1 Peter Riedt | Riedt's Gravity Theory | Tuesday 7 January 2020 |
2 Odd Bodkin | Re :Riedt's Gravity Theory | Tuesday 7 January 2020 |
3 tjrob137 | Re :Riedt's Gravity Theory | Tuesday 7 January 2020 |
4 Mitch Raemsch | Re :Riedt's Gravity Theory | Tuesday 7 January 2020 |
5 Peter Riedt | Re :Riedt's Gravity Theory | Wednesday 8 January 2020 |
6 Nicolaas Vroom | Re :Riedt's Gravity Theory | Sunday 12 January 2020 |
7 Ned Latham | Re :Riedt's Gravity Theory | Sunday 12 January 2020 |
8 tjrob137 | Re :Riedt's Gravity Theory | Thursday 16 January 2020 |
9 Chuck Oberwise | Re :Riedt's Gravity Theory | Thursday 16 January 2020 |
10 Python | Re :Riedt's Gravity Theory | Thursday 16 January 2020 |
11 Chuck Oberwise | Re :Riedt's Gravity Theory | Thursday 16 January 2020 |
Riedt's Gravity Theory
11 posts by 8 authors
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/bmq_qXWUDyk
Gravity is a force which acts on every body that has mass. A force must have an originating entity; it does not appear out of nothing. The gravity force is caused by an invisible agent, the aether, but visibility is not a requirement for existence and effect. Also, for a force to act on a body, it must be able to be in contact with it.
The universe is a mechanical construct based on two principles:
1. The universe consists of aether and matter.
2. The aether is at rest.
For the elusive and invisible aether to be the ultimate agent responsible for the phenomenon of gravitational forces it should possess only two attributes:
1. The aether is everywhere where matter is not.
2. The aether is compressible.
The sun’s matter compresses the surrounding aether forming a gravity sphere. The radius of the solar gravity sphere (rsgs) is calculated in my theory.
Objects in the solar system such as planets are subject to two forces generated by the compressed aether. These forces may have been called schubkraft and staukraft by Kepler if he had lived long enough to complete his work.
My theory describes the cause and mechanism of gravity, eccentricity and the inclination of planets. Click here to Reply
> |
Riedt's Gravity Theory
Gravity is a force which acts on every body that has mass. A force must have an originating entity; it does not appear out of nothing. The gravity force is caused by an invisible agent, the aether, but visibility is not a requirement for existence and effect. Also, for a force to act on a body, it must be able to be in contact with it. The universe is a mechanical construct based on two principles:
1. The universe consists of aether and matter. For the elusive and invisible aether to be the ultimate agent responsible for the phenomenon of gravitational forces it should possess only two attributes:
1. The aether is everywhere where matter is not. The sun’s matter compresses the surrounding aether forming a gravity sphere. The radius of the solar gravity sphere (rsgs) is calculated in my theory. |
So you say. Calculate then. If not, it’s a bluff, a pretense, a fraud.
> |
Objects in the solar system such as planets are subject to two forces generated by the compressed aether. These forces may have been called schubkraft and staukraft by Kepler if he had lived long enough to complete his work. My theory describes the cause and mechanism of gravity, eccentricity and the inclination of planets. |
-- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> | Riedt's Gravity Theory [...] |
So calculate the general shape of planetary orbits. Then calculate the precession of Mercury's perihelion. If you cannot do that you have nothing.
Tom Roberts
> |
Riedt's Gravity Theory
Gravity is a force which acts on every body that has mass. |
They say light does not have mass...? But by gravity curve light's motion parabola curves Pete. As detected at Sobral.
The Solar atmosphere scatters light in all directions giving an average that we didn't observe. We found the one thing only gravity would do to that light. Only gravity gives the observed result not the solar atmosphere.
Mitchell Raemsch
> | On Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 2:26:24 AM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote: |
> > |
Riedt's Gravity Theory
Gravity is a force which acts on every body that has mass. |
> |
They say light does not have mass...? But by gravity curve light's motion parabola curves Pete. As detected at Sobral. The Solar atmosphere scatters light in all directions giving an average that we didn't observe. We found the one thing only gravity would do to that light. Only gravity gives the observed result not the solar atmosphere. Mitchell Raemsch |
Yes,
Peter
To do the same using Newton's Law is rather simple. The problem is that the answer is wrong.
The general idea is that you first need the x,y,z,t coordinates of all the planets
of the solar system at a sequence of events t0, t1, t2, t3, t4 a duration dt apart.
You can use the book by Jean Meus or Peter Duffett-Smith.
The second step (and most difficult) is to calculate the masses of all the objects
involved based on these observations.
To do that you need Newton's Law.
The third step is to calculate the precession of Mercury at a certain moment
in the future.
When you do that over a period of roughly 50000 years you will see that the
path of the perihelion follows a horseshoe curve.
This curve depends on the place of the Sun in our galaxy.
To do the same using general relativity is much more difficult.
The general idea is that you first need the x,y,z,t coordinates of all the planets
of the solar system at a sequence of events t0, t1, t2, t3, t4 a duration dt apart.
