Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
>> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>>>
>>>> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
>>>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
>>>> earths-gravity/>
>>>
>>> Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
>>> heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
>>>
>>> It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
>>> we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
>>> pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
>>> we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
>>>
>>> The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
>>> When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
>>> from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
>>> towards each other.
>>>
>>> I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
>>> how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
>>> from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
>>> observed effects.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
>> mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t
>> fit easily into such a picture.
>
> If you postulate that the forces interact with mass rather than area or
> volume, that is easily explained.
>
> Why do we assume that gravity is a pull based on mass, when it could
> equally well be a push based on mass?
>
>

Whenever you feel like reading the rest of my post, let me know. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC /
Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

On 4/22/24 02:20, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 21/04/2024 00:27, jim whitby wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:19:30 -0000 (UTC), jim whitby wrote:
>>
>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>> I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
>>
>>>
>>> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
>> earths-gravity/>
>>
> Powered by an inexhaustible supply of flying pigs this invention will
> revolutionise world transport and sales of heavy duty umbrellas!
>
Oh no, think of the methane emissions! Well if it gets hot enough, it
will be bacon from the sky, not manna...

Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>> jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
> >>>>
> >>>> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
> >>>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
> >>>> earths-gravity/>
> >>>
> >>> Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
> >>> heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
> >>>
> >>> It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
> >>> we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
> >>> pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
> >>> we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
> >>>
> >>> The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
> >>> When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
> >>> from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
> >>> towards each other.
> >>>
> >>> I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
> >>> how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
> >>> from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
> >>> observed effects.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
> >> mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed)
> >> don’t fit easily into such a picture.
> >
> > If you postulate that the forces interact with mass rather than area or
> > volume, that is easily explained.
> >
> > Why do we assume that gravity is a pull based on mass, when it could
> > equally well be a push based on mass?
> >
> >
>
> Whenever you feel like reading the rest of my post, let me know. ;)

Your post appeared to concentrate on particles,which, I agree, are not a
good explanation for gravity. I am taking a more general view that
gravitatioal 'attraction' could equally likely be something-or-other
'non-repulsion' . The something-or-other isn't particles and isn't
electromagnetic waves but we don't know what it is and have ignored the
possibility that it might exist.

We invented the term "gravity" to account for an observed phenomenon but
we don't really know what it is or whether it exists -- why can't we
invent an equally plausible mass-intercepted force and see if we can
find out if that exists and what causes it?

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:12:32 -0700, wmartin <wwm@wwmartin.net> wrote:

>On 4/22/24 02:20, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 21/04/2024 00:27, jim whitby wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:19:30 -0000 (UTC), jim whitby wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>> I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
>>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
>>> earths-gravity/>
>>>
>> Powered by an inexhaustible supply of flying pigs this invention will
>> revolutionise world transport and sales of heavy duty umbrellas!
>>
>Oh no, think of the methane emissions! Well if it gets hot enough, it
>will be bacon from the sky, not manna...

What is manna? Our Safeway doesn't seem to have it.

