Re: [Vo]:Anyone recognizes this astronomy integral?
Hi, I think that I must say a pair of additional things. First, I'm very grateful to Miles Mathis for his many insights, and for his clarity, freedom and generosity in openly sharing his ideas. He is a great source of inspiration and original ideas. Second, the only way to produce progress and novelty in a field, is by being wrong a good number of times. We have that right. The right of being wrong, if you excuse the pun. In the long term, we must only try that our hits surpass our misses, in number and particularly in importance. And talking about being wrong, it turns out that there is something wrong in the formulas below. And that that is interesting in itself. Let's see: I've made the intensity of the gravitational field directly proportional to the mass of the emitting body alone. This, one would presume, is the logical thing to do. But with a field like that, lighter objects fall faster than heavier objects. Due to inertia, and given the same field intensity, it's easier to accelerate a less massive object than a more massive one. Newton's second law. But(and here I'm indebted again to Miles Mathis), the gravitational field is a very particular field; a field so particular that the former does not happen. The gravitational field, in the centripetal direction, counteracts inertia, so to speak. It defies Newton's second law. That's why the gravitational force, in Newton's universal gravitational formula, is directly proportional to the *product* of the masses. If I multiply the numerator by the mass of the second body, that will later exactly cancel out the dividing mass in a=f/m, and we will have equal centripetal accelerations independently of the masses of the second body. The right formula for the magnitude of the force is then: f=-star.mass*planet.mass/pow(r.length(), exponent); But the problem is now that this formula defies mechanics. This product in the numerator means that, if we stick to the idea of a force field, the emitting body must emit different intensities depending on the mass of the receiving body. And that does not make sense. This is probably also why GR speaks of space curvature. That way, it is dispensed with the need to explain this very particular behavior of the gravitational field. But there must be another explanation. An explanation that does not hide in geometry, and which also makes physical sense. The candidates I can come up are: 1) A given gravitational field is proportional to the mass of the emitting body, but is processed or felt differently by a receiving body, according to the body's mass, in a form that exactly cancels out the inertia of the body. That is, the intensity of a gravitational field felt by a body is directly proportional to its gravitational mass. So a=f/m no longer holds for the gravitational field. We instead have a=f, or better, a=f*mg/mi. mg in the numerator is the gravitational mass, and mi, the inertial mass. Normally, mg=mi. 2) A gravitational field is the result of an interaction of bodies, not an emission of any given body on its own. The intensity of this interaction is proportional to the product of the gravitational masses of the interacting bodies. The interaction itself works in ways that we don't understand yet. 1) looks more mechanically tractable, whereas 2) looks more wave like, or flow like. An approach like 2) can also probably explain dark matter, and gravitational anomalies. Notice also that 1) implies a kind of amplification effect. Particularly in the case of a greater body being influenced by a smaller one, the influence will depend on the mass of the second body. Which is strange, to say the least. Particularly in 1), to augment the gravitational interaction, we'll have to increase the body's gravitational mass(without increasing its inertial mass), to decrease its inertial mass(without decreasing its gravitational mass), or both. How to do it is left as an exercise for the reader at the moment :-) Mauro On 10/16/2010 09:28 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: On 10/14/2010 08:06 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: On 10/11/2010 01:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: A question for you, Mauro: I would nevertheless love to computer simulate a so-called authentic elliptical orbit that is more accurately based on Miles' three-part gravity model, one that incorporates both the attractive 1/r^2 force and the repulsive E/M 1/r^4 forces. At present I'm at loss as to how I might do that -- that is without my computer simulations reverting back to nothing more than another mechanistic heuristic exercise. Maybe that's all one can really do in our so-called mechanistic world. You're right, and I'm doing exactly that at the moment. A celestial mechanics simulator based on first principles. I'll try to use the smallest number of principles. So far, I've identified four: - Newton's first law (uniform movement law, i.e. inertia) - Newton's second law (f=ma = a=f/m) - A spherically(circularly, in two dimensions)
Re: [Vo]:Anyone recognizes this astronomy integral?
12 replies to my question is not bad but the integral is actually about what the gravity force is to a spherical mass distribution compared to a point mass. The so called center of gravity can not be used as a center of gravity since matter closer to a body attracts more than what the remote parts do. How big can this effect be? Can anyone solve the integral? I haven't even tried, yet. Can Maxima solve it? David
Re: [Vo]:Anyone recognizes this astronomy integral?