You can use the book by Jean Meus or Peter Duffett-Smith.
The second step is to calculate the metric parameters gab and the ten
components Tab in order to calculate the gravitational field.
The book "Introducing Einsteins Relativity" by Ray d'Inverno discusses the "Advance of the perihelion of Mercury" in paragraph 15.3 However, only one planet is discussed as a test particle and this is not enough to study the solar system.
A better approach is the book Gravitation by MTW. Chapter 18 and specific 18.1 "The linearized theory of Gravity", I think is much better. When you study that chapter you get an idea hoe extremely difficult GR is compared to Newton's Law.
The same message you also get when you study pages 310 and 311 from the book "The evolution of scientific thought from Newton to Einstein" by A. d'Abro.
The general message is that it is extremely difficult to claim that GR is better to simulate the solar system than Newton's Law based on actual observations.
> | tjrob137 wrote: |
> > |
So calculate the general shape of planetary orbits. Then calculate the precession of Mercury's perihelion. If you cannot do that you have nothing. |
> |
And how do you do that using (full blow) general relativity? without any approximation? To do the same using Newton's Law is rather simple. The problem is that the answer is wrong. |
A field effect function, phi(), has been postulated which fixes that. It is as yet undefined for lack of observational data from which to derive it it, but essentially what it does is apply a "relativistic" effect à la gamma() to the calculation of gravitational force rather than to the calculation in SR of the mass/momentum of the moving object. With it, Newton's Law of Gravity becomes
F = G phi(v,æ) m1 m2 / d^2
where v is the speed of the moving object relative to the gravitational source, and æ is its angular velocity. Given low spin rates, æ is not significant, and phi(v) is a good approximation.
Of necessity, it returns 1 when v and æ are zero, and matches gamma() at the speed of Mercury in the region of perihelion.
(Sorry about the æ; I don't have a theta.)
----snip----
> | On Tuesday, 7 January 2020 19:24:21 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote: |
>> | So calculate the general shape of planetary orbits. Then calculate the precession of Mercury's perihelion. If you cannot do that you have nothing. |
> |
And how do you do that using (full blow) general relativity? without any approximation? |
You don't, because the GR solution for two bodies is not known (in closed form), much less a calculation involving the sun and all the planets (which is required to avoid the approximation of ignoring the other planets).
But no matter, because we can determine that several approximations we normally make are excellent, and affect the predictions to an extent that is much smaller than observational resolutions.
In physics, exact calculations are never required when comparing with observations or measurements, because the latter are never exact. Asking for calculations "without any approximations" is downright silly, in physics. Instead, ask for approximations that are more accurate then the corresponding measurement resolutions.
> | To do the same using Newton's Law is rather simple. |
No, it is INCREDIBLY complex, and has never been done, because in NM even the three-body problem has no exact and complete solution; the problem of the solar system is FAR too complicated to solve in closed form -- one MUST make approximations to get any answer at all.
> | The problem is that the answer is wrong. [... discussion indicating he does not understand the difficulties] |
The "place of our sun in the galaxy" is one of the least of the problems involved; it pales in comparison to calculating the effects due to the other planets.
> | To do the same using general relativity is much more difficult. |
That is true for just about everything. But such an exact calculation has never been done in either NM or GR. And never will be.
One of the most important aspects of physics is being able to identify appropriate approximations, and how to determine whether they are more accurate then measurements, or not.
> | The general message is that it is extremely difficult to claim that GR is better to simulate the solar system than Newton's Law based on actual observations. |
Again, you must pick your approximations carefully -- "better" is not an appropriate comparison here. Certainly for mercury's perihelion GR is more accurate than NM, and to most that counts as "better". But even so, when calculating the perihelion in GR a usual approximation is that the mass of mercury is negligible and can be ignored, and the effects of the other planets are as in NM. These approximations yield answers more accurate than observations, so they are suitable.
Tom Roberts
>> | To do the same using general relativity is much more difficult. |
> |
That is true for just about everything. But such an exact calculation has never been done in either NM or GR. And never will be. |
so true. To accomplish that you have to use my _Divergent Matter_ of the Moving Objects model.
> | Tom Roberts wrote: |
>>> |
To do the same using general relativity is much more difficult. |
>> |
That is true for just about everything. But such an exact calculation has never been done in either NM or GR. And never will be. |
> |
so true. To accomplish that you have to use my _Divergent Matter_ of the Moving Objects model. |
It can be used as it does not exist.
> | Nym Shifting Troll, aka Chuck Oberwise wrote: |
>> | Tom Roberts wrote: |
>>>> |
To do the same using general relativity is much more difficult. |
>>> |
That is true for just about everything. But such an exact calculation has never been done in either NM or GR. And never will be. |
>> |
so true. To accomplish that you have to use my _Divergent Matter_ of the Moving Objects model. |
> |
It can be used as it does not exist. |
sure it does. You are just _not paying attention_. My _Divergent Matter_ of the Moving Objects model defaults to the simplified mathematics of GR, whereas GR enters as a _Special Case_.
Back to USENET overview USENET
Back to my home page Contents of This Document