On Sat, 29 May 2004 "greywolf42" wrote:
in the books I've seen. The 'aberration angle' is given as simply 'v/c'.

Which books are those?

The aberration angle for a theory of the kind you are talking about
is obviously (m/M)*(v/v_g). Even with this factor, the aberration is still
far too great to be compatible with the observed stability of Jupiter's
orbit (unless v_g is many orders of magnitude greater than the speed
of light, in which case the planet is vaporized).
Reference, please.

Halliday and Resnik, "Physics", 1978.

The aberration effect can be offset by ultra-mundane drag, but only
at one orbital radius, sqrt(m/(k v_g), for a given mass m. This conflicts
with observation.
How?

It implies that long-term stability of orbiting two-body systems is
impossible except with m/r^2 equal to a universal constant, whereas
among the billions of binary star systems in the galaxy (about half of
all stars are binaries) we find systems with a wide range of values of
m/r^2. These observations cover thousands of light years (both
distance and time), and show no trends that would indicate the orbits
are unstable to the degree that would be implied by a Lesagean model.

Rod Lassiter wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 May 2004 "greywolf42" wrote:
in the books I've seen. The 'aberration angle' is given as simply
'v/c'.

Which books are those?

The aberration angle for a theory of the kind you are talking about
is obviously (m/M)*(v/v_g). Even with this factor, the aberration is
still
far too great to be compatible with the observed stability of
Jupiter's
orbit (unless v_g is many orders of magnitude greater than the speed
of light, in which case the planet is vaporized).
Reference, please.

Halliday and Resnik, "Physics", 1978.

Page number or section number for the derivation? I'm sure I could find it,
but I'm trying to encourage proper citing in the NG. (I'm assuming the
derivation exists in H&R?)

The aberration effect can be offset by ultra-mundane drag, but only
at one orbital radius, sqrt(m/(k v_g), for a given mass m. This
conflicts
with observation.
How?

It implies that long-term stability of orbiting two-body systems is
impossible except with m/r^2 equal to a universal constant, whereas
among the billions of binary star systems in the galaxy (about half of
all stars are binaries) we find systems with a wide range of values of
m/r^2. These observations cover thousands of light years (both
distance and time), and show no trends that would indicate the orbits
are unstable to the degree that would be implied by a Lesagean model.

You are claiming worlds beyond your simple little balance point equation.
All you can safely conclude is that if you look only at tangential
aberration force and tangential drag force for a perfectly circular orbit,
at rest in a perfectly uniform aether, there is only one balance point.
Note the number of assumptions you have built in (probably without being
aware of them).

I'm doing this one step at a time. You see, Steve has been trumpeting that
there are *NO* possible balance points in LeSagian gravity for years. He
either asserts planets will spiral in (due to drag -- like his latest
effort), or asserts that planets will spiral out due to aberration. It
depends on what argument he tries to avoid.

At the moment, I'm attempting to point out that when one focuses on only one
issue in a complex subject (and orbital dynamics is complex and not always
intuitive), one cannot make general claims about the stability of the
system.

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

On Sat, 29 May 2004 20:40:10 GMT, (Rod Lassiter) wrote:

On Sat, 29 May 2004 Paul Stowe wrote:
Rod Lassiter wrote:
The aberration angle for a theory of the kind you are talking about
is obviously (m/M)*(v/v_g)... The aberration effect can be offset by
ultra-mundane drag, but only at one orbital radius, sqrt(m/(k v_g),
for a given mass m. This conflicts with observation.

then we simplify the above to r = Sqrt(um) and the radius r is
uniquely different for each mass m.

That's what I said. (Is there an echo in here?) In other words, if
you try to offset the aberration with drag, it works only for one
orbital radius for a given mass. This conflicts with observation.

This simply assumption does, yes. However, if in the above v drag
does NOT equal v orbital speed the solution is invalid. Moreover,
we're talking about a simply two body system and perfectly circular
orbits.

We note that no speed, either c or v is present...

The constant that you call "u" is equal to the constant that I called
1/(k v_g). Understand?

Not really, since this is the first mention I've seen. Further, the
concept and term 'mass attenuation coefficient' (u) is pretty
standard, as is the term total 'linear attenuation coefficient'. What
is k? It would appear to be density-time, kg-sec/m^3. Or perhaps,
density per interation rate collisions/sec?

Since this is a constant, the balance between aberration and drag works
for only one radius for any given mass, in conflict with observation.

...the aberration is still far too great to be compatible with the
observed stability of Jupiter's orbit (unless v_g is many orders of
magnitude greater than the speed of light, ...

Why?

The aberration effect with v_g = c is large enough to produce
noticeable instabilities in the planetary orbits. Laplace computed
that v_g would need to be about 7 million times the velocity of light
in order to give the observed stability, and this estimate has been
greatly increased since then.

I know what Laplace computed. I also know that this problem exists in
Coulombic interactions due to the same problem of retarded potential.
I also know we don't see the problem manifested in charge interactions
& why. You're trying to 'debunk' based upon simplistic assumptions.
I'll ask the rather obvious question, if you're right won't this violate
Noether's theorem?

For certain orbital radii and masses you could offset the effect with
drag, but this conflicts with the existence of stable orbits for
different masses at the same radii.

That depends upon the total system dynamics and mutual interactions
or are you claiming that multi-body systems have no such effects upon
one another?

in which case the planet is vaporized).

Why?

The amount of energy conveyed by a particle is (mv^2)/2 and its
momentum is mv, ...

For a simple two body problem yes. But we're not talking about a
simple two body problem here.

so for a given amount of momentum conveyed to a planet the amount
of energy to be absorbed goes up in proportion to v_g.

Is it not dE o mv(dv). If v increases then the coresponding dv would
decrease for a given fixed dE. Thus, a transfer of dE to a material
mass m' to change it by dv' (that's the energy transfered to the
Planet).

Thus with dv' is constant. Then,

mv(dv) = m'v'(dv')

If we fix the right side (necessary to maintain an equal potential) and
then increase v, as v - oo, dv - 0 but v' & dv' remains unchanged.
Does this not imply that the absorbed energy is not affected by the
speed v for any given defined potential?

If v_g is set high enough to avoid the aberration (and drag) problems,
it is high enough to vaporize the planet. (Thomson's idea of having
the excess energy absorbed by the ultra-mundane particles has long
since been debunked.)

Can I have a reference to this? Web based would be best but, either
way, I'd like to find it.

...let's forget about LeSagian vector potential for the moment...

Yes. In fact, let's forget about it permanently, since there's no
such thing.

I respectfully disagree.

But, there's the problem of field 'back-action' spin-up
resulting from the circular orbital condition. This acts
to reduce the ultra-mundane drag...

No, the most basic necessity of a Lesage model is that the ultra-mundane
particles have almost infinite mean free path lengths,

No, that's not true. What is needed is a very small linear attenuation
coefficient (thus large MFP). Big difference. Don't confuse
attenuation coefficient with interaction coefficient. They are totally
different animals.

... i.e., they do not interact with each other, ...

Why this constraint??? When all that is needed is that the conceptual
momentum vector lines, devoid of material interactions, remain coherrent.

...so there is no way for the field of particles to be "spun up" like
a fluid whose particles are all interacting with each other.

If they have a non-zero physical cross-section they MUST have an
equally non-zero interaction cross-section. The MFP will then be
dependent upon the particle density & mean speed. This is physical
constraint not open to conceptualizing away. If on the other hand
they have a zero physical cross-section there can be NO attentuation
interactions and the LeSage concept ceases to exist... These are
mutually exclusive conditions. IOW, if you assume LeSage theory you
also assume self interaction of the particles cons.

Also, another pre-requisite for a Lesage model is that ordinary matter
is virtually transparent to the ultra-mundane particles, so the passage
of a planet through the field can have no significant effect on the
agregate field (even if the field particles did interact - which they
don't).

In 'relative' linear motion, agreed. In closed circular motion (a
repeating cycle), over long periods, I disagree, see above.

Furthermore, the requirement to minimize drag implies that v_g is very
much greater than the speed of the planets, so on the time scale of the
ultra-mundane particles the planets are virtually stationary. Any
one of these reasons, by itself, would be adequate to ensure that
there is no appreciable "spin up" of the radiation field. Considering
all of them together, the idea of "spinning up" the radiation field is
so idiotic that no one with even a marginal competence for rational
thought could possibly take it seriously.

Well there's the problem. If no-one 'seriously' evaluates these conditions
they cannot knowledgable say for sure, can they? For example, assuming
that v_g c is just that, an assumption. Yes, it can solve both drag
and aberration, it also does NOT result in planetary vaporization. Dr.
Van Flandern champions this idea. I prefer this v_g is to be on the order
of c. I have developed the drag equation that precisely matches the
observed Pioneer drag. The same value for u leads to a match on the
excess thermal emissions of the Planetary bodies. This is based on
v_g = c.

Not an easily solved problem, eh?

