 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / August 2005Gravity as Falling Space + Reward
A reward awaits! You will win 1000 US dollars if you can come up with an argument that invalidates this theory of gravity as falling space, either completely or a major part of it. For example, you may find an inconsistency or a claim that contradicts an experimental result. The reward will be paid to the first person with a valid argument. If you doubt this, let me tell you something about myself. I am 60 years old, I publish four magazines, and I am quite well known in Finland. My reputation would not allow me to break my promise. The theory is here: http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ Good luck! Henry Haapalainen > A reward awaits! > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > break my > promise. This tactic is as old as Methuselah. Since you are the judge of if it invalidates it or not it is a useless exercise. Your have been posting the same unintelligible semantic nonsense since at least the year 2000 - and the answer is the same now as it was when Tom Roberts responded to you back then http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/53c5e6fe41005b1d?hl=en 'Nonsense. GR does so. And your "explanation" has the serious defect that it seems to be meaningless (at least as best I can interpret your words).' Bill > The theory is here: http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ > > Good luck! > Henry Haapalainen > A reward awaits! > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Good luck! > Henry Haapalainen Keep your reward but compare what you have to "induced dipoles" as they are used in Van der Walls and London forces and Loop quantum theories. You have some good work along the same lines but need a bit more detail. Sue... Subject: GRAVITY IS NOT A FORCE PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN TO CONSERVE TOTAL ENERGY GRAVITATION IS NOT A FORCE BUT AN ILLUSION Copyright 1984-2005 Allen C. Goodrich A planet or any mass such as the earth orbits the sun simply because it would require the gain or loss of a tremendous amount of energy to make it travel in any other orbit or path. But,why do we seem to be attracted to the earth by a force of gravity? That question is what this article will answer. . SUMMARY OF PAST HISTORY: The precise measurements of planetary motion by Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) and observations by Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) were plotted by Johann Kepler (1571-1630 ) resulting in Kepler's Three laws: 1. The planets move about the sun in elliptical orbits with the sun as one focus of the ellipse. 2. The straight line joining the sun and a given planet sweeps out equal areas in equal intervals of time. 3. The square of the period of revolution of the planet about the sun is proportional to the cube of the mean distance from the sun. t^2 = K L^3 Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1721 ) concluded that it was a force F = mL/t^2 = k m_1 x m_2 /L^2 that caused the orbital motion. Allen C. Goodrich defined the cause as a conservation of total energy. The concentration of the Kinetic Energy of mass increases as the Potential Energy of the universe decreases with the expansion of the universe at constant total energy. Planets orbit the sun in a state of equiliurium,where no change to total energy occurs. At Equilibrium the sum of kinetic and potential energies is a constant. A positive change of kinetic energy equals a negative change of potential energy. + delta m (2 pi L)^2/t^2 = - delta G (M-m)m / L . or Delta e (2 pi L)^2/t^2 = - Delta K e^2 / 4 pi E_o L. if a charge is present. The mass of the human body, on the earrth's surface, is not in an equilibrium orbit. If a force ,such as the surface of the earth , was not present, the body would not stay where it is. IT TRIES TO MOVE TO AN EQUILIBRIUM ORBIT. No change of total energy. This force is what is felt to rqual gravitational force. A gravitational force is not needed in a state of orbital equilibrium. Galileo demonstrated the effect of gravitational force. Newton assumed that a gravitational force between all masses pulled them together. Was this a correct assumption? Einstein and many other scientists felt that there must be more to gravitation than an attraction at a distance. Action at a distance was considered to be impossible in the absence of a transfer of energy at the speed of light.A change of kinetic energy is not always the result of a force. In an equilibrium system at constant total energy, kinetic energy can increase as potential energy decreases, with the total energy remaining constant.. Hubble then showed that the distant Galaxies were moving away from the earth and that the universe was expanding in all directions. If this is true , What else must be true? 1. The potential energy of the rest of the universe must be decreasing relative to the mass of the earth. It has long been assumed that the first law of thermodynamics, which says that the total energy of the universe is a constant, was a fact of nature. If this is true what then? 2. The kinetic energy of the universe must be increasing at the same rate that the potential energy is decreasing as the universe expands. How is this possible? Masses must be accelerating, because, kinetic energy is the result of an acceleration. 3. Orbital motion could then be the result of the expansion of the universe. The Gravitational illusion could be the result. Based on the first law of thermodynamics The total mass energy of the universe is a constant. ((total kinetic (mass) energy plus total potential energy is a constant)). m is any mass say that of the earth. Planets, moons, and electrons are normally in equilibrium orbits where the total energy is constant. m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + G(M-m)m/L+ X e(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + Z e^2/4 pi E_o L = a constant. (In the absence of a charge) >From this equation the equation Delta m (2 pi L)^2 / t^2 = - Delta G (M-m)m/L follows mathematically. The earth orbit is a result of an energy equilibrium, ( the absence of a change of total energy ) and not the result of a force of gravity between masses. Force of gravity is the resulting illusion assumed by Newton to be a force. If a planet (say earth) moved away from the sun its potential energy would decrease as L increased. Its kinetic energy would decrease because it is no longer accelerating toward the sun in orbital motion. Total energy would have to decrease. A very great change of total energy would have to take place. POTENTIAL ENERGY = G(M-m)m/L KINETIC ENERGY = m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + G(M-m)m/L = A constant = M G= Gravitational constant; M = total energy of the universe (or effective universe) ; m = mass in question. t = time ; L = radial distance. No mechanism exists for this to occur rapidly. So it could not happen. The magnitudes of kinetic and potential energies of planets and moons travelling in orbital motion are nearly equal and any increase or decrease of orbital distance L results in an equal change in magnitude of both.This is the only value of L where no change of total energy will occur if the value of L changes. At any other distance L, an increase of kinetic energy will be at a different rate than potential energy decreases. Orbital motion conserves total energy. Force of gravity isn't needed to explain orbital motion or any other motion at a distance. GRAVITY MECHANICS AND RESEARCH ON ASTRONOMICAL OCEAN TIDES Copyright 1984 to 2002 Allen C. Goodrich An examination of United States Coast and Geodetic Survey Tidal Data, which was gathered by extensive measurements over long periods of time,was compared with astronomical data showing the phases of the moon at corresponding times for many years. This correlation of the two sets of data revealed a very interesting fact, in a manner that had never before been mentioned in the literature. It is invariably and exactly the lowest tide that exists directly under the full and new moons at deep ocean ports. TABULATED co-op.nos.noaa.gov and space.jpl.nasa.gov DATA: OCEAN TIDES AND PHASES OF THE MOON AT DEEP OCEAN PORT- MYRTLE BEACH LOWEST TIDE (YEARS 1992 AND 1993) 1992 FULL MOON---1992 NEW MOON (at moons highest point in the sky) DATE---TIME(std)-DATE---TIME(std) Mar.18--12:00Mid-Mar.3---12:00Noon Apr.17--12:00Mid-Apr.2---12:00Noon May.17--12:00Mid-May.2---12:00Noon Jun.15--12:00Mid-Jun.29--12:00Noon July.13-12:00Mid-July.29-12:00Noon Aug.12--12:00Mid-Aug.27--12:00Noon Sept.11-12:00Mid-Sept.26-12:00Noon Oct.11--12:00Mid-Oct.26--12:00Noon Nov.10--12:00Mid-Mov.25--12:00noon Dec.10--12:00Mid-Dec.25--12:00noon 1993 FULL MOON---1993 NEW MOON (at moons highest point in the sky) DATE---TIME(sdt)-DATE---TIME(sdt) Jan.8--12:00Mid--Jan.24-12:00Noon Feb.6--12:00Mid--Feb.21-12:00Noon Mar.8--12:00Mid--Mar.23-12:00Noon Apr.6--12:00Mid--Apr.21-12:00Noon May.6--12:00Mid--May.20-12:00Noon Jun.4--12:00Mid--Jun.19-12:00Noon July.3-12:00Mid--Juy.18-12:00Noon Aug.2--12:00Mid--Aug.17-12:00Noon Sep.1--12:00Mid--Sep.16-12:00Noon Sep.30-12:00MId--Oct.15-12:00Noon Oct.30-12:00Mid--Nov.14-12:00Noon Nov.29-12:00Mid--Dec.13-12:00Noon Dec.28-12:00Mid--Jan.12-12:00Noon This was a very interesting discovery because current physics,based on the gravitational theory, discussed in the following U.S.Gov. documents: PREDICT THE OCEAN TIDES http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/restles1.html SEE PHASES OF THE MOON FROM EARTH http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/ ,would lead one to believe that,except for many possible reasons, the highest tides tend to be under the full and new moons. The dictionary and encyclopedia as well as physics texts predict this with pictures of the earth and oceans bulging on the side facing the full moon. Of course it never happens as the gravitational theory predicts, and many reasons are given for the discrepancies. CONCLUSION: No discrepancies were found in the occurence of exactly the lowest tide directly under the full and new moons, at deep ocean ports. A lowest tide