On 4/22/24 17:00, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>>
>>> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
>>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
>>> earths-gravity/>
>>
>> Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
>> heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
>>
>> It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
>> we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
>> pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
>> we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
>>
>> The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
>> When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
>> from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
>> towards each other.
>>
>> I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
>> how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
>> from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
>> observed effects.
>>
>>
>
> Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
> mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t
> fit easily into such a picture.
>
> Also, the rate at which the hypothetical particles collide with matter has
> to be extremely large in order to work with very dense matter, such as free
> neutrons.
>
> Neutrons have been observed to follow Newtonian gravity to very high
> accuracy in the lab.
>
> And then there’s the complete absence of Brownian motion in free particles.
> With some huge flux of particles carrying the sort of momentum that would
> be required to account for the gravitational motion of free neutrons, the
> resulting fluctuations would be very visible.
>
> Besides, if the particles bounce off the gravitating objects, their
> velocity distribution will change as a consequence. (Some of them will
> rattle around between them, going faster and faster as the objects get
> closer.) Thus there will be a wake effect, like a small plane taking off
> right after an A380. No such effects are observed.
>
> Not to pile on, or at least not as much as the notion deserves, but if
> relativity is completely wrong, then there is only one velocity in a given
> reference frame for which the drag force of such a particle ensemble is
> zero.
>
> And, of course, there’s the question of the origin, distribution, and
> regulation of the momentum-carrying particles.
>
> To have any chance of avoiding even these purely classical effects, the
> particles would have to have infinite speed, zero mass, perfectly uniform
> and isotropic distribution in both position and direction, perfectly timed
> arrival at each object to make the fluctuations cancel out, and on an on.
>
> This is the luminiferous ether, on stilts.
>
> And then there are matter-wave interferometers, which work not only on
> electrons, but on neutrons and even buckyballs. They set far tighter
> limits on most of these classical effects.
>
> So no, these sorts of theories are not good candidates to explain gravity
> or other relativistic effects.
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs
>

If you're interested in outlandish theories for gravity -and much else-
read the two papers published by Wolfgang Schnell in 'Il Nuovo Cimento'
in 1998. Starting from a model of the universe as a dense spherical
chunk of very rigid particles that can sustain shear and compression
waves and dislocations, he derives the existence of mass and electric
charge, relativity and gravity, and works out the masses of a whole
list of elementary particles.

There were two papers. I have them here:
W. Schnell, A non-local wave model for particles and fields,
Il Nuovo Cimento, VOL. 113 B, N. 2, Febbraio 1998
<https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-1.pdf>
and
<https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-2.pdf>.

Nobody paid much attention. They are altogether too weird, but
intriguing nevertheless.

Jeroen Belleman

On 4/22/2024 12:11 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:00:21 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
>> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>>>
>>>> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
>>>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
>>>> earths-gravity/>
>>>
>>> Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
>>> heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
>>>
>>> It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
>>> we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
>>> pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
>>> we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
>>>
>>> The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
>>> When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
>>> from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
>>> towards each other.
>>>
>>> I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
>>> how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
>>> from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
>>> observed effects.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
>> mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t
>> fit easily into such a picture.
>>
>> Also, the rate at which the hypothetical particles collide with matter has
>> to be extremely large in order to work with very dense matter, such as free
>> neutrons.
>>
>> Neutrons have been observed to follow Newtonian gravity to very high
>> accuracy in the lab.
>>
>> And then there’s the complete absence of Brownian motion in free particles.
>> With some huge flux of particles carrying the sort of momentum that would
>> be required to account for the gravitational motion of free neutrons, the
>> resulting fluctuations would be very visible.
>>
>> Besides, if the particles bounce off the gravitating objects, their
>> velocity distribution will change as a consequence. (Some of them will
>> rattle around between them, going faster and faster as the objects get
>> closer.) Thus there will be a wake effect, like a small plane taking off
>> right after an A380. No such effects are observed.
>>
>> Not to pile on, or at least not as much as the notion deserves, but if
>> relativity is completely wrong, then there is only one velocity in a given
>> reference frame for which the drag force of such a particle ensemble is
>> zero.
>>
>> And, of course, there’s the question of the origin, distribution, and
>> regulation of the momentum-carrying particles.
>>
>> To have any chance of avoiding even these purely classical effects, the
>> particles would have to have infinite speed, zero mass, perfectly uniform
>> and isotropic distribution in both position and direction, perfectly timed
>> arrival at each object to make the fluctuations cancel out, and on an on.
>>
>> This is the luminiferous ether, on stilts.
>>
>> And then there are matter-wave interferometers, which work not only on
>> electrons, but on neutrons and even buckyballs. They set far tighter
>> limits on most of these classical effects.
>>
>> So no, these sorts of theories are not good candidates to explain gravity
>> or other relativistic effects.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
>
> Is there any deeper explanation for conservation of energy, and for
> Newton's laws, other than that's just the way things are?
>
> (That gets philosophical, namely why does mathematics define the
> world?)
>

I don't think we know for sure that conservation of energy holds on a
cosmological scale, since we don't know for sure the global topology of
the Universe.

