Dean,
Again, I believe that you and Mr. Cater are missing
something, at least in my present understanding of what
information has been relayed on the lists.
You speak of a few different points which I will
argue against. The first is the notion that gravity is only
a surface radiation and the difference between planetary
bodies is only the result of the area of surface of such a
star or planet that will allow the penetration of gravity
radiation. You state that gravity is argued as being
inundated only by the inverse square law rule of distance
and that this makes no sense. I have a counter argument.
Isn't it possible that there are fundamental particles or
waves in nature that penetrate all the way through a body
such as cosmic waves are supposed to be. Another example
might be tachyons.
The facts do not all dovetail nicely with your argument
that the tides on the far side of the earth in relationship to the
Sun prove that gravity does not attenuate evenly through the
earth which appears to support your arguments.
I tried to explain some of this in my e-mail to you
about the tides and the Sun's influence upon them but I see
that a more comprehensive effort is needed on my part. You
are comparing apples and oranges by suggesting that the tides
prove that there is not a uniform penetration to the opposite side
of the planet. My explanation still stands that the acceleration
curve is the important point where the tides are concerned.
Before making such broad sweeping statements that gravity
radiations do not penetrate all the way through the planet
unatenuated, you should do some more study. It may be that
more study ought to be required of me as well but I see both
yourself and Mr. Cater missing the true component that
answers Solar tide behavior.
Let me put it this way. In Keplerian thought. bodies orbit
their primaries in elliptical orbits with the Sun at one foci. The
shape of this orbit is eccentric to that of a circle and thus the
formula for determining mean orbital distance is representative
of the overall velocities of an orbit of that degree of eccentricity.
In other words, If one placed a planet on an exactly parallel orbit
to the earth but at a mean radius from the Sun that was a million
miles closer, the orbital mechanics, which by the way have never
been disproven mandate that to maintain that orbit, overall velocity
of the planet must increase Ala. Kepler's third law.
You should solve for the math for what an orbit just inward
of the barrycenter and just outward of the barrycenter of the earth
should be. I recall doing this once and believe it or not the amount
of difference was strikingly similar to the amount of tides that are
measurably attributed to the sun. For the water on the outward or
nighttime side of the sun, these waters are actually kinetically
caused to be over energized compared to the velocity that that
particular distance from the Sun requires to maintain a stable orbit.
The reason it peaks at a certain place the way it does is due to the
point where the sheer force comes into play but it then is an outward
force. It is not so much the sheering force caused by planetary rotation
but the force where the eccentric orbit path and acceleration curve
that is realized by the positioning the water receives courtesy of planet
rotation that degredates or becomes unharmonious with the acceleration
curve around the Sun it was on. This means that there is no
justification
whatsoever for determining that gravity is proven to be attenuated by
something additional to the inverse square law based on the tides
on the night side of the planet.
Let me ask another question. If the surface area of a body is
the
crucial cause of differences in gravity, how is it that the black holes
in
space are so greatly contracted to an indeterminate small size due
to a far greater gravitational collapse that their gravities are so
intense
that light cannot even escape? There is some room to perhaps argue that
since we cannot see beyond the event horizon there is no way of knowing
whether or not the black hole is just a star that has become unbelievably
large but this is problematic. Every large enough star collapses with no
more initial mass than they started out with and often times much less.
If this is the case, then surely logic would dictate that the gravity or
even
surface area of the black hole would not exceed its pre black hole
condition. Neutron stars are said to be the end effect of large stars in
gravitational collapse. They do not have the gravity wells of black
holes
and if modern physics can be trusted, the origin of black holes is of the
very largest stars and their collapse is more energetic than that of
stars
that only become neutron stars. So, under this basis, we can assume that
the density of the black hole is phenomenal and that the incredible
down sizing of the the black hole from its prior state causes incredible
increase in gravity due to mass contraction.
These facts do not support Mr. Cater's theory that surface area
is
the determining factor. I am aware of the fact that the sun is eclipsed
nearly perfectly by the moon, but this surely is not indicative or equal
surface areas, only altered perspective cause by extreme distance.
