Re: Ultimate Reality is both simple and complicated!

"harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. . .

"harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Thus, already your first sentence I don't believe! And that you are a
physicist doesn't give you the authority to tell us what is behind our
observations.

[snip spall theory]

In conclusion: I may agree with your title but not with the contents.


Thank you, Harry, for at least responding. But:

Why didn't you use any math analysis?
Let us take it by the numbers. Let us
apply simple algebra:

For conservation of mass, we can write:

m1 + M1 = m2 + M2 1)

where m1 and M1 are the mass of the two particles
before they collide, with m1 being the small particle
coming in from the left, moving towards the right,
and M1 being the large particle. And m2 and M2 being
the two particles after they collide. And m2 being
now on the right, still moving to the right, and M2
being the larger of the two particles.
For conservation of momentum:

m1*V1 + M1*U1 = m2*V2 + M2*U2 2)

For conservation of energy:

(.5)m1*V1^2 + (.5)M1*U1^2

= (.5)m2*V2^2 + (.5)M2*U2^2 3)

Simultaneously solving these three equations for V2
and U2, we obtain:

m1V1 + M1U1 +/- (V1 - U1)(M1M2m1/m2)^.5
V2 = ------------------------------------------ 4)
m1 + M1

and

m1V1 + M1U1 -/+ (V1 - U1)(m1m2M1/M2)^.5
U2 = ------------------------------------------ 5)
m1 + M1

We must now choose a solution. Also, we will
introduce the variable "d," that represents the
exchange of mass. The chosen solutions are:

m1V1 + M1U1 + (V1 - U1)(M1M2m1/m2)^.5
V2 = ---------------------------------------- 6)
m1 + M1


m1V1 + M1U1 - (V1 - U1)(m1m2M1/M2)^.5
U2 = ---------------------------------------- 7)
m1 + M1

Here, m2 could be replaced with "m1 - d", and M2
by "M1 + d."

This maintains conservation of mass, but shows
that there is really only one new variable being
introduced. Also, if "d" is assumed to be small
(which we do assume in this presentation), then it is
easy to expand these equations in "d/m" and/or "d/M,"
to obtain approximate solutions if one cared to
obtain such solutions.

DISCUSSIONS OF NEW EQUATIONS

Equations 6) and 7) are the equations for which we
seek. They are a solution set to equations 1), 2)
and 3). Very few texts show the complete solution
sets, equations 4) and 5), and fewer yet work with
the set of solutions which we have chosen.
It does need to be observed that m2 has a more
positive velocity than M2. This means that m2, the
body that is associated with m1 because of size (d
being small), is now to the right of M2. This seems
to indicate that m1 went through M1. What really
occurs is a "spall." When m1 hits M1, it becomes a
part of M1, and a piece of M1, opposite of the point
of hit, breaks off and continues on in the same
direction as the original m1. The original figure
shows a collision between two bodies where a spall is
produced. On this basic level, there are no losses
of energy associated with these spalls.
Now anyone can take any physics book, and find out
the solutions they provide for a normal collision
between two bodies. The solutions they provide are
the solutions we would use in a normal gas. And in a
normal gas, no atom in that gas attracts any other
atom. No attractive forces at all exists anywhere in
the dynamics of a normal gas. But if you would use
these new equations, you will find that these
equations are non-linear equations, and being non-
linear, you can get net attractive like forces to
appear between particles that are sharing and
exchanging their mass that can be related to these
d's.
And thus, simple Newtonian physics has become,
right before your very eyes, has now become QM, and
you should explorer some of these concepts before you
say the things you are now saying. Do we not have
one qualified expert on this net? Why do you have to
be led inch by inch. All this should immediately
jump right up at you! Surely you must all know
something!
Look, here is one obvious point: If you took a
gas where all collisions result in the spalls being
proposed, what would be the pressure of the gas in a
container? If d were zero, the pressure would be
zero! In fact, there could be no gas held in a
container! The gas would go right through any wall
of any container. And thus, as was said, there would
be no pressure! A wall presented to such a gas, no
matter how fast that wall was moving, it could not
affect the motion of one singe particle that existed.
Each particle would, in turn, would simple spall its
way through the wall, and not one single effect would
be seen. And is this not the strange ether that we
must have if we are to have the reality that we see
around us?
Come on, people, put on your thinking caps!


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

Relevant Pages

  • LeSages gravity approach is almost perfect!
    ... mass must exist, or continuous heating must occur, in ... two particles that collide, on the most fundamental ... In the spall process, ... (interactions, exchanges of mass, exchanges of ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Our greatest problem!
    ... My at theory uses an ether, ... using just mass and space. ... These field particles are usually controlled ... to either spall in a way to make ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The Physical Ether!
    ... Gradients in the ether! ... the sub-atomic particles of matter that makes up our ... the conservation laws of mass, momentum, and energy. ... They spall. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: gravitational fields on different states of matter.
    ... state, remains a particle of mass, and as with all mass particles is ... since say Gas is occuoying ... then the dispersion is evenly in all directions ... Music is made out of particles. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: On Superconductors, Superfluids and Heat Transfer
    ... >> The easiest derivation of the ideal gas law is to assume no ... >> gases where the collisions cannot be ignored. ... or in an aether medium. ... particles that make up the fluid. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)