- Thank you received: 0
Angular gravitation paths
17 years 10 months ago #19119
by Jim
Reply from was created by Jim
You did a good thing here since the subject is developing way too many details for one thread to manage. Angular Momentum is a very complex detail and having made this division from the EPH thread should help a lot.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
17 years 10 months ago #19393
by Youjaes
Replied by Youjaes on topic Reply from James Youlton
I usually lurk, but the propositions inherent in an angular momentum paradigm are of interest to me, so I'm going to share a basic thought experiment and see where it goes.
Imagine a universe composed of a single extended and uniform spherical mass. If this mass is spinning, then it contains angular momentum. Now, if the total angular momentum of this universe is conserved, and there has never been an external torque by definition, then I would expect the sphere to have an external angular momentum equal and opposite to its internal angular momentum. This means that the spinning sphere would need to orbit a point in space that doesn't contain any mass in order for angular momentum to conserve. Basically speaking, the sphere would be gravitationally attracted to nothing but still would be acting as if gravitationally attracted to some imaginary mass.
If this thought experiment has any validity, then the possibility exists for objects in our universe to be coincidentally gravitating about masses where the internal angular momentum of the objects are opposite but equal to the external angular momentum of the orbiting objects. The consequences are that objects gravitate according to an internal quality of the objects and only appear to require action at a distance forces such as gravity or gravity particles.
From a theoretical standpoint, this is strange, but from an engineering perspective, it's useful.
Anyway, it's something to think about and I don't expect anyone to agree with it, so I'm not going to defend it further. If anyone thinks it's interesting, then please run with it and share where it takes you.
James Youlton
Imagine a universe composed of a single extended and uniform spherical mass. If this mass is spinning, then it contains angular momentum. Now, if the total angular momentum of this universe is conserved, and there has never been an external torque by definition, then I would expect the sphere to have an external angular momentum equal and opposite to its internal angular momentum. This means that the spinning sphere would need to orbit a point in space that doesn't contain any mass in order for angular momentum to conserve. Basically speaking, the sphere would be gravitationally attracted to nothing but still would be acting as if gravitationally attracted to some imaginary mass.
If this thought experiment has any validity, then the possibility exists for objects in our universe to be coincidentally gravitating about masses where the internal angular momentum of the objects are opposite but equal to the external angular momentum of the orbiting objects. The consequences are that objects gravitate according to an internal quality of the objects and only appear to require action at a distance forces such as gravity or gravity particles.
From a theoretical standpoint, this is strange, but from an engineering perspective, it's useful.
Anyway, it's something to think about and I don't expect anyone to agree with it, so I'm not going to defend it further. If anyone thinks it's interesting, then please run with it and share where it takes you.
James Youlton
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
17 years 10 months ago #18650
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Its a very interesting side of angular momentum that you posted here-more puzzles to ponder.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
17 years 10 months ago #19394
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"><i>Originally posted by pshrodr</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: Things ejected radially out from the Sun don't have angular momentum.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Shouldn’t things ejected by (launched from) the sun absorb some of the sun’s sideways motion of its spin?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I specified things ejected radially, which have zero angular momentum by definition.
