Re: is perpetual motion possible ?


"Kyle T. Jones" <KBfoMe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g5ql1q$9ou$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Rob wrote:
"Kyle T. Jones" <KBfoMe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g5obu8$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.


Really? OK, show the calculation. Saying it don't make it true, Rob.
Here, I'll help you: the mass for each proton is zero. Have fun!

Proton? lol. For photons, momentum is the relevant property. And, as noted
above, the question is not whether they have mass, it is whether their
interaction with gravitational fields follows an inverse-square law.

"No mention of mass"? Jesus, Rob, just call it a day.

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.

Can't answer this, can you.

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.

Oh, really? So you aren't claiming that the inverse-squared law just
"emerged" from the theory?

No. Newtons wasn't a causative theory, it was descriptive.

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.


So, the postulate "gravitons arise from a vacuum" does not predict an
inverse square relationship... but the postulate "gravitons arise from
objects with mass" does? Yer so far out there, Rob... this is a
ridiculous criticism.

You claim the gravitons arise from vacuum. If this is the case, it is a
predictive theory as to the cause of gravity. Mathematical examination shows
the force does not follow an inverse square law. Postulating that they arise
from sentres of mass does, as ruy has already stated.

Hey, guess what? The gravitons interact with mass, and the effects of
that interaction follows the inverse-square rule of thumb.

Not possible by your model.

Cheers.

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

  • =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_There_is_no_=93pull=94_of_gravity=2C_only_the_PUSH?= =?windows-1252?Q
    ... Give a clear and concise definition of the Law of the ... Conservation of ENERGY. ... Nonzero work only requires that there is a nonzero net force acting on ... mechanism of gravity might be. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... do you actually know where Newton's law came from? ... Newton couldn't quantify the Aether, ... The problem with the geometrics showing up in GR is that gravity cannot ... You can do the experiment right now if you have a magnet and CRT. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: SR and GR without math
    ... |> Isn't Newton's law typically used as the _definition_ of gravitational ... |> The assertion that gravity in series add can be tested by combining the ... |> | definition of resistance can't be tested. ... | weight at the equator, it has an effect on GR's time contraction. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... do you actually know where Newton's law came from? ... Newton couldn't quantify the Aether, ... The problem with the geometrics showing up in GR is that gravity cannot ... You can do the experiment right now if you have a magnet and CRT. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... do you actually know where Newton's law came from? ... Newton couldn't quantify the Aether, ... The problem with the geometrics showing up in GR is that gravity cannot ... You can do the experiment right now if you have a magnet and CRT. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)