Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity

From: Vern (vern_at_bealenet.com)
Date: 08/12/04 

Date: 12 Aug 2004 05:43:46 -0700

"Tom Van Flandern" <tomvf@starpower.net> wrote in message news:<411ab962$0$5896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
> This replies to Gerald Lasser, Vern, Bilge, Mike, and
> Greysky.

(snipped responses to others)
 
> and "Vern" <vthodge@bealenet.com> writes:
>
> >> [tvf]: One of us completely misunderstood the other. I thought we
> were talking about a substitute for gravity, an alternate explanation
> for orbital motion. McCarthy is acknowledging ordinary gravity, and
> looking for an explanation for angular momentum being so non-random.
>
> > [Vern]: If I'm not mistaken, your view is that Newtonian gravity as
> modified by GR is correct except that the forces must propagate FTL.
>
> Not "except". GR is correct, period; *and* the forces in it
> already do propagate FTL (i.e., there is zero force propagation delay in
> GR, just as in Newtonian gravity).
>
> > [Vern]: Since neither Newton's equations nor GR offer any model or
> explanation of what causes gravity and an Aether vortex model does.
>
> The new book "Pushing Gravity" offers the most complete
> explanation for gravity I've ever seen. OTOH, your aether vortex model
> offers no explanation whatever for the force of gravity, but at most
> might answer questions about the origin of the excess of prograde
> angular momentum in the solar system, as McCarthy described in the
> message you quoted. But that model requires that normal gravity already
> be operating first.

A sink-vortex produces a radial centripetal force equivalent with
Newton's gravitational force with the rate of consumption of the
medium at the core of the vortex being equal to Newton's gravitational
mass. Newton's theory of gravitation leaves the original cause of the
tangential component of an orbit unknowable. Kepler's laws hold that
the tangential velocity of an orbiting body in a gravitational system
is inversely proportional to the square-root of the radius of the
orbit. That same result can be derived from the kinematics of a
sink-vortex.

> > [Vern]: I posited that an Aether vortex model of gravity solves both
> concerns; FTL forces are not needed and a cause is provided (the carrier
> medium).
>
> You have not addressed the issue of how source mass and
> target body are linked in the aether vortex model, much less how the
> interpretation of the six experiments showing that gravity operates FTL
> could change in that model. (All models have force applied locally, but
> propagation of new momentum from the source is a different matter.) And
> the Le Sage model of gravity in "Pushing Gravity" avoids the five fatal
> problems inherent in trying to connect gravity with aether, where
> "aether" has its original meaning of the light-carrying medium:
>
> (1) Gravity behaves as if its constituents are particles, not waves, and
> has no known uniquely wave properties. In contrast, light has all wave
> properties, but no essential particle property.

All mediums are particulate-based. An aether sink-vortex model for
gravity doesn't preclude light being waves in the aether.
 
> (2) From the kinetic theory of gases, the mean speed of the constituents
> in an aether that serves as the medium for light must be c * sqrt(5)/3.
> But the mean speed of gravitons must be no less than 2x10^10 c.

The average velocity of the constituents of a medium for light is
obviously the speed of light. As described above, the radial and
tangential forces in gravitational systems can be derived from such a
medium assuming a sink-vortex.

> (3) Gravitons interact with one another through collisions (the
> explanation for "dark matter"); "photons" do not.

There are no photons in an ather model.
 
> (4) Gravitons can penetrate matter easily, photons cannot.

Ditto. There is no reason to assume the constituents of an aether
don't penetrate matter easily.

> (5) There are too few photons in the visible universe to produce a force
> as strong as gravity.

Again, there are no photons in an aether model.

> > [Vern]: You stated reasons why you believe an Aether vortex model is
> flawed (highly inclined and retrograde orbits and the orbits or
> artificial satellites). Dennis explained why an Aether vortex model
> would yield the same observations as the Newtonian or Relativistic model
> (if you want to call it that), and mentioned some observations that
> offer evidence of an Aether vortex model (the inclination of Uranus and
> its moons, etc.).
>
> We are not getting the same meaning from what Dennis
> McCarthy wrote (in your quote). He was explaining angular momentum, not
> gravity. What he said works; your interpretation of it does not, as far
> as I can see.

He was assuming that you understood that a sink-vortex model yields a
radial force equal to Newton's theory of gravitation.

(snipped remainder)

Vern

Quantcast