Because the Sun's surface is not simply a point, it emits particles in many non-radial directions too. Those are irrelevant to the present discussion. If the surface rotates, each ejected particle has two velocity components, one in the direction of ejection and one in the direction of surface rotation. The resultant of those two vectors is a linear path, usually in some non-radial direction. It is no different from a particle ejected slightly sideways. But because we are free to consider only things ejected radially when discussing gravity, particles with sideways components are irrelevant.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: What is important to note is that the solar wind particle paths are linear, not curved. It doesn''t really matter what linear direction they are ejected in.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">As viewed from above the solar system the entire sphere of radiation would show some curve, however minor. That curvature of gravity particles is enough to maintain (not to initiate) the revolution motion of planets. The sideways motion component diminishes as a factor more distant from the sun so more distant planets revolve more slowly.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is wildly wrong. At graviton speeds (> 20 billion c), the curvature is zero to the accuracy that either we observers or the orbiting planets can detect. The angular momentum of planets has nothing to do with graviton paths. In the standard model, it came from collapse of the proto-solar dust cloud. In the fission theory that Meta Science prefers, the angular momentum arises from solar rotation, and planets were originally pieces of the rotating Sun that broke off and continued that same sideways motion in orbit.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If the solar wind ions don’t thus have angular momentum, ie bent paths, isn’t there some concern that over the long term they would interfere with planets in orbit via causing friction?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">They do cause friction, but it is negligible even over billions of years. These things shouldn't be guessed, but worked out in detail. Many people have quantitatively worked out the pushing and drag forces of solar wind (and every other kind of force we can imagine). As I remarked, solar radiation pressure is 100 times stronger than solar wind, but is still negligible except for special cases such as balloon satellites.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Not finding aberration is mostly answered by superluminal velocity of gravitons. It is also answered by bending of the beams as that would modify the apparent direction of the source exactly offsetting the direction distortion caused by the motion of the recipient.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Incorrect. No bending model can be made to work because the beams do not know the velocity of the target body, and therefore do not know how much they need to bend. Additionally, bending requires a force acting, and no such force is known. -|Tom|-
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: Things ejected radially out from the Sun don't have angular momentum.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Shouldn’t things ejected by (launched from) the sun absorb some of the sun’s sideways motion of its spin?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I specified things ejected radially, which have zero angular momentum by definition.
Because the Sun's surface is not simply a point, it emits particles in many non-radial directions too. Those are irrelevant to the present discussion. If the surface rotates, each ejected particle has two velocity components, one in the direction of ejection and one in the direction of surface rotation. The resultant of those two vectors is a linear path, usually in some non-radial direction. It is no different from a particle ejected slightly sideways. But because we are free to consider only things ejected radially when discussing gravity, particles with sideways components are irrelevant.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: What is important to note is that the solar wind particle paths are linear, not curved. It doesn''t really matter what linear direction they are ejected in.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">As viewed from above the solar system the entire sphere of radiation would show some curve, however minor. That curvature of gravity particles is enough to maintain (not to initiate) the revolution motion of planets. The sideways motion component diminishes as a factor more distant from the sun so more distant planets revolve more slowly.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is wildly wrong. At graviton speeds (> 20 billion c), the curvature is zero to the accuracy that either we observers or the orbiting planets can detect. The angular momentum of planets has nothing to do with graviton paths. In the standard model, it came from collapse of the proto-solar dust cloud. In the fission theory that Meta Science prefers, the angular momentum arises from solar rotation, and planets were originally pieces of the rotating Sun that broke off and continued that same sideways motion in orbit.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If the solar wind ions don’t thus have angular momentum, ie bent paths, isn’t there some concern that over the long term they would interfere with planets in orbit via causing friction?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">They do cause friction, but it is negligible even over billions of years. These things shouldn't be guessed, but worked out in detail. Many people have quantitatively worked out the pushing and drag forces of solar wind (and every other kind of force we can imagine). As I remarked, solar radiation pressure is 100 times stronger than solar wind, but is still negligible except for special cases such as balloon satellites.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Not finding aberration is mostly answered by superluminal velocity of gravitons. It is also answered by bending of the beams as that would modify the apparent direction of the source exactly offsetting the direction distortion caused by the motion of the recipient.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Incorrect. No bending model can be made to work because the beams do not know the velocity of the target body, and therefore do not know how much they need to bend. Additionally, bending requires a force acting, and no such force is known. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
17 years 9 months ago #19415
by pshrodr
The concept of angular motion is complex and it’s properties arguable, as is infinity which you have recently focused on. But angular motion is here and now and everywhere. Determining and grasping all its nuances remains as a key to human advances. For example, you say that things ejected radially have no angular momentum by definition, and that the result of the two vectors is a linear path.. But that relies on Newtonian absolute space. Relativity took us past absolutes for linear considerations and we must do so also for lateral considerations when analyzing spatial interactions. In reality neither the source nor the recipient who are moving sideways relative to each other can totally ignore the sideways vector of shared transmissions.
