Hi again,
Today is a state-wide furlough day for most state of Wisconsin employees, like me. ... How nice to have an extra "holiday" to explore some of Mile's concepts. I'll rake the lawn later... Regarding the distinction between using particles or waves to explain how the universe works, including the nature of gravity, I place far more faith in the proclivity of wave theory than I do in individual particles. Putting my faith in "particles", to me, would seem to be nothing more than worshipping a static snap shot in time of what is actually happening in the universe on an infinitely dynamic scale. It might seem contradictory for me to say this, particularly since my own computer simulations could easily be perceived primarily as examples of the nature of particle theory. Not true! What I find far more interesting is the gradual build up of millions and trillions of individual "point/particles" as they gradually construct computer generated graphic patterns. These graphic patterns end up looking more like the influences of dynamic wave theory in action. It just takes time, and a lot of "particle" build up! ;-) As of Sunday evening I've managed to plow through Mile's "Explaining the Ellipse" paper - twice. Rather mind-bending at times. I also ordered his book through Amazon. It is obvious to me that my own CM computer simulations are completely mechanistic & heuristic in nature. They don't necessarily explain how gravity truly works. While I'm willing to explore Miles' premise that "tangential velocity" shouldn't be confused with "orbital velocity", the distinction Miles attempts to paint between the two concepts still eludes me to a large extent. Fortunately, Miles is aware of the fact that the distinction tends to baffle most of his readers. He attempts to compensate by giving additional examples. If I understand Mile's commentary, it seems obvious to me that my own CM computer simulations, which are obviously heuristic in nature, involve the feeding back of "orbital velocities" (not "tangential") into the algorithm in order to get the next x,y coordinate position of the orbiting satellite. It's a simple algorithm to compute, and I've done this for years. Nevertheless, in my heuristic oriented computer programs there is no need to incorporate a third factor - a repulsive E/M (1/r^4) function. Granted I could easily incorporate the additional function of (1/r&4) - and I HAVE incorporated similar exploratory repulsive functions in the past just to see what would happen, such as 1/r^3 in repulsive mode. As far as I can tell, however, there does not appear to be any practical/heuristic need to do so. Also the 1/r^4 force will QUICLY become negligible in most cases - which I gather is precisely what Mathis is saying as well. It would only begin to possibly influence the position of an orbiting satellite as it approaches main attractor gravitational body. In fact, it would have to be VERY close indeed to the main attractor body for the repulsive forces to begin visibly manifesting. Well... maybe I need to rethink that! (I'm thinking out loud here.) I must confess that my own CM computer simulations based strictly on using 1/r^2 (with no additional algorithmic enhancements) have indicated to me a strong suspicion that all computed "orbital ellipses" are inherently unstable - given enough time to let the simulation run its course. Err... Well... this gets even messier! I think it would be more accurate to state the fact that my orbits become unstable when the feed-back values become too large (or too coarse) between iterative feed-back steps, particularly as one approaches the central orbiting body and the individual vector values increase geometrically. This is where I've noticed that chaos will be entered into my computer simulations. The introduction of what is presumed to be "unwanted" chaos is also precisely what has fascinated me for years, even if the introduction of such "chaotic" behavior has absolutely nothing to do with accurately predicting "true" CM orbital behavior. Incorporating a repulsive 1/r^4 function into the original equation might help ameliorate the chaotic blow a bit, but I don't tend to think of it as the real solution, particularly since my algorithms are strictly heuristic in nature anyway and probably don't really explain the actual effects of "gravity". 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. Any thoughts on the matter? I seem to recall that you previously stated that you have explored computer simulations of multiple planet solar systems and the orbital perturbations that were generated. I gather you're an old hand at performing these kinds of computer simulations. No? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks From: Mauro Lacy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2010 9:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Anyone recognizes this astronomy integral? Hi, It's in fact thanks to you that I discovered Mathis's work, when researching your precession question. So I thank you, too. He seems to be a kind of contemporary Newton, yes. I suppose he'll perdure. Time will tell. I don't like his mechanistic ideas, although I agree that it's convenient to have a mechanistic approach first, and only when that shows its limitations move on to other models and ideas. Always make things as simple as possible, but not simpler. I agree also with Physics being a fundamentally mechanical science, not mathematical delusions, diversions, or perversions. I don't like his expansion model for gravity, at all. I understand that his model can probably be made to work if you add a repulsive electromagnetic component, which keeps bodies apart against the gravitational "apparent attraction", but I find expansion ideas an unnecessary (and unbelievable, frankly) burden. Gravitation can probably be understood in terms of wave interactions. I think than we can imagine a normally repulsive (due to emission) field, that when encountering another similar field, manifests attraction(coalescence and accretion, actually) due to the appearance of a kind of interference pattern between the fields. That interference pattern would model a force field, and that force field will cause gravitational acceleration. In my theory, gravity is then always the result of an interaction, never the result of a single field. But of course you need something like waves, not particles, to make it work. My model explain the repulsive-attractive (i.e. elastic) nature of the field at solar system levels as deviations in the interference pattern, which in one direction cause attraction, and in the other, repulsion. To see what I mean, take by example a function like the square root, and apply it to a distance between bodies, normalized in the form that 1 is the equilibrium distance. The square root of 1 is 1, and you'll have stable equilibrium. The square root of any number greater than 1 tends to 1, that is, to equilibrium. And the same happens with any number smaller than 1. So you have an effect that(and between a certain range, of course), independently of the initial distance being greater or smaller than the equilibrium distance, tends to the equilibrium distance. Temporary divergences from equilibrium will be due to the inertia of the bodies, and to perturbations. That means that, given enough time, and provided that the interacting fields are mantained, all orbits would decay into circular orbits. That is gravity working at the celestial level. At the planetary levels, bodies fall to the center of the planet because they are completely overwhelmed by the local field on the Planet, which is again the result of the interacting fields at the celestial level. That means that Earth's gravity, by example, is not a consequence of the mass of the Earth, but conversely, the (accreted) mass of the Earth is a consequence of Earth's gravity. The field was first, and the accretion came later, provided that the field entered or directly formed in a zone with matter to accrete. By the way, so called dark matter is no more that a consequence of insufficient accretion, that is, fields that are devoid of matter at the moment. All very nice, but what is missing are the fields themselves! what are those fields? from where they originate? are they internal to the solar system or external? are they the result of "space pressure"? are they a result or manifestation of the turbulence of a dark fluid? what is then that dark fluid? and how exactly it interacts with normal matter? what are the formulas to describe those interactions? etc etc. On 10/09/2010 10:51 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Mauro, Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
