Re: 'gravitons'
- From: "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Dec 2005 14:07:41 -0800
In <rgd0r1ttuebgassdtciikt12g4a3cic4d4@xxxxxxx>
Aetherist <TheAether...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> . . .
Aetherist <TheAether...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 1. Conservation of energy does not require that the
> energy remain in the same for(m). Simple example,
> KE = -PE or, KE + PE = 0.
O'Barr comments:
The effort to explain gravity forces by using
particles does not allow one to continue to use
potential energy (in a non-particle form) unless
again you explain PE in terms of particles. Here you
are, saying that you are going to explain gravity,
but then turn around and freely use potential energy,
as if it was there to be used. Don't you understand
the mixed signals you are giving, and the impossible
position that you have to take?
Aetherist <TheAether...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>2. Drag is interaction dependent. If that IS the
> only factor in play it will be observed. Again,
> within the confines of LeSage theory this is
> a = ¿·µ(v/c), where ¿ is the momentum flux and
> µ is the mass attenuation coefficient. Speed
> c is the RMS of the LeSagian particle population
> and v is the velocity of the object. Given that
> big G is ¿·µ^2 the term ¿ & µ are so constrained.
> The LeSage model then gives ¿ as ~6.74E+00 kg/m-
> sec^2 and µ as ~3.15E-06 m^2/kg.
O'Barr comments:
Great. And so we see a drag that would be clearly
present to a degree that it would be measurable in
all the orbiting events around us. And it is not
seen! Therefore, your approach has a weakness. My
comments of course assumes that c must be near the
velocity of light, and ¿ and µ are adequate to
produce the level of gravity we presently observe.
You do get into trouble if you allow the velocity of
gravity to go too much above the velocity of light.
Therefore, your drag is much too large to remain
undetectable!
O'Barr wrote:
>> This is now known to be true (since 1889).
Aetherist <TheAether...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> By whom? If so, Maxwell, Lorentz and others would
>not have bother considering it.
O'Barr comments:
Try Taylor, W. B., "kinetic Theories of
Gravitation," Smithsonian Institution Annual Report,
1876, (U.S. Printing Office, Washington D.C. 1877, pp
205- 282. )
Back in these days, information was much
slower in getting out, if at all. But I assure you,
anyone who was educated back in these early days
would know the technical problems with assuming that
gravity was caused by LeSage's ultra mundane
particles. Such subjects were common back at this
time! And people, back then, paid good money to know
these things! And as long as anyone stays with
bouncing particles, they are in trouble, just as you
are in trouble!
Only O'Barr has the correct answers to these
problems, and now today no one cares! Only the use
of spalls solves all these problems! And not only
does spalls produce forces, it produces both
repulsive and attractive forces, and not only this,
but they are in a couplet, being equal and opposite
to each other, automatically!
And spalls have the means of ending this problem
of attenuation in effects, in that as more particles, or
more matter, is present, the gravity effect can remain
the same constant (it can even be stronger!)
And not only this, but spalls present to us an
ether, an ether that is there with much mass and
energy, but yet particles can go through it (have a
velocity) as if none of it was actually there!
And the particles that exists within this ether
are constantly exchanging mass, producing a QM effect
not only for the mass of these particles, but also in
terms of their intermediate velocities, positions,
energies, momentums, etc. Their average velocity
remains a constant, as long as their over all mass
remains a constant, but they are in a constant flux
around these averages.
O'Barr wrote (about Stowe's approach):
>> Thus, we get no gravity, the very thing that was
>> to be explained, and we get drag, the very thing
>> that no one would want! It is a failure on all
>> accounts!
Aetherist <TheAether...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sorry, only to those that do not fully take into
> account all elements that a physically in play.
O'Barr comments:
Sorry, sorry, sorry! I have not overlooked
anything!
O'Barr wrote (about Stowe's approach):
>> So what do you do? You allow loss of kinetic
>> energy to occur.
Aetherist <TheAether...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> For the LeSagian linear vector lines, yes. This
>is a direct result of momentum transfer from the
>linear into circulation.
O'Barr comments:
Yes you do allow this loss in linear vector lines.
And one line having zero affect on all other lines,
no matter how close they might be, or even if they
intersect each other! Thanks for saying so. And as
was said, you do this with no known way for such
things to occur. Please note how complicated all
this has to be: The vast majority of any and all
particles on any one line have to continue on, in the
exact same line, being totally unmoved to one side or
the other! And the disturbance that does occur has
to be total, completely symmetrical. And it has to
absorb the momentum, but note that the momentum
absorbed is not what a bounce would produce. If you
throw in the right emissivity values (or 'emmision' is
your better way of saying it), you will never
have the right balance between your energies and the
amount of forces required (if you tested for it.)
