Re: leSages theory of gravity

From: Paul Stowe (ps_at_acompletelyjunkaddress.net)
Date: 12/10/04 

Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:59:06 GMT

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 21:59:43 +0000 (UTC), glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory
L. Hansen) wrote:

>In article <ufudnRBMaO0URyrcRVn-sw@prairiewave.com>,
>Old Man <nomail@nomail.net> wrote:
>>
>>"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
>>news:5m6fr01unotsk2p6tchtp3vg8niv0d7uik@4ax.com...
>
>> A velocity independent potential doesn't guarantee a velocity
>> independent cross section. Old Man is unaware of any velocity
>> independent potential that yields a velocity independent cross
>> section.
>
> I believe he's assuming something like the hard sphere potential.
>
> V(r) = inf for r < R = 0 elsewhere

 If you want to call something like that a 'potential'.

> As to the nature of that force, I wouldn't know.

 The gravitational 'effect' is the cummulative result of the
 directionalized weakening of the the Le Sagian momentum due
 to so generalized attenuation in matter. The momentum gradient
 is the so-called gravitational potential. As to the interaction
 that's at the core, well we'd need to know percisely what the
 composition & structure of matter is and the Le Sage corpuscle
 role & composition wrt this. Can someone give this level of
 information? I have some speculations.

> But I am kind of interested in the explanation of force in
> aether theories. From what I've seen, forces are taken to
> be caused by the flow of particles or a fluid of aether that
> can't occupy the same volume as the stuff they bump against.
> And so, e.g., an electric force can be explained without the
> need to refer to ghostly fields that don't act like "regular"
> matter.

 In the beginning... :)

> But why do they interact at all? We usually say that, e.g.,
> two atoms can't occupy the same space because of electrostatic
> repulsion between them.

 OK, simply fluid interaction 101. As a simple 'analogy' let's
 consider two parallel line vortices like so,

                         o o

 Now, let's take the situation where these are 'like' vortices.
 That means both are rotating say, clockwise. Thus our picture
 above becomes,
> >

                     v o ^ v o ^

                         < <

 We know from standard dynamics that this situation results in
 these vortices building pressure between themselves and tend
 to move apart. Like, repels...

 Now the unlike. Just the opposite, flip the rotation direction
 of one and the pressure drops between them. Opposites attract.
 However, if inviscid they will NEVER merge.

 Now go and really LOOK at Maxwell's model. You'll see it's all
 in there.

 http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/

 Now, let's look at two of Maxwell's 'perfect' fluid vortex rings.
 Again, for simplicity, we'll stack the so that their symmetric
 axis's are aligned. Cross-sectioned like so,

                              |
                         o | o
                              |
                              |
                         o | o
                              |
                               \_symmetrical axis

 The [o to o] represents the ring plane of the Poloidal circulation.
 Next, there can be a 'twist' such that the ring plane is also rotating
 as a toroidal rotation. Clearly there are four distinct state when
 both poloidal & toroidal rotation is present. Also the same rule
 applies. Likes repel, opposites attract.

 A interesting situation develops when two rings of like poloidal
 rotation and no toroidal rotation interact with this alignment.
 They pair, leap-frogging through each other's center. This is not
 true however for the four dual parity states. Two states are
 perfectly anti-symmetric to the other two. If two anti-symmetric
 states interact, they annihilate each other.

> But if we're doing away with fields in favor of little billiard balls
> that bump in to each other, that can't be it.

 No, it isn't... See above, read Maxwell's work. It's simply the
 microscopic verses macroscopic view of kinetic theory.

> And so aetherists are comforted that they've explained a field by
> proposing a mechanical interaction that itself has no explanation,

 But that's not true, at least for me.

> ... and furthermore that they often don't recognize has anything
> remaining to be explained.

> Paul is a little more cognizant than that and has said he takes it
> as a postulate. And I'm fine with that. Postulates can be whatever
> you please; if they were derived they wouldn't be postulates. But
> there's been others that don't seem to know what their own postulates
> are, reducing a problem to a different set of questions that are
> unanswered and not even asked.

 There are MANY things that need asking but cannot not yet even be
 properly framed.

 Paul Stowe

Relevant Pages

  • Re: leSages theory of gravity
    ... >>independent potential that yields a velocity independent cross ... Which depends upon the graviton's momentum. ... if they were derived they wouldn't be postulates. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: planetary and atmospheric rotation - origins, direction, etc
    ... origin of planetary rotation and the direction of atmospheric circulation? ... How deeply tied is it to the direction of rotation of the ... Here's a blog post which points to a New Scientist article on a paper ... which postulates that a collision of two proto-planets might be ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)