Re: is perpetual motion possible ?


"Kyle T. Jones" <KBfoMe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g5obu8$rkv$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Rob wrote:
"Kyle T. Jones" <KBfoMe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g5nlbc$g9e$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hell, Rob, you don't even seem to realize that the inverse-squared law,
applied to gravitation, isn't exact, and, in many many cases, simply
provides close approximation. And *that*, my friend, is as basic to
this topic as one can get.

LOL. Provide one single case where gravity deviates from an inverse
squared relationship.


Why not answer the question I asked, Rob?

One? You want one example? You really are stuck in the 1800s, Rob.
Photons streaming past a star is the obvious example. Hard to get the
traditional "product of the two bodies' masses", when one of those masses
is zero, and work from there, isn't it?

Holy. Freaking. Snap. You really walked into that one, Rob.

You really aren't such a physics expert after all, eh Rob?

The Question: "Provide one single case where gravity deviates from an
inverse squared
relationship."
Gravitational bending of light follows an inverse-squared relationship.
There is no mention of mass in the question above. Still waiting for just
one of those 'many, many cases' that don't exist.

BTW, don't worry about embarrassing me - feel free to point oout this
non-existent glaring error in my original sphere model. Do that, and I will
post up a mathematical proof of why gravity cannot be explained by gravitons
arising from the vacuum.

You cannot just wave your hands and say 'yeah, I'll let the vacuum push
matter around, but only in such a way that it matches what we observe'.
The postulated field has to match reality, and his theory simply
doesn't.

Sure it does. Who's waving their hands around, again?

Troll. No-one is this stupid.

So, why not answer the question? You demanded that:

"any theory _must_ be based on an inverse-squared relationship or have an
inverse-squared relationship emerge as a necessary consequence of the
theory parameters."

Is that how it happened, Rob? Well, is it? Why skip that particular
question?

Newton proposed that all masses attract all other masses. He found that to
account for known observations the force had to be proportional to the
inverse square of the distance between masses. So his parameter (distance
squared) was adjusted to fit in with observation. Gravitational theory now
encompasses the effects of high speed (relativistic effects) and mass-energy
equivalence. If these effects are taken into account, as they must be, then
the effect of gravity has been shown to conform to an inverse squared
relationship within experimental error for all experiments so far.

Any new theory must conform to this inverse-square law, or predict
deviations that can be experimentally verified. The basic postulate of your
theory - that the space warping gravitons arise symmetrically from vacuum -
does not predict an inverse square relationship and in fact is inconsistent
with such a relationship. And is therefore wrong.

If this is not a fair summary of your postulate, feel free to correct it.

And, yes I do believe you are a troll. Because "No-one" *could* be this
stupid.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The inverse square law of gravity
    ... > inverse square law was really the inverse square .0643 or something law of ... > I think the inverse square law is accurate and not a convenient ... orbit did not quite match the predictions of Newtonian gravity (its ... pulsar systems, geodetic precession of the Earth-Moon system, etc.), ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Slabinski and Mingst/Stowe disagree in Pushing Gravity
    ... >>> inverse square law, but it also leads to heating rates that ... >> This thread only concerns gravity and I believe you know it's well ... Do you really dispute that fluid sink models yield the ... >>> the realm of direct human experience. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: is perpetual motion possible ?
    ... Provide one single case where gravity deviates from an inverse ... Why not answer the question I asked, Rob? ... interaction with gravitational fields follows an inverse-square law. ... inverse square of the distance between masses. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Lagrange Points
    ... >>Gravity, electrostatic and magnetic fields exert forces spatially by ... > The simple reason is that it's opposite charges that attract: ... inverse square, that means the strong is not a FORCE. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Lagrange Points
    ... >>Gravity, electrostatic and magnetic fields exert forces spatially by ... > The simple reason is that it's opposite charges that attract: ... inverse square, that means the strong is not a FORCE. ...
    (sci.astro)