Problem on Gravity
Alun Williams
hanson
How are the millions from tj coming along?
This is just an off the cuff fuckback to the problem you had to throw into
the web. I hate teachers. But if this goes into your think-bag, cool. If
not, cool too.
I start with F = G M^2/R2, substitute, torment it and write off the other
cuff
dp/dr = 2R G(rho)^2 ,
which is interesting because this is a rare expression where the
hypothetical, ideal gas density appears as squared value.
Or take the integral of the above: p = R^2 G (rho)^2 and disassemble
density rho into m/R^3 and rewrite it as p = G (rho) M/R.
(This expression is fun to play with, when you set this ratio M/R to
Schwartzschild conditions of c^2/2G you get p = (rho) c^2/2, from which you
can deduce the matter density of the universe, within the sphere of light
wall dia, wherein and wherefor Gamov said: "Let there be light")
Now, have fun with P = G (rho) M/R and differentiate partially p, rho, m
and r against each other, and you'll get one which says dp/d(rho)...
One of these expressions ought to give you the desired form, for the
"intensity of the gravitational field" for which you ought to have
specified the dimensions, you wanted it in.
I dunno anyway .... and anyway, that was enough farting,
hanson
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Alun Williams" <alun.wi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9t1ef9$k0f$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
johnreed
>Yo, Alun,
>How are the millions from tj coming along?
>This is just an off the cuff fuckback to the problem you had to throw into
>the web. I hate teachers. But if this goes into your think-bag, cool. If
>not, cool too.
>
>I start with F = G M^2/R2, substitute, torment it and write off the other
>cuff
>
>dp/dr = 2R G(rho)^2 ,
>
>which is interesting because this is a rare expression where the
>hypothetical, ideal gas density appears as squared value.
>
>Or take the integral of the above: p = R^2 G (rho)^2 and disassemble
>density rho into m/R^3 and rewrite it as p = G (rho) M/R.
>
>(This expression is fun to play with, when you set this ratio M/R to
>Schwartzschild conditions of c^2/2G you get p = (rho) c^2/2, from which you
>can deduce the matter density of the universe, within the sphere of light
>wall dia, wherein and wherefor Gamov said: "Let there be light")
>
>Now, have fun with P = G (rho) M/R and differentiate partially p, rho, m
>and r against each other, and you'll get one which says dp/d(rho)...
>One of these expressions ought to give you the desired form, for the
>"intensity of the gravitational field" for which you ought to have
>specified the dimensions, you wanted it in.
>
>I dunno anyway .... and anyway, that was enough farting,
>hanson
johnreed writes>
The rebel without a cause. The Ptolemaic stock is improving here.
my regards,
johnreed>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>"Alun Williams" <alun.wi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:9t1ef9$k0f$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
>Consider a ball of gas (radius R), such that it has sufficient mass (M) and
>gravity to hold it's spherical shape in space without dispersing. assuming
>that the density (D) of the gas was uniform from the spheres outer surface
>to it's centre, what equation would describe the intensity of the
>gravitational field, as we move from the outer surface of the gas ball
>toward the centre? If the density were to vary, what would the new
>relationship be?
>
>Assume that the ideal gas equation applies and there are no phase changes
>in the structure of the gas ball.
>
>Centre of gravity for a volume of revolution is given by x = Integral
>(X.Y^2)dX between X2 & X1
>
>Integral(Y^2).dX Between X2 & X1
>
"This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy;"...Luther on
Copernicus, 1539
if you want a reply, please send a copy of your response to the email address
above OR below:
john...@dr.com
http://members.aol.com/thejohnreed
hanson
news:20011115215950...@mb-fy.aol.com...
> johnreed writes>
> The rebel without a cause. The Ptolemaic stock is improving here.
> my regards,
> johnreed>
Johnbaby!
What rebel? which cause? whose stock? what improvment?
> >I start with F = G M^2/R2, ====> should be F = G M^2/R^2
> >Now, have fun with P = G (rho) M/R ====> should be p =....
my reee-gards to you too,
hanson
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
G=EMC^2 Glazier
gravity would become weaker This holds true for the earth as well.
At the center you would float for the pull of gravity would be equal in
every direction. Gravity is a particle attraction. If you
fell into a pipe that went all the way through the earth your momentum
would carry you through the earth's core(center) and you would oscillate
until you came to a complete stop at the exact center.You would be in
the exact center of gravity,and this is the true center of the earth.
On the surface of the earth we are pulled down,at the center of the
earth we are pulled in all four directions. Best regards Herb
Alun Williams
Alun Williams
Yes you are right. But here I am looking for the mathematical relationship
between the two. There are two reasons for me posting this.
1. It is an interesting problem in itself.
2. I need to explore it, to further my investigations.
Cheers
Alun
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbert...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:19810-3B...@storefull-138.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Alun Williams
Damn, there is a typo in it + should be a - . Anyway have made correction below:
I have solved the equation for the intensity of the gravitational field. However, it is mouthful and has not been simplified. Anyway here it is:Ep = A - BWhere A = Pi.(rho)G(2/3 . R^3 + R^2 - 1/3. r^3)[3/8(R^4 - 2R^2.r^2 + r^4 / R^3 +3/2. R^2.r - 1/2.r^3) + r]^2
Where B = Pi.(rho)G(2/3 . R^3 - R^2 + 1/3. r^3)
[3/8(R^4 - 2R^2.r^2 + r^4 / R^3 - 3/2. R^2.r + 1/2.r^3) - r]^2
Thus Ep = Pi.(rho)G(2/3 . R^3 + R^2 - 1/3. r^3) - Pi.(rho)G(2/3 . R^3 - R^2 + 1/3. r^3)
[3/8(R^4 - 2R^2.r^2 + r^4 / R^3 +3/2. R^2.r - 1/2.r^3) + r]^2 [3/8((R^4 - 2R^2.r^2 + r^4) /( R^3 - 3/2. R^2.r + 1/2.r^3)) - r]^2
hanson
"Alun Williams" <alun.wi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:9t6aj2$1ni$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...Hi John,
If you could e-mail me the derivation I would be most greatful
> johnreed writes>
> The rebel without a cause. The Ptolemaic stock is improving here.
> my regards,
> johnreed>
>
> "This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy;"...Luther on
> Copernicus, 1539
> if you want a reply, please send a copy of your response to the email address
> above OR below:
>
johnreed
Yo, Alun,
Yes, I do agree with you. It would be nice to see John's (johnreeds)
derivation.
jr writes>
Whoa. How did I get into this? I never claimed to be a Ptolemaic artist. My
mind works rather well however, with the tools I chose to use.
After all, it is so easy to lament and pontificate.
jr writes>
Excuse me? Lament and pontificate? Easy? After 40 years in half the libraries
in Southern California, where significant progress was measured in 9 and 10
year spans... easy? Lament? Pontificate? All the Ptolemaic artists ever offered
to me was, "if you don't understand the mathematics, you can't understand the
universe". This was just a bit too insulting to humanity for me to take in
stride. Especially with the garbage that was being passed out as conceptual
understanding.
But to do some calcs, even simple arithmetic, that's another story.
jr writes>
Hey. What's happening here? My formal training in the calcs ended with
calculus. I ceased using the math as a primary tool thereafter. I made the
early decision that if continuing in the math was going to enable me to
understand the garbage I was hearing, then I had better seek an understanding
outside the calcs first. Maintaining of course an absolute respect for final
confirmation via the calcs.
So, John let's see your derivation version of dp/p =3D f(G,r ....),=20
or dp/dr =3D 2R G(rho)^2 expressed even as or in improved Ptolemaic=20
stock form, if you so wish.
jr writes>
Yes I could address Alun's request if I got out my text's and refreshed my
skills and applied them to the problem. It would take me an inordinate amount
of time to do this only to show that I can do it? I'm not in an ego game
fellas, and if I were it would involve something more significant than calcs
skills to get me started. These are not my tools. However,if you will formulate
the problem in words I will use my tools to address it as sensibly as I can.
My goal on these newsgroups is to correct Ptolemy not join him. Where did
Ptolemy require correction? His mathematics was excellent? Ptolemies
suppositions could never be disproved using Ptolemies suppositions alone.
Copernicus could not qualify as a mathematician if Ptolemies skills were the
standard. Perhaps Copernicus had a vision. perhaps he had greater insight.
Perhaps he did like I did. Who knows?
Here's the thing. The Ptolemaic artist does two things today. The calcs and the
explanations of the calcs. I never found fault with the calcs. The explanations
however, caused a gagging reflex in my mind. I merely, and very humbly set
about the business of understanding physical phenomena without being restricted
to the notions that generated the calcs. Rather than prove those notions with
the calcs, I sought to understand physical reality.
What I have learned is: gravity is a feel force alone. Ya'll think its a
universal cause and your calcs are contained within that frame. I also learned
that "least action" is all that the universe is giving us, while we are using
least action to describe the universe within the subjective limitations of our
perception.
I readily admit that at the present time I have no 4 corner contained proof for
this. I am working on it in real time and sharing it as I go. Hoping perhaps
that a more skilled Ptolemaic artist will get it before I do. Its the most
promising path. There's a world out there devoted to this endeavor with a 40
year head start on me.
Is this what you call pontificating? Is this a lament? The observance of least
action came after I had deduced that stable systems must display least action
for them to be here for us to observe. The anthropomorphic notion applies I
suppose but it was not used in my thought process.
So let me ask you this. Which is the most effective road to travel. Should
Copernicus put forward a model that meets and beats the model of Ptolemy? He
could not do this and waited until death for his work to be published at all?
He just had a better idea. The idea emanated from observations and the
knowledge of the day.
Rather than to seek an artificial superiority here, by questioning my rusty
Ptolemaic Newtonian level skills, might it not prove your skills better by
explaining a method of yours that I could use to prove my laments. After 40
years in the field using the English language to negotiate physical reality...
you look with disdain at my tools as though they are inferior to yours? Yet it
was your tools that painted the picture that insulted my intelligence.
Yes the equivalence principle is more than valid. Mass operates within least
action frames. At one of those frames we can detremine a quantitative magnitude
for mass. So we designate it as applicable to all frames and this is correct as
long as we don't allow our feel to define the force that causes all the least
action we observe.
Feel works with mass in a least action frame that says nothing to its cause.
I use words fellas. They got me here. I get better at it as I go. Don't you
think?
