webolife wrote: I'm not saying gravitational models are entirely wrong; what I am saying is that the gravitational and electrical [and nuclear, Casimir, van der Waals, et.al.] are unified, ie. they are all demonstrably centropic and universally so.
webolife wrote:Pressure of course infers action upon a surface, which is fact the only kind of action that is measurable.
webolife wrote:I simply regard "vectors" as the acting geometric configuration, as an ideal description of action
webolife wrote:but in reality, every action occurs or is detected at a surface, a finitely large or small interface, hence pressure is the correct operant condition.
webolife wrote:Similarly, we refer in speaking of gravitation to the ideal factor of mass [immensely difficult to define]
webolife wrote:but in reality the operant condition is density, the amount of [centropically] coagulated/coalesced material occupying a particular plot of 3D space.
webolife wrote:Electrical models in standard thinking operate on very tiny objects [nominally electrons and protons, charges], while in standard thinking gravitation operates upon larger spheres of infuence...
webolife wrote:the orders of magnitude comparisons are irrelevant, if the forces/pressures are really the same fundamental entity.
webolife wrote:Whether we end up cling it gravity or electricity doesn't matter if it's all manifestations of the universal "holding" force.
webolife wrote:But I challenge you to find, or even imagine, any physical gravitational condition that is not fundamentally a collecting of materials composed of "charge"
webolife wrote:and alternately any electrical condition that is not activated by a "gravitating" field of voltage.
We’re talking about gravity and approximate models are not proof whatever field you’re operating in.Bob_Ham wrote:Aardwolf wrote:Planets don't orbit based on approximations and guesswork. They are governed by forces.
Yes, and the dominant force is gravity, according to conventional physics. Each body gravitationally affects every other body in the system. Any force field works this way. It is the same for charged particles where the only thing being considered is electricity. Modeling a system of more than two charged particles with the electric force requires the same n-body methods to solve. Were you not aware of that, or would you claim that electricity is also an “approximation”?
My comment stands. I note you are not disputing it.Bob_Ham wrote:Aardwolf wrote:You may think the statement "numerical methods can give arbitrary precision" has some sort of scientific meaning but it's a sham.
So then you don’t think it’s possible to model a system of charged particles using electric forces either?
Which can’t be analytically modelled so there’s a clearly a problem with it.Bob_Ham wrote:Aardwolf wrote:Gravity as the mainstream understands it is an approximation.
No, it isn’t. The gravitational force in Newtonian gravity is given by
Fg = G M m / r2.
Irrelevant to any points I'm making.Bob_Ham wrote: This is an exact formula, not an approximation. In fact, this takes the exact same form as the electric force, which is given by
Fe = k Q q / r2.
I doubt you will try to argue that the electric force is also an “approximation.”
Clearly it is. My issue is with a small point in your conclusions which to change would have no impact at all on your paper but you are adamant that gravity is correct without any real proof.Bob_Ham wrote:Aardwolf wrote:I get that you're convinced it's correct because your mind is closed on the matter.
No, it isn’t. I took the time to investigate electric gravity to see if it held up, and I even took the time to write up my results in LaTex. If my mind was closed, then I wouldn’t have done the calculations in the first place, and I certainly wouldn’t have written them up and posted them here to get feedback.
I’m not criticizing anyone. Never said the models were not useful or worthwhile. Just point out what they actually are. Estimates. Which by the way is not controversial in any way.Bob_Ham wrote:Aardwolf wrote:Even after 300+ years of searching and some of the greatest minds applied to it there is still only arbitrary approximations. It should be a piece of cake considering there's only 1 force, so what's wrong?
The same thing that is wrong with modeling a system of particles using the electric force: There are many particles, all of which interact with each other, and the forces between each depend on the distance between each particle and determine where the particles will go next. Yes, in both cases, there is only one force being considered, but each body imposes a different amount of this force on each other, depending on the distances between them. There are lots of calculations to keep track of simultaneously. Have you ever tried to do this kind of calculation, or do you just criticize those who actually work on it?
”A long-term numerical integration…”. Still trying to use approximations as proof. By their own admission;
andA long-term integration does not represent the actual behavior of the planets' motions over the integration time-interval...".
That doesn't sound like reality.The planetary orbits showed only bounded, low-level excursion of their orbital elements.
The 20Gyr model used 8 days. When the so-called precision was increased;Bob_Ham wrote:No, numerical methods can give arbitrary precision. It just depends on how small your step size is.
This happened;The time-step used in the 150m and the 15m Laskar experiments was varied from 3 days to 1.2 days.
Wonder what would happen if they made it super-precise and the step was reduced to 1 second. Would Mercury even last a year?We observed the loss of Mercury from the Solar System in both our 15m and the 150m
Laskar experiments.
Aardwolf wrote:My issue is with a small point in your conclusions which to change would have no impact at all on your paper but you are adamant that gravity is correct without any real proof.
What utter garbage. You actually believe this nonsense proves anything. The formulas were derived from observation. To then use the formula to predict the observation isn't proof. It's circular reasoning. However, your strawman argument doesn't change the fact that analytical models using these formulas don't work beyond 2 bodies.Bob_Ham wrote:When plugging in the numbers, we get that this orbital speed is 30 km/s, in perfect agreement with the measured value. So yes, gravity gives the correct answer.
Easy. You don't now the mass of the other planets so it can't be done. All we have are derived masses which are determined by manipulating their densities. Not surprising you want to use circular reasoning to "prove" this as well. I would wager that the Rosetta mission team would have been happier ignoring the mainstream, trusted the EU and just accepted the fact that 67P was made of rock and not snow. They could have then designed a craft that would have had a chance to land properly. Unfortunately for them it's density estimate was based on theoretical bullcrap. They still insist that this quite obvious giant rock, that Philae bounced off, has a density 1/8th of rock.Bob_Ham wrote:In fact, it gives the correct answers for all of the planets. Try it. Plug in the numbers yourself for Mercury, Venus, Mars, etc. No real proof? Seriously? How can you just ignore something like this?
Aardwolf wrote:The formulas were derived from observation. To then use the formula to predict the observation isn't proof. It's circular reasoning.
Aardwolf wrote:Easy. You don't now the mass of the other planets so it can't be done. All we have are derived masses which are determined by manipulating their densities. Not surprising you want to use circular reasoning to "prove" this as well.
And all derived from one experiment on Earth. Densities of the orbited body are forced into the formulas to make them work. Newtonian gravitation doesn't predict orbital velocities, we observe orbital velocities, and then shift the mass/density of the body to fit the formula. Sending probes to then follow velocities we already knew would happen isn't proof. And bodies that have no satellite or probe do not have accurate estimates. For example in 1930 it was believed that Pluto had a similar mass to Earth;Bob_Ham wrote:Aardwolf wrote:The formulas were derived from observation. To then use the formula to predict the observation isn't proof. It's circular reasoning.
Newtonian gravitation also predicts correctly the orbital velocities of all of the planets, orbital velocities of satellites at various altitudes above the Earth, the gravitational acceleration at the surface of the bodies where we’ve sent probes to measure this, and many more things. It’s not like gravity was invented simply to explain the orbit of the Earth.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/124071/pdfThe solution gave for the mass of Pluto 1.08 ± 0.23 times the mass of the Earth.
Irrelevant again. We're discussing your misunderstanding not EM forces.Bob_Ham wrote:On the contrary, the electromagnetic force cannot explain any of the things I’ve just mentioned.
I was referring to the use of the formula generally, however, you do need to know the mass of the sun. How was that worked out? Oh yes, by forcing it's mass/density into your calculation. Circular reasoning all the way and proof of nothing.Bob_Ham wrote:Aardwolf wrote:Easy. You don't now the mass of the other planets so it can't be done. All we have are derived masses which are determined by manipulating their densities. Not surprising you want to use circular reasoning to "prove" this as well.
Again, the formula for orbital velocity is
v = sqrt(G M / r).
The M in that equation is the mass of the Sun, not the mass of the planet you are considering. The orbital speed of any object is not dependent on that thing’s mass in solar orbit. It is only dependent on that thing’s distance from the Sun. You don’t need to know the masses of those planets to calculate their orbital speeds, smart one.
Bob_Ham wrote:webolife wrote:But I challenge you to find, or even imagine, any physical gravitational condition that is not fundamentally a collecting of materials composed of "charge"
Neutron stars.
Bob_Ham wrote:webolife wrote:But I challenge you to find, or even imagine, any physical gravitational condition that is not fundamentally a collecting of materials composed of "charge"
Neutron stars.
neilwilkes wrote:Bob_Ham wrote:webolife wrote:But I challenge you to find, or even imagine, any physical gravitational condition that is not fundamentally a collecting of materials composed of "charge"
Neutron stars.
More impossible objects.
Neutron Stars are a fiction - it is a physical & chemical impossibility to have a body composed of Neutrons as this violates the "band of stability". If we add Neutrons to the nucleus of any atom we also have to add an almost equal amount of Protons and their accompanying Electrons to get a stable Nucleus. The upper limit of Neutrons/Protons is at best 1.5:1 and anything higher results in an almost instantaneous radioactive decay. If you do not believe me go look at
https://socratic.org/questions/how-is-nuclear-stability-related-to-the-neutron-proton-ratio
So there cannot possibly be any such thing, and the only reason they are claimed is to yet again prop up the "gravity only" models. Try again, Bob.
antosarai wrote:neilwilkes wrote:Bob_Ham wrote:webolife wrote:But I challenge you to find, or even imagine, any physical gravitational condition that is not fundamentally a collecting of materials composed of "charge"
Neutron stars.
More impossible objects.
Neutron Stars are a fiction - it is a physical & chemical impossibility to have a body composed of Neutrons as this violates the "band of stability". If we add Neutrons to the nucleus of any atom we also have to add an almost equal amount of Protons and their accompanying Electrons to get a stable Nucleus. The upper limit of Neutrons/Protons is at best 1.5:1 and anything higher results in an almost instantaneous radioactive decay. If you do not believe me go look at
https://socratic.org/questions/how-is-nuclear-stability-related-to-the-neutron-proton-ratio
So there cannot possibly be any such thing, and the only reason they are claimed is to yet again prop up the "gravity only" models. Try again, Bob.
As I understand it, yes, neutron stars are considered impossible objects by T-Bolts Group Inc or The Thunderbolts Project™ exactly for this reason. But do these rules related to atomic nucleus apply to degenerate matter? If so, how?
neilwilkes wrote:So-called "degenerate matter" is another type of Unicorn, and the argument goes that it might exist therefore I can posit it's existence.
neilwilkes wrote:(...) The theory requires a super dense object because only gravity has any effect, normal matter will not do it so we have to invent ever more exotic objects that are bad science because the whole concept is non falsifiable - it cannot be tested in a lab by experiment - which is getting very close to pseudoscience. Furthermore, there is not a single shred of actual evidence to prop this concept of "degenerate matter" up. (...)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests