Discussion:
Rebuttal to Lesages Shadows (General)
(too old to reply)
greywolf42
2005-01-18 02:33:15 UTC
Permalink
A Rebuttal to the Claims in "Lesage's Shadows*"
*http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath131/kmath131.htm

Introduction:

The Mathpages site as a whole contains no attributions, no references, no
authors, no revision dates, no prior versions, and no contact information.
Someone named "Kevin Brown" is listed as the "author" of the site in Network
Solutions. The specific webpage version posted on January 4, 2005 is
discussed in this text. This webpage will be called "Shadows" in this
rebuttal. In the past, Mathpages links have changed without warning or
acknowledgement. Indeed, this particular Mathpages page changed in several
particulars, as of January 12th, 2005. Apparently, this was in response to
my general comment posted on the sci.physics newsgroups on January 6th
(about the Jan 4th versions' failure to even describe Le Sage's actual
model).

A prior webpage with the same web address, but different content, existed
from roughly May 2000 to December 2003. The prior content of this
particular web address was apparently devoted to relativity, the Fizeau
experiment, and De Sitter's theory. Hence, the "Shadows" content on this
particular address is apparently new. The new content was first mentioned on
the newsgroups in November of 2004.

If the reader notices that the future substance of the "Shadows" link
changes in any respect, please notify me at ***@sim-ss.com. Comments
on, and corrections to this rebuttal may be sent to the same address. I
will address the changes made between January 4th and January 12th (and any
other noted changes) at the end of this effort. Copies of prior commented
versions are available by request.


The text contained in "Shadows" (January 4, 2005 version) is only useful in
that it provides a listing of many of the standard objections that are used
against Le Sagian theories. However, contrary to what one might expect,
"Shadows" never provides an analysis of Le Sage's model. Instead, "Shadows"
proffers Darwin's 1905 theory as the "Fatio/Lesage" theory.

Le Sage's model is not complex (Roseveare, p 109):

"Le Sage conceived of matter as being built up of indivisible particles in
the form of cages with bars of extremely small diameter. Space was
continually traversed by gravific particles of extremely high velocities in
all directions and rarely collided with each other. An isolated body in
space would not be moved by these gravific corpuscles because it received an
equal number of impulsions (from the corpuscles hitting the cage bars) on
all sides. If another body was brought up towards this previously isolated
body, the latter would be shielded to a certain extent by the former from
the corpuscles approaching from that direction. The equilibrium of
impulsions thus disturbed, the bodies would be pushed towards each other as
if they were attracted."

"'It is not necessary to be very skilful to deduce from these suppositions
all the laws of gravity, both sublunary and universal (and consequently also
those of Kepler, etc.) with all the accuracy with which observed phenomena
have proved those laws. Those laws, therefore, are inevitable consequences
of the supposed constitutions.' (W. Thomson, 1873, p 323)' 'On the
ultramundane corpuscles of Le Sage.' Phil. Mag (Ser. 4), 45, p321-32."

Apparently, the author of "Shadows" was unwilling to write anything that
shed the slightest positive light on Le Sagian theories. The simple and
elegant explanation of Newton's gravitational force law, and the championing
of Le Sage by Lord Kelvin has been ignored. An entire page of history in
Roseveare (110) is completely ignored in the website.

Any theory that uses particles impacting on material objects as a source of
gravity is called a kinetic or Le Sagian theory. A related set of theories
are the "light pressure" theories. These are similar to Le Sagian theories,
but replace the ultramundane corpuscles of Le Sage with light waves or
photons. Together, these types of theories are often called "kinetic" or
"push gravity" theories. For more detail, see the book "Pushing Gravity,"
Edwards, 2002, Aperion.

"Shadows" never identifies differences between kinetic theories of
gravitation. The theory that "Shadows" discusses as "Fatio/Le Sagian" is
neither Fatio's nor Le Sage's. Below is a quick comparison of several
variants of kinetic gravity theories contained in "Pushing Gravity" (a far
from exhaustive list):

{Use ASCII fixed-width font for table below}:

Kinetic Theories of Gravitation
(Roughly in Order of First Appearance)
=========================================================
Proponent | Matter |Corpuscle|Interaction | Speed |
| Model | Type | | |
=========================================================
Fatio | Opaque | Solid | Reflection | "high" |
---------------------------------------------------------
Le Sage* | Open grid | Solid | Absorption | "high" |
---------------------------------------------------------
Kelvin | Open grid | Solid | Reflection | >> c |
---------------------------------------------------------
Thomasin/ | Opaque | Light | Absorption | c |
Lorentz/ | | | | |
Radzievskii| | | | |
---------------------------------------------------------
Darwin* | Opaque | Solid | Absorption | >> c |
| sphere | | | |
---------------------------------------------------------
Schneiderov|Transparent| Solid | Imperfect | "high" |
| | |Transmission| |
---------------------------------------------------------
Van Flandern|Transparent| Quantum | Absorption | >> c |
---------------------------------------------------------
Mingst-Stowe|Transparent| Solid | Imperfect |sqrt(3)c|
| | |Transmission| |
=========================================================

The terms in the above table mean the following:

Opaque matter undergoes a surface interaction with all corpuscles and/or
energy impinging on the matter body (or sub-component). An open grid
interacts with only a small fraction of the impinging corpuscles.
Transparent matter interacts with all corpuscles impinging on the matter
body, but throughout the interior, not at the surface.

A solid corpuscle is a classical, material particle of finite extent. A
light corpuscle is wave(train). A quantum corpuscle is Lorentz Relativistic
within an additional Light Carrying Medium.

A reflection is a (primarily) elastic reflection of the corpuscle from the
surface of the interacting body (or substructure). An absorption is a
(primarily) inelastic absorption of the corpuscles from the surface of the
interacting body. An imperfect transmission is a fractional removal of
momentum and/or energy from the transiting corpuscles.

This complex family of theories is what "Shadows" attempts to lump and
describe as a single theory. This confusion appears deliberate. "Shadows"
uses the variations between theories to argue that "Fatio/ Le Sage theory"
is a mass of contradictions.

"Shadows" relies heavily on "Mercury's Perihelion from Le Verrier to
Einstein", N.T. Roseveare, 1982 - though "Shadows" never identifies the
source of the material. Throughout this rebuttal, this work will simply be
called "Roseveare."