I am toying with the idea of adding a Solar tide section to examine in
detail the actions that I theorize are the cause for the disproportional
tide effect between the Sun and the Moon.
Scott
···
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 10:34:10 -0300 "Dean De Lucia" <[email protected]> writes:
Members,
Here is a post from Mike Mott's list concerning the penetration ( or
lack
of ) by gravity in relation to the tides. Cater's explanation is on
my page
called HE Science:I've been meditating on our conversation about gravity related to
mass vs.
Cater's comments in relation to the tides. I think one problem which
we are
running into is that we haven't kept in mind Cater's initial point,
a pillar
of his argument, or maybe you just didn't accept it and went on from
there.
But I don't think that we touched on it.You are saying that " apparent diameter has nothing to do with
gravitational
force or tides." I'll reproduce some of your comments just so that
everybody
can get on the same page:> You don't need a mass for the Earth to get a mass for the Sun, but
you
> do need to be able to calibrate your theory. If you know the
distance
> to the Sun and your current velocity travelling around it, you
can
> match mv^2/r = GMm/r^2 and get M = v^2r/G , but this depends on
your
> measurement of G being accurate and GMm/r^2 holding for all M, m,
and r.
>
> What does he mean by "apparent diameters" and "apparent surface
areas"?
> They both subtend half a degree in the sky, but the Moon is only
a
> quarter million miles away and the Sun is 93 million miles away.
> Does his "apparent diameter" refer to the amount of arc they
subtend
> in the sky?
>
> >The Sun may be further away than the Moon, but its mass is
supposed to be
> >tremendous. Since their apparent diameters are the same, the Moon
should
not
> >beat the pants off the Sun when it comes to gravitational effect
on the
> >tides.
>
> That does not follow. Apparent diameter has nothing to do with
> gravitational force or tides. If we replaced the Moon or the Sun
> with a neutron star or black hole of equal mass but vastly smaller
> size, the tides would be the same.Actually, I already made the point yesterday that Cater argues
gravitational
effect from the standpoint of apparent diameters because he is
stipulating
the gravity effects are only a phenomenon of the first 50 miles or
so of
crust- a surface phenomenon. Therefore, apparent diameters will be
rather
indicative and are good rule-of-thumb measuring sticks.But equally important is to understand his argument, his
observation,
against uniform and complete penetration of gravity effects. Were
gravity
effects so, then we would have to lean towards gravity related to
mass/density.Here is what he says. Just read it over again real quick:
" The origin of the difficulty is an obvious flaw in the Newtonian
concept
of gravitation. It is the idea that gravity effects have unlimited
penetration. In other words, there is no attenuation of gravity
effects
other than that due to the inverse square law as it passes through
matter.
This is an outrageous violation of the law of conservation of
energy.It is indeed amazing that this obvious fallacy has been the basis of
nearly
all astronomical calculations for about 300 years. This, of course,
has led
to many false conclusions in the field of cosmology, as will be
shown later.
Although this affront to common sense has been a gargantuan
liability when
applied to cosmology, it has created a travesty of impossible
proportions
where the explanation of tides is concerned. As every student of
elementary
mechanics is aware, a body cannot be given an acceleration relative
to
another, if the same acceleration is applied to each body.