also occurs on the earth's ocean directly opposite to the new and full moons. SIGNIFICANCE: One must admit that this is beyond question one of the most important discoveries of modern physics research. It indicates that a change must be made in the theory of gravitation. One can no longer assume that a force between the moon and the water of the earth's oceans, is causing the ocean tides. The force of gravity must be an illusion caused by some other, more basic, reason. What would this be? If the total energy ( kinetic and potential ) of the universe is assumed to be a constant,from this fundamental equation, many interesting things follow. If the rest of the universe is expanding ( potential energy decreasing) relative to masses, the masses must be shrinking ( increasing in kinetic energy ) (gravitation) relative to the rest of the universe. THE FIRST LAW OF MOTION-(GOODRICH) Copyright 1984 to 2002 ALLEN C. GOODRICH A body (m) continues in a state of rest (equilibrium) or motion in a straight or curved line (equilibrium) as long as no change occurs in its total (kinetic and potential) energy, relative to the rest of the effective universe (M-m), Delta m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 = - Delta K(M-m)m/L equilibrium = no change in the total energy relative to the rest of the effective universe (M-m). ^ = to the power of. Orbital motion complies with this equation. This equation is derived from the fundamental equation of the universe which states that the total energy of the universe is a constant. The sum of kinetic and potential energies is a constant. m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + K(M-m)m/L = A constant. INERTIA AND MOMENTUM are the properties of a mass that evidence its reluctance to change its total energy, or it is its need to maintain a constant total energy. If it could more easily obtain or lose energy, it would have less inertia or momentum. SEE THE UNIVERSE- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY OF MASS ENERGY SPACE TIME FRAME MECHANICS-APPEARING IN NEWSLETTER "SPECTRUM" OF THE BUFFALO ASTRONOMICAL ASSOCIATION INC. NOV.1996 TO FEB.1997 :( CLICK BLACK AND BLUE PAGES BELOW ) http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechanic2/myhomepage/business.html FUNDAMENTAL EQUATION OF THE UNIVERSE http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechanic2/myhomepage/profile.html TIDES AND GRAVITY MECHANICS http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechanic2/myhomepage/resume.html A new theory of gravitation is given, which predicted, stimulated the above research,and is consistent with, the new findings. The universe has been found to be expanding at an accelerating rate as predicted in 1984 by this new theory. ELECTROMAGNETIC ,PHOTON AND CHARGE EFFECTS. ARE DEFINED IN THE FOLLOWING BOOK.-- THE UNIVERSE:--Allen C. Goodrich Copyright 1984 to 2005 Allen C. Goodrich FORCE OF GRAVITATION DOES NOT EXIST. If One calculates the kinetic and potential energies of the planets relative to the rest of the effective universe, using the formulas kinetic energy = m(2 pi L )^2/t^2 and potential energy = -G(M-m) m/L, M is the gm mass of the sun and all planets; m ,L,and t are the gm mass, mean radial cm. distance, and orbital time in sec, of one of the planets. ( THIS IS THE ONLY CORRECT METHOD, it explains the T.R.Young-two slit interference pattern which involves the rest of the universe ). One will find that they are of nearly equal magnitude but opposite in sign. One will also find that their sum is a constant, the equilibrium energy for the particular planet.This is the energy that remains constant as the universe expands. its potintial energy continually decreasing and its kinetic energy continually increasing. Only at the orbital distance will a small change of kinetic energy equal an opposite change of potential energy.This is the total energy that requires no force , with its necessary acceleration and change of total energy, to maintain it as a constant.No force of gravity is necessary to explain the motion of the planets in the expanding universe. The planets motion around the center of the rest of the universe at the specific distance L is the equilibrium condition for constant total energy of the orbiting planet in the expanding universe. THE SOLAR SAIL Copyright 1984 to 2005 Allen C. Goodrich The Solar Sail, which is being tested by Russia and the United States, for possible propulsion in interstellar space travel, is additional evidence that no change of potential energy to kinetic energy of the photon takes place unless the potential energy is absorbed .The photon does not have mass ( kinetic energy). A change of direction of the photon's potential energy can occur at the reflective surface but no potential to kinetic energy change takes place there. A change of potential to kinetic energy takes place at the black absorption surface.which has the correct frequency response as well as direction and density (time ) in the expanding universe.This is evidence that the photon is potential not kinetic energy.The light photon does not have mass or kinetic energy.until the photon is absorbed by a mass of the correct frequency response as well as direction and density (time ), no potential to kinetic energy change can take place.in the expanding universe, in the absence of a mass.. > A reward awaits! > > You will win 1000 US dollars if you can come up with an argument that > invalidates this theory of gravity as falling space, either completely or a > major part of it. [snip crap] GPS.  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf > > A reward awaits! > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > GPS. > Uncle Al The paragraphs of the theory have been "numbered" now: http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ The reason for GPS corrections is explained at B6: the clock on the Earth is NOT in free fall. Henry Haapalainen >A reward awaits! > > You will win 1000 US dollars if you can come up with an argument that > invalidates this theory of gravity as falling space, either completely or > a > major part of it. For You don't have a theory. You have an hypothesis. > A reward awaits! > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Good luck! > Henry Haapalainen Wasn't there once a falling rocket experiment, with an atomic clock inside? That should in principle have decided between your theory and GRT... Harald > > A reward awaits! > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Harald GPS invalidates that interpretation of P-R, GP-A (Vessot). http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS00006 8000002000115000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes Sue... > > A reward awaits! > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Harald Hello?! If I can find back that experiment and if, as I expect, it confirms GRT at the cost of your theory, how do I get the money? If you don't reply then that means that your promise is fake! Harald > > > A reward awaits! > > > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > If you don't reply then that means that your promise is fake! > Harald If there is an experiment that shows different time between two objects, both in free fall, then yes. The first who can find that kind of experiment will win the money. Henry Haapalainen > > > > A reward awaits! > > > > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Henry Haapalainen It's slightly different, I think there was only one falling rocket. Please correct me if I'm wrong: - According to GRT, a clock that falls from a height will during that fall tick slower than clocks that remain on that height, as measured by a radio receiver on earth - due to increased speed AND decreased gravitational potential. - According to Falling Space theories, clocks that fall along with space should keep the same(?) rate as the clocks that remain on that height; in any case they should count considerably more ticks before impact than would happen according to GRT. Right? Best regards, Harald > > > > > A reward awaits! > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > Best regards, > Harald I am not sure about your last sentence. I should improve my English, which is not good enough now. Prediction of GFS is said at paragraph B6. Henry Haapalainen > > > > > > A reward awaits! > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > I am not sure about your last sentence. I should improve my English, which > is not good enough now. Prediction of GFS is said at paragraph B6. "B6 Time is absolute, and in a free fall every atomic clock of the universe shows the same time. But they work erratically if there is any change from the free fall. Acceleration affects the function of the atomic clock, and that has been measured in centrifuge. Free fall is the basic state without any acceleration. This is observable with current technology, and the result of the test will invalidate either the relativity theory or this theory of gravity as falling space. " OK, so we agree that an experiment with a falling clock that sends a radiosignal to an earth station for analysis should be decisive, as in your theory the clock will go at its max. rate while according to GRT it should slow down due to the combined effects of gravitational potential and speed. (Now clear?) The paper - and I want my money! ;-) : Test of Relativistic Gravitation with a Space-Borne Hydrogen Maser Vessot et al, 1980, Phys.Rev.Lett. 45 p.2081 "The results of a test of general relativity with use of a hydrogen-maser frequency standard in a spacecraft launched nearly vertically upward to 10 000 km are reported. The agreement of the observed relativistic frequency shift with prediction is at the 70 x 10-6 level." Harald > > > > > > > A reward awaits! > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > > Harald A lot of experiments has been made to prove relativity theory correct. We need one more experiment - to prove it incorrect. We should compare to clocks (in satellites), both in free fall, at different distances from the Earth. I know that this is bad English. Hopefully you understand it. Henry Haapalainen > > > > > > > > A