Things get messy quickly. Many events potentially related to angular motion have been observed and noted. How does it all affect the universe as a whole? What follows touches the surface. If a beam, such as pushing gravity particles, solar wind, or radiation, is particle in nature as it pushes on its recipient, is it also particle in nature in it’s sideways component vector? Can it push sideways as well as linearly, and if so by how much? Remember, pushing gravity particles create a potent centripetal force. You cant base a rejection of ‘curvature’ on the speed of linear travel. Speed applies when considering individual particles. Radiated beams are not that, but are relatively continuous. The faster a beam passes by a body, the more of it’s particles can affect the body in any time period. There isnt a good comparison to use to understand bent transmissions. But some examples are useful.
First think of the beam as an extremely long board which is rigidly vertical to earth and used to push the moon along. It would tend to push the moon 29 times as fast as the moon now orbits. Similarly would a board extended from the sun push earth in it’s orbit, and do so at about 11 times earth’s current speed. Obviously a beam is unlike a solid, but it does have a lot of particles (frequency) within it. To whatever extent the beam moves sideways and it’s particles retain particle nature, how much will it push upon bodies in this direction? The rigid board doesnt work for pushing as it would push too fast. But the beam can push at appropriate speeds as its particles can spread out and both push and pass by/surround the affected body. In fact this is the anticipated effect as the beam becomes less dense with distance and maybe merges with other types of moving particle beams. We could say that the density is most like a board at the geosynchronous point.
Clouds and air flow tend to exceed the spin rate of earth. The Coriolis force theory specifies that the spinning earth initiates this flow. Then air over the equator travels linearly fastest and so revolves faster when shifted toward the poles. This conflicts with the fact that jet streams originate near the poles. In fact an outside source causing the rotation, such as pushing gravity, predicts origination of more rapid flow near the poles.
For a second analogy consider a bucket of water with something spinning in the center. Gradually the water will rotate and would do so at the spin rate were there no friction. The solar system Is like the bucket but is unbounded. Thus there is always space unaffected by the rotation which merges with the angular flow as distance from center increases. The Meta Science theory of angular momentum arising from solar rotation and broken off pieces retaining that sideways motion is similar to what I present except the gravity particles from the sun provide continuation of the sideways motion in orbit.
Newton defined how earth and solar system components maintain equilibrium with the sun and with each other given all their motions and offsetting gravitation. That has never been totally extended to our lateral equilibrium here on earth given all the rotational motions and their angular components. Newtonian concepts of absence of friction and of voids are no longer sufficient. One arrives at the necessity of a pushing form of gravity simply by considering the lateral equilibrium on earth.
For orbitals the theory here is of space itself creating a flow which orbits the central body. Space itself is the gravity particles.
One last point concerning aberration. Contrary to your objection, Tom, this bending model has gravity sustaining the motion of orbitals and thus the angle at which the gravity particles arrive exactly matches the velocity of the target body and offsets aberration.
Paul Schroeder
paul schroeder
Replied by pshrodr on topic Reply from paul schroeder
The concept of angular motion is complex and it’s properties arguable, as is infinity which you have recently focused on. But angular motion is here and now and everywhere. Determining and grasping all its nuances remains as a key to human advances. For example, you say that things ejected radially have no angular momentum by definition, and that the result of the two vectors is a linear path.. But that relies on Newtonian absolute space. Relativity took us past absolutes for linear considerations and we must do so also for lateral considerations when analyzing spatial interactions. In reality neither the source nor the recipient who are moving sideways relative to each other can totally ignore the sideways vector of shared transmissions.
Things get messy quickly. Many events potentially related to angular motion have been observed and noted. How does it all affect the universe as a whole? What follows touches the surface. If a beam, such as pushing gravity particles, solar wind, or radiation, is particle in nature as it pushes on its recipient, is it also particle in nature in it’s sideways component vector? Can it push sideways as well as linearly, and if so by how much? Remember, pushing gravity particles create a potent centripetal force. You cant base a rejection of ‘curvature’ on the speed of linear travel. Speed applies when considering individual particles. Radiated beams are not that, but are relatively continuous. The faster a beam passes by a body, the more of it’s particles can affect the body in any time period. There isnt a good comparison to use to understand bent transmissions. But some examples are useful.
First think of the beam as an extremely long board which is rigidly vertical to earth and used to push the moon along. It would tend to push the moon 29 times as fast as the moon now orbits. Similarly would a board extended from the sun push earth in it’s orbit, and do so at about 11 times earth’s current speed. Obviously a beam is unlike a solid, but it does have a lot of particles (frequency) within it. To whatever extent the beam moves sideways and it’s particles retain particle nature, how much will it push upon bodies in this direction? The rigid board doesnt work for pushing as it would push too fast. But the beam can push at appropriate speeds as its particles can spread out and both push and pass by/surround the affected body. In fact this is the anticipated effect as the beam becomes less dense with distance and maybe merges with other types of moving particle beams. We could say that the density is most like a board at the geosynchronous point.
Clouds and air flow tend to exceed the spin rate of earth. The Coriolis force theory specifies that the spinning earth initiates this flow. Then air over the equator travels linearly fastest and so revolves faster when shifted toward the poles. This conflicts with the fact that jet streams originate near the poles. In fact an outside source causing the rotation, such as pushing gravity, predicts origination of more rapid flow near the poles.
For a second analogy consider a bucket of water with something spinning in the center. Gradually the water will rotate and would do so at the spin rate were there no friction. The solar system Is like the bucket but is unbounded. Thus there is always space unaffected by the rotation which merges with the angular flow as distance from center increases. The Meta Science theory of angular momentum arising from solar rotation and broken off pieces retaining that sideways motion is similar to what I present except the gravity particles from the sun provide continuation of the sideways motion in orbit.
Newton defined how earth and solar system components maintain equilibrium with the sun and with each other given all their motions and offsetting gravitation. That has never been totally extended to our lateral equilibrium here on earth given all the rotational motions and their angular components. Newtonian concepts of absence of friction and of voids are no longer sufficient. One arrives at the necessity of a pushing form of gravity simply by considering the lateral equilibrium on earth.
For orbitals the theory here is of space itself creating a flow which orbits the central body. Space itself is the gravity particles.
One last point concerning aberration. Contrary to your objection, Tom, this bending model has gravity sustaining the motion of orbitals and thus the angle at which the gravity particles arrive exactly matches the velocity of the target body and offsets aberration.
Paul Schroeder
paul schroeder
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
17 years 9 months ago #18789
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"><i>Originally posted by pshrodr</i>
<br />The concept of angular motion is complex and it’s properties arguable, as is infinity which you have recently focused on.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I disagree. The concept of angular momentum and ts properties are simple if they are properly understood. For example, it plays a central role in orbital mechanics.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">you say that things ejected radially have no angular momentum by definition, and that the result of the two vectors is a linear path.. But that relies on Newtonian absolute space.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This appears very muddled. Radial motion has only one component, not two. It is along a straight line from the center of mass outward to infinity. In cases where there are two vectors (as when rotation is involved), that non-radial motion is along a straight line unless a force acts. That is simple Newtonian mechanics, and by no stretch of the imagination does it involve "absolute space". But then, judging by what you say below, we do not agree on the meaning of "space", so we are necessarily talking past one another.