Re: Slabinski and Mingst/Stowe disagree in Pushing Gravity

"Strael Nosduj" <aphidias@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:427d77e2.620305234@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Sat, 7 May 2005 "greywolf42" wrote:
> >> On Sun, 1 May 2005 "greywolf42" wrote:

> >> > ... LeSage's theory had no "opaque cross-section" at all.
> >>
> >> You're mistaken. In Lesage's theory ordinary matter consisted of a
> >> framework of tiny bars,and those bars were opaque to the ultramundane
> >> corpuscles.
> >
> >Yes, LeSage did postulate that any corpuscle that hit a "bar" would stop
> > and transfer all of it's momentum to the macroscopic body...

{Strange Nostril makes the classic snip of a losing position, from the
middle of a sentence. Replacing the rest of the paragraph:}

> >(the bars were within
> >the macroscopic body). Fatio proposed that particles would bounce off
> >the surface of opaque macroscopic bodies (which is why Fatio can't
> >reproduce Newton's law, while LeSage can). It is the macroscopic
> >*transparency* (of LeSage) that allows one to recover Newton's
> >gravitational equation. It's not the opaque part of either theory.

> Right. So your statement of May 1 ("Lesage's theory had no opaque
> cross-section at all") was flatly wrong.

Horsefeathers.

{more of the snip, that the Troll won't address}
==================
> >> A theory with no opaque cross-section at all would have no
> >> interaction at all with the ultra-mundane corpuscles.
> >
> >The fact that both LeSage and Fatio postulated an "opaque" interaction at
> >some level does not mean that no theory without fundamental opacity is
> >possible. All-or-nothing is known as a false dichotomy, or fallacy of
> >the excluded middle. It's also really stupid, here. Because:
> >1) It is the transparency of matter that gives rise to Newton's equation,
> >and
> >2) All of our current theories state that every "fundamental particle" is
> >mostly empty space.

{The Nostril was unwilling to respond, of course.}

> >> >I understand that you are unwilling to understand that Fatio's theory
> >> >is not LeSage's theory, is not Slabinski's theory, is not Darwin's
> >> >theory, is not 'our' theory, etc.
> >>
> >> I'm not familiar with "Slabinski" or his "theory",
> >
> >I see you simply ignored the argument.
> >
> >> but the theories of
> >> Fatio and Lesage were the same except for insignificant details, and
> >> this is the theory analyzed by Darwin (among others).
> >
> >"Insignificant details?" LOL! Fatio could not reproduce the
> >mass-dependence of Newton's equation, while LeSage could. That's a
> >"significant" difference (and it's why theories are called "LeSagian",
> >and not Fatioan). *Any* theory that contains a "different" assumption
> >than Fatio or LeSage will be "significantly" different for some
> >measurements. Finding those differences via experiment or observation
> >is one of the main points of the scientific method.
=================

> >Darwin's theory was different from both Fatio's and LeSage's. Darwin
> >postulated collisions between perfectly spherical aether particles of one
> >radius, and perfectly spherical "matter" particles of a second radius.
> >(Darwin had no variation of radii for different matter elements.)
>
> Well, Darwin recognized that in order for inertial mass and
> gravitational mass to be equal, and for Newton's third law to be true,
> the microscopic particles must be identical and totally without
> reflection.

Really, (greywolf said sweetly), then why doesn't Darwin's theory obtain
this? Darwin's theory doesn't obtain mass-dependence. It's
cross-sectionally dependent.

I gave the Troll enough rope, in the form of Darwin's actual equation,
below. But equations are too tough for the Nostril, so he cut them all out.

> If you choose to propose a theory that violates either the
> equivalence principle or the law of action and re-action, then you are
> free to do otherwise. But there are strong empirical limits on how far
> either of those can be violated.

Another classic straw man. Neither of those need to be violated at all in
any LeSagian theory.

> >> Everyone who has ever considered such a theory has recognized that
> >> ordinary matter must be nearly transparent to the bombarding
> >> particles, for the obvious reasons that we observe no appreciable
> >> shielding or saturation, and that gravity is proportional to mass
> >> rather than volume.

(sic, cross-sectional area, not volume.)

{An 'invisible' snip, of another losing argument. This time changing the
context and meaning of the prior post:}
=====================
> >Fatio didn't recognize it.

Thus, the Troll's argument is demolished. Hence, he simply cuts it out and
ignores it.

> >> for the obvious
> >> reasons that we observe no appreciable shielding or saturation, and
> >> that gravity is proportional to mass rather than volume.
=====================

> >Well, it's hardly "obvious". But, yes, you do need macroscopic
> >transparency to obtain Newton's empirical equation. So why your
> >silly claim that you need opacity for LeSagian theories to work?
>
> Yes it is obvious (to anyone with intelligence above that of the
> average chimpanzee).

LOL! Yet you haven't explained why *you* insist on opacity as the defining
aspect of LeSagian theories.

> Remember, Lesage thought of it when he was a
> little boy - and he wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

What a pathetic lie.

> It's also
> obvious that Lesagian theory requires opacity (i.e., absorption) of
> the flux in order to work.

