greywolf42 wrote in message news:...
wrote in message
...
Paul Stowe wrote:

[...]

In a parallel thread (Georges Louis Le Sage -Pushing Gravity), Steve stated:

If you want to show me where my back-of-the-envelope calculation is
drastically wrong, I'd be glad to listen.

OK, I will do so once again. Some of these errors were pointed out to you
before, but you simply snipped them.

What about Jupiter? Here, and here alone in the Solar System, the
aberrational acceleration can be expressed, approximately, in terms
of Jupiter's and the Sun's properties only:
aa_J = G^{3/2}(m_J)(m_s)^{1/2}/cr^{5/2}
as I derived above.

Saturn's effect on the Solar system barycenter is only a factor of 4
(3.95) less than Jupiter's. Saturn's effect is not negligible, if
Jupiter's effect is not negligible. If Saturn is coupled to Jupiter's
effect, then Jupiter is coupled to Saturn's effect.

Here we also need to know something about the
acceleration due to drag. The relevant features a
1. It can't depend explicitly on properties of the Sun. After
all, the drag will be the same whether Jupiter's velocity is
due to the Sun's gravity or due to attached rockets.

True, but highly muddled. Simply state that the Solar system's barycenter
will be at rest in the medium (as a starting assumption).

2. It must be proportional to Jupiter's mass m_J. Otherwise, a
LeSagean model won't reproduce the mass dependence required
to get Newtonian gravity.

Incorrect. Perhaps you should actually learn something about LeSagian
gravity. The acceleration due to LeSagian (Feynman) drag is independent
of the mass of the object. This is a direct result of the derivation of
Newtonian gravity from a LeSage mechanism.

This is the specific argument that Steve 'fixed' in a later post. Here is
Steve's fix:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Whoops! In item 2, the *force* has to be proportional to m_J, so
the acceleration is independent. That means
ad_J = K(v_J)/c = KG^{1/2}(m_s)^{1/2}/cr^{1/2}
where K is a constant independent of any properties of the Sun or
Jupiter.

Now, balancing aberration and drag gives
r = (Gm_J/k)^{1/2}
All the objections of my first post go through unchanged, though:
this prediction is contradicted by observations of Jupiter-mass
planets around other stars at very different values of r, and
by the fact that double-star systems show no such relation.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Quite simply, no matter what the value calculated by Steve, he is going to
object that his (admittedly simple) calculation shows only a single balance
point when you consider only tangential aberrative force and tangential drag
force.

But that setup is a straw man. All those 'calculations' just muddy the
water. For orbital dynamics is not as simple as Steve's model.

3. It must be proportional to v_J/c, since this is the ratio of
fluxes of LeSagean particles.

This part of your equation is correct -- where 'c' is the average speed of
the corpuscles.

Note: 'c' is not generally the speed of light in the above equation, and
there is a modifying factor. But it is approximately linear with orbital
speed.

Hence the drag acceleration ad_J is
ad_J = k(m_J)(v_J)/c
where k is a constant independent of any properties of the Sun or
Jupiter. Again using the Newtonian relation v_J = (Gm_s/r)^{1/2},
we find that
ad_J = kG^{1/2}(m_J)(m_s)^{1/2}/cr^{1/2}

Comparing aa_J and ad_J, we see that it may be possible to balance
them -- depending on the value of k -- but only at one radius,
r = (G/k)^{1/2}
Note that this radius is independent of m_s and m_J. So if one
could tune the theory to give the right orbit for Jupiter, the
prediction would be that a large planet orbiting any other star
would be at the same radius. This is contradicted by observations
of such planets around other stars at vastly different distances
from the star.

But your back-of-the-envelope equation is incorrect, because you assumed a
property that does not exist for the actual "Feynman" drag in a LeSagian
theory.

Steve has not properly modelled the aberrational relationships for bodies of
differing mass. In fact, he hasn't actually modelled anything. His
starting point is nothing more than three handwaving assumptions about the
acceleration (force) that he presumes will result from a LeSagian system:
"1. It can't depend explicitly on properties of the Sun."
"2. It must be proportional to Jupiter's mass m_J."
(later changed to "independent of mass m_J")
"3. It must be proportional to v_J/c."

If Steve had simply sat down and actually modelled a general gravitational
system, between masses m and M, orbiting their common center of mass, he
would have found that all three of his (original) assumptions were incorrect
to varying degrees.

A basic geometrical evaluation of the effect of the delay due to propagation
shows that there are several competing effects in the aberrative forces:

1. The total gravitational 'force' is offset from a line through the center
of mass by the angle 'alpha'. This may be broken down into a 'central'
force and a tangential 'aberrative' force.

