Elysium and Interior Solutions

Actually, two more equations

===

v = a * t
How fast is Earth's surface moving?

and s = v * t
How far has Earth's surface moved?

<b>[Benish' "It makes me wonder why you have not pursued this line of thought yourself and urged completion of the experiment so that you could conclusively rule such models out (or in)."</b>

I have in fact stated that I'd like to see this experiment (the mass in a tunnel, for real, out in space) performed. I agree with you that something like this should not, ever, be left to gedanken. Especially when it is so easy to do. Just apply money.


Never-the-less, I am confident of the outcome.

===

To all,

Once more - does anyone have knowledge of an actual experiment that addresses this issue? I've never heard of one, and a (brief) search on the 'Net was a waste of time. But I could have missed it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Benish</i>
<br />the model has definite consequences (predictions) for the kinematics of stars in star clusters.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's a good point. A star cluster is very much like a "solid" body such as Earth with lower density and some holes in it. Individual stars are then like soccer balls, and we can directly measure their radial velocities and proper motions. They do as Newton's laws predict. Isn't that the experiment you proposed, and doesn't it show that a soccer ball would continue to speed up as it approaches the center, just as stars in clusters do?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">such a model is resisted, at least initially, by most everybody.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It is resisted for cause, not for prejudice, as we have discussed. For one thing, it seems to be motivated by a pun: that an instrument we invented to measure forces and accelerations is in reality always measuring just accelerations simply because we named it an "accelerometer". (Recall the equivalence principle in this connection. There is no way for an observer inside a small-enough box to tell if he is accelerating or sitting at rest in a gravitational field. Your model has nobody at rest unless they are in free fall, which is rather ironic.) Other objections are raised in what follows.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It has happened once before in physics that the researches of an investigator who had ... a strong intuition for the patterns he perceived<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">80% of all drivers believe themselves to be "above average" drivers. Some comparable percentage of all thinkers believe they have a "strong intuition for the patterns perceived". I see so many of these every week here at Meta Research that I see plainly how almost everyone gets seduced into believing their own inspirations. When I teach, one of my first lessons is that most people are not qualified to do science until they have shot down at least three of their own greatest inspirations, which teaches them how easily it is to be seduced, and how essential it is to use an objective protocol and to remain distant and dispassionate lest one waste one's life in fruitless pursuits.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Re: pushing gravity] Rather than invent ever more things to explain physical phenomena, I think more emphasis needs to be put on underlying <i>process</i>. In Pushing Gravity we have not only the particles that do the pushing (gravitons), we have the particles that make up the light medium (elysons). Neither of these show much promise of ever being directly observed. Two new hypothetical things. My intuition moves in other directions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Chapter 1 of my book "Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets" derives a complete cosmology (the "Meta Model") from first principles. It tells us that the universe must be infinite in scale as well as in space and time. That means there are not just two new mediums awaiting discovery, but an infinite number of them. And this infinity is essential to any true understanding of the nature of existence.

In my own lifetime, our knowledge of scale has expanded from 38 orders of magnitude to 42. And even now, evidence for substructure to quarks and superstructure to superclusters (walls and voids) is being debated. We have only 2 more orders of magnitude to go to get to elysons, and 6 or so for gravitons. It appears to me that discovering new mediums is therefore inevitable, unless you are thinking we have reached some sort of limits (the error made by all past generations since the primitive belief that the stars were points of light attached to a fixed globe.) So why does your intuition think that finding new mediums is anything more than just a matter of waiting for technology to advance?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">most astronomers and theorists are likely to conceive explanations that are consistent with Newton and Einstein<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The majority of astronomers and theorists no longer use testing protocols with controls. They just follow the leader or the money. Understanding nature has become irrelevant to them.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">One of the biggest problems in physics is the lack of a unified theory that includes all the fundamental forces, gravity being the defiant one. ... As far as I can see, Pushing Gravity leaves this problem pretty much as it stands<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Then you haven't read much of the Meta Model, which provides a context for unification of not just the big four that 21st century science is so fond of. Through the infinity of the scale dimension, an infinity of mediums and the forces they produce are "unified", meaning we can see how they fit into a unified picture of all existence.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What I want to know is, what a chunk of stuff must be <i>doing</i> to have the capacity to push or resist being pushed in the first place.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The short answer is that all forces are of the pushing variety, and the mechanism of applying them is momentum transfers via contact. If you want a deeper answer -- e.g., about the nature of contact -- see the extended Zero paradox and its resolution described in chapter 1 of my book.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As I see it, if gravity is conceived as a process of outward movement of matter, which process includes the generation of a proportional amount of space, we would then have a model in which gravity and inertia are due to the same underlying process.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">See "Does gravity have inertia?" at metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/Does%...20Have%20Inertia.asp

