are variables (different KE/velocities per particle), so as you change those conditions, so the conditions for gravity change per location. It's a contradiction in terms.

xelasnave
06-08-2009, 05:38 PM
Thanks Carl... could we not have gravity change per location then please..the pioneer suggests that the gravity expected is "different" and the need for "dark matter" would appear to suggest a similar posibility.
I really feel we are getting close here.
Great lecture on utube I hope your took a look ..it was given by David Gross a Noble Prize winner no less.

alex

renormalised
06-08-2009, 05:51 PM
Have you looked at MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) at all?? It could be why there's a discrepancy in the velocity vectors of the Pioneer probes.

But that's yet to be proven. Let's just say it's a bit controversial.

renormalised
06-08-2009, 06:04 PM
No, not to the extent that what you have proposed it does. That would entail a gross changes in the value of the gravitational constant, the strength of gravity c.f. to the other forces and would mean the abandonment of the inverse square law on a macroscopic scale. That would mean chaos.

What the presence of dark matter suggests is that there's a factor which is creating the impression that there's more mass present unseen than seen. It could have an effect on the Pioneer probes, but only if there were some concentration of dark matter close by.

xelasnave
06-08-2009, 06:08 PM
Yes I have looked at it on various sites ....but to me it seems to be trying to adjust things rather than a fundamentally different approach..which is reasonable for science... I of course as a non scientist can step outside and claim ignorance if I move to far away from the norm.
Thinking about all the stuff that must be racing by way out there one wonders how they can move at all... considering how many bits may pass point even without specific quantification but as a guess gives one the feeling space is so not empty...

AND seeing that lecture at least tells me that the game is far from over ... and that there is some hope to unify the forces ... now in all that lecture I had to take what he said as reasonable without a math proof on the assumption that he and others must have done it and that as far as they have gone the math is valid.... most enjoyable thread.
alex:):):)

sjastro
07-08-2009, 08:51 AM
Alex in the context of your model the gravity change is not only a function of location but is time dependent. Even at a fixed location "gravity" will change with time if the KE of the push particles are not equal.

With regards to the Pioneer anomaly there are a variety of explanations.
The explanation that makes most sense to me is that the Pioneer probes have acquired an electric charge and are therefore also subject to electromagnetic forces. Being bombarded by cosmic and solar radiation is the likely mechanism for the Pioneers acquiring the charge.

Steven

xelasnave
07-08-2009, 09:43 AM
Good morning Steven.
I must say what a wonderful day it is. I have just got onto my old boat at the mooring and except for the noice from the free way it is as close to being perfect as one could imagine.
My point is good things happen to good people...so I am semi delussional but boy am I going to go with that one today.
AND most of the reason why life is going so well is this site ..it really is the best...the people are the best.

Yes the time thing... it is always a problem...but I have come to a realisation...different professions approach problems differently but I am going to seize on the way an engineer approaches a problem..with sheer glee if you have ever noticed..they love the chalenge of making something work where there is a seemingly impossible technical problem to overcome...

AND so the time thing...we have time a a extreme focus because of general relativity and I have no doubt that this is a particularly important area to work upon however I suspect there is even more about time that we dont understand.
Time is a human contrivance when you think about it and I have said in the past that for nature time is a mechanism where everything does not happen at once and to thru some push into the mix I suspect that the flow of time is directly related to the maximum "speed" that stuff can do what it has to do whilst being subject to other stuff that in doing what it has to do alters the flow and the rate we call time...

So with faith unshaken in my belief I suspect that it will still all go together.

AS to the pioneer I must say I like that explanation it is more reasonable than leaking material and to a degree not dissimilar my view that they provide an opportunity to realise there are obviously other forces at play than that at first were not considered.

The part I think is probably not reasonable is the aspect that solar radiation is at play..I suspect the edge of the heliosphere is think represents a boundary for the Sun such that its contribution to charging may not be the real aspect to consider...certainly inside the solar system solar charging would be a possibility one would think but I suspect popping out of the solar system bubble (thru the heliosphere) could nuetralise that condition...
In open space it is my belief that they are indeed being bombarded so there is where I like the explanation you favour.
but I see that explanation as giving more hope than less...but then there is little that I will ever let set me back again.

I watched that utube lecture again and the funny thing is "they" and I use that term this time with respect and affection have so much worked out and things they can measure to increadible small size ..well everything about the theoretical physics quest is wonderful to see... and as much as I have bagged string theory for some of what I see as wild ideas...er super symetry as well...the fact is it is all good as we cant have so many minds working on the theory of everything and the unification of the forces and somethiing not drop...it was also very encouraging to hear the addmissions of what they dont know and the difficulties ahead as well as the hopes... He is a wonderful presentor and ambassador for theoretical physics.

I was interested in their view of vacuum energy and I find strangely supportive of my ideas but I cant verbalise why at all.

AND as to dark matter and dark energy ..as much as I bag dark matter it would seem that if I consider my "flow" it must contain a huge mass overall ... and my idea is really simply that there is a flow of matter and energy (which we can treat the same thanks to the great man himself E=MC^2 tells us we can do that) is so vast out there that it provides a pressure..an external pressure (rather than say push) and certainly this pressure can be observed by the unexpected motion of stars and the holding together of galaxies that by our sums will tell us they must fly apart... but I am starting to somehow see a picture that I wish I could show to other humans for their views... well text is great but I know others find it hard to see stars as anything more than a dot in the sky whereas they are sortof like huge bubbles that are as many sizes as the distance you choose to observe them from... we see things in the real world in perspective... even with our scopes we are taking converging rays to squeeze them down a narrow hole into our mind...and we "see" so little.. what we see is great but imagine being able to view everything using the full Electromagntic spectrum... it would and does look so much different...
in my minds eye I sortta see things like that with a complexity I often wonder about ..I visualize a packet of light as if it were a galaxy such is the complexity I build into my view of it...
So as a result I think math is simple not in the doing but in what it can do...My necktop can construct visualisations the would spin out Steven Spberg I bet.

I was thingking also folk dont like thinking that light can travel slower or faster but I have been thinking that even light must have to contend with all that is out there ..and it does no doubt..gravitational lensing that tells us such...

Sorry to rant I am just very happy with everything ...

alex

Paul Haese
07-08-2009, 12:44 PM
Simple maths will not suffice in any thought experiment to prove this odd notion that push gravity exists.

Additionally gravity pulls and has been proven to pull in the way matter attacts. There have been countless examples of how gravity works both mathematically and through actual experiments. The use of gravity to increase the speed of probes is one clear example. Using the gravity well of a planet we can accelerate the speed of a probe. Gravity has the power to pull and be used as a sling shot by way of kinetic energy and velocity.

Try learning calculus, then do at least a year of physics and then you will drop this ridiculous notion of push gravity. I know I don't have to read this thread but many other people who don't know better do. You are giving them the wrong idea and making a mockery of physics and all the advances that has transpired from observation and real thought.

I find reading through this just totally wrong. Do you really think that you could possibly prove this without having the maths or genius to make this real? If push to gravity existed then the confirmation of relativity in 1919 solar eclipse where light is bent by a huge gravity field would never have occured. Galaxies are held together by the pull of gravity. The same way this planet is held together by gravity, or you are held to the planets surface. There is no mass that pushes object to colide with a planet. The positioning of satellites in the lagrangian points is also about finding the points where gravity (pull of gravity) of two bodies is equal to each other. If main stream science had got it wrong why do you think that all we have now is possible. Sheer accident could not have happened thousands of times.

Push to gravity is a crock. Please stop pushing this nonsense. No maths, no physics but you have an idea you and only a handful of others think is real. Come on.

Paul Haese
07-08-2009, 01:26 PM
Just another thing to add and you should consider. To escape from Earth you need to reach escape velocity which is a function of the mass of an object. Earths escape velocity is around 11km/sec. If an object fails to reach this speed it falls back to earth. This is the force of gravity in action it pulls. There is nothing that pushes it back down. That is simple Newtonian gravity in action. Although now relativistic gravity is the more accepted theory the notion is for attraction not pushing.

Robh
07-08-2009, 04:28 PM
The push gravity model assumes an "ether" of randomly moving particles e.g. neutrinos. These particles exert pressure on bodies and the shielding of one body from another is what produces the gravitational effects. It is the physics of the push gravity model that lets it down ...
1. For it to work, particle collisions must be inelastic. Collisions of particles will result in excessive heating of bodies. An inexhaustible supply of particles are needed to maintain the ether.
2. Motions of bodies in the ether will result in frictional drag. This effect would reduce the distance between the Sun and the Earth.
3. Gravitational shielding, the basis of the theory, is inconsistent in that the shielding effects of many bodies does not produce the same gravitational forces as their overall mass implies.
4. Gravitational aberration occurs due to the finite speed of gravity. For example, as the Earth orbits the Sun, there is a time delay due to ether particles arriving from the Sun at older positions but not having arrived at newer positions. This acts to accelerate objects away from each other.