Sorry, it's not "obvious" at all. It is precisely when one tries to add
"opacity" that one loses mass dependence of Newton's formula.

Claims about 'obvious' requirements and self-evidence are the hallmarks of a
losing argument.

> Now, whether there can also be some
> reflection is not quite obvious, and the answer (as explained in
> quantitative detail in the referenced web page)

Total bull****. There are merely your repeated claims that this is so on
that piece of constantly-changing trash.

> is that there can be
> some reflection, and it can contribute to the net force exerted, but
> only at the expense of some violation of Newton's third law. Even
> taking into account the maximum amount of reflection allowed by
> possible deviations from Newton's third law within observational
> limits, we still arrive at a high enough rate of energy transfer to
> vaporize matter in a fraction of a second.

You really love to beat a dead horse -- or rather strawman, don't you?

{another "creative", and content-changing snip by the Troll}
==================
> >> Isaac Newton
> >> discussed Fatio's theory with him at length, and to imagine that
> >> Newton would have failed to notice (or to mention) these self-evident
> >> facts is simply absurd.
> >
> >These "facts" are hardly self-evident. But there is no need to "imagine"
> >anything. Because if you have evidence that Newton discussed the theory
> >with Fatio "at length," then you know what they discussed. And Fatio
> >attempted various "work-arounds" to try to get mass-dependence. He never
> >made it, because he insisted on fundamental opacity. Just like you.

The shadow nostril tries to bury the evidence, again.

> >> Darwin's substitution of spherical particles
> >> for cylindrical bars
> >
> >LeSage's bars were not specified. There is no requirement for them to be
> >cylindrical. The "bars" were simply a contemporary (1700's) description
> >of fractional interaction rate.
> >
> >> does nothing to alter the essential aspects of
> >> the theory, it merely enhances the intelligibility of it.
> >
> >It may be more intelligible to a "modern" reader, who thinks about
> >quantized matter particles (which were 150 years in the future of
> >LeSage). But it also alters some of the essential aspects of the
> >theory. For example,
==================

> >LeSage assumed that corpuscles have their energy perfectly absorbed.
> >Whereas Darwin did not make that assumption. Therefore, Darwin's
> >theory had different dependencies than LeSage. And Slabinski made
> >different assumptions yet. So his equations have different
> >dependencies than either LeSage or Darwin.
>
> No, Darwin's model was parameterized to cover the full range from
> total absorption to total reflection. So he was more complete than
> Lesage. Lesage's model is contained with the class of models that
> Darwin analyzed.

Total bull**** again. Also unsupported. Darwin postulated perfect
macroscopic spheres. And he didn't model reflection. See Roseveare. I've
already given you some of his results below. Oh, that's right, you
'invisibly' snipped them.

{more invisible snipping of the losing argument}
==============
> >> >> ... it makes no sense to claim that the heat absorption does not
> >> >> depend on G.
> >> >
> >> >LOL! Heating is a one-body problem. It is proportional to
> >> >Phi_0 (mu_s)^1. Each body in the interaction brings a factor of
> >> >mu_s into the calculation.
> >
> >I see you completely ignored the argument.
> >
> >Every "LeSagian" theory has some things in common (or they wouldn't be
> >LeSagian). The essence of a LeSagian theory is that gravity is caused by
> >the interaction of a surrounding region of moving corpuscles -- that
> >interact with (mostly) transparent macroscopic matter. The microscopic
> >details can vary. However, that macroscopic partial transparency will
> >always give rise to two things:
> >
> >1) A gravitational constant that is a product of the particle (momentum)
> >flux and the interaction factor to the second power (because gravitation
> >requires both bodies to interact with the corpuscles.)
> >
> >2) Each body will heat proportional to the particle (momentum) flux and
> >the interaction factor to the first power (because only one body is
> >interacting.)
> >
> >For a quick example, here are a listing of the values for "G" in the
> >different particulate theories contained in "Pushing Gravity" (where
> > F = -G mM/r^2):
> >
> >Page 31) James Evans' claim for LeSage (though he admits that LeSage
> > never produced this specific equations):
> > G = (n m)/4pi v^2 f^2
> >where n is number/volume, m is mass of corpuscle, v is speed of
> >corpuscle, and f is a "universal constant" with with dimensions of
area/mass.
> >
> >Page 88) Radzievskii:
> > G = h^2 rho c^2 / 4pi
> >where rho is the mass density of the corpuscles (m n), c is the average
> >speed of the corpuscles (v), and h is the 'coefficient of gravitational
> >absorption'.
> >
> >Page 126) Slabinski:
> > G = N m v^2 K_a [K_a + K_s (1-<cos@>)]
> >where N is the number density of the corpuscles, m is the mass of each
> >corpuscle, v is the speed of each corpuscle, K_a is the absorption
> >constant, K_s is the scattering constant, and @ is the average
> > scattering angle of the corpuscles.
> >
> >Page 145) Edwards:
> > G = Phi_0 k^2 / 4pi
> >where k is the 'scattering cross-section of matter' to the corpuscles in
> >units of cm^2/gm, and Phi_0 is the momentum flux.
> >
> >Page 188) Mingst & Stowe:
> > G = Phi_0 mu^2
> >where Phi_0 is the corpuscle momentum flux and mu is the mass
> > attentuation coefficient for corpuscles in matter (cm^2/gm).
> >
> >And finally, (from Roseveare, p111), Darwin's version:
> > G = pi/8 rho v^2 a^2 b^2 {long and complex function of elasticities}
> >where rho is the density of the medium, v velocity of the corpuscles, a
> > and b radii of the matter spheres. It is considered "LeSagian" only if
> > the "matter spheres" are elementary particles, and they are all the same
size --
> >all macroscopic bodies being built up of these little billiard balls.
> >
> >
> >Note that all of these versions have a flux and the square of the
> >interaction term ... whether matter is modelled as billiard balls or soap
> >bubbles.

No matter how often you snip the evidence, it does not go away.

> >> According to your claims, your value of mu_s must be zero, because
> >> matter has zero opaque cross-sectional area, so it doesn't interact
> >> with the ultramundane corpuscles at all (unless you are postulating
> >> some sort of field interaction, which would make the whole thing
> >> rather pointless, since the objective of Lesage was to explain gravity
> >> without fields).
> >
> >Five separate bold-faced lies in one sentence. IIRC, that ties the
> > record with Bilge.
==============

> >1) I never made any claim that mu_s is zero.
>
> Not true. Look at the first paragraph of this post, where you said
> (incorrectly) that Lesage's theory had no opaque cross-sectional area.

I correctly stated that LeSage's theory had no opaque cross-sectional area.

> This area per unit mass is mu,

No, this is not area per unit mass -- though it has the same units. This is
the mass interaction coefficient. Very well-known in radiation physics. It
does not mean opaque mass.

> so you claimed mu was zero,

Despite your psychological problems, I never claimed that mu was zero.

> and I corrected you, and accepted the correction. You're welcome.

I don't care if you accept your own "correction." Your delusions are not my
concern.

> >2a) In *my* model, corpuscles don't interact by bouncing off of billiard
> >balls.
>
> You don't have a "model", you have a pile of gibberish. (See the reply
> to Paul Stowe.)

I see you have nothing to offer but ad hominem rants and kindergarten rants.

> >2b) In Darwin/Slabinski models, matter does not have zero cross-section.
>
> Nor in Lesage's model, nor in any other Lesagian model. We've already
> established that your previous claim to the contrary was simply wrong.

I never claimed otherwise.

> >3) In *my* model corpuscles *do* interact with matter -- in the same
> > manner that a BB interacts with a soap bubble.
>
> See 2a.

2a says nothing substantive.

> Also, with no absorption, there is no force of gravity.

A completely false statement. As always, unsupported by anything.

> But of
> course that doesn't matter to you or Paul, because your "model"
> doesn't have anything to do with the observed phenomena of gravity.

Total psycho-rant.

> >4) There are no "field" interactions in my theory.
>
> False. What force causes the soab bubbles to maintain their shape,

What shape is that? LeSagian gravity doesn't need spheres. That's Darwin,
you, and Fatio.

> and
> what force holds thems together in the form of macroscopic bodies?

Whatever force does it, of course. Gravity is not dependent on the other
three forces. That's why it is a "fourth" force. However, most
astronomical bodies *are* held together by gravity. And it is only in
astronomy that gravity is significantly observable.

So, how are your 'billiard balls' held together, hmmmm? Fields are merely
convenient mathematical maps. They don't *do* anything.

> (Remember, the soap bubbles are separated from each other by huge
> distances, relative to their diameters.)

So what? Each soap bubble gravitates. Gravity is one force that connects
them.

{Finishing with the required 'invisible' snip}
========================
> > 5) LeSage's objective was to develop a physical cause-and-effect theory
> > for Newton's empirical formula. The first "field theory" was 100 years
in
> > the future of LeSage (i.e. Maxwell).
=========================

Thus, another pathetic lie is disproved.


You have posted nothing but ignorance, deception, and outright lies.

Bye in this thread.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Curved space
    ... not caused by gravity in the same sense of scale from Newtonian models. ... force by knowing the mass of the star and the mass of the photon and the ... Dark Matter came about from the discovery that stars at the edges of spiral ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How do we know antimatter has POSITIVE mass?
    ... | QFT both suggest that like matter, antimatter has positive energy. ... acceleration due to a gravity of a negative ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: "The Matter of "Dark Matter"
    ... Matter" and to determine its nature. ... 10 to 20 times the energy represented by the mass of conventional ... The inertial mass of photons meet this test and if the ... gravity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Curved space
    ... it's effects on the matter we can see. ... (I still find mass attracting mass ... Still following the "gravity" field, ... A yard stick in dense space would be shorter than ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: About Gravity, Inertia and Mass
    ... applicable when describing matter. ... Relativity can only refer to relative time or length because it is the ... CMBR is a mix of the particles that make up material space. ... Gravity is caused by this space flow. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading