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  
Komorikid


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

Dan wrote:
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.

Both balls are the same weight and shape (you can even use the same ball for the experiment). They are propelled with the same force on the same trajectory in the same atmosphere with the same air resistance. The gyroscopic effect of spin creates a field in which the spinning object effectively defies gravity. This is the same gyroscopic effect that causes a bullet fired from rifled barrel to travel further and straighter than the same bullet fired with the same muzzle velocity from a smooth bored barrel.

DePalma's experiments may seem trifling to you but this is not the case with NASA. Rocket ballistics is a very precise discipline, it has to be when billions are riding on it, even in the early days of the Explorer missions. The solid fuelled rocket boosters developed by JPL however were little more than alchemy at that early stage of rocket propulsion. To compensate for their inefficient individual burn rates the 11 solid fuel boosters were housed in cylindrical 'Tub' (imagine the boosters as bullets in an 11 chambered revolver). The solid fuel rockets were supplements to the liquid fuel lower section of the Explorer rocket.
To compensate for the uneven burn the tub was rotated at speed to even out the thrust after the liquid fuel stage was jettisoned. This unforseen consequence produced something quite stunning that was not predicted by standard Newtonian physics.

The orbit had been expected to have a perigee (lowest height above the Earth) of about 220 miles and an apogee (greatest height) of about 1000 miles. The perigee and apogee heights were actually 223 miles and, more significantly, 1592 miles, respectively, with an orbital period of 114.7 minutes rather than the 105 minutes that had been originally anticipated.

The effect of the spinning tub had given the Explorer a 600 mile higher orbital perigee. Thus DePalma had reproduced something that NASA had know and kept secret for 50 years.
Send private message
Komorikid


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

Ish wrote:
And what if there is a star still burning inside the spent core?
The core still gets larger?
What was, is what is.

Yes I too have mentioned this.

What's at the core of the Earth is what's at the core of every star.
And it's not solid iron floating a nickel-iron liquid.
Send private message
Komorikid


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

Dan wrote:
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
.

Classic Newtonian laws imply gravity acts almost instantaneously. There is no concept of time in Newtonian physics; it was erroneously introduced by Einstein which most people conveniently forget.

Faraday wrote:'The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity--no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish.'

All spinning objects exhibit a gyroscopic effect including the Earth which is nothing more than a Faraday Disc Motor spinning in an external electric field. (The disc is merely replaced with a sphere)

Poincaré wrote in 1914, 'What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin.'

It is one of the paradoxes of physics that it purports to know more about the 'effect' than the cause of both mass and gravity. No one seems to know what causes either. Newton had no idea what gravity was, his laws only relate to what gravity does. 'I frame no hypothesis' was his conclusion. Mass is just as mysterious. It was originally falsely assumed to be 'the quantity of matter' but this erroneous assumption is still present today where even textbooks confuse matter and mass. There is no definition of what gives matter mass.

Because of this lack of understanding we have ridiculous mass equations that bear no resemblance to reality; comets which are supposed to have the mass of fluffy snowballs are in fact exactly the same composition as asteroids and if we had a bath big enough Saturn would float in it.

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


There are no continuously perturbed orbits. Newtonian celestial mechanics forbid it. And, no, Mercury is not an example. The 1919 Eclipse experiment by Eddington which supposedly confirmed Einstein's proposition of light being bent by the gravity of the sun (to explain Mercury's orbit) has been comprehensively invalidated. Firstly by contemporaries in the 20's who proved the error due to the atmospheric conditions and the limitations of the technology produced errors larger than the reported result. 85% of the recorded results were discarded because they did not fit the assumed theory. And in more recent times data from several solar space probes have confirmed that the Sun is surrounded by dense coronal plasma that extends several million kilometres. What Eddington assumed as gravitational lensing was nothing more than standard optical refraction as starlight passed through a denser medium.

For an excellent description of the nature of Gravity this article is worth reading.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
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.

Seems to me there are theoretical methods for that too. For example, any shrinkage of the Earth will produce a corresponding degree of acceleration in the Earth's rotation.

Same thing for the Moon -- unless the massive influence of the Earth is sufficent to keep the Moon's quadrupole locked in position.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

DePalma's experiments may seem trifling to you

My first concern was with the presentation of the data. This is not the way to get knickers untwisted. As here:

Classic Newtonian laws imply gravity acts almost instantaneously. There is no concept of time in Newtonian physics; it was erroneously introduced by Einstein which most people conveniently forget.

I presume you mean there is no concept of the propagation of the gravitational field in Newton's model. But then the Law doesn't imply anything about how quickly gravity (re)acts. And having said nothing about time, it certainly doesn't say "almost instantaneously".

comets which are supposed to have the mass of fluffy snowballs are in fact exactly the same composition as asteroids and if we had a bath big enough Saturn would float in it.