"Alun Williams" <alun.wi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message =
news:9t6aj2$1ni$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
Hi John,
If you could e-mail me the derivation I would be most greatful.
Hi Alun:
You're gratitude is noted. And if you can supply a direction that leads toward
the proof I seek, I too would be most grateful.
hanson
[jr writes]
Whoa. How did I get into this?
[hanson]
Well, see jr, that’s a consequence of your pontificating and lamenting,
straight and linear.
[hanson]
It would be nice to see John's (johnreeds) derivation.
[jr writes]
Yes, I could address Alun's request if…… These are not my tools. However,
if…..…….only to show that I can do it? I'm not in an ego game……
[hanson]
ok, jr, I/we read you , we hear you and you don’t have to it. I just
suggested that it would be nice if you would….. no ego, not even a
challenge is involved here.
[jr writes]
I never claimed to be a Ptolemaic artist……
My goal on these newsgroups is to correct Ptolemy not join him. (who is
“him”) The Ptolemaic artist does two things today. The calcs and the
explanations of the calcs. I never found fault with the calcs.
The explanations however, caused a gagging reflex in my mind.
[hanson]
Nobody argues with you about that, jr. The world as you see it, is totally
cool. Nobody, well, at least not me, has any objections with your world
view.
One of the most fascinating things were hard science, religion and beliefs
systems do intersect is that every person does live in his/her own
universe. These individual views will never, by definition and
axiomatically, be equalizable to the extend that everybody sees it the same
way, nor will any one single weltbild ever apply to everybody.
If this would become possible, then the situation would become so rigorous,
that a collective rigor mortis would set in. The cosmos in all it’s aspect
is alive in a seeming and teeming chaos with an apparent evolution which
seemingly doesn’t care, but marches on, no matter what and doesn’t care
over what.
Nothing remains constant except change itself.
So, jr, pursue your endeavor freely and spread your gospel if it makes you
happy.
[jr writes]
What I have learned is: gravity is a feel force alone.
Ya'll think it’s a universal cause and your calcs are contained within that
frame.
After 40 years in the field using the English language to negotiate
physical reality... you look with disdain at my tools as though they are
inferior to yours? Yet it was your tools that painted the picture that
insulted my intelligence.
[hanson]
Yo, yo, yo, jr, don’t get hot under your collar. What are you working
yourself up for? Who is looking at you with disdain? Who said your tools
were inferior?
I am sorry if my suggestion of asking you to present a calculation was
insulting your intelligence. (you attempted a very nice reversal here, jr.
Putting the turd on me almost worked, you sly dog, you. You almost got away
with it, jr.)
[jr writes]
I use words fellas. They got me here. I get better at it as I go. Don't you
think?
[hanson]
Yes, absolutely, jr. Consider, science guys who were able to present
science in a verbalized form had a far bigger audience than the formula
dudes. And even the formula dudes had to resort to verbalizations, in
explaining their equations.
Of course, I can make the very same argument the other way around, with the
same impact.
That’s why they use numbers on your electric bill…and on your pay check.
And even with numbers, we have still have disagreements……….
But hey, jr, I didn’t make this world. I only have to dance in this fucking
place. That leaves me without blame, I am pure like the driven snow.
hanson
"If I only knew what I was talking about. Just once." -- Einstein on his
death bed, 18 April 1955. … still plagiarizing…..
Alun Williams
For some reason I don't get all the posts, just some of them. Anyway, as
Hanson says, this is not a challenge of mathematics. I am exploring my own
theory and need the mathematical tools to help me. If you can provide an
answer to the problem by simply quoting one from a text book and explaining
it I will be most happy. The equation that I have derived is a bit
cumbersome. The reason that I am doing this is because I want to be able to
develop a rate equation for nuclear fusion at the core of a main sequence
star. One of the factors will most likeley be the density and pressure. I
am sure that there must be literature available on this, but unfortunately I
do not have access to a good university library. I also like to thoroughly
understand the origin of the equations (and thus their limitations). If you
can provide further information on the gravity, pressure or rate of fusion
then please do.
Thanks
Alun
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:gIJJ7.49797$S4.46...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "johnreed" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20011117221703...@mb-fy.aol.com...
>
> [jr writes]
> Whoa. How did I get into this?
>
> [hanson]
> Well, see jr, that's a consequence of your pontificating and lamenting,
> straight and linear.
>
> [hanson]
> It would be nice to see John's (johnreeds) derivation.
>
> [jr writes]
> Yes, I could address Alun's request if.. These are not my tools. However,
> if......only to show that I can do it? I'm not in an ego game..
>
> [hanson]
> ok, jr, I/we read you , we hear you and you don't have to it. I just
> suggested that it would be nice if you would... no ego, not even a
> challenge is involved here.
>
> [jr writes]
> I never claimed to be a Ptolemaic artist..
> That's why they use numbers on your electric bill.and on your pay check.
>
> And even with numbers, we have still have disagreements....
>
> But hey, jr, I didn't make this world. I only have to dance in this
fucking
> place. That leaves me without blame, I am pure like the driven snow.
>
> hanson
>
> "If I only knew what I was talking about. Just once." -- Einstein on his
> death bed, 18 April 1955. . still plagiarizing...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
hanson
"Alun Williams" <alun.wi...@btinternet.com>
wrote in message news:9t6aj2$1ni$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
[hanson]
Alun, I will reveal to you a closely guarded govt. secret. <g> Keep it
under wraps.
[Alun]
Hi John,
If you could e-mail me the derivation I would be most greatful. I can't
really check how you got to: dp/dr = = 2R G(rho)^2 , without the
derivation. As density is a function of pressure within the gas ball, ….
I have come to dp/p = Mw/RT x Ep.dh . “Ep = intensity of gravitational
field at r”
[hanson]
AFAICS your the Ep factor does carry a dimension of moles * acceleration
(Mw* cm/s^2) which is conceptually a force making your theory viable, thus
far.
[hanson]
After my posting to jr, it became apparent to me that you meant me, hanson,
instead of John (jr) in your post. ---- Cheech, the longer I hang around in
these physics NG’s, the more I feel like having taken up residence in a
cyber home for senior citizens.
But anyway, Alun, note that dp/p = dln p which will lead you to an
exponential form. Whether an exponential function is in conflict with
reality of your experiment, I have not checked into. Furthermore, in your
“Where A = Pi.(rho)G(2/3 . R^3 + R^2 - 1/3. r^3)”,
you seem to subtract R^2 - 1/3. r^3,….. you subtract 1/3 of a cube, r^3,
from a surface, R^2,?
I’d check into such power differences of dimensions very carefully, before
proceeding. There are other such dimensional spots like this. Check it out.
In your post from today 11-18-2001, you state
[Alun]
I am exploring my own theory and need the mathematical tools to help me.
If you can provide an answer to the problem by simply quoting one from a
text book and explaining it I will be most happy. The equation that I have
derived is a bit cumbersome. The reason that I am doing this is because I
want to be able to develop a rate equation for nuclear fusion at the core
of a main sequence star. One of the factors will most likeley be the
density and pressure.
[hanson]
IMHO pressure and density are the chief conditions which determine the
fusion reaction. I haven’t been into fusion for a long time, so the value
of my views on it are meager to nil. I suggest for you to post your desires
into the astro, particle and fusion NGs. Don’t’ tell them that you have a
theory, just ask questions.
[hanson]
Back to your 11-17 post: Then there is the basic problem for my not delving
into your problem too intimately. It is your baby, Alun, your work, about
which I do not have an attachment as deeply as you do. Hence my interest
and help will be of very limited help to you. ---- In addition, I must
admit that I answered your post for a very different reason than having an
interest in the subject matter. I wanted to see how many other people would
get involved, when it comes to equations or numbers in a post.
My experience on my posting with equations or numbers since 1996 has
produced one single exchange of note (with my esteemed friend Ned Wright).
From all the other posts containing equations or numbers, folks took off
like files from a piece of shit when they see E&N’s, except when Einstein’s
gamma is present. So, that’s the long and the short of it.
Now then, before I get to my derivation I must pontificate, or in jr’s
lingo, use Ptolemaic artistry.
My black square hat and it’s tassel were still dripping with beer when I
landed a fine job in an R&D defense establishment. I saw them working
feverishly with specs and protocols. After a few days I suggested that
whatever they were doing could be calculated much easier and faster instead
of…. I couldn’t finish the sentence, because the boss hollered at me: “Son,
fuck you and your theories! Here, we measure….. When everything is measured
and when it works, then you can go write a fancy report with any kind of
theory that matches what we measured. We give a fuck!” --- Well, so much
for my graduate math, calculus and other theories I learned, or had to
learn…..to be prepared for the real world.......
What served me the best over the years were fast cursory estimates and then
precise measurements. A first quick estimate always just involves a
dimensional analysis. In applications where (new) physics theories are
involved one can usually check their veracity by inserting numbers of
fundamental constants, which then allow crosschecks to see whether your
theory is "correct". The reason why this works is that all fundamental
constants are interrelated. NO exceptions! Cause: they all come from
interconnected events in the same universe, implied or explicit. So, when
somebody tells you that you can’t do that, you must look at him/her VERY
closely, for you are having an encounter with an alien from a different
universe at that very moment. Hereby then, I have revealed here to you a
secret which was hidden from you by the government since Roswell/1947: “How
to identify aliens.” – Guard this secret closely, Alum. <g> :-))) <g>
So finally, I present to you without explanations or justifications a
dirty, quick and easy dimensional analysis to bring you to the equation
derivation you wanted.
*** I disregard any and all integers, fractions or pi ****
F = G M^2/R^2 ---- > E = FR
FR = G M^2/R = E = pV = RT = hf = mc^2 or whatever you need
pV = G M^2/R
p = G (M/V) * M/R ....---<<--.... expand with R^2/R^2
p = G (rho) * M/R * R^2/R^2 ....---<<--.... M/R^3 = rho
p = G (rho)^2 * R^2 ....---<<--.... denoted dr for (diff. R) for
visibility
dp = 2Rdr G(rho)^2
dp/dr = 2R G(rho)^2
Now, I agree that rho will change with p and r, but at any specific dp/dr
value rho will have a fixed value which is only determined by R. So dp/dr
is applicable and probably true in concept, but the integrated form, p = G
(rho)^2 * R^2, must be rewritten to reflect, as you have said, the
codependency of rho with p, hence T,V and R (again). This then will lead to
your expressions which carry R^4 powers.