Those who tried to use random background particles
(hidden variables) to solve for QM effects were
driven crazy because of their inabilities to obtain a
correct ratio between mass, momentum, and energy
exchanges with such an environment. Again, spalls
will solve all of these problems! In spalls, the
exchange of momentum is different for the mass and
velocities involved. And we will use this effect
everywhere, especially in SR.
O'Barr wrote:
>> You do not tell anyone the problems this creates,
>> ...
Aetherist <TheAether...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm sorry Gerald that simply is false. Had you
>borhered to read our published papers you'd know
>this. You's that Matt Edwards the editor and his
>reviewers are fools?
O'Barr comments:
I was only commenting on the article you
referenced. The article you referenced did not
mention these things. To be sure that we are
communicating, this is what was referenced:
>>(In reference to Paul Stowe and:
>> http://www.mountainman.com.au/news99_b.htm)
Now I am a very fast reader, and I have missed things
before, but this was the article to which I was
making these comments. I was not assessing your
entire life!
O'Barr wrote:
>> ... in that gravity would thus become less with
>>time, etc.
Aetherist <TheAether...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That is a possibility, but not the only one.
>Nature cares not about our pejudices.
O'Barr comments:
Well, thanks for agreeing! We are communicating!
It is not only a possibility, but an absolute
necessity until you present a situation that can
mitigate it. Until you do, you do not have a working
theory!
O'Barr wrote:
> It is not a good choice, even if it might
> temporally work. How do you assume this loss of
> energy could occur? You give no mechanism that
>would allow it to occur. You just assume that it is
> possible by assuming that there is an attenuation
> function. So you do not explain how these losses
> occur, you just assume it. And you assume that
>this loss in kinetic energy is then radiated away by
>heat losses, etc.
Aetherist <TheAether...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> See "The Cause of Gravity, EM, and QM" at:
> http://www.mountainman.com.au/index_ps.htm
>
> Please note the date on this article. Ignorance &
>assumptions are no substitute for research. Your
>claims are simply untrue.
O'Barr comments:
And when I see that an answer is not provided, not
directly given, I also know that there is something
to what is being said.
O'Barr wrote:
>> Again, these are a lot of assumptions. Do they
>> result in a force? Yes, it might, if we
>> understood the mechanism so that we could
>> understand its true linearity,
>> and that each direction were independent from
>> all the other directions, etc. And in your low
>> level, weak attenuation mode, it might approach
>> what we need.
>>
>> But it does create all these other problems, such
>> as not being uniform over time, and you have still
>> not considered the drag! Until you pay attention
>> to these important problems, you have no theory!
>> You did not show the math for your drag! And I
>> know you know this math!
>>
>> The at theory is able to work with full . . .
Aetherist <TheAether...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ah, here comes your stale sales pitch. Gerald, I
> have considered you concept and it is, sad to say,
> more contrived, conplex, and functionally
> unworkable than the LeSage model. You will notice
> that, throughout history no one has seriously
> proposed such a thing.
O'Barr comments:
And I see that you did not state one single
scientific problem with it, other than just your
opinions. The only thing you said directly was just
a historical fact, that no one else has ever proposed
such a thing. And does this make your position a
scientific position? No! It makes you a fool
scientifically! Did you actually try it on your
computer? This is what one must do, if they are
going to really know!
Aetherist <TheAether...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> OTOH, LeSage's model has been seriously considered
> for over 300 years.
O'Barr comments:
True, it has been considered since the days of
Newton. And just as many times as it has been
considered, it has even more times been
scientifically rejected. It has been mathematically
rejected. It produces no net forces (under the
expected and desired conservation conditions), and it
produces drag under all conditions. There is no one
who has yet solved all of these basic problems to
allow it to be used. Only the spall approach will
work! It has almost the identical mechanics, the
mechanics that are so close to being exactly what one
would want. But the spall beings onto line the exact
things that were missing, and makes the only full
accounting of the actual results that are needed!
Aetherist <TheAether...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> {snip of rest...]
>
. . . .
>
> Let's leave it as we agree to disagree...
O'Barr comments:
No! This is too important to leave it at this.
You must see what spalls can do for you! Please
scientifically try it! Try it on your own computer!
See what it can do!
Thanks for reading!
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 'gravitons'
- From: Aetherist
- Re: 'gravitons'
- References:
- 'gravitons'
- From: Thomas Heger
- Re: 'gravitons'
- From: Aetherist
- Re: 'gravitons'
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: 'gravitons'
- From: Aetherist
- 'gravitons'
- Prev by Date: Re: They verified a wrong theory
- Next by Date: Re: Sci Am proposes SR wrong and Aether exists
- Previous by thread: Re: 'gravitons'
- Next by thread: Re: 'gravitons'
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
