Re: Slabinski and Mingst/Stowe disagree in Pushing Gravity

Paul Stowe wrote:
> On 3 May 2005 19:02:12 -0700, "TC" <tclarke@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


> > Then why did you use the word "empirically"?
>
> Because, like Newton & his equation, it is tied directly to
> observation. It is one thing to say,

> q' = (¥2G/c^2)m/r

> and another to solve for ¥, by 'linking it' to an observed value.

You can always make one observation fit a theory by adjusting
a constant [well almost always]

> Like Newton when he said, I observe that,

> F o< Mm/r^2

> And the solves for the magnitude of the proportionality constant
> BY linking it back to measured observations...

Newton had a whole lot, enormously more support,
than you can claim.

> That's the 'empirical' part!

But the form of the equation is based on a theory.
It is not a purely empirical formula like a regression equation.
Better to term it a theoretical formula.

> > [But there must be a mistake somewhere in your paper or in
Slabinski's
> > or else your results would agree with Slabinski.]

> As I told you earlier, now that we've been made aware of this,
> it IS being worked on. My gut says, we're both right. We'll
> see.

OK.

......snip for brevity.....

> > [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.

> Sigh, why do you deliberately distort? You know damned well
> that I've said no such thing.

I know you didn't say that your results support classical
gravity theory.
You say excess heat fits an equation of the form Km/r.
_I_ pointed out that this can be seen as support for classical
gravity theory.

> No,r do I think so. You also
> know damned well that if what you are claiming is true there
> would have never been and issue of 'anomalous excess heat'
> for the gas giant planets.

I just point out that potential energy has form m/r.
I'm really not that familiar with all the possible explanations
people have posited. But any one having an m/r dependence would
fit the same data.
By the way the fit is not all that good.

> Further, you should also know that that very same ¥ term is
> utilized to decompose G into its constitute parts of ¿ & µ.

What does this have to do with the alternative explanation
provided by classical gravity theory? The decomposition is
only part of your theory.
Also, Slabinski does a decomposition and derives an upper
bound from it.

> These in turn, are used in the classic derivation of the drag
> equation, which, just amazingly, matches the precise magnitude
> of that observed in Pioneer & Ulysses spacecraft.

> Two from one, an amazing series of coincidences, eh?

Now you have to tackle the binary pulsar, deflection of
light by the sun, gravitational redshift ...

Tom

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: speed of gravity
    ... | Hi Special I have a gravity theory that agrees with Einstien,and ... | distances) Newton was more right. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: negative energy
    ... > Please read my essay A New Gravity Theory on my website ... Dead on arrival! ... "Newton had no idea why a falling body accelerates". ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: speed of gravity
    ... Hi Special I have a gravity theory that agrees with Einstien,and ... distances) Newton was more right. ... Feynman knew Newton was right and used ...
    (sci.physics)