In a hypothetical Universe that's topologically flat and unbounded
there's still the boundary condition at infinity to be considered, which
I think could in principle be a singularity sort of like a "white hole",
anything could come flying in and conservation of energy can't hold exactly.

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 21:56:53 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

[snip]
>
>If you're interested in outlandish theories for gravity -and much else-
>read the two papers published by Wolfgang Schnell in 'Il Nuovo Cimento'
>in 1998. Starting from a model of the universe as a dense spherical
>chunk of very rigid particles that can sustain shear and compression
>waves and dislocations, he derives the existence of mass and electric
>charge, relativity and gravity, and works out the masses of a whole
>list of elementary particles.
>
>There were two papers. I have them here:
>W. Schnell, A non-local wave model for particles and fields,
>Il Nuovo Cimento, VOL. 113 B, N. 2, Febbraio 1998
><https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-1.pdf>
>and
><https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-2.pdf>.

The above URLs won't work until "cern/ch" is replaced by "cern.ch".

Joe

On 22/04/2024 13:07, Martin Brown wrote:

> The guy claims 1g acceleration. 1g of continuous acceleration is enough
> to reach the centre of our galaxy in about 20 years if memory serves.

20 years?! I think there's a "k" missing. According to
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#Sun's_location_and_neighborhood>,
the sun is 26 - 27 kly from the centre of the galaxy.

Or are you proposing FTL speeds?

--
Jeff

On 21/04/2024 00:31, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:19:30 -0000 (UTC), jim whitby wrote:
>>
>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>> I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
>>
>>>
>>> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
>> earths-gravity/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I wouldn’t invest if I were you.
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs
>

Gravitational repulsion is easy. The hard bit is reversing time.

--
Cheers
Clive

John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:12:32 -0700, wmartin <wwm@wwmartin.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/22/24 02:20, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> On 21/04/2024 00:27, jim whitby wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:19:30 -0000 (UTC), jim whitby wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>>> I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
>>>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
>>>> earths-gravity/>
>>>>
>>> Powered by an inexhaustible supply of flying pigs this invention will
>>> revolutionise world transport and sales of heavy duty umbrellas!
>>>
>> Oh no, think of the methane emissions! Well if it gets hot enough, it
>> will be bacon from the sky, not manna...
>
> What is manna? Our Safeway doesn't seem to have it.
>
>

Exactly. (*)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

(*) “manna” translates as “what is it?”

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC /
Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

On 4/22/24 23:07, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 21:56:53 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>
>> If you're interested in outlandish theories for gravity -and much else-
>> read the two papers published by Wolfgang Schnell in 'Il Nuovo Cimento'
>> in 1998. Starting from a model of the universe as a dense spherical
>> chunk of very rigid particles that can sustain shear and compression
>> waves and dislocations, he derives the existence of mass and electric
>> charge, relativity and gravity, and works out the masses of a whole
>> list of elementary particles.
>>
>> There were two papers. I have them here:
>> W. Schnell, A non-local wave model for particles and fields,
>> Il Nuovo Cimento, VOL. 113 B, N. 2, Febbraio 1998
>> <https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-1.pdf>
>> and
>> <https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-2.pdf>.
>
> The above URLs won't work until "cern/ch" is replaced by "cern.ch".
>
> Joe

Oops, indeed. Sorry.

