Re: is perpetual motion possible ?


"Kyle T. Jones" <KBfoMe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g5ib2t$raa$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Rob wrote:
"Kyle T. Jones" <KBfoMe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g5g5p6$ko2$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Rob wrote:
"Kyle T. Jones" <KBfoMe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g5076d$tp8$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Rob wrote:
"Kyle T. Jones" <KBfoMe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g4vuiv$5c9$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
At first blush, I thought your "thought experiment" relied on
assuming my hypothesis was false, then simply writing what you'd
expect to happen given that assumption. Begging the question. That
was the basis of this response.

At second glance, I realized that the results of your experiment
would be the same under either system, and that you had
misunderstood those results. Thus the second response.

Cheers.
Not at all. If gravity is attractive, two masses inside an evacuated
sphere will experience an attraction which is independent of the
proximity or composition of the sphere walls. If vacuum pushed, this
is not true. In fact if the distance between the masses is greater
than the radius of the sphere, the masses will be pushed apart in
your model.
Not at all. You make some hidden assumptions here, Rob. For one, you
assume that the sphere completely blocks/absorbs all the repulsive
energy coming from the vacuum outside that sphere.
Whatever percentage it blocks/absorbs will depend on the thickness.
Thus the force on the test masses is dependent on the wall thickness.

You can say "not at all" a million times, Rob. The truth is that the
math is the same in either case. If you make the walls of the sphere
massive enough to block the "repulsive" force completely, resulting in
"the masses will be pushed apart in your model", you've made them
massive enough so "the masses will be pushed apart" in your model as
well (because you've made them massive enough that they are now
"attracting" in your model).

Cheers.
Ah. I see the problem now. I gave you credit for more knowledge than
you actually have.
So, lets try again. The walls of a hollow sphere don't attract anything
inside it. It does not matter how heavy the walls are. Or how big the
sphere is. Or where in the sphere the masses are. Now that you know
this, go back and reread your last paragraph and admit defeat.

Cheers.


Actually, I take back even the mildest gesture of defeat.

You're "phenomena" is merely a mildly interesting "trick", that would
give the same results under either interpretation.

In other words, a hollow sphere will be gravitationally neutral in the
context of objects inside that sphere, regardless.

Perhaps I gave you too much credit, and started doubting the obvious:
that saying mass attracts is exactly the same as saying non-mass repels.

For homework, see if you can work out why the sphere is also
gravitationally neutral under my interpretation; let's see, here's a big
hint: it's gravitationally neutral under your model because as the
object moves/is moved closer to one side, there is more sphere mass on
the other side.


Clueless.

You certainly are. A living testament to the idea that just a little bit
of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

The sphere is graviationally neutral because of symmetry, leaving the
gravity test masses inside as the only force operating. Your system is
not symmetric because the effect of the vacuum _outside_ the sphere is
different from that within.


The two interpretations are identical. Outside gravitational influences
are in effect under both. There, I've given you three big hints.

IOW, the force 'pushing' the test masses together comes through the
sphere from all directions, and the masses move towards each other
because of this. There is also the force of the vacuum between the test
masses pushing them apart. If you double, triple, whatever the sphere
mass, less of your mythical pushing force gets through, but the push from
between the test masses stays constant.

Ahh, I see where you are making the mistake. It's right here. You
haven't really understood anything I've said, have you?

The force between the test masses is thus dependent
on the mass of the walls, in your model. So, in your model, the sphere is
NOT gravitationally neutral.
Note that if you make the walls thick enough to completely stop the
vacuum push force, test masses set further apart than the inner radius of
the sphere will repel each other, as the vacuum between them pushes them
apart.
I think it's tme to give your mythical force a name - since the standard
force is called 'gravity', I would suggest 'levity'.

Here's another big hint: the math, in every instance, is the same under
both interpretations.

Cheers.

Since you have no equations to describe your model, there is no math
under your interpretation. Your model is indeed repulsive.

Rob.



For the tenth time, the math is identical. It's hard for me to believe
this is too complex for you. Look, make a gravitational map of the solar
system. If the mass in this region is such and such, you make such and
such size dent. If mass in another region is such and such, you make such
and such size dent. Or, approach it another way: consider the greatest
amount of mass, then describe regions in terms of falling short of that
ideal; such and such region misses umass by this amount, so we elevate
that portion of the map to such size; the other region misses umass by
some other amount, so we elevate the portion of the map to some other such
size. In the end, you have the same map. It isn't difficult, Rob. It
takes just the smallest ability to think outside the box, though. Perhaps
that's what yer lacking.

Good quip, though.

Cheers.

Kyle,

You have been proposing that the absence of mass generates a repulsive
force. This is what the model disproves. If you think your description in
the paragraph above is equivalent to a vacuum repulsive force, then you are
simply wrong - the warping of space - and hence gravity - is due to the
presence of mass.
What I am trying to get through to you is that the two models - mass
generating an attractive force towards other mass, and vacuum repulsion are
not mutually compatible, as they do not yield the same results on
theoretical examination. Yes, you can scale a gravitational map of the solar
system with the zero point anywhere you want. Yes, it will look exactly the
same - that is not the issue. This does not give the effect of vacuum
repulsion, no matter how much you want it to.

If you want to claim gravity is due to a vacuum force field, then this must
interact with matter. If so, the hollow sphere model will have the
properties I described. If not, explain why not.

I have great faith in my ability to think outside the box. It is your
ability to think inside the sphere that I fear is absent.

Cheers, Rob.

BTW, please explain the relativistic effects of enormous gravitational
fields such as those of black holes with your VR theory.. Good Luck ;D


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Update on LIGO.
    ... attraction between masses. ... Gravity is a PUSH shoving objects together. ... IMO this shows that the whole theory of stellar mass black holes needs ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Update on LIGO.
    ... attraction between masses. ... Gravity is a PUSH shoving objects together. ... IMO this shows that the whole theory of stellar mass black holes needs ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: shell theorem
    ... simulation (million random points represent a sphere, ... calculate and add each gravity force ... Would a mass system of 6 points ... show that the force due to gravity of a spherical distribution is the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Find balance point?
    ... balance point (the centre of gravity) ... masses, and mark it. ... Create an object to use as a mass. ... A new section appeared with an entry called ...
    (microsoft.public.visio.general)
  • Re: Could Dark Matter be here on earth?
    ... If so it would be detectable surely - it has mass. ... the matter in the Universe must have been compressed to the size ... the necessary gravity "needed" to stop the run-away expansion. ... Newton used the calculated masses of the Earth/ ...
    (sci.physics)