2. The distance travelled by the gravitating force from the 'source' to the
'target' body is shorter than the orbital diameter. This results in an
increased inward force that tends to counteract the offset.

If you actually perform the analysis (including the orbits about the common
center of mass), I believe you will find that the general aberrative angle
is given (where m = M by convention) by:

alpha = sqrt[2 - delta(1+m/M) + ((m/M)^2 -1)/(delta(1+m/M))]

where delta is the distance reduction factor (mentioned in #2, above):
delta = 1 / sqrt[1 + m/M (v/v_g)^2]

For the case m = M, this reduces to the 'popular' and simpler aberration
equation:

alpha = v / v_g

However, for cases where m M, the aberration angle is further reduced by
roughly the ratio of the masses of the bodies. (This results
straightforwardly from the reduced moment arm affecting the more massive
body.) In the case of Jupiter, your numbers are off by a factor of roughly
m_J / m_S.

But this is the 'hard' way. Beckmann approaches the problem much more
elegantly in "Einstein Plus Two." Now that I've shown you additional errors
in your approach, I recommend you crack the book. If only to see the
competing arguments.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

"greywolf42" wrote in message ...

[snip]

But this is the 'hard' way. Beckmann approaches the problem much more
elegantly in "Einstein Plus Two."

Beckman was an idiot and his book was a complete failure.
And so are you.



Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel wrote in
message ...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

[snip]

But this is the 'hard' way. Beckmann approaches the problem much more
elegantly in "Einstein Plus Two."

Beckman was an idiot and his book was a complete failure.
And so are you.



As usual, Dinky provides no physics ... only slime. Those posts were
answered quite sufficiently, thanks. Just like the last time Dinky made this
false claim.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vh....supernews.com

But because there were no 'direct connects', Dinky charged that they had not
been answered. So we went through the process again.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=6f...0posting .goo
gle.com

"Jeff continues to claim that specific derivation steps are 'wrong.' But he
either can't or won't provide what is 'right' for that specific step."

When the Relativists ran and hid, (and wouldn't respond to repeated requests
to back up their claims) cheerleader Dinky provided his usual effort:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com

Still not willing to post any physics? Still not willing to take those
bets?

Bye, coward.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

"greywolf42" wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote in
message ...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

[snip]

But this is the 'hard' way. Beckmann approaches the problem much more
elegantly in "Einstein Plus Two."

Beckman was an idiot and his book was a complete failure.
And so are you.



As usual, Dinky provides no physics ... only slime. Those posts were
answered quite sufficiently, thanks.

Answered?
They were both dead ends and they both marked *your* death.
You tried to smokescreen them under the carpet with
smokescreen #1
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m

More smokescreen tactics:
#13 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.c om
#12 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#11 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#10 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...ing.google.com
#9 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#8 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#7 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#6 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#5 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#4 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#3 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#2 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#1 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m

Dirk Vdm

On Fri, 21 May 2004 17:53:26 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"greywolf42" wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote in
message ...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

[snip]

But this is the 'hard' way. Beckmann approaches the problem much more
elegantly in "Einstein Plus Two."

Beckman was an idiot and his book was a complete failure.
And so are you.



As usual, Dinky provides no physics ... only slime. Those posts were
answered quite sufficiently, thanks.

Answered?
They were both dead ends and they both marked *your* death.
You tried to smokescreen them under the carpet with
smokescreen #1
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m

More smokescreen tactics:
#13 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.c om
#12 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#11 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#10 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...ing.google.com
#9 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#8 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#7 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#6 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#5 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#4 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#3 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#2 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#1 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m

And your technical contribution to any of these discussions is what Dickhead?

Talk about smokescreens... I don't think you've EVER had an original thought!

Talk about a shallow individual..., you're the poster child!

Paul Stowe

Dirk Van de moortel wrote in
message ...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote
in
message ...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

[snip]

But this is the 'hard' way. Beckmann approaches the problem much
more
elegantly in "Einstein Plus Two."

Beckman was an idiot and his book was a complete failure.
And so are you.





As usual, Dinky provides no physics ... only slime. Those posts were
answered quite sufficiently, thanks.

Answered?
They were both dead ends and they both marked *your* death.

Yes, Dinky, you pathetic whining coward. They were answered, just like the
last time. This time you applied the invisible snip and run; deleting the
links that remind you where they were answered. And the last time you
frothed at the mouth.

====================
As usual, Dinky provides no physics ... only slime. Those posts were
answered quite sufficiently, thanks. Just like the last time Dinky made this
false claim.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vh....supernews.com

But because there were no 'direct connects', Dinky charged that they had not
been answered. So we went through the process again.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=6f...0posting .goo
gle.com

"Jeff continues to claim that specific derivation steps are 'wrong.' But he
either can't or won't provide what is 'right' for that specific step."

When the Relativists ran and hid, (and wouldn't respond to repeated requests
to back up their claims) cheerleader Dinky provided his usual effort:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com
====================

The issues in both those posts were already answered in parallel posts.
Physics is not a game of 'last tag.'

{snip the tired, pathetic allusions to smokescreens}

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message news
On Fri, 21 May 2004 17:53:26 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"greywolf42" wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote in
message ...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

[snip]

But this is the 'hard' way. Beckmann approaches the problem much more
elegantly in "Einstein Plus Two."

Beckman was an idiot and his book was a complete failure.
And so are you.



As usual, Dinky provides no physics ... only slime. Those posts were
answered quite sufficiently, thanks.

Answered?
They were both dead ends and they both marked *your* death.
You tried to smokescreen them under the carpet with
smokescreen #1
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m

More smokescreen tactics:
#13 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.c om
#12 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#11 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#10 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...ing.google.com
#9 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#8 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#7 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#6 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#5 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#4 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#3 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#2 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#1 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m

And your technical contribution to any of these discussions is what Dickhead?

Talk about smokescreens... I don't think you've EVER had an original thought!

Talk about a shallow individual..., you're the poster child!

Guess:
What do Petr Beckmann, Barry Mingst, Ken Seto, and Paul Stowe
have in common?

Dirk Vdm

On Sat, 22 May 2004 10:38:57 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"Paul Stowe" wrote in message news
On Fri, 21 May 2004 17:53:26 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"greywolf42" wrote in message ...

[Snip...]

And your technical contribution to any of these discussions is what Dickhead?

Talk about smokescreens... I don't think you've EVER had an original thought!

Talk about a shallow individual..., you're the poster child!

Guess:
What do Petr Beckmann, Barry Mingst, Ken Seto, and Paul Stowe have in common?

Each has demonstrated the ability to do 'original thinking'.
Each does (did) not make fun of others.
Each did not troll the newsgroups posting purely contentless insults.

and oh yeah,

Each has infinitely more class and social manners than Dickhead!

That should be enough for a start.

Paul Stowe

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 22 May 2004 10:38:57 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"Paul Stowe" wrote in message news
On Fri, 21 May 2004 17:53:26 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"greywolf42" wrote in message ...

[Snip...]

And your technical contribution to any of these discussions is what Dickhead?

Talk about smokescreens... I don't think you've EVER had an original thought!

Talk about a shallow individual..., you're the poster child!

Guess:
What do Petr Beckmann, Barry Mingst, Ken Seto, and Paul Stowe have in common?

Each has demonstrated the ability to do 'original thinking'.

Indeed. 1 point

Each does (did) not make fun of others.

Indeed again. 1 more point

Each did not troll the newsgroups posting purely contentless insults.

Indeed again again. 1 more point.


and oh yeah,

Each has infinitely more class and social manners than Dickhead!

Indeed again again again. 1 more point.


That should be enough for a start.

4 points.
Well done.
Any other takers?

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
...

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 22 May 2004 10:38:57 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"Paul Stowe" wrote in message news On Fri, 21 May 2004 17:53:26 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"greywolf42" wrote in message ...

[Snip...]

And your technical contribution to any of these discussions is what Dickhead?

Talk about smokescreens... I don't think you've EVER had an original thought!

Talk about a shallow individual..., you're the poster child!

Guess:
What do Petr Beckmann, Barry Mingst, Ken Seto, and Paul Stowe have in common?

Each has demonstrated the ability to do 'original thinking'.

Indeed. 1 point

Each does (did) not make fun of others.

On second thought... if we look at
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=au...greywolf42+LOL
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=au...hor%3Aseto+LOL
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=au...3Aseto+ROTFLOL
I have to undo that point. Sorry.


Indeed again. 1 more point

Each did not troll the newsgroups posting purely contentless insults.

Indeed again again. 1 more point.

And on the same second thought... if we look at
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=au...r+and+die%2 2
and at
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...les/Avoid.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...s/YouLiar.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...eliberate.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../BoldFace.html
that's another point to be undone.



and oh yeah,

Each has infinitely more class and social manners than Dickhead!

Indeed again again again. 1 more point.

And another point on yet the same thought. Sorry.

You Paul, you seem to be the only decent person of us all.
But you have only 1 point.

Dirk Vdm