Thanks,
Jeroen Belleman

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 21:21:51 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:12:32 -0700, wmartin <wwm@wwmartin.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/22/24 02:20, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>> On 21/04/2024 00:27, jim whitby wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:19:30 -0000 (UTC), jim whitby wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>>>> I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
>>>>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
>>>>> earths-gravity/>
>>>>>
>>>> Powered by an inexhaustible supply of flying pigs this invention will
>>>> revolutionise world transport and sales of heavy duty umbrellas!
>>>>
>>> Oh no, think of the methane emissions! Well if it gets hot enough, it
>>> will be bacon from the sky, not manna...
>>
>> What is manna? Our Safeway doesn't seem to have it.
>>
>>
>
>Exactly. (*)
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs
>
>(*) “manna” translates as “what is it?”

I did find New Orleans CDM Coffee and Chicory in the Asian foods
section at our Safeway. Mo loves it.

On a sunny day (Mon, 22 Apr 2024 21:56:53 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <v06fe8$14lpj$1@dont-email.me>:

>If you're interested in outlandish theories for gravity -and much else-
>read the two papers published by Wolfgang Schnell in 'Il Nuovo Cimento'
>in 1998. Starting from a model of the universe as a dense spherical
>chunk of very rigid particles that can sustain shear and compression
>waves and dislocations, he derives the existence of mass and electric
>charge, relativity and gravity, and works out the masses of a whole
>list of elementary particles.
>
>There were two papers. I have them here:
>W. Schnell, A non-local wave model for particles and fields,
>Il Nuovo Cimento, VOL. 113 B, N. 2, Febbraio 1998
><https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-1.pdf>
>and
><https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-2.pdf>.

wget https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-1.pdf
--2024-04-23 08:49:53-- https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-1.pdf
Resolving cern (cern)... failed: No address associated with hostname.

Correct links are:
https://cern.ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-1.pdf
https://cern.ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-2.pdf

>Nobody paid much attention. They are altogether too weird, but
>intriguing nevertheless.

I did read one, you posted that years ago.

On 22/04/2024 22:20, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 22/04/2024 13:07, Martin Brown wrote:
>
>> The guy claims 1g acceleration. 1g of continuous acceleration is enough
>> to reach the centre of our galaxy in about 20 years if memory serves.
>
> 20 years?! I think there's a "k" missing. According to
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#Sun's_location_and_neighborhood>, the sun is 26 - 27 kly from the centre of the galaxy.
>
> Or are you proposing FTL speeds?

20 years in the rest frame of the individual travelling there with
continuous acceleration of 1g.

Obviously the stay at home twin will be long dead by then.

--
Martin Brown

On 23/04/2024 2:11 am, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:00:21 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
>> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>>>
>>>> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
>>>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
>>>> earths-gravity/>
>>>
>>> Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
>>> heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
>>>
>>> It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
>>> we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
>>> pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
>>> we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
>>>
>>> The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
>>> When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
>>> from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
>>> towards each other.
>>>
>>> I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
>>> how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
>>> from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
>>> observed effects.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
>> mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t
>> fit easily into such a picture.
>>
>> Also, the rate at which the hypothetical particles collide with matter has
>> to be extremely large in order to work with very dense matter, such as free
>> neutrons.
>>
>> Neutrons have been observed to follow Newtonian gravity to very high
>> accuracy in the lab.
>>
>> And then there’s the complete absence of Brownian motion in free particles.
>> With some huge flux of particles carrying the sort of momentum that would
>> be required to account for the gravitational motion of free neutrons, the
>> resulting fluctuations would be very visible.
>>
>> Besides, if the particles bounce off the gravitating objects, their
>> velocity distribution will change as a consequence. (Some of them will
>> rattle around between them, going faster and faster as the objects get
>> closer.) Thus there will be a wake effect, like a small plane taking off
>> right after an A380. No such effects are observed.
>>
>> Not to pile on, or at least not as much as the notion deserves, but if
>> relativity is completely wrong, then there is only one velocity in a given
>> reference frame for which the drag force of such a particle ensemble is
>> zero.
>>
>> And, of course, there’s the question of the origin, distribution, and
>> regulation of the momentum-carrying particles.
>>
>> To have any chance of avoiding even these purely classical effects, the
>> particles would have to have infinite speed, zero mass, perfectly uniform
>> and isotropic distribution in both position and direction, perfectly timed
>> arrival at each object to make the fluctuations cancel out, and on an on.
>>
>> This is the luminiferous ether, on stilts.
>>
>> And then there are matter-wave interferometers, which work not only on
>> electrons, but on neutrons and even buckyballs. They set far tighter
>> limits on most of these classical effects.
>>
>> So no, these sorts of theories are not good candidates to explain gravity
>> or other relativistic effects.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
>
> Is there any deeper explanation for conservation of energy, and for
> Newton's laws, other than that's just the way things are?

No. That's what science is about.

> (That gets philosophical, namely why does mathematics define the world?)

The world was there first, so it defines mathematics.

Mathematics is a way of describing a simpler world that is close enough
to the real world to be useful. It evolved in the same way as language,
and for exactly the same reason - it makes organising stuff easier.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 22/04/2024 20:20, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:12:32 -0700, wmartin <wwm@wwmartin.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/22/24 02:20, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> On 21/04/2024 00:27, jim whitby wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:19:30 -0000 (UTC), jim whitby wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>>> I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
>>>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
>>>> earths-gravity/>
>>>>
>>> Powered by an inexhaustible supply of flying pigs this invention will
>>> revolutionise world transport and sales of heavy duty umbrellas!
>>>
>> Oh no, think of the methane emissions! Well if it gets hot enough, it
>> will be bacon from the sky, not manna...
>
> What is manna? Our Safeway doesn't seem to have it.

Probably mealy bug or scale insect excreta.
Desert equivalent of honeydew from aphids.

--
Martin Brown

On a sunny day (Tue, 23 Apr 2024 09:59:13 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <v07t91$1hhhe$1@dont-email.me>:

>On 22/04/2024 22:20, Jeff Layman wrote:
>> On 22/04/2024 13:07, Martin Brown wrote:
>>
>>> The guy claims 1g acceleration. 1g of continuous acceleration is enough
>>> to reach the centre of our galaxy in about 20 years if memory serves.
>>
>> 20 years?! I think there's a "k" missing. According to
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#Sun's_location_and_neighborhood>, the sun is 26 - 27 kly from the centre of the
>> galaxy.
>>
>> Or are you proposing FTL speeds?
>
>20 years in the rest frame of the individual travelling there with
>continuous acceleration of 1g.
>
>Obviously the stay at home twin will be long dead by then.

I think that whole relatitvitty shit is wrong
Onestone likely got this from his wife it seems she was a mamatician

Without a mechanism it is all mamamatical crap.
Just like Ohm's law without electrons.
Broke down in a bad way when Fleming came up with a current in a vacuum tube.

Onestone is the hero of the jewish genocide committing club.
A bunch of brainwashed kids that are now brainwashing science.

In a Le Sage theory if you go ever faster at one point the particles from behind have zero speed
and the ones you face in front hit you with double light speed.
That leads to assymetry in 3 D (even in 2D)
and to state clocks / time changes in the way relatitvitty math says it does, is wrong.

Your nose gets shorter and your ears keep the same distance from each other?
Seems to me things cancel to a point, past lightspeed it get even more interesting.
Come on, ditch Onestone and try reasoning from a particle POV for a change.

Spectral spreading! Electron orbits not round but flattened in one direction...
Simple

On 22/04/2024 17:11, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:00:21 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs

>> So no, these sorts of theories are not good candidates to explain gravity
>> or other relativistic effects.

+1

The trouble is that simple *wrong* answers appeal to a lot of people.
The "Einstein was wrong" brigade have been going ever since he first
published the special theory of relativity.

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2020/11/100-authors-against-einstein-a-look-in-the-rearview-mirror/

His repost to "A hundred authors against Einstein" was that it would
only take one iff they were actually correct. That is true of all
science. It doesn't matter how elegant the theory is it can still be
refuted by an experimental test where it predicts the wrong answer.

