MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
The Funny Thing About Gravity... (Astrophysics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 11, 12, 13  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Here's a good AE candidate for when it all went wrong.

According to Beardon it began its first massive wrong turn after Maxwell. Maxwell first formulated his equations in a mathematical language all but extinct today, a mathematical language called quaternion geometry. This mathematical language differs from the standard "linear algebra", "tensor calculus" and "vector analysis" in which the standard electro-magnetic theory is usually couched in textbooks and physics lectures. In short the equations one learns in physics textbooks and physics courses today as "Maxwell equations" are not Maxwell's original equations! They are edited equations.

Two familiar AE principles arise here:
1. the idea that entire generations of students are given a particular 'model' and that within a very few years no other version is even known about much less taught as a possible alternative
2. the whole thing operates on the boundary between various 'subjects' -- not just between physics and maths but apparently shifting between geometry and algebra.

This becomes hugely significant since in one version (algebra) the equations when totalled come to zero and therefore get cancelled out, but in the other version (geometry) the equations represent a spread of values (which only happen to add up to zero). It is true I cannot understand any of this personally but the wider point is that the phenomenon itself cannot be understood unless people are prepared to learn Maxwell's quarternion geometry (cf Newton having to invent differential calculus in order to demonstrate gravity).

Once it is widely agreed that you can understand everything 'in translation' nobody (and certainly nobody repsonsible for teaching students) is going to press for 'learning the original language'. Very soon there is nobody in the world (except maybe a few crazies) who are even prepared to speculate about what may have been lost in translation.


Coincidentally, many years ago I was with a small publishing firm that nearly published some Tom Beardon material. (I say nearly because it went bust, but that was from its own incompetence as a business, so no need for any conspiracy theorists to get excited on my account). But along the way I have tried to understand Tom Beardon's material, including the Maxwell quarternion geometry. It was quite disturbing at the time, because you really do hurt your head trying to understanding the equations. It's still disturbing, because to find the material online now you risk stumbling into some seriously weird Internet Twylight Zones that make the X-Files look like children's bedtime stories. (I think Mick was quotiing from one of them)

Anyway, the safest place to start is probably Tom Beardon's website: www.cheniere.org
Send private message
David Pinnegar



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
Our understanding of the history of science has been grossly distorted by a single event: The publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. The conflict that then ensued between Church and Biology (I absolutely refuse to credit evolutionists with a monopoly on the scientific brand) became the template by which the relationship between the two institutions was understood from the beginning of time.


Hi!

Greetings!

I used to be an anti-Darwinist but have come to a conclusion that fits with Darwin which is rather simple to the point of appearing to be profound.

The concept is simply that at each level, from the level of
fundamental particles
atoms
molecules
proteins
RNA
DNA
species
humans
even to ideas . . .
there is a simple universal law at work - the more useful is by definition more useful than the less useful. The less useful becomes compost for the more useful . . . . This is rather similar to Jesus' parable of the talents - and my hunch is that the teachings of Jesus - not necessarily the religion founded upon his life - all go towards the concept of being more useful human beings rather than less useful.

I'm writing a book which wants to be philosophically tested, if anyone is interested.

Best wishes

David P
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

David Pinnegar wrote:

The less useful becomes compost for the more useful . . .


Sounds good. Have you seen this forum's Reading Room for new books?

It reminds me of Rupert Sheldrake's work on Hormone Production in Plants - dying cells release tryptophan, as proteins break down, to fuel the next generation of living cells.
Send private message
David Pinnegar



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Boreades wrote:

Sounds good. Have you seen this forum's Reading Room for new books?


Hi!

Thanks! I'll try to look it out . . . and apologise here for having followed a tangent irrelevant to the gravitation thread but of course hope to provoke thought.

Many thanks

Best wishes

David P
Send private message
Roger Stone


In: conclusive
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The only part of the Earth that is flexible enough to be influenced by the Moon on a daily basis is the oceans--and they exist only on the outer edge of the Earth, to a depth of only a few thousand feet.


Um... No. The liquid core of the Earth is also flexible enough to be dragged around, have currents, slop/surge about, and possibly rotate sufficiently to be generating our magnetic field.
Send private message Send e-mail
Roger Stone


In: conclusive
View user's profile
Reply with quote

That's just it. The centrifugal force plays no part. Not as a special, discrete force. But I have no discomfort in this because I know centrifugal force is not considered a real force. It is an effect generated by other forces.

The real forces involved are momentum and gravity: Momentum keeps Earth moving forward...


We keep speaking of these things without reference to TIME, the paper on which the universe is drawn. Or rather, just assuming it's there as a constant, taking it for granted.
Send private message Send e-mail
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This may be of interest. From http://www.q-mag.org/

Scientists from the University of Gottingen in Germany have detected for the first time the existence of very strong magnetic fields immediately next to a supermassive Black Hole. Thanks to observations using the Hubble space telescope, among other instruments, they were able to demonstrate the existence of magnetic fields of 200 million Gauss very close to the central Black Hole of a quasar distant by four billion light-years
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Magnetic fields of that strength are far stronger forces than gravity. Not by a little bit, but by orders of magnitude.