"Shadows" also takes most of its historical information (including contained
quotations) directly from the paper "Fatio on the Cause of Universal
Gravitation," Frans van Lunteren, contained in the 2002 book "Pushing
Gravity" -- again without attribution.

In later sections "Shadows" attempts several calculations. But "Shadows"
does not perform any calculations using any mathematical result from any Le
Sagian theory. Instead, "Shadows" sets up each set of calculations by
hand-waving claims about what "should" happen. But even these derivations
are riddled with elementary errors. Most of the "equations" in "Shadows"
contain terms with inconsistent units.


The Organization of the "Shadows" WebPage:

"Shadows" is a long, rambling mixture of history and assertions, with
occasional mathematical attempts. There are no subject titles that organize
the page, or html tags that allow the user to jump to specific sections.
This makes it difficult to refer to any particular section or phrase in the
webpage. For ease of reference, I will arbitrarily group "Shadows" into
apparent subjects of discussion, and so identify them. These
identifications are not contained in "Shadows".


Here are rough subjects in "Shadows":

Part I: Historical Introduction (approx. first 1/4 of page)

Part II: Introduction of the Physics of the Le Sagian mechanism. (Paragraph
beginning "Since the apparent size of an object...")

Part III: Arguments on Kinetic Theories of Gravitation (Paragraph beginning
in the middle of run-on sentence that begins "Setting Aside the
Implausibility ...")

A) Laplace/Feynman Drag:

B) Claims for Mass Accretion / Gravitational Induction Heating: (In the
middle of the Paragraph beginning, "To treat this more fully., beginning
with the phrase: "Setting aside the conflict with special relativity,")

C) Gravitational Aberration (and Drag Again): (approx. Ÿ down the page,
phrase beginning "the finite speed of the ultra-mundane particles .")


Part IV: Philosophical Objections: (About 4/5 of the way down the page,
paragraph beginning: "We mentioned previously the problem of infinite
regress")

Part V: Summary: (About 9/10 down the page. Paragraph beginning "From a
methodological standpoint.")

Substantive Changes to "Shadows" noted on January 12th, 2005:


In order to make reasonably succint newsgroup posts, each of these
"sections" will be dealt with in a separate sub-post to this general
statement.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
greywolf42
2005-01-18 03:08:25 UTC
Permalink
This is a continuation of the general rebuttal to "Lesage's Shadows":

This post is with regard to Part I: Historical Introduction (approx. first
1/4 of page)

This portion of "Shadows" contains a decent historical account of some of
the early discussions of gravitational physics. The presentation is marred
by an unfortunate editorial bent. "Shadows" seems to attempt to tar the
very idea of a physical cause of gravity with an occult or philosophical
brush (which is applied liberally at the end of the "Shadows" page).
Indeed, aside from a brief mention of the original paper citation, "Shadows"
does not discuss the history of Le Sage's theory at all! The revival of Le
Sagian gravitation by Lord Kelvin (and other leading physicists) in the 1870
's is completely bypassed.

I found only two significant errors of commission in this section.

The first is the claim that Le Sage's theory was based on ". some kind of
radiation streaming uniformly in all directions, ." Radiation-based
theories are light-pressure theories. This distortion is used throughout
"Shadows" - wherever Le Sage would use a physical gas of particles,
"Shadows" discusses a "radiation field." Radiation is something that is
emitted from a matter source. And that is the inverse of the Le Sage model.
(See also modification Note 1, in changes post.)

The second is the claim (in the last paragraph of this section) that;
"Gradually the idea of force at a distance as a primary attribute of matter
became the dominant paradigm of physics ...". This claim is made without
any reference. And such a viewpoint never dominated natural philosophy.
Action at a distance was considered anathema to the materialistic paradigm
of the times. Such a view never dominated the scientific community.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Dirk Van de moortel
2005-01-18 13:24:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by greywolf42
This post is with regard to Part I: Historical Introduction (approx. first
1/4 of page)
This portion of "Shadows" contains a decent historical account of some of
the early discussions of gravitational physics. The presentation is marred
by an unfortunate editorial bent. "Shadows" seems to attempt to tar the
very idea of a physical cause of gravity with an occult or philosophical
brush (which is applied liberally at the end of the "Shadows" page).
This does not sound like we are going to get a rebuttal.
This seems like we are going to get a first class rant.
Post by greywolf42
Indeed, aside from a brief mention of the original paper citation, "Shadows"
does not discuss the history of Le Sage's theory at all! The revival of Le
Sagian gravitation by Lord Kelvin (and other leading physicists) in the 1870
's is completely bypassed.
I found only two significant errors of commission in this section.
The first is the claim that Le Sage's theory was based on ". some kind of
radiation streaming uniformly in all directions, ." Radiation-based
theories are light-pressure theories. This distortion is used throughout
"Shadows" - wherever Le Sage would use a physical gas of particles,
"Shadows" discusses a "radiation field." Radiation is something that is
emitted from a matter source.
Is that all you have to say? How silly.
Someone starts talking about "some kind of radiation".
And you bark "Radiation is something that is emitted from
a matter source."
If you would read this if it was written bu someone else,
you would laugh yourself inside out. (Well, I hope)
Post by greywolf42
And that is the inverse of the Le Sage model.
(See also modification Note 1, in changes post.)
The second is the claim (in the last paragraph of this section) that;
"Gradually the idea of force at a distance as a primary attribute of matter
became the dominant paradigm of physics ...". This claim is made without
any reference. And such a viewpoint never dominated natural philosophy.
That claim is made without any reference.
Post by greywolf42
Action at a distance was considered anathema to the materialistic paradigm
of the times.
That claim is made without any reference.
Post by greywolf42
Such a view never dominated the scientific community.
That claim is made without any reference.

You call this a rebuttal?
This little diatribe of yours is a ranting pamphlet.
What a waste of time.

Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
2005-01-25 22:04:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by greywolf42
This post is with regard to Part I: Historical Introduction (approx.
first 1/4 of page)
This portion of "Shadows" contains a decent historical account of some
of the early discussions of gravitational physics. The presentation is
marred by an unfortunate editorial bent. "Shadows" seems to attempt
to tar the very idea of a physical cause of gravity with an occult or
philosophical brush (which is applied liberally at the end of the
"Shadows" page).
This does not sound like we are going to get a rebuttal.
This seems like we are going to get a first class rant.
You already have one. It calls itself "Lesage's Shadows."
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by greywolf42
Indeed, aside from a brief mention of the original paper citation,
"Shadows" does not discuss the history of Le Sage's theory at all!
The revival of Le Sagian gravitation by Lord Kelvin (and other
leading physicists) in the 1870's is completely bypassed.
I found only two significant errors of commission in this section.
The first is the claim that Le Sage's theory was based on ". some kind
of radiation streaming uniformly in all directions, ." Radiation-based
theories are light-pressure theories. This distortion is used
throughout "Shadows" - wherever Le Sage would use a physical gas
of particles, "Shadows" discusses a "radiation field." Radiation is
something that is emitted from a matter source.
Is that all you have to say? How silly.
It was sufficient. And history is not the major point of my rebuttal.
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Someone starts talking about "some kind of radiation".
And you bark "Radiation is something that is emitted from
a matter source."
If you would read this if it was written bu someone else,
you would laugh yourself inside out. (Well, I hope)
Sorry, Dinky.
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by greywolf42
And that is the inverse of the Le Sage model.
(See also modification Note 1, in changes post.)
The second is the claim (in the last paragraph of this section) that;
"Gradually the idea of force at a distance as a primary attribute of
matter became the dominant paradigm of physics ...". This claim
is made without any reference. And such a viewpoint never
dominated natural philosophy.
That claim is made without any reference.
True. However, one cannot reference a negative. Here's your chance, Dinky,
to prove me wrong. Find several references from leading physics types in
the 1800's, championing "force at a distance" as the way to go.
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by greywolf42
Action at a distance was considered anathema to the materialistic
paradigm of the times.
That claim is made without any reference.
Yes. As was Shadow's. Again, feel free to show me wrong, Dinky.
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by greywolf42
Such a view never dominated the scientific community.
That claim is made without any reference.
True. However, one cannot reference a negative. Here's your chance, Dinky,
to prove me wrong. Find several references from leading physics types in
the 1800's, championing "force at a distance" as the way to go.
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
You call this a rebuttal?
No, I call it an introduction to the history.
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
This little diatribe of yours is a ranting pamphlet.
What a waste of time.
I see you stopped commenting as soon as you reached the physics.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Dirk Van de moortel
2005-01-26 11:12:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by greywolf42
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by greywolf42
This post is with regard to Part I: Historical Introduction (approx.
first 1/4 of page)
This portion of "Shadows" contains a decent historical account of some
of the early discussions of gravitational physics. The presentation is
marred by an unfortunate editorial bent. "Shadows" seems to attempt
to tar the very idea of a physical cause of gravity with an occult or
philosophical brush (which is applied liberally at the end of the
"Shadows" page).
This does not sound like we are going to get a rebuttal.
This seems like we are going to get a first class rant.
You already have one. It calls itself "Lesage's Shadows."
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by greywolf42
Indeed, aside from a brief mention of the original paper citation,
"Shadows" does not discuss the history of Le Sage's theory at all!
The revival of Le Sagian gravitation by Lord Kelvin (and other
leading physicists) in the 1870's is completely bypassed.
I found only two significant errors of commission in this section.
The first is the claim that Le Sage's theory was based on ". some kind
of radiation streaming uniformly in all directions, ." Radiation-based
theories are light-pressure theories. This distortion is used
throughout "Shadows" - wherever Le Sage would use a physical gas
of particles, "Shadows" discusses a "radiation field." Radiation is
something that is emitted from a matter source.
Is that all you have to say? How silly.
It was sufficient. And history is not the major point of my rebuttal.
It's also not your strongest asset apparently.
Post by greywolf42
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Someone starts talking about "some kind of radiation".
And you bark "Radiation is something that is emitted from
a matter source."
If you would read this if it was written bu someone else,
you would laugh yourself inside out. (Well, I hope)
Sorry, Dinky.
Sorry doesn't make the utter silliness of your transparent
sophism go away.
Post by greywolf42
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by greywolf42
And that is the inverse of the Le Sage model.
(See also modification Note 1, in changes post.)
The second is the claim (in the last paragraph of this section) that;
"Gradually the idea of force at a distance as a primary attribute of
matter became the dominant paradigm of physics ...". This claim
is made without any reference. And such a viewpoint never
dominated natural philosophy.
That claim is made without any reference.
True. However, one cannot reference a negative. Here's your chance, Dinky,
to prove me wrong. Find several references from leading physics types in
the 1800's, championing "force at a distance" as the way to go.
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by greywolf42
Action at a distance was considered anathema to the materialistic
paradigm of the times.
That claim is made without any reference.
Yes. As was Shadow's. Again, feel free to show me wrong, Dinky.
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by greywolf42
Such a view never dominated the scientific community.
That claim is made without any reference.
True. However, one cannot reference a negative. Here's your chance, Dinky,
to prove me wrong. Find several references from leading physics types in
the 1800's, championing "force at a distance" as the way to go.
I'm not here to give you references. I'm not here to
convince you that you wrong. You do a very nice
job of that yourself.
I'm here to demonstrate what a silly and at the same
time malicious sophist your are.
You complain about the lack of references and then
you assert one obvious silliness after the other - without
any reference.
Post by greywolf42
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
You call this a rebuttal?
No, I call it an introduction to the history.
You died somewhere at the end of the 19th century.
You are a fossil with no feeling for history whatsoever.
Post by greywolf42
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
This little diatribe of yours is a ranting pamphlet.
What a waste of time.
I see you stopped commenting as soon as you reached the physics.
Discussing physics?
With a frustrated engineer?
Surely you must be joking.

Dirk Vmm
greywolf42
2005-01-27 23:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by greywolf42
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Is that all you have to say? How silly.
It was sufficient. And history is not the major point of my rebuttal.
It's also not your strongest asset apparently.
Of course it isn't. As history is not physics. And this is a physics
newsgroup.

But it was all you were willing (or able) to talk about.
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by greywolf42
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Someone starts talking about "some kind of radiation".
And you bark "Radiation is something that is emitted from
a matter source."
If you would read this if it was written bu someone else,
you would laugh yourself inside out. (Well, I hope)
Sorry, Dinky.
Sorry doesn't make the utter silliness of your transparent
sophism go away.
LOL! Dinky learned a new word. Unfortunately, he still doesn't know what
'sophism' means.
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by greywolf42
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by greywolf42
And that is the inverse of the Le Sage model.
(See also modification Note 1, in changes post.)
The second is the claim (in the last paragraph of this section) that;
"Gradually the idea of force at a distance as a primary attribute of
matter became the dominant paradigm of physics ...". This claim
is made without any reference. And such a viewpoint never
dominated natural philosophy.
That claim is made without any reference.
True. However, one cannot reference a negative. Here's your chance, Dinky,
to prove me wrong. Find several references from leading physics types in
the 1800's, championing "force at a distance" as the way to go.
No response, I see. Quite expected.
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by greywolf42
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by greywolf42
Action at a distance was considered anathema to the materialistic
paradigm of the times.
That claim is made without any reference.
Yes. As was Shadow's. Again, feel free to show me wrong, Dinky.
No response, I see. Quite expected.
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by greywolf42
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by greywolf42
Such a view never dominated the scientific community.
That claim is made without any reference.
True. However, one cannot reference a negative. Here's your chance, Dinky,
to prove me wrong. Find several references from leading physics types in
the 1800's, championing "force at a distance" as the way to go.
I'm not here to give you references.
I know. You are here simply to troll.
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
I'm not here to
convince you that you wrong. You do a very nice
job of that yourself.
I'm here to demonstrate what a silly and at the same
time malicious sophist your are.
You complain about the lack of references and then
you assert one obvious silliness after the other - without
any reference.
Obviously, Dinky, logic escapes you. One cannot have a reference for
something that did not happen.
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by greywolf42
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
You call this a rebuttal?
No, I call it an introduction to the history.
You died somewhere at the end of the 19th century.
You are a fossil with no feeling for history whatsoever.
Ooooohh! Sticks and stones. Yet Dinky has no support (either logical or
historical) for his view.
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by greywolf42
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
This little diatribe of yours is a ranting pamphlet.
What a waste of time.
I see you stopped commenting as soon as you reached the physics.
Discussing physics?
With a frustrated engineer?
Surely you must be joking.
The second question is superfluous for you, Dinky. ;)

Bye again.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
greywolf42
2005-01-18 03:08:27 UTC
Permalink
This is a continuation of the general rebuttal to "Lesage's Shadows":

This post is with regard to Part II: Introduction of the Physics of the Le
Sagian mechanism. (Paragraph beginning "Since the apparent size of an
object...")

"Shadows" does not even address Le Sage's model, but presents a completely
different model (Darwin's) as if it were Le Sage's. The first paragraph is
apparently a very bad (and distorted) summary of two paragraphs from
Roseveare (page 111). Here is the original from Roseveare:

"A novel objection to Le Sage's theory appeared in 1897 (Farr 1897). The
theory required that absorption of gravific particles was very small, ...
because beyond a certain bulk ... attraction would become mass independent.
Farr objected that owing to a result of Nernst the molecules of liquids at
their boiling points and at atmospheric pressure occupied about 0.3 of the
total volume, a proportion so great that an unacceptable amount of screening
would occur. This seems a strong objection so long as molecules are taken
as solid and opaque to gravific particles."

"Darwin (1905)* gave a mathematical treatment of Le Sage's theory. He
obtained expressions for the forces due to both normal and tangential
components of the impacts ... k and k' are elasticity factors, (k' is for
the tangential component) such that k = 1 for perfectly inelastic corpuscles
and k = 2 for perfectly elastic corpuscles. This is not a rigorous inverse
square law but it may be made so if one puts k = k'. For the general law
action and reaction are not equal ... but this could be avoided if these
spheres are taken as elementary particles of matter and if all such
elementary particles of matter are of equal size. ..."

*"The analogy between Le Sage's theory of gravitation and the repulsion of
light." proc. R. Soc A 76, 387-410, 1905.


"Shadows" begins as follows:

"Since the apparent size of an object at a distance r drops in proportion to
1/r2, it's clear that fraction of the incoming radiation blocked by a given
opaque object"

Le Sage never postulated an opaque object. This description is about
Darwin's theory.

"at a given point is also proportional to 1/r2, so we immediately get (for
spherical objects) an isotropic force that varies at least approximately as
the inverse square of the distance."

At this point, the 1/r^2 law is also true of non-spherical objects. At
best, "Shadows" is confused because of the assumption of spherical matter
object that is made in Darwin's theory.

"However, just as immediately, we can perceive some problems with this idea.
First, in order to give a force that is proportional to mass rather than to
the size of an object, we need to posit that macroscopic bodies are almost
perfectly transparent to the ultra-mundane particles, so only a tiny
fraction of the particles passing through an object are actually
intercepted."

Since such fractional absorption is the theory of Le Sage, this is not a
problem at all for Le Sagian theory.

"This enables us to say the force is proportional to the number of particles
in a body rather than to the size of the body,"

Le Sage's mechanism is not related to the number of "particles" in a body,
but to the mass of the body.

"and it also avoids the saturation problem."

This phrase is the key that confirms "Shadows" is relying on a distorted
rendition of Roseveare's text. "Shadows" does not provide any mention of a
saturation problem at any other point . but Roseveare did. And it did so in
just the same relation to the rest of the narrative.

(Also see Modification Note 2, in changes post.)======>

"But now we must assume the fundamental opaque particles comprising ordinary
matter are extremely tiny, spherical, with identical size and inertial mass
(or, if there are different sizes, they must be combined always in the same
proportions in macroscopic bodies), and do not align themselves in such a
way as to alter their combined gravity."

The above is merely a list of misrepresentations concerning Le Sagian
gravity. Some of these limitations may exist in Darwin's theory. But it is
dishonest to ascribe them to Le Sage's theory.

"(Actually, a detailed analysis of the mutual force between two opaque
spherical objects given by George Darwin in 1905 shows that the force is not
actually a pure inverse-square relation unless the objects are exactly the
same size.)"

This is a flat contradiction of both Roseveare's description and of Darwin's
work. It is trivial to recover a rigorous inverse square law - even in
Darwin's theory, by setting radial and tangential elasticity to the same
value.

< =======(Also See Modification Note 2, in changes post.)