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In [Benish] model there are no new hypomagical things, but there is one new dimension of space.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Much about it seems uncaused and therefore magical to me. What could possibly cause everything in the universe to expand, with no limits on sizes or speeds attained? What kind of motion is this expansion that we cannot detect it by Doppler shifts? Motion requires kinetic energy, but your model seems to require the continual manufacture of an infinite amount of kinetic energy from nothing. Etc. (For context, I think the evidence clearly denies that the universe has any expansion either.) -|Tom|-

Larry,

I appreciate your desire for empirical evidence for the tunneled sphere question and for your plea to the community for same. I've been looking for many years. The late Bryce deWitt wrote to me in 1996, saying, "The experiment you mention has never been done." Sketchy though it may be, the best evidence I've found is in the kinematics of star clusters (about which, more in my following post to Tom).

Coming back to your riddle, I still don't see why it's not valid, in the context in which you presented it, to say the initial velocities of the surfaces are zero. In this case the simple equation for distance traveled at constant acceleration should apply.

If we assign an initial velocity based on the rate of a clock at the surface, its velocity would be sqrt(2GM/r). If one used this velocity in the calculation, the tungsten sphere's surface would initially be expanding sqrt(2) faster then the cobalt sphere, so the size difference would still quickly become evident.

Perhaps you should just divulge the twist that you've added to this problem.


RBenish

Tom,

Everybody wants to be a star. It must get tiring for those in positions of authority and power to keep telling all the wannabees tugging at their coattails to cool their flames of desire.

As I explain in detail in [url] www.gravitationlab.com/Grav%20Lab%20Link...-Experiment-2007.pdf [/url] there are two essentially different methods used by astronomers to measure velocities of stars in clusters: radial (line of sight) velocities, measured by Doppler shifts; and "proper motion" (angular) velocities, measured by comparing different positions on the plane of the sky at widely separated times. It has only relatively recently become possible to make sufficiently detailed proper motion velocity studies so as to compare these with the radial velocity studies of the same cluster. It is highly desirable for astronomers to make such comparisons because it is presumed to provide another method for estimating a cluster's distance. An estimate of the cluster's distance is needed to convert the angular velocities to linear velocities. This kind of comparison has been done for only a dozen or so Globular Clusters.

The method works as follows. Globular Clusters are very old and, according to Newtonian theory, are thus supposed to have essentially isotropic velocity distributions. A radial orbit straight through the center is just as likely as a perfectly circular orbit, and all shapes and directions in between are correspondingly distributed. If this is true, then the average magnitude of the radial velocities should match the average magnitude of the proper motion velocities. The analysis involves binning, squaring and averaging the velocities into data known as velocity <i>dispersions</i>.

Based on Newtonian theory, the comparison provides a measurement of the distance because the angular velocities in the proper motion studies are directly proportional to distance; one can simply scale the angular velocity dispersions to that distance at which the converted linear velocities match those in the radial velocity dispersions. This procedure is known as an <i>astrometric</i> distance measurement. Note, however, that, prior to making these astrometric measurements, distances to the clusters have been measured by other means (using standard candles, "main sequence fitting," etc). Astronomers expect that the non-astrometric methods should agree with the astrometric methods. Curiously, in almost every case, the non-astrometric method comes out greater than the astrometric method. In other words, if the distances measured by non-astrometric methods are used to calculate the proper motion velocities, the velocities are too high. The discrepancy is typically most pronounced near the clusters' centers.