Regards, Rob

renormalised
07-08-2009, 04:49 PM
Yes...LeSage called them "ultramundane particles"...apparently whose origins lay outside of the Universe, wherever that might be!!!. That puts the kybosh on the theory straight away.

Not only that, but when you think about it, the flow of the ether, the presence of these particles, would cause weird optical aberrations with light traveling through that ether. Not only from the changing nature of the gravitational field from point to point in such an universe, but also from diffraction caused by photons bouncing around off those particles.

Paul Haese
08-08-2009, 01:55 AM
The concept of the ether has also been banished for many years. Space is a vacuum. Sorry you are not going to get away with that either.

xelasnave
09-08-2009, 09:00 AM
Thank you Paul for taking the time to share your views on this matter.
I enjoyed reading your strong views on the matter.

I dont wish to argue with you for the sake of it nor try and change your views but owe you a considered responce.

I fail to see the difference in the "simple math" approach to attempting to quantify the possible energies at a point and the approach Hershel adopted to work out the energy of the Sun... and although his method could be seen to have flaws that would not give an exact estimate of the Sun's output it was recognised as a valid attempt and his estimate of the Sun's energy calculated by such a simple approach was and I believe still is hailed as good science).

If attraction is the force at play then it will be easy to find how such a mechanism works one would think and yet I have never found any expalnation or reasoning or experimental demonstration proving the force of attraction exists and how this force is communicated...it was my frustration in failing to find any explanation or experimental proof of attraction that lead me to consider that it may not be a force at all and that some other system was at play.

If you can point me to any experiment that shows "how" gravity works I will be absolutely grateful but I suggest that although there is much material on gravity via General Relativity and Newton's wonderful work I find no material that say how gravity works.

Newton avoided the issue of what was the force of Gravity by saying "it was the force of God" and General Relativity seems not to attribute a force at all other than a reference that "it is the property of space time"...yes all nice but to both I ask "how does it work and what force is at play".

If you wish to list how gravity works to pull space craft to sling shot etc I say that I have no difficulty with all of that and am absolutely aware of such systems and approaches however I see no evidence in any of these systems that shows that attraction is at play or if it is how attraction works.

If attraction is so present in all of the things you give it credit for then I am also sure that you can offer an experiment which shows how attraction works...even if it is very complicated I promise I will read it.

I have learnt a little calculus and understand it to be the math of limits. AND although it provides very acceptable and close results I note that often it uses a very primative initial approach to establish its formuleas... How do we determine the area of a circle... yes indeed but how did they arrive at that most important little symbol... I think it was by adopting an approach initially to divide a circle into many many many small triangles... and although they never quiet gave the exact answer the answer can be so close that the miniscule difference is able to be ignored...

Just because I dont roll over and except everything before me please do not think I do not learn physics... how much do you think I read on physics before I had the confidence to question certain things... and dont say the math the math I say physics builds on certain principles and the math offers "proof" but all these principles must be and are capable of understanding without the presentor offering the authority of the math proof... as a principle water "boils" at 100 degreees I am prepared to accept such without the math but if I am not I will review the math...
All I am saying is math is important but it is authority for a point not the point itself.

The lecture I refered to above covered where theoretical physics has been and where it is going and in that entire lecture not once was mathamatical proof offerred for any of the propositions to prove to the audience his statements were valid... and all including me was happy in the reasonably secure knowledge that a Noble peace prize winner would have done his home work..

I probably am less incompetent in physics that my social style will communicate but certainly I have not done more than high school physics (but I did top the year at my school in Physics and also Chemistry) but I feel comfortable studying physics... in principle.

AND I am sure not all the folk who have an understanding of general relativity have ever studies the 11 field equations but simple rely upon the validity of the foundations stones of the theory.. as they should be reasonably expected to do..like me accepting the general premises in the lecture refered to above.

I am sorry that you think that any thing I say makes a mockery of physics I do not see it that way.
You must think by me following the notion of push gravity it shows a lack of faith in the current science but I say that is not the case ... and I know for a fact there is no work on how gravity works that is simply an excepted and inarguable fact.

The cutting edge it seems is the speculation upon the graviton...and it is speculation at this point... we have reached a point where they are looking for the particle interaction but lets face it the graviton is a speculation and not one has been found...

I will in future check my thinking to see if it is real thought and also my observations but please give me some credit for knowing more than you think simply because you find my ideas are not presented in a strict pysics formate... we are chatting after all... if I go to the world with a paper I am happy to accept such ...

AS to those who may get the wrong idea I think you give them to little credit for having the ability to think and consider what they are reading.
I mock nothing that is out there other than perhaps except perhaps the movement that caused Newton to offer a no scientific explanation as to the actual force of gravity.

Newton had a mate with the push gravity idea... the church hunted him down and killed him..so given that fact maybe Newton was very clever in his reply.
My hero is Dr Albert Einstein his ideas as to a cosmological constant is one of the factors that had me considering that gravity may be a "repulsive" force... but I will try and be more respectful if you get the impression as it certainly I do not want incorrect impressions in place about me.:help:

You ask if I think I can do it... yes of course I can... maybe not today but if there is one thing I have been taught by all my heros is that when you start out you are nothing more than a fool in everyones eyes and if you offer something different to the norm folk will reject it on the basis that we already know what we know and how can an upstart come up with anything new...well your attitude to me really.. I have no problem with that but my point is your responce is predictable and if I am to get anywhere my responce has to be one of sheer belief that the day will come when I have all the tools to complete my task... now if I dont it is of no concern to me..if I do win well it really wont change much at all... I see no reason why my ideas conflict with Newton or with General Relativity... I only seek a mechanism as to how gravity works... I do not see anything out there that specifically addresses that issue other than the work in string theory ...

The 1919 experiment does not exclude push and I fail to see that a reference to that famous moment should be or could be used to exclude push.. it supports general relativity and I have no problem with general relativity (which I point out started with a thought experiment by a man who at the time would have been seen perhaps as being disrespectful to Newton)...

I think if you look into it you may find that galaxies are indeed held in place by an external force and at the moment accepted science calls that force "dark energy" and as far as I can tell that is a fact not something I made up so if you read up on dark energy you may find someone very smart said that before me...it may be the force that is causing the Universe to expand but they do know it is in effect a "repulsive" force and is of great interest...there are those who feel that the great man himself had an insite upon the necissity oif its prescence when he was considering his cosmological constant... his bigest blunder may in facrt be his greatest insite because I do believe he was at the edge of considering that the force of gravity communicated via a push rather than attraction.

I am not saying main stream has it wrong there is just an important part left out would be the way I would put it.. General relativity is not under threat all I say is the force that bends the space time grid is a flow of energy working in a push system not a system of attraction...because I think attraction does not exist..

I am sorry Paul that you are so upset by what I write and you see it as pushing nonsence and all I can say is I really dont see any harm in it myself.. I think I am reasonable and as far as I can do not make statements that are baseless or ill considered....
I dont think there are a handful of others who agree really I think I am somewhat alone on this..even Ron (site builder) I suspect thinks I am wrong and in an effort to save folk like you reading my stuff set me aside in that place to let me rant and not annoy anyone.

Look I dont care if you think it is crock you are entitled to say and think that and I am sincerely delighted that you are candid and say so.
You force me to consider my position and think of the areas you raise and no doubt later in the day I will go off and read about something you have caused me to think about..and so I thank you and appologise that I upset you but please know I upset everyone and I do not need to be talking about gravity... it is just me I have an unfortunate way ...maybe a mental problem porr social sckill I dont know but I do not set out to annoy folk.

Have a great day.

alex:):):)

xelasnave
09-08-2009, 09:21 AM
All excellent points for consideration Rob.
Again I dont want to argue and I am not saying anything you raise is wrong or right but as long as you dont think I am being arguementative I will comment on each matter as best I can.. just appreciate that I may not be able to dispose of concerns in a simple reply and know that after I will read on the areas you raise.

Point one.. I agree. I think it may be the reason we have a Corona that is hotter than the surface of the Sun and to date no reasonable explaination why this may be so. It may be this point that offers explaination as to why the center of the Earth is hot... it may be the explanation as to why a critiacl mass of u235 or the like heats up... and this point has been raised before and I do wonder myself if there are places where this heating could be observed and perhaps a link determined..or not determined of course... for a guy with no experimental evidence I think about those crazy ideas... I would think if push works then if one had an extremely large block of anything then it should heat up at the center in much the same wat a neufcler fuel rod does... in otherwords maybe all things have in effect a critical mass...anyways I note I am speculating and know there is good and reliable science that has the atomic bomb working and the power plants and that neither fails to work because they dontr embrace push gravity... but you asked I gave you a responce dont get upset if you dont like it or disagree with it.

2. Should we look to see if that is happening?
Well my prediction that the pioneer would slow is very mush alined to what you suspect must happen with the SUn issue raised... I did think that if space pushed then the pioneer would slow because they would be subject to a drag that was not enecounted until they had left the heliospere and sought to contend with the space outside..which in my view will have more push and therefore drag.
3. Without using math I dont know... I will think about this.
4. Again I cant field that and will think about it.

So sorry I could not field points 3 and 4.

Thanks for pointing them out gives me something to work on and read upon.

alex:):):)

xelasnave
09-08-2009, 09:39 AM
Good morning Carl ...Well I dont say what he (LeSage) says so hopefully I can stay in the game.... but what if he is right that would be a worry.

My thoughts are that if there is to be a unification of the forces then the electromagnetic spectrum probably holds the key.
AND if their can be any force attributed to the electromagnetic spectrum then we have all the we need for the flow ..the aether or whatever you want to call apparently empty space... clearly the is so much rushing thru anypart of space one could hardley deny that there is a lot of something travelling in all directions... folk say the is no aether and maybe we need a better less contraversial word (so as not to bring up MM experiment that is interpreted to say there is none) than ather and indeed the view we have of space is that it is a vacuum and empty when of course it is jam packed with stuff passing in all directions... be that stuff electromagnetic energy particles whatever it is undeniable that a view that sees space as empty is no longer supportable and is not supported by theoretical physics.

AND as you say Carl when you think about it this flow would indeed create situations that previously we have not thought about..we are taught there is no eather that space is a vacuum etc etc but neither of those "facts" are really correct... now space is a great place to find a vacuum an expect to find nothing but what is passing thru... well all the electromagnetic energy from every part of the Universe..think about that...there is no point that does not enjoy a pass by of electromagnetic energy from everywhere...

I can see what you suggest with difraction and that is reasonable maybe such an effect will be observable at some level..lets apply for some funding and start looking:lol::lol::lol:

Thanks for your input and have a great day.


alex:):):)

avandonk
09-08-2009, 09:46 AM
Gravity is just the remnant force leaking between different subjective spatial dimensions due to quantum entanglement of all particles to each other..... Sounds good but is gibberish.

Bert

xelasnave
09-08-2009, 09:54 AM
Good morning Bert it is a real pleasure to hear your take on it:thumbsup:.
I think you really nailed it:thumbsup::thumbsup:.
alex:):):)

xelasnave
09-08-2009, 09:56 AM
I have been lookinh for that quote from DrA where he says... The idea is key and the math the mere bookeeping... it can be enjoyed at many levels.
AND who was it who siad...Hate math, love nature...
alex

avandonk
09-08-2009, 11:14 AM
Alex the human mind is a fine instrument. It is designed to be adaptable to any environment for the individuals survival. I admire your attempts at flying higher than most. I have studied all the sciences for over fifty years and yet I find myself still lacking.

Too much to learn not enough time!

Bert

sjastro
09-08-2009, 11:41 AM
The reality is that the Maths drives the Physics not around the other way.
Cosmology, GR and QM are taught as Applied Maths subjects.

Steven

avandonk
09-08-2009, 11:51 AM
There is nothing worse than an upstart to all us physicists. We will come round and hoist you by your own petard sjastro.



Bert

sjastro
09-08-2009, 12:09 PM
The plight of the Applied Mathematician.

They are considered to be intellectually inferior by the Pure Mathematician and also castigated for selling the soul of mathematics to other sciences.

And to the physicist they intrude on their territory.....

What's even more galling to the physicist is when a mathematician wins the Nobel prize for physics.:lol:

Steven

avandonk
09-08-2009, 12:26 PM
Your pleas of innocence will be taken into account just before we hoist you up. Just because you are an applied mathematician will not help you. There is no excuse nobody can be smarter than us!


We will give you time to quote your favourite elliptical integrals. No time for asymtotes I am afraid. We have far nastier things to do after we finish with you.


Bert

Robh
09-08-2009, 01:09 PM
A pure mathematician creates a fictitious world "OZ" and is forced, every now and then, to visit the real world for inspiration. An applied mathematician attempts to formulate the real world and is forced, every now and then, to visit the world of "OZ" for inspiration. :D

Regards, Rob

renormalised
09-08-2009, 01:57 PM
Or to put it another way, a pure mathematician lives in the abstract, an applied mathematician lives with the abstract:P:D:D

renormalised
09-08-2009, 02:02 PM
There once was a man called LeSage
Who's gravity was a peculiar gauge
Though his ideas were insane, not "ultramundane"
And was never the scientific rage.

:P:D:D:D

xelasnave
09-08-2009, 02:13 PM
Thank you very much Bert. Coming from you I regard that as one of the highest compliments I have ever had in my life and will never forget what you have said to me today. I try to do all I can with the limited resources I have and I can never understand why folk see that as something bad ...I feel it is all you can do...My mother told me I never had to do anymore than my best but how do accept anything but a win as doing yourbest and having your mother happy with the effort you have given.