You can easily get your desired dp/p from the above set, but it will lead
to circular reasoning yielding dp/p = (2/R) dr = 2 dln R, which is of no
help.
You’ll need to intro at least one other independent variable, to proceed
meaningfully in physical reality. Probably best with the introduction of M
= n*Mw, (mass = moles* moleight) which you have done, already.
Keep in mind that all these contemplations are probably not applicable to
realty because Plasma physics rules do take over at conditions for fusion.
In conclusion. You have taken on some big time project here, Alun. Not only
does it have stellar implications, but if you follow this dream and you
just might happen to get lucky and stumble on to an angle which makes
fusion possible right here on earth.
Good luck fella, keep into touch, you got my e-mail coordinates.
hanson
PS: Come to think of, your search may not be of great interest to you any
longer, once the $ millions start to roll in from tj’s sawdust ventures or
from the tons of tj-gold which you will drag off the ocean floor. Perhaps I
may join you, if there are horny, willingly succulent and good looking
broadies aboard ship. …..And tj finances the entire show instead of pimping
for the rent of his boat.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
johnreed
From: "hanson" han...@quick.net
Date: 11/17/01 11:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <gIJJ7.49797$S4.46...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
"johnreed" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011117221703...@mb-fy.aol.com...
[jr writes]
Whoa. How did I get into this?
[hanson]
Well, see jr, that’s a consequence of your pontificating and lamenting,
straight and linear.
[hanson]
It would be nice to see John's (johnreeds) derivation.
[jr writes]
Yes, I could address Alun's request if…… These are not my tools. However,
if…..…….only to show that I can do it? I'm not in an ego game……
[hanson]
ok, jr, I/we read you , we hear you and you don’t have to it. I just
suggested that it would be nice if you would….. no ego, not even a
challenge is involved here.
jr writes
No you referenced it as though even arithmetic was beyond me. And you cut up my
comment above to reference your intent again, Plus you have the experience that
when the calcs are mentioned people leave like stink on shit as I believe you
said. So, the request out of the blue (where nothing I said even remotely
challenged or claimed any position on the subject) was the standard attack on
any person studying physical phenomena (invoked by those who use the
mathematics as a tool) who does not study it in the precise way they do.
[jr writes]
I never claimed to be a Ptolemaic artist……
My goal on these newsgroups is to correct Ptolemy not join him. (who is
“him”)
The Ptolemaic artist does two things today. The calcs and the
explanations of the calcs.
jr writes>
That is "him".
I never found fault with the calcs.
The explanations however, caused a gagging reflex in my mind.
[hanson]
Nobody argues with you about that, jr. The world as you see it, is totally
cool. Nobody, well, at least not me, has any objections with your world
view.
jr writes>
You speak as though I have put together some fantasy that I want others to
accept because I know its true. Or that I have such a view that satisfies me
alone. You would do much better at explaining your position here by directing
an attack to my post K. It would certainly serve to objectively show that my
thinking is not rational, if that is your intent.
The thing is, it is on me to argue my view. So I argue my view in clear enough
terms to be understood. The degree of reason or logic in my argument may well
be inadequate and faulty. But ya'll claim it is on me, while noone responds to
the logistics I use. Instead I get a reference here to the world as I see it.
[hanson]
One of the most fascinating things were hard science, religion and beliefs
systems do intersect is that every person does live in his/her own
universe. These individual views will never, by definition and
axiomatically, be equalizable to the extend that everybody sees it the same
way, nor will any one single weltbild ever apply to everybody.
jr writes>
Something out of psycho-philosophy 101? I presented a communicable idea in K.
The fact is, I may be full of all of this stuff you want to assign as outside
the realm of hard science. But you can only show that by direct reference of an
idea on an idea. Here we are speaking only of my response to your request that
I offer calcs to a problem I did not define.
[hanson]
If this would become possible, then the situation would become so rigorous,
that a collective rigor mortis would set in. The cosmos in all it’s aspect
is alive in a seeming and teeming chaos with an apparent evolution which
seemingly doesn’t care, but marches on, no matter what and doesn’t care
over what.
Nothing remains constant except change itself.
jr writes>
Yes to those who live in a short time segment that is a part of a larger
repetitive set of events, change is constant. Science might be said to seek
answers beyond that segment.
So, jr, pursue your endeavor freely and spread your gospel if it makes you
happy.
jr writes>
Take any post of mine and address its ideas and then tell me about gospel.
Attacking me indirectly on the side bar makes it your gospel only.
[jr writes]
What I have learned is: gravity is a feel force alone.
Ya'll think it’s a universal cause and your calcs are contained within that
frame.
After 40 years in the field using the English language to negotiate
physical reality... you look with disdain at my tools as though they are
inferior to yours? Yet it was your tools that painted the picture that
insulted my intelligence.
[hanson]
Yo, yo, yo, jr, don’t get hot under your collar. What are you working
yourself up for? Who is looking at you with disdain? Who said your tools
were inferior?
I am sorry if my suggestion of asking you to present a calculation was
insulting your intelligence.
jr writes>
Clearly you did not ask. You suggested in a derisive way. And that certainly
did not insult my intelligence.
(you attempted a very nice reversal here, jr.
Putting the turd on me almost worked, you sly dog, you. You almost got away
with it, jr.)
jr writes>
And here we return to the crux of it. I attempted a reversal of what? Putting
the turd on you? So yes you were trying to put the turd on me? There's no
reversal. You stated that I shouldn't even be in the linear room like only
linears are allowed there.
[jr writes]
I use words fellas. They got me here. I get better at it as I go. Don't you
think?
[hanson]
Yes, absolutely, jr. Consider, science guys who were able to present
science in a verbalized form had a far bigger audience than the formula
dudes. And even the formula dudes had to resort to verbalizations, in
explaining their equations.
jr writes>
Its the manner these equations relate to the real world outside of experimental
data that I address. There is another world out there where humans depend on
some kind of rational basis to structure their lives. Some are content with
religious castles in the sky. Some are content with mathematical castles in the
sky. I just wasn't content with either of the sky structures so far mentioned.
So I developed some new ones which will come out here in these newsgroups over
time. You might find a reason to direct your calcs skills to some of this if I
can rationally convey it well enough to sway anyone. Then again, maybe not. Who
knows? But any derision would just seem to be better directed toward post K
than to this sidebar stuff.
Of course, I can make the very same argument the other way around, with the
same impact.
That’s why they use numbers on your electric bill…and on your pay check.
And even with numbers, we have still have disagreements……….
jr writes>
Hey hanson, you're switching the turd again. I have no problem with hard number
verification of theory. In a least action universe, to deny that requirement is
to commit intellectual suicide. I seek only to redirect the new age Ptolemaic
construct to better mirror reality. I am not the one claiming my feel force
effect controls the universe. That bald assertion is mainstream's Ptolemaic
foundation.
But hey, jr, I didn’t make this world. I only have to dance in this fucking
place. That leaves me without blame, I am pure like the driven snow.
jr writes>
Clever yes, pure? You dance well hanson. I like that. I like your mathematics
as well. Analyze that old feel force you take for granted and never question.
The more you deduce on your own the less work I have to do and the faster the
job gets done. The job will get done hanson, by someone.
Probably by someone that lurks and never speaks.
my regards,
johnreed
From: "hanson" han...@quick.net
Date: 11/17/01 11:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <gIJJ7.49797$S4.46...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
"johnreed" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011117221703...@mb-fy.aol.com...
[jr writes]
Whoa. How did I get into this?
[hanson]
Well, see jr, that’s a consequence of your pontificating and lamenting,
straight and linear.
[hanson]
It would be nice to see John's (johnreeds) derivation.
[jr writes]
Yes, I could address Alun's request if…… These are not my tools. However,
if…..…….only to show that I can do it? I'm not in an ego game……
[hanson]
ok, jr, I/we read you , we hear you and you don’t have to it. I just
suggested that it would be nice if you would….. no ego, not even a
challenge is involved here.
jr writes
No you referenced it as though even arithmetic was beyond me. And you cut up my
comment above to reference your intent again, Plus you have the experience that
when the calcs are mentioned people leave like stink on shit as I believe you
said. So, the request out of the blue (where nothing I said even remotely
challenged or claimed any position on the subject) was the standard attack on
any person studying physical phenomena (invoked by those who use the
mathematics as a tool) who does not study it in the precise way they do.
[jr writes]
I never claimed to be a Ptolemaic artist……
My goal on these newsgroups is to correct Ptolemy not join him. (who is
“him”)
The Ptolemaic artist does two things today. The calcs and the
explanations of the calcs.
jr writes>
That is "him".
I never found fault with the calcs.
The explanations however, caused a gagging reflex in my mind.
[hanson]
Nobody argues with you about that, jr. The world as you see it, is totally
cool. Nobody, well, at least not me, has any objections with your world
view.
jr writes>
You speak as though I have put together some fantasy that I want others to
accept because I know its true. Or that I have such a view that satisfies me
alone. You would do much better at explaining your position here by directing
an attack to my post K. It would certainly serve to objectively show that my
thinking is not rational, if that is your intent.
The thing is, it is on me to argue my view. So I argue my view in clear enough
terms to be understood. The degree of reason or logic in my argument may well
be inadequate and faulty. But ya'll claim it is on me, while noone responds to
the logistics I use. Instead I get a reference here to the world as I see it.
[hanson]
One of the most fascinating things were hard science, religion and beliefs
systems do intersect is that every person does live in his/her own
universe. These individual views will never, by definition and
axiomatically, be equalizable to the extend that everybody sees it the same
way, nor will any one single weltbild ever apply to everybody.
jr writes>
Something out of psycho-philosophy 101? I presented a communicable idea in K.
The fact is, I may be full of all of this stuff you want to assign as outside
the realm of hard science. But you can only show that by direct reference of an
idea on an idea. Here we are speaking only of my response to your request that
I offer calcs to a problem I did not define.
[hanson]
If this would become possible, then the situation would become so rigorous,
that a collective rigor mortis would set in. The cosmos in all it’s aspect
is alive in a seeming and teeming chaos with an apparent evolution which
seemingly doesn’t care, but marches on, no matter what and doesn’t care
over what.
Nothing remains constant except change itself.
jr writes>
Yes to those who live in a short time segment that is a part of a larger
repetitive set of events, change is constant. Science might be said to seek
answers beyond that segment.
