Gravity Probe B

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br /><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I agree with Larry that your explanation does not rise to the level of a model. It is just a set of loose thoughts. However, I appreciate that you have at least explained where your ideas came from, what motivated them. Until you wrote this, your posts had started to take on a rather bizarre aura. This at least provides some context.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">years ago i was not convinced of the rubber sheet explanation of gravity, it was 2D i felt that it was not a complete picture of gravity, i wanted something more 3D.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">As you have probably seen in my writing, the rubber sheet model is not an explanation of gravity at all because it requires that there already be gravity operating underneath the rubber sheet to make it work.

Understanding this might have saved you from going down a few blind alleys.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">now i had tossed the idea of spin and that this spin odered the space around it,gave it direction and that this action would happen at either pole and converge at the equator of the Sun for example and then it would spread out from there to the planets and that this where for the most part the planets are.now i kept this in the back of my mind for years,could this work?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I find it ironic that your motivation was to find a more 3D explanation, but you ended up with a more 2D explanation.

In globular clusters, gravity obviously acts equally in all 3D directions. Yet spin has vortex action only with respect to the plane of the equator. Gravity has no such preferred plane. And the plane of the planets is tilted 7 degrees with respect to the Sun's equator.

Moreover, we can measure the gravity of objects in the laboratory, for example in Cavendish experiments. That gravity is not significantly changed whether the source mass is spinning or not, regardless of how slow or fast it spins. (One non-credible experiment claimed to have detected such a change with spin. But it was a very small effect, and has not been replicated in several attempts.)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">since a spining mass has action at both poles a singularity could not happen.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No mechanism of action has yet been proposed or described. So this statement does not follow from anything you have said up to now.

Are you suggesting that a spinning mass spins up the aether around it, which then pushes nearby bodies, making them orbit? This is the point where your set of loose ideas fails to communicate. What exactly is the mechanism that attracts target bodies toward source masses, so that two stationary bodies in isolated space will start to fall toward one another?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">also reading Halton Arps book also showed throughly that at the center of a galaxy matter was moving OUT from the center not in, now the next question what would cause this counter intuitive action? Spin! it is the spin of the center of the galaxy that is causing the spirals to move out!! it just made sense. if there is another explanation someone has, please let me know.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In my chapter of PG, I explain this using a Le Sage-type gravity model. But here, you have not explained anything. What is the difference between planets orbiting a spinning Sun and stars orbiting a spinning galaxy center? Why do stars spiral outward and planets do not?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">now, i then saw the short video made from Hubbles photos and in it it showed a few masses with jets. these jets are at the poles of those masses and to my mind the only action that could order these jets in such a way, would be the spining action of the mass it's self,i put forth the question again what else could? if you know please let me know. but for now it makes sense to me.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But polar jets produce a repulsive force, not an attractive one. So the relevance of this point is lost on me.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">so then i thought why could we not apply this consequence of spin to all spining masses, why not? ... perhaps this road will lead to nothing or something, i would just like the option to find out, if nothing more than to satisfy my curiosity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I teach my students that, until you have shot down at least three of your own greatest inspirations by confrontation with logic, observations and experiments, you lack a perspective on how easy it is for everyone to convince him/herself of an idea's correctness by the all-too-human process of focusing on the idea's successes and rationalizing away its failures.

Everybody does this. But when you catch yourself in the act of fooling yourself, it gives you a new appreciation for scientific method -- not the testing part that everybody knows, but the part about tests with <i>controls against bias</i> so that the experimenter's ever-present biases cannot influence the outcome of the tests.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">now the idea about the spin of masses ordering space, i always viewed the ether, i always thought that it existed just intution. but that this ether did not move unless acted upon and that with what to me i have found since that the Universe seems to have at least some fluidic properties led me to think that the spin of a mass does have a part to play in how things behave out there that it is also possible that it could also play a role in gravity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But hundreds of physicists have had this idea before you and tested it, and so far all variants have failed. For example, assuming your "ether" is still the light-carrying medium, the speed of light is not changed by spin as it should be if ether were spinning too.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">i hope thats better if not please let me know.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It is better in that it lets us show you the problem areas in your thinking. When working on these, never forget that your goal is describing reality, and not finding a way to make your own idea work. The latter may have its own feel-good rewards, but only up to the point where you try to communicate it to others. Good scientists seek truth, not vindication of their own pet theories. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[North]
"i hope thats better if not please let me know."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not really. You did a good job of summarizing what you've been saying all along. But still no explanations.
__________________________________________________________________

ANS: i just need you to be more specific here Larry
____________________________________________________________________

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[North]
" ... years ago i was not convinced of the rubber sheet explaination of gravity,it was 2D i felt that it was not a complete picture of gravity,i wanted something more 3D.now i had tossed the idea of spin and that this spin odered the space around it,gave it direction and that this action would happen at either pole and converge at the equator of the Sun for example and then it would spread out from there to the planets and that this where for the most part the planets are.now i kept this in the back of my mind for years, ...

could this work?"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No.
____________________________________________________________________

ANS: perhaps not.
___________________________________________________________________

[North]
"so then i thought why could we not apply this consequence of spin to all spining masses,why not? now of course there would be varying degrees of the spining actions,what they would be and there consequences i don't know but that is why i tried to find a program that perhaps i could find out,perhaps this road will lead to nothing or something, i would just like the option to find out, if nothing more than to satisfy my curiosity."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The only way you are ever going to find a program to help you explore something like this is to write it yourself. (Or pay someone else to write it. Not recommended.) And in order to do that you are going to have to refine your ideas to the point that you have some rules and some equations.

Something like -

IF SPIN = 0 THEN
Fg = 0
ELSE IF SPIN &lt; 3 THEN
Fg = 0.286 * SPIN
ELSE IF SPIN &lt; 7 THEN
Fg = 0.9947 * SPIN
END

Or whatever.

You could print the results in a table and compare them to observations or experimental results for the force of gravity. If you can't make some numbers for a comparison like this you don't have a theory. There is a lot of iteration in a process like this. You will have to think, plug some numbers into your equations, evaluate the results, and then repeat the process. Many times.

In the end you will most likely conclude that your original idea doesn't hold water. But you will also most likely see a related idea that has some possibilities.

And over time you may zero in on something that actually works. If you keep after it.

LB
____________________________________________________________________

ANS: Larry like i said,having no formal education in physics,computer or mathematics is to say the least FRUSTRATING!!

<i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />North,

Maybe you looking for the answers to gravity in spin is not such a bad approach, but certainly complex. It seems whatever you conclude will lead to a chicken/egg problem. The spin of a body could probable tell us more about the influences of gravity of other bodies than it could in defining gravity itself. But, the fluid dynamics is the right track, I am convinced of this myself. You must keep in mind: scale, volume, age and the neighbors of any body when discussing spin. As for the vorticies, think of a mass so dense it breaks through the rubber sheet and becomes closed..the vortex is gone and gravity is the same in all directions. But, this body and others could break through the shell and create a new vortex on a larger scale..etc. etc.
_____________________________________________________________________

Ans: if the jets do "break through" as you say then this changes things,because then what would be the result?

Tom

i need more time to reply to you(i'm on lunch)and i hope to get back to you before the hockey playoff game starts tonight!!

I teach my students that, until you have shot down at least three of your own greatest inspirations by confrontation with logic, observations and experiments, you lack a perspective on how easy it is for everyone to convince him/herself of an idea's correctness by the all-too-human process of focusing on the idea's successes and rationalizing away its failures.
____________________________________________________________________

Ans: really, show me where i have lacked perspective,feel free to show me.
____________________________________________________________________

Everybody does this. But when you catch yourself in the act of fooling yourself, it gives you a new appreciation for scientific method -- not the testing part that everybody knows, but the part about tests with <i>controls against bias</i> so that the experimenter's ever-present biases cannot influence the outcome of the tests.
____________________________________________________________________

Ans: well here are some tests of your own.

1)what is the source of these gravitions? 2)what is the density of the gravitons? 3) how do they keep their momentum,20 times the speed of light? since they have no spin,electronics,no internal energy,what gives them this momentum for enternity? 4) do they have a medium themselves? 5) what gives them a sense of direction,from a geometrical point of view,in other words how does it differentiate from one line of direction from another? in you picture on pg.35 of your book you show straight lines but no sense of pervasive geometry and yet outside of the shadow area there is pervasive geometry.the shadow area strictly speaking should have many angles on both masses, they do not. why?

_____________________________________________________________________

i hope thats better if not please let me know.[/quote]It is better in that it lets us show you the problem areas in your thinking. When working on these, never forget that your goal is describing reality, and not finding a way to make your own idea work. The latter may have its own feel-good rewards, but only up to the point where you try to communicate it to others. Good scientists seek truth, not vindication of their own pet theories. -|Tom|-
______________________________________________________________________

Ans: it will be interesting how you defend your own PET!!

Tom

by the way,yes my theory has flaws but for the first time i have discussion,this is good!!