Next, "Shadows" provides a figure for what it claims is the "Fatio-Lesage
Model of Gravity." This figure claims an "fundamental opaque particle of
normal matter." Aside from the blatant misrepresentation of opacity in Le
Sage's model, the figure is good figure for a basic understanding of the
mechanism.

(See Modification Note 3, in Changes post)

The next paragraph in "Shadows" uses horrid logic, outright distortion, and
unsupported accusations:

"These assumptions then impose further requirements. The inverse-square
property depends on the ability of the swarm of ultra-mundane particles to
maintain the shadowing effect in strict proportion to the angular extent of
the image of an elementary opaque particle as the distance increases.
Clearly the ultra-mundane particles must be absorbed by matter, not
reflected, because reflection would eliminate the 'Shadows', "

Reflection will not eliminate "Shadows", as the corpuscles and their
momentum vectors are removed from the prior line of travel. Corpuscles may
also lose only a fraction of their momentum to the body.

"and they must not interact with each other at all, because the slightest
interaction would smudge out the shadow effect and thereby destroy the
inverse-square relation."

This is an unsupported accusation, and also flatly untrue. If the particles
interact with each other elastically, the vector of momentum in the fluid is
not changed.

"But even perfectly non-interacting particles must have some finite density
(particles per volume), so there is a limit to the resolution of the shadow
image that can be maintained. At some finite distance from a fundamental
opaque particle of ordinary matter its image will become indistinguishable
from a point, by which time the inverse-square relation will have been
totally lost."

This is another travesty of logic. An image will never be
"indistinguishable from a point;" as the latter is a mathematical ideal -
not reality. In addition, there is no need for the "pure" Newtonian inverse
square law to hold over all distances - only over distances sufficient to
describe the Solar system.

"This characteristic distance is proportional to the size of the fundamental
opaque particles of matter, which we have already seen must be extremely
small in order to make the force of gravity proportional to the number of
particles (i.e., the mass) of macroscopic bodies and to avoid the saturation
problem. The smaller we make the fundamental particles of matter, the
shorter becomes the distance to which the inverse-square relation will hold
for a given density of ultra-mundane particles. In essence, the radiation
field of Lesagean particles must be dense enough (and free enough from
self-interaction) to resolve the angular radius of a particle the size of an
electron from hundreds of millions of miles away! Thus, to maintain the
inverse square relation for any appreciable distance, we need to assume the
field of ultra-mundane particles has nearly infinite density (i.e.,
particles per unit volume), and therefore, to avoid interacting with each
other, each of these particles must have essentially zero cross-sectional
area."

"Setting aside the implausibility of all these conditions for the moment,
and accepting the combined rationalizations regarding the densities and
sizes of weighty particles ."

The rest of this is a vague, hand-waving tirade against a straw-man of
multiple distortions. But it contains no mathematics or supporting
reasoning. The intended implication, of course, is that Le Sagian theory is
completely implausible. Thus ends the atrociously false "description" of Le
Sagian theory in "Shadows".

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
greywolf42
2005-01-18 03:08:29 UTC
Permalink
This is a continuation of the general rebuttal to "Lesage's Shadows":


This post is with regard to Part III: Arguments on Kinetic Theories of
Gravitation (Paragraph beginning in the middle of run-on sentence that
begins "Setting Aside the Implausibility ...")

"Shadows" next attempts to address some of the properties of any kinetic
theory of gravitation.

"(T)here are still more serious problems for shadow gravity, many of which
can be traced back to the finite speed of the ultra-mundane particles."

Le Sagian theories are fundamentally mechanical. A finite speed is a
requirement for all mechanical theories. A finite speed of gravity provides
a modification of Newton's equation of gravitational force, to account for
the speed of transmission of the effect. Thus, Le Sagian theories share the
property of a finite speed of gravity with General Relativity (which assumes
a speed of transmission of gravity equal to 'c').


A) Laplace/Feynman Drag:

This effort begins with Feynman's drag argument - though the argument was
first wielded by Laplace. (Laplace, P.S., "Traité de Méchanique Céleste,"
T.V. Bachelier, pp. 448-452, 1825) Once again, "Shadows" does not
acknowledge the sources of the argument.

"As a macroscopic body moves (relative to the frame with respect to which
the ultra-mundane flux is isotropic)"

The parenthetical phrase is easily replaced in Le Sagian theory by the words
"through the medium." Apparently "Shadows" cannot tolerate Le Sagian
terminology or concepts.

"it will naturally encounter more particles on its leading face than on its
trailing face, resulting in a net drag on the body. "

This much is true.

"Quantitatively, if a series of equally-spaced ultra-mundane particles with
speed vg are impinging on a stationary opaque object from two opposite
directions, the object will be struck by particles at the same rate on both
sides. (How all the independent ultra-mundane particles acquired this
particular speed is not explained.)"

Le Sagian corpuscles do not need to move at any "particular speed." Le
Sagian corpuscles would move at a range of speeds. Only the average value
of particle speed is vg. It is light-pressure model that has waves
traveling at single speed. The author of "Shadows" apparently did not grasp
this distinction. There is also no reason for the corpuscles to be
equally-spaced -- even in a light-pressure model.

"However, if the object moves with speed v in one direction along this axis,
the rate of encountering particles on its leading face is increased in the
ratio (vg + v)/vg, and the rate of encountering particles on its trailing
face is decreased in the ratio (vg - v)/vg, so the original force balance
F - F = 0 becomes (2v/vg),"

"The momentum transferred to an object by each ray of flux must be large
enough to account for gravity, which implies that F in the above equation is
not negligible. Since we do not observe any appreciable drag on (for
example) the planets in their orbits around the Sun, we must impose some
further restriction on the model to minimize this effect."

This is a good summary of the Laplace/Feynman argument. The claim is a
common one; and has a venerable history. However, we now know that we
cannot quantify the drag of a medium on orbiting objects from orbital
stability, because drag is not the only attribute of a physical medium.
Indeed, "Shadows" later attempts to derive a counteracting force from
gravitational aberration (Part III-C. Gravitational Aberration).
Gravitational aberration produces a counter-force to the drag force on an
orbiting body.