12 replies to my question is not bad but the integral is actually about what the gravity force is to a spherical mass distribution compared to a point mass. The so called center of gravity can not be used as a center of gravity since matter closer to a body attracts more than what the remote parts do. Hi David, I'm sorry that your thread was hijacked. I suppose the answer to your initial question was No. :-) How big can this effect be? Not very big for d r, d being the distance between bodies and r the radius of the more massive body. It could be interesting to solve the integral, to precisely see the magnitude of the effects at different distances, but at first sight, the effects must follow an inverse square law also. So, for a given distance d, they will have a 1/d^2 importance. It may also be the case that the closer masses compensate the loss of the farther masses, and then, for the spherical case, the approximation to a point mass is perfectly valid; provided that the distance is greater than the radius of the body, and that the density of the body is homogeneous. Can anyone solve the integral? I haven't even tried, yet. Can Maxima solve it? David
[Vo]:OT (Sort of): Benoit Mandlebrot
Benoit Mandelbrot, of the famous Mandelbrot fractal fame, has just passed away. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/lukeh/archive/2010/10/16/benoit-mandelbrot.aspx Now, you too can generate the famous Mandelbrot image in F#, or in just 175 characters of Javascript. ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Bloom Box Enters Production Phase
Jones Beene wrote: If QM is involved, as may well be the case (quasi BEC for instance, or tunneling) then a REVERSE economy of scale may emerge. This could limit any single device to tens of watts or less. Of course, it may be possible that an array of dozens or hundreds of mass-produced cells will be eventual the answer to that problem ... or not. Why not hundreds of thousands of cells? Modern robot fabrication techniques would allow this. An array seems likely for other reasons. People have gotten one small cell to produce reasonably steady heat for long periods. I cannot imagine any reason why you could not gang up thousands of small cells. The heat from one will not quench the reaction in the ones next to it. On the contrary, heating a cell with a pulse of electrolysis power or JJoule heater power tends to make it work better. Nothing leaves a cell but heat. There are practically no neutrons or x-rays or anything else that might have an impact on nearby cells. - Jed
[Vo]:Marwan asks AIP to explain cancellation
Jan Marwan, and separately Ed Storms, asked the AIP to explain why they canceled the conference proceedings. He sent them the letter appended below, on October 15. He just now gave me permission to copy it here. As far as I know the AIP has not responded to either Marwan and Storms. I doubt they will. They were within their contractual rights to cancel the proceedings at the last minute. - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AIP proceedings withdrawal - explanation required Dear Maya Flikop and AIP colleagues, The fact that the AIP has declined to publish our conference proceedings on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions at the very last moment has raised many questions. My colleagues are wondering what is the true reason for this unexpected decision and why was our AIP conference book advertised on the AIP web site (title, table of content, ISBN, price etc) from end of August until Oct 04 and then suddenly removed and cancelled for publication. Until now, the AIP is missing a plausible detailed explanation. On Dr Ed Storms polite request (Oct 07) to provide an explanation Maya Flikop, the director of the AIP Special Publication and Proceedings, wrote: After a customary review by our editorial office, the content of the planned proceedings volume entitled Symposium on New Energy Technology was judged not to meet the minimal editorial standards that have been established for the AIP Conference Proceedings program. In his letter (Oct 11) to Dr Dylla Ed Storms was asking for specific details but to my knowledge has not been given any answer yet. Our AIP colleagues (Maya Flikop, Dr Dylla and so on) should know that their behaviour to handle our request for detailed explanation why the content of the planned proceedings volume was judged not to meet the minimal editorial standards looks quite strange and more and more my colleagues and contributors to this AIP book are wondering what is really going on behind the scene. Having been in Zürich, Switzerland, over the last couple of days I had the chance to go through my office correspondence that I have had with Maya Flikop over the last 14 months. Putting this email correspondence and the actions taken by the AIP regarding our proceedings in a chronological order, I came to a very strange conclusion, and I hope the AIP can give clarification on this matter. * Mid of July 2009 Maya Flikop contacted me and asked me to edit and publish the conference proceedings with the AIP based on the New Energy Technology Symposium at the ACS in San Francisco 2010. I let her know that I would be on holiday during much of August and would get back to her in September. * Mid of September 2009 when I came back from vacation I contacted Maya Flikop saying that I need to think about her offer as I am having another offer from the ACS (Oxford University Press) volume 3 on my desk * On Oct 05 Maya Flikop wrote in her email: Please let me know if a decision has been reached regarding publication of the proceedings of the Symposium on New Energy Technology. I look forward to hearing from you soon. She offered me a contract that I signed. * On June 29, I submitted the whole AIP proceedings volume right on deadline. * During July I was waiting for any complaints, any errors I need to correct, any minor details (the AIP editor questionnaire says that the editor in case of any corrections required should be available for 4 weeks after he submitted his volume). But nothing happened except some clarification regarding Dr Pam Mosier Boss' signature on the AIP copyright form (that Dr Mosier Boss handled on the phone with the AIP Production editor). * On July 18, I sent Maya Flikop an email asking to replace Prof Nagel's introduction paper with an updated version (Prof Nagel found 2 errors in his paper and kindly asked me to use the updated version). Maya Flikop responded: We will replace the paper. Please stay in touch and let me know if I can be of any help while the Volume is in Production. * During the last week of July Maya Flikop directed me to the AIP Production Editor, Tina Choy, who was in charge to design the cover and frontmatter page (see attached - on the frontmatter page it has been written, all papers are peer reviewed). * On August 23, the AIP Production Editor Tina Choy wrote: During the final press check for CP1273, we found a file that may have a font problem (see attached) and would like you to confirm the content before we begin printing. Please let me know if the file is ok as is or if you would like to submit a new file. (This was about Prof Kim's paper who, after 2 days, sent me a corrected version). * End of August the AIP advertised this book on their we site (Table of content, title, ISBN, price of 209,-- USD etc) * On Sept 09, I received a box
