UniKEF analysis

[MacM]

Billy would have much prefered to do a proof about push theories in general, but unfortunately I do not know how to approach the general problem. The result is that the only theory we actually examined on that thread is UniKEF (and Newtonian gravity).

-Dale

I may be incorrect but to my knowledge UniKEF is the only "Push Gravity" concept that has attempted to provide the underlying mathematics.

 

[URI]

>> UniKEF is the only "Push Gravity" concept


well that is interesting.

McM, I think I have asked this before

What is the basis of UniKEF 'push gravity'.... I looked at your site years ago
and it seemed to be a confusion.

Maybe you have refined your theories.

I am most interested as I adhere to 'push gravity' myself.

 

[DaleSpam]

I may be incorrect but to my knowledge UniKEF is the only "Push Gravity" concept that has attempted to provide the underlying mathematics.

Then I guess we were working on the general problem

-Dale

 

[MacM]

>> UniKEF is the only "Push Gravity" concept


well that is interesting.

McM, I think I have asked this before

What is the basis of UniKEF 'push gravity'.... I looked at your site years ago
and it seemed to be a confusion.

Maybe you have refined your theories.

I am most interested as I adhere to 'push gravity' myself.

I wouldn't say it has been refined but I have posted another web site dedicated just to gravity.

http://www.unikef-gravity.com/

 

[Aer]

Billy would have much prefered to do a proof about push theories in general, but unfortunately I do not know how to approach the general problem. The result is that the only theory we actually examined on that thread is UniKEF (and Newtonian gravity).

Actually, we did a simplified version. Remember we assumed constant density throughout.

 

[MacM]

Actually, we did a simplified version. Remember we assumed constant density throughout.

That is correct and I anticipate that this is one area where UniKEF can be differentiated from Newtonian Gravity.

That is the integration in conventional gravity merges all mass to a central point and excludes geometry.

UniKEF includes geometry and mass distribution, not merely the integrated Center of Mass. I suggest that a precision test could detect the differance in gravity produced hence eliminate either UniKEF or Newton from the running as a workable explanation for gravity.

This opinion is based on the results from testing already done where geometry affects were measured.

http://www.unikef-gravity.com/UniKV2/Gravtesting.htm

 

[DaleSpam]

That is correct and I anticipate that this is one area where UniKEF can be differentiated from Newtonian Gravity.

I doubt it. I suspect that you will find that UniKEF is essentially your explanation for Newtonian gravity.

As I am sure you are aware, Newton wrote the equation of classical gravitation but never described an underlying reason why material objects should follow that equation. He said it was "inconceivable that inanimate, brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact." Instead he described his theory simply as a "mathematical demonstration grounded upon experiments without knowing the cause of gravity". I think UniKEF is probably a possible applicant for Newton's "something else".

As you know, I wanted to begin the Jell-O thread by starting from UniKEF first principles. I wanted an explanation of UniKEF in terms of point masses. I was unable to get one from you, but instead proceeded with the geometrical integrals that you described on your website. However, as we began to get results where UniKEF was consistent with Newton I continued to think about point masses in the UniKEF framework. I now have a point mass understanding of UniKEF that includes the 1/r^2 dependency.

Consider a point mass. All UniKEF flux lines passing through the mass are attenuated, much like a ray of light is attenuated as it passes through dark glass. This results in a UniKEF "shadow" cast in a spherical shape around the point. Because the same total amount of UniKEF shadow must pass through any surface surrounding the mass, and because the surface of a sphere increases as r^2, therefore the intensity of the shadow must fall off as a function of 1/r^2.

If you want to distinguish your theory from Newtonian gravity I think you are going to have to talk about very large densities where a significant fraction of the UniKEF flux is attenuated. Non-constant (but small) densities will probably yield the same results for UniKEF and Newton, IMO. I personally think that a validation of UniKEF would require a demonstration that for very dense objects inertial mass is not equal to gravitational mass and that this difference is consistent with the UniKEF model. Otherwise I expect it to behave exactly as an explanation for Newtonian gravity.

Of course, I have not yet done the math to validate it and I have often been surprised at the results of a particular computation. But based on the experience of the last few weeks, that is what I would expect.

-Dale

 

[MacM]

I doubt it. I suspect that you will find that UniKEF is essentially your explanation for Newtonian gravity.

Again we disagree. Where Newton condenses everything to a point asnd geometry nor variable mass distribution are not considered. UniKEF has forces as a function of both geometry and mass density distribution.

The result should not be the same. The point however is the miminal differance and how it can be detected. In the teting done in UniKEF we were able to see a differance based on a mere 60 trillionths of a pound force.

You might consider doing the integration for that geometry and validate the fact that UniKEF and Newton are differentiable. Consider a bowling ball (no holes) compared to a bowling ball with one through hole the center.

The force of gravtiy is different depending on the alignment of the hole to a free moving test mass. Neither the mass nor the center of mass are different yet the force of gravity is different. That is the geometry affect not taken into consideration by Newton.

If you want to distinguish your theory from Newtonian gravity I think you are going to have to talk about very large densities where a significant fraction of the UniKEF flux is attenuated. Non-constant (but small) densities will probably yield the same results for UniKEF and Newton, IMO. I personally think that a validation of UniKEF would require a demonstration that for very dense objects inertial mass is not equal to gravitational mass and that this difference is consistent with the UniKEF model. Otherwise I expect it to behave exactly as an explanation for Newtonian gravity.

I have proposed this very fact. That we will find at some point that the symmetry between inertia and gravity will be broken in the case of massive Black Holes, etc.

http://www.unikef-gravity.com/UniKV2/Gravtesting.htm

 

[Billy T]

If you want to distinguish your theory from Newtonian gravity I think you are going to have to talk about very large densities where a significant fraction of the UniKEF flux is attenuated. Non-constant (but small) densities will probably yield the same results for UniKEF and Newton, IMO. I personally think that a validation of UniKEF would require a demonstration that for very dense objects inertial mass is not equal to gravitational mass and that this difference is consistent with the UniKEF model. Otherwise I expect it to behave exactly as an explanation for Newtonian gravity.

I think MacM wishes to distinguish uniKEF from Newtonian gravity mainly at large scales and only with a very slight difference when three objects align (the eclipse effect), but I will say no more on this as MacM can speak for himself.

You and Aer have preformed a valuable service for MacM’s uniKEF, but “validation” would require considerably more than either the results now shown mathematically or it surviving exploration of high-density effects as you are suggesting above.

What has been now been shown is that in the limit of the flux intensity going to infinity or the absorption probability going to zero, that in a uniform density body, probably of any shape, that the Newton model of the self gravitation and uniKEF model of the self gravitation are identical in the forces they produce. If absorption removed appreciable flux, then we made the invalid assumption that the force on interior point Xo by a particular flux ray was proportional to the distance difference between the point Xo and the two surface intercepts of the ray passing thru Xo with the surface.

No matter how dense you assume an object is, MacM can always postulate that the flux is so intense and the absorption probability is so low that this is the reasonable assumption to make. Namely, that the flux strength along the line between the surface and Xo is “essentially constant” even though some must be absorbed while traveling to the point Xo.

I agree with MacM that uniKEF has survived an important, rigorous test. My experience with Taylor instabilities led me to wrongly think that push gravity contained spheres (stars etc) would be unstable. The thing about Taylor instabilities I was neglecting is that they only occur with a discontinuity in the force fields, like high-pressure explosion gas pushing on the surface of a lead sphere to compress it and related tests when the A-bomb was being developed. Etc. UniKEF has no such interface between two different pressure regions. That is why it survived the Taylor instability.

I think that there is a “calibration constant” in the uniKEF model, which will always permit it to get the surface gravity, correct, for example on the sun. In addition, probably it will then predict correctly the gravitational force throughout the sun correctly (I expect this even if the radial density variation of the sun were included.) That is, if the two lengths to the point Xo were “effect lengths” constructed by integrating {ρ dl} along the physical lengths.