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If a beam, such as pushing gravity particles, solar wind, or radiation, is particle in nature as it pushes on its recipient, is it also particle in nature in it’s sideways component vector? Can it push sideways as well as linearly, and if so by how much?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Either you use words carelessly, or your study of basic physics and mechanics is incomplete. All particles act linearly. Only particles with no "sideways" motion (no angular momentum) can act radially. At the target body, the interaction is linear. For the examples you gave, it is also almost exclusively radial (no sideways component) because solar rotation has no effect on gravitons, insignificant effect on photons, and completely ignorable effect on solar wind far from the solar corona.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You cant base a rejection of ‘curvature’ on the speed of linear travel.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I certainly can. All motion is linear unless a force acts. The faster a particle moves, the less influence any given force will have on diverting its path.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">There isnt a good comparison to use to understand bent transmissions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Is the "bend" a kink or a smooth curve? What force are you proposing to produce either? Effects without causes are a form of magic, excluded from deep reality physics.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">First think of the beam as an extremely long board which is rigidly vertical to earth and used to push the moon along.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The board has no momentum away from the Earth, and applies all its momentum sideways. The closest physical counterpart might be a medium orbiting the Earth at the Moon's distance. But anything coming from the rotating Earth would act to push the Moon away far more strongly than pushing it sideways. No such force exists at a detectable level.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Obviously a beam is unlike a solid, but it does have a lot of particles (frequency) within it. To whatever extent the beam moves sideways and it’s particles retain particle nature, how much will it push upon bodies in this direction?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">All known "beams" have been thoroughly investigated and are quite negligible compared to the major forces of gravitation and tides. Remind yourself what "Avogadro's constant" is all about.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">For a second analogy consider a bucket of water with something spinning in the center. Gradually the water will rotate and would do so at the spin rate were there no friction.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The <i>only</i> force tending to make any other water mocecules spin is friction.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The Meta Science theory of angular momentum arising from solar rotation and broken off pieces retaining that sideways motion is similar to what I present except the gravity particles from the sun provide continuation of the sideways motion in orbit.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In the Meta Science fission model, pieces of the rotating Sun (rotating so fast that its surface tries to go into orbit) break off and continue their rotational motion in orbit. There are no radial motions here -- it's all about angular momentum conservation.
Once again, gravitons are not affected by rotation, and therefore have no sideways component.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Newtonian concepts of absence of friction and of voids are no longer sufficient. One arrives at the necessity of a pushing form of gravity simply by considering the lateral equilibrium on earth.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I've never seen that argument developed, and do not expect I ever will.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">For orbitals the theory here is of space itself creating a flow which orbits the central body. Space itself is the gravity particles.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Now we are playing word games. Deep reality physicists prefer not to alter the working definitions of words and concepts. So we retain the word "space" to mean the concept used for measuring distances and directions. As such, it is not material or tangible, and cannot act upon material entities in any way.
So I insist that you not co-opt the physics word for measuring things, and try to make it mean something completely different. Call your "space" what it really is -- some kind of medium filling space and able to act on bodies in space. Then, the burden is on you to describe the properties of this space-filling medium that allow it to emulate gravity but not contradict observations or experiments. I maintain that is a burden you cannot meet. Many have tried before you.