So, jr, pursue your endeavor freely and spread your gospel if it makes you
happy.
jr writes>
Take any post of mine and address its ideas and then tell me about gospel.
Attacking me indirectly on the side bar makes it your gospel only.
[jr writes]
What I have learned is: gravity is a feel force alone.
Ya'll think it’s a universal cause and your calcs are contained within that
frame.
After 40 years in the field using the English language to negotiate
physical reality... you look with disdain at my tools as though they are
inferior to yours? Yet it was your tools that painted the picture that
insulted my intelligence.
[hanson]
Yo, yo, yo, jr, don’t get hot under your collar. What are you working
yourself up for? Who is looking at you with disdain? Who said your tools
were inferior?
I am sorry if my suggestion of asking you to present a calculation was
insulting your intelligence.
jr writes>
Clearly you did not ask. You suggested in a derisive way. And that certainly
did not insult my intelligence.
(you attempted a very nice reversal here, jr.
Putting the turd on me almost worked, you sly dog, you. You almost got away
with it, jr.)
jr writes>
And here we return to the crux of it. I attempted a reversal of what? Putting
the turd on you? So yes you were trying to put the turd on me? There's no
reversal. You stated that I shouldn't even be in the linear room like only
linears are allowed there.
[jr writes]
I use words fellas. They got me here. I get better at it as I go. Don't you
think?
[hanson]
Yes, absolutely, jr. Consider, science guys who were able to present
science in a verbalized form had a far bigger audience than the formula
dudes. And even the formula dudes had to resort to verbalizations, in
explaining their equations.
jr writes>
Its the manner these equations relate to the real world outside of experimental
data that I address. There is another world out there where humans depend on
some kind of rational basis to structure their lives. Some are content with
religious castles in the sky. Some are content with mathematical castles in the
sky. I just wasn't content with either of the sky structures so far mentioned.
So I developed some new ones which will come out here in these newsgroups over
time. You might find a reason to direct your calcs skills to some of this if I
can rationally convey it well enough to sway anyone. Then again, maybe not. Who
knows? But any derision would just seem to be better directed toward post K
than to this sidebar stuff.
Of course, I can make the very same argument the other way around, with the
same impact.
That’s why they use numbers on your electric bill…and on your pay check.
And even with numbers, we have still have disagreements……….
jr writes>
Hey hanson, you're switching the turd again. I have no problem with hard number
verification of theory. In a least action universe, to deny that requirement is
to commit intellectual suicide. I seek only to redirect the new age Ptolemaic
construct to better mirror reality. I am not the one claiming my feel force
effect controls the universe. That bald assertion is mainstream's Ptolemaic
foundation.
But hey, jr, I didn’t make this world. I only have to dance in this fucking
place. That leaves me without blame, I am pure like the driven snow.
jr writes>
hanson
> Subject: Re: Problem on Gravity
> Analyze that old feel force you take for granted
> and never question. The more you deduce on your
> own the less work I have to do and the faster the
> job gets done. The job will get done hanson, by someone.
> johnreed
[hanson]
Ok, jr, you conned me into it.
I'll may, MAY, develop suffcient interest to paint, PAINT, you
a picture of your "old feel force" in terms of understandable
high school math. That is an honorbale undertaking.
To do this, you have to post for me, in your Ptolemaic art
form, what your "old feel force" is, does, how it connects
to and what it does to light, matter and space... in YOUR words.
Make it as SHORT as possible. I will have questions.
As an intro, for you to connect your art to my future pix for you,
read what I just told to bogo in:
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:L4YJ7.52454$hZ.50...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
"bogo101" <bog...@addcom.de> wrote in message
news:3BF777F9...@addcom.de...
> Ok, but how big and how old is the universe just now ?
> For me this question is still open, so how to prove that
> Levit and Hubble are right ? And where am i wrong,
> if i ?
First of, you are NOT wrong. In this you CANNOT be wrong.
How could you?
Cosmology is just a picture we paint for ourselves to illustrate and
satisfy our fascinating with the unknown, perhaps even the unknowable.
There are as many cosmologies as there are students of it. So your answer
essentially does lay in whose story you believe in. Therefore never even
think of "proving" anything in these astro sciences.
The only REAL piece of information we have to tell the cosmo story from,
does come from starlight. From these faint starlight light characteristics
we record and measure, we then assume, infer, interpret and then conclude
something which fits into a preferred cosmo-story, currently the "Let there
be light"-song, the Big Bang theory.
In this BB scenario generally, these days, its is believed that the
following relationships do hold true.
(Yes, bogo, if you use just a little highschool algebra you can get a lot
of interesting details out of the cosmic story which you cannot see nor
describe well in words only).
There is a pretty, cosmic envelope equation which tells you a mighty story:
**** c=(GM /R)^(1/2)=(GMH)^(1/3)=(GMb)^(1/4) ****
where, c is the lightspeed, G=Newton's, M = mass and R (the distance from
here to the lightwall), the radius of the observable universe. H is the
Hubble constant, 1/H is T, the Hubble time (T) or the "age" of the
universe, well, better the time it takes photons to get from here to the
light wall (or the other way around.)
So, if you take c= (GMH)^(1/3) and solve it for H, you get H = c^3/(GM) or
the "age" as T = GM/c^3. Look up the estimates mass in a book of the theory
you favor and calculate the age. Do the same for R = GM/c^2. Even calculate
b = c^4/GM, which gives you the acceleration (b) by which the universe
expands.
Now, since acceleration is d(velocity/time) you can estimate how fast this
expansion goes at this "cosmic" moment, by setting v=bT= b/H, which of
course yields c, the speed of light.
Between you, me and the gate post, bogo, notice who they conveniently
exclude any and all galaxies, planets and you and me for this scenario,
because per Einstein nothing materielle can even move close to c. It would
consume all the energy available of the universe to do so .???.. get the
drift, bogo?
Now, if this is not palatable to you then you could subscribe to the belief
in a static universe, where things move around in a cosmic style Brownian
movement and you can interpret (b), the acceleration instead as a
primordial force factor (m*b) embedded in cosmic space which is the base
line and the reason for the existence of gravitation.
This view, though astonishingly, but unpopular because of the hang ups in
Doppler induced redshifts, lets you integrate the Hubble value into the
overall web of physics as
H = (3/2) * pi *c * L^2 / (2*r)^3 = 2.07E-18 /sec
with L being the Plank length defined as L= sqrt (hbar*G/c^3).and r = the
classical electron radius (r=r_H*a^2), or as directly measurable by
stationary Hydrogen emission frequency of the Lyman series limit fL as: r=
a^3*c/ 4pi*fL.
With this, you don't even have to look up M, the mass of the universe, in a
book. --- All you gotta do is to look into the gasflame when you brew your
coffee. Deeply. Because the humble flame tells you the whole story, all the
secrets, in great exquisite detail.
This view then shows you how we humans imagine how things are
interconnected from the tiniest to that largest domains, all anchored in
the values of the fundamental constants, ..... (most of them measured over
a century ago).
It is fascinating, so fascinating actually, that it really doesn't matter
whether it's true or not.
Enjoy it,
hanson
hanson
jr,
I just sent you an offer about what I perceived from you, what you wanted
from me in: "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:gxYJ7.52519$hZ.50...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
However, jr, now I get from your latest post the distict impression that
your are into this simply for the sake of argement and argumentation.
Tell me if I perceived your wrongly, for then, if yes, you must wait until
I am into game playing mode again.
That'll be perhaps tomorrow or 6 months from now.
But when I do work and when I am not bullshitting, I do not want to hear
bullshit.
Let me know.
hanson
johnreed
>Date: 11/18/01 4:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <hMYJ7.52543$hZ.50...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
I'm confused here. Don't know which you are referencing or what. I will go
through all these posts to try to figure it out. Email me direct as well. I
simply do not know what it is you are speaking about.
peace
hanson
> >Hello hanson:
>
> I'm confused here. Don't know which you are referencing or what. I will
go
> through all these posts to try to figure it out. Email me direct as well.
I
> simply do not know what it is you are speaking about.
> peace
> johnreed
Thanks, jr,
Yes, please do take your time and sort it out.
When it becomes desirable for you, in a month or so, then let us pick up
where we left off.
Take care, dude,
hanson
johnreed
>Thanks, jr,
>Yes, please do take your time and sort it out.
>When it becomes desirable for you, in a month or so, then let us pick up
>where we left off.
>Take care, dude,
jr writes>
I thought I had replied to a post but could not locate it so here it is. Its
about all I can figure as a problem.
Subject: Re: Problem on Gravity
From: "hanson" han...@quick.net
Date: 11/17/01 11:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <gIJJ7.49797$S4.46...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
"johnreed" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011117221703...@mb-fy.aol.com...
as well. Analyze that old feel force you take for granted and never question.
The more you deduce on your own the less work I have to do and the faster the
job gets done. The job will get done hanson, by someone.
Probably by someone that lurks and never speaks.
my regards,
Alun Williams
See my comments:
> [hanson]
> Alun, I will reveal to you a closely guarded govt. secret. <g> Keep it
> under wraps.
>
> [Alun]
> Please do. ;o)
> [hanson]
> AFAICS your the Ep factor does carry a dimension of moles * acceleration
> (Mw* cm/s^2) which is conceptually a force making your theory viable, thus
> far.
[Alun]
Cool!
>
>
> [hanson]
> After my posting to jr, it became apparent to me that you meant me,
hanson,
> instead of John (jr) in your post. ---- Cheech, the longer I hang around
in
> these physics NG's, the more I feel like having taken up residence in a
> cyber home for senior citizens.
[Alun]
Well, it was meant for anyone who read it, but thanks for the input anyway.
>
[Hanson]
> But anyway, Alun, note that dp/p = dln p which will lead you to an
> exponential form. Whether an exponential function is in conflict with
> reality of your experiment, I have not checked into.
[Alun]
Yeah, I would expect an exponential form. This is because as the pressure
increases toward the centre, so does the density and therefore the rate of
increase in pressure would be exponential in nature.
[Hanson]
Furthermore, in your
> "Where A = Pi.(rho)G(2/3 . R^3 + R^2 - 1/3. r^3)",
> you seem to subtract R^2 - 1/3. r^3,... you subtract 1/3 of a cube, r^3,
> from a surface, R^2,?