To the contrary, it's quite easily solved... by anyone with the
ability to think rationally. Debunking Lesage theories is not
difficult. It's recreational physics.

Your unobjective bias is showing Get scientific, be objective, do
not approach the problem at the onset as 'it can't be', 'don't try to
debate it with me, my mind is made up'.

Paul Stowe

greywolf42 wrote in message
...
Rod Lassiter wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 May 2004 "greywolf42" wrote:
in the books I've seen. The 'aberration angle' is given as simply
'v/c'.

Which books are those?

The aberration angle for a theory of the kind you are talking about
is obviously (m/M)*(v/v_g). Even with this factor, the aberration
is
still
far too great to be compatible with the observed stability of
Jupiter's
orbit (unless v_g is many orders of magnitude greater than the speed
of light, in which case the planet is vaporized).
Reference, please.

Halliday and Resnik, "Physics", 1978.

Page number or section number for the derivation? I'm sure I could find
it,
but I'm trying to encourage proper citing in the NG. (I'm assuming the
derivation exists in H&R?)

Couldn't find it in the 1966 version (which is the only one UC Davis has).
There *was* something on the Earth's self-gravitation. But nothing on
aberration. Could you kindly provide the section number, or scan the
section for me?

Or at least verify that the derivation (not just the result) is contained in
the book?

The aberration effect can be offset by ultra-mundane drag, but only
at one orbital radius, sqrt(m/(k v_g), for a given mass m. This
conflicts
with observation.
How?

It implies that long-term stability of orbiting two-body systems is
impossible except with m/r^2 equal to a universal constant, whereas
among the billions of binary star systems in the galaxy (about half of
all stars are binaries) we find systems with a wide range of values of
m/r^2. These observations cover thousands of light years (both
distance and time), and show no trends that would indicate the orbits
are unstable to the degree that would be implied by a Lesagean model.

You are claiming worlds beyond your simple little balance point equation.
All you can safely conclude is that if you look only at tangential
aberration force and tangential drag force for a perfectly circular orbit,
at rest in a perfectly uniform aether, there is only one balance point.
Note the number of assumptions you have built in (probably without being
aware of them).

I'm doing this one step at a time. You see, Steve has been trumpeting
that
there are *NO* possible balance points in LeSagian gravity for years. He
either asserts planets will spiral in (due to drag -- like his latest
effort), or asserts that planets will spiral out due to aberration. It
depends on what argument he tries to avoid.

At the moment, I'm attempting to point out that when one focuses on only
one
issue in a complex subject (and orbital dynamics is complex and not always
intuitive), one cannot make general claims about the stability of the
system.

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

On Sun, 30 May 2004 22:30:17 GMT, Paul Stowe
wrote:

On Sat, 29 May 2004 20:40:10 GMT, (Rod Lassiter) wrote:

On Sat, 29 May 2004 Paul Stowe wrote:
Rod Lassiter wrote:
The aberration angle for a theory of the kind you are talking about
is obviously (m/M)*(v/v_g)... The aberration effect can be offset by
ultra-mundane drag, but only at one orbital radius, sqrt(m/(k v_g),
for a given mass m. This conflicts with observation.

then we simplify the above to r = Sqrt(um) and the radius r is
uniquely different for each mass m.

That's what I said. (Is there an echo in here?) In other words, if
you try to offset the aberration with drag, it works only for one
orbital radius for a given mass. This conflicts with observation.

This simply assumption does, yes. However, if in the above v drag
does NOT equal v orbital speed the solution is invalid. Moreover,
we're talking about a simply two body system and perfectly circular
orbits.

We note that no speed, either c or v is present...

The constant that you call "u" is equal to the constant that I called
1/(k v_g). Understand?

Not really, since this is the first mention I've seen. Further, the
concept and term 'mass attenuation coefficient' (u) is pretty
standard, as is the term total 'linear attenuation coefficient'. What
is k? It would appear to be density-time, kg-sec/m^3. Or perhaps,
density per interation rate collisions/sec?

Since this is a constant, the balance between aberration and drag works
for only one radius for any given mass, in conflict with observation.

...the aberration is still far too great to be compatible with the
observed stability of Jupiter's orbit (unless v_g is many orders of
magnitude greater than the speed of light, ...

Why?

The aberration effect with v_g = c is large enough to produce
noticeable instabilities in the planetary orbits. Laplace computed
that v_g would need to be about 7 million times the velocity of light
in order to give the observed stability, and this estimate has been
greatly increased since then.

