Re: Slabinski and Mingst/Stowe disagree in Pushing Gravity

On 4 May 2005 05:46:52 -0700, "TC" <tclarke@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>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]

Fit 'that' point yes, that called normalization... But that
is NOT the issue, it is how well the quation, once normalized
(the unknown constrained BY said observation) the 'predicts'
other values. I would think you should know this.

>> 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.

So, in your opinion, does popularity & political connections count
high on a requirement for the acceptance of a scientific concept?

>> 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.

OK, a normalized theoretical formulation if that terminology
pleases you better.

>>> [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.

What do you mean by classical gravity theory? For example,
both LeSage & Newton have the exact same force equation, but,
LeSage's is constrained to a certain domain of validity.

>> Nor, do I think so. You also know damned well that if what
>> you are claiming is true there would have never been an
>> issue of 'anomalous excess heat' for the gas giant planets.
>
> I just point out that potential energy has form m/r.

THat potential comes from where?

> 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.

It's a complex system, one cannot expect perfect fits from
a single source in system were there are known to be several.

>> 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.

As you know, our approaches to this problem were fundamentally
different. Constraints are bounded by assumptions. We worked
for experimentally observed values.

>> 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 ...

Why? All dovetail in nicely.

Paul Stowe

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Slabinski and Mingst/Stowe disagree in Pushing Gravity
    ... > Fit 'that' point yes, ... >> Newton had a whole lot, enormously more support, than you can ... >> for classical gravity theory. ... If you are asking where the energy comes from when a mass ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relationship of Lisp and Dylan
    ... > applications written in Dylan on the Newton, not just on Macs. ... > be corrected on this) that they could've fit a full CL in there. ... An ex-Apple employee who worked on it told me that they did the ARM code ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)