lundi 12 novembre 2012

Some Experimental Challenges

Sir George Darwin corrected Galileo on Tides
F = GMm / R2
The Plot Thickens ...
"'The high tide,' King Alfred said...
... 'The High Tide and the Turn.' "
Correction to Previous
For Math Freaks: I take it the gravitational constant is below zero ...
Some Experimental Challenges

1) between Aristotelic/Modified Aristotelic and Newtonian-Gravitational view of the falling objects:

Remember Galileo's experiment by which he tried to prove Earth rotating around its axis?

He dropped some weight from a pretty high tower, and the weight deviated to the West. His explanation was as Aristotelic as mine insofar as it took no account at all of Solar or Lunar Gravitation. If on the other hand you have Gravity, you are dealing with either Newton's Heliocentric or Sungenis' Geocentric explanation. And there is a way to find out which is the case.

If I as a Geocentric or Galileo as a Heliocentric was right in taking no account of Solar and Lunar gravitation, then the same height of tower will always result in the same displacement West of a falling weight, also true of whatever its own weight. It does not decide whether Galileo was right to think the weight fell in a void while the Earth rotated or whether I was right in thinking aether displaced by the primum mobile displaced the way the weight had to fall.

If on the other hand the gravitational theory is correct, then Sun and Moon passing over the tower at zenith would make a difference. As with tides, there would perhaps also here be an upward and a westward component of the resulting interfering force.

That difference would even decide between the two different gravitational tidal theories, insofar:

  • If there is a counterforce involved in anything touching the ground, such as water, it will not affect an object while still falling. Therefore the Sun will make a greater difference than the Moon. We are dealing purely with the force of gravitation, which is about ten times stronger of Sun than of Moon, since gravitation is proportional to mass and inversely proportional to distance taken into a square. Sun is greater than Moon in either, but when we take it into a square, then Sun retains the superiority of influence.
  • If there is just unequal displacement due to Solar or Lunar gravitation, then the Moon will make the greater distance. When distances to earth are cubed and the force is more or less inversely proportional to that (and 2Ma/r3 is a fair approximation of M/(r-a)2 - M/r2 ), the Moon takes advantage in influence. And yes, displacing the falling stone more inversely to its fall than it displaces Earth, is like displacing the tidal water mass on its side more than Earth.
  • Either way the greatest displacement West would happen at Noon or afterwards at Newmoon, when Moon and Sun exercise gravitational influence conjunctly with each other.

Note that each of the theories differentiated by this experiment is compatible with Geocentrism (no daily rotation of Earth, but of the Heavens) quite as well as with Heliocentrism/Geocentrism with daily rotation of Earth.

Note also that if the gravitational theory is univocally vindicated, then this is indirectly a vindication for a pre-Newtonian view of mass, which Galileo fostered by saying that "lightness" far from being a quality opposed to "heaviness" or "weight" is an absense of it. And that would through a light on the fact that the Church, despite an Aristotelian inheritance, did not condemn that position in the Galileo process. Coming from St Thomas Aquinas to this issue some ten years ago, that was the position that I thought least worthy of a Christian thinker in Galileo, and I thought the Church should have condemned that too.

2) to know if there is such a thing as an orbital velocity:

I have raised doubts on whether there is one ideal velocity which would neither allow an orbiting celestial body to orbit one heavier than itself. I have said that if this explanation were true, then it would immediately lead to quite another result than what Heliocentrics claim we see, namely with either too fast a velocity a planet close to a star would have reached escape velocity as it is called or with too slow a velocity it would have fallen into the star.

I have claimed that there is no such thing as an ideal orbital velocity between the two, or rather if there is that it cannot be very stable: artificial satellites are either held in place by spirits or will soon get below orbital velocity and fall down on Earth.

Now, if there is such a thing as orbital velocity, and all depending on forces acting according to laws of nature quite as applicable on Earth as in the Heavens, then one could have simulated such a balance between two forces one of which is velocity on Earth too.

I am not buying a string that holds a stone or a tub in which you motorbike or any solid obstacle to "escape velocity" as such a balancing force. I am asking for a force of attraction, not for a solid. Gravity is out of the question since any gravity between objects on Earth is far lesser than the Gravity Earth exercises on them. So, what about magnetism?

One piece of iron stands up in a skating rink. Another, smaller one, is shot at diverce velocities and diverse angles to that one, and either one could be the magnet, depending on what is practical, but it will be better to scale if it is the larger and fixed object which attracts smaller ones. Ice will get rid of as much friction as one can at all for the moving iron object.

If escape velocity and fall-in-slowness have between them naturally such a thing as an orbital velocity, even if it will not be maintained due to the fact that there is (according to modern science) at least some friction even on ice, an approach to it will be maintained for at least half an orbit of the moving iron piece around the fixed one, supposing you have managed to find the proper angle and velocity. Maybe even more.

3) to know in general whether Geocentrism can function:

Since Geocentrism can function with or without the Newtonian Gravitation as opposed to the Aristotelic view of falling objects and of opposition to light and heavy, but cannot function without say a God moving the Universe daily around Earth or somewhat lesser spirits than that conducting orbits that are not (or at least not only) explained by Gravitational Laws, find out whether there is the supernatural.

That does not involve Psychic research, it involves going to documentation about Miracles and seeing how well or ill they are documented.

To my satisfaction they are very well documented. Here is another page that I dedicate to documentation of Jesus Christ, his Resurrection, other persons involved with the Miracles of the Christian tradition, like my second latest article on Moses, as well as some philosophical arguments against misconceptions of what is the nature of God and what difference God makes in explaning the Universe. Not just explaining "for what purpose" as I explained in the very latest article, but as explaining "how come". Enjoy:

somewhere else

I also dedicate one blog entirely to arguments about anything ranging from creation of plants and animals "each after its kind" to the Tower of Babel:

Creation vs Evolution

On it I have polemised against AronRa, Dawkins and P Z Myers. Enjoy the reading, folks!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI, Georges Pompidou
St Martin I, Pope and Martyr

PS, since I might be writing further on the blog "somewhere else" I here link to the two so far last messages, but first to the directly Resurrection related one:

somewhere else : What a blooper, Dan Barker from Atheist League!

To Moses:

somewhere else : So, Dionysus was a Copy of Moses, may One Presume?

And against Atheistic Cosmology in General:

somewhere else : Atheism Very Shortly Stated - and Refuted

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire