- Thank you received: 0
EPH Opposition Backed by What?
11 years 2 months ago #14074
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
It is important to stay out of the deep do-do here, but, maybe a simple model dating to 2000 or so might be useful. TVF showed how a particle within a shell of great mass would behave differently inside the mass than it would outside the mass(as stated by Newton but never explored in depth as far as I know). Anyway, the model only works in two dimensions and is just a ring of great mass with a few very small mass particles. You can use any of the three methods LB suggests to run the model and you should see why the force of gravity does not allow spheres to be constructed as assumed at this time by all of science.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
11 years 2 months ago #14075
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
This (gravitational force and potential fields within and without a massive spherical shell) is a standard homework problem at the sophomore level. You are right however about not being "explored in depth", in the sense of conducting laboratory experiments. Historically it has been too difficult, too expensive. These days we probably have accelerometers sensitive enough that it could be done, but gravitational engineering is not something many people think of now.
However, this model has been pencil-whipped to death.
***
It works fine in 3D with Newton's rules. It is only 2D if you set the problem up that way.
You can do it in 4D using Einstein's rules but it is a bit more work and if you ever did want to try to do a lab experiment based on this you would have to convert your solutions back to the real world of 3D first. Not hard, but still...
And there are no speed of propagation issues involved so Le Sage/DRP adds no value.
LB
However, this model has been pencil-whipped to death.
***
It works fine in 3D with Newton's rules. It is only 2D if you set the problem up that way.
You can do it in 4D using Einstein's rules but it is a bit more work and if you ever did want to try to do a lab experiment based on this you would have to convert your solutions back to the real world of 3D first. Not hard, but still...
And there are no speed of propagation issues involved so Le Sage/DRP adds no value.
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
11 years 2 months ago #24208
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
When I hear 'deep do-do' things like the Copenhagen Interpretation ("... there is no deep realty in the universe ...") of quantum mechanics come to my mind.
I'm curious to know if you have something particular in mind as a prime example of what you mean?
I'm curious to know if you have something particular in mind as a prime example of what you mean?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
11 years 2 months ago #21573
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
LB, In 2D the model can be used in new ways such as looking at how two particles behave within and outside the ring and I don't think 3D show this very well. Two particles within the ring will orbit each other. Two particles outside will orbit the ring. And one on each side won't be aware of the other. Things like this as well as the fact the inside has a zero gravity effect seems to be important overlooked effects of the force and clearly shows there is a lot to be discovered. I wonder how this model can be in common use and no one ever sees this stuff. BTW, deep do-do is a Pres Bush Sr phrase I kind of like. He used it in the same way I did.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Solar Patroller
- Offline
- Senior Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
11 years 1 month ago #14079
by Solar Patroller
Replied by Solar Patroller on topic Reply from
"The only problem with gravitational force (as opposed to gravitational potential) being associated with EM is that EM phenomena are known to propagate at the speed of light.
If you use that propagation speed to calculate orbits, the predicted future locations do not work. The object is observed to be somewhere else on the date/time in question.
LB"
Eek! Anyways, the coupling of EM n gravity to create antigravity seems to be pretty clear. It was done by T.T. Brown, apparently in the Phily Xprmt n Bell Xprmt, n it's what flying saucers use, n both are long-range forces n they have the same model in modern quantum field theory.
If you use that propagation speed to calculate orbits, the predicted future locations do not work. The object is observed to be somewhere else on the date/time in question.
LB"
Eek! Anyways, the coupling of EM n gravity to create antigravity seems to be pretty clear. It was done by T.T. Brown, apparently in the Phily Xprmt n Bell Xprmt, n it's what flying saucers use, n both are long-range forces n they have the same model in modern quantum field theory.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.350 seconds