> I'd check into such power differences of dimensions very carefully, before
> proceeding. There are other such dimensional spots like this. Check it
out.
[Alun]
I have checked it by putting r=R and r =0. I got the expected results,
unless there are some damn typos in it.
>
> In your post from today 11-18-2001, you state
>
> [Alun]
> I am exploring my own theory and need the mathematical tools to help me.
> If you can provide an answer to the problem by simply quoting one from a
> text book and explaining it I will be most happy. The equation that I
have
> derived is a bit cumbersome. The reason that I am doing this is because I
> want to be able to develop a rate equation for nuclear fusion at the core
> of a main sequence star. One of the factors will most likeley be the
> density and pressure.
>
> [hanson]
> IMHO pressure and density are the chief conditions which determine the
> fusion reaction. I haven't been into fusion for a long time, so the value
> of my views on it are meager to nil. I suggest for you to post your
desires
> into the astro, particle and fusion NGs. Don't' tell them that you have a
> theory, just ask questions.
[Alun]
Thanks, will have a look for it.
>
> [hanson]
> Back to your 11-17 post: Then there is the basic problem for my not
delving
> into your problem too intimately. It is your baby, Alun, your work, about
> which I do not have an attachment as deeply as you do. Hence my interest
> and help will be of very limited help to you. ---- In addition, I must
> admit that I answered your post for a very different reason than having an
> interest in the subject matter. I wanted to see how many other people
would
> get involved, when it comes to equations or numbers in a post.
> My experience on my posting with equations or numbers since 1996 has
> produced one single exchange of note (with my esteemed friend Ned Wright).
> From all the other posts containing equations or numbers, folks took off
> like files from a piece of shit when they see E&N's, except when
Einstein's
> gamma is present. So, that's the long and the short of it.
[Alun]
Yeah, talking about ideas is interesting, but in the end we do have to build
models that enable us to make accurate predictions.
[hanson]
>
> Now then, before I get to my derivation I must pontificate, or in jr's
> lingo, use Ptolemaic artistry.
> My black square hat and it's tassel were still dripping with beer when I
> landed a fine job in an R&D defense establishment. I saw them working
> feverishly with specs and protocols. After a few days I suggested that
> whatever they were doing could be calculated much easier and faster
instead
> of.. I couldn't finish the sentence, because the boss hollered at me:
"Son,
> fuck you and your theories! Here, we measure... When everything is
measured
> and when it works, then you can go write a fancy report with any kind of
> theory that matches what we measured. We give a fuck!" --- Well, so much
> for my graduate math, calculus and other theories I learned, or had to
> learn...to be prepared for the real world.......
>
> What served me the best over the years were fast cursory estimates and
then
> precise measurements. A first quick estimate always just involves a
> dimensional analysis. In applications where (new) physics theories are
> involved one can usually check their veracity by inserting numbers of
> fundamental constants, which then allow crosschecks to see whether your
> theory is "correct". The reason why this works is that all fundamental
> constants are interrelated. NO exceptions!
[Alun]
I agree. In the theory or more accurately hypothesis that I am playing
with, I have derived an equivalent expression for newtons gravitation, where
the intensity of the gravitational field is:
Ep = 2C^3.T/M x m./R^2
Where Ep is intensity of the field (N/Kg)
C is the speed of light (M/S)
T is the age of the universe in (seconds)
M is the total mass of the universe (kg)
m is mass of body (Kg)
R = distance from centre of body (M)
The fundamental constant G is in fact 2C^3.T/M
If my hypothesis is correct, then G is increasing at a rate of about 6% of
it's current value every billion years. Unfortunatley, even if we use the
most accurate methods to determine this, it would take 2 million years
before we even had a chance of demonstrating that this is true. However, if
G is increasing, then the pressure at the core of a star is also increasing,
and this would be reflected in the rate of increase of thermo-nuclear fusion
and the star would get hotter. I want to be able to predict the degree by
which it would increase. Although, there may be other factor involved too.
[Hanson]
Cause: they all come from
> interconnected events in the same universe, implied or explicit. So, when
> somebody tells you that you can't do that, you must look at him/her VERY
> closely, for you are having an encounter with an alien from a different
> universe at that very moment. Hereby then, I have revealed here to you a
> secret which was hidden from you by the government since Roswell/1947:
"How
> to identify aliens." - Guard this secret closely, Alum. <g> :-))) <g>
[Alun]
:o) We must have a few on this newsgroup already then.
[Hanson]
> So finally, I present to you without explanations or justifications a
> dirty, quick and easy dimensional analysis to bring you to the equation
> derivation you wanted.
> *** I disregard any and all integers, fractions or pi ****
>
> F = G M^2/R^2 ---- > E = FR
> FR = G M^2/R = E = pV = RT = hf = mc^2 or whatever you need
> pV = G M^2/R
> p = G (M/V) * M/R ....---<<--.... expand with R^2/R^2
> p = G (rho) * M/R * R^2/R^2 ....---<<--.... M/R^3 = rho
> p = G (rho)^2 * R^2 ....---<<--.... denoted dr for (diff. R) for
> visibility
> dp = 2Rdr G(rho)^2
> dp/dr = 2R G(rho)^2
[Alun]
Yes, that is a more simple approach. I didn't think about using energy. I
will have to have a closer look at it when I get time.
>
> Now, I agree that rho will change with p and r, but at any specific dp/dr
> value rho will have a fixed value which is only determined by R. So dp/dr
> is applicable and probably true in concept, but the integrated form, p = G
> (rho)^2 * R^2, must be rewritten to reflect, as you have said, the
> codependency of rho with p, hence T,V and R (again). This then will lead
to
> your expressions which carry R^4 powers.
>
> You can easily get your desired dp/p from the above set, but it will lead
> to circular reasoning yielding dp/p = (2/R) dr = 2 dln R, which is of no
> help.
>
> You'll need to intro at least one other independent variable, to proceed
> meaningfully in physical reality. Probably best with the introduction of M
> = n*Mw, (mass = moles* moleight) which you have done, already.
>
> Keep in mind that all these contemplations are probably not applicable to
> realty because Plasma physics rules do take over at conditions for fusion.
[Alun]
Yeah, I need to talk to the plasma physics experts about this.
>
> In conclusion. You have taken on some big time project here, Alun. Not
only
> does it have stellar implications, but if you follow this dream and you
> just might happen to get lucky and stumble on to an angle which makes
> fusion possible right here on earth.
[Alun]
Maybe, It is an area that I am interested in, but I am also interested in
my other project on gravitation and the existence of energy. It's just a
side interest really.
>
> Good luck fella, keep into touch, you got my e-mail coordinates.
> hanson
[Alun]
Thanks
>
> PS: Come to think of, your search may not be of great interest to you any
> longer, once the $ millions start to roll in from tj's sawdust ventures or
> from the tons of tj-gold which you will drag off the ocean floor. Perhaps
I
> may join you, if there are horny, willingly succulent and good looking
> broadies aboard ship. ...And tj finances the entire show instead of
pimping
> for the rent of his boat.
[Alun]
Yeah, sounds good. If tj wants to make someone rich, then maybe he will
just send us a few million each and we won't even have to worry about the
wood pulp ;o).
Cheers
Alun
tj Frazir
with a gas ...Ya know .
hanson
> [Alun]
>
> ....I am interested in, gravitation and the existence of energy.
Let me hear your take on/about G & E.
Just throw a couple of equations my way.
Equations, because we can filter out 99% of posting noise.
Anytime the 99ers see an equation or even a number they go to the next
post.
That's good.
hanson
hanson
> I have copied your derivation below for reference purposes:
>
> F = G M^2/R^2 ---- > E = FR
> FR = G M^2/R = E = pV = RT = hf = mc^2 or whatever you need
> pV = G M^2/R
> p = G (M/V) * M/R ....---<<--.... expand with R^2/R^2
> p = G (rho) * M/R * R^2/R^2 ....---<<--.... M/R^3 = rho
> p = G (rho)^2 * R^2 ....---<<--.... denoted dr for (diff. R) for
> visibility
> dp = 2Rdr G(rho)^2
> dp/dr = 2R G(rho)^2
>
>
> the third line of the equation is only truley valid for R => Radius of
gas
> ball? Please correct me if I am wrong about this.
> pV = G M^2/R
Yes, you are right. However, R can naturally have any value above zero
> You then re-arrange the
> equation into terms of density. I think it is correct, and could be
applied
> to the pressure of a gas surrounding a massive body (i.e the atmosphere),
> but would it also apply when we consider the pressure increase as we move
> from the outter surface to the centre of the gas ball?
There are many ways to look at it.
Some of them are to ask what is
d(pV) = pdV+ Vdp , substitute and solve or
p - dp = G (rho)^2 * R^2 - 2Rdr G(rho)^2, substitute and solve, etc.
but I think you have done all that already in your complicated looking
equation you wrote in the last post.
> Anyway, going back to my hypothesis on gravitation and existence.
This is a fucking fascinating piece of work, you did here, Alun. It
impressed me not only in its logic but by its lucid imaginary content. More
so, your views lead to the generally accepted cosmological structure and
you may even have inadvertently rederived some sort of General Relativity,
without invoking abstruse math with 16 equations requiring matrixes to
solve some of them.
I like your approach.
Rest assured, as long as your final construct results do fall within a few
intergers and pi of the cosmic envelope, you will be ok.
****** c=(GM /R)^(1/2)=(GMH)^(1/3)=(GMb)^(1/4) ******
where, c is the lightspeed, G=Newton's, M = mass and R (the distance from
here to the lightwall), the radius of the observable universe. H is the
Hubble constant, 1/H is T, the Hubble time (T) or the "age" of the
universe, well, better the time it takes photons to get from here to the
light wall (or the other way around.)
Why do I say that? Because we are describing the same phenomenon!
Now, do not answer this post because I want to take some time to follow
your thought train, and check out the development of your equations.
Fascianting, man. I'll be back on this. Gimme a day/week or so.
Thanks, dude,
hanson
Alun Williams
I have had a closer look at your derivation on pressure which has raised
some questions. I have copied your derivation below for reference purposes:
F = G M^2/R^2 ---- > E = FR
FR = G M^2/R = E = pV = RT = hf = mc^2 or whatever you need
pV = G M^2/R
p = G (M/V) * M/R ....---<<--.... expand with R^2/R^2
p = G (rho) * M/R * R^2/R^2 ....---<<--.... M/R^3 = rho
p = G (rho)^2 * R^2 ....---<<--.... denoted dr for (diff. R) for
visibility
dp = 2Rdr G(rho)^2
dp/dr = 2R G(rho)^2
Looking at the first three lines of the derivation, you have taken Newtons
equation for force and converted it into an equation for potential energy.
If you look closely at the third line you will see that what you have
derived is an equation that describes the conversion of gravitational
potential energy into pressure energy (assuming that there are no energy
losses). However, the right hand side of this equation is only applicable
when considering the potential energy of the gas as it falls from infinity
to the external surface of the gas ball, which has a mass of M. Therefore
the third line of the equation is only truley valid for R => Radius of gas
ball? Please correct me if I am wrong about this. You then re-arrange the
equation into terms of density. I think it is correct, and could be applied
to the pressure of a gas surrounding a massive body (i.e the atmosphere),
but would it also apply when we consider the pressure increase as we move
from the outter surface to the centre of the gas ball?
Anyway, going back to my hypothesis on gravitation and existence. I could
post some equations here, but unfortunately they are based on a fundamental
abstract concept which would require significant explanation before the
equations make any sense. My hypothesis is called the 'Chaos Point
Hypothesis'. I will post a snip of it here. This is an older version and
requires updating with respect to some of my recent investigations but it
should give you a flavour on some of my ideas. I'm afraid that it is also
fairly lengthy.
The Beginning
The moment at which our Universe popped into existence, and the knowledge of
what preceded this event presents mankind with it's greatest mystery. Many
physicists now believe that the origins of our Universe lay within the
Singularity, and that the Universe exploded into existence from a single
point. But, the Singularity itself presents it's own mysteries. Until
recent years, there was very little proof to support the idea of the
Singularity, which is simply a theoretical prediction derived from Albert
Einsteins's General Theory of Relativity. Recent astronomical observations
provide growing evidence to support the existence of black holes (and
consequently the Singularity). Such evidence is derived from observations
of Binary X-ray stars where one of the pair is invisible and the velocity of
the visible star and emissions of electromagnetic radiation suggest the
presents of a black hole. Other evidence includes the distant Quasars with
their huge emissions of energetic particles normal to the plane of the newly
forming Galaxy, and the velocity of stars close to the centres of galaxies
which suggest the present of huge super giant black holes.
So, what do we know about the Singularity? If you asked a physicist what a
Singularity is, then the most likely answer that you would get is that the
Singularity is a point of infinite density, where all the matter that has
made up a massive object has undergone complete gravitational collapse. In
this paper, I will present an alternative model of the Universe and the
Singularity.
In the beginning there was nothing. At first glance this statement would
appear to be a logical assumption. But, what exactly is 'nothing'? We use
the word frequently in every day life to explain the absence of a 'thing' or
' some things', (eg. There is nothing in the box). But here I am using the
word 'nothing' to mean the absence of 'everything'. I am saying that
'nothing' means no space, no time, no energy, no matter, not even the
fundamental laws of physics that we know and love. Without the existence of
any laws or rules, causality breaks down and without causality 'All things
must happen'. The logic that underlies this statement is that 'All things
must happen', because without any rules, there isn't 'anything to prevent
them from happening'. The probability of anything happening becomes 1.
Now, on closer examination of these ideas we can see that the original
statement (In the beginning there was nothing) can not be true. This is
because when we attempt to describe the properties of 'nothing', we find
that we are in fact describing the properties of Chaos. Logically, we must
replace the word 'nothing' with the word chaos and thus it is chaos that is
the default state. I propose that it is chaos that preceded the birth of
the Universe and as such the original statement requires amendment. In the
beginning, there was Chaos.
Before we proceed, we must be clear on the definition of Chaos as used in
this model. Chaos is defined as "disorder or confusion". However, it is
commonly used to describe varying degrees of disorder, where one degree of
disorder is relative to another. In this paper I will use the word chaos in
it's ultimate extreme. As such, chaos is a thing of ultimate, or infinite
disorder. It is a thing that has no rules and no limitations. It is a
thing that cannot be predicted in any way, shape or form. It is a thing
that has no place or time. Naturally, this makes chaos particularly
difficult to visualise. In order to produce a mental image of chaos, we
would have to use concepts that are familiar to us within our everyday
lives, and terms that are embedded within the language of everyday speech.
For the purpose of visual and mental simplicity, I will construct such an
image. I will call this construction "The Chaos Point (CP)".
The Chaos Point (CP)
The CP is a point at which ultimate chaos resides. It is a point with no
spatial or temporal dimensions and can be likened to a mathematical point
for ease of visualisation. But, we must remember that this is not strictly
an accurate description. A mathematical point can only be defined in terms
of a spatial co-ordinate system and such a system requires ordered logic.
But at the CP there is no logic, and no co-ordinate system can be used to
define its location. Consequently it is easier to think of the CP as a
mathematical point with indeterminate position. The CP is in some ways
analogous to the singularity. However, the properties of the CP differ
significantly compared to the current description of a singularity.
As described above, the CP is a place where ultimate chaos resides. It is
a place where there are no rules or laws of physics and consequently no
limitations. Within our own universe there are limitations and rules, such
as the conservation of energy and momentum. If our understanding of these
laws are correct, then energy cannot be created or destroyed. However, at
the CP there are no such laws and the existence of energy (which is one
single possibility) becomes inevitable. But, how much energy? As described
previously, the CP has no limitations. The quantity of energy that exists
at the CP must be indeterminate. It could be zero, infinite, or any value
in between. At the CP all possibilities must be accommodated. NB: energy
as we understand it is simply one type of physical substance that could
exist as a possibility at the CP, and that there must be an infinite number
of other possibilities, most of which will be beyond our imagination. We
can now attribute this property to the CP.
How many of these CPs could exist? If there were more than one CP then each
would produce an identical set of possibilities and would be
indistinguishable from the rest. More importantly, If the CP has no
limitations then there is a theoretical possibility that there could be an
infinite amount of energy at the CP. Consequently there cannot be more than
one CP. If there were more than one CP, then there would be a theoretical po
ssibility for there to be more than an infinite amount of energy.
Logically, this cannot be true and we must be satisfied to accept that there
can only be one CP. We can now summarise the properties of the CP as
follows:
The Chaos Point is a point of indeterminate position, at which ultimate
chaos resides. It is a point at which the existence of any physical
substance such as energy is possible. The quantity or magnitude of any
physical substance that could exist at the Chaos Point is indeterminate. It
could be zero, infinite or any value in between. The Chaos Point is singular
in nature. There can only be one Chaos Point.
The Birth of our Universe
It is now quite widely accepted that all the energy in the universe had it's
origin in the Big Bang. In this hypothesis, the initiating event was the
formation of a highly energetic quantum of energy along with the laws that
govern it's very existence and, associated with this quantum of energy it is
likely that there would have been a finite amount of space. The logic that
underlies this initial event, is that at the CP, all things must happen.
The appearance of the quantum of energy that sparked off our Universe is
simply one possibility out of an infinite number of possibilities. Such an
event is unavoidable. Additionally, the logic of all subsequent events
associated with the original quantum of energy must now conform to the laws
embedded within the original quantum of energy.
Now that this energy has appeared, why does it continue to exist? Why does
it perpetuate itself? What is the very basis of it's existence? The most
logical answer to this question is that, the basis for it's existence is
most likely to be the same as the basis for it's formation. In other words,
the energy is being sustained or perpetuated by the CP. The original
quantum of energy is just one possible interpretation of the CP, out of an
infinite number of possible interpretations. We can use an analogy to help
build a mental picture of this. Imagine the CP to be a point of red laser
light falling onto a white background. Now, imagine this point of light to
be moving slowly across the background, tracing out a circular path. Now
imagine the spot of light speeding up, moving faster and faster.
Eventually, the spot of light will be moving so fast that it would no longer
appear to us as a spot of light. It would now appear to us to be a solid
circle of light. Similarly, in the case of our universe the CP appears as a
quantum of energy.
We can expand the above idea even further. A quantum of energy, can be
described in terms of a mathematical function (Schrodinger's equations etc).
So, it must be possible to described the first quantum of energy in terms of
a mathematical function. A mathematical function can be represented in many
different forms, and may have many different solutions. So, it may be
possible to express the mathematical function of the original quantum of
energy in terms of two independent solutions, or two separate quanta of
energy. And, it may be possible to describe the two quanta of energy in
terms of further mathematical solutions, or even more quanta of energy. We
can extrapolate this process further and further, until eventually, we are
left with mathematical functions, that can no longer be simplified further.
These simple mathematical functions, could be what we now describe as the
sub atomic particles and photons etc. In other words each component part of
matter and energy is in effect one possible solution that satisfies the
original mathematical function of the initial quantum of energy.
Now in order for you to get a clear understanding of the development of our
Universe in it's very early stages (based on this hypothesis) I would like
you to imagine the following: The first quantum of energy appears, it's
very existence is based on the infinite seething chaos that is the Chaos
Point. The particle, then begins to decay into smaller, less massive and
more stable particles. The process escalates as more and more particles are
formed and in turn decay to give rise to smaller more stable particles. A
growing ball of quantum particles begins to take shape. Note, in the early
stages there are no photons within this growing ball of quantum particles
and the Universe does not expand at the speed of light. This is because the
energies that exist at the very early stages are so great that any photons
that are produced would either immediately interact with the quantum
particles, or instantly decay into particles themselves . The energies of
the particles at this stage are so great that we will never be able to
re-create them in a particle accelerator, because it would be impossible to
build one that is big enough or capable of delivering enough energy to
generate the quanta that exist during this very early stage. The process
continues, with particle, decaying into particles as the growing ball
expands in size. The rate at which the ball expands is indeterminable
because at this stage there is no point of reference that we can use to
measure time. Eventually, we get to a stage where the particles being
produced become familiar to us. The Hadrons begin to appear, protons,
neutrons, which in turn are followed by the copious production of Leptons,
electrons, positrons, neutrinos in vast numbers that are almost
incomprehensible. It is at this stage in the decay process that the
existence of stable photons becomes possible, and the growing ball of
quantum particles suddenly explodes in a brilliant flash of intense
radiation as the photons stream away in all directions.