I know what Laplace computed. I also know that this problem exists in
Coulombic interactions due to the same problem of retarded potential.
I also know we don't see the problem manifested in charge interactions
& why. You're trying to 'debunk' based upon simplistic assumptions.
I'll ask the rather obvious question, if you're right won't this violate
Noether's theorem?

For certain orbital radii and masses you could offset the effect with
drag, but this conflicts with the existence of stable orbits for
different masses at the same radii.

That depends upon the total system dynamics and mutual interactions
or are you claiming that multi-body systems have no such effects upon
one another?

in which case the planet is vaporized).

Why?

The amount of energy conveyed by a particle is (mv^2)/2 and its
momentum is mv, ...

For a simple two body problem yes. But we're not talking about a
simple two body problem here.

so for a given amount of momentum conveyed to a planet the amount
of energy to be absorbed goes up in proportion to v_g.

Is it not dE o mv(dv). If v increases then the coresponding dv would
decrease for a given fixed dE. Thus, a transfer of dE to a material
mass m' to change it by dv' (that's the energy transfered to the
Planet).

Thus with dv' is constant. Then,

mv(dv) = m'v'(dv')

If we fix the right side (necessary to maintain an equal potential) and
then increase v, as v - oo, dv - 0 but v' & dv' remains unchanged.
Does this not imply that the absorbed energy is not affected by the
speed v for any given defined potential?

If v_g is set high enough to avoid the aberration (and drag) problems,
it is high enough to vaporize the planet. (Thomson's idea of having
the excess energy absorbed by the ultra-mundane particles has long
since been debunked.)

Can I have a reference to this? Web based would be best but, either
way, I'd like to find it.

...let's forget about LeSagian vector potential for the moment...

Yes. In fact, let's forget about it permanently, since there's no
such thing.

I respectfully disagree.

But, there's the problem of field 'back-action' spin-up
resulting from the circular orbital condition. This acts
to reduce the ultra-mundane drag...

No, the most basic necessity of a Lesage model is that the ultra-mundane
particles have almost infinite mean free path lengths,

No, that's not true. What is needed is a very small linear attenuation
coefficient (thus large MFP). Big difference. Don't confuse
attenuation coefficient with interaction coefficient. They are totally
different animals.

... i.e., they do not interact with each other, ...

Why this constraint??? When all that is needed is that the conceptual
momentum vector lines, devoid of material interactions, remain coherrent.

...so there is no way for the field of particles to be "spun up" like
a fluid whose particles are all interacting with each other.

If they have a non-zero physical cross-section they MUST have an
equally non-zero interaction cross-section. The MFP will then be
dependent upon the particle density & mean speed. This is physical
constraint not open to conceptualizing away. If on the other hand
they have a zero physical cross-section there can be NO attentuation
interactions and the LeSage concept ceases to exist... These are
mutually exclusive conditions. IOW, if you assume LeSage theory you
also assume self interaction of the particles cons.

Also, another pre-requisite for a Lesage model is that ordinary matter
is virtually transparent to the ultra-mundane particles, so the passage
of a planet through the field can have no significant effect on the
agregate field (even if the field particles did interact - which they
don't).

In 'relative' linear motion, agreed. In closed circular motion (a
repeating cycle), over long periods, I disagree, see above.

Furthermore, the requirement to minimize drag implies that v_g is very
much greater than the speed of the planets, so on the time scale of the
ultra-mundane particles the planets are virtually stationary. Any
one of these reasons, by itself, would be adequate to ensure that
there is no appreciable "spin up" of the radiation field. Considering
all of them together, the idea of "spinning up" the radiation field is
so idiotic that no one with even a marginal competence for rational
thought could possibly take it seriously.

Well there's the problem. If no-one 'seriously' evaluates these conditions
they cannot knowledgable say for sure, can they? For example, assuming
that v_g c is just that, an assumption. Yes, it can solve both drag
and aberration, it also does NOT result in planetary vaporization. Dr.
Van Flandern champions this idea. I prefer this v_g is to be on the order
of c. I have developed the drag equation that precisely matches the
observed Pioneer drag. The same value for u leads to a match on the
excess thermal emissions of the Planetary bodies. This is based on
v_g = c.

Not an easily solved problem, eh?

To the contrary, it's quite easily solved... by anyone with the
ability to think rationally. Debunking Lesage theories is not
difficult. It's recreational physics.

Your unobjective bias is showing Get scientific, be objective, do
not approach the problem at the onset as 'it can't be', 'don't try to
debate it with me, my mind is made up'.

Paul Stowe


No response? Yup, thought so...

Paul Stowe