Regarding Gravity and a Possible Cause
Joe Fischer
geometric phenomenon in four dimensions, with time
being so intertwined that it is placed on an equal
footing with the other three dimensions.
If gravity is truly geometric in nature, then
only things that affect geometry need be involved
with the cause of gravity.
The things that might possibly affect geometry
are the dimensions of material objects, the distance
between them, and the interval of time.
It is not too far-fetched to say that something
that matter is doing is what causes gravity.
There may be other things that matter can do
that might cause gravity, but the only thing I have
studied in detail is the case where matter simply
expands due to having too many particles of like
charge in close proximity.
This results in a model of gravitation (and
more) where the meter stick and the unit of time
are directly affected by the changing matter.
Effects are instantaneous simply because
nothing needs to be propagated, the effects are
totally geometric, with the length of the interval
od time (the second) varying with the length of
the meter stick, and with the size of material
objects relative only to what their size was
at a short time in the past.
Things like velocity take on the features
of being constants, and they are constant in
time. This provides some possibility of
explaining at least one cause of the speed of
light being a constant regardless of the relative
velocity of the source or observer.
The fact that this model requires the
surface of the Earth to accelerate upward
(away from the center of mass) means that
this model produces the exact conditions
present in Einstein's Principle of Equivalence.
This model also requires that time flow
be in one direction, and that the interval of
time vary under very specific circumstances.
Space as it was known before General
Relativity has no properties, the geometry
of natural motion involves the dimensional
size of material objects, and the length
of the unit of time corresponding to the
instant which the material object is a
specific size.
This model requires that the universe
be expanding, and observations of the expansion
will be affected by how distance and time are
measured.
I have had a lot of enjoyment trying
to fit the requirementrs of this model to
the real world. Each time I find a problem,
it seems that the problem was caused by a
bias I retained from Newtonian concepts,
or my own incorrect impressions.
It is very satisfying to determine
how gravity might work, based on a definite
ongoing process. This process would be
slowing as time passes, making each second
longer than the last, but that is what makes
energy and momentum conservation work as
material objects increase in size (inflate,
but not gain mass, mass is an invariant).
The dynamics are very different, but
if properly thought out, every aspect is
consistent within the model.
By using a model such as this, with
a specified ongoing process as the cause
of gravity, it might be possible to understnd
nature better, and make predictions, or even
just generate food for thought.
Regards,
Joe Fischer
Nathan Urban
> From: nur...@crib.corepower.com (Nathan Urban)
> In article <770tcs$g6b$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, draj...@aol.com wrote:
> >> Note that there cannot be a unified field theory because gravity is NOT a
> >> field.
> >Sure it is. Spacetime curvature admits a field description: the
> >metric field. It's not like other fields, though, which presents
> >problems with unification. It remains to be seen whether such problems
> >are insurmountable.
> I was trying to show why there is that difference. The electomagnetic
> radiation has a field, which can be described.
I don't know what you mean by "electromagnetic radiation has a field".
Electromagnetic radiation _is_ a field, or rather it is a field with
certain characteristics. Gravity is also a field, the metric field.
It's somewhat different from other fields in that it describes spacetime
itself rather than being fixed over a background spacetime.
> But the gravity is caused by the change in
> frequecy of the background radiation as it gets closer to the large mass.
What background radiation? Radiation doesn't have much to do with
radiation other than the fact that radiation (as well as matter or any
other field) possesses energy and hence influences spacetime curvature.
> I think of open space being very stiff, with electomagnetic radiation.
Space doesn't have a "stiffness".
> Mainly a pretty contiguous macrowave background at 100 MHz, + photons of light
> (Radiation) that has been re emitted by particles.
You're confusing radiation _in_ space with space itself, I think.
> The radition does not pass
> through matter very well. This makes that area of radiation (space time) very
> flexible, the frequecy reduces, time is therefore slower.
No. "Physical" models of spacetime like that do not work; spacetime
is not elastic or tensile. I can give you a pointer to a discussion
of why a "physical" model of spacetime as a fluid medium doesn't work,
it might have some relevance.
> I believe that Dr Mark Hadley will extend his current work to show that a four
> geon model of particles, is a special case of Einstiens General theory. (Note
> Einstien nearly followed this track, but only tried it wath a 3 geon Model.)
Einstein didn't try an anything-geon model. Geons were invented, I think,
the same year Einstein died, and they weren't Einstein's idea anyway.
> P.S Heinsenburgs uncertainty principle, relates to the fundemental frequecy of
> the Universe, perhaps the highest frequecy that is possible?
Any "highest frequency" limit would correspond to a "smallest distance"
limit.
DrAJDoyle
From: nur...@crib.corepower.com (Nathan Urban)
Date: 07/01/1999 01:10 GMT
Message-id: <7711hm$rvp$1...@crib.corepower.com>
In article <770tcs$g6b$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, draj...@aol.com wrote:
>> Note that there cannot be a unified field theory because gravity is NOT a
>> field.
>Sure it is. Spacetime curvature admits a field description: the
>metric field. It's not like other fields, though, which presents
>problems with unification. It remains to be seen whether such problems
>are insurmountable.
I was trying to show why there is that difference. The electomagnetic radiation
has a field, which can be described. But the gravity is caused by the change in
frequecy of the background radiation as it gets closer to the large mass.
I think of open space being very stiff, with electomagnetic radiation. Mainly a
pretty contiguous macrowave background at 100 MHz, + photons of light
(Radiation) that has been re emitted by particles. The radition does not pass
through matter very well. This makes that area of radiation (space time) very
flexible, the frequecy reduces, time is therefore slower. To the passing mass
it would appear that it could go straight on, but like a car with on wheel with
a sticking brake. It would move towards the mass. Because time is going slower
at that side, the wheel rotates less, you turn that way. This is gravity. An
Effect of the fields, not the fiels it's self.
Particles can occur on areas of space where there is a lot enery, ie. high
frequency/amplitude radiation. There are various resonance conditions of the
fundemental frequency of the Universe. This is what causes quantum mechanics at
small sizes, only certain resonance frequecies are allowed. Just the same as a
note an guitar string.
I believe that Dr Mark Hadley will extend his current work to show that a four
geon model of particles, is a special case of Einstiens General theory. (Note
Einstien nearly followed this track, but only tried it wath a 3 geon Model.)
Time Faster Time Slower
~ ~ ~ ~ |
~ ~ |
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~| Earth
~ ~ |
~ ~ ~ ~ |
P.S Heinsenburgs uncertainty principle, relates to the fundemental frequecy of
the Universe, perhaps the highest frequecy that is possible?
TonyD
jo...@petcom.com
joe...@iglou.com (Joe Fischer) wrote:
> In General Relativity, gravity is treated as a
> geometric phenomenon in four dimensions, with time
> being so intertwined that it is placed on an equal
> footing with the other three dimensions.
> If gravity is truly geometric in nature, then
> only things that affect geometry need be involved
> with the cause of gravity.
> The things that might possibly affect geometry
> are the dimensions of material objects, the distance
> between them, and the interval of time.
> It is not too far-fetched to say that something
> that matter is doing is what causes gravity.
> There may be other things that matter can do
> that might cause gravity, but the only thing I have
> studied in detail is the case where matter simply
> expands due to having too many particles of like
> charge in close proximity.
>
> This results in a model of gravitation (and
> more) where the meter stick and the unit of time
> are directly affected by the changing matter.
Do a search on articles about Divergent Matter or D.M.
There was lots on this idea.
What I don't like about it, for one thing, is
that if you have uniform spatial displacement over
time, areas further from the center of the displacement
have to be diverging FASTER than areas closer to
the center.
The gobbledegook answer I got to this was there IS
no center. Whatever.
John
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
DrAJDoyle
>>radiation other than the fact that radiation >>(as well as matter or any
>>other field) possesses energy and hence >>influences spacetime curvature.
This is the whole point to the "Dynamic Universe " Theory which I am trying to
get across. Space and time come into existance, only if there is a varing
electromagnetic field.
That is, time is related to the relative vibration frequency. The varing wave,
will be propergating, at the spead of light in all directions.
I think that there is a fundemental frequency , or carrier frequency of the
universe. Particles are high energy vibrations which have been trapped in a
resonance or harmonic state.
They do have, in effect, there own time, due to there vibration. At the samll
sizes of the atom, the energy to raise it higher state raises it to the next
available harmonic, or quantum.
This means that a partcle is very much like a small univese, but beacause of
it's small size there is not resolution to get whole set of planets suns and
galexies inside it.
It is therefore interesting to consider if a mass does actually change size,
when placed in a gravity well, compared to outside. I think it may not change
size.
TonyD
Tom Roberts
> It is not too far-fetched to say that something
> that matter is doing is what causes gravity.
Perhaps not "too far-fetched", but definitely in contradistinction to
what the theory actually predicts and describes. In GR, the mere existence
of matter "causes" gravity -- matter need not "do" anything. But that is
using the word "causes" in a casual sense, and _not_ in the technical
sense in which causality is manifested in GR. In GR one can at most claim
that the matter and the fields co-evolve -- "causality" as you discuss it
is not present in the theory.
> The fact that this model requires the
> surface of the Earth to accelerate upward
> (away from the center of mass) means that
> this model produces the exact conditions
> present in Einstein's Principle of Equivalence.
But from the very meaning of acceleration, motion is involved. WHERE
is the surface of the earth "accelerating" to? We do not observe this.
The earth is not growing larger at a rate increasing at 9.8 m/s^2.
This claim is wildly in disagreement with simple observations.
> This model requires that the universe
> be expanding, and observations of the expansion
> will be affected by how distance and time are
> measured.
If this were true, than acceleration related to it would be
unobservable. The force of gravity on the surface of the earth is
observable.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Joe Fischer
: Joe Fischer wrote:
: > It is not too far-fetched to say that something
: > that matter is doing is what causes gravity.
:
: Perhaps not "too far-fetched", but definitely in contradistinction to
: what the theory actually predicts and describes.
What theory? I didn't mention any specific
theory yet. I do realize you mean General Relativity,
which I think any better theory needs to agree with to
at least some great extent.
: In GR, the mere existence
: of matter "causes" gravity -- matter need not "do" anything. But that is
: using the word "causes" in a casual sense, and _not_ in the technical
: sense in which causality is manifested in GR. In GR one can at most claim
: that the matter and the fields co-evolve -- "causality" as you discuss it
: is not present in the theory.
I have but one interest, and that _is_ the
cause of gravity, although I have had fun for 53
years thinking about everything associated with or
affected by gravity.
I am a one theory man, I selected the model
1n about 1946, and have worked to see how it can
possibly produce all the things associated with
gravity, without changing the basic premise.
with the study of the model, many things
that gravity affects seem more clear, probably
because the model forces thought experiments
that are almost identical to the Principle of
Equivalence.
: > The fact that this model requires the
: > surface of the Earth to accelerate upward
: > (away from the center of mass) means that
: > this model produces the exact conditions
: > present in Einstein's Principle of Equivalence.
: But from the very meaning of acceleration, motion is involved.
A gravimeter measures acceleration. The fact
that humans do not directly observe motion does not
mean that no motion is present.
And the converse is true, humans observe
geodesic deviation, and see acceleration where
there is none. The model is consistent with
the cconcept of freefall being inertial motion,
and I feel that warrants further study.
: WHERE is the surface of the earth "accelerating" to?
UP. :-) Away from the center of mass.
Because time and distance measurements depend on
the matter that causes the motion (gravitation,
upward acceleration), the acceleration is "felt",
the velocity is a hidden constant, and the distance
traveled is a constant. For all practical purposes
the radius of the Earth is a measuring stick, and
the acceleration is constant enough that it can be
used to measure either time or acceleration (pendulum).
: We do not observe this.
I do. :-)
: The earth is not growing larger at a rate increasing at 9.8 m/s^2.
Measured with Earth radii, no.
: This claim is wildly in disagreement with simple observations.
It seems you want to use Newtonian concepts
for measuring in my model, yet in General Relativity
you want to not only specify a metric, but also the
coordinate system. :-)
I believe the accelerometer in every case,
without exception.
: > This model requires that the universe
: > be expanding, and observations of the expansion
: > will be affected by how distance and time are
: > measured.
: If this were true, than acceleration related to it would be
: unobservable.
Unobservable only if it were an isotropic
expansion of both matter and the universe, it isn't.
The Hubble expansion is an artifact of the
events before matter cooled, and is not affected by
anything except the rate of time flow.
Matter was expanding before it cooled, and
it is expanding now (in this model), it is apparent
with all gases, where all atoms repulse all other
atoms (except for the diatomic configuration).
The fact that the expansion of a piece of
steel can't be measured with a piece of steel should
not be surprising.
: The force of gravity on the surface of the earth is
: observable.
: Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
The only real clue, and without the Principle
of Equivalence, I would not have the gall to write this.
Regards,
Joe Fischer
Nathan Urban
> >> The fact that this model requires the
> >> surface of the Earth to accelerate upward
> >> (away from the center of mass) means that
> >> this model produces the exact conditions
> >> present in Einstein's Principle of Equivalence.
> >But from the very meaning of acceleration, motion is involved. WHERE
> >is the surface of the earth "accelerating" to? We do not observe this.
> >The earth is not growing larger at a rate increasing at 9.8 m/s^2.
> >This claim is wildly in disagreement with simple observations.
> but the idea involves the expansion of ALL matter. this would mean that the
> relative sizes of objects would remain the same, so we cannot measure the
> expansion of the earth.
We can when the surfaces of the Earth and Moon come in contact with each
other in two and a half hours, which is what would happen if the Earth was
expanding at a rate consistent with the measured acceleration of gravity.
(It would happen faster than that if the Moon were also expanding.)
You can only save this theory by postulating that the Earth and Moon
recede from each other while they're expanding, and then you have to
explain that too. I also have _no_ idea how you're going to get circular,
elliptical, and hyperbolic orbits out of this.
You seem to suggest elsewhere that you can save the theory by introducing
some kind of time dilation or length contraction or something ("distance
and time measurements"), but again, this does not appear to be possible.
> and someday, in order to achieve a more accurate model
> of the universe, we will have to let go of SOME of the equations of GR. all
> past advances indicate that the accepted laws become dogma, which eventually
> leads to a revolution. that will happen someday.
Surely you see the logical flaw in arguing that every theory will always
be replaced by a better one, just because they always has been in the
past? That completely negates the possibility of a correct theory of
physics existing at all (irrespective of whether we can find it or know
we've found it). You do believe that laws of physics exist, don't you?
> it might not be any of us
> that postulate this idea, but it definately won't be someone who clings to GR
> as vehemently as i have seen some of the minds in this group.
Oh please, spare us the accusations of closed-mindedness. Even GR
supporters are open to _good_ theories.
> >> This model requires that the universe
> >> be expanding, and observations of the expansion
> >> will be affected by how distance and time are
> >> measured.
> >If this were true, than acceleration related to it would be
> >unobservable. The force of gravity on the surface of the earth is
> >observable.
> if time were changing with the expansion, then the acceleration would not
> exist, because time would slow down and cancel any gain in distance covered
> per unit time.
Uh, no. Slowing down time doesn't equal no change in distance.
Expanding things still expand, just more slowly. And if you want to
throw in length contraction, that doesn't fix it either; things still
expand, just not as much.
> again, if you assume the bodies are expanding, the only thing that is
> observable is that the distance between them gets shorter.
If this is observable, and you acknowledge the fact that the surfaces
should meet (as quoted below), then why do you keep ignoring the fact
that the distance between the Earth and the Moon is not getting shorter??
> think about it for
> just a minute outside of the GR box. go back to when you were a kid learning
> about the area of a circle. if two stationary circles, different in radius,
> were expanding at a constant speed (say one unit of radius per unit of time),
> their relative size would remain the same, but their perimeters would get
> closer until they met.
> until they met, they both are "feeling" no force. this
> is consistent with what experimentation (freefall) indicates is so. if
> gravity truly existed as a _real_ force, wouldn't it be observable in
> free-fall? i'm pretty sure it isn't, so that should indicate that gravity
> is only an APPARENT force that is the result of another process that is
> occuring.
Bingo. That is precisely what Einstein realized, and what GR says.
As I said earlier, the reason we feel a "force" of gravity _is_ because
the surface of the Earth is pushing on us -- not because the Earth is
expanding, but because our natural "straight line" path in spacetime
is to fall and the repulsion between our atoms and that of the Earth's
is curving us off that path. This force (which is not gravitational,
but electromagnetic and quantum-mechanical) is not present when objects
are not in contact with each other because it is short-range.
> maybe we can create an alt.sci.physics.crackpot-ideas group? i'd gladly post
> there if these posts are really so offensive as they appear to be to these
> einstein moonies.
You seem pretty determined to be a jerk no matter where you post,
judging by your last comment. I'd advise you to drop that massive
anti-establishment chip on your shoulder and listen to what people are
saying to you.
P.S. You really ought to maintain proper attributions of quoted text;
I have no idea who you were originally responding to and others won't
be able to tell from this post that it wasn't me.
Cyberdyne2
>> The fact that this model requires the
>> surface of the Earth to accelerate upward
>> (away from the center of mass) means that
>> this model produces the exact conditions
>> present in Einstein's Principle of Equivalence.
>
>But from the very meaning of acceleration, motion is involved. WHERE
>is the surface of the earth "accelerating" to? We do not observe this.
>The earth is not growing larger at a rate increasing at 9.8 m/s^2.
>This claim is wildly in disagreement with simple observations.
>
but the idea involves the expansion of ALL matter. this would mean that the
relative sizes of objects would remain the same, so we cannot measure the
expansion of the earth. the only affect we can measure is the APPEARANCE of a
force of attraction between the objects.
this appearance is not a real force, it is simply the relative displacement of
the objects as they grow bigger. in fact, the only observable result of their
expansion would be the distance between them getting shorter; hence what we
call "gravity". and, perhaps, even other phenomena, if given enough thought by
bright people.
personally, i really like exploring the "implausable". even just the
exercising of the mind that occurs when one pictures alternate possibilities is
reason enough to -- momentarily -- suspend one's disbelief and play with them.
i also think that einstein himself had to force his classical education from
his mind in order to conceive of the images that led him to his astounding
revelation about space and time. so, ithink it might be helpful to play around
with ideas that aren't so conguent with the currently accepted "laws" of
physics. if not, the next einstein (and there WILL be another someday -- if
not already) will not be able to come up with the theory that explains what we
cannot explain today. and someday, in order to achieve a more accurate model
of the universe, we will have to let go of SOME of the equations of GR. all
past advances indicate that the accepted laws become dogma, which eventually
leads to a revolution. that will happen someday. it might not be any of us
that postulate this idea, but it definately won't be someone who clings to GR
as vehemently as i have seen some of the minds in this group.
>> This model requires that the universe
>> be expanding, and observations of the expansion
>> will be affected by how distance and time are
>> measured.
>
>If this were true, than acceleration related to it would be
>unobservable. The force of gravity on the surface of the earth is
>observable.
>
if time were changing with the expansion, then the acceleration would not
exist, because time would slow down and cancel any gain in distance covered per
unit time. rather, i think that time for the expansion is just as we perceive
it: constant. meaning that any inconsistancy of time would be completely
unobservable (at least at this stage of the idea).
again, if you assume the bodies are expanding, the only thing that is
observable is that the distance between them gets shorter. think about it for
just a minute outside of the GR box. go back to when you were a kid learning
about the area of a circle. if two stationary circles, different in radius,
were expanding at a constant speed (say one unit of radius per unit of time),
their relative size would remain the same, but their perimeters would get
closer until they met. until they met, they both are "feeling" no force. this
is consistent with what experimentation (freefall) indicates is so. if gravity
truly existed as a _real_ force, wouldn't it be observable in free-fall? i'm
pretty sure it isn't, so that should indicate that gravity is only an APPARENT
force that is the result of another process that is occuring.
when the objects meet, assuming they are "solid" to each-other (which is a
safe assumption right now), the larger circle would "push" the smaller away
from its (the larger object's) position. the relative mass of the objects
masks the expansion, but the "pushing" is always present. thus the "force" of
gravity is only observable by one object upon contact with the other.
makes sense to me. at least enough to warrant some "thought experiments"...
perhaps even "new-theories" isn't the place for these ideas. maybe we can
create an alt.sci.physics.crackpot-ideas group? i'd gladly post there if these
posts are really so offensive as they appear to be to these einstein moonies.
peace,
dave
Joe Fischer
: cyber...@aol.com (Cyberdyne2) wrote:
: > until they met, they both are "feeling" no force. this
: > is consistent with what experimentation (freefall) indicates is so. if
: > gravity truly existed as a _real_ force, wouldn't it be observable in
: > free-fall? i'm pretty sure it isn't, so that should indicate that gravity
: > is only an APPARENT force that is the result of another process that is
: > occuring.