Therefore, it can
be concluded that, since large bodies of water are accelerated
relative to
the earth to produce tides, such bodies are given different
accelerations
than the Earth as a whole. Otherwise, there would be no movement of
water
across the surface of the Earth. It follows that the concept of
unlimited
penetration presents orthodox theorists with insurmountable
difficulty in
any attempt to understand tides. "The point is this idea that " a body cannot be given an
acceleration
relative to another, if the same acceleration is applied to each
body." So
if we see the ocean tides accelerating at a different rate than the
rest of
the planet, the acceleration received is different than that which
the rest
of the planet is receiving. This means that gravity effects are not
uniform
in their penetration.Also, if the penetration is enough to go through the Earth and tuck
in the
far side of the globe, the ocean floor itself, then there has to be
enough
left over to also pull in the ocean surface. We can keep in mind
that, if
gravity is based on the density of mass, then water should be ever
more
pliant than the bottom of the ocean floor, and having to reach an
extra two
or three miles should be no difficult thing for a gravitational
force which
just passed through the entire Earth's crust with practically no
attenuation. It can't be that, after all that penetration, the
gravity-due-to mass doesn't have enough force left over to tug in
the ocean'
s surface, such that a bulge of water hangs out to form the tidal
bulge on
the far side of the Earth from the Moon. I seem to vaguely remember
you
presenting some calculations in this regard to show that it's
possible,
maybe it was in relation to something else. But if we already see
gravity
attenuation within the first few miles of the surface, in other
words, in
relation to the oceans tides moving faster than the rest of the
planet, then
it is incongruent to construct, even mathematically, some model
whereby the
gravity passed through with no attenuation, or hardly any, but then
ran out
of gas between the ocean floor on the far side and the ocean's
surface.I suspect the scientitfic community of being as dogmatic and as
faithful to
beliefs as the religionists whom it tends to criticise.Gravity caused by an electromagnetic radiation would begin to drop
off after
x amount of penetration and seems to correspond well to the
observation that
gravity effects do not have unlimited penetration. Since gravity
would thus
be a surface phenomena, Cater speaks in terms of apparent surface
diameters.I have some analogies about how unlimited penetration of gravity
should act,
were it the case. How about a cork stopper from a wine bottle? Let's
say
that we dip it in water. The cork would then represent the Earth,
and the
film of water on it the oceans of the Earth. I think that the
proportions
would be something like that. Now imagine if we stick a needle
through the
cork and turn it around. The whole cork, as well as the film of
water on it,
would all move at the same rate. This is how gravity with uniform
penetration would act. This is what cater maens when he says "As
every
student of elementary mechanics is aware, a body cannot be given an
acceleration relative to another, if the same acceleration is
applied to
each body. Therefore, it can be concluded that, since large bodies
of water
are accelerated relative to the earth to produce tides, such bodies
are
given different accelerations than the Earth as a whole."Anothe analogy that my fertile brain came up with was that of lasagna
and a
fork. The lasagna is composed of varying layers of density and mass.
The
pasta, for example, is thicker and denser than the tomato sauce ( or
is it
" tomatoe?" ) So if you stick a fork into a square of lasagna and
drag it
across the pan, it all moves at the same rate. If gravity were
uniformly
penetrating, then it would have to be like this. The surface of the
ocean,
in fact, the ocean itself, would have to move at the same rate as
the whole
planet because gravity would have penetrated it uniformly just as
the fork
penetrated the lasagna uniformly. The acceleration applied by the
fork would
have been uniform, too, and, of course, the velocity displayed by
all the
layers of the lasagna across the pan would have been uniform.But gravity doesn not stab through the Earth uniformly, and I think
that the
behavior of tides, the very existence of tides, shows that- what to
speak of
the uncomfortable presence of the tidal bulge on the far side.So Cater makes the point that the Sun and Moon have the same
apparent
diameters, and that gravity effects are surface phenomena, roughly
measurable by their apparent diameters. Then he constructs this
case- that
since the Sun exerts much less gravitational force on the tides than
the
Moon ( What is it, 13% of the effect that the Moon has? ), then the
Sun must
possess less surface gravity in spite of its mass. This is why the
trajectory of solar flares don't behave according to Newtonian
physics.
Cater offers a causitive explanation by saying that the Sun is not
emitting
much in the way of the gravity-inducing electromagnetic radiation,
mass
having nothing to do with it.And I don't remember if you made any further comments on the atom
expmple.
The whole atom exhibits less inertia than its fundamental particles,
in
spite of its mass, is this not so?Do give me some feedback.
Dharma/Dean
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.