[cut]
Please
[cut]

You didn't answer the question, genious.


Keep running, tax-hog.

I see your are envious that I enjoy my job and get paid for it. You are
stuck being a crank... which does not pay very well I bet.

I want a refund.

JS

[cut]
Yep.
[cut]

http://groups.google.com.au/groups?q...g.google .com

JS

"John Schoenfeld" wrote in message
om...
[cut]
Please
[cut]

You didn't answer the question, genious.


Keep running, tax-hog.

I see your are envious that I enjoy my job and get paid for it. You are
stuck being a crank... which does not pay very well I bet.

I want a refund.


They don't make denominations that small. *smirk*

For a simple logical explanation of the gravitational force see the third of
my Selected Papers titled: Foundations for Proposed Unified Field Theory
under the subheading of: The Gravitational Force. See:
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek

In summary, every body or mass emits gravitons (all-penetrating rapidly
spinning photons) equally in all directions. This results in a
back-pressure which pushes the body together from all directions, since
action equals reaction. The larger the mass, the larger its total graviton
emission and the larger the gravitational pressure that squeezes the body
together.

Consequently, when we cut a body in two, the two halves are pushed back
together.
As we move the two halves further apart, each half begins to emit its
gravitons more evenly
in all directions. As a result the gravitational attraction (the force that
pushes the two body halves together) between the two half-bodies decreases
as per the inverse of the square of the distance between them. (1/r^2)

Enjoy, Len.
.................................................. ........

"Daniel Weston" wrote in message
...
To Ensle: If our present understanding of gravity is flawed, do you
have any suggestions as to what a better understanding would be?

.................................................. ............

(John Schoenfeld) wrote:


Dark Energy and Dark Matter is the by-product of desperate frauds and
financiers fleeting hopes for return on investment.


"Dark matter" could be an illusion that has arisen due to
misapplication of Newton's law of gravity and/or the General
Relativity theory of gravity. These theories have been confirmed to
work for spherically symmetrical distributions of matter such as the
sun, moons and planets of our solar system, but so far as I know they
have not been confirmed to work for entities such as spiral galaxies,
in which the distribution of matter is not spherically symmetrical.

The assumption that these theories work for spiral galaxies, leads to
the problem that the galaxies seem to have stronger gravitational
fields than the theories predict. A scientific response to this
problem would be to consider two possibilities:
1) The theories do not give the right results in such situations, or
2) To allow the theories to predict the right amount of gravity, we
should assume that some extra unseen matter exists (ie "dark matter").

Which possibility is the most likely?

A year ago I would have voted for dark matter, however recently I have
been reading about gravity experiments that suggest that Newton's law
might after all only be accurate for spherical distributions of
matter. If that is the case, then the General Relativity theory of
gravity might suffer from a similar limitation.

The following mention some of these experiments.

"Quantum Foam, Gravity and Gravitational waves" (See Page 20)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0312082

"New Measurements of G Deepen Uncertainties About its Value"
http://www.aps.org/apsnews/articles/11222.html

"THE GRAVITATIONAL "CONSTANT" IS NOT!"
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf017/sf017p10.htm

"Experimental Evidence that the Gravitational Constant Varies with
Orientation."
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0202058


Regarding dark energy, what has actually been discovered is that the
universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. This cannot be
explained by General Relativity without providing it with an extra
ingredient, so the concept of "dark energy" has been invented for this
purpose.

However, the following paper is able to explain the accelerating rate
of expansion of the universe without resorting to the hypothesis of
"dark energy".

"Process Physics" (See Page 35.)
http://www.ctr4process.org/publicati...pps_cahill.pdf

With Process Physics there is no need for dark matter or dark energy.
This could make it into a very useful alternative theory.


Regards,
Peter

"Mu-Pi" wrote in message ...
"John Schoenfeld" wrote in message
om...
[cut]
Please
[cut]

You didn't answer the question, genious.


Keep running, tax-hog.

I see your are envious that I enjoy my job and get paid for it. You are
stuck being a crank... which does not pay very well I bet.

I want a refund.


They don't make denominations that small. *smirk*

Bye.

JS

Peter no.spam@please wrote:
(John Schoenfeld) wrote:


Dark Energy and Dark Matter is the by-product of desperate frauds and
financiers fleeting hopes for return on investment.


"Dark matter" could be an illusion that has arisen due to
misapplication of Newton's law of gravity and/or the General
Relativity theory of gravity. These theories have been confirmed to
work for spherically symmetrical distributions of matter such as the
sun, moons and planets of our solar system, but so far as I know they
have not been confirmed to work for entities such as spiral galaxies,
in which the distribution of matter is not spherically symmetrical.

The assumption that these theories work for spiral galaxies, leads to
the problem that the galaxies seem to have stronger gravitational
fields than the theories predict. A scientific response to this
problem would be to consider two possibilities:
1) The theories do not give the right results in such situations, or
2) To allow the theories to predict the right amount of gravity, we
should assume that some extra unseen matter exists (ie "dark matter").

Which possibility is the most likely?

I'd guess 2) in which I emphasize that this "dark matter" is nothing
else than ordinary mass, may be not shining "dust". What covers the
visibility of the centre of our galaxy ? This "dust cloud" has the
position which makes the radial velocity greater outside, and lower
within this position, as observed.

[snip]
"THE GRAVITATIONAL "CONSTANT" IS NOT!"
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf017/sf017p10.htm

I have practically calculated with it
http://home.t-online.de/home/Ulrich.Bruchholz/
It is a simple conversion factor, and so really constant.
Evidence is given by the results which let see known particle numbers.

"Experimental Evidence that the Gravitational Constant Varies with
Orientation."
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0202058

Huh ? A constant does not vary per definitionem.
What has the experimentator seen ?

Regarding dark energy, what has actually been discovered is that the
universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. This cannot be
explained by General Relativity without providing it with an extra
ingredient, so the concept of "dark energy" has been invented for this
purpose.

The "extra ingredient" is a positive constant curvature. That has nothing
to do with energy.

Ulrich