I am not unaware of your background and experience..I have pieced it together of the years from little things you reveal from time to time and you are someone I greatly admire you were obviously a very cool dude when young and you are one very cool dude these days. It is a pleasure to have met you.

Indeed you are so right about the time observation. I was not bright at school it was only the fact that I was very good at science that go me into a A class... I would not learn what I did not like if I liked it like science I would top the class.

I regret not getting into chemistry after the leaving certificate but I only did general maths and so I could only get into Sydney UNi and for science you had to go to NSW UNi...but all things are blessings and the blessing is for me if I had a science degree and spoke upon the matters I do the Uni would call me up and ask for the degree back I suspect.

AND the fact is over the years on this gravity trip I have learnt a lot I even have been looking at math... a mate sent me 1300 pages on calculus and even if I can learn a page a day it will be a long time before I can apply it... I am 62 what does anyone expect of me more than I offer.

But all is good.
Thanks again sincelely thank you:thumbsup:.

alex:):):):):):):)

sjastro
09-08-2009, 02:44 PM
Violent physicists? Arrogant maybe......

sjastro
09-08-2009, 02:58 PM
Well put.

The trouble with modern physics is that it is becoming more and more like World of Oz as Pure Maths is playing an ever increasing role.

Steven

xelasnave
10-08-2009, 06:08 PM
Sorry to be so late in a further coment Rob but I have been socialising and stuff so I have not had much time to think..nonr really however as to point 3 I am surprised to hear you say there is a difference between shielding and convential mass related theroies in so far as I know of no experiment etc that expresses gravity as a form of shielding and givers data based on that approach... I doubt such figures are really available and whoever possed them in the first instzance I would like to visit.

Let me digest point 4 for a little while longer.

Thanks for pointing out concerns irrespective of the answers being correct it makes me think more about it all.


alex

xelasnave
10-08-2009, 06:15 PM
Poiny four Rob..I dont really understand it to be honest but these are the sort of questions I could look into if I could construct a computer model simulating push ..hence the original question about the math... I am thinking about a range of energies but thinking about it all I need is a dial to rev them up or down it is only P=P after all in 3d er 4d why not...
I think the general answer to point 4 if I have in mind what you are asking me would be that the flow is greater in output and the drag you suggest may not be the way to speed the Sun up...

alex

Robh
10-08-2009, 10:25 PM
Point 3. Shielding.
For the gravitational push concept to work, bodies cannot be perfectly transparent and so, one body will shade another. In addition, particle collisions are inelastic. Now, consider three spherical bodies A, B, C of equal mass with centres aligned along an axis L. The two outside bodies will shade the intermediate body. Thus, someone standing on the central body B at L will feel a diminished gravitational push to someone standing on outer body C at L. Thus, the gravitational forces produced by mass B is less than that produced by either A or C, even though each is of equal mass.

Regards, Rob

Robh
10-08-2009, 10:42 PM
Point 4. Aberration.
Consider a radial line L, from the Earth to the Sun.
The Sun acts as a shield absorbing particles behind it along L. At any point in orbit, the Earth is pushed along L towards the Sun. As the Earth moves a small distance in this orbit, the particles pushing along L have a fairly instantaneous effect.
However, because of the larger distance to the Sun, the effect of shielding of particles by the Sun along the new line L will take considerably longer to influence the Earth at its new position i.e. the shielding is reduced. The net effect is to accelerate the Earth away from the Sun.

Regards, Rob

xelasnave
11-08-2009, 09:45 PM
I miss the point of sentence one I dont understand what you are driving at...sorry.
As to A,B, and C...mayb e what you say would be so but observation is the only way to really find out...however I doubt if such a relationship between planets could exist they would be set up to arrive at such an alignment.

Again a computer model would be excellent for running situations such as you suggest...

alex:):):)

renormalised
11-08-2009, 10:01 PM
What Rob was trying to say here, Alex, is that in order for push gravity to work, the bodies interacting with one another can't be transparent to the particles they're meant to shield others against. Push gravity (as LeSage defined it) has these particles traveling unhindered by matter i.e. matter is transparent to them. You can't shield anything from something if that something can pass through you unhindered. It's like saying that that window will stop the light from coming in even though the light can pass through it....just doesn't work.

xelasnave
11-08-2009, 10:06 PM
Are you saying that gravity takes a certain time to reach us from the Sun? It does as far as I know.. same speed as C they say and that sounds reasonable.
Maybe you are on to something here..the Moon is moving away from Earth so I believe... is this the sort of effect you describe?
alex:):):)

xelasnave
11-08-2009, 10:33 PM
Yes of course you are right Carl I see the point:thumbsup:... The way I see "it" there must be a near infinite amount of stuff travelling past and the degree of shielding probably depends on how dense the matter is... which directly relates it to mass no doubt...

Le Sage erroneously(hopefully) had his particles coming from outside the Universe apparently and clearly had not fine tuned the idea so lets simply consider him as the first man to be recorded as presenting the "push" idea not for definig it with an infalable presentation.... already I see two points I do not agree with him upon.. its like being in a political party..you may have the same general ideas but may be at odds with others within the party who hold different views but are of the same clikc.

I simply say LeSage is "the man" simply because it is not my original idea it belongs to him..and if it gets up even with adjustments to the way he saw it the honors go to him for being the original presentor of the idea.... but he no doubt did not have it all worked out...not that I have it all worked out but ideas move forward often trhu adjustment.... many popular theories are adjusted and added to as they age...

Consider the nuetrino ... it seems that only a small portion of them interact and I suspect whatever the "push" particles are we are only meeting a small selection of them... I do think the more dense a material the more likelyhood of interaction (shielding) ... u235 whatever heats up because at its critical mass it interacts with more particles... maybe:D

alex:):):)

Robh
11-08-2009, 10:45 PM
In push gravity, the Earth is kept in its orbit by particles pushing it along a radial line L towards the Sun. The Sun shields particles along L from the other side, with particles streaming past it towards but around the Earth. As the Earth progresses in its orbit, it will dive into this stream passing around the Sun i.e. the shielding has not had time to take effect at the new line L connecting the Earth to the Sun. Thus, the Earth cannot continue its elliptical path but tends to accelerate away from the Sun at every new point.

Regards, Rob

renormalised
11-08-2009, 10:49 PM
Any change in the gravitational field between the Sun and the planets takes time to propagate, and does so at the speed of light. However, the waveform, once it comes into existence, is always present at every point in space....whether it's close by the Sun or out in the outer solar system. So, whilst it may take a change in the gravitational field time to propagate, the field itself is always present, everywhere, and that's why we feel its effects.

xelasnave
18-08-2009, 04:09 PM
Sorry to take so long to comment.
I can see the point you make ..so maybe it does ... I really dont know how to answer your question.
alex

xelasnave
18-08-2009, 04:12 PM
The way you describe it is more or less the way I see the push "field" system.. but being external enables an overall force say in the case of a galaxy being (I believe) held together by an external force. Each part propogates at C but being extenal has an overall effect..if that makes sence..and it may not I accept that..but my point is I sorttat see it the way you suggest,
alex

bojan
18-08-2009, 07:41 PM
Alex,
The Moon is going away from Earth because of tidal effects it has on Earth's seas.. It is loosing energy packed in orbital motion in the process (which is basically dissipated as heat) so the distance must increase as a consequence. And this can be proven by calculations, the number from theory fit so well with observations that I simply do not understand how someone could still try to use this well understood effect as an "explanation" for some suspicious theories..
The science does not work like you would like it to :einstein:...

xelasnave
18-08-2009, 08:28 PM
Thank you Bojan:thumbsup: ... as to understanding why dont worry yourself about that... it is part of the morosophic condition I have regarding explaining everything so it fits into a context I believe may be the way of it;)... so it is my problem so think of it that way:D.

But if it (the Moon) loses orbital motion would that not enable the force of attraction to draw the Moon closer.. assuming for a moment there is such a force which of course I say is a myth:D.. but like a rifle shell (projectile) flying thru the air..as it loses speed (which is really in a broad context its lose of orbital motion ..is this not reasonable given we all relate to the planet via gravity) and so with its orbital motion reducing it is draw to the Earth...:whistle: ..I would say "pushed" to Earth but that part is irrelevant for parralleling the two situations...maybe.

AND of course all the current sums must work because they will finally support someones notion of how things will work..just as I seek to fit my ideas into a frame work I believe in I expect similar will go for others.. and who would use math that did not support ones view of how things will be...

The science does not work like you would like it to :einstein: ...this is a two edged sword with which I can say back ...maybe it is not working the way you like ... his quotes are so good but usable in many situations to propel the opposite point to the one he was no doubt was relating it to in the original use of the quote:P:rolleyes::whistle:.

Thanks for pointing out the current view of explaining the Moons retreat from us:thumbsup:... I hope all is good in your world:thumbsup::thumbsup:.