They do like to say "dirty snowballs", but "fluffy"? You're confusing (in your choice of words) mass and density here.

limitations of the technology produced errors larger than the reported result. 85% of the recorded results were discarded... What Eddington assumed as gravitational lensing was nothing more than standard optical refraction as starlight passed through a denser medium.

How can he have observed standard optical refraction if the results were experimentally worthless?

There are no continuously perturbed orbits. Newtonian celestial mechanics forbid it.

I don't follow. Newtonian celestial mechanics allows for all orbits to be perturbed.

You said the orbit would be perturbed if Earth reacted to Sun's location 8 minutes ago, but you didn't show how this would be an unstable situation.

There is no definition of what gives matter mass.

Nor of what gives matter electric charge.
Send private message
Komorikid


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

Dan wrote:
I presume you mean there is no concept of the propagation of the gravitational field in Newton's model. But then the Law doesn't imply anything about how quickly gravity (re)acts. And having said nothing about time, it certainly doesn't say "almost instantaneously".

Of course it does. It a priori assumes an instantaneous link between centre of mass and centre of mass at any distance. It does not provide a correction factor for a gravitational field operating at the speed of light. The speed of light was unknown to Newton. Gravitational fields must propagate almost instantly for Newtonian mechanics to hold true otherwise there is no CoM/CoM connection, ergo an increasingly unstable orbit, which must degenerate over time as there is never any direct CoM/CoM connection between any orbiting bodies.

They do like to say "dirty snowballs", but "fluffy"? You're confusing (in your choice of words) mass and density here.

They have variously been described a fluffy/puffy snowball, dirty snowballs, snowy dirt balls etc. It is not I who is confused with what comets are but orthodox astronomy. According to the orthodox explanation comets are sublimating ice. Yet all the evidence from the most recent scientific encounters (Stardust and Wild 2) shows comets are visually and chemically identical to asteroids. They are not ice and they do not sublimate ice into water vapour.

Their coronas shine brightly beyond the orbit of Jupiter (too far out for the Sun's radiation to have any effect). When a huge copper projectile was fired into Wild 2 there was a pre-impact electric flash (which momentarily overwhelmed the instrument package on the probe) and a secondary flash on impact. Both emitted X-rays. The impact debris was not the clumps of dirty ice that was expected but fine ionised dust (the same sort of dust you get from industrial plasma arc machining.) The makeup of the dust particles was chemically identical to that of asteroids. Ice CANNOT produce X-ray nor can copper impacting a solid object.

How can he have observed standard optical refraction if the results were experimentally worthless?

The result that was supposed to prove matter curves space was worthless. What Eddington assumed was light being curved by the gravity of the Sun was just good old bog standard light refraction.

You said the orbit would be perturbed if Earth reacted to Sun's location 8 minutes ago, but you didn't show how this would be an unstable situation.

Newtonian mechanics can only provide stable orbits for TWO orbiting bodies and ONLY if there is an instantaneous connection between the Centres of Mass of both bodies.

Nor of what gives matter electric charge.

It's called an Electric Field Dan.
If it has a charge it must be electric.
All subatomic particles (protons, electrons, neutrons, neutrinos) are not point like. They are individual cellular electric fields containing an electric charge -- positive, negative or neutral. All subatomic particles are resonant systems of orbiting smaller electric charges of opposite polarity that sum to the charge on that particle.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It a priori assumes an instantaneous link between centre of mass and centre of mass at any distance.

Yes: no concept of a field that propagates.

Gravitational fields must propagate almost instantly

Who introduced the idea that the gravitational field must propagate? Is it a problem for anyone but Einstein? (Does General Relativity give or assume a speed of propagation of the geometry of space-time?)

..otherwise there is no CoM/CoM connection, ergo an increasingly unstable orbit, which must degenerate over time as there is never any direct CoM/CoM connection between any orbiting bodies.

I don't know where you're going with this. If gravity is propagated at a finite speed, no matter how fast, this situation (such as it is -- you'd need to show more carefully that it can't be stable) should apply and orbital systems should fall apart eventually. (Perhaps the size of the observable universe would provide an estimate of the speed of gravity.) Perhaps you want to say the universe should have fallen apart by now, or no orbits should ever have arisen, and therefore the structure of the universe can not be explained by gravity. But if the alternative is electricity, then you are worse off, since EM is known to propagate as slowly as light.

According to the orthodox explanation comets are sublimating ice. Yet all the evidence from the most recent scientific encounters (Stardust and Wild 2) shows comets are visually and chemically identical to asteroids.

