True. However you are in error that Allard's work has ever been presented as being for spheres. Also the conversion to 3D issue has been discussed and it is my expectation that it is not a guess (although it must be formalized) since the ratio between the volume of a sphere and the area of a circle have a fixed ratio. The specific value and units change but the function should remain the same. Other than Allards work (and my hand summations using a protractor and ruler for 3 for 2D cases) only establish the bare inverse square function feature.
Billy T: If I were a professional fisherman specializing in Red Herrings I would have made a fortune by now from all the free ones. Like the whale said, "thanks for all the fish." Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Fluxon hits atom. Atom doesn't move. - Work = Force x - distance = energy absorbtion not energy expended.
I thought we agreed that this energy contributed to random motion within a star (i.e. thermal energy). Is the kinetic energy passed random motion or not?
Momentum=mass x velocity. Kinetic energy=1/2 mass x velocityEX2. When velocity=0, how does multiplication by 0 provide a nonzero result? :bugeye:
When your ass is sitting on a chair you have weight (force) because you are not moving with the net flux momentum differential between raw incoming downward vs upward attenuated flux after passing through the earth. Not confused.
An atom is just floating around minding its own business and not bothering anybody. By pure chance it happens to have no velocity with respect to a solid object under it. A fluxon comes along and knocks the atom DOWN into a solid object whereby the lattice of the solid object traps the sojourner atom with the lattice's electromagnetic forces ( business as usual in the microscopic world ). The very next moment another fluxon comes along and knocks the atom. But this time the atom DOES NOT MOVE? How in the whale can one fluxon make an atom move but the very next fluxon is just a will o the wisp?
I can pick up a bowling ball and throw it but my 2 year old granddaughter can lift on it but can't move it. That doesn't mean she didn't apply a lifting force. She just can't apply sufficnet force to overcome whatever is restraining it.
I loved to bowl and once had thirteen strtikes in a row. Unfortunately, they started halfway in one practice game and ended in the next. Lest we be sparring unnecessarily, my point is that any fluxon strike upon a gravitated particle, such as an atom, must result in a change of motion of the struck particle if momentum and kinetic energy are transfered. This is due to the basic physics definitions of momentum and kinetic energy. My position is that this changed motion could be simply harmonic motion of an atom in an atomic lattice in a solid object as well as atoms in a gas or liquid being flung about. Though I did not believe that you were using non-standard definitions of momentum and kinetic energy, and non-standard definitions of the manners in which physics presently considers that momentum and kinetic energy may be transfered from one body to another, I wanted to be absolutely sure that my understanding of you theory has not possibly been obscured by the numberless diversions and distractions which, in my humble ( ? ) opinion, have victimized this thread. Hence my persuit of obtaining your defining responses. Rather than possibly having the mistaken impression that you might have said that an atom might be struck by a fluxon and absorb kinetic energy without having a change in its motion, I wanted to hear from your own keyboard that you do subscribe to the standard definitions of bedrock basic Newtonian physics. At least, in respect to momentum and kinetic energy.
Agreed. Of the over 2,000 posts 1,975 have been off topic, personal insults, etc. I am pleased that after almost two years this past month there seems to be some interest in actually looking at the mathematics. Contrary to what has been alleged, should some actual proof be forth coming that UniKEF is inconsistant in some manner with observation or emperical data then it would become a dead issue.
My study of your theory has only very recently finally brought me to enough understanding to begin to do some math to begin to prove or disprove some facets. That is why I have been so persistent about some points: I do not want to get deeply into something and then discover my effort wasted because perhaps I did not correctly understand some definition, etc. which might be different than mine. I attempt to perfectly adhere to what would be called the most basic textbook definitions and principles. And, if any characteristic of a particle or force or process in your theory is different from purely conventional physics but I assume conventional, I could do a lot of math out in left field. There also may be new forces or particles, etc. which you might theorize but I could mistake for known entities and waste effort. I have not been trying to hound you but have honestly been just trying to be sure I'm on track before getting serious about this thing. My usual process is to get it right verbally and visually and then perhaps at least some of the math will easily fall into place. Before I can do math for an entire planet or for a two body system I have to be able to do the math specifically for one particle or atom which is stationary, specifically part of a solid body on or in the planet. I must be able to figure how much kinetic energy is transfered into an atom by a fluxon encounter. To do this by conventional physics there must be a change of motion by the atom because the definition of kinetic energy and momentum are defined only by two terms, the atom's mass and its motion. The only motion I know of by an atom in a solid is a vibration within its lattice bonds. Yet I keep thinking that somebody somewhere has said that a fluxon may strike an atom but cause no motion by it ( including no vibration within its lattice bonds? ). If you are theorizing a motionless encounter with a fluxon I must know it. I see how to do the math to determine how much kinetic energy a particle must recieve per encounter, but have no idea how to do such determination if the kinetic energy transfer is not according to standard kinetic energy theory. There is no way I know of that is known to nuclear physics whereby an atom is known to receive kinetic energy but have no part of its motion unchanged. I freely acknowledge there are many things I do not know. But if you are theorizing a new atomic property I must know this to try to get the math right. If you are theorizing a motionless kinetic energy transfer I must know now and must be given an understanding of what its nonconventional math is. If you are not theorizing a motionless transfer then please flatly tell me there is none.
I have not complain of being hounded. I appreciate your interest but I feel you are missing some points. The first issue, and the only issue covered in UniKEF to date, is the integraton of two identical spheres at various distances of seperation in 2D (circles). The UG terms has not been resolved in that it can only be derived after a 3D integration has been done. I can then derive the UG (G in conventional gravity). Until that happens computing a gravitational force is not possible. I assume no unique particles or properties.