Existence
The above paragraph describes the the very early stages of the Chaos Point
Universe and the production of the sub atomic particles. But now that we
have described the process surrounding their production how do each of these
mutually exclusive component parts of our universe sustain their own
existence? What perpetuates them? If the CP is the basis for the existence
of the first quantum of energy, then it is logical to assume that it is also
the basis for the existence of all the other quanta that follow. So, if
there is only one CP, how can it sustain the existence of all the component
parts throughout the universe? The only way that the CP could sustain the
existence of all the individual components is if it spreads itself
probabilistically throughout the space time continuum. In other words, at
any instant, we could never know where the CP is. This is interesting,
because when we look closely at a sub atomic particle, we can never know
exactly where it is, or even if it is there at all. This is because, they
would all have to exist probabilistically. All the individual component
quanta that make up the universe could be normalised to 1, which satisfies
the original quantum of energy.
When the first particle decays into more particles, those new particles
would have had some uncertainty associated with them, as the particles
continue to decay to more simple particles, the degree of uncertainty
associated with each particle would increase. If the original particle had
a mass of M and the probability of finding the chaos point at the original
particle is 1, then we can see that as the first particle decays to less
massive particles, the probability of finding the chaos point at those
particles also decreases. It is quite easy to see from this that we can
correlate, the probability of finding the chaos point to mass or energy. In
other words the probability of finding the chaos point at any instant,
within any defined region of space, is proportional to the mass or energy
within that region.
Thus P = m/M
Where P is the probability of finding the chaos point in a region of space
m is the mass within the region of space
M is the mass of the original particle (i.e. the total mass of
the universe)
If we now take an enclosed region of space (a spherical one for simplicity),
and within this region we put a constant mass m. In order to sustain the
material/energy within the region, the chaos point would have to propagate
into it. But the chaos point also sustains the existence of the material
that is outside our spherical region of space, so it would also have to
propagate back out. In my hypothesis, I have described the propagation of
the chaos point to and away from any enclosed region of space as 'The Chaos
Point Field'. Since the chaos point would need to propagate to all parts of
the universe it is also reasonable to assume that the chaos point field
would extend equally in all directions to and from the region of space that
we have defined. Furthermore, it may be that the chaos point field itself,
is what we perceive as spacetime.
Now, the rate at which the chaos point propagates into any enclosed region
of space (Ri) will be proportional to the probability of finding the chaos
point within that region, and thus proportional to m/M.
Thus Ri = km/M where k is a rate determining function.
Likewise the rate at which the chaos point propagates out of any enclosed
region of space (Ro) will be proportional to the probability of finding the
chaos point outside of that region and thus proportional to (M-m)/M
Thus Ro = k(M-m)/M Where k is a rate determining function
For values of m which are small compared to the total mass of the universe
the factor (M-m)/M approaches unity.
Thus we can write Ro =k
Now, if there is only one chaos point, then the rate at which the chaos
point propagates into any enclosed region of space (Ri) must
always be equal to the rate at which the chaos point propagates back out
(Ro). This has to be true. If there is only one chaos point how could it
possibly propagate into a region of space faster than it is propagating out
and vice versa?. Now in the above equations we can see that Ri is not equal
to Ro. This presents us with a problem. However, there is a solution that
satisfies all requirements. See following:
NB: Previously I have suggested that it is the chaos point field that we
perceive as spacetime. Now consider the following two equations again:
Ri = k.m/M
Ro =k
In the above two equations the factor k is common and is a rate determining
function. Therefore the value of k must depend on the properties of space
and time. Now, the only way that we could manipulate the above equations
such that Ri = Ro, is if we alter or warp time itself. Thus, time as
measured by a stop watch for the determination of Ri, is different from the
time as measured by the same stopwatch for the determination of Ro. Thus
there must exist a constant difference or warp in spacetime around massive
objects. This difference manifests itself as a gravitational field.
The same principles can be applied to motion. When an object is
accelerated, the component of the chaos point field in the direction of
motion has to be balanced so that the rate at which the chaos point
propagates into the region the object occupies, must be equal to the rate at
which the chaos point propagates back out. So, when the velocity of an
object changes, space and time for the object must also change such that a
balance is maintained. The magnitude by which the field would need to
change will be proportional to the size of the field (and thus the mass of
the object), and also proportional to the change in velocity) Thus the
field would need to be altered by and amount proportional to:
Mass x Change of velocity
The rate of change of the chaos point field manifests itself as force.
The above ideas satisfy the equivalence principle for both inertial mass and
gravitational mass, because both are dependant on the size of the chaos
point field which in turn is proportional to the same mass.
Gravitation
In the above discussion I have derived two very simple equations to describe
the rate of chaos point propagation.
Ri = k.m/M ....1
Ro = k .............2
We can build on these equations and use them to describe gravitation.
Combining equations 1 & 2 we get:
Ri = Ro.m/M .....3
Let Qi = Chaos Point Flux, i.e the rate at which the chaos Point propagates
into any enclosed region of space per unit area of surface of the boundary.
Thus:
Qi = Ro.m/M.A.....4 Where A is the surface area of the enclosed region of
space being considered.
In equation 4, Ro is the rate at which the Chaos Point propagates away from
an enclosed region of space such that it can sustain the existence of all
the component parts of the universe including the photons at the very edge
of the expanding spacetime boundary. This is an extremely important point.
The Universe is not static. It is in fact expanding and has been expanding
since the very early stages of it's formation. As the universe expands new
spacetime must continually be produced. Note that previously we have
described Chaos Point propagation in terms of the Chaos Point Field and
proposed that it is the Chaos Point field that we perceive as spacetime.
Consequently, we can describe Ro in terms of the rate of change of formation
of new spacetime. Assuming that the universe is expanding as a sphere where
the spacetime boundary moves at the speed of light C, then the rate of
formation of new spacetime at any instant with respect to time is given by
C.A, where A is the surface area of the universal spacetime boundary and C
is the speed of light. Therefore, the rate of change of propagation of the
chaos point (Ro) at any instant is given by C.dA/dT. Where dA/dT is the
rate of change of the surface area of the universal spacetime boundary. We
can now write:
Ro = C.dA/dT +C.dA/dTIt=o ......5
where dA/dT is the rate of change of surface area of the universal boundary,
dA/dTIt=o is the rate of change of surface area of the universal boundary at
T=0, C is the speed of light and T is the age of the universe in seconds.
Now if the surface of the expanding boundary moves at speed C, then at time
T (seconds), the surface area is given by:
A = 4pi(CT)^2 + constant which represents the surface area at T=0
Therefore dA/dT = 8pi.C^2.T....6
Substituting into equation 5 we have: Ro =8pi.C^3T + k'...7
Where k' is the initial rate of expansion of the universe at time T=0, (i.e.
k' = C.dA/dTIt=o) Note: for large values of T, k' will only be a very small
fraction of Ro as k' will be dependant on the initial surface area of the
universal boundary which is likely to be very small indeed.
We can now substitute Ro back into Eqn 3 & 4
Ri = (8pi.C^3T + k').m/M ...8 or Qi = (8pi.C^3T + k').m/A.M ...9
For an enclosed boundary of space A = 4pi.R^2.
Where R is the fixed radius of the enclosed region being considered.
Therefore we have:
Qi = (8pi.C^3T +k'). m....10
4pi.M R^2
For large values of T, k' will be insignificant, therefore we can write:
Qi = (2.C^3T ) m....11 when T is large and m<<M
M R^2
At this stage it would be useful to compare equation 11 with Newton's
equation for the intensity of a gravitational field:
Ep = G. m ...12 Where Ep is intensity of the gravitational field.
R^2
We can see that both equations 11 & 12 are very similar. Now, if the Chaos
point flux is characteristic of the intensity of the gravitational field
then we can see by comparison that the Universal Gravitational Constant G,
is represented in equation 11 by :
G = 2.C^3.T/M ....13
We can do a quick and very rough check of equation 13 as follows:
If you re-arrange Eqn 13 and solve for M (total mass of Universe) assuming
that the Universe is approx 15 billion years old we get:
M= 3.82 x 10^53 Kg
The current estimate of the average mass/energy density of space based on
astronomical estimations of material in visible galaxies is approx 3
hydrogen atoms per cubic meter of space.
Thus M = Volume of space x mass density
or M = 4/3.pi (3x10^8 x 4.7x10^17)^3 x 3 x 1.66 x 10^-27. = 6 x 10^52 Kg.
Thus we have: M (theoretical) = 3.82 x 10^53 Kg
M (estimation) = 6 x 10^52 Kg
Comparing the two results it can be seen that the estimated value of M is
about 15% of the theoretically calculated value. Although the two values of
M are within the same ballpark there does appear to be a significant
difference. However, based on the observations of the movements of stars in
galaxies scientists now think that the visible matter in galaxies only
accounts for a small fraction of the total matter (between 10% to 20%), and
that most of the matter is invisible or dark matter. In conclusion it can
be seen that the theoretically predicted value for the total mass of the
universe is in agreement with current scientific data. This provides
supporting evidence for the Chaos Point model.
Cheers
Alun
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:17HK7.2088$lg5.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
hanson
> Anyway, going back to my hypothesis on gravitation
Yo, Alun,
Your derivation of Gravitation is beautiful. This is elegant. I am outright
proud of you. To boot, I like your implied “outside of R”. This recognizes
the contention (officially shunned by BBT) that our observable universe is
simply the “lit-up sphere of radius R” portion in a much, much larger
cosmic 3 D ocean consisting of the same cosmic fog at this large scale,
which can be treated much LIKE an ideal gas in the first order and then as
a gas near/at its condensation point in the more refined second order.
It will take a lot of convincing to sell the proposition that 1/T = H
(Hubble) is a frequency obeying E = hf, in this case E=hH, a radiant
property, inherent to this cosmic "gas".
Consider, that T as the age of the universe must be a fishy interpretation
for a very simple reason. Why did the BB create Hydrogen with a half live
of 10^38 years+ to begin with?? That number 10^38 and NOT 10^9 years ought
to be investigated and tied to the age and size of the cosmos
Also, with your introduction of n* Mw makes it clear that N_A, Avogadro’s
number, comes into play as a scaling factor along the way. I have tried to
illuminate this fact for many years. But as soon as N_A is mentioned
anywhere outside the chemical community, the physicos and the astros take
off, as if N_A where a lethal poison. Never mind, that N_A has been
considered for 50+ year as a fundamental constant, with the added note that
there are no fundamental constant in chemistry.
