MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Is Relativity Nonsense? (Astrophysics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Rocky



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
Is their arc of travel and time in motion the same?

Suppose you had two balls. Both are dropped from rest. But one has an axis of rotation that is parallel to the ground, the other has an axis of rotation that is perpendicular to the ground.

Does the orientation of the axis matter? Is their arc of travel and time in motion the same?

I'm not asking rhetorically. My guess is that they would not have the same arc. The one with the parallel axis would fall faster - is this right?
Send private message
Rocky



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
Inertial Mass is not equal to Gravitational Mass.

There is some reading about this topic here - sans calculus.
http://www.theoryofeverything.co.uk/gravitational_inertial_mass/

Physicists have no idea why the gravitational mass of a given body is equal to its inertial mass. Until this basic problem of classical physics is sorted out, it is unlikely that gravitational theory can be united with quantum theory.
...

In 1964 Hoyle tried to partially introduce Mach's ideas by suggesting that the mean density of matter throughout the universe might establish the value of G, the gravitational constant. Hoyle predicted that if the mean density of the universe halved then the value of G would double. It seems logical to extend Hoyle's idea to include the motion of distant matter, as well as its density, when predicting G.

A number of motions of distant matter, that would fully incorporate Mach's Principle and establish a specific value for G, are possible. Alternative motions of distant matter range from the radial motion associated with the expansion of all matter in the universe, to the rotational motion associated with the possible rotation of the universe as a whole.

The author originally suggested that the rotation of a galaxy, relative to the most distant galaxies in the universe, might generate the value for G that applied just within that galaxy. Such a model might have enabled one to reject both dark matter and dark energy at a stroke!
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Gravity is an Electric property of Matter not a Geometric property of Space. Matter in a gravitational field reacts instantly. It defies the Einsteinian dictum that 'No EFFECT can travel faster than the Speed of Light'.

The Earth's mass reacts to Sun's gravitational field instantly. It does not react according to where the Sun WAS 8 minutes ago. If it did its orbit would have been continually perturbed and would have been ejected from the Solar system long ago.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Two steel balls... one rapidly rotating... Is their arc of travel and time in motion the same?...

It seems the answer is "no" to both questions.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun2.htm

Note that it is not clear without further explanation what "accelerated simultaneously with the same force" means here, since the mechanical difference between spinning and not spinning may well introduce variations in the trajectory. But now we're talking about conducting precise experiments to determine the uncertainty and repeatability of the measurements and I'm afraid the chart given in the article referenced is misleading on that score.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/DePalma%27s--Spinning-Ball--2-grid.jpg

These are not two plots of the positions of spinning and non-spinning balls with all else equal. You can see from the bottom left corner that the trajectories are parallel and offset: the two tracks do not originate from the same spot.

Rather than looking at it casually, I printed this out and measured the points. Re-adjusting them to start from the same place, there is still a small difference in trajectory amounting to a 3% difference in angle and either a 1% difference in launch speed or 2% difference in acceleration-due-to-gravity.

However, the curves are not quite symmetrical and the difference in shape-cum-horizontal-speed looks like the difference between air resistance and no air resistance. This is surprising since the subject is the effect on gravity and the vertical difference is less than the horizontal, even if it's not the result of accumulated errors in creating, obtaining, presenting and analysing the data.

As intriguing and fertile as this whole area appears to be, the case is not advanced by wonky data.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

So Newton's Laws of motion are violated and can only be held true in ONE frame of reference.

Er... no. The two trajectories can only be compared in the same frame of reference and that is the place they can hope to challenge any laws of motion.

But do be clear on two different sorts of "Newton's Laws". His Laws of Motion establish the framework within which we do and understand experiments. If the results don't match, then it's the forces at work that are questioned, whether blown off as experimental error or some Nobel-Prize-winning new effect.

His Law of Gravity assumes a point source with an inverse-square field. Einstein proposes a different geometry and others challenge the value of G, but neither of those alters the basic model. And experiments at the surface of Earth where the field is treated as (mostly) uniform, say nothing about the basic model either.

I'm not saying Newton's gravitation can not be challenged, just that this stuff doesn't do it (effectively).

Even if there were an effective challenge here, the new area to explore is the interaction of gravity and rotation, which may or may not affect the inverse-square and may or may not have an electrical explanation.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Gravity is an Electric property of Matter not a Geometric property of Space. Matter in a gravitational field reacts instantly.

