Re: Slabinski and Mingst/Stowe disagree in Pushing Gravity

TC wrote:
> v...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > TC wrote:
>
> > > Under the assumptions it makes LeSage's theory does produce
> > > inverse square law, but it also leads to heating rates that
> > > are not observed.
>
> > What's the premise; isotropic ultramundane particles bouncing off
of
> > each other at C and shadowing causing gravity?
>
> Not off each other, but being absorbed my mundane particles.
> And also traveling >> c.

OK, I read the mathpages treatment of it. I guess that's the best
internet source. I see that was the basis for alot of "Nostril's"
arguments.

> > > > A sink-vortex model comes closer,
> > > > however, I am struggling with circulation issues in that model
> > since
> > > > the inflow shouldn't be all that's happening.
>
> > > There is far too much hand waving in that sort of model and
> > > far too little quantitative prediction.
>
> > This thread only concerns gravity and I believe you know it's well
> > established that gravity can be modeled as a sink in a medium.
>
> I know that Rado's theory does not provide precise quantitative
> results. As I said there is far too much hand waving in Rado's
> theory.

I guess your definition of "hand waving" is different from mine. I am
asserting that a sink in a medium can be a model for gravity. I prefer
it over a LeSage model and over GR. The Aethro-Kinematic model
outlined in Rado's book by the same name is indeed a sink in a medium
model. You are not questioning that the LeSage model yields an inverse
square modeling, nor does the author of mathpages question it. The
mathpages article also mentions that fluid sink models of gravity have
been proposed and they operate on a different principal than LeSagian
gravity. Where do you want to start the scrutiny of what you call
handwaving? Do you really dispute that fluid sink models yield the
inverse square law?

> > <snip>
>
> > > > Plus, GR does not meet the common sense test.
>
> > > There is no common sense test for things that are outside
> > > the realm of direct human experience.
>
> > Gravitational forces and the kinematic and fluid dynamic properties
> of
> > a medium are within the realm of human experience, only the
> convoluted
> > assumptions of GR are not.
>
> When was the last time you reached up and touched the moon?
> Or bent over and picked up an atom?
>
> Tom

Warped spacetime as a cause of gravity is outside of the realm of
direct human experience. I would maintain that a gravitational force
caused by a fluid sink is very much within the realm of direct human
experience. We experience it in the water with whirlpools and in the
wind with cyclones. Our common sense tells us that it would be a
logical cause of gravity.

Vern

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Slabinski and Mingst/Stowe disagree in Pushing Gravity
    ... > asserting that a sink in a medium can be a model for gravity. ... > it over a LeSage model and over GR. ... Do you really dispute that fluid sink models yield the ... > caused by a fluid sink is very much within the realm of direct human ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The inverse square law of gravity
    ... > inverse square law was really the inverse square .0643 or something law of ... > I think the inverse square law is accurate and not a convenient ... orbit did not quite match the predictions of Newtonian gravity (its ... pulsar systems, geodetic precession of the Earth-Moon system, etc.), ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: is perpetual motion possible ?
    ... Provide one single case where gravity deviates from an inverse ... Why not answer the question I asked, Rob? ... traditional "product of the two bodies' masses", ... inverse square of the distance between masses. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: is perpetual motion possible ?
    ... Provide one single case where gravity deviates from an inverse ... Why not answer the question I asked, Rob? ... interaction with gravitational fields follows an inverse-square law. ... inverse square of the distance between masses. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Lagrange Points
    ... >>Gravity, electrostatic and magnetic fields exert forces spatially by ... > The simple reason is that it's opposite charges that attract: ... inverse square, that means the strong is not a FORCE. ...
    (sci.physics)