N_A is a very real scaling constant not only for the atomic domain up into
the everyday terrestrial realm, for gases as well as the solid state, BUT
N_A serves the same function as the scaler up into the next larger set, as
a tool for the mathematical description of the universe at large. N_A’s
effects can be observed in the reiterated self similarity occurring all
around us. Simplest obvious examples are Atoms –N-> Earth -N-> Solar
system –N->Galaxies. BTW, this thought is not new at all. One of he recent
icons who pondered this possibility was Dirac with his “Large Number
Hypothesis”, but he mentioned the numbers only and carefully avoided
Avogadro’s Name.
hanson
Wlilliam’s derivation of Gravitation
Condensed from a treatise by Allun Williams.
The Chaos Point (CP) has no spatial or temporal dimensions and can be
likened to a mathematical point. The probability of finding the chaos point
at any instant, within any defined region of space, is proportional to the
mass or energy within that region. Thus P = m/M, where P is the probability
of finding the chaos point in a region of space m is the mass within the
region of space M is the total mass of the universe
(Ri) will be proportional to the probability of finding the chaos point
within that region, and thus proportional to m/M, with Ri = km/M where k
is a rate determining function. --- (Ro) will be proportional to the
probability of finding the chaos point outside of that region and thus
proportional to (M-m)/M. with Ro = k(M-m)/M Where k is a rate determining
function. For values of m which are small compared to the total mass of the
universe the factor (M-m)/M approaches unity.
Ro =k, ------------------------------------1
Ri = k.m/M-------------------------------2
Ri = Ro.m/M ----------------------------3
Let Qi = Chaos Point Flux, i.e the rate at which the chaos Point propagates
into any enclosed region of space per unit area of surface of the boundary.
Qi = Ro.m/M.A------------------------4
Where A is the surface area of the enclosed region of space being
considered. -- Assuming that the universe is expanding as a sphere where
the spacetime boundary moves at the speed of light C, then the rate of
formation of new spacetime at any instant with respect to time is given by
C.A, where A is the surface area of the universal spacetime boundary and C
is the speed of light. Therefore, the rate of change of propagation of the
chaos point (Ro) at any instant is given by C.dA/dT. Where dA/dT is the
rate of change of the surface area of the universal spacetime boundary. We
can now write:
Ro = C.dA/dT + C.dA/dTIt=o --------.5
where dA/dT is the rate of change of surface area of the universal
boundary,
dA/dTIt=o is the rate of change of surface area of the universal boundary
at T=0, C is the speed of light and T is the age of the universe in
seconds.
Now if the surface of the expanding boundary moves at speed C, then at time
T (seconds), the surface area is given by:
A = 4pi(CT)^2 + constant -------------5a
which represents the surface area A at T=0 .Therefore
dA/dT = 8pi.C^2.T-----------------------.6
Substituting into equation 5 we have:
Ro =8pi.C^3T + k'.------------------------7
Where k' is the initial rate of expansion of the universe at time T=0,
(i.e. k' = C.dA/dTIt=o) Note: for large values of T, k' will only be a very
small
fraction of Ro as k' will be dependant on the initial surface area of the
universal boundary which is likely to be very small indeed. We can now
substitute Ro back into Eqn 3 & 4
Ri = (8pi.C^3T + k').m/M ----------------8 or
Qi = (8pi.C^3T + k').m/A.M -------------9
For an enclosed boundary of space A = 4pi.R^2. Where R is the fixed radius
of the enclosed region being considered. Therefore we have:
Qi = [(8pi.C^3T +k') /.4pi.M] (m/R^2) ---------10
For large values of T, k' will be insignificant, therefore we can write:
Qi = [(2.C^3T ) / M] (m/R^2) ---------------------11
when T is large and m<<M. At this stage it would be useful to compare
equation 11 with Newton's equation for the intensity of a gravitational
field:
Ep = G. m / R^2-------------------------------------12
Where Ep is intensity of the gravitational field. We can see that both
equations 11 & 12 are very similar. Now, if the Chaos point flux is
characteristic of the intensity of the gravitational field then we can see
by comparison that the Universal Gravitational Constant G, is represented
in equation 11 by :
G = 2.C^3.T/M --------------------------------------13
Check thru’ re-arrange Eqn 13 and solve for M (total mass of Universe)
assuming that the Universe is approx 15 billion years old we get:
M= 3.82 x 10^53 Kg
The current estimate of the average mass/energy density of space based on
astronomical estimations of material in visible galaxies is approx 3
hydrogen atoms per cubic meter of space. Thus M = Volume of space x mass
density or
M = 4/3.pi (3x10^8 x 4.7x10^17)^3 x 3 x 1.66 x 10^-27. = 6 x 10^52 Kg.
Thus we have: M (theor.) = 3.82 x 10^53 Kg vs M (estim.) = 6 x 10^52 Kg
by Alun Williams
johnreed
thanks
johnreed
"This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy;"...Luther on
Copernicus, 1539
hanson
> Forhive my ignorance but I need a definition for N_A
No,no.... not for hives.... it's not that bad. Go google
Google:
Avogadro's Number N_A. Results about 10,100.
Perrin, was the 1926 Nobel Laureate in Physics; in his paper Perrin says
"The invariable number N is a universal constant, which may be
appropriately designated "Avogadro's Constant."
Consideration of Brownian motion led to some of the more accurate
determinations of Loschmidt's number around the beginning of the 1900's. J.
Perrin (1908) is the first person to have used the term Avogadro's number
for the number of particles in a mole.
N_A = 6.022 141 99 x 10^23 atoms, molecules / mol
This large number is approximately equal to the number of protons in a gram
of pure protons. To comprehend the size of N_A: If we were able to count
atoms at the rate of 10 million per second, it would take about 2 billion
years to count the atoms in one mole, yet one mole of Hydrogen is only
about 6 gallons or one mole of Iron is 56 gr or 2 oz ~ the weight of a tea
spoon. So, to count all the atoms in this single spoon at 10 million per
second would take you 2 billion years.
BTW, to get from the atoms down into the Planck domain, the real the M- and
Brane theory people and the string folks sing about would take you roughly
another step like this again.
Google:
mole weight. Results about 73,500.
mole weight or Molar Mass == A sample of any element with a mass equal to
that element's atomic weight (in grams) will contain precisely one mole of
atoms (6.02 x 1023 atoms). For example, helium has an atomic weight of
4.00. Therefore, 4.00 grams of helium will contain one mole of helium
atoms.
hanson
"johnreed" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011124232129...@mb-cs.aol.com...
johnreed
jr
hanson
> johnreed
addendums:
Other uses for N_A:
Message-Id: <2000111917...@x59.deja.com> hanson:
It is classical chemistry and physics to write M = m*N, or R(gas)=
N*k, or Amp = N*e/F, with N being Avogardo’s number of 6.023E+23
(units/mole, or subsets/set). k is Boltzman’s, F = Faraday’s constant
and, M= Molweight and m = atomic or molecular mass.
So, we have here connections from the micro world to our everyday
experienced environment for mass-weight, temperature-energy and
electricity.
Down into Planck's domain the following relations hold:
m_e = m_pl / [(a * N_A*pi*sqrt(3)]
r_H = l_pl * [N_A*pi*sqrt(3)]
G = (e/m_e)^2 * [N_A*pi*sqrt(3)]^(-2) * a^(-3)
m_e = electronmass, *_pl = Plank units , r_H = Bohr radius
johnreed
jr
Alun Williams
Thanks for your input. I'm glad that you like 'The Chaos Point Hypothesis'.
You have opened up a few more avenues for exploration with respect to E =
hH, the half lives of the sub-atomic particles, and rates of
generation/numbers of particles. There are still many, many aspects of this
model that require investigation. I have only just began.
You may have also noticed that hidden within the model is not only an
explanation for the seeds and origin of our universe, but also the fate of
our universe. The model also provides a more intuitive understanding for
the strangeness of universal geometry.
If my hypothesis is correct, then Einstein's General Relativity makes an
incorrect assumption, being, that spacetime is homogenous and isentropic.
If we move outside the confines of the limitations I imposed as a part of
the derivation: Newton's Gravitation only applies when considering regions
of space where m<<M and T is large, then we can see that if we split the
universe into concentric sphere's, with ourselves at the origin, then as we
move further away, the mass enclosed by each new conentric sphere increases.
As the distribution of mass on a galactic cluster scale is fairly uniform,
it can be seen that the force of gravitation falls off fairly uniformly, not
only due to the increase radius, but also because of (M-m)/M. Thus at the
very edge of our universe the force of gravitation would be zero, and
consequently, there would be nothing to retard the expansion of the
universe. In this respect, the universe would continue to expand, and would
in effect always appear to be flat.
Some of the other avenues I am exploring include:
1. The nature of force as related to the chaos point flux differential.
2. The velocity of light and why it is a constant.
3. The time dependence of gravitation.
4. Predicted changes of the rates of nuclear fusion in stars
5. The first generation of stars (which should have been significantly
larger than today)
Also, if the force of gravity has been increasing with time, then I would
expect that the solar wind would have been much more prominent in the past.
Is there any evidence to support this?
With respect to the electrostatic forces, I have not done a great deal of
work. My thinking along the lines of attractive/repulsive forces in this
area is that, at any instant in time all the sub-atomic particles must
normalise to the original mathematical solution. Thus, combinations of
particles that do not form valid solutions cannot happen. So in some way
the propagation of the chaos point, must be such that it prevents the likes
of two protons combining into a single solution or particle. Also, since
all particles exist probabilistically, and have uncertainty associated with
their position, then there will always be a probabilistic overlap of their
wave functions, which must manifest itself as force. But, anyway, that is
for another day.
Cheers
Alun
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:q9VL7.3495$Kc2.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> around us. Simplest obvious examples are Atoms -N-> Earth -N-> Solar
> system -N->Galaxies. BTW, this thought is not new at all. One of he recent
G=EMC^2 Glazier
the edge(outer sphere) of the universe,goes against my view that the
horizon of the universe has a schwarzchild radius,because of its great
curve. This still makes it flat,because the curve is so small.
You are using zero gravity to show expansion,and I;m using space energy.
It is space expansion that weakens gravity,just as it is heat(photon) of
the sun that for a time will match the force of gravity. Gravity will
win over the force of space energy causing expansion,but we live in a
time,that makes expansion of space stronger,but that is "now"
Gravity always wins given "time" Best regards Herb