>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
>
> Is there any deeper explanation for conservation of energy, and for
> Newton's laws, other than that's just the way things are?
>
> (That gets philosophical, namely why does mathematics define the
> world?)

Invariants of motion are a higher level version of the classical
conservation laws that can be formulated in general relativity.

Mathematical notation is just our best way so far of ensuring accuracy,
logical consistency and precision in our description of things.

Hand waving with "just so" stories can only get you so far. Natural
language is far too ambiguous and flexible to be effective for science.

--
Martin Brown

On 4/23/2024 8:57 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 22/04/2024 17:11, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:00:21 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
>
>>> So no, these sorts of theories are not good candidates to explain
>>> gravity
>>> or other relativistic effects.
>
> +1
>
> The trouble is that simple *wrong* answers appeal to a lot of people.
> The "Einstein was wrong" brigade have been going ever since he first
> published the special theory of relativity.
>
> https://skepticalinquirer.org/2020/11/100-authors-against-einstein-a-look-in-the-rearview-mirror/
>
> His repost to "A hundred authors against Einstein" was that it would
> only take one iff they were actually correct. That is true of all
> science. It doesn't matter how elegant the theory is it can still be
> refuted by an experimental test where it predicts the wrong answer.
>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Phil Hobbs
>>
>> Is there any deeper explanation for conservation of energy, and for
>> Newton's laws, other than that's just the way things are?
>>
>> (That gets philosophical, namely why does mathematics define the
>> world?)
>
> Invariants of motion are a higher level version of the classical
> conservation laws that can be formulated in general relativity.
>
> Mathematical notation is just our best way so far of ensuring accuracy,
> logical consistency and precision in our description of things.
>
> Hand waving with "just so" stories can only get you so far. Natural
> language is far too ambiguous and flexible to be effective for science.
>

I don't know whether it's appropriate to say that conservation laws are
"caused" by Noether's theorem, but in the Lagrangian/Hamiltonian
formulation it's easier to see what symmetries/invariant lead to what
conserved quantities as opposed to the Newtonian form.

Maybe one could say at some level the "cause" of those symmetries (which
then have associated conservation laws) is the principle of least action.

PS
as to all that stuff, if you want a simple example of how 'length contraction' works:
Take a balloon, fill it with some air.
hold it in your hand, now push it forward fast
It will get flattened by the air pressure, BUT will also get wider (air must go somewhere)

Space is NOT empty.,
Searches for 'dark matter',. while Le Sage has it and predicts all we see.
Same for galaxies, crap about Modified Newtonian Dynamics
while the galaxy arms as NOT in orbit
Some thing spitting out 2 opposite arms and rotating,
that forms the galaxy arms, again not in empty space
but space filled with Le Sage particles that than compress stuff into stars etc..
Like a garden sprinkler in air.

Get a life idiots
How Long Will It take For The Blind to See?

Brain dead hammered club by their teachers and peers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrxX9TBj2zY
Mamaticians doing divide by zero and selling it as the ultimate fishsicks truth.

There is an other interesting thing about length contraction in a Le Sage model
When moving forward faster you get increasing pressure from the LS particles coming at you
and less from the ones coming from behind you, but past light speed you overtake the ones behind you and face extra pressure from those..
:-)

maaz
who needs it.
hehe :-)

On 2024-04-22, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
>> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> > jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>> >>
>> >> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
>> >> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
>> >> earths-gravity/>
>> >
>> > Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
>> > heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
>> >
>> > It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
>> > we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
>> > pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
>> > we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
>> >
>> > The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
>> > When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
>> > from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
>> > towards each other.
>> >
>> > I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
>> > how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
>> > from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
>> > observed effects.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
>> mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t
>> fit easily into such a picture.
>
> If you postulate that the forces interact with mass rather than area or
> volume, that is easily explained.
>
> Why do we assume that gravity is a pull based on mass, when it could
> equally well be a push based on mass?

Can you get there from Kepplers laws of planetary motion, or even vice-
versa.

If you assume that the Earth is flat and the Moon is painted on the
firmament, then perhaps a push theory of gravity can be entertained, but
it does not seem to work well with the majority understanding of nature.

--
Jasen.
🇺🇦 Слава Україні

On 24/04/2024 06:19, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> PS
> as to all that stuff, if you want a simple example of how 'length contraction' works:
> Take a balloon, fill it with some air.
> hold it in your hand, now push it forward fast
> It will get flattened by the air pressure, BUT will also get wider (air must go somewhere)

This is exactly why mathematics is used to describe science. It is way
to easy to concoct some handwaving non-quantitative sounds right to me
cock and bull story and use sophistry to sell it to the credulous.

> Space is NOT empty.,

On that we can agree. It is a very thin plasma of ordinary matter with a
smattering of virtual particles hopping in and out of existence on
borrowed energy from the quantum mechanics uncertainty principle. The
Casimir effect was measured back in 1997 to within 5% of the prediction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Natural language is not adequate for discussing these topics. The
equations are clear and unambiguous even if you refuse to accept them.

--
Martin Brown

On a sunny day (Wed, 24 Apr 2024 11:04:01 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <v0aleh$28j7f$1@dont-email.me>:

>On 24/04/2024 06:19, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> PS
>> as to all that stuff, if you want a simple example of how 'length contraction' works:
>> Take a balloon, fill it with some air.
>> hold it in your hand, now push it forward fast
>> It will get flattened by the air pressure, BUT will also get wider (air must go somewhere)
>
>This is exactly why mathematics is used to describe science. It is way
>to easy to concoct some handwaving non-quantitative sounds right to me
>cock and bull story and use sophistry to sell it to the credulous.

Simple example, simple experiment, simple conclusion
If that is too much for you then keep dreaming up numbers.

>> Space is NOT empty.,
>
>On that we can agree. It is a very thin plasma of ordinary matter with a
>smattering of virtual particles hopping in and out of existence on
>borrowed energy from the quantum mechanics uncertainty principle. The
>Casimir effect was measured back in 1997 to within 5% of the prediction.

I hope you see that does away with reality.
Neurons hopping in an out of existence?
Virtual particles? Oh man, you mean you did dream them up?

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

>Natural language is not adequate for discussing these topics.

Rule is simple:
'If you cannot describe your theory on a simple A4 format piece of paper it is likely crap.'

>The equations are clear and unambiguous even if you refuse to accept them.

You can write equations for anything, those will NEVER describe nature in all detail.
Parroting Albert stonecounter is a dead end road, and has been for a long time.
His vote-on particle is crap :-)

Do not see that as personal attack.
Maaz is just about quantities for those who have not the neural net programmed to see beyond say 'abstractions'.

mamaticians claim anything
The guy who did see the lid of the kettle move when it was heated and decided to make it move some wheel did give us the steam engine
Not the endless mamamatics that came later.

I have a nice every day explanation for quantum action at a distance too...

SEE what happens, Connect what happens.
Forget the endless brainwash..

Math is just a game played by a small subset of neurons in the brain.

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 08:53:25 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
<usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:

>On 2024-04-22, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> > jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>> >>
>>> >> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
>>> >> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
>>> >> earths-gravity/>
>>> >
>>> > Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
>>> > heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
>>> >
>>> > It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
>>> > we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
>>> > pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
>>> > we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
>>> >
>>> > The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
>>> > When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
>>> > from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
>>> > towards each other.
>>> >
>>> > I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
>>> > how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
>>> > from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
>>> > observed effects.
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
>>> mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) donâ??t
>>> fit easily into such a picture.
>>
>> If you postulate that the forces interact with mass rather than area or
>> volume, that is easily explained.
>>
>> Why do we assume that gravity is a pull based on mass, when it could
>> equally well be a push based on mass?
>
>Can you get there from Kepplers laws of planetary motion, or even vice-
>versa.
>
>
>If you assume that the Earth is flat and the Moon is painted on the
>firmament, then perhaps a push theory of gravity can be entertained, but
>it does not seem to work well with the majority understanding of nature.

