Re: 'gravitons'

On 27 Dec 2005 14:07:41 -0800, "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>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 form. 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?

Did you miss the word example? The point is made,
that is enough... Would you prefer from the gravitic
to the electromagnetic & 'heat'?

> 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.

Your ignorance is not my concern. Ever heard if
abberation? How about retarded potential? Objects
in orbits are subject to both. Object moving in
any non-closed paths are not. They may be subject
to abberation depending upon influences. FYI,
abberation & vector potential are in opposition to
drag.

> And it is not seen! Therefore, your approach has a
> weakness.

The LeSage approach says that for orbits there must be
a balance on all forces in play. Thus not all orbital
are stable. For multi-body systems there exists a
pattern in the solution of these stability nodes and
this is observed as the Titus series.

> 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!

While I'll agree that c is 'c' what trouble does c >> 'c'
bring?

>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.)

Would you care to summarize the technical issues?
I have probabily covered'em all.

> 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!

You haven't yet shown the 'trouble'!

> Only O'Barr has the correct answers to these
> problems, and now today no one cares!

God's gift to the universe, "Only O'Barr has the correct
answers" out of the billions now & ever has been on the
Planet...

Yup, you get the brass ring for crazy...

> 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!

I've yet to see you quantify anything. You're blowing
smoke.

> 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!

Your ignorance is not my (or nature's) problem.

>>> 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:

What part of the word "overview" did you not understand?

>>> (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!

Your ignorance of the fact are not my concern. What
is my concern is when you misrepresent the facts out of
that ignorance.

>>> 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!

Your continued ignorance is not my concern. I provided
you one possible answer.

>> 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.

You have a reading comprehension issue as well as crazy.
One cannot forget that "Only O'Barr has the correct
answers"

>>> 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.

Incorrect as always. I might suggest you search the
archives.

> 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!

Perhaps you didn't know this but, in GR ,and on the cosmological
scale, energy is not conserved. It is only concerved in these
model locally. Of course this does not mean I buy it.

>> 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!

I think it is a waste of both of our times. So, unless you
have something quantifiable to say, this is it.

Paul Stowe
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is evolution an example of decreasing entropy?
    ... Let's just compare the orderliness of particles held together, ... > does this without any sort of frictional loss or energy loss of any ... Gravity is an attractive force that acts between the atoms of a ... gravity will make it continue to collapse. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Latter Day MMX
    ... > Gravity is not like normal forms of radiation such ... It is more like heat being carried by ... > additional energy or any change in energy for it to ... And these particles were all ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
    ... In any even one can not conceive of gravity causing an object to ... the sum of momentum of the system is zero on a continuous ... energy of the particles is also zero on a continuous basis. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: gravitons
    ... Conservation of energy does not require that the ... The effort to explain gravity forces by using ... again you explain PE in terms of particles. ... does spalls produce forces, it produces both ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Question about Gravitation of Vacuum Self-Energy
    ... > You ask why vacuum self-energy gives a repuslion rather ... > need supply that energy to create more vacuum. ... explained in terms of virtual particles popping into ... > antiparticle created negative gravity. ...
    (sci.physics.research)