Re: Slabinski and Mingst/Stowe disagree in Pushing Gravity

On Sun, 08 May 2005 Paul Stowe wrote:
> Go argue with Einstein... I see you don't buy his proposal
> of the equivalence principle.

To the contrary, the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass is
one of the most well-established facts of physics. Your model grossly
violates it, so your model is grossly wrong... and you don't care.
What we've established in this thread is that your model does not even
come CLOSE to matching the observed behavior of gravity. According to
your model, Kepler's third law would not even be CLOSE to being true.
And all the terrestrial experimental confirmations of the equivalence
between inertial and gravitational mass refute your model as well.
Your utter disregard of this is disgraceful.

>OK, what is the source of inertia? How come the equivalence principle
>appears to hold?

According to your model, the equivalence principle does not hold at
all. It is grossly violated. The empirical fact that inertial and
gravitational mass are strictly proportional to each other is proof
that your model is garbage. And the fact that you don't care is proof
that you are a hardcore crackpot.

> BTW, what is 'ordinary matter'?

In Lesage theory there is matter in the form of ultra-mundane
particles, which have inertia but do not experience gravity (contrary
to the equivalence principle) and are invisible to us, and there is
ordinary matter, which has both inertia and gravity, and comprises the
objects of experience. (The word ultra-mundane means, literally,
super-natural, or other-worldly.)

>> This explanation explicitly relies on the existence of inertia
>> as a primitive quality of both the ultramundane corpuscles
> And here I thought it relied on momentum as a primitive quantity.

Ah, so you admit it! Case closed.

>> There is NO rational sense in which the theory can
>> then be turned back on itself, in circular logical fashion, to
>> say that gravity is the cause of inertia.
>
> Gravity, per se isn't, the LeSagian field is...

But you just finished admitting that LeSagian theory relies on
momentum as a primitive quantity. Are you really unable to sustain
rational consistency for two sentences in a row? Or do you really not
understand the correspondence between momentum and inertia?

So now that you are now back to claiming that the LeSagian field
causes inertia, please tell us how it does this. Remember, according
to you (at least in alternate sentences), the basic elements of your
model are particles that do NOT have any inate inertia, and therefore
they do NOT have any inate momentum, and from this you are going to
explain to us how those particles cause each other (and themselves) to
exhibit the attributes of inertial bodies with momentum.

>> How does the collision of particles result in a force on those
>> particles and a transference of momentum? It does this because
>> we assume those particles have inertia.
> Momentum, the particles have momentum.

Ah, so now you admit it again! Amazing. You know, it's almost as if
you really don't understand the correspondence between inertia and
momentum.

>>> Let's be clear. I've said all along the we derive the value
>>> of µ by linking it to observation. Namely, that inferred from
>>> Planetary heating, period!
>>
>> Right, you don't take gravity into account at all. You infer a
>> value of mu based on the observed thermal state of the planets,
>> and then you marvel that your value of mu is consistent with the
>> thermal state of the planets. You do not link your calculation
>> in ANY way to the phenomena of gravitation, and even the connection
>> with the thermal states of the planets is purely tautological,
>> with no cognitive content. Your approach is a complete and utter
>> sham.
>
> Then, by your reckoning above, so is Newton's gravitational force
> equation... and, one might add, all of empirical science.

Not at all. Newton's laws, and the rest of empirical science, do what
they claim to do, i.e., they give equations that accurately match the
phenomena they claim to match. You, on the other hand, claim to match
the phenomena of gravity, but in fact your equations are grossly
inconsistent with those phenomena. And you don't care.

Why not just admit what has become totally obvious in this thread,
that your model has nothing whatsoever to do with gravitation. You are
simply positing an occult flux of other-worldly particles (which
either do or do not possess inate inertia... you can't decide) to try
to match a certain amount of heat flow into some of the planets, and
even at this your model fails, because you can't even match the four
giant planets with any accuracy. For example, if you match Neptune,
then Uranus doesn't match at all. What you are doing is dishonest and
irrational. Your approach is a complete and utter sham. And you don't
care.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Zielinskis and Puthoffs gravity theories refuted
    ... [BTW this is covered in great detail in *Gravitation & Inertia* ... equivalence principle but also the strong equivalence principle. ... non-tensor inertial force - GCT tensor real gravity force, ... gravitational field, either from the motion of test particles, as in the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Zielinskis and Puthoffs gravity theories refuted
    ... [BTW this is covered in great detail in *Gravitation & Inertia* ... equivalence principle but also the strong equivalence principle. ... non-tensor inertial force - GCT tensor real gravity force, ... gravitational field, either from the motion of test particles, as in the ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: how big?
    ... >>> already pointed out the White Stars can't ignore inertia. ... Hold the cat upside down and drop it ... >> angular momentum. ... >> its gravity generators and inertial dampers in such a manner that it ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • Re: Slabinski and Mingst/Stowe disagree in Pushing Gravity
    ... So if someone asks what causes gravity, ... > inertia is a manifestation of gravity! ... And here I thought it relied on momentum as a primitive quantity. ... > How does the collision of particles result in a force on those ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert
    ... change can possibly occur to the object's uniform motion. ... Instead Newton's "inertia", like Aristotle's ... considered as that property of mass that conserves momentum. ... it would start to gain momentum from it's former zero momentum ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
Loading