The universe is a giant balloon with stuff painted on it. Or we live
in a planetarium.

Since gravity moves at the speed of light, none of the classic
equations of planetary motion are true. Lately the 3-body problem is
popular, but the finite speed of gravity complicates that too.

An object is not attracted to another object, but to where it used to
be. Objects are attracted to gravity waves.

On 24/04/2024 15:30, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 08:53:25 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
> <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-22, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
>>>>>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
>>>>>> earths-gravity/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
>>>>> heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
>>>>>
>>>>> It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
>>>>> we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
>>>>> pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
>>>>> we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
>>>>>
>>>>> The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
>>>>> When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
>>>>> from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
>>>>> towards each other.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
>>>>> how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
>>>>> from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
>>>>> observed effects.
>>>>
>>>> Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
>>>> mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) donâ??t
>>>> fit easily into such a picture.
>>>
>>> If you postulate that the forces interact with mass rather than area or
>>> volume, that is easily explained.
>>>
>>> Why do we assume that gravity is a pull based on mass, when it could
>>> equally well be a push based on mass?
>>
>> Can you get there from Kepplers laws of planetary motion, or even vice-
>> versa.

It might require considerable sleight of hand to have Gauss's theorem
still work even if you could fudge it somehow.

>> If you assume that the Earth is flat and the Moon is painted on the
>> firmament, then perhaps a push theory of gravity can be entertained, but
>> it does not seem to work well with the majority understanding of nature.
>
> The universe is a giant balloon with stuff painted on it. Or we live
> in a planetarium.

It is entirely possible that we live in a very sophisticated simulation
and that possibility becomes considerably more likely iff we should ever
succeed in building a non-trivial word length quantum computer.

> Since gravity moves at the speed of light, none of the classic
> equations of planetary motion are true. Lately the 3-body problem is
> popular, but the finite speed of gravity complicates that too.

Gravitational *changes* move at the speed of light, but the distortion
of spacetime is already there as a property of how objects move in GR.

Gravitational waves move at the speed of light but the gravitational
influence of the two massive components in orbit was always there out to
a huge distance determined by their age or the age of the universe
whichever happens to be shorter. It becomes a lot more noticeable when
they get really close together and spin up faster and faster.

Errors in the processing of Fortran continuation card beyond 9 were
found by observational discreprancies observed in pulsars that got close
enough to Jupiter occassionally for the gravitational corrections for
delays along light paths near large masses to really matter.

> An object is not attracted to another object, but to where it used to
> be. Objects are attracted to gravity waves.

*NO*! That is completely wrong. Classical mechanics requires "the force
of" gravity to have infinite propagation speed or it doesn't work. That
was why Newton found it somewhat troublesome as "action at a distance".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation#Newton's_"causes_hitherto_unknown"

The solar system would collapse in on itself if the force of gravity was
anything other than *exactly* radial as everything in orbit would then
experience a drag force and spiral into the sun. That clearly doesn't
happen.

The only time when it can happen is in accretion disks of compact
stellar objects or black holes where magnetic forces and thermal
friction provide the drag and up to about 30% of the rest mass can be
converted into energy. That mechanism powers quasars and pulsars.

The BOAT event happened fairly recently and blinded the gamma ray
telescopes with its off scale brilliance. It was an order of magnitude
bigger than anything that had ever been seen before.

https://www.nasa.gov/universe/nasa-missions-study-what-may-be-a-1-in-10000-year-gamma-ray-burst/

Just as well it was nearly 2bn lightyears away from us!

--
Martin Brown