AND maybe I can be used as an example of what becomes of one if you dont know the original (or current) ideas so as to offer a plausible alternative...so the message is for the young ones..study the real science as it may hold most of the answers:eyepop:... dont be like me so study hard, understand your math and its application:D...
alex:):):)

xelasnave
18-08-2009, 08:34 PM
A serious question..where does the energy go...to be lost??
alex

bojan
19-08-2009, 04:36 AM
Energy can not be lost....
As I have mentioned, it has been dissipated as heat - tidal activity warms up oceans a tiny bit.. as well as the rest of the Earth. Energy involved in this process exactly matches the loss of Moon's orbital energy.

You have similar processes going on Jupiter's moons.. Io's volcanic activity and Europa's liquid ocean under the ice crust.

xelasnave
19-08-2009, 09:02 PM
I was being cheeky because I have heard energy can not be "lost" but I was not sure about what you said.
Thanks for that Bojan.
alex

avandonk
21-08-2009, 08:31 PM
If it helps at all . All science is a construct. What you are proposing has no basis in any sort of reality.

I suggest you learn the basics at least.

I am only trying to help.

Bert

Enchilada
21-08-2009, 09:51 PM
Oh Bert. It is not that of all.

The definition of construct, is;

"...an idea or theory containing various conceptual elements, typically one considered to be subjective and not based on empirical evidence."

Most science IS based on actual observation and on real empirical evidence. If there is any form of construct, it would be in hands of formulation of theory by the person evoking the basis of the science to explain the observations or verify actual theory.

The statement energy can't be lost is absolutely in the whole universe is 100% true. Frankly, it can only be transformed or even redistributed. As the universe is a closed system, therefore the total energy must be a constant * - and this regardless of the age nor evolution via expansion. I'd assume this is what is meant. :thumbsup:

* The only objection is energy voided from the universe in black holes - which technically don't exist is our universe. However, IMO this is really just splitting hairs, as the black holes gravitation exists in the universe - so the energy is really only locked away in a safer region.
Another main objection, of course, is quantum vacuum and the continuous constant manufacture - creation and destruction - of virtual particles. Technically, this cause some variations in the energy. However, it is fairly trivial. :scared:

Note: Apologies for the divergence from the mathematical question in this thread, but it actually needs to be said. :D

xelasnave
22-08-2009, 02:17 PM
I try Bert I try but in truth I am not up for what really needs to be done we both know that..but I learn.. before astronomy and the search this thing lead me I knew zip and although not much more now I know what I dont know ..if you see what I mean... but in reading stuff something hangs in on whatever... and no matter what I do this push thing haunts me ..as most of you know..it is a curse and a blessing..keeps me going sortta and trying to find out more... it drags me back..I found a painting today of this push universe and I had painted in a version of the "elves" at the outter atmostpere represented like inverted sprites but I "senced" they would be ther in this painting..and I know that is not science etc..but keeps me interested in the real science... which I do respect more than most I bet you.

Thanks I will do it..try is failure looking for a house to live.
alex:):):)

xelasnave
22-08-2009, 02:22 PM
And I cant probably prove it because I dont know how long they knew for but I put something out there about it..lightning in volcanoes..I figured it could be there before that..and I am sure I have a drawing someplace where I have that ..maybe..but when I expect it to work a certain way and find out it does it give me..admitedly morosiphic hope but hope nevertheless..and mate I need it ...
I tried that mountain physics site the first time it was presented and could never get it up... will fix that for sure someway.
alex

xelasnave
22-08-2009, 02:28 PM
Anyways I am happy with the way I figured how to give some quantification to the energy/particle possibilities.. within the context of where I started and the fact that I worked something out..and it is really the Sun energy in reverse...that was in my head so that is what sparked it I expect.
IN the bush..battery near flat,no fone, no net left
alex

gman
22-08-2009, 09:53 PM
I am no physicist nor a mathematician and I try to keep things as simple as possible but as I understand, no one really knows why gravity occurs.

Keplar and Newton drew up the basic laws of Gravity under the assumption that is a force of some type.
Einstein later worked out that gravity is not quite a force, but rather an artifact of the natural movement of objects through curved four-dimensional spacetime.

As everything is moving in the universe, I presume that everything will be under the same laws of gravity.

I don't really understand the "String Theory" or "Loop Quantum Gravity" but it all seems to me to be laws of attraction, not opposition.

I don't like the idea of push gavity

mswhin63
23-08-2009, 01:14 AM
I don't know if this is relevent but the story on link below talks about confirming that gravity is a wave.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2594259.htm

I found the story interesting although not sure if it related to the original thread. Caught the thread late.