False. The basis for my belief is the well known Taylor instability, which occurs whenever a deformable body is pressed upon by an outside force. Any small (even at the atomic scale) lack of perfect spherical symmetry will give rise to forces that amplify that small irregulartiy. For example try to compress Jell-O. Another example is the extreme care necessary to compress a mass of uranium to critical density for an atomic bomb by high explosive "lenses" surrounding it. They must be extremely well made, very homogenious, and machined to optical surface precison just to keep the growth rate of the Taylor instability less than the few microseconds it requires for significant yield. Then the bomb blows its self apart (instead of the Taylor instability blowing it apart first) if you do everything just right. That is why terrorists can only make a "dirty radiological bomb." Las Alomos Scientific Laboratory, fought the Taylor instability more than any thing else. (Getting enough enriched uranium was also tough, but that was Oak Ridge's problem. Using well what could be produced, was LASL's problem.) All the early attempts to compress lead balls with high explosive lenses were total failures. The Taylor instability always won the contest. That is why the first A-Bomb fired a slug of uranium thru a donut, even though that approach is much less efficient (It gives much lower explosive yield.) than spherical compression. (With spherical compressin, the momentum of the uranium traveling radially inward at high velocity must be reversed by the nuclear energy released, whereas the uranium slug fired thru the donut is already coming apart as it starts to get yield.) I worked at LASL two summers while a graduate student and you do hear things you are not supposed to, especially from the “old timers“ who blew up things in the desert. (I think it safe to say this now, as they must all be dead.) Much is still classified. What I may know of that is unofficial hearsay. There was a whole building devoted just to development of the explosive lenses. Althought I had the highest level general clearance at LASL, I was not allowed to even enter that building. (I could eat my lunch while watching the lovely blue glow of the swiming pool reactor and that building also had limited access.) Thus, I have presented only part of the reasons why hot high-pressure stars would rapidly disassemble, mainly via the Taylor instability, if the real mass-based internal-attraction gravity were suddenly replaced by an external-push gravity. - The sun would be notacibly non-round in a few minutes with a pin hole camera. Now that I have told you the basis of my view, Please tell me what is the basis for your opinion that push gravity can hold a star together, despite the Talyor instability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh-Taylor_instability You really should try to find something more appicable to the issue being discussed. Nothing about UniKEF is about a dense fluid being injected into a lighter fluid or vice-versa. Yes try squeezing it uniformily over the entire surface, not like a tube of tooth paste. :bugeye: The pull of Newtonian Gravity at the surface of the sphere is identical (in this limited scenario) to the forces produced by UniKEF pushing force via transfer of momentum. Oh my god. You have to be joking. Nothing you have said here has any applicability to the gentle uniform compression being considered. BTW just how do you equate the compression of a sphereically uniform distribution of lead with Taylor Instability, the violent mixing of two fluids of different density. Get real. Talyor Instability, if present in the real world physics of stars, presents the same consequences for Newtonian Gravity as it would for UniKEF. What do you not understand about a force be it a pull or push by the same magnitude and vector has the same results.?
You only assert this, with no proof. I assert the opposite, but I am trying to do the math to show I am correct in the "Co- Authors wanted...." thread, where DaleSpam and Aer, now, are helping see what the results of the mathematical analysis will be. Until we know, neither you nor I know the truth. I must admit I am confused by you statements. When I showed with my "marble in orbit" example you (and Aer) readily admitted that the uniKEF results should be different from Newtonian gravity (your moon eclipse "data" was mentioned) But Now you assert that, in sub galactic scales, they are the same. (The cited moon eclipse would seem to qualify as a "sub galactic" scale.) Which way is it?
You seem to fail to realize that UniKEF predictions about the case of eclipses, not predicted by Newtonian Gravity, has been found to agree with UniKEF. Your continued insistance that UniKEF be identical to Newtonian or different misses the point. They are not precisely the same (good thing since Newtonian is known to fail at large seperations). The differance however are so slight that it takes execptional distance or other physical facts to see the differance. More importantly these minor differances have been found to agree with the UniKEF view and not your Newtonain view. The case of eclipses found a pertabation on the order of 2E<sup>-9</sup>. Not something that is easily observed or measured. Your continued refusal to recognize the subtle correctness of UniKEF vs Newtonian is frustrating.
MacM, I was thinking on the UniKef and came up with a question that might if answered give an insight into unikef. it is regards to how we as humans sense our center of gravity. How does UniKef facilitate a center of gravity? What allows a center of gravity to exist if the force is omnidirectional? What prevents lateral movement away from a center of Gravity? If unikef is present how does the Earth aquire a center of gravity? Possibly if you provide an explanation not just to me but to the readership in general it may be enlightening. [ as you know I am not all that proficient with the terminology - but don't let that inhibit your response]
The only UniKEF prediction I have ever seen is the case of two identical, uniform, circles (not even spheres) separated by a distance equal to their diameter. I don't think you are justified in claiming that any given fact matches UniKEF (or doesn't match) until you get your math down. By the way, I think that Billy is right when he claims that it is difficult to keep a fluid together by pushing on its surface. However, rather than talking about "squeezing [jell-o] uniformly over the entire surface" or "gentle uniform compression" you should talk about the fact that UniKEF is not just a surface force. Although the UniKEF flux gets attenuated as it goes through matter, it still passes all the way through an object and doesn't just stop at the surface. -Dale
