A simple math question.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by renormalised

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.

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

Thanks for your input and have a great day.


alex

[avandonk]

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]

Good morning Bert it is a real pleasure to hear your take on it.
I think you really nailed it.
alex

[xelasnave]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

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

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]

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]

Originally Posted by avandonk

There is nothing worse than an upstart to all us physicists. We will come round and hoist you by your own petard sjastro.
Bert

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.

Steven

[avandonk]

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 (Rob)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

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.

Steven

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.

Regards, Rob

[renormalised (Carl)]

Or to put it another way, a pure mathematician lives in the abstract, an applied mathematician lives with the abstract

[renormalised (Carl)]

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.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by avandonk

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

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.

alex

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by avandonk

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

Violent physicists? Arrogant maybe......

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Robh

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.

Regards, Rob

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]

Originally Posted by Robh

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

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]

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 (Rob)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

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.


alex

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 (Rob)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

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...

alex

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]

Originally Posted by Robh

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

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