TC wrote:
wrote:
TC wrote:

.... I said that the inverse
square law is a good starting place for a model of gravity.
Stated
another way, if a model of gravity can be shown to account for
an
inverse square law force, then that model matches what is
observed,
to within limits.

Yes to within limits. But those limits were surpased over
a hundred years ago. Inverse square law matching is no longer
sufficient.

I think I'll stop here. You probably remember that there have been
discussions that an inverse cubed force actually matches
observation
better and can be predicted from a sink in a medium.

Actually I don't recall that. An inverse cubed law would make
predictions
wildly different from those observed.

It's hard to believe you argued with Dennis all those years and never
read his website:

http://hometown.aol.com/Dennis2020/grav.html

snip

Yes, ether theory ws falsified over 100 years ago.

Tom

Who is doing the handwaving now?

Vern

wrote:
TC wrote:

Actually I don't recall that. An inverse cubed law would make
predictions
wildly different from those observed.

It's hard to believe you argued with Dennis all those years and never
read his website:

There is only so much time in the day.

http://hometown.aol.com/Dennis2020/grav.html

I wish I had noticed that. It is another prediction of
Rado's theory that does not match observation.

snip

Yes, ether theory ws falsified over 100 years ago.

Who is doing the handwaving now?

Are you saying that the predictions of ether theory
were found to agree with experiment in 1886?

Tom

TC wrote:
wrote:
TC wrote:

Yes, ether theory ws falsified over 100 years ago.

Who is doing the handwaving now?

Are you saying that the predictions of ether theory
were found to agree with experiment in 1886?

Tom

Another issue already argued to death with no concession on your part.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...4d9ec50013d199

As Greywolf42 says, "Bye in this thread."

Vern

wrote:
TC wrote:

Yes, ether theory ws falsified over 100 years ago.

Who is doing the handwaving now?

Are you saying that the predictions of ether theory
were found to agree with experiment in 1886?

Another issue already argued to death with no concession on your
part.


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...4d9ec50013d199

As Greywolf42 says, "Bye in this thread."

I was going to let Vern have the last word, then I realized that he
had subtly implied that I am wrong, but stubbornly won't admit it.

Well the fact is that in 1885 believers in ether (everyone back then?)
expected the Michaelson Morely experiment to have positive results.

It did not. 20 years later an explanation was found that did not
require ad-hoc patches to ether theory, that did not even require
ether at all.

But some people like Vern still cling to the old theory.

Tom

wrote in message oups.com...
TC wrote:
wrote:
TC wrote:

Yes, ether theory ws falsified over 100 years ago.

Who is doing the handwaving now?

Are you saying that the predictions of ether theory
were found to agree with experiment in 1886?

Tom

Another issue already argued to death with no concession on your part.


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...4d9ec50013d199

I prefer this one:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...ollCorner.html


As Greywolf42 says, "Bye in this thread."

Yes, like
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...s/GoodBye.html

Dirk Vdm

"TC" wrote in message oups.com...
wrote:
TC wrote:

Yes, ether theory ws falsified over 100 years ago.

Who is doing the handwaving now?

Are you saying that the predictions of ether theory
were found to agree with experiment in 1886?

Another issue already argued to death with no concession on your
part.



http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...4d9ec50013d199

As Greywolf42 says, "Bye in this thread."

I was going to let Vern have the last word, then I realized that he
had subtly implied that I am wrong, but stubbornly won't admit it.

Well the fact is that in 1885 believers in ether (everyone back then?)
expected the Michaelson Morely experiment to have positive results.

It did not. 20 years later an explanation was found that did not
require ad-hoc patches to ether theory, that did not even require
ether at all.

But some people like Vern still cling to the old theory.

| "As to the ether (to return to it once more), though
| the conception of it has certain advantages, it must
| be admitted that if Einstein had maintained it he
| certainly would not have given us his theory, and so
| we are very grateful to him for not having gone along
| the old-fashioned roads."

Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, "Problems of Modern Physics; a
course of lectures delivered in the California Institute
of Technology," Edited by H. Bateman, _Ginn_, 1927.

Dirk Vdm

TC:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ity/browse_frm...

??? I was arguing with Dennis McCarthy who interprets Rado theory as
predicting a doubling of mass every 100 million years. This would
have enormous consequences that are not observed.

Dennis: This is false. In the very post that Tom Clarke quotes, I
write:

As I told you, I don't have a doubling time of 100 million years. So
please do not continue to repeat what you know to be a falsehood.

Here he repeats the falsehood -- and even
references the very post where I ask him to stop.

Dennis wrote:
TC:

??? I was arguing with Dennis McCarthy who interprets Rado theory as
predicting a doubling of mass every 100 million years. This would
have enormous consequences that are not observed.

Dennis: This is false. In the very post that Tom Clarke quotes, I
write:

As I told you, I don't have a doubling time of 100 million years.
So
please do not continue to repeat what you know to be a falsehood.

Here he repeats the falsehood -- and even
references the very post where I ask him to stop.

What doubling time do you think your interpretation of Rado's
theory entails? That exchange was too long ago. I don't recall
if you specified another figure. I searched a bit and found
that you did write: "I have never implied or suggested that the
mass of all objects double every 100,000,000 years.
It depends on the circumstance... "
What were the circumstances? I see I asked but you
never answered.

Or have you given up the idea that a rain of ether particles
increases the mass of gravitating bodies?

Tom

TC wrote:
Dennis wrote:
TC:

??? I was arguing with Dennis McCarthy who interprets Rado theory as
predicting a doubling of mass every 100 million years. This would
have enormous consequences that are not observed.

Dennis: This is false. In the very post that Tom Clarke quotes, I
write:

As I told you, I don't have a doubling time of 100 million years.
So
please do not continue to repeat what you know to be a falsehood.

Here he repeats the falsehood -- and even
references the very post where I ask him to stop.

Clarke:
What doubling time do you think your interpretation of Rado's
theory entails? That exchange was too long ago. I don't recall
if you specified another figure. I searched a bit and found
that you did write: "I have never implied or suggested that the
mass of all objects double every 100,000,000 years.
It depends on the circumstance... "
What were the circumstances? I see I asked but you
never answered.

Dennis: Depends on rate of mass expulsion -- particularly by
outgassings or with stars: solar wind. If rate of mass expulsion equals
the rate of mass intake (during gravitational flux of the ether-sink),
stability can be achieved.

Dennis wrote:
TC wrote:

??? I was arguing with Dennis McCarthy who interprets Rado theory as
predicting a doubling of mass every 100 million years. This would
have enormous consequences that are not observed.

Dennis: This is false. In the very post that Tom Clarke quotes, I
write:

As I told you, I don't have a doubling time of 100 million years.
So
please do not continue to repeat what you know to be a falsehood.

Here he repeats the falsehood -- and even
references the very post where I ask him to stop.

Clarke:
What doubling time do you think your interpretation of Rado's
theory entails? That exchange was too long ago. I don't recall
if you specified another figure. I searched a bit and found
that you did write: "I have never implied or suggested that the
mass of all objects double every 100,000,000 years.
It depends on the circumstance... "
What were the circumstances? I see I asked but you
never answered.

Dennis: Depends on rate of mass expulsion -- particularly by
outgassings or with stars: solar wind. If rate of mass expulsion equals
the rate of mass intake (during gravitational flux of the ether-sink),
stability can be achieved.

Since this looks to be a reiteration of that long ago argument,
as likely to go nowhere,
I'll just drop the thread.

Tom