Usually, opponents of Le Sagian theories will advance the Feynman argument:
that the Earth would have spiraled into the Sun in about 1 million years.
Often, opponents of Le Sagian theories will advance the aberration argument:
that the Earth would have doubled it's orbital size in 1000 years. Some
opponents even switch back and forth. The time values above are typical;
and specifics vary - depending upon the opponent. But "Shadows" is the
first to my knowledge that claims that the drag force always overpowers the
aberration force.

"To minimize the drag we must assume the speed vg of the ultra-mundane
particles is extremely great. Thus, we find once again that a natural
consequence of the model must be nullified by setting one of the parameters
to an extreme value."

Because drag cannot be considered in isolation, there is no need for an
extreme value for the speed of ultra-mundane corpuscles - though some Le
Sagian proponents take this approach. Though Tom Van Flandern postulates a
high speed of his quantum gravitons, this is partially based upon the
implicit assumption of infinite gravitational speed in actual Solar system
dynamics calculations utilizing General Relativity (GR).

One cannot use presumed orbital stability to derive the drag term in a
medium theory, because the drag term is not separable from the aberration
acceleration term in such a theory. To make the claim here is to presume the
answer.

"Shadows" now attempts to calculate the drag term on a body moving through
the Le Sagian aether medium. In this, it is hampered by the unnecessary
inclusion of a term that it calls "Bradley aberration." Bradley aberration
has not even a trivial affect on the calculation of drag (as "Shadows" later
admits).

The normal method of deriving Feynman drag is to first perform the
calculation for acceleration of a body (drag) travelling in a straight line.
Then one performs the calculation for the Le Sagian gravitational
acceleration of a body in orbit. However, "Shadows" does not provide even
the elementary, classical derivations for these two terms. Avoiding the
first allows "Shadows" to ignore the observation of Pioneer drag. (The drag
term is within a factor of 2 of the "anomalous" Pioneer drag, when vg is on
the order of c. And has been observed over the past 20 years by
non-orbiting space probes.) Avoiding the second derivation allows "Shadows"
to avoid demonstrating how simple and obvious the Newtonian gravitational
equation becomes.

But "Shadows" does not take the simple road. "Shadows" takes a flawed
approach that attempts to link drag (a one-body problem in the fluid) and
gravitational force (a two-body problem in the fluid) into a single
calculation, ab initio.

"To treat this more fully, let rho U dt denote a measure of the spatial
density of the ultra-mundane particles absorbed by ordinary matter, defined
such that rho U dt equals the rate of mass accretion by a sphere of a given
radius from a given direction in an increment of time dt, where U is the
relative speed between the ultra-mundane particles and the sphere along that
direction. For a massive sphere in orbit around some center of mass with
another body we will consider just the radial and tangential flows as shown
below."

This is followed by a figure, that shows values (rho vg) vg in the left,
top, and right directions. In the bottom direction, it shows (rho (1-k) vg)
vg.


"The radiation density from the bottom (i.e., from the direction of the
other orbiting body) is reduced by the factor (1 - k) where k is a small
number representing the fraction of the flux that was intercepted by the
neighboring body. (Note that, since the gravitational constant does not
change appreciably with distance from the Sun, we know that k for the Sun
must be no greater than one part in a hundred million, i.e., 10^-8). "

The fractional value is similar to that found in Le Sagian theories (i.e.
"Deriving Newton's Gravitational Law from a Le Sage Mechanism," "Pushing
Gravity", p 193). Of course this tiny value eliminates any need for
quantifying "Bradley aberration" at all! So, all those terms will be
deleted. A simple linear interaction is all that is needed.

"Beginning with a mass m and speed v, the orbiting body will absorb in an
increment of time dt ultra-mundane particles with momentum in the horizontal
direction equal to [rho(vg-v)dt]vg and -[rho(vg+v)dt]vg. The mass accreted
from particles in the horizontal direction is equal to the quantities in the
square brackets."

Le Sagian theories do not need to have the ultra mundane corpuscles
absorbed. They only need a fraction of their momentum transferred. Le Sage
himself assumed that the corpuscle was (at least temporarily) attached to
the body. So with respect to absorption, the analysis is reasonable. But Le
Sage certainly didn't assume that all corpuscles interacted! So the
equations above are missing an interaction parameter, mu_s. This is an
elementary error on the part of "Shadows"' author.

But the equation above is still incorrect. The change in momentum of the
body from absorption of a particle transfers only the momentum of the
particle relative to the body. Which is simply rho(vg+v)dt from the front,
and -rho(vg-v)dt from the rear; or 2 rho v dt. The "extra" term of vg,
above, is erroneous. Quite simply, the author of "Shadows" failed to
include the division by vg from his first derivation in this section.

In addition to fouling up the horizontal vector, the author also neglected
to include any unit vectors in his vector analysis. It appears that the
author first tried to calculate a mass increase - which would not require
unit vectors. But later in the derivation, the author attempts to determine
the relative magnitudes of the two components . even though he had already
mixed them. Of course, to be correct, "Shadows" would have to use
calculus - not the hand-waving approach, above.

"In addition, during this same increment of time, the object will accrete
from particles in the vertical direction quantities of mass equal to
[rho(vg)dt] and [(1-k)rho(vg)dt]. Letting u denote the horizontal speed of
the object at the end of this increment of time, the conservation of
momentum requires"

Followed by an equation, which is trivially shown to be in error, because
the units aren't consistent. The LHS of the equation is:

mv + [rho(vg+v)dt] vg - [rho(vg+v)dt] vg

The first term has units of kg-m/sec, and the second two terms have units of
kg/m-sec. Similarly (and for the same reason), the RHS is also mixed units:

[m + rho(vg-v)dt + rho(vg+v)dt + rho vg dt + (1-k) rho vg dt ] u

Inside the brackets, the first term has units of kg. The rest of the terms
have units of kg/m2.

"Shadows" then follows this (erroneous) equation with the statement:

"Solving this for u, subtracting v, and dividing by the incremental time dt
gives the rate of change of speed (i.e., the acceleration) in the horizontal
direction "


{After implicitly assuming that mass m is unchanged, "Shadows" obtains the
following equation:}
dv/dt = - v (6 - k) vg rho / m

The units on the LHS are m/sec2. The units on the RHS are m5/sec2. Not
surprisingly, the equation is still grossly in error.

