There are two views here. The basic view is a linear attentuation function vs mass. In that view you still need to have the product of PM1 * PM2 or an effective mass squared function. The alternative (and my preferred view) is of an energy based attentuation. That is the amount of resistance to passage is a function of the energy level such that the barns cross-section changes with the attentuation. This vastly complicates matters but yields gravity as a function of total mass and not mass squared. For current mathematical efforts one should stick with the first basic view where mass squared is still involved. See above. However, the issue is not the attenuation but the exposure via the CoS. If two spheres are in surface contact their centers are 1 sphere diameter apart and the CoS encompasses 180 degrees. That is the entire universe provides source energy (even though at reduced effectiveness with the increasing trig angle to the line of gravity between centers). Keeping the same mass and reducing the spheres to 1/2 that diameter but retaining the center distance you now have the same mass but the CoS is only 60 degrees. The same mass has less exposure to the UniKEF energy sources. Newton says Fg = G * m1*m2 / r^2. Note that neither M nor r have changed in the two cases cited above but in UniKEF I predict that a detailed calculation (and precison test) will show a slight differance in the gravity of the two cases. Not a problem. Just don't jump on Billy's band wagon so quickly. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
OK, this is what I had assumed and I believe it is reasonable. I will do the integration after we finish the Jello thread. We will see what the math says at that point. Why would you want that? -Dale
It was in fact the issue which was the basis for the development of UniKEF. Dynamic things such as kenetic energy having a squared function doesn't present the same illogical conclusion as claiming a mass squared function. How can you justify the mass squared function physically? You can't. However, some energy function linked to mass attentuation can be explained. Remember according to Newton gravity is not associated with the amount of mass but the amount of mass squared. That is a non-linear function and cannot be an inherent feature of mass itself.
Yes I can. In fact, it is absolutely necessary to describe everyday experience. The mass squared function refers to the fact that you can double either mass and double the force between them. For example, I have a certain amount of mass. When I step on a scale it measures the force of gravity between me and the earth to be 150lbs. If I want to double that force I have two options. I can either put 68kg of Thanksgiving turkey in my gut or I can dump 6E24kg of asteroid rock on the Earth. In both cases the mass of one body has doubled resulting in a doubling of the gravitational force between the two bodies. Let's examine the consequence of having gravity be a function of total mass rather than mass squared. The total mass of the Earth+Dale system is 6E24kg + 68kg which results in a measured gravitational force of 150lbs. I overindulge in Thanksgiving turkey as described above and double my mass to 136kg. I then step on the scale and find that the gravitational force is still 150lbs. The total mass of the Earth+Dale system has increased by a negligible fraction and therefore the gravitational force between Earth and Dale also increases by a negligible fraction. Also note, one further consequence of this is that big people will fall slower than small people. They experience roughly the same gravitational force but have greater mass so, by f=ma they will have a reduced acceleration. While this would be very good news for Sumo wrestlers it would be very bad news for babies and small children. Obviously this is contrary to experience and observation. The mass squared is what makes sense and the function of mass is what doesn't make sense. -Dale
Let us see who has it "bass ackwards." True: Small sun-like stars do become "red giants" because they do not have enough gravitational energy when shrinking down to get hot enough to burn Helium. But: I was speaking of a larger star, which is gong to have at least two stages of nuclear burning. From page 2 of your own reference: http://www.telescope.org/btl/lc2.html “For stars more massive than the Sun, the end is much more dramatic. Each time one type of the nuclear fuels is consumed, the core contracts a little further, the temperature rises and a new region is ignited.” I might add that the density also rises and both factors make greater pressure that must be contained by LESS intercepted flux! I created a thread “How does uniKEF make a black hole?” in which the enormous gravity of a black hole is supplied by zero intercepted flux, but let it slip off the pages as you kept ducking the question. Go to page 4 of your reference for the Hertzprung-Russel Diagram; http://www.telescope.org/btl/lc4.html To burn helium you need at least a Class A star. The sun is barely a Glass G star. Now go to page 5 of your reference for the relative size of the star types; http://www.telescope.org/btl/lc5.html Where you see the white dwarf diameter is approximately 100 times smaller than the yellow sun and thus intercepting about 10,000 time LESS uniKEF flux. It is not only twice as hot, but about 500 times more dense, so the ratio of the flux available to contain this pressure, which is approximately P = ρT, is about 10,000,000 times too small! (Recall they were in equilibrium for the larger star that became the white dwarf.) If I really wanted to knock down your theory more, I could refer you to the next stage of the page 5 drawing where the size of the white dwarf (which is still ordinary matter with lots of “empty” space) is compared to the neutron star (another size reduction of much more than 100 fold). Your externally incident flux, again down by ANOTHER factor of much more than 10,000 times, yet must contain it too. I have learned in the "How does uniKEF make a black hole?" thread that you are able to divert the discussion from the main point if I go even further and mention a black hole, which intercepts no flux at all and yet has the most unimaginable gravity, so I won’t mention it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Interesting. You want to go all over the map "a Star expands because while shrinking it lacks sufficient gravity" :bugeye: but then make assertions for UniKEF which are either invalid or inapplicable. Screw you. I have never ducked any of your assinine questions. I made it clear that the concept of a singularity is ridiculus. UniKEF precludes such outrageous results. Please don't because it merits no discussion. Please show us any evidence of the existance of a singularity. I am not talking about assinine result of mathematics dividing by zero etc as having any reality. I said evidence. Herein lies your problem. You are not merely content but are elated to advocate ludricrus concepts as being physics. It is a shame really. If you learned to be pragmatic you might actually catch up.
It would be if that was the way it works but it isn't. Remember the attentuation varies with the amount of mass penetrated. You have just summed the mass but didn't square the attenuation. The results are the same if you square the mass or square the energy function relative to total mass.
Your scenario is not a justification of m1 * m2. It is mathematically valid but it gives no physical reality to mass squared.
LOL >> Newton says Fg = G * m1*m2 / r^2. >>> indeed this IS an interesting equation M1*M2 ????? and why only one G ???????? LOL What is Newton's G ? It tis a joke lads (in this form) >> Let's examine the consequence of having gravity be a function of total mass rather than mass squared. >> Thanks DaleSpaM, that explanation is in tune with Newton... but what a joke. Gravity is not due to mass at all, but it has a lot to do with cosmic mass at the centre of spin, IMO, nothing to do with people attracting the centre of spin, LOL. You have solved a BIG enigma for me..... and now I see why Newtonian gravitation is totally wrong..... Ta Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
OK, so you want something of the form U ~ m (neglecting r for convenience) and you are saying that ~ is actually a function of mass. This doesn't bother me at all. However, in order for your theory to match observation then ~ has to be of the form b m. Substituting in you get U b m m or G m^2. However you slice and dice the explanation, wherever you hide the mass terms, you still must wind up with a m1 m2 or you will unavoidably have different masses accelerating at different rates in the same gravitational field (contrary to observation) as in my Thanksgiving Turkey example. Huh? I think that "it has to be this form in order to match observation" is a fine justification of m1 m2. -Dale
Are you forgetting that I asked 15 times how does uniKEF depend upon density? I.e. what is the functional form - Your refusal to answer is why several others also say the theory is not even defined and why in Dale Aer & my math efforts we had to ignore density.
I don't think we need to argue this point but you are mistaken. The variable "~" based on energy (~ changes as mass attenuates U) does not result in m<sup>2</sup>.
God damn it. Make this 16. You have been told over and over and over. Fg = UG * PV1*d1 * PV2 *d2. That becomes Fg = UG * PM1 * PM2. Now please do not come back for a 17th lie saying I have not told you how density is used in UniKEF. That is simply a flat out lie.
What are the variables here? If I remember from your website the PV terms are your pseudo-volume terms, basically the integrated volume along every possible line drawn through the two masses. I assmue since we are talking about density that the d terms are the densities. What are F g U and G? -Dale
PV = Pseudo Volume d = density PV * d = PM = Pseudo Mass Fg = Force of gravity UG is the same as G except adjusted from the Newtonian value of 6.67E<sup>-11</sup>N.m<sup>2</sup>/Kg<sup>2</sup> to a smaller number so as to be correct when multiplied times the PM rather than actual mass.
Thanks. I think you are now clearly saying that uniKEF does not have any explicit dependency upon density. That is, it depends upon the product of the two interacting masses, PM1 * PM2 only. Thus, if spherical masses only change density but their mass stays constant as they shrink symmetrically to half their initial size, but maintain the same center to center separation, then the uniKEF force between them remains constant, just as it does for Newtonian gravity. Thus the absorption of a "line of flux" only depends upon the total mass it passes thru (As Dale, Aer and I assumed in our math effort.) not upon the density of mass along that line's path. For example, a small cylindrical beam of flux, all self-parallel rays, passing along the axis of an equal radius short cylinder of lead with weight of one kg will have the same absorption as an identical flux tube beam passing thru a longer aluminum cylinder of the same radius that also has 1kg mass. That is absorption is related only to the mass the beam passes thru and not what that mass is or what the density of it is, provided the path for lower density matter is corresponding longer so that the total mass is the same. Do I have your model of uniKEF dependency upon density correct in summary below? If not, what is my misunderstanding of it? Summary: UniKEF has no explicit dependency upon density. Is this a correct statement? Just to make sure you understand what I mean by "explicit" I will write, with ρ as symbol for density, a false but "Newton like" equation that does have an explicit cubic dependency upon density of each mass: F = {(ρ1)^3 * M1 * (ρ2)^3 * M2} / D^2 Where D is the separation between the two masses M1 & M2 and very much greater than the physical extent of either. If I wanted to rewrite this in terms of volumes, V1 & V2, which have uniform density, I could write: F = {(ρ1)^4 * V1 * (ρ2)^4 * V2} / D^2 If you agree that uniKEF does not explicitly depend upon density, then I admit you have answered my question about how it uniKEF depends upon density. Again, please confirm that the above summary, its bold statement, is correct.
MacM, you must admit that Cangas, Aer, Physics Monkey, DaleSpam, and I have tried to understand your uniKEF and all have at best found it ill defined. (There are others also who have made some efforts and also failed.) If you do agree that there is no explicit dependency upon density, then one ill definded point is removed. You should make more effort to clearly answer questions in term that the person asking the question can relate to and not just repeatedly type a few symbols that no one but you is sure what they mean. I also note that your prior post have been mutually inconsistent, so perhaps even you are not sure of their meaning; but do not want to argue with you as I AM TRYING TO HELP YOU. I will only note the symbol "~" which was previously in your force equation not only is not in the one you just gave me, but also has been stated by you to be one of three places where the density appeared. You are intelligent and can do much better in communicating your ideas if you are serious in wanting them evaluated.
You have finally gotten it correct. However, that is the basic view and an alternate view is where "~" varies with attentuation and density would have an affect. In that view gravity becomes a function of total mass not mass squared. The square function is accomadated in the energy conversion not the mass.