Now consider the consequences of my model of gravity: The more radial an orbit is the more likely a star is to lose its velocity and get stuck at the center. If the cluster had too many near-radial orbits, the system would be unstable and collapse. Therefore, my model predicts:

<i>Members of stable gravitationally bound cluster systems will possess substantially fewer near-radial orbits than near-circular orbits.</i>

Now consider the orbit types that should contribute the highest velocities to both the proper motion and line of sight measurements. In proper motion measurements these are the circular (or nearly circular) orbits whose planes are along the line of sight (or nearly so) and have their maxima at (or near) the visual center of the cluster. The corresponding radial (line of sight) velocities for these orbits are nearly zero. If the velocities as a whole are isotropic, then these maximum proper motion velocities (corresponding with zero radial velocities) will be equaled, on average, by the corresponding line of sight extremes. The latter orbits are those radial (with respect to the cluster center) orbits that coincide (or nearly coincide) with the line of sight. But if orbits in the cluster tend to be circular, then the line of sight velocities through the center will tend to be smaller. In other words, if orbits in the cluster tend to be circular, the observational consequence is that proper motion velocities will tend to be greater than radial velocities. The effect would be especially pronounced near the clusters' centers. This is what is observed.

It is worthwhile to quote the authors of a study of the Globular Cluster NGC 6752, G. A. Drukier, et al, in which the discrepancy is most extreme:

"Our Hubble Space Telescope proper motions suggest that the velocity dispersion in the center of NGC 6752 is surprisingly large. At 12.5 km s^-1 it is much larger than the measured dispersion along the line of sight. While there is some uncertainty in the distance to NGC 6752 it is certainly known to better than the factor of roughly two which would be required to bring the two measurements into agreement… a most peculiar situation."

Although less extreme, the discrepancies exist, as I've stated, in most of the clusters whose velocities have been similarly compared. There are no known instances in which the discrepancy leans pronouncedly in the other direction. The observations tend most definitely to lean in favor of my model's prediction. In the paper referred to near the beginning of this post I've cited 17 references whose data are the basis of this statement.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Posted by TVF:

Individual stars [in star clusters] are then like soccer balls, and we can directly measure their radial velocities and proper motions. They do as Newton's laws predict.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Perhaps you can tell Drukier, et al how to reconcile their "peculiar situation" with Newton.


RBenish

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Benish</i>
<br />Perhaps you can tell Drukier, et al how to reconcile their "peculiar situation" with Newton.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's easy enough. But I tried to avoid the whole side issue of "dark matter" vs. MOND vs. Meta Model, each of which have different ways of addressing discrepancies between radial velocities and proper motions. Instead, I was simply pointing to the fact that the radial velocities get faster as they approach the center; and independently, so do the proper motions. So non-oscillating orbits seem to be ruled out no matter what the solution to the excess velocity problem might be. Your model calls for sub-Newtonian velocities, not excess velocities.

Then there were all those others problems I mentioned ...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It must get tiring for those in positions of authority and power to keep telling all the wannabees tugging at their coattails to cool their flames of desire.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> It would be ironic if you were intending to include me as "in a position of authority" because everything Meta Research does involves challenging authorities.

However, it is insightful of you to notice that most of those "on the map" are besieged with pleas from the vast internet world of people with inspirations, yet lacking the discipline to set them out in syllogisms with credible starting assumptions and the knowledge of scientific method to set up controls and a testing protocol. Such things are how even radical ideas can get into print in a peer-reviewed science world. But more commonly, they are how scientists manage to shoot down their own ideas before they embarrass themselves in print. -|Tom|-