reward awaits! > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 117 lines] > clocks (in satellites), both in free fall, at different distances from the > Earth. I know that this is bad English. Hopefully you understand it. Hi sure I understand it, and relativity theory is not the issue here. It appears to me that your theory is proven incorrect because the frequency of a free falling clock reduced to less than that of identical clocks on earth. According to your B6 it should have kept a constant, much higher frequency. Best regards, Harald > > > > > > > > > A reward awaits! > > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 138 lines] > Best regards, > Harald I think that you have understood something wrong. The clocks in free fall must run slower than clocks on earth. The atomic clock works that way. Then, if those who carried out the experiment really said, that the frequency reduced during free fall, then they made a wrong conclusion of the result. Isn't that rather old experiment (before GPS time)? Henry Haapalainen > > > > > > > > > > A reward awaits! > > > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 157 lines] > > Henry Haapalainen Hi, I was on vacation and next your reply didn't show up in my newsreader. You are right, I must have misunderstood your theory indeed: I thought that it was a standard flowing space theory, according to which clocks in rest or slowly moving wrt "space" (such as freely falling clocks) must tick *faster* than clocks at rest wrt earth - contrary to SRT. Can you explain why an atomic clock that starts to move on the earth surface also slows down in your theory ? According to your theory it does move faster wrt space, doesn't it?! Harald Hi, I was on vacation and next your reply didn't show up in my newsreader. You are right, I must have misunderstood your theory indeed: I thought that it was a standard flowing space theory, according to which clocks in rest or slowly moving wrt "space" (such as freely falling clocks) must tick *faster* than clocks at rest wrt earth - contrary to SRT. Can you explain why an atomic clock that starts to move on the earth surface also slows down in your theory ? According to your theory it does move faster wrt space, doesn't it?! Harald http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ paragraph B6 Henry Haapalainen > Hi, I was on vacation and next your reply didn't show up in my > newsreader. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Henry Haapalainen Exactly, I repeat: that is what I referred to: "in a free fall every atomic clock of the universe shows the same time" 1. From that I conclude that according to your theory, a free falling clock at reduced height ticks at the same rate as a free falling clock at great height. Right? If not, explain! 2. According to GRT+SRT, a free falling clock at reduced height ticks much slower than a free falling clock at great height. 3. This (point 2) has been tested, as I explained. 4. Now I want my money! Harald > > Hi, I was on vacation and next your reply didn't show up in my > > newsreader. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Harald I think that you have missed something. Read it again. http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ paragraph B6 Henry Haapalainen > http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ An interesting simplicity. SignaturePete Brown Falls Creek OZ www.mountainman.com.au mountain man: >> http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ > >An interesting simplicity. Simplicity is easy - just don't say anything quantitative. It's a bit harder to to carry the concepts through to quantitative results. But, that also makes it simple to separate crackpots from physcists, since crackpots like to write volumes of nothing but excuses for lacking any quantitative results. > mountain man: > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It's a bit harder to to carry the concepts through to quantitative > results. The quantitative treatment has already been provided by Cahill, predictions have been made, etc. See: www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics or http://xxx.lanl.gov/find/quant-ph,gr-qc,astro-ph,physics/1/au:+cahill_reginald_t /0/1/0/all/0/1 as follows Showing results 1 through 25 (of 25 total) for au:cahill_reginald_t 1. physics/0506041 [abs, pdf] : Title: Engineering the Quantum Foam Authors: Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University) Comments: 12 pages, 6 figures Subj-class: General Physics 2. physics/0501051 [abs, pdf] : Title: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 Authors: Reginald T Cahill (Flinders University) Comments: 22 pages, 10 figures. better graphics Subj-class: General Physics Journal-ref: Infinite Energy, Vol.10, Issue 60, pp. 28-37, 2005. 3. physics/0412039 [abs, pdf] : Title: The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005 A Critical Review of the Evidence Authors: Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University) Comments: PDF 12 pages, 7 figures Subj-class: General Physics 4. physics/0408097 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : Title: Novel Gravity Probe B Gravitational Wave Detection Authors: Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University) Comments: 21 pages 9 figures Subj-class: General Physics 5. physics/0407133 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : Title: The Dynamical Velocity Superposition Effect in the Quantum-Foam In-Flow Theory of Gravity Authors: Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University) Comments: 20 pages Analysis extended Subj-class: General Physics 6. physics/0406121 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : Title: Novel Gravity Probe B Frame-Dragging Effect Authors: Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University) Comments: 9 pages, 3 figures. Minor changes Subj-class: General Physics 7. physics/0405147 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : Title: 'Dark Matter' as a Quantum Foam In-Flow Effect Authors: Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University) Comments: 46 pages, 8 figures Subj-class: General Physics 8. physics/0401047 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : Title: Gravitation, the 'Dark Matter' Effect and the Fine Structure Constant Authors: Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University) Comments: 21 pages, 4 eps figures. Extended published version Subj-class: General Physics Journal-ref: Apeiron 12 (2005) 144-177 9. physics/0312082 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : Title: Quantum Foam, Gravity and Gravitational Waves Authors: Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University) Comments: 60 pages, 22 eps figure files. To be published in Relativity, Gravitation, Cosmology Subj-class: General Physics 10. physics/0309016 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : Title: Quantum-Foam In-Flow Theory of Gravity and the Global Positioning System (GPS) Authors: Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University) Comments: 34 pages, 1 eps figure. In-flow theory now generalised Subj-class: General Physics 11. physics/0307003 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : Title: Gravity as Quantum Foam In-Flow Authors: Reginald T Cahill (Flinders University) Comments: 25 pages Subj-class: General Physics Journal-ref: Apeiron 11 (2004) 1-52 12. physics/0306196 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : Title: Absolute Motion and Gravitational Effects Authors: Reginald T Cahill Comments: 36 pages, 17 figures Subj-class: General Physics Journal-ref: Apeiron 11 (2004) 53-111 13. physics/0209064 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : Title: Synthetic Quantum Systems Authors: Reginald T. Cahill Comments: 16 pages, Latex, 1 eps figure file Subj-class: General Physics Journal-ref: Smart Mater.Struct. 11 (2002) 699-707 14. physics/0209013 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : Title: Absolute Motion and Quantum Gravity Authors: Reginald T. Cahill Comments: 11 pages, Latex, 5 eps figure files Minor changes Subj-class: General Physics 15. physics/0207010 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : Title: Analysis of Data from a Quantum Gravity Experiment Authors: Reginald T. Cahill Comments: 10 pages, 4 eps figures, latex Subj-class: General Physics 16. physics/0205070 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : Title: Re-Analysis of Michelson-Morley Experiments Reveals Agreement with COBE Cosmic Background Radiation Preferred Frame so Impacting on Interpretation of General Relativity Authors: Reginald T. Cahill, Kirsty Kitto Comments: 8 pages, latex, 1eps figure Subj-class: General Physics Journal-ref: Apeiron 10 (2003) 104-117 17. physics/0205065 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : Title: Michelson-Morley Experiments Revisited and the Cosmic Background Radiation Preferred Frame Authors: Reginald T. Cahill, Kirsty Kitto Comments: 8 pages, latex, 1 eps figure file Subj-class: General Physics 18. gr-qc/0203015 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : Title: Process Physics: From Quantum Foam to General Relativity Authors: Reginald T. Cahill Comments: 26 pages Latex, 1 separate eps file 19. quant-ph/0111026 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : Title: Smart Nanostructures and Synthetic Quantum Systems Authors: Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University, Australia) Comments: LaTex,14 pages 1 eps file. To be published in BioMEMS and Smart Nanostructures, Proceedings of SPIE Conference #4590, ed. L. B. Kish 20. gr-qc/0110117 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : Title: Process Physics: Inertia, Gravity and the Quantum Authors: Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University, Australia) Comments: LaTex, 18 pages 1 eps file. Contribution to the 3rd Australasian Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation, Perth, Australia, July 2001 Journal-ref: Gen.Rel.Grav. 34 (2002) 1637-1656 21. gr-qc/0009023 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : Title: Process Physics: Modelling Reality as