I continue to think uniKEF is non-sense because there is no single functional dependency upon density, which will account for two different stages in the life of a star (and many other reasons). For example, the flux intercepted while burning Hydrogen is proportional to R^2, the radius of the hydrogen fusion star, but later, when that star has exhausted its Hydrogen and contracted to get much hotter to fuse Helium its radius is only r and the flux intercepted is down by a factor of (r/R)^2 and the pressure trying to make it expand is enormously greater. How can less flux now contain the higher-pressure Helium burning star? The increased density factor alone, even if it were not much hotter, is up (R/r)^3 so flux significantly less than the flux which was in equilibrium with the low pressure hydrogen star can not possibly be in equilibrium with the much higher pressure of the helium burning star.

This test of uniKEF should be easier than the one just completed, as only spheres are required. It only takes one failure to prove a theory wrong, and there are many hurtles still for uniKEF to clear before it can be taken as a serious alternative to Newtonian theory.

 

[DaleSpam]

You and Aer have preformed a valuable service for MacM’s uniKEF, but “validation” would require considerably more than either the results now shown mathematically or it surviving exploration of high-density effects as you are suggesting above.

Agreed. That is why I did not speak of validation, only of distinguishing it from classical gravity.

I can do the star integration you suggested later. So far I have always set R and density equal to 1. First, though, I told MacM that I would calculate the force between two spheres. And I am still hoping for confirmation or contradiction from Aer before we finish the current Jello thread.

-Dale

 

[DaleSpam]

Where Newton condenses everything to a point asnd geometry nor variable mass distribution are not considered. UniKEF has forces as a function of both geometry and mass density distribution. ... The force of gravtiy is different depending on the alignment of the hole to a free moving test mass. Neither the mass nor the center of mass are different yet the force of gravity is different. That is the geometry affect not taken into consideration by Newton.

You really need to do some math on your own sometimes. I realize that the math for your own theory is fairly complicated, but you should at least learn how to evaluate Newtonian gravity.

Consider a simple case of two equal masses located at x=-1 and x=3 relative to our test mass. The classical force in the negative direction is 9 times the force in the positive direction, and yet the center of mass is located at x=1, in the positive direction. Now, let's rotate the system 90º about its center of mass. Now, both forces are positive and, by symmetry, the total force is directed through the center of mass. Clearly, as you said "Neither the mass nor the center of mass are different yet the force of gravity is different." The "geometry affect" is taken into consideration by Newton and the classical force does not always act through the center of mass.

I believe that the only time you can consider a distributed mass to be a point mass at the center is for spherical masses. Since the UniKEF force is the same as the Newtonian force on the interior of a sphere I expect that it will be the same on the exterior of a sphere also. I reiterate my suggestion that UniKEF will act exactly the same as classical gravity as long as the total flux is not significantly attenuated. In any case we will soon see one way or the other mathematically.

-Dale

 

[MacM]

What has been now been shown is that in the limit of the flux intensity going to infinity or the absorption probability going to zero, that in a uniform density body, probably of any shape, that the Newton model of the self gravitation and uniKEF model of the self gravitation are identical in the forces they produce.

And I say this is untrue. Newton has spheres and cubes of the same mass and seperation as having the same gravity. I suggest that is not true. But the differance is very minor and requires extensive and precise testing to detect.

I continue to think uniKEF is non-sense because there is no single functional dependency upon density,

I have no idea what you babble about here. density is density and it is included in UniKEF.

This test of uniKEF should be easier than the one just completed, as only spheres are required. It only takes one failure to prove a theory wrong, and there are many hurtles still for uniKEF to clear before it can be taken as a serious alternative to Newtonian theory.

Saying nothing about UniKEF but only Newtonian Gravity. It cannot be taken serious in any case. It is action without a cause. Pure mathematics, not physics.

 

[MacM]

You really need to do some math on your own sometimes.

Of course math is important but vison can be even more so.

I reiterate my suggestion that UniKEF will act exactly the same as classical gravity as long as the total flux is not significantly attenuated. In any case we will soon see one way or the other mathematically.

-Dale

Consider this. Newton functions from an integrated center of mass. Given two spheres of a certain mass and seperation. According to Newton the same gravity force will be felt if the spheres have the same seperation but 1/8 then density and twice the radius.

In UniKEF this geometry affect increases the CoS (Exposure to flux) and will result in greater gravity force. This affect is testable just as it is to compare spheres with cubes, etc.

 

[DaleSpam]

Of course math is important but vison can be even more so.

In science vision without math is fuzzy and myopic. Math makes your vision clear.

Newton functions from an integrated center of mass.

Did you miss the entire point of my example above? I showed a classical counter-example where the force was actually pointing directly away from the center of mass. Newtonian gravity only functions from an integrated center of mass in the case of a sphere. I expect that the same will be true with UniKEF.

According to Newton the same gravity force will be felt if the spheres have the same seperation but 1/8 then density and twice the radius.

In UniKEF this geometry affect increases the CoS (Exposure to flux) and will result in greater gravity force.

I will pursue this integral next, but I doubt it. The CoS should quadruple and the length of each flux attenuation line should double. The two effects combined should exactly compensate the 8-fold reduction in density and result in no net increase in gravity. Same result for UniKEF and Newton.

-Dale

 

[Billy T]

I have no idea what you babble about here. density is density and it is included in UniKEF.

Except for fact I am speaking of a single star, I am speaking of same thing as your bold text below:

...Consider this. Newton functions from an integrated center of mass. Given two spheres of a certain mass and separation. According to Newton the same gravity force will be felt if the spheres have the same separation but 1/8 then density and twice the radius.
In UniKEF this geometry affect increases the CoS (Exposure to flux) and will result in greater gravity force.

Namely that the flux intercepted by a sphere of radius R is greater than that intercepted by a smaller sphere of radius r, where R > r.

Thus, when a star is stably burning hydrogen with radius R there is more absorption of flux in it than later when it has contracted to become much hotter and able to burn the Helium that was produced in the first stage of fusion.

The problem for uniKEF is that both the hydrogen and helium burning stars are stable for millions of years and yet the pressure inside the smaller hotter helium burning star is much greater. This higher pressure is contained by LESS intercepted flux than was just able to contain (I.e. in equilibrium with) the hydrogen burning star that was larger and cooler.

To make an analogy:
If a steel tank can just barely hold a gas at 1,000 atmosphere pressure, how can you expect a thinner one (less intercepted uniKEF flux) to hold 100,000 atmospheres of pressure?

 

[DaleSpam]

Billy, you are absolutely right. If the smaller-denser spheres experience less gravitational force than the (equally massive) larger spheres then it would be impossible to burn hydrogen and helium because the smaller denser helium star would have less pressure rather than more.

MacM does not understand his own theory any better than he understands classical gravity. He can't really mean this (or if he really does mean this then it is the death-knell for UniKEF). No wonder your argument with him is so heated.

-Dale

 

[MacM]

Billy T,

Except for fact I am speaking of a single star, I am speaking of same thing as your bold text below:

Namely that the flux intercepted by a sphere of radius R is greater than that intercepted by a smaller sphere of radius r, where R > r.

Thus, when a star is stably burning hydrogen with radius R there is more absorption of flux in it than later when it has contracted to become much hotter and able to burn the Helium that was produced in the first stage of fusion.

You really don't understand do you. In the case of an isolated sphere the R or r makes no differance in the CoS. The CoS is only a function between two objects.

Also you don't seem to understand that substantially when stars go from H to He and they shrink the density goes up so the cross section is not the only then that changes. Also there is a tiny bit of ejected mass in the process. Of course you just glaze over these minor other issues don't you.?

Not to mention that you still do not make any offer of explanation as to just how you believe Newtonian Gravity acts any differently than UniKEF. Both are fucntions of mass.

The problem for uniKEF is that both the hydrogen and helium burning stars are stable for millions of years and yet the pressure inside the smaller hotter helium burning star is much greater. This higher pressure is contained by LESS intercepted flux than was just able to contain (I.e. in equilibrium with) the hydrogen burning star that was larger and cooler.

But with greater attenuation due to increased density. Shssssh. :bugeye:

 

[MacM]

Billy, you are absolutely right.

False Dale. don't let Billy T confuse you so easy. He makes up issues and makes claims which are inconsistant not only with UniKEF but physics in general, ignores that such issues must also apply to Newtonian Gravity as well and goes off claiming to have proven something.

Now lets take this issue a step at a time.

1 - What is the respective diameter ratio of the primary H star vs the He Star?

2 - What is the respective mass ratio of the two stars?

3 - What is the temperature ratio of the two stars?

Once you supply such detail one can then begin to respond to such claims but not before.

If the smaller-denser spheres experience less gravitational force than the (equally massive) larger spheres then it would be impossible to burn hydrogen and helium because the smaller denser helium star would have less pressure rather than more.

You are being far to general in your claims here. See above and be specific. Then you will see the error of your ways.

MacM does not understand his own theory any better than he understands classical gravity.

I'll ignore this this time.

He can't really mean this (or if he really does mean this then it is the death-knell for UniKEF). -Dale

I'm not in error. Your assumptions about the relative star conditions are in error.

http://www.telescope.org/btl/lc1.html

PLEASE NOTE: RATHER THAN SHRINKING AND BECOMING HOTTER AND DENSER STARS GOING FROM 'H' FUEL TO 'He' BECOME RED GIANTS. You have things bass ackwards. AGAIN Billy T.

 

[DaleSpam]

I'm not in error. Your assumptions about the relative star conditions are in error.

OK, let's not worry about stellar life-cycles at this point. That's too complicated for clear discussion. Lets just stick to perfectly spherical solid masses.

Lets consider two kinds of spheres. Both kinds of spheres have the same mass but the big spheres have 1/8 the density and twice the radius of the small spheres. Are you seriously saying that a pair of the bigger spheres will experience a greater gravitational force than a pair of the smaller spheres? That the lower density material attenuates your UniKEF flux just as effectively as the higher density material? That the amount of flux "shadow" along a particular line is a function only of the length of material traversed and not the density? Be very specific about how you want your theory to behave.

I was assuming that a 1/8 density material would attenuate UniKEF 1/8 as effectively (along a given line). It seemed such an obvious assumption that it did not even occur to me that you perhaps had something else in mind. You must clear this up before it is possible for me to proceed!

It was wrong for me to say that you didn't understand your own theory. It is your theory, so obviously you are the only one who can authoritatively say anything about it. If you want gravity to come from little rednecks pulling particles around with little tow-cables attached to their little pickup trucks, then that is your prerogative, after all it is your theory. I'm not saying that is you are suggesting rednecks or their equivalent, I'm just saying that it's your theory to shape as you will.

-Dale

 

[CANGAS]

Anyone desiring to compare Newton Gravity with ANYTHING must study NG thoroughly. THOROUGHLY and EXACTLY.

How is NG integrated in a gravitating body? Have we studied a truly comprehensive analysis of it? Are we relying on simplistic and possibly inexact misconceptions of it?

When we compare the Principia and the Calculus, with its reliance upon the summation of an unlimited quantity of unlimitedly small impulses, with an adversarial theory based upon particular impulses provided by particular interactions of a MEASURABLE force and duration, can we truthfully say that the two CAN be the same?

Or, are we trying to compare apples and armadillos?

I do not think it was wrong for ME to say that the author does not understand his own theory, because, after repeated attempts to get him to clarify his theory, with very pointed questions, he did not give me enough information to enable me to begin to mathematically quantitze Fluxons.