On 10/11/2010 01:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: > > 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. >
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) radiating force field, with one (or more than one) transform(i.e. propagation) terms (1/r^0, 1/r^1, 1/r^2, ...) - Force fields act only in the centripetal direction, that is, they have no influence orthogonally. With that and a small enough interval, I think I can build an orbit simulator to test for laws using only first principles. More about this later, probably. > > > 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? > Yes, I've extensively used the excellent Gravity Simulator, by Tony Dunn. I've never developed my own, till now. Regards, Mauro
