Re: A Possible Mechanism For Gravity Without Forces Acting at a Distance

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 18:13:55 +0000 (UTC), stephen@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>Joe Fischer <efischer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Oh, you mean engineers would still want to use Newton for
>> most problems? Gee. :-)
>
>You apparently missed the point. Typically when someone is
>looking for a mechanism, they are looking for an explanation
>in terms of the Newtonian mechanics we are familiar with.

Sorry I am not one of the normal people.

If I were, I could not fit in with the rest of the nuts and flakes here.

>If instead you just invent an entirely new mechanics that
>is inconsistent with Newtonian mechanics and cannot be
>explained by Newtonian mechanics, then you have not
>provided a mechanism in the sense that people use the word.

Let nature be your guide. Many people think it is
wrong to cut down a tree, but in some areas prone to
forest fires, there are ordinances that require all brush to
be trimmed, and some restrict the number of trees near
buildings.

This model requires what _IT_ requires, just as
_all_ models do. I have not provided a mechanism,
I am serching for one.

>You are free to use your own private definitions for words,
>but doing so is an admission that you have no real interest
>in communicating.

Please don't go toward "either 'tis or it 'taint", it is
what it is, and that is good, a model that does not allow
patches and adjustments is surely a better model.

>If your mechanism requires new mechanics, why even bother
>looking for a mechanism at all?

For my own understanding, and I need all the help I can get.

> What is wrong with Newton's action
>at a distance? You cannot claim that action at a distance
>is "mechanically impossible", because the mechanics apparently
>necessary to make your model work are also "mechanically impossible".
>
>Stephen

Now that sounds dumb, Newton's infinitely strong
attraction without string or wires is impossible because
of something else is impossible?

Newtonian attractive action at a distance is physically
impossible, by so many orders of magnitude, it isn't even
worth discussing, and Newton would agree, he stated as much.

I don't know what is possible, but I am trying to find
something that _could_ work without the action at a distance,
or at least without invisible, undetectable action at a distance.

Joe Fischer

.

Relevant Pages