:
: Bingo. That is precisely what Einstein realized, and what GR says.
: As I said earlier, the reason we feel a "force" of gravity _is_ because
: the surface of the Earth is pushing on us -- not because the Earth is
: expanding, but because our natural "straight line" path in spacetime
: is to fall and the repulsion between our atoms and that of the Earth's
: is curving us off that path. This force (which is not gravitational,
: but electromagnetic and quantum-mechanical) is not present when objects
: are not in contact with each other because it is short-range.
Dave, Nathan apparently has me in his kill-file,
so if you don't respond, he will think he has convinced
everybody that the Earth is pushing outward in all
directions without expanding.
: > maybe we can create an alt.sci.physics.crackpot-ideas group? i'd
: > gladly post there if these posts are really so offensive as they
: > appear to be to these einstein moonies.
:
: You seem pretty determined to be a jerk no matter where you post,
: judging by your last comment. I'd advise you to drop that massive
: anti-establishment chip on your shoulder and listen to what people are
: saying to you.
I think a newsgroup with the word gravity in the
name would be great, then maybe Nathan would leave us
alone, I don't know why he thinks this newsgroup needs
to be policed and cleaned of anything not to his liking,
this is an "alt" newsgroup, and I would be happy if he
would stay out, he isn't interested in new-theories,
he seems to be interested in bad-mouthing people and
forcing his ideas on everyone.
: P.S. You really ought to maintain proper attributions of quoted text;
: I have no idea who you were originally responding to and others won't
: be able to tell from this post that it wasn't me.
Like who really cares if it was him or not,
sorry things seem to have gotten away from discussing
gravity.
Regards,
Joe Fischer
Larry Shultis
> I think a newsgroup with the word gravity in the
>name would be great, then maybe Nathan would leave us
>alone, I don't know why he thinks this newsgroup needs
>to be policed and cleaned of anything not to his liking,
>this is an "alt" newsgroup, and I would be happy if he
>would stay out, he isn't interested in new-theories,
>he seems to be interested in bad-mouthing people and
>forcing his ideas on everyone.
>
If Nathan did not point out the fallacies in the "new theories"
someone else would. Because you think up a new theory
and post it, is no reason that anyone will find it valid. I see
so much drivel in the many new theories published here, that
I am glad that Nathan points out most of the errors. I am sure
that he is interested in new theories, as is anyone who is
really interested in finding out the truths of existence. Long
live Nathan on a.s.p.new-theories .
Larry
Joe Fischer
: Joe Fischer wrote:
: > I think a newsgroup with the word gravity in the
: >name would be great, then maybe Nathan would leave us
: >alone, I don't know why he thinks this newsgroup needs
: >to be policed and cleaned of anything not to his liking,
: >this is an "alt" newsgroup, and I would be happy if he
: >would stay out, he isn't interested in new-theories,
: >he seems to be interested in bad-mouthing people and
: >forcing his ideas on everyone.
:
: someone else would.
That would be fine, but Nathan just didn't point out
"the fallacies" (as if anybody is so knowledgeable as to know
it all), he jumped into a discussion involving people he has
in his filter, and he changed the headers to sci.physics.relativity.
I think us poor dummies should be allowed to discuss
lousy unworkable new-theories in this newsgroup without being
harrassed, threads disrupted, and headers changed by a self-
appointed cop.
: Because you think up a new theory
: and post it, is no reason that anyone will find it valid.
And if I think it up is that a reason they won't
find it valid? Who are the people that find theories
valid or not valid?
: I see
: so much drivel in the many new theories published here, that
: I am glad that Nathan points out most of the errors. I am sure
: that he is interested in new theories, as is anyone who is
: really interested in finding out the truths of existence. Long
: live Nathan on a.s.p.new-theories .
: Larry
If you want truths of existence, check out a sci.
newsgroup, most of them are associated with teachers and
advanced students.
This is an alt. newsgroup, and should not be
subjected to FAQs, or interference by people who are
trying to _CORRECT_ people.
I am pretty sure I am in Nathans filter file,
so there is little chance of him _CORRECTING_ me,
as he doesn't see my messages unless quoted, and
he doesn't see my original articles.
My complaint is his disrupting threads where
I am trying to have a discussion with someone, which
is what alt. Usenet newsgroups are for.
New-theories should especially be more free
than other groups, following a rigid accepted thought
program is the one thing that can prevent new-theories
to form and grow.
I would urge everyone to read the charter for
this newsgroup, and within those guidelines post and
discuss new-theories, and resist any attempt by anyone
to try to restrict subject matter to current accepted
thought.
If they are so interested in _CORRECTING_ the
subject matter reaching tender young people like you,
thay should go to libraries and point out all the
errors in physics textbooks.
This is a thread I started about gravity,
and I would appreciate any further discussions
here to fit the thread subject matter, and the
headers left as is.
Regards,
Joe Fischer
Just Another Deckchair on the Titanic
>Larry Shultis (gold...@idcnet.com) wrote:
[...]
>: If Nathan did not point out the fallacies in the "new theories"
>: someone else would.
>
> That would be fine, but Nathan just didn't point out
>"the fallacies" (as if anybody is so knowledgeable as to know
>it all), he jumped into a discussion involving people he has
>in his filter, and he changed the headers to sci.physics.relativity.
> I think us poor dummies should be allowed to discuss
>lousy unworkable new-theories in this newsgroup without being
>harrassed, threads disrupted, and headers changed by a self-
>appointed cop.
Let's get this straight - you carry on a very public exchange in a very
public place, and then complain about people who respond to you
publicly?
If you want privacy - if you want your own private little sheltered
"special" playground where you won't be bothered by reality, etc. -
then create a private mailing list. Just don't stand up there on the
street corner telling all the world what you think, and then complain
that, gee, some nasty people actually listened to what you were saying
as they passed by and gave you some critical feedback.....
Nobody is forcing you to use alt.sci.physics.new-theories, and nobody
is forcing you to take any notice of Nathan. And Nathan isn't changing
the headers of *your* postings, regardless of what little you seem to
know of Usenet. If you didn't respond to him, you wouldn't find
yourself in (say) sci.physics.relativity.
You seem to want the alt groups to become even more rule-bound than
the sci groups - and the rules you want seem to be yours alone.
Hamish
Joe Fischer
: >: someone else would.
: >
: > That would be fine, but Nathan just didn't point out
: >"the fallacies" (as if anybody is so knowledgeable as to know
: >it all), he jumped into a discussion involving people he has
: >in his filter, and he changed the headers to sci.physics.relativity.
: > I think us poor dummies should be allowed to discuss
: >lousy unworkable new-theories in this newsgroup without being
: >harrassed, threads disrupted, and headers changed by a self-
: >appointed cop.
:
: Let's get this straight - you carry on a very public exchange in a very
: public place, and then complain about people who respond to you
: publicly?
No, I don't complain about people who respond to
me, I am complaining about a person who is doing some
type of housekeeping on Usenet (maintaining the s.p.r
FAQ, trying to point out current accepted thought, and
channeling threads to s.p.r) along with running a filter!
I am the easiest person here to get along with,
but I see what having a filter running can to to disrupt
other people's discussions.
All I am saying is, that if Nathan wants to police
this newsgroup, not run a filter so he can see both sides
of discussions so as not to interfere.
And I am not saying he did anything on purpose to
intentionally disrupt discussions.
: If you want privacy - if you want your own private little sheltered
: "special" playground where you won't be bothered by reality, etc. -
: then create a private mailing list. Just don't stand up there on the
: street corner telling all the world what you think, and then complain
: that, gee, some nasty people actually listened to what you were saying
: as they passed by and gave you some critical feedback.....
Oh, if I could only get such passionate discussions
going about gravity new-theories. :-)
: Nobody is forcing you to use alt.sci.physics.new-theories,
Wrong, there is no gravity newsgroup, sci.physics
is pseudo-moderated by my good friend (I think) Carr,
and while I think sci.physics.relativity is a good place
to discuss gravity, with GR enthusists Nathan and Tom
participating in GR discussions, it is too confusing
for me to try to discuss an alt new-theory, not confusing
to me but confusing to Nathan and Tom and the readers
of sci.physics.relativity.
: and nobody is forcing you to take any notice of Nathan.
Only the fact that he implicitly stated that
he was making objections and corrections to incorrect
concepts in this newsgroup, and his not being able to
see my responses, and blasting away any discussion I
had going about gravity.
: And Nathan isn't changing
: the headers of *your* postings,
Hopefully not, if he wants more participants
in sci.physics.relativity it is ok with me, but he
should leave the thread cross-posted here, which the
charter of sci.physics.relativity allows.
: regardless of what little you seem to
: know of Usenet.
Thank you very much, I guess I haven't learned
much in 10 years, except that freshman debating is in
vogue.
: If you didn't respond to him, you wouldn't find
: yourself in (say) sci.physics.relativity.
In case you didn't know it, sci.physics.relativity
was created to shunt the SR kooks to, which I don't think
was a very admirable reason to create a newsgroup.
I have been studying relativity for 50 years,
and I would like to discuss some possible concepts
that might promise better understanding, or even
changes. The charter of s.p.r allows that too,
but the things I want to say are confusing to the
participants there.
: You seem to want the alt groups to become even more rule-bound than
: the sci groups - and the rules you want seem to be yours alone.
No, I just wanted to point out that using a filter
while doing any kind of Usenet housekeeping or policing
is disruptive.
And this is not a teaching newsgroup, so it should
be free of anyone trying to squash discussions of oddball
new-theories.
It is the actions by others that have made this
a problem, and which discourages people from even trying
to discuss their oddball ideas here, and this _IS_ the
place to do it.