The World Science Database has a very useful section on the Electric Universe and its current (sic) state of play.

http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Topics&tab1=Electric_Universe
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Some of you may recall my enthusiasm for the flat earth revival last year. This video, by the YouTuber John le Bon, was posted on YouTube yesterday and concerns the Cavendish Experiment and the establishment of the gravitational constant. I thought it was well worth watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI-hFAWYfJo

Interestingly, le Bon and some in his circles are starting to touch on some of the topics covered here - Fomenko, forged texts, etc.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Roger Stone wrote:
The only part of the Earth that is flexible enough to be influenced by the Moon on a daily basis is the oceans--and they exist only on the outer edge of the Earth, to a depth of only a few thousand feet.


Um... No. The liquid core of the Earth is also flexible enough to be dragged around, have currents, slop/surge about, and possibly rotate sufficiently to be generating our magnetic field.


Quite right. It occurs to me that this might also have a part to play in the production of Earth's oceans.

How so?

The Earth's huge electric field is a huge attractor for the stream of photons and protons from the Sun. As these enter the Earth's atmosphere, they become Hydrogen ions. Impact enough of these with Oxygen ions every day for billions of years, what do you get? Billions upon billions of water molecules.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote



I watched the video.
  • It did not explain why the Cavendish experiment could not have worked.
  • It did not explain why modern experiments (which are claimed to be "more accurate" by scientists) could not be correct.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Both fair points.
Ishmael wrote:
  • It did not explain why the Cavendish experiment could not have worked.
  • It did not explain why modern experiments (which are claimed to be "more accurate" by scientists) could not be correct.

It's not so much that it couldn't have worked - it's more that it worked so well. It seems a little too fortunate.

As for why it couldn't have worked; how can two bodies be truly isolated from every other body in the universe, or at least the bodies in the immediate vicinity?

In fact, does science even give a true definition of when something is truly discrete? If I hold an apple in one hand and an orange in the other,are they separate from each other or are they part of my body mass? Do we each have or own gravitational pull? What if I throw them in the air - are they then separate?

On a side note, I know watching videos by people involved in a flat earth scene may seem a little crazy, and is easy to dismiss, but I do urge people to do so. When you actually start looking with a critical eye at what NASA & Co are giving us for all our billions it's woefully lacking.

For example, this is footage taken by Japan's moon probe in 2008;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1KWtG66lEQ

It's clearly, almost laughably, not real footage.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

N R Scott wrote:
As for why it couldn't have worked; how can two bodies be truly isolated from every other body in the universe, or at least the bodies in the immediate vicinity?


But they don't need to be isolated from everything else. It's just that the influence of everything else upon each ball must remain relatively equal over a long period of time.

Most important question is how G is measured today. Not even discussed.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
But they don't need to be isolated from everything else. It's just that the influence of everything else upon each ball must remain relatively equal over a long period of time.

Again though, what does "each ball" mean? The ball is attached to the torsion beam, surely they're all part of the same mass in some sense? Where does the separateness begin? What about the air between the two balls? Does the fact that it's two balls make it more believable? What if it was two garden chairs? Is the gravitational pull towards the edge of the ball or the centre?

Most important question is how G is measured today. Not even discussed.

I think on earth they're measuring it pretty much the same way, only using atomic interference, etc. Again though the same problems of isolation remain.

Wiki states:

The accuracy of the measured value of G has increased only modestly since the original Cavendish experiment. G is quite difficult to measure, because gravity is much weaker than other fundamental forces, and an experimental apparatus cannot be separated from the gravitational influence of other bodies. Furthermore, gravity has no established relation to other fundamental forces, so it does not appear possible to calculate it indirectly from other constants that can be measured more accurately, as is done in some other areas of physics. Published values of G have varied rather broadly, and some recent measurements of high precision are, in fact, mutually exclusive.

..making Cavendish's accuracy all the more remarkable.

I think they also use binary stars and such like to determine G, but again they need to know the mass of the stars - and they need to use gravity to determine those masses, so it's completely circular reasoning.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

N R Scott wrote:
Again though, what does "each ball" mean? The ball is attached to the torsion beam, surely they're all part of the same mass in some sense?


Again. I don't see how that matters. So long as other masses exert a relative equal force upon both balls. It is the tortion induced on the supporting wire that is being measured and that tortion occurs in so far as there is a difference in the mass between opposing sides and that difference comes down to the difference in the mass of each ball (as I understand it) -- all else being equal.

Where does the separateness begin? What about the air between the two balls? Does the fact that it's two balls make it more believable? What if it was two garden chairs? Is the gravitational pull towards the edge of the ball or the centre?


Balls are ideal as each is of the same composition and mass distribution relative the wire. Again. The goal is not to eliminate all other factors but to render all other factors equal.

I think on earth they're measuring it pretty much the same way, only using atomic interference, etc. Again though the same problems of isolation remain.

Isolation is not a problem. It is only necessary to equalize the background influences.

Published values of G have varied rather broadly, and some recent measurements of high precision are, in fact, mutually exclusive.

Varied rather broadly. But never more than 1% I take it.

I think they also use binary stars and such like to determine G, but again they need to know the mass of the stars - and they need to use gravity to determine those masses, so it's completely circular reasoning.

I don't know from binary stars. Only saw this video. It was underwhelming.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 11, 12, 13  Next

Jump to:  
Page 12 of 13

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