Re: [Vo]:OT: Will physical books be gone in 5 years
- Original Message From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, October 18, 2010 11:49:54 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Will physical books be gone in 5 years To clarify, what I mean about the dark side of Kinkade's, business model: The technique revolves around the procedure of generating reproductions (prints) produced from his original paintings and then employing a stable of artisans to manually touch up each of the prints with little dabs of red and blue pigment applied to the rose bushes growing alongside his cute 19th century cottages. The crime revolves around the fact that Kinkade business model can then legally claim the fact that all the reproductions are original works of art, because artisans have manually touched up each print. Incidentally, employing a stable of artisans is not a new concept. In the past many of the great masters employed artisans to perform all the boring work. The difference was that these artisans were employed by their master to work on the master's original painting, not thousands of reproductions! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Hirst Damien Hirst employs artisans but only for the generation of original works, and is probably the richest artist ever. Hirst sees the real creative act as being the conception, not the execution, and that, as the progenitor of the idea, he is therefore the artist: Art goes on in your head, he says. If you said something interesting, that might be a title for a work of art and I'd write it down. Art comes from everywhere. It's your response to your surroundings. There are on-going ideas I've been working out for years, like how to make a rainbow in a gallery. I've always got a massive list of titles, of ideas for shows, and of works without titles.[17]Harry
[Vo]:trailer of my next movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFZVq0Mw5vc
Re: [Vo]:Bloom Box Enters Production Phase
Robin van Spaandonk may have missed Australia's home grown kicks-the-Bloom-box's-a*s device, the Bluegen from Ceramic Fuel Cells Ltd. http://www.cfcl.com.au/BlueGen/ Here's a presentation about the device - similar technology to the Bloom box - high temperature fuel cell - grid connected. The Bluegen however is sized (constant 1.5kw output) to generate sufficient CHP heat and power for an average house with some left over to export to the grid and has the world's highest electrical efficiency in small scale generators - 50-60 electrical efficiency and is set up to use the waste heat to provide hot water at an overall efficiency of 85%. Can use natural gas or the similar product from anaerobic digesters. Nick Palmer On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it Blogspot - Sustainability and stuff according to Nick Palmer http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:The difficulties of practical cold fusion, was: Re: Bloom Box Enters Production Phase
At 11:49 AM 10/18/2010, Jones Beene wrote: Side note: radiodurans sounds like a rock group, no? I just want to know, how can I get some? And there has to be a way to get access to a Mossbauer spectrograph. I did Mossbauer spectroscopy in sophomore physics lab at Caltech, it didn't take much, this could possibly be done at home. You need a particular radioactive source, that decays to Fe-57 and emits a gamma ray. You need to be able to detect the gammas. You need a linear motion table, you do the spectrogram by doppler shifting the gamma radiation by motion on the order of mm/sec, as I recall. It doesn't seem completely out of reach. But codeposition neutrons, a whole lot simpler, I hope and expect. I can detect neutrons, I believe, in a very sophisticated way, with two pieces of LR-115 film that cost me under a dollar. Sure, this is getting out there into the Rube Goldberg range of fanciful complexity, with a dash of ill-timed humor tossed in - but that is what inspires a lot of young creative nerds... especially if Dad, the famous professor, is a total skeptic. Sure. Why do you think I got into this? What LENR needs more than anything else these days is young creative nerds taking an interest, to replace the dinosaurs who are dying-off in droves. Hey, come on. Dinosaurs? In any case, my original kit concept was to make SPAWAR neutrons accessible to high school students. I only later realized that these kits might be useful for more serious research. And that the high school kids could help, with some investigations. It's about communication I'm running a control already, a detector stack set up on a dummy cell, mounted as the actual experimental stack will be mounted, and I hope that in a few weeks when I develop these two films, I'll be ready to start the first cell. But it occured to me that this simple control experiment could be quite interesting. I expect to be detecting and showing the effects of cosmic ray neutrons. The way this is set up, it can distinguish between cosmic ray origin and ordinary background from radon, fallout, etc., wandering about. That could make a nifty little project that would be sellable for, like, a few dollars The hardest part, in fact, is developing the films. I'll probably have to offer a service. This stuff isn't quite as bad as CR-39 (which is like many hours at 70 degrees C, this is about two hours at 60 degrees C), but, still, hot lye is dangerous.
RE: [Vo]:trailer of my next movie.
From Frank: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFZVq0Mw5vc Where's part 2? It was just starting to get interesting! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Wind Power Without the Blades
Art and alternative energy. Harry Wind Power Without the Blades Atelier DNA’s “Windstalk” project came in second in the Land Art Generator competition a contest sponsored by Madsar to identify the best work of art that generates renewable energy from a pool of international submissions. pics here http://news.discovery.com/tech/wind-power-without-the-blades.html