This can't be right. The Electric Universe says "these are all familiar electrical effects" and familiar electricity is reckoned to obey Coulomb's law (geometrically equivalent to Newton's) and propagate at the speed of light.

If gravity is instantaneous then it must be an unfamiliar kind of electric.

The Earth's mass reacts to Sun's gravitational field instantly. It does not react according to where the Sun WAS 8 minutes ago.

How do we know this? Isn't a continuously perturbed orbit just a different orbit: the one we're actually on?

Even if we thumb our noses and say gravity clearly propagates much faster than light, then a sensible Relativist might retreat to the position that nothing electro-magnetic-y can travel faster than... um... electro-magnetism (light). But how is that any kind of victory for the Electric Universe?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There's a comedy series on Channel 4 at the moment about the earth's origin (you can tell it's a comedy because it's presented by Baldrick from Blackadder). One of the few facts presented (as opposed to hilarious Space Scientists presenting this week's Cosmic Truth) is the distance from Earth to Moon.

As you'll remember a laser reflector was left on the Moon by the astronauts and periodically the reflected light is timed and hence the distance is measured. We were told, breathlessly and because it happened to support this week's Cosmic Truth, that the increasing time interval showed that the Moon was moving away from the Earth at 3.4 cms per year.

But they didn't mention a rather obvious alternative interpretation of the data. A million AE pounds to the first person to write in with what that alternative is.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

But they didn't mention a rather obvious alternative interpretation of the data. A million AE pounds to the first person to write in with what that alternative is.

A. There's no reflector: the Moon landings were hoaxed at Area 51. {That is what they say, by the way. Does anyone know when Area 51 became Top Secret?}

B. No one has actually repeated the experiment since the days of NASA's zenith.

C. The reflector is sinking into the dust. {The laser blasts are hammering it down?}

D. The Moon is shrinking.

E. The telescope they use is standing on rising ground.

F. The Earth is shrinking.

G. Atmospheric and plasma and whatever other effects between here and the Moon are making the speed of light increase.

H. The Moon is (currently) rotating away from us.

Hey, wait a... "AE pounds"?... oh, forget it.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Speaking of presenting the State of Knowledge {"Ooh, look at the state of Knowledge."}, Was Darwin Wrong purported to address the argument between Evolutionists and Creationists and prove that Darwinism is right, but it really only said "yes, rocks are millions of years old... yes, eyeballs could evolve incrementally... yes, female choice drives the evolution of extravagant male birds... yes, everything Darwin claimed has been shown to be correct". My wife is usually an apologist for the constraints of telly progs for the masses, but even she was getting fed up with the lack of substance come the end. Didn't know National Geographic had a comedy channel.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

My solution would be that both earth and Moon are shrinking. Which is as predicted by SCUM. [So you were only half-right, Dan, and the money stays in the bank. Sorry, I know it's Christmas but I don't make the rules.]

Now, as it happens, this incredible shrinking phenomenon is not particularly antagonistic to orthodox theories so it would be interesting if any orthodox source mentions this possibility. Though of course even more interesting if they don't.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
My solution would be that both earth and Moon are shrinking. Which is as predicted by SCUM.


Actually. Scum does not predict that.

What happens as a star burns?

It gets smaller.

Ahhh...but what happens to the Star's core as the star burns?

It gets larger.

And what if there is a star still burning inside the spent core?

The core still gets larger?

What was, is what is.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You could theoretically measure any shrinkage in the Moon by measuring its diameter by laser.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

And what if there is a star still burning inside the spent core?

I think readers could be forgiven for thinking it's a queer sense of 'core' that has it on the outside; and a queer sense of 'spent' when the process is continuing.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

As a matter of fact SCUM predicts that earth will get either larger or smaller depending on what measurements come in. I haven't been studying orthodox paradigm theories all this time for nothing.

Nonetheless on this occasion it is orthodoxy's apparent refusal to look at an obvious alternative that interests me right now. Get out there and find out! All those dudes sitting around all night, you'd think someone would realise it.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You could theoretically measure any shrinkage in the Moon by measuring its diameter by laser.

So it may be that the earth is the only body we couldn't measure for shrinkage. That might be a profoundly AE matter.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Jump to:  
Page 6 of 8

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group