- Thank you received: 0
singularity
22 years 3 months ago #2642
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
I guess you are saying one model is good and one is not where I would say both are lacking some reality. The point I really want to kick around is how inertia effects the models. I know this is not a part of gravity as it is currently understood. The issue can be seen clearly in a very simple model where two bodies are bound by gravity. Say the distance between the two bodies is fixed and the mass is 99.9/.1 then the light body orbits the other one in a definite period. Now move mass so the mass ratio is 50/50 both bodies are in equal motion and the period is not the same. The inertia has shifted from the greater mass to both and the some of velocity has shifted from the lighter mass. I am not clear about angular momentum in this shift. The inertia is very clear and real so it needs to be factored into both models you are explaining.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
22 years 3 months ago #2643
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Now move mass so the mass ratio is 50/50 both bodies are in equal motion and the period is not the same.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Nope. The period is exactly the same. There are no manifestations of inertia in ordinary (non-relativistic) gravitational forces.
If I put a marble in space, it attracts the planet Jupiter just as much as it attracts another marble at that same distance. -|Tom|-
Nope. The period is exactly the same. There are no manifestations of inertia in ordinary (non-relativistic) gravitational forces.
If I put a marble in space, it attracts the planet Jupiter just as much as it attracts another marble at that same distance. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
22 years 3 months ago #3028
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
If the period is exactly the same and the distance between the two masses is the same I assume the frist mass remains stationary while the second mass orbits? I wonder if this is correct even within the model?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
22 years 3 months ago #2658
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
No, each orbits the other. Even if one body is a marble, the other body will have a marble-sized orbit with the same period. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
22 years 3 months ago #2896
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
When the mass ratio is 999/1 the lesser mess orbits the greater mass and nearly all the velocity in the system is with the lesser mass. The mass ratio of 50/50 gives a differten result and since the distance is the equal for both examples the period is not. if the period is the same the distance is changed. This is caused by the moving focus in the 50/50 mass ratio and when the distance is the same between the two masses the center of rotation is half way between the two. The 999/1 mass ratio has a rotation center very near the greater mass. The two ratios give different results for tidal effects and inertia as well as velocity and period.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
22 years 3 months ago #2670
by BigAl
Replied by BigAl on topic Reply from Al Virgiliio
Tom,
Day's stuff is filled with unjustified assumptions and declarations.
Perhaps. Perhaps the ideas are so revolutionary they seem ridiculous. Galieo offered to his peers his telescope to look through. Most refused to even look.
I submit the following based on my readings:
I would propose that the basis of every physical theory has been the manner in which free motion is explained.
What if the Universe was not born of some singular explosion but rather came into being as the consequence of a non material medium undergoing changes in numerous locations. Motion was the primary constant on which a hierarchy arose. Gamma Rays cyclized into stabilized particles; their structural motions induced envelopes of induction fields; atoms formed and gravitating systems evolved as a consequence of matter centering itself in the surrounding space (mediurm).
If the foregoing is correct we can see why theoretical physics is having some much difficulty in condolidating all the levels of matter and the "forces" of nature into a unified theory. The theories have followed Galieo's lead that motion is a state of matter and the change of motion is what must be formulated. But what if motion is more than a state and is an actual structural feature of each hierarchical stage of matter? In trying to understand the structual levels of matter by interpreting everything through the change of motion and the associated energies and forces we have relied upon a set of laws that are applicable only to dynamics.
This is understandable as nothing in the Universe exists in total isolation. All objects maintain union with the universe by extending its presence in some way beyond its physical boundaries to exert an influence on other objects in the space around it. The manner in which this influence is exerted, however, is not obvious and is subject to conjecture. Newton called it 'action at a distance', Faraday said is was due to force fields, Einstein concluded that space-time is curved, and in quantum mechanics objects are believed to exchange "force-bearing" particles. Each theory is valid within the context that it is applied. None is sufficently correct in description to lead to the conception of a simple unified theory, at least so far.
Except for the General Theory these are theories to justify the notion that the universe and everything in it are held together by forces. At each structural level of matter a force is introduced with its own unique properties to account for stability. But what is the rationale for the existance of these forces other than to satisfy the theories?
If instead we consider the simple hypothesis that physical reality has two fundemental components, matter and space, then new relationships emerge which seem both logical and consistent with current knowledge.
Matter in the form of subatomic particles consists of photons of gamma rays locked in resonance around a neutrino nucleus. The photons themselves are paired in standing waves of opposing spirals and arrranged in shells of a harmonic series. The combined oscillations of the photons generate the gravitational field and the algebraic sum of their spirals creates the electrical field of the particle. Thus the properties of matter ( and remember ever since Leukippos it has been a part of logic that properties are not fundemental ; rather they are derivatives that arise at some level of compostion and result from that ) are the result of a compositional arrangement of parts that have no mass or charge but when assembled exhibit the basic properties of matter. Thus if kinematic systems are based on composition then the role of motion should be to give a period of revolution which encompasses a definet amount of induction field. Atoms and gravitational systems therefore should be similar in relationship between the orbital motion of their satellites and the corresponding enclosed induction field.
Thus reality consists of matter and space; motion is a property of both and relates one to the other.
Alfred T Virgilio
Day's stuff is filled with unjustified assumptions and declarations.
Perhaps. Perhaps the ideas are so revolutionary they seem ridiculous. Galieo offered to his peers his telescope to look through. Most refused to even look.
I submit the following based on my readings:
I would propose that the basis of every physical theory has been the manner in which free motion is explained.
What if the Universe was not born of some singular explosion but rather came into being as the consequence of a non material medium undergoing changes in numerous locations. Motion was the primary constant on which a hierarchy arose. Gamma Rays cyclized into stabilized particles; their structural motions induced envelopes of induction fields; atoms formed and gravitating systems evolved as a consequence of matter centering itself in the surrounding space (mediurm).
If the foregoing is correct we can see why theoretical physics is having some much difficulty in condolidating all the levels of matter and the "forces" of nature into a unified theory. The theories have followed Galieo's lead that motion is a state of matter and the change of motion is what must be formulated. But what if motion is more than a state and is an actual structural feature of each hierarchical stage of matter? In trying to understand the structual levels of matter by interpreting everything through the change of motion and the associated energies and forces we have relied upon a set of laws that are applicable only to dynamics.
This is understandable as nothing in the Universe exists in total isolation. All objects maintain union with the universe by extending its presence in some way beyond its physical boundaries to exert an influence on other objects in the space around it. The manner in which this influence is exerted, however, is not obvious and is subject to conjecture. Newton called it 'action at a distance', Faraday said is was due to force fields, Einstein concluded that space-time is curved, and in quantum mechanics objects are believed to exchange "force-bearing" particles. Each theory is valid within the context that it is applied. None is sufficently correct in description to lead to the conception of a simple unified theory, at least so far.
Except for the General Theory these are theories to justify the notion that the universe and everything in it are held together by forces. At each structural level of matter a force is introduced with its own unique properties to account for stability. But what is the rationale for the existance of these forces other than to satisfy the theories?
If instead we consider the simple hypothesis that physical reality has two fundemental components, matter and space, then new relationships emerge which seem both logical and consistent with current knowledge.
Matter in the form of subatomic particles consists of photons of gamma rays locked in resonance around a neutrino nucleus. The photons themselves are paired in standing waves of opposing spirals and arrranged in shells of a harmonic series. The combined oscillations of the photons generate the gravitational field and the algebraic sum of their spirals creates the electrical field of the particle. Thus the properties of matter ( and remember ever since Leukippos it has been a part of logic that properties are not fundemental ; rather they are derivatives that arise at some level of compostion and result from that ) are the result of a compositional arrangement of parts that have no mass or charge but when assembled exhibit the basic properties of matter. Thus if kinematic systems are based on composition then the role of motion should be to give a period of revolution which encompasses a definet amount of induction field. Atoms and gravitational systems therefore should be similar in relationship between the orbital motion of their satellites and the corresponding enclosed induction field.
Thus reality consists of matter and space; motion is a property of both and relates one to the other.
Alfred T Virgilio
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.279 seconds