In fact, such efforts are what eventually led to the best theory we now have: pushing gravity with its graviton medium and the elysium medium for carrying light waves. You should get up to speed on that model, then see if you see any flaws or incompleteness in it and see if you can do better.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">One last point concerning aberration. Contrary to your objection, Tom, this bending model has gravity sustaining the motion of orbitals and thus the angle at which the gravity particles arrive exactly matches the velocity of the target body and offsets aberration.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not only has a cancelling force been ruled out, but your particular kind of force would act in the same direction as aberration, and would therefore tend to increase it, not cancel it. -|Tom|-
<br />The concept of angular motion is complex and it’s properties arguable, as is infinity which you have recently focused on.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I disagree. The concept of angular momentum and ts properties are simple if they are properly understood. For example, it plays a central role in orbital mechanics.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">you say that things ejected radially have no angular momentum by definition, and that the result of the two vectors is a linear path.. But that relies on Newtonian absolute space.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This appears very muddled. Radial motion has only one component, not two. It is along a straight line from the center of mass outward to infinity. In cases where there are two vectors (as when rotation is involved), that non-radial motion is along a straight line unless a force acts. That is simple Newtonian mechanics, and by no stretch of the imagination does it involve "absolute space". But then, judging by what you say below, we do not agree on the meaning of "space", so we are necessarily talking past one another.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If a beam, such as pushing gravity particles, solar wind, or radiation, is particle in nature as it pushes on its recipient, is it also particle in nature in it’s sideways component vector? Can it push sideways as well as linearly, and if so by how much?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Either you use words carelessly, or your study of basic physics and mechanics is incomplete. All particles act linearly. Only particles with no "sideways" motion (no angular momentum) can act radially. At the target body, the interaction is linear. For the examples you gave, it is also almost exclusively radial (no sideways component) because solar rotation has no effect on gravitons, insignificant effect on photons, and completely ignorable effect on solar wind far from the solar corona.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You cant base a rejection of ‘curvature’ on the speed of linear travel.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I certainly can. All motion is linear unless a force acts. The faster a particle moves, the less influence any given force will have on diverting its path.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">There isnt a good comparison to use to understand bent transmissions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Is the "bend" a kink or a smooth curve? What force are you proposing to produce either? Effects without causes are a form of magic, excluded from deep reality physics.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">First think of the beam as an extremely long board which is rigidly vertical to earth and used to push the moon along.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The board has no momentum away from the Earth, and applies all its momentum sideways. The closest physical counterpart might be a medium orbiting the Earth at the Moon's distance. But anything coming from the rotating Earth would act to push the Moon away far more strongly than pushing it sideways. No such force exists at a detectable level.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Obviously a beam is unlike a solid, but it does have a lot of particles (frequency) within it. To whatever extent the beam moves sideways and it’s particles retain particle nature, how much will it push upon bodies in this direction?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">All known "beams" have been thoroughly investigated and are quite negligible compared to the major forces of gravitation and tides. Remind yourself what "Avogadro's constant" is all about.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">For a second analogy consider a bucket of water with something spinning in the center. Gradually the water will rotate and would do so at the spin rate were there no friction.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The <i>only</i> force tending to make any other water mocecules spin is friction.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The Meta Science theory of angular momentum arising from solar rotation and broken off pieces retaining that sideways motion is similar to what I present except the gravity particles from the sun provide continuation of the sideways motion in orbit.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In the Meta Science fission model, pieces of the rotating Sun (rotating so fast that its surface tries to go into orbit) break off and continue their rotational motion in orbit. There are no radial motions here -- it's all about angular momentum conservation.
Once again, gravitons are not affected by rotation, and therefore have no sideways component.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Newtonian concepts of absence of friction and of voids are no longer sufficient. One arrives at the necessity of a pushing form of gravity simply by considering the lateral equilibrium on earth.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I've never seen that argument developed, and do not expect I ever will.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">For orbitals the theory here is of space itself creating a flow which orbits the central body. Space itself is the gravity particles.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Now we are playing word games. Deep reality physicists prefer not to alter the working definitions of words and concepts. So we retain the word "space" to mean the concept used for measuring distances and directions. As such, it is not material or tangible, and cannot act upon material entities in any way.
So I insist that you not co-opt the physics word for measuring things, and try to make it mean something completely different. Call your "space" what it really is -- some kind of medium filling space and able to act on bodies in space. Then, the burden is on you to describe the properties of this space-filling medium that allow it to emulate gravity but not contradict observations or experiments. I maintain that is a burden you cannot meet. Many have tried before you.
In fact, such efforts are what eventually led to the best theory we now have: pushing gravity with its graviton medium and the elysium medium for carrying light waves. You should get up to speed on that model, then see if you see any flaws or incompleteness in it and see if you can do better.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">One last point concerning aberration. Contrary to your objection, Tom, this bending model has gravity sustaining the motion of orbitals and thus the angle at which the gravity particles arrive exactly matches the velocity of the target body and offsets aberration.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not only has a cancelling force been ruled out, but your particular kind of force would act in the same direction as aberration, and would therefore tend to increase it, not cancel it. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.240 seconds