| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Aetherist" |
| Date: |
07 Apr 2006 06:45:42 PM |
| Object: |
Resolution of the heat crisis in LeSage's Theory |
The central issue of LeSage's gravitational model is the
proposition that, to work, the amount of energy transferred
for the LeSagian field to material bodies of great size
like the Earth would be excessive and result in near
instantaneous vaporization due to energy input. In this
article I will quantify this input for LeSage's model
and demonstrate that this premise is false.
LeSage's model proposes that there exists a sea of energetic
particles (similar in penetrating ability to neutrinos) that
fill the universe. If no matter were present therein this
field would be isotropic. Matter within this field acts
to attenuate the momentum/energy of the field as it passes
through. This momentum/energy is then transferred from the
field to the material body resulting in a momentum defect
surrounding the attenuator in the process. The field's
momentum flux can be represented by the symbol ¿ (kg/m-Sec²).
In every sense, this process mirrors the process of ionizing
raditaion transport through material attenuators. As with
that process, the key parameter for said interaction is the
mass attenuation coefficient µ (m²/kg). So, for the momentum
transfer for the field to the bodey we will have,
-b
¿' = ¿(1 - e )
and
b = µ£t
Where £ = the mass density of the material attenuator
t = linear travel thickness of the material
For the weak solution (b << 1) we can use the taylor series
expansion to simplify this to the linear expression,
¿' = ¿(1 - (1 - b))
¿' = ¿b
¿' = ¿µ£t
For any spherical body t = the diameter (= 2r), thus,
¿' = 2¿µ£r
To get the total energy we integrate this over the body's
volume
Clearly, £ times that volume gives us back the mass (M)of the
body, and we simply get,
E = 2¿µMr
This equation defines and quantifies the energy deposition in
a spherical LeSagian attenuator in the weak attenuating limit.
Comare the above expression to the two body force equation of
the theory. In the same weak limit this is,
¿(µM)·(µm)
F = ----------
d²
We note that there simply is no simple way to equate this
equation which expresses the interaction of two bodies with
field back to the energy deposition of the field in one.
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolution of the heat crisis in LeSage's Theory |
08 Apr 2006 11:43:30 PM |
|
|
Aetherist:
For any spherical body t = the diameter (= 2r), thus,
¿' = 2¿µ£r
To get the total energy we integrate this over the body's
volume
Wrong. The flux is _not_ purely radial. The flux crosses circular
slices through the sphere. The total flux is the integral over
4\pi of the circular slices:
|
| You must integrate the energy deposited through
J . . circular slices of radius x^2 + y^2 over the
---> . . distance along z from -R to R. You then must
---> . . integrate _that_ over all incident directions.
---> . .
|
| z-->
Just because the momentum cancels doesn't mean you get to throw away
the energy deposited at that point. The momentum is a vector. The
energy is not.
Clearly, £ times that volume gives us back the mass (M)of the
body, and we simply get,
E = 2¿µMr
This equation defines and quantifies the energy deposition in
a spherical LeSagian attenuator in the weak attenuating limit.
What's the problem with simply integrating \exp(-kr) directly instead
of your song and dance aout weak limits? If you don't know how to
integrate \expr(-kr), it is very simple:
\integral \exp(-kr) dr = (-1/k)\exp(-kr) + Constant
Comare the above expression to the two body force equation of
the theory. In the same weak limit this is,
¿(µM)·(µm)
F = ----------
d²
We note that there simply is no simple way to equate this
equation which expresses the interaction of two bodies with
field back to the energy deposition of the field in one.
Sure there is. Go study the example at mathpages.com.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolution of the heat crisis in LeSage's Theory |
08 Apr 2006 07:34:31 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Fri, 07 Apr 2006 23:45:42 GMT) it happened Aetherist
<TheAetherist@best.net> wrote in <fkqd329vqjl7f65sc86h9annolm6ie0626@4ax.com>:
The central issue of LeSage's gravitational model is the
proposition that, to work, the amount of energy transferred
for the LeSagian field to material bodies of great size
like the Earth would be excessive and result in near
instantaneous vaporization due to energy input. In this
article I will quantify this input for LeSage's model
and demonstrate that this premise is false.
LeSage's model proposes that there exists a sea of energetic
particles (similar in penetrating ability to neutrinos) that
fill the universe. If no matter were present therein this
field would be isotropic. Matter within this field acts
to attenuate the momentum/energy of the field as it passes
through. This momentum/energy is then transferred from the
field to the material body resulting in a momentum defect
surrounding the attenuator in the process. The field's
momentum flux can be represented by the symbol ¿ (kg/m-Sec²).
In every sense, this process mirrors the process of ionizing
raditaion transport through material attenuators. As with
that process, the key parameter for said interaction is the
mass attenuation coefficient µ (m²/kg). So, for the momentum
transfer for the field to the bodey we will have,
-b
¿' = ¿(1 - e )
and
b = µ£t
Where £ = the mass density of the material attenuator
t = linear travel thickness of the material
For the weak solution (b << 1) we can use the taylor series
expansion to simplify this to the linear expression,
¿' = ¿(1 - (1 - b))
¿' = ¿b
¿' = ¿µ£t
For any spherical body t = the diameter (= 2r), thus,
¿' = 2¿µ£r
To get the total energy we integrate this over the body's
volume
Clearly, £ times that volume gives us back the mass (M)of the
body, and we simply get,
E = 2¿µMr
This equation defines and quantifies the energy deposition in
a spherical LeSagian attenuator in the weak attenuating limit.
Comare the above expression to the two body force equation of
the theory. In the same weak limit this is,
¿(µM)·(µm)
F = ----------
d²
We note that there simply is no simple way to equate this
equation which expresses the interaction of two bodies with
field back to the energy deposition of the field in one.
Paul Stowe
An intersting observation I did read sme week ago:
It seems the earth is getting further aways from the sun every year
by 10 meters or so (recent tests).
In the past I proposed Le Sage particles originatiing in stars,
predicted the ever fasting expanding universe in 2000 (before these
guys woke up) on similar grounds....
Have not even used math....
Poor einsteinians... poor poor brainswashians.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aetherist" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolution of the heat crisis in LeSage's Theory |
08 Apr 2006 09:35:33 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 12:34:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 07 Apr 2006 23:45:42 GMT) it happened Aetherist
<TheAetherist@best.net> wrote in <fkqd329vqjl7f65sc86h9annolm6ie0626@4ax.com>:
The central issue of LeSage's gravitational model is the
proposition that, to work, the amount of energy transferred
for the LeSagian field to material bodies of great size
like the Earth would be excessive and result in near
instantaneous vaporization due to energy input. In this
article I will quantify this input for LeSage's model
and demonstrate that this premise is false.
LeSage's model proposes that there exists a sea of energetic
particles (similar in penetrating ability to neutrinos) that
fill the universe. If no matter were present therein this
field would be isotropic. Matter within this field acts
to attenuate the momentum/energy of the field as it passes
through. This momentum/energy is then transferred from the
field to the material body resulting in a momentum defect
surrounding the attenuator in the process. The field's
momentum flux can be represented by the symbol ¿ (kg/m-Sec²).
In every sense, this process mirrors the process of ionizing
raditaion transport through material attenuators. As with
that process, the key parameter for said interaction is the
mass attenuation coefficient µ (m²/kg). So, for the momentum
transfer for the field to the bodey we will have,
-b
¿' = ¿(1 - e )
and
b = µ£t
Where £ = the mass density of the material attenuator
t = linear travel thickness of the material
For the weak solution (b << 1) we can use the taylor series
expansion to simplify this to the linear expression,
¿' = ¿(1 - (1 - b))
¿' = ¿b
¿' = ¿µ£t
For any spherical body t = the diameter (= 2r), thus,
¿' = 2¿µ£r
To get the total energy we integrate this over the body's
volume
Clearly, £ times that volume gives us back the mass (M)of the
body, and we simply get,
E = 2¿µMr
This equation defines and quantifies the energy deposition in
a spherical LeSagian attenuator in the weak attenuating limit.
Comare the above expression to the two body force equation of
the theory. In the same weak limit this is,
¿(µM)·(µm)
F = ----------
d²
We note that there simply is no simple way to equate this
equation, which expresses the interaction of two bodies with
the field back to the energy deposition of the field in one.
Paul Stowe
An interesting observation, I did read sme week ago:
It seems the earth is getting further aways from the sun
every year by 10 meters or so (recent tests).
Can you find that reference? I haven't heard of this.
In the past I proposed LeSage particles originatiing in
stars, predicted the ever fasting expanding universe in
2000 (before these guys woke up) on similar grounds....
Have not even used math.... Poor einsteinians...
poor poor brainswashians.
If you cannot use math you cannot hope to prove any point.
If you cannot prove anything quantitatively you cannot
hope to get scientist's attention.
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolution of the heat crisis in LeSage's Theory |
09 Apr 2006 06:43:59 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Sun, 09 Apr 2006 02:35:33 GMT) it happened Aetherist
<TheAetherist@best.net> wrote in <k8rg32hpg8jc0954600o867ckk5qv4q47l@4ax.com>:
An interesting observation, I did read some week ago:
It seems the earth is getting further aways from the sun
every year by 10 meters or so (recent tests).
Can you find that reference? I haven't heard of this.
This was a 'teletext' news bulletin bout some Dutch research group.
These messages are not normally shown longer then a day, I did not
save it.
Looked at some uni website and google, cannot find it.
Usually these things turn out to be correct, expect some publication.
In the past I proposed LeSage particles originatiing in
stars, predicted the ever fasting expanding universe in
2000 (before these guys woke up) on similar grounds....
Have not even used math.... Poor einsteinians...
poor poor brainswashians.
If you cannot use math you cannot hope to prove any point.
If you cannot prove anything quantitatively you cannot
hope to get scientist's attention.
First I could not give a ***** to get scientists attention.
Doing that is easy,
I am reasonably good at math, use it every day.
But if I ask somebody (for example in electronics) to explain how something
works, and he replies with 6 formulas, it usually means that he has no clue.
It is all about mechanisms, (electrons in the case of electronics), and
reasoning, math is then only for calculation of expected magnitudes say
simulation.
Same with Le Sage, you want to be able to visualise something.
I did write a small simulation for Le Sages model many years ago.
The results of 'shadowing' of the particles are exactly the same as the
effect of gravity, but it gives of course a max gravity (all particles
stopped), and that nicely kills all those idiotic infinities.
Mathematics has become the prison physics lives in.
Until we see some sane good old reasoning again, it will be stuck.
But if you want to (or can) make the bridge, good, but these guys are deaf
and blind.
They have their little formulas and calculators, and models, and even if
different data is present, they will 'normalise' it aways, they want to be
'normal' like all the others that are stuck.
Neural net side effect, lack of own identity, no clue of reality, its all there.
I ain't gone argue with that bunch, arguing with a textbook is more fun, as it
will --- well you can guess.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