Self-Organising Information Authors: Reginald T. Cahill, Christopher M. Klinger, Kirsty Kitto Comments: 9 pages, 4 figures Journal-ref: The Physicist 37 (2000) 191-195 22. gr-qc/9905082 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : Title: Self-Referential Noise as a Fundamental Aspect of Reality Authors: Reginald T. Cahill, Christopher M. Klinger (Department of Physics, Flinders University) Comments: 7 pages, Latex, 3 ps figures. Contribution to the 2nd International Conference on Unsolved Problems of Noise, Adelaide 1999 Journal-ref: Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Unsolved Problems of Noise and Fluctuations (UPON 99), eds. D. Abbott and L. Kish, Adelaide, Australia, 11-15th July 1999, Vol. 511, p.43, American Institute of Physics, New York, 2000 23. gr-qc/9812083 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : Title: Self-Referential Noise and the Synthesis of Three-Dimensional Space Authors: Reginald T. Cahill, Christopher M. Klinger (Department of Physics, Flinders University) Comments: Figure labels corrected Subj-class: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology; Adaptation and Self-Organizing Systems Journal-ref: Gen. Rel.Grav. 32:529,2000 24. gr-qc/9708013 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : Title: Bootstrap Universe from Self-Referential Noise Authors: Reginald T. Cahill, Christopher M. Klinger (Flinders University) Comments: 10 pages, Latex 25. gr-qc/9605018 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : Title: Pregeometric modelling of the spacetime phenomenology Authors: Reginald T. Cahill, Christopher M. Klinger (Dept. of Physics, Flinders University) Comments: 13 page LateX, no figures Journal-ref: Phys.Lett. A223 (1996) 313-319 Particulalry >The quantitative treatment has already been provided >by Cahill, predictions have been made, etc. See: >www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics or Uh ..... Will you please cite the credentials of R. T. Cahill and the accreditation of Flinders University? All your citations from one man at one university rather weakens any case you might be trying to make. the softrat Sometimes I get so tired of the taste of my own toes. mailto:softrat@pobox.com -- I don't see what all the fuss is about, if those dolphins were so smart, they wouldn't hang out with tuna. >>The quantitative treatment has already been provided >>by Cahill, predictions have been made, etc. See: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Will you please cite the credentials of R. T. Cahill and the > accreditation of Flinders University? No, you can do that if you feel the need to. Flinders University is in Australia. Use the bush telegraph. > All your citations from one man at one university rather weakens any > case you might be trying to make. Do you rely on statisticians to select your breakfast cereals? The operative issue was the quantitative treatment of inflowing space (or as Cahill treats it - 'quantum foam system') as a logical substratum for a physical explanation of gravity. It is really a very simple concept - both the Newtonian and GR mathematical formalisms can be expressed as fluid flow equations. Cahill provides such a comprehensive quantitative treatment. There has been only one published response to Cahill, by Tom Martin, who appears to have misinterpretted Cahill's mathematics as outlined in his main paper. SignaturePete Brown Falls Creek OZ www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics mountain man: >> mountain man: >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >The quantitative treatment has already been provided Sort of like his idiotic idea with gas interferometers? Further below, I have reviewed the last article of cahill's I ever intend to read. First however, I have now settled on a fairly ironclad way for just about anyone to identify a crackpot, since cahill is the quintessential example: (1) A number of pages will be devoted to bad explanations of rather simple material that is found in any introductory textbook. This is stuff any physicist would have seen, especially a specialist, and which requires no explanation, especially a bad one. But the clincher is: (2) A couple of what loosely might be called ``derivations,'' which despite being the alleged focus of the paper, are never derived in ay detail from any stated assumptions. This is very strange considering the author spent so many pages explaining a lot of material found in introductory textbooks. How come the reader is supposed to fill in the stuff that presumably matters, while having to waste half the article being told rather trivial facts from introductory level textbooks? (3) Lots of buzzwords used in a way that indicates the author has no idea what the words mean, despite a lot of flowery prose which strings them together. In short, the sure sign of a crackpot article is that the author tries (in vain) to appear sophisticated by expounding on low level physics, in order to try and bluff his way past the reader when using the ``and then a miracle occurs'' approach to pulling equations out of his arse. >by Cahill, predictions have been made, etc. See: >www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics or Why? You obviously can't address anything in any of that garbage he writes, so what point would there be in going through all of those articles and listing his misconceptions? You'll just say, ``nuh uh'' and post the same bullshit again. Let's give it a shot on the first one: > 1. physics/0506041 [abs, pdf] : > Title: Engineering the Quantum Foam > Authors: Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University) > Comments: 12 pages, 6 figures > Subj-class: General Physics The first three pages are devoted to making sure he uses a lot of buzzwords and a couple of gee-whiz graphics that serve no purpose. On page 4, he writes down a couple of well-known equations from classical physics and then draws a conclusion which is completely ridiculous. He states: ``So then, covariance requires this Newtonian inverse square law, at least minimally.'' Obviously, that is blatantly untrue. If he means galilean covariant, then all sorts of potentials can be used, which are not inverse square laws. The van der waals potential, for example. If he means lorentz covariant, then two obvious counter-examples are the weak and strong forces. The worst part is that he started with an equation that admits more complex solutions, tossed out some of the terms and then stated the result for the general case (and tossed in some additional buzzwords). Page 5 has another gee-whiz picture and more buzzwords. Page 6 has another gee-whiz picture and 4 equations that can be found in any introduction to general relativity, for example, schutz. He also should pick a variable other than `t' for an affine parameter, since he mistakes that for the time coordinate on page 8. He states that ``it has been argued incorrectly that [the equivalence principle] requires a metric theory of gravity...,'' but provides no argument as to why the arguments he doesn't reference are incorrect. Page 7 has another gee-whiz picture, and a couple of more equations from an introductory textbook. On page 8, he tries to derive a result, but gets it wrong. In any case, he's gone to a lot of effort to make a claim that no one will find surprising. If he wanted to relate general relativity to a velocity field, all he had to do was look at how parallel transport is applied to obtain the geodesic equation: \grad U = 0, where \grad is the covariant four-gradient and U is a four-velocity. In any case, he hasn't managed to show that general relativity is a classical fluid flow. On page 9, he writes down an equation which means nothing and drops few more buzzwords about ``quantum foam.'' Then he writes down what I assume is an equation from alcubierre's paper, followed by a few more buzzwords. Page 10 is just some more gee-whiz pictures. On page 11, he concludes with, ``This brief look at the possibility of engineering the quantum foam has raised numerous intriguing possibilities.'' Well, (1) There was nothing in the article about any quantum foam, other than the words ``quantum foam,'' much less any indication of engineering it might be possible. (2) Zero does not constitute numerous intriguing possibilities. As for references. He has 18 refrences, of which he: References _himself_ 10 times, References puthof, who is another crackpot, 3 times, References michelson and morely for no particular reason, References miller, whose experiments, at best, indicate nothing. Of the references that might be related to this paper and/or not written by crackpots, cahill: References alcubierre and an article disputing alcubierre. References an article confirming the lense-thirring effect predicted by general relativity. I think gravity is a particle conservation by-product of electromagnetism. The spin of the earth around the sun requires electrons to do work. This explains why: 1. All materials fall in the same speed in vacuum. 2. Clocks work slower in gravitational fields. 3. When electrons are accelerated by gravitation, there is no Bremsstrahlung. 4. No graviton has ever been detected. > I think gravity is a particle conservation by-product of > electromagnetism. The spin of the earth around the sun requires [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Bremsstrahlung. > 4. No graviton has ever been detected. I think that you will get your ears red very soon. Henry Haapalainen > > http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ > > An interesting simplicity. - > Pete Brown > Falls Creek > OZ > www.mountainman.com.au Pete, I have a group of professionals and laymen who believe that this work is worth proceeding, though it's never ready. I hope that you would join us and give your own ideas. Yours Henry > > > Hi, I was on vacation and next your reply didn't show up in my > > > newsreader. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ paragraph B6 Are you a robot? Harald > > > > Hi, I was on vacation and next your reply didn't show up in my > > > > newsreader. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Harald Sorry if I sound like one, but I answered to your claim (2) weeks ago. Henry > > > > > Hi, I was on vacation and next your reply didn't show up in my > > > > > newsreader. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > > Sorry if I sound like one, but I answered to your claim (2) weeks ago. As far as I can see you never did: I know another fellow who supports falling space theory, and he agrees that a falling clock must, according to that theory, tick faster than a stationary clock (wrt the earth) at the same height, and that also seems to follow from http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ paragraph B6. Harald > > > > > > Hi, I was on vacation and next your reply didn't show up in my > > > > > > newsreader. [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > Harald This is difficult for me to explain because my English is so bad. But it is not even possible to see, that something happens to speed of tickling of a clock, when it's falling down from near space. Theories may say this or that, but as I say it in my theory, this is something that can be concretely proved. Henry > > > > > > > Hi, I was on vacation and next your reply didn't show up in my > > > > > > > newsreader. [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > that, but as I say it in my theory, this is something that can be concretely > proved. Then I must conclude that your theory is too vague to be disproved (even inconsistent with the deductions of others who have the same basic concepts as you!). So much for your reward... Harald Henry Haapalainen wrote: > "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> kirjoitti viestissä > news:42f9d05a$1@epflnews.epfl.ch... [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > that, but as I say it in my theory, this is something that can be concretely > proved. Then I must conclude that your theory is too vague to be disproved (even inconsistent with the deductions of others who have the same basic concepts as you!). So much for your reward... Harald No Harald, it's my English that is vague. If you don't understand B6, maybe it's better for you to forget all about it. And If someone has the same basic conceps, then it must be a copy. The theory is 23 years old now, and it has not been secret in any way. Henry Haapalainen > A reward awaits! > > You will win 1000 US dollars if you can come up with an argument that > invalidates this theory of gravity as falling space, either completely or a > major part of it. It seems to me that if one knows of a couple of cases of the warping of light and the extent of same and the characteristcs of the bodies around which this happens, for example, their density and volume, then one has a scale (for the warping of light) and one might just as well, if not more-so, call it pertubations of the fields around such bodies as call it curvature of space. news:dagpva$cmr$1@reader01.news.esat.net... For > example, you may find an inconsistency or a claim that contradicts an > experimental result. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Good luck! > Henry Haapalainen -- Peter Kinane http://www.effectuationism.com > A reward awaits! > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > The theory is here: http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ If space were able to drag objects along with it, it would be a lot harder to walk through. :) > > A reward awaits! > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > If space were able to drag objects along with it, it would be a lot > harder to walk through. :) xxein: How high can you jump? How far can you fall? Gravity is the gradient of escape velocity wrt R, not just a speed. The first 3 dimensions move. that is gravity. and that is also what the 4th dimension is. Falling space is only space in motion!!! >>>A reward awaits! >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > xxein: How high can you jump? How far can you fall? Gravity is the > gradient of escape velocity wrt R, not just a speed. Was your comment suppose to somehow relate to mine? Don't bother to explain - I'm not interested in exploring the finer points of the theory of falling space. >A reward awaits! > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > The theory is here: http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ What physical measurement does your theory predict different from that of the accepted theory? -- rb "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote: > > The theory is here: http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ > > What physical measurement does your theory predict different > from that of the accepted theory? This question is too broad to answer shortly, but suffice to say that the theory does not concern itself mainly with accurate mathematical predictions. The theory is meant to connect separate phenomena with one uniform logical explanation. Henry Haapalainen > "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > predictions. The theory is meant to connect separate phenomena with one > uniform logical explanation. Then there is no science to it. It is philosophy. -- rb "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> kirjoitti viestissä news:N8Zze.4517$rF5.4149@tornado.socal.rr.com... > > "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Then there is no science to it. It is philosophy. You can say that only if you have not read it. > "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> kirjoitti viestissä > news:N8Zze.4517$rF5.4149@tornado.socal.rr.com... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> > You can say that only if you have not read it. Yeah, I'll get right on that. -- rb > A reward awaits! > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Good luck! > Henry Haapalainen One of the many achievments of Newton was the explanation of free fall and planetary orbits by a single law, known as the LUG, Law of Universal Gravitation. Whilst your hypothesis may or may not explain free fall, it does not explain planetary orbits. As a matter of fact, since the planets move around the sun in elliptic orbits that are not co-planar, space would have to "fall" in many directions, selectively, in order to keep these orbits in place. If space were to "fall" in all directions as you postulate, then the only solution to the equations of motion is the singularity collission course of the planets with the sun. That being said, there are some issues to resolve. (1) is matter part of space(time) or (2) not part of it? (1) can be dealt within the context of geometrodynamics, a theory developed by Wheeler claiming that all that exists is spacetime. (2) presents as with severe foundational problems in the context of your theory, since space and matter would have to interact making denser bodies more difficult to move than ligher bodies. Neverthless, since the Universality of Free fall has been confirmed by recent experiments (excluding chirality) to about a part in a trillion, the effect on denser bodies has not been observed. Thus, (2) must be abandoned, which leaves (1) to deal with, although not part of you hypothesis, as it is clear from your writings. A detail explanation as to why the hypothesis of pushing gravity, whether material flux or falling space, fails in the absence of scattering and inelastic collisions is available in many sources and it is well known, rebutted even by Feynman. Thus, space would have to be absorbed and scattered for your hypothesis to work. That would give rise to severe problems in applying the laws of motion, something that has not been the case to about 1 part in a trillion as I mentioned. To make it simple for you, it is the fact that gravity is a central force that invalidates your hypothesis. It was also the discovery of this fact that enabled Newton to unify free fall and planetary motion under a single equation that holds very well in the absence of relativistic effets and as a matter of fact GR equations converge to Newton's in the weak field limit. Cheers, Mike > > A reward awaits! > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > postulate, then the only solution to the equations of motion is the > singularity collission course of the planets with the sun. Not like that at all. Falling down or rotating around the sun are same kind of free fall, and the theory explains it perfectly. So didn't read your text further. Henry Haapalainen > That being said, there are some issues to resolve. (1) is matter part > of space(time) or (2) not part of it? (1) can be dealt within the [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Mike > > > A reward awaits! > > > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Henry Haapalainen My explanation was perfectrly clear. Since you are the one proposing a new hypothesis, the burden of proof is on you as it was in the case of Newton, when Hook disputed that his LUG had indeed as solution the orbits of the planets, and Newton went ahead and prooved that by inventing the calculus of variations. Your failure to present detailed proof here as to why your hypothesis leads to the INVERSE PROBLEM, that is besides FREE FALL, it also explaines the elliptical orbits of the planets around the sun as well as the perihelion advance of Mercury, within 5 (five) days from this reply of mine will be taken to constitute failure from your part to rebutt my objections, which entitles me to the prize you have announced. I wait from your proof, posted as a reply to this thread. It must be a mathematical proof showing in detail as to why falling space leads to elliptical orbits of the planets around the sun. I explained to you why it does not, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU to show that it does, since it is your theory, not mine. Mike Henry Haapalainen: >A reward awaits! > >You will win 1000 US dollars if you can come up with an argument that >invalidates this theory of gravity as falling space, either completely >or a major part of it. For example, you may find an inconsistency or a >claim that contradicts an experimental result. In order to compare a theory to an experimental result, one needs a theory, i.e., something stated