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

Has anyone checked to see if Deuterium is really stable at 2.7 Kelvin or below??



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old September 28th 03, 02:38 PM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #52  
Old September 30th 03, 03:33 AM
Tom Van Flandern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #53  
Old September 30th 03, 03:33 AM
Tom Van Flandern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.