Quote:
Originally Posted by bojan
Alex, how about throwing in some math to justify those feelings about inverse square law (or something else) etc?
In our previous discussion I challenged you (and other "pushers") to provide some derivations or links to something more substantial and there were no satisfactory answers..
So I believe it is time to abandon those ideas.
I mean, science works like this: if you can not prove the idea by calculation (that means - theory), or the observational evidence shows that something else is happening (data inconsistent with that theory) then it is time to abandon the sinking ship..
Also, on large scale, and when the matter is distributed in space more or less evenly, overall gravitation effect (force) of course does not follow inverse square law.
Actually it does, it is a mathematical idealisation and it works ONLY between two point-like masses. That means, if radii of those two masses are infinitely smaller than the distance between them then you will have inverse square law, describing the force between them.
In cases of distributed masses - like galactic cluster.. or interior of Earth, to take something more closer for example, we have to use calculus to describe net gravity force. That means, integration of infinite number of individual forces between individual (small) mass concentrations.. and in some cases it is not easy or even impossible to completely solve those equations.
There is no place for feelings here, because those relationships are much more complicated and no "hunch" can help you : unless you have a solid mathematical skills and experience with them.
So, back to school  |
Reading what I wrote it did not get to the point I was trying to make as I was leading up to the issue of "dark energy" which is external I understand.
Clearly the inverse square rule is a fact and in my post it would seem I had no regard for it... so my speculation was upon dark energy.
Bojan I have no problem with math and its important role yet I do believe however math is part of the evidence we need to support a premise ... now I have a premise but I do not have the sckill to offer math related proof.
Dr A's premise that a man in a lift can make all the observations that descibe the universe has been supported by the math but I still think the premise is wrong ... and the great man himself said words to the effect...it is the idea tha is important the math is only the bookeeping ... so I still reckon my idea (LeSage's idea really) is a good idea but the books still have to be put in order...
AND I can think what I like and hold any view I wish... if GR is so flash why do we not have a unification of the forces..if it is so powerful that step should be not a problem...yet as far as I know unification using GR is going nowhere...now at least with my approach I can link everything into a "neat" story of how everything works... AND I say this... NASA are very interested in ELVES and SPRITES and are observing Elves so new data is going to be available on them ...so far folk think lightning and Elves and Sprites are generated from Earth bound forces..curent thought is that lightning comes from dust and ice rubbing together style approach... and the math is available to prove it...but there is more to it ... the elves are visual evidence of some of the flow hitting the upper atmosphere, the sprites are where it jumps from the upper atmosphere to the clouds, and lightning is where it jumps from the cloud to Earth...
Now I have observed a lightning cloud flashing at the rate of 2 times a second for over and hour... and it seemed to me that there is now way that so much energy could come from the cloud... and how could we determine that energy ? but I doubt if the dust and ice rubbing together could create so much for so long... moving higher how can we explain the energy we see in a sprite and more importantly how can we explain the energy that creates an elve... look at one..it looks as if one has dropped a stone in a pond as the energy ripples over the outter atmosphere...
I saw a good show on SBS last night on the early days of astronomy where the church sought to dictate what humans could and not think or say..now in those days it was unthinkable that the greater body of thought as embrassed by the church could be wrong and as such folk like Galileo were told what they could and could not think or write about, after all everything was already known..Aristotle had worked it all out and to deviate was not tolerated ..what you suggest in that I can not hold a view that is contrary to current thought is no better than the church seeking to silience new thinking ...well I will think what I like and write what I like and hope in time, just as the majority were proved wrong in their long held views, that finally we will find that gravity is a force not driven by God but by the flow of the infinite supply of particles in our Universe and that this flow of particles is responsible for all energy ...
AND give me some credit for the pioneer prediction..after all I was right and NASA were wrong... they had their math I had my ideas... and what I said would happen is happening and that is a matter available from curent observation (athough I have not looked at what they are doing for a while so maybe NASA have developed another explaination other than leaking fuel etc... but as far as I know my idea so far is the winner...and I did not guess what would happen but thought it though on the basis that if space acted as I suspected that the pioneer would do certain things when they got thru the heloiosphere... they did what I predicted and in the absence of a reasonable expalnation to the contrary I feel their behaviour supports my view.
Thanks for posting I really enjoy being called upon to defend my position ...but there is no way I am going back to school ... have a great day.
alex
alex