in form from which a calculation may be performed. The only way anyone could say _anything_ about your so-called theory, woud be if you were to actually write down some equations that could be used to compare a prediction with an experimental result, not to mention make sense out what you have actually written instead. I'll tell you what. I'll offer you $100,000,000.00 US if you can prove you're right. Since Im offering more money than you, I must be more certain that you are wrong than you are of being right. >The reward will be paid to the first person with a valid argument. If you >doubt this, let me tell you something about myself. I am 60 years old, >I publish four magazines, and I am quite well known in Finland. My >reputation would not allow me to break my promise. In thatcase, you might want to correct a number of significant errors in the url you gave: >The theory is here: http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ If your readers are the least bit knowledgeable, then your credibilty won't be worth anything if you really expect them to believe some of the things you've asserted as facts (several of which I've included with explanations of your errors). If you deliberately distort modern physics to set up a strawman, why would your reputation suffer if you refused to pay off on your offer? ---- Paragraph A2 is technically incorrect, but lots of layman's explanations say the same thing for the benefit of simpicity in describing general relativity to non-technical readers, so I'll skip that one, except to point out that if you want to argue against general relativity, you should not include that which is technically incorrect, since it's your description that's wrong. Your faulty description is not the fault of the theory. Paragraph A5 contains a major misunderstanding where you say, ``But what is the source of the pessimism that gravity can never be explained by theory?'' There is no source of pessimism. General relativity is a theory which explains gravity. You erroneously assume that spacetime must be a particular way, a priori, (i.e., flat) which is then somehow ``curved'' by something as yet undiscovered. That is a gross misunderstanding. Explain what process you think ``causes'' spacetime to be flat. The fact that general relativity does not assume anything, a priori, is considered a feature, since it reduces the number of assumptions while simultaneously explaining a great deal more as a result. Paragraph A9 erroneously states: ``Using these examples, relativity theory attempts to demonstrate that time would pass at different rates for a moving and a stationary observer.'' You have it backwards. Relativity assumes that physics does not depend upon defining any particular observer as ``stationary'' or ``moving.'' To define such observers would require all physical laws to be observer dependent and a scheme to make nature only appear observer independent. Insofar as it doesnt seem logical that nature should would depend upon human ideas about coordinate coordinate systems, relativity is a much more palatable idea, since the laws of physics then don't depend ipon how humans define coordinates. You can't have it both ways. If you think physics shouldn't depend upon coordinate systems defined by humans, then you are implicity accepting relativity. You just don't like the consequences that follow from accepting that principle. Physicists don't have the luxury of assuming something and disregarding the implications of their assumptions. The alternative is to believe that the laws of physics are only valid in one coordinate system and accept that things like energy and momentum really aren't conserved, but only appear to be conserved. Even physicists who consider the possibility of some sort of anthropic principle, don't believe that humans have that much influence of nature. Paragraph C1 is incorrect, but the reason is rather subtle, this is already getting rather long and you make other much more egregious errors. In pararaph D, you try to make dark matter appear less controversial by suggesting it could the ether. That isn't possible, since the dark matter to which you refer doesn't interact electromagnetically - by definition. (There's nothing contoversial about chunks of dead stars and other debris we can't see, due to low temperature or being too far away and too small to see directly, except perhaps how much there is.) Since the ``controversial'' dark matter, by definiton, doesn't interact electromagnetically, it cant have any role in propagating light, so you can't try to turn it into an ether to explain the michelson-morely experiment. Actually, there's no real controversy about dark matter. It's a proposed explanation for a perceived problem, the veracity of which remains to be decided by experimental evidence. I think you (like a lot of others in this newsgroup) are imagining that physicists make a bigger deal out of this stuff than they do. In general, physicists don't really care if dark matter (or whatever) is correct, since the ultimate arbiter is experimental evidence, which is up to nature. Paragraph E1 depicts a complete misunderstanding of atomic theory and shells, from both the physical and historical perspective. Among other things, you state, ``The theory of the electron shells was a product of its time, which no one has had the courage to challenge.'' There's no short response to this. I've included it at the end so that I can point out other misconceptions which can be dealt with in a few sentences. Later in paragraph E1, you ask rhetorically, ``Or how can the positive electrical charges, the protons, be so close together in the nucleus without repelling each other?'' The answer is, the protons _do_ repel each other. If they didn't, all of the most stable nuclei would have N = Z. The coulomb repulsion just happens to be incredibly weak compared to the nuclear force which binds the neutrons and protons. The nuclear force is charge independent, so it binds protons to protons, neutrons to protons or neutrons to neutrons equally. As far as the nuclear force is concerned, we can just call the proton or neutron a ``nucleon.'' Since I've actually done experiments in this field, I know a little about the subject. However, to keep it short, I'll just point out a few highlights. The existence of a nuclear force which is different from either E&M or gravity, is very simple to establish just by examining the deuteron. The deuteron is the only bound state consisting of two nucleons. Both the di-neutron and 2He are not bound. Hence, the fact that two protons are not bound cannot be attributed solely to coulomb repulsion. The fact that n-n scattering and p-p scattering are virtually identical (same scattering lengths) is evidence that the coulomb repulsion is almost irrelevant and the force between nucleons has no charge dependence. Since the relative orientation of the spins of the neutron and proton determine whether n-p is bound as a deuteron or scatters identically to the way n-n and p-p scatter, we can determine that the nuclear force is spin dependent. The spin of the deuteron is 1. The configuration in which the spins add to zero is not bound. The force cannot be gravity, since gravity is even weaker than the electromagnetic force. Even though it's easy to measure the nuclear radius, it's unnecessary. Gravitational and coulomb forces have the same 1/r^2 dependence. The coulomb force is 32 orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force. You can calculate it yourself, easily. In paragraph E2, you state, ``In recent years, it has been proposed on various grounds that the nucleus of an atom is a black hole.'' Well no, that has not been proposed, at least not by anyone who knows anything about black holes and/or nuclei. It would be directly contradicted by any number of rather commonly observed phenomena, like nuclear fission, or the emission of EM radiation from transitions. Both are direct observation into the nuclear structure, which by definition, is not possible for a black hole. In paragraph E3, you state, ``No one has ever proved that some parts of an atom have an electrical charge in the atom's normal state.'' I assume by that, you mean you don't think anyone has shown that an atom consists of a small, massive nucleus containing all of the positive charge with the electrons located far from the nucleus (compared to the nucler radius). If that is what you mean, you would be incorrect. It was precisely such an experiment that destroyed j.j. thompson's model of the atom and any other model based on some idea that the charges are uniformly distributed over the atomic volume and motivted the shell model. Rutherford did this in 1911, so there's no excuse for any argument that an atomic theory with a small, heavy, positively charged nucleus, is only a theoretical assumption. It's an experimental fact which requires nothing more esoteric than newtonian physics to deduce. Paragraphs F1-F6 say nothing at all. Without a quantitative description, there's no point in even trying to guess what those paragraphs are supposed to mean. In paragraph G1, you say, ``This leads to the conclusion that free protons and electrons do not exist. This sounds impossible, but it is not.'' This is easy to contradict experimentally. I've built an ion source to produce not only protons, but polarized protons. It's very simple to verify the protons, since the proton has a charge to mass ratio which is fixed. It's easy to count particles landing in a detector. It's easy to identify the particles as protons by bending them in a magnetic field. The radius of curvature, r, is given by Br = p/q. Since m/q is a constant, for any given velocity, p/q is constant, so Br is constant. Since r is fixed by the bend radius of the beam pipe, all one needs to do is turn the current knob on the magnet until lots of counts appear in the detector. Since B is proportional to the current, it's easy to calibrate the magnetic field in lots of ways. Paragraphs G2 and G3 say essentially nothing. However, you contradict yourself directly in G2 where you refer use the term quantum. If you are going to appeal to some