Yes, Wiki acknowledges a controversy... but since they get the Oort Cloud all wrong, I'm not reassured.

What Eddington assumed was light being curved by the gravity of the Sun was just good old bog standard light refraction.

If the errors were greater than the result, then the observed effect was good old fashioned bugger all. Not even refraction. (Even if the results had been clear and precise, there'd still be an argument about the contributions from gravitational lensing and optical diffraction that the experiment could not settle.)

Newtonian mechanics can only provide stable orbits for TWO orbiting bodies

(You mean "Newtonian celestial mechanics" or "gravitation", rather than "Newtonian mechanics", right?) There are analytic solutions only for 2 bodies. For 3 or more bodies, it has to be done iteratively, but that is done in accordance with the Newtonian model. Stability is another matter.

All subatomic particles are resonant systems of orbiting smaller electric charges of opposite polarity that sum to the charge on that particle.

And is there an explanation for electric charge or electric field?

---

By the way, how does this model of orbiting charges stand up better than Bohr's model of the atom?

And what are the smaller charges made of? Are you reviving S-Matrix Theory?
Send private message
Komorikid


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

Dan wrote:
By the way, how does this model of orbiting charges stand up better than Bohr's model of the atom?

Better than Bohr's.

Bohr's doesn't stand up. His Orbital Planetary model has been superseded by the Max Born Electron Cloud model which itself is now disputed by the Schrodinger's Balloon model. The Balloon model describes the electrons travel around the nucleus in a teardrop figure-eight shape.

The problem is that the Planetary model is needed to explain ionisation and electric current and the Balloon model to explain how two or more atoms combine to form a molecule. Neither model can explain all the properties required for all the experiments carried out.
Send private message
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Both balls are the same weight and shape (you can even use the same ball for the experiment). They are propelled with the same force on the same trajectory in the same atmosphere with the same air resistance. The gyroscopic effect of spin creates a field in which the spinning object effectively defies gravity.

But surely this experiment only shows that the aerodynamics of a propelled ball changes depending on spin - as any number of sportsmen could confirm.
Send private message
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Dan said:
You said the orbit would be perturbed if Earth reacted to Sun's location 8 minutes ago, but you didn't show how this would be an unstable situation.

To quote astronomer Tom Van Flandern:

"The most amazing thing I was taught as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale in the 1960s was that all gravitational interactions between bodies in all dynamical systems had to be taken as instantaneous. "

"... anyone with a computer and orbit computation or numerical integration software can verify the consequences of introducing a delay into gravitational interactions. The effect on computed orbits is usually disastrous because conservation of angular momentum is destroyed."

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

By the way, how does this model of orbiting charges stand up better than Bohr's model of the atom?

Better than Bohr's.

It seems I need to ask again.

Bohr did an excellent job of combining the (then new) findings on quantisation with wave mechanics in his model of "phase locked" electrons that could only take up certain orbits in finite steps. The numbers panned out nicely, but when everyone realised that electrons literally orbiting protons would emit EM waves like billy-o, loosing their energy and making it impossible to sustain the structure of an atom, the whole model was thrown out.

So again, if you're saying charged particles are made up of resonant, orbiting charges, why don't they suffer exactly the same fate as Bohr atoms, radiate away their energy and collapse into... I dunno what, but not resonant, orbiting charges?


The Balloon model describes the electrons travel around the nucleus in a teardrop figure-eight shape.

No it doesn't. Solutions of the Schrodinger equation suggest various balloon shapes for electrons in various shells, but point charges zooming around inside or on the surface of these balloons would radiate away their energy just the same: moving charges create EM waves. If this conundrum can't be solved, then we can't think of electrons within atoms as being point-like and bimbling around at all. Hence the suggestion these balloons represent the probability of finding an electron at a given point: free of the suggestion that electrons actually have to travel from point to point.

'Course, all this means they don't give a damn about any subatomic Coulomb force... except when it's needed for a Coulomb barrier or a bit of mutual repulsion between electrons in the same shell to make sense of the ionisation energies...

Atoms are intensely geometric... and not at all geometric... It's all very woolly.

But you can't sharpen things up with your resonant charges unless you can show why they would not lose their energy by radiating EM waves.
Send private message
Komorikid


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

Here is another explanation of what atoms could be. Not as off the wall as it might sound.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E-rdE

Why can't I embed Youtube video into this post like I can on Quest site?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
Here is another explanation of what atoms could be.

Absolutely fascinating!
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
Here is another explanation of what atoms could be.

Rather unsatisfying (though I haven't seen the whole series).

I see we've seen some of it already as a KomoriQuote.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

DPCrisp wrote:
KomoriQuote


?
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 7 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