Re: EMRP Gravity Theory
- From: Aetherist <TheAetherist@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 14:53:55 GMT
On 27 May 2006 07:42:40 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Blaze Labs wrote:
Hello guys,
EMRP stands for electromagnetic radiation pressure.
It also stands for Edward Met Richard Pryor.
It can also stand for Eric is Misses Reasoning in Postings...
The following are my replies to some discussions which I started
up on the sci.physics.research group, following one of my posts,
regarding the chances of compiling a fool proof push gravity
theory. Strangely enough, one of the moderators thought that the
topic was highly speculative,
Can't imagine why.
Yeah, you do seem to lack any imagining ability...
even though he had acknowledged my first post in the first place!,
and so stopped my reply from appearing. So, I have forwarded my
replies here. Hope the same guys which commented in the first
place can comment further.
He probably accepted your post because it was a decent post. You
were asking a question worth answering and you were not pushing
your idiotic pet theory.
This idea is not uniquely his... Many have considered it, including
greats like H.A. Lorentz... Yup, an idiotic 'pet' theory.
I have setup a section (in no way considered as final) here, so I
suggest reading it before starting to fire your remarks :
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-intro.asp
It is crap.
More so is this response!
Push gravity doesn't work for the reasons mentioned in S.P.R,
and because you don't have what is known as a theory. You have
an IDEA of how things work, and you expanded it to several
thousand words.
When you have some mathematics that actually MAKE predictions,
let us know.
Don't say what you really don't mean! Even IF he made a prediction
you'd discount the idea!
No, what you have there does not count. You are woefully ignorant
of general relativity - GR is NOT a "tweaked Newton".
Funny, GR does reduce to Newton's equation does in not?
Here I have explained how electromagnetic radiation pressure can
avoid many of the pitfalls of older push gravity theories, and
show how this model can give us a working mechanism for gravity,
something we do not have yet. Comments are welcome.
Let us start with something nice and simple. Show me how your
theory replicates Newton.
You have GOT to be kidding. Even Steve Carlip does not dispute this
FACT! Why does one have to constantly re-invent this wheel just for
you? OK, for 'ionizing radiation' (you know, of do you? the
penetrating type) we have,
F = ¿(µM)(µ'M')/4piR²
for weak limit attenuators, no 'gravity' involved! This is for a
infinite, uniformly distributed radiation field with mass attenuators
embedded within.
¿ = ionzing radiation pressure (momentum flux)
µ & µ' = mass attenuation coefficients for the attenuators
M & M' = masses
R² = distance between centerlines squared...
Now, assume µ = µ', then,
F = (¿µ²/4pi)(MM'/R²)
Let's define,
G = (¿µ²/4pi)
Then,
F = GMM'/R²
Golly geez, we have Newton's universal law of gravitation!
[...]
I was going to address your comments but I realised I would be
wasting my time when you said gamma rays can be shielded with
a few mm of lead and that X-rays are hard to shield.
I think he just mis-spoke. Microwaves can...
Paul Stowe
.
- Prev by Date: "Corrections to Special Relativity"
- Next by Date: Re: Action Principle and Newton's Laws
- Previous by thread: "Corrections to Special Relativity"
- Next by thread: On the Physical -- Was: Understanding the Action Integral
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
