A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

An Attractive Proposition - ping Timo



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 6th 09, 02:14 PM posted to alt.astronomy
oldcoot[_2_] oldcoot[_2_] is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Apr 2007
Posts: 608
Default An Attractive Proposition - ping Timo

Painius wrote,

...we must keep in mind that these are
no more, no less, mathematical
constructs for us to use to better
understand what's happening out in the
"real" world, the world of "physical
reality".


That's very true in the world of pragmatic "applied sciences".
But there is an interesting case study on the 'Primacy
of Math' axiom going on over in that "Tunnel through the center of the
Earth" thread. The premise is based on 'gravity-as-geometry'. So "The
Math" is calculating acceleration rates of an object dropped down the
hole based on 'gravity-as-geometry'. It shows the object under constant
acceleration all the way to center.
But what if gravity is really caused by Flowing Space?
Would there be a difference in the acceleration curve? Well, let's look
at a column of spaceflow as it enters the Earth's surface (or surface
datum as it were) at 11.2 km/sec or 7 miles a second. As it descends,
velocity drops off and continues dropping with increasing depth (due to
the increasing amount of gravitating mass "above/behind" and abeam). And
the acceleration component of the spaceflow drops concomitantly with
velocity. Velocity (and its acceleration component) will drop to zero at
center. To an object freefalling in the spaceflow, maximum velocity
('terminal velocity') will be reached 'waaay before center. And it will
be some fraction of the peak 11.2 km/s surface velocity. The object
will "coast" on conserved momentum on through center at this reduced
velocity, whereupon it will begin encountering spaceflow coming head-on
from the opposite direction.
So the FSP presents a considerably different picture
than the 'gravity-as-geometry' paradigm and the pefectly good Math
describing it.

  #2  
Old January 12th 09, 02:22 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Painius Painius is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,144
Default An Attractive Proposition - ping Timo

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
Painius wrote,

...we must keep in mind that these are
no more, no less, mathematical
constructs for us to use to better
understand what's happening out in the
"real" world, the world of "physical
reality".


That's very true in the world of pragmatic "applied sciences".
But there is an interesting case study on the 'Primacy
of Math' axiom going on over in that "Tunnel through the center of the
Earth" thread. The premise is based on 'gravity-as-geometry'. So "The
Math" is calculating acceleration rates of an object dropped down the
hole based on 'gravity-as-geometry'. It shows the object under constant
acceleration all the way to center.


Constant acceleration? How can that be? Even a theory
based upon mere curvature of space and geometry ought
to recognize the changes in intensity of the gravitational
field on an object as it moves through such a tunnel. Is
somebody saying that the force on the object is basically
constant? That, too, would have to be a myth.

But what if gravity is really caused by Flowing Space?
Would there be a difference in the acceleration curve? Well, let's look
at a column of spaceflow as it enters the Earth's surface (or surface
datum as it were) at 11.2 km/sec or 7 miles a second. As it descends,
velocity drops off and continues dropping with increasing depth (due to
the increasing amount of gravitating mass "above/behind" and abeam). And
the acceleration component of the spaceflow drops concomitantly with
velocity. Velocity (and its acceleration component) will drop to zero at
center. To an object freefalling in the spaceflow, maximum velocity
('terminal velocity') will be reached 'waaay before center. And it will
be some fraction of the peak 11.2 km/s surface velocity. The object
will "coast" on conserved momentum on through center at this reduced
velocity, whereupon it will begin encountering spaceflow coming head-on
from the opposite direction.
So the FSP presents a considerably different picture
than the 'gravity-as-geometry' paradigm and the pefectly good Math
describing it.


I'll try to check out that thread a little later.

happy new days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "In real life, I assure you, there is no such
thing as algebra." Fran Lebowitz

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
An Attractive Proposition - ping Timo oldcoot[_2_] Misc 2 January 5th 09 02:31 PM
An Attractive Proposition - ping Timo oldcoot[_2_] Misc 0 January 2nd 09 04:28 PM
An Attractive Proposition - ping Timo G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] Misc 0 December 28th 08 12:28 PM
An Attractive Proposition - ping Timo oldcoot[_2_] Misc 3 December 26th 08 02:17 PM
An Attractive Proposition - ping Timo oldcoot[_2_] Misc 2 December 22nd 08 10:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.