Re: Flaw in Stowe/LeSage Heating

From: TC (tclarke_at_ist.ucf.edu)
Date: 03/08/05 

Date: 7 Mar 2005 20:11:35 -0800

mingstb@sim-ss.com wrote:
> TC wrote:
> > Paul Stowe wrote:

Snip....as Mingst has tagged in

> > At this point I interject to ask why not think of the interaction
> > as the sum over individual small masses? That is the Earth
> > is 10^whatever particles. Each particle has a LeSagian heating
> > so the Earth would heat as the sum of all these particles
> > so total mass is all that is involved. As long as you are making
> > the weak absorption approximation, there will be little reduction
> > in heat flux at the inner particles compared to the outer
particles.

> Indeed, you cut directly to the essence of the situation!

I do my best.

> Nucleons
> (specifically, neutrons) have been experimentally determined to
> gravitate.

Eotvos type experiments have shown that most things that make
up matter gravitate. Including binding energy.

> LeSagian gravitation is not based on the macroscopic radius
> of matter. If you have 'N' nucleons, you will have the same
> gravitational force at distance 'R', outside the body. This is
simply
> Gauss' flux law.

How do you account for Eotvos experiments then? These experiments
show that the same number of nucleons can have differing gravitational
force at distance R because of variations in binding energy.
Compare sphere of gold to one of silicon.
This seems to be a discussion:
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm

> Since density goes as the cube of volume, and area goes as the square
> of volume, the radial parameter arises in the above calculation.

Density is constant for the most part.
Area goes as the square of radius.
 .......
> > Density changes? To first approximation density does not depend
> > on size.

> Horsefeathers. If mass is held constant, and volume changes, then
the
> density changes.

If you are talking about a gas, volume is a free parameter for the most
part.
But many planets are solid, and those that are not have a complicated
density/radius relation determined by the total mass, internal energy
sources, equation of state etc.

> > Energy? Is this the same as your "fluence"?

> No. Fluence is fluence. Specifically, the momentum flux.

Nonstandard usage.

> > > There is a 1/r (r^2/r^3) relationship between the mass, m and
> > > the total of i. This means, the lowest interacting state is
> > > the one with the highest density for any given given radius.
> > > Increase the radius and hold mass constant, and increase the
> > > total interaction that will occur within the region. It is
> > > simple math. The key is the realization that it is the flux
> > > not the total that is the invariant property.

> > If you make your (apparently tautological) assumptions
> > it follows.

> Definitions are not tautologies.

If you define A. You cannot say that A has been derived from A.

> > But I don't seem why area is the thing. Gravity is universal
> > so it effects small particles in such a way that the sum
> > gives the gravitational effect on a large body made from
> > the small particles. Surface area has nothing to do with
> > it.

> Precisely! GRAVITY is not affected by surface area. But energy
> deposition (for a constant mass) *IS* affected by surface area.

I would tend to think it would be affected by radius (or square root
of surface area) since the potential is affected by inverse radius.

> Because gravity is a two-body effect, and gravitational flux heating
is
> a one-body effect. (The mass will heat up even if there is nothing
> around it with which to gravitate.)

Stowe said this too. It really doesn't make much sense.

> > {snip unchanged stuff}

> > As you say, input equals output, so in the LeSage theory
> > the net momentum flux of ultramundane particles absorbed by
> > the body equals the gravitational force on a body.

> Not quite. But you are on the right track...

> > The energy flux (power) of the ultramundane particles
> > is given by the above. Since momentum is a signed quantity
> > it is the net absorded that gives rise to gravitational force,

> Close. It is the net transfer of momentum flux. Not the net
> absorption.

How is momentum transfered without absorption of ultramundane
particles?

> > so the energy flux (which is not signed) could actually
> > be much larger than (net momentum flux) times velocity/2.

> Speaking purely mathematically, without incorporating any real-world
> observations, yes. Because heating is a one-body problem. And
> graviation is always a two-body problem.

Again that one/two body statement.

> And we don't know -- a priori -- what the scattering/ absorption
> relationship is.

You know what it must do to account for attraction of gravity.

> > Put in speed of light for speed of ultramundane particles
> > and the power input to a kg mass in the Earth's
> > gravity field will be something greater a gigawatt.

> In this, you have made a fundamental error. You cannot make such a
> claim, if you actually use Le Sagian mathematics. In short, you
cannot
> get any heating values solely from gravitational calculations. You
are
> attempting to resolve two unknowns with only one equation.

So LeSagian calculations are not gravitational calculations?

Tom

Quantcast