Joe Fischer
Nathan Urban
> In article <369ee...@news.iglou.com>, Joe Fischer <joe...@iglou.com> wrote:
> > That would be fine, but Nathan just didn't point out
> >"the fallacies" (as if anybody is so knowledgeable as to know
> >it all),
Nobody was claiming to "know it all". You don't have to "know it all"
to point out fallacies in a theory.
> > he jumped into a discussion involving people he has
> >in his filter,
I didn't respond to anyone in my killfile at the time, and even if I
did, that's certainly my own business.
> and he changed the headers to sci.physics.relativity.
Joe obviously doesn't understand what the Followup-To: header was
invented for. Relativity discussions belong in sci.physics.relativity.
Discussions of new theories belong in alt.sci.physics.new-theories.
If I respond to something in a newsgroup and my response has to do
only with relativity, then I redirect followups (the location where
_responses_ to my post go) to sci.physics.relativity so that subthread
will be continued there. (This isn't "changing headers", either, as
Hamish pointed out.) If my response has to do with new theories, not
relativity, then I keep it in new-theories. And whatever I set followups
to certainly has no effect on anyone else's responses the the orignial
post; it only applies to responses to my post, because my redirected
posts have to do with relativity only and hence so should the responses.
If you respond to something that is redirected to the relativity newsgroup
and your response doesn't have to do with relativity then you're welcome
to cancel the followup redirection since it obviously doesn't apply,
but if you respond with something relativity-related then it's rude to
refuse to honor followups.
> > I think us poor dummies should be allowed to discuss
> >lousy unworkable new-theories in this newsgroup without being
> >harrassed,
"Harassed"? Sorry, if you have a right to post a new theory, I have
a right to post my opinion of it. I'd like to think that free speech
isn't dead on Usenet.
And you call _me_ a "self-appointed cop". What a fascist hypocrite
you are.
> >threads disrupted, and headers changed by a self-appointed cop.
"Self-appointed cop"? The Followup-To: header was _invented_ by the
creators of Usenet for precisely the purpose for which I use it, namely
to keep threads on-topic by moving future responses to the appropriate
newsgroup. I am hardly alone in making use of followups; it is common
Usenet practice which, unfortunately, newer readers are often unaware of.
"Threads disrupted"? Threads are not supposed to remain in the newsgroup
in which they originated if their subject matter has diverged from the
topic of the original newsgroup. Hence, you get all kinds of junk
in sci.physics that has nothing to do with physics or even science,
because no one is polite enough to redirect followups to take the thread
elsewhere. People are lazy, they don't want to spend the few seconds
it takes to look for a response in a new newsgroup, and this laziness is
destroying Usenet. It's a real chore wading through all the off-topic,
inappropriate threads trying to find something relevant to the newsgroup
you're trying to read.
Usenet is an anarchy. What is to prevent people from spamming all kinds
of inappropriate junk to the wrong newsgroups? Nothing. That's why each
and every Usenet reader has the personal responsibility to ensure that
things stay organized and on-topic -- to that extent, _everyone_ on Usenet
is a "self-appointed cop" -- and followups were invented to aid in that.
It seems that Joe needs to read some of the newusers and netiquette FAQs
on how Usenet was designed and intended to be used.
> Let's get this straight - you carry on a very public exchange in a very
> public place, and then complain about people who respond to you
> publicly?
Go figure.
> You seem to want the alt groups to become even more rule-bound than
> the sci groups - and the rules you want seem to be yours alone.
They certainly aren't Usenet's.
Joe Fischer
This is the place to post your new-theory.
I receive about 20 new theories per year, and I hope
to begin some method to make these alternate gravity theories
available for reading and discussion.
While I feel that viable theories need to be closely
related to the Principle of Equivalence, that doesn't mean
that they have to resemble General Relativity.
It appears that some authors are reluctant to expose
themselves to wholesale criticism right off, so email will
be fine, but for those who want to post new-theories, this
is the place to do it.
It wouldn't be any fun if everybody agrees on a good
theory, but no need to warry about that. :-)
Joe Fischer
JLeeCforRP
leanin...@hotmail.com
different cause for the freefall that we observe when you flip a
coin. Or when Newton's famous apple fell from his grandmother's tree.
I have a website you can access, but I have been told that it is rude
to place my 850 line thesis in this type of forum, so for a more
detailed view of my thesis, you can look there. But, I can sketch the
major points for you right now.
We observe three phases in freefall. When you flip a coin, you observe
uniform rectilinear deceleration as the coin appears to rise in a
straight line. In the second phase, it appears to come to rest and
then in phase three it plummets downward,appearing to accelerate
uniformly as it travels along the opposite direction of the same
straight line through which it rose. This is the classical model, it
assumes the observer is at rest. But we are not at rest.
At least, if we can believe Nicolo Kopernig.
If you flip that coin while standing on the equator, then relative to
the center of the revolving planet, you are not at rest but are
travelling along the path of a great circle at over 1000 miles per
hour. Now, what is the path and speed of the flipped coin relative to
the center of the revolving planet? I will show that when you factor
in the revolving planet that the path is curvilinear and that the
speed is uniform.
