Re: Slabinski and Mingst/Stowe disagree in Pushing Gravity

Paul Stowe wrote:
> On 3 May 2005 05:17:53 -0700, "TC" <tclarke@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >Paul Stowe wrote:
> >> ... The equation derived empirically for heating is,

> > empirically? No theory?

> Come'on Tom, every significant step is spelled out in our article
> (Eq. 22-26, pages 190-191). Within the assumptions specified
> there is, as far as I'm aware, NO mathematical inconsistency there.

Then why did you use the word "empirically"?
[But there must be a mistake somewhere in your paper
or in Slabinski's or else your results would agree with
Slabinski.]

Snip definitions for brevity.

> >> q' = kM/r

> > Once again the problem is that this is incompatible with
> > Slabinski or any other LeSage/Fato theory in which provides
> > heat on a per unit mass basis.

> Yes, on a 'per mass basis'.

> > Mass is M - no dependence on r.
> > Area is 4pi r^2
> > so to be compatible with Slabinski et al your expression
> > should read

> > q' = KM/r^2
> >
> > [pi etc goes into little k to big K switch]

> OK Tom, do a simple fit test. Let Jupiter be the base and
> we'll say that the net heat is proprtional to either the
> mass divided by radius (s) OR mass (m).

Don't forget that m/r can also be accounted for by
classical gravitational potential energy of collapse when
the planets formed.

> ... Now, we know that
> the net heat flux for Jupiter is ~ 6.6 Watts/m^2. Thus,
> either,

> x = 6.6(m/m')

> or

> x = 6.6(s/s')

> Where s' & m' are the mass & mass per radius of our basis,
> Jupiter.

[Paul argues that m/r is the best fit by comparing some
heat fluxes from various planets]

Thereby he disproves LeSagian gravity (which predicts m
dependence) and supports classical theory wherein m/r
is deposited in the body from its gravitational collapse
and is currently escaping from the body as relict heat.

Tom

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Slabinski and Mingst/Stowe disagree in Pushing Gravity
    ... >>> heat on a per unit mass basis. ... >> OK Tom, ... Paul Stowe ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Slabinski and Mingst/Stowe disagree in Pushing Gravity
    ... on a 'per mass basis'. ... OK Tom, ... Now the Earth is an interesting study. ... Paul Stowe ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 5
    ... Plate Tectonics' story. ... gravitational coalesce in a cataclysm of impacts and heat generation. ... The mass incandesces. ... It's used up its heat to do that - make a crust and differentiate ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Where is the mathematical beauty of relativity !!!
    ... route cannot be about little blocks of mass with perfect solutions. ... minded look at atoms we should be able to extend it to sound ... conduction and heat conduction right? ... interpretation heat is vibrating atoms. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: General Setting/Tech Musings
    ... particles for the least mass and decently low volume. ... between a heat source at a temperature T-H and a heat sink at a ... The decay energy would be given to the nuclear ... some intermediate weight to avoid too much prompt neutron radiation. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)