sort of quantum theory, your argument against shells is completely off the wall, since the existence of shells is quantum mechanical in origin. ---------------------------------------- Your erroneous belief about both the history and physics associated with shell structure: I'll ignore the really early attempts going back to the greeks and start with the more realistic attempt by dalton, which he proposed early in the 19th century. After almost a century and upon discivering the electron, j.j. thompson proposed a model in which the electrons were embedded in a lump of positve charge. Physicists struggled with that model for 15 years, until rutherford showed conclusively that the positive charge was concentrated in a small (relative to atomic sizes), massive nucleus with the electrons well outside that region. This isn't controversial unless you think newtonian mechanics is controversial, since the scattering theory used to determine this was strictly newtonian physics. Assuming that you don't wish to reject newtonian physics completely, your objection to the shell model has to be related to a naive mis- conception regarding what constitites a shell, since we can easily look at experimentally observed spectra and simply _define_ the shells according to some scheme of grouping the spectral lines. One obvious scheme is to choose groups of lines which are spaced very closely together but separated by large gaps from other groups of spectral lines. Hopefully, you aren't going to dispute the existence of such groups of spectral lines, so all that's left to do is to figure out how the spectral lines are produced. That isn't too difficult, since the spectral line corrsponds to the energy lost by an electron in being captured by a nucleus (unless you plan to object to conservation of energy). Since coulomb's law gives the energy due to the coulomb potential as U(r) = qQ/r, one might guess that the energy depends on the radius of the orbit of the electron. Since the orbit need not be spherical, one might guess that the energy also depends on the angular momentum, E_ang = L^2/2mr^2. In order to define a shell, we try to find a scheme which gives large energy gaps between very closely spaced energies. Since all we've done so far is collect spectral lines into groups of spectral lines which are well separated from other spectral lines, you can't really object to the existence of the shells I've tenatively defined from purely experimental observation. Your objection can only be to the explanation of the shells (i.e., grouping of discrete spectral lines and the reason the lines are discrete). The fact is, experiments show that lines are discrete, so the levels must be quantized. We've already determined that the energy dependence can potentially depend on the radius and the angular momentum and since experiments show discrete energies, you can assign a quantum number to the radial dependence and a quantum number to the angular momentum (regardless of what you think that quantum number might mean). All that's left is to figure out how to combine different radial quantum numbers and angular momentum quantum numbers to reproduce the observed spectral lines. Contrary to what you might assume, the radial quantum number doesn't necessarily define a shell. For example, the proton and neutron shells in the nucleus do _not_ correspond to the radial quantum numbers. However, in an atom, the coulomb potential is the most important factor and it has only a radial dependence, so the major energy gaps occur beteen discrete values of the radial quantum number. This reduces your argument against shells to an argument against the reason for the discrete levels, since experiment shows the levels exist and I just provided a scheme that groups the levels. The excluysion principle states that two fermions (e.g., electrons, protons, etc.) cannot have identical quantum numbers. However, this is not merely an additional ad hoc assumption. Its possible to derive this if you use a relativistic theory. I think it's safe to say that just about all physicists consider this to be a feature. No one questioned newtonian mechanics for hundreds of years, because it worked. It wasn't until it didn't work that physicists began questioning it. Physicists accept thefact that a model works if it works. If it doesn't work, then physicists look for a better model which can explain the reason the previous model worked up to the point that it failed. If a better model requires examining some assumptions about the way nature is and physicists discover the old model failed because of some assumptions about nature, physicists revise their assumptions, since nature isn't going to change. Your objections amount to rejecting one model in favor of a different model, which wold be okay if it weren't for the fact that the model you rehect works without too many assumptions. Bilge, are you writing a book or something? I read comments as far as I find them relevant. I stopped reading at your interpretation of paragraph D. I put it here, and your interpretation below it. http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ paragraph D D. - DARK MATTER In some galaxies, star revolution speeds have been observed that seem contrary to the laws of gravity. The outermost stars may remain stationary relative to the galactic centre, or revolve in the wrong direction. No rational explanation has been found, so people have started to look for dark matter in space. That would be matter invisible to measuring equipment. It does not mean black holes but a widely dispersed mass outside of galaxies. However, those controversial observations have a simple explanation, and dark matter is not needed. We must recall the MM experiment a century ago that proved the inexistence of ether. What could we compare the galaxy revolution speed to, if not the ether! If we set our equipment to rotate at a suitable speed, we can see that all the stars in the observed galaxy revolve in the same direction and at speeds conforming to the laws of gravity. Your interpretation of the above: > In pararaph D, you try to make dark matter appear less controversial > by suggesting it could the ether. That isn't possible, since the dark > matter to which you refer doesn't interact electromagnetically - by > definition. (There's nothing contoversial about chunks of dead stars > and other debris we can't see, due to low temperature or being too > far away and too small to see directly, except perhaps how much there is.) It's is quite obvious that with your attitude you could never understand anything of the theory. It's not that easy. Yours Henry Haapalainen > Henry Haapalainen: > >A reward awaits! [quoted text clipped - 275 lines] > model, which wold be okay if it weren't for the fact that the model you > rehect works without too many assumptions. Henry Haapalainen: >Bilge, are you writing a book or something? I read comments as far as I find >them relevant. I stopped reading at your interpretation of paragraph D. I >put it here, and your interpretation below it. What you mean is that you had no response to any of the errors I pointed out and chose one item to use a prop for a reply which is is totally unrelated to the item you chose. >http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ paragraph D > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >It's is quite obvious that with your attitude you could never understand >anything of the theory. And I suppose the fact that you can't write down anything which could be construed as a theory has nothing to do with being unable to understand it? I admit, that my expectations for a theory might be beyond reason, since I more or less expect a theory to clearly define its premises, and develop some physical content by exploiting logic to deduce some consequences that follow from the premises, but hey, what can I say? I haven't spent a lot of time honing my mind reading skills. I realize this would have been an excellent opportunity to read your mind and spend a lot more time developing the ideas you didn't feel like writing down, but I'm selfish and would prefer to concentrate on my own ideas on things I find more interesting, like physics. >It's not that easy. I guess not, since you haven't been able to write down anything that makes sense. >[...] > > Actually, there's no real controversy about dark matter. > It's a proposed explanation for a perceived problem, the veracity of > which remains to be decided by experimental evidence. How many more decades must we wait until a consistent candidate for dark matter is found? > I think you > (like a lot of others in this newsgroup) are imagining that physicists > make a bigger deal out of this stuff than they do. And that is an antiscientific attitude of which they should be ashamed. They *should* make a big deal but instead they bury their heads in the sand like the ostrich to convince themselves that there is no threat for their orthodoxy. The physics establishment should admit: "The dark matter explanation does not seem plausible after all these years, so GR is probably wrong since it is unable to explain the anomalous rotation curves of galaxies. It is still the best theory that we have for gravitation but we are open to new ideas". But instead their attitude is: "GR is out of suspicion. It is a theory whose predictions have been confirmed without exception (not true). Everybody who dares challenge GR is a crackpot". > In general, physicists > don't really care if dark matter (or whatever) is correct, since the > ultimate arbiter is experimental evidence, which is up to nature. Very funny twist of logic. But the arbiter keeps shouting: "penalty for holding the ball too much time!". But "physicists" don't listen. Carlos L Carlos L: >>[...] >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >How many more decades must we wait until a consistent candidate for >dark matter is found? I don't know. How many? If the answer is well-known, I haven't heard it. >> I think you >> (like a lot of others in this newsgroup) are imagining that physicists [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >sand like the ostrich to convince themselves that there is no threat >for their orthodoxy. In other words, in the first sentence you say I should be ashamed of not doing what your second sentence criticizes. Sorry, pick one or the other. >The physics establishment should admit: "The dark matter explanation >does not seem plausible after all these years, so GR is probably wrong Why should they admit that? First of all general relativity is not a theory about dark matter, so general relativity doesn't hinge on the existence of dark matter. Second, you have yet to list the experimental data from which you've concluded that general relativity is ``probably wrong.'' >since it is unable to explain the anomalous rotation curves of >galaxies. So, does that mean there's no explanation which is consistent with general relativity? Or, perhaps are you suggesting that you have an alternative that explains all that general relativity explains and more? >It is still the best theory that we have for gravitation but >we are open to new ideas". The physics ``establishment'' is open to new ideas. The physics ``establisment'' is not open to philosophical conjectures from people who expect them to jump at the opportunity to turn an ill-conceived conjecture into a theory. >But instead their attitude is: "GR is out of suspicion. It is a theory >whose predictions have been confirmed without exception (not true). >Everybody who dares challenge GR is a crackpot". That is self-serving diatribe which is provably false. On the other hand, anyone who really believes that physicists are rejecting challenges to general relativity in the interest of protecting some hypothetical orthodoxy is a crackpot. Do you even know anything about general relativity? Have you ever studied it? If not, then you are worse than a hypocrite. You are making false statements in orde to accuse others of engaging in exactly the manner you are criticizing. Until you can demonstrate that you know enough about general relativity to have an opinion about it, you have no business telling what I or anyone else needs to be investigating. A quick search on scholar.google.com on the words "alternatives" and "general relativity", yields 1940 articles, and just going down the first page (10 articles), I see: ``The Confrontation between General Relativity Experiment,'' C. Will, Prammana J Phys ``Gravitational collapse: The role of general relativity,'' R. Penrose ``Tensor-scalar cosmological models and their relaxation toward general relativity,'' T Damour, K Nordtvedt - Physical Review D, 206 citations ``A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft,'' B Bertotti, L Iess, P Tortora - Nature, 2003 ``Quasilocal quantities for general relativity and other gravity theories,'' CM Chen, JM Nester - Class. Quantum Grav Without reading the rest, it's harder to say what the rest of the articles are saying in that regard. If I search on the terms: "ppn" "formalism," _every_ one of the articles returned on the first page is an article about alternatives to general relativity. In fact, the entire purpose of the ppn formalism is to PPN formalism (Parameterized Post-Newtonian) is to provide a set of theory _independent_ parameters which can be used to compare different theories of gravity with each other and against experimental data. What you really mean is that no one has taken an interest in _your_ particular philosophical agenda and you expect someone else to turn your views into a theory. It doesn't work that way. >> In general, physicists >> don't really care if dark matter (or whatever) is correct, since the >> ultimate arbiter is experimental evidence, which is up to nature. > > Very funny twist of logic. That may be your view, but I'm not really willing to let anything but nature arbitrate the correctness of a theory about nature. >But the arbiter keeps shouting: "penalty for holding the ball >too much time!". But "physicists" don't listen. Last time I checked, nature didnt place any constraint on how long it took to figure out what nature has done. It takes how ever long it takes. If you think physicists aren't listening to _you_, then you should try offering something compelling, like a theory which explains something and which hasn't been ruled out by existing observations. > Carlos L: > >Bilge wrote: > > > >>[...] > > [...] > [...] > >> I think you > >> (like a lot of others in this newsgroup) are imagining that physicists [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > of not doing what your second sentence criticizes. Sorry, pick one > or the other. I honestly think that what I said in those sentences is straightforward for those familiar with the dark matter problem, but I explain: " Since the physics establishment does not make a big deal of dark matter (your words) and since, without dark matter, GR is by itself unable to fully explain gravitation because there is a ''missing mass problem'', then the physics establishment should recognize that GR is in big trouble. But instead they say (like you): 'No problem' (i.e. they hide their heads in the sand). But the attitude of minimising that a theory has big problems is antiscientific. > >The physics establishment should admit: "The dark matter explanation > >does not seem plausible after all these years, so GR is probably wrong > > Why should they admit that? First of all general relativity is > not a theory about dark matter, so general relativity doesn't hinge > on the existence of dark matter. What kind of logical argument is that? (You seem to have digested too much Einstein's Relativity where logic is discouraged). Because: "GR is not a theory of dark matter" (which I agree) does *not* imply that "general relativity doesn't hinge on the existence of dark matter". It does hinge on it. Without dark matter GR is in trouble. > Second, you have yet to list the > experimental data from which you've concluded that general relativity > is ``probably wrong.'' For example, here is a brief summary related to what we are discussing: http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/missmass.htm The following link is also interesting: http://www.egtphysics.net/index.htm > > [...GR is probably wrong] since it is unable to explain the anomalous > > rotation curves of galaxies. > > So, does that mean there's no explanation which is consistent > with general relativity? If dark matter is found then there is no problem (in that respect) for GR. But if dark matter is not found then GR will have to be modified. The alternative is to admit that the range of application of GR is so limited that gravitation at galactic scales is already beyond GR. The problem is to convince the physics establishment that *after all these years* it is more reasonable to encourage alternatives to GR than to keep proposing "invisible fat little green men" as dark matter candidates. > Or, perhaps are you suggesting that you > have an alternative that explains all that general relativity > explains and more? Where did I suggest that? You are being a bit paranoic here. > >It is still the best theory that we have for gravitation but > >we are open to new ideas". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > people who expect them to jump at the opportunity to turn an > ill-conceived conjecture into a theory. You are being a bit paranoic here, too. > >But instead their attitude is: "GR is out of suspicion. It is a theory > >whose predictions have been confirmed without exception (not true). [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > about it, you have no business telling what I or anyone else > needs to be investigating. I won't tell you how much GR I know or what books I have studied. But I'm now convinced that I know more than you about the missing mass problem and its proposed solutions. And believe me that, if I was so immature to *descend* to personal insults, I would do it much better than you. > A quick search on scholar.google.com on the words "alternatives" and > "general relativity", yields 1940 articles, and just going down the first [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > _independent_ parameters which can be used to compare different > theories of gravity with each other and against experimental data. Ok, I admit that my assertions on this issue were exaggerated. So I will modify a bit my point of view: I am aware that proposed modifications or alternatives to GR are being published in refereed journals. But the mainstream attitude (e.g. in review articles, teaching, media...) is to give the impression that everything is fine with GR. That certainly is the prepotent attitude of the many guardians of orthodoxy that post to these newsgroups (where instead those problems and papers should be discussed). > What you really mean is that no one has taken an interest in _your_ > particular philosophical agenda and you expect someone else to turn > your views into a theory. It doesn't work that way. Definitely you have a paranoia with that. I have not mentioned my particular philosophical agenda in this thread. And I certainly don't need in my work any "help" from closed minded people. > >> In general, physicists > >> don't really care if dark matter (or whatever) is correct, since the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That may be your view, but I'm not really willing to let anything > but nature arbitrate the correctness of a theory about nature. Exactly. And nature is saying: "Please revise GR. Haven't you realized by now that I don't like your funny zoo of dark matter candidates?". > >But the arbiter keeps shouting: "penalty for holding the ball > >too much time!". But "physicists" don't listen. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > explains something and which hasn't been ruled out by existing > observations. Oh, my dear, not again!. Did I complain that physicists are not listening to me? It is rather about your antiscientific attitude of minimising the missing mass problem that I was complaining in this thread. Carlos L. Carlos L: >> Carlos L: >> >Bilge wrote: >> >> I think you (like a lot of others in this newsgroup) are > |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message