In order for a coin at the apogee of freefall to maintain apparent
rest, it must be travelling faster than the observer on the ground. At
that point, it is moving along a circle that is greater than and
concentric to the circle on which the observer is travelling while
riding a point on the surface of the revolving planet. As it falls,
more and more of that unobserved speed becomes visible speed, so that
the falling body appears to exhibit uniform acceleration. In fact, the
combination of the force from your thumb and that of the revolving
planet serve to propel the coin into a new curve that is slightly
different from the curve of the observer and its speed along that
curve is slightly higher than the speed of the observer who imagines
one can be at rest while riding the revolving planet.
Galileo said that a body will remain at rest or in uniform motion
unless acted on by an external force. His law says nothing about
straight line motion and he saw the motion of the planets around the
sun as an example of the inertial state. Newton changed all that with
the addition of one word in the law of motion. For Newton, motion is
inertial, if and only if, that motion is both uniform and rectilinear.
This is the key point in Newtonian Mechanics and if you go to my
website you will see where the arguments Newton puts forth are
fallacious. My site can be accessed by going to:
members.tripod.com/lunquad
Please feel free to make any comments.
leanin...@hotmail.com
>>www.realityphysics.com<
>
>All comments and opinions appreciated.
>
>Jeff Lee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS
>
I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with this internet stuff. I have a
website at which you can see my article on this subject or I can
probably send the whole thing to your website{it's my roomate's
computer and I have to ask him how to do it}. I once tried to put the
whole thing on this site, but people said it was rude to put in
something over 800 lines long. However, I can provide a thumbnail
sketch of the basic principles so that you can decide if this is the
sort of thing you're looking for.
Newton proposed that the same force which results in the observed
uniform rectilinear acceleration of the apple in freefall also results
in the moon orbiting the Earth instead of flying away in a straight
line. Furthermore, since we observe that falling bodies travel across
straight lines as they exhibit uniform acceleration, Newton posited a
constant force acting upon the falling body, the force being directed
toward the center of the planet.
In my article, I will show that the classical description of freefall
is fallacious due to two main problems. First, Newton fails to take
into account the Heliocentric Theory propounded by Nicolo Kopernig and
Galilei Galileo. Relative to the center of the Earth, an observer
flipping a coin while standing on the equator is travelling over one
thosand miles per hour, yet Classical Mechanics wants us to consider
this observer to be at rest. The problem arises when we describe the
path and speed of the coin relative to this observer because the coin
appears to decelerate uniformly as it rises on a straight line and
then to come to rest some distance above the observer. Yet, if we
believe the Copernican theory, we must conclude that in order for a
body to appear to be at rest at a point that is further from the
center of the planet than is the observer, it must be moving faster
than the observer, otherwise the Earth would race ahead of the coin
causing it to land west of the observer.
The second problem is with Newton's concept of inertia. Galileo said
that a body will remain at rest or in uniform motion, unless acted
upon by some external force. Newton added the concept of rectilinear
motion, saying that a body will remain at rest or in uniform
straight-line motion unless acted on by a force. For Galileo,
planetary motion is, by the fact of its uniform quality, inertial
motion, but for Newton these same events represent accelerated motion
because they are not straight.
If we accept the Galilean concept of inertia as well as the Copernican
model, we can show that the flipped coin follows a curving path that
is only slightly different from the curving path of the observer who
sees himself as being at rest on the revolving Earth. Furthermore, we
can show that its speed relative to the center of the planet is
uniform. When Newton's apple was still in his grandmother's tree, it
was not at rest but was moving faster than was Newton on the ground
below because it described a circle that was geater than, and
concentic to, the circle Newton described while appearing to remain at
rest upon the revolving sphere.
Rather than accelerating as it falls, the flipped coin exhibts uniform
speed, more and more of which becomes observable as its direction
curves around toward the spot at which it will impact the planet.
Furthermore, the force that originally propelled the coin, combined
with the force of the huge Earth turning in space, remains in the coin
so that the same force which lifts it acts to propel its fall.
The people concerned with Grand Unified Theory are stumped because
though they've found consistent equations for the other forces, they
can't do so with the gravitational force. What if this is because
there is no gravitational force?
You can see the entire argument at my website at-
members.tripod.com/lunquad
I would, of course, be intersted in your, or anyone's, comments on
these matters.
Joe Fischer
: In my article, I will show that the classical description of freefall
: is fallacious due to two main problems. First, Newton fails to take
: into account the Heliocentric Theory propounded by Nicolo Kopernig and
: Galilei Galileo. Relative to the center of the Earth, an observer
: flipping a coin while standing on the equator is travelling over one
: thosand miles per hour, yet Classical Mechanics wants us to consider
: this observer to be at rest. The problem arises when we describe the
: path and speed of the coin relative to this observer because the coin
: appears to decelerate uniformly as it rises on a straight line and
: then to come to rest some distance above the observer. Yet, if we
: believe the Copernican theory, we must conclude that in order for a
: body to appear to be at rest at a point that is further from the
: center of the planet than is the observer, it must be moving faster
: than the observer, otherwise the Earth would race ahead of the coin
: causing it to land west of the observer.
That is exactly right, if you flip the coin
high enough, it will appear to move westward.
So what else is new? :-)
I will visit your web site and see what else
is new. :-)
Joe Fischer