|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Tom and oc Radiation can go through space and give momentum to an
object. I'm thinking of a comet"s tail that gets pushed ahead of the comet by the EM radiation of the sun. Bert |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" writes:
[tvf]: "It seems impossible to conceive of a static field with literally no moving parts as capable of transferring momentum. This is the dilemma of the 'rubber sheet' analogy again. Just because a rubber sheet or spacetime is curved, why should a stationary target body on the slope of such a curve change momentum? What is the source of the momentum change?... We can visualize the difference by thinking of a waterfall... which has moving parts capable of transferring momentum and is made of entities that propagate." [bill]: That's why I assumed you favor flowing space. Well, you correctly deduced that I favor a physical source of the new momentum received by target bodies when gravity acts, as opposed to creating that new momentum from nothing. However, depending on your definition of "space", flowing space hardly solves this momentum source problem unless space is defined as a material, tangible entity consisting of something with mass. (Mass is an essential component of momentum.) My own preference is to leave "space" as space, and to adopt a Le Sage-type approach to physical gravity in which "gravitons" (something tangible and distinguishable from space) push bodies around. [bill]: Here are their web pages delineating the flowing-space model (which a number of people worldwide have independently deduced) Thanks for the links. As I remarked before, all such models have a dilemma either way. If space is intangible, then it is incapable of affecting a material body. And if it is tangible, then one has the whole panoply of questions about how it can represent all the properties of known gravity - inverse-square force, independent of mass of target body, no drag, no aberration, no accumulation of "space" or energy in source masses, light-bending at double the Newtonian value, redshift, perihelion advance, etc. Remember, "geometric" general relativity doesn't have a physical mechanism for gravity either because curvature cannot initiate motion in the absence of a force. [bill]: One caveat to reading Lindner is to understand he harbors a beef against Einstein for 'capitulating' to the void-space paradigm when he knew (or should have known) full-well better. And he demeans relativity as "merely describing effects instead of explaining causes" rather than expanding and building on it as it stands. There is something to be said for these complaints, but not for the proposed remedy. GR as a mathematical theory is experimentally confirmed to first order in potential/c^2 (second order in v/c). It will therefore never be "falsified", but will merely become insufficient for some applications once more complete models come along, as is already true for Newtonian gravity. However, the physics behind the mathematical GR model is still in a primitive state, and badly in need of fixing. That is where new ideas such as "pushing gravity" come in. This provides a complete physical mechanism for gravitation, easily understood by elementary school kids, that produces all the properties of gravity in my list above plus several more as-yet-to-be-discovered properties. And it no longer has unrefuted objections as it once did. In short, I encourage everyone trying hard to improve the physics behind our theories of gravitation. But "flowing space" raises as many questions as it answers, and in the end leaves us as hungry for true understanding as does GR. [bill]: Also, in private correspondence with Lindner and Shifman, I urged them to ditch that grotesquely archaic word 'ether' because of the stigma it carries, and quit shooting themselves in the foot. But so far to no avail. Again, we agree. The classical aether is a falsified model. The Lorentzian ether is not. But why drag along all that unwanted baggage? Some "momentum" is building behind "elysium", which is a seemingly appropriate term from Greek mythology that is phonetically similar to the initials for "light-carrying medium": LCM. As long as the medium is entrained by gravity and has a density gradient near masses that is inverse linear with distance, it can qualitatively and quantitatively explain all the GR effects on electromagnetic signals by ordinary refraction in an optical medium. [bill]: Nice chatting with you. Likewise. It is always a pleasure for me to chat with people still seeking answers. Those who already have all the answers they want are often not nearly as interesting to converse with. -|Tom|- Tom Van Flandern - Washington, DC - see our web site on replacement astronomy research at http://metaresearch.org |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|