Now, the value of k is on the order of 10^-8. But, instead of simply
removing the trivial factor (k) from the above equation, "Shadows" attempts
to use it to link this to the radial acceleration. "Shadows" does this with
a hand-wave declaration:

"We also know that the slight different in the radiation density in the
vertical direction produces the force of gravity on the object, so we have
G m M / r2 = (k rho vg) vg "

Once again, the units are scrambled. The LHS has units of force
(kg-m/sec2). The RHS has units of kg/m-sec2. However, the derivation of
the force of gravity requires a complete, calculus derivation covering 4?
solid angle around each body.

At this point, I'm going to stop beating this particular dead horse.
Suffice it to say that the author of "Shadows" has failed miserably to
support his claim. Because "Shadows" whole approach is flawed - as well as
the mathematical manipulations in "Shadows" - I will simply point the reader
to the derived equations in "Pushing Gravity:"

Gravitational Force Law: p 188 (one of several ways)
F_g = Phi_0 mu_s^2 m M / r2 = G m M / r^2

Drag from Inertial Motion: p 197
F_d = sqrt(3) Phi_0 mu_s m v / vg

In the above equations, Phi_0 is the momentum flux of the Le Sagian aether
(kg/m-sec2), and mu_s is the mass attenuation coefficient (m2/kg). The
ratio between the two forces is therefore given by the equation:

Fd/Fg = [sqrt(3)/mu_s M] (v/vg)

We cannot determine the value of mu_s from purely orbital characteristics,
because G only gives us the product of Phi_0 mu_s^2. Hence, we cannot
determine vg from orbital stability claims.

But there is a way to observationally determine the speed of gravity - in
any gravitational theory that includes a primarily inverse square force
equation. This is phenomenon of perihelion advance of orbits.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vr2941i226t8a5%40corp.supernews.com

The advance of the apsides in any such theory is given by the following
equation:

?? = K ?3 / [ vg^2 a (1 - e^2) ]

where ?? is the advance of the apsides (perihelion or periastron) per orbit;
K is a numerical constant that depends upon the theory used (8 for "flat"
space and Entwurf GR, 24 for "modern" GR); a is the semi-major axis of the
planetary orbit; and e is the eccentricity of the orbit. The speed of
gravity is thus determined by:
vg = sqrt [K ?3 / ?? a (1 - e^2)]

All measurements of Mercury's perihelion advance and eclipsing binary stars
give a measure of the speed of gravity (vg) to be on the close order of the
speed of light (c) - regardless of theory used. Hence, the primary source
of the "vaporization of the Earth" claim rests on Laplace's fundamental
error. The speed of the ultra-mundane corpuscles is 1017 times smaller than
Laplace calculated and Poincaré used.

This takes us through the paragraph beginning "In order for the orbits of
the planets around the Sun to have persisted." For those interested, the
argument in "Shadows" was first presented by Laplace (circa 1825) and was
cribbed by "Shadows" from Poincaré. The whole point of the above is to lead
into the following claim with regard to the required speed of the
corpuscles.

"In order for the orbits of the planets around the Sun to have persisted for
hundreds of millions of years, the ratio of tangential to radial
acceleration can be no greater than about 10^-10,"

And here lies the problem. "Shadows" has already admitted that
gravitational aberration is a counter-force to drag, but it has not yet
quantified the gravitational aberration. Hence, there is no basis for
claiming that drag - alone - can be determined by such a method.

"and we've already noted that the fraction k of ultra-mundane particles
absorbed by the Sun can be no greater than 10^-8, so the above relation
implies that the speed of the ultra-mundane particles must be at least
(6)10^18 times the speed v of the planet. The planet Mercury has an orbital
speed of about (4.8)10^4 m/sec, so the value of vg must be at least
(2.9)10^23 m/sec, which is about 10^15 times the speed of light. (Henri
Poincaré used more stringent limits on the shielding and acceleration ratios
to conclude that vg must be about 10^17 times the speed of light.) "

Actually, Laplace and Poincaré simply did the math correctly (where
"Shadows" fouled up elementary units) - even if they did set up the wrong
problem. One can forgive Laplace for missing the effect of aberration. One
may be able to forgive Poincaré and Feynman (for they never indicated they
were aware of the issue). But one cannot forgive "Shadows". For "Shadows"
explicitly knows about aberration.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
greywolf42
2005-01-18 16:45:35 UTC
Permalink
greywolf42 <***@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message news:N4%Gd.663$***@fe07.usenetserver.com...
----- Original Message -----

Down to the paragraphs that missed converstion from Word.....

But there is a way to observationally determine the speed of gravity - in
any gravitational theory that includes a primarily inverse square force
equation. This is phenomenon of perihelion advance of orbits.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vr2941i226t8a5%40corp.supernews.com

The advance of the apsides in any such theory is given by the following
equation:

delta theta = K pi^3 / [ vg^2 a (1 - e^2) ]

where delta theta is the advance of the apsides (perihelion or periastron)
per orbit;

K is a numerical constant that depends upon the theory used (8 for "flat"
space and Entwurf GR, 24 for "modern" GR); a is the semi-major axis of the
planetary orbit; and e is the eccentricity of the orbit. The speed of
gravity is thus determined by:

vg = sqrt [K pi^3 / delta theta a (1 - e^2)]

All measurements of Mercury's perihelion advance and eclipsing binary stars
give a measure of the speed of gravity (vg) to be on the close order of the
speed of light (c) - regardless of theory used. Hence, the primary source
of the "vaporization of the Earth" claim rests on Laplace's fundamental
error. The speed of the ultra-mundane corpuscles is 10^17 times smaller
than Laplace calculated and Poincaré used.



Barry Mingst

ubi dubium ibi libertas
greywolf42
2005-01-18 03:08:31 UTC
Permalink
This is a continuation of the general rebuttal to "Lesage's Shadows":


This post is with regard to Part III, B) Claims for Mass Accretion /
Gravitational Induction Heating: (In the middle of the Paragraph beginning,
"To treat this more fully., beginning with the phrase: "Setting aside the
conflict with special relativity,")

Once again, "Shadows" cribs from a standard source. In this case, Henri
Poincaré's "The Foundations of Science", Science Press, 1946, pp. 517-521.
A copy of, and full analysis of, Poincaré's paper is available by e-mail
(Send request to ***@sim-ss.com).

"Setting aside the conflict with special relativity,"

There is no conflict with special relativity. Le Sagian theory is
unabashedly an aether-based theory. Thus, the concerns of Special
Relativity are not relevant.

"this implies that the effective "temperature" of the flux is incredibly
high, and the flow of energy from the flux into ordinary material bodies
(like the planets) would be so great as to vaporize them in a fraction of a
second. Maxwell had previously made a similar argument."

Maxwell's argument (1878) was based on the original stability argument of
Laplace (1825), that ignored gravitational aberration effects. However,
that approach has been disproved, ab initio. There is no way to determine
the speed of gravity (or corpuscles) from orbital stability claims. In
addition, Maxwell's argument rested on the additional assumption that there
were far more molecules in a body than there were Le Sagian corpuscles to
interact with same. See page 69 in "Pushing Gravity" for details. Since
even neutrons are experimentally observed to gravitate, Maxwell's assumption
is the inverse of reality.

"In simple terms, the momentum of a particle of mass m is mv, whereas the
kinetic energy is mv^2/2, so the ratio of energy to momentum is v/2.
Consequently, in order for the ultra-mundane particles to impart a given
amount of momentum to an ordinary massive object (such as a planet) by being
absorbed by the object, the corresponding energy absorbed by the object
increases in direct proportion to the speed of the ultra-mundane particles."

At this point, "Shadows" launches into an involved attempt to derive the
energy deposited in the Earth by the process of Le Sagian gravitation. But
"Shadows" does not use Le Sagian mathematics to do this. Instead, "Shadows"
invokes a series of hand-waving assumptions that are not related to Le
Sagian gravitation at all - but is simply playing with orbital dynamics.

Just as with drag forces, it is not possible to determine the energy
deposition rate in a Le Sagian theory from orbital dynamics, alone - and for
the same reason. Drag and heating effects are one-body problems. Orbital
dynamics result from two-body problems. Corpuscle heating of matter is a
function only of the mass of the heated body. The same quantity of heat
will be generated whether the body is sitting alone in the cosmos, or in a
tight orbit around a neutron star. Yet "Shadows"' calculation depends upon
the mass of the companion star, via the orbital radius and tangential
velocity of the orbit. This dependence, alone, clearly demonstrates that
"Shadows"' calculation is again incorrect.

The primary error is that "Shadows" assumes (implicitly) that the
gravitational constant (G) is only a function of the momentum flux of the
corpuscles. It ignores the effect of the Le Sagian attenuation parameter
completely. If this assumption were valid, then the attenuation parameter
would always appear in every Le Sagian calculation in the same relation to
flux (Phi_0 mu_s^2). But the squared attenuation parameter arises only in
two-body problems (like gravitation) that require a mediated interaction
between two bodies. The attenuation parameter appears only to the first
power in one-body problems (like heat and drag). Newtonian gravitation,
alone, cannot identify the value of the constant Phi_0 mu_s from the value
of the constant Phi_0 mu_s^2. See page 191 of "Pushing Gravity," for
example.

"Quantitatively, Lesage's theory implies that the ultra-mundane particles
impart enough momentum to a planet of mass mp moving in a circular orbit
with speed vp to completely reverse it's direction every half revolution.
Thus its momentum changes from +mpvp to -mpvp, for a total momentum change
of 2mpvp every half revolution, or 4mpvp per revolution. This momentum is
imparted by collisions with ultra-mundane particles with total mass mu and
speed vg such that m u vg = 4 mp vp. "

Once again, this attempt is flawed because the radius and the orbital
velocity is determined by the mass of the central body . not the mass of the
orbiting, heating body. And it is the orbiting bodies' mass that causes
gravitational induction heating.

"The kinetic energy E = (1/2) m u vg^2 of these ultra-mundane particles is
also absorbed by the Earth."

The above is yet another fundamental error of "Shadows"' heat analysis. The
error is the unstated assumption that the collision between the matter body
and the corpuscles are perfectly inelastic. For a completely elastic
collision, no energy will be deposited. The reality is contained within the
factor mu_s, and lies somewhere between these two extremes.

"Substituting from the momentum equation to eliminate mu, we get E = 2 mp vp
vg. By Kepler's third law we also have G ms = omega^2 r^3 = v p^2 r, where
G is the gravitational constant, r is the radius of the planet's orbit,
omega is the angular speed of the planet, and ms is the mass of the Sun.
The period of the orbit and the speed of the planet are therefore given by"

T = 2?r sqrt(r / G ms)
vg = sqrt(ms / r)

"Substituting into the equation for the energy per revolution and dividing
by the period of one revolution gives the energy per second absorbed by the
planet"

" 2 me ve vg / T = 1/? (G ms mp / r2) vg"

"Shadows"' 2 me ve vg = E, above, and power is E/T.

"For the Earth and Sun we have {various phyiscal values} so if we assume the
speed of the ultra-mundane particles is just vg = c = (3.00)108 m/sec we
find the rate at which energy is being added to the Earth due to collisions
with the ultra-mundane particles"

"E/T = 3.4 E30 J/sec"

"For comparison, the entire energy output of the Sun is (4)10^26 J/sec, so
Lesage's theory requires us to believe that the Earth is continually
absorbing about 8500 times the Sun's energy output - and this refers not
just to the fraction of the Sun's energy that strikes the Earth, but to the
entire Sun's output! This is based on the relatively mild assumption that
the ultra-mundane particles move at "only" the speed of light. If, as
Laplace estimated in order to avoid aberration problems, the speed of these
particles is really a million times greater than the speed of light, the
energy flow increases by the same factor. Even worse, if we take Poincare's
estimate that vg must be at least 10^17 times the speed of light to avoid
excessive drag, then the Earth must be absorbing energy at about 10^21 times
the Sun's total output rate."

"Shadows" comes up with an power rate that is dependent on vg to the first
power. Using the same approach, Poincaré comes up with a power rate that is
dependent on vg to the third power. "Shadows" has clearly demonstrated that
the entire approach is flawed. The flaw is that opponents of Le Sagian
theories refuse to actually use Le Sagian theory to make their calculations!
Instead they rely upon hand-waving assumptions of some unrelated orbital
dynamical nature.

I'm going to skip the next several paragraphs of "Shadows". They simply
repeat the prior refrain of heat death of the Earth - which I've already
shown to be invalid.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
greywolf42
2005-01-18 03:08:34 UTC
Permalink
This is a