Re: 'gravitons'

In <5hc5r1dfplfsptgqnj78vhccjauc2qlhuk@xxxxxxx>
Aetherist <TheAether...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> . . .

Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> comments:
Since you do not seem to want to continue, let
me jump around a little:
You seem to want to talk about abberations and
about retarded potentials. You say 'objects in
orbits are subject to both.' But then you say
'objects 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.'
I find such jumping around not to be very helpful
or reflective of the problem at hand. The drag that
exists in the LeSage approach is much more than all
these slight gravity effects that you seem to want to
talk about. The drag seen in LeSage's approach would
exist even in space where there were no gravity at
all. Drag would exist for non-closed path objects,
and in any other case where relative motion exists
between the particles and the field.

Aetherist <TheAether...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

O'Barr comments:
Again and again, multi-body systems might have a
lot of complications. But not one of these
complications are necessary in order to experience
the drag that exists in the LeSage approach. You are
trying to hide behind some of your statements, rather
than face the simple fact that you have a first order
drag, even in the simplest of orbits, in the simplest
of systems, even in no orbit at all, and thus you do
not have a theory!

O'Barr wrote:
>> 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!

Aetherist <TheAether...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> While I'll agree that c is 'c' what trouble does
> c >> 'c' bring?

O'Barr comments:
We do not find, yet, any informational signals
being carried faster than light. And as you were
somewhat explaining, there are effects that can occur
for an orbiting body around a moving body that can be
affected by the speed of the medium that is carrying
the force. But since it is your theory, maybe I
should let you answer this.
In the at theory, individual particles have no
limit on their velocities, and precursors greater
than c are allowed. But the at theory is an ether
based theory and particles that make up the ether are
not limited to the velocities that are held by the
particles that move as a body within the ether. It
is similar to a gas, where individual gas particles
can move at many different faster velocities than a
wave within it, while waves are limited to a fixed
velocity.

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 wrote:
>> Try Taylor, W. B., "kinetic Theories of
>> Gravitation,"
>> Smithsonian Institution Annual Report, 1876, (U.S.
>> Printing Office, Washington D.C. 1877, pp 205-
>> 282.)

Aetherist <TheAether...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Would you care to summarize the technical issues?
> I have probabily covered'em all.

O'Barr comments:
If you assume full conservation, it ends up with
no net forces. You obtain multiple collisions
(particles that become trapped between the two bodies
that act to force the bodies apart), some with second
and third and higher order collisions, that exactly
balance out the first order shading, and you end up
with zero effects. But drag remains, as a first
order effect. If you assume non-conservation, then
you have heating and time effects that are not, so
far, in evidence. And drag still remains a problem.

<deletes by O'Barr>

Aetherist <TheAether...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You haven't yet shown the 'trouble'!

O'Barr comments:
I don't have to show anything! The work has
already been done! Drag is one of the biggest
problem, especially its order of magnitude, not these
small drag concepts you keep mentioning.

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

Aetherist <TheAether...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> God's gift to the universe, "Only O'Barr has the
>correct answers" out of the billions now & ever has
>been on the Planet...

O'Barr comments:
That was a poor thing for me to say! Sorry about
that!

<deletes by O'Barr>

O'Barr wrote:
>> 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!

Aetherist <TheAether...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I've yet to see you quantify anything. You're
>blowing smoke.

O'Barr comments:
No smoke at all! The computer program confirms
all these points. I have made mathematical
approximations of these forces and I have shown that
these forces are equal under these very narrow or
limited conditions, but they would not mean near as
much as what can actually be seen by a computer which
is making calculations that are not using any narrow
or limited approximations other than the limit in its
digital representation of real numbers, which one can
control.

<deletes by O'Barr>

Aetherist <TheAether...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

O'Barr comments:
But it does appear that you buy it, since you went
to the trouble to mention it. But you purpose in
mentioning all these way out points is not to add to
the understanding, but only to add to the confusion.
To do what you are doing allows you to think that you
have escaped your need to address drag!

Aetherist <TheAether...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think it is a waste of both of our times. So,
unless you have something quantifiable to say, this
is it.

O'Barr comments:
There is nothing more quantifiable than the
results of a computer. You have no excuse to say
that you are wasting your time with me! I have
posted my q-basic program that shows the attraction
and the repulsions that spalls can produce, under
conditions of complete conservation of kinetic
energy, and complete external symmetry. What I have
done is a first, whether you want to understand it or
not, and it is important, whether I am important or
not.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Terminal Velocity of Impacting our Moon
    ... drag of a resisting medium, such as a planet's atmosphere. ... Keep a good hold onto that constant velocity notion (w/o thrust ... km/s) and utilizing stellar gravity instead of merely local gravity is ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: How fast would this object be falling?
    ... I have a couple of questions about gravity and I have not been able to ... V = final velocity ... In free fall at terminal velocity the force due to drag will balance the ... Reynolds Number. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: How can the Magnus effect be explained with Bernoulli?
    ... layer where going into wind there is an increased relative velocity ... For the second thing a rotating ball or cylinder moving through the ... Lift and drag are very ... When the ball or cylinder is spinning drag is reflected in a force ...
    (rec.aviation.piloting)
  • Re: gravitons
    ... straight line through water, feel the drag. ... > in space where there were no gravity at all. ... > the particles and the field. ... >>> You do get into trouble if you allow the velocity ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How to make my bike faster!
    ... to your velocity CUBED. ... But since things are going twice as fast, ... drag for 2x velocity. ... the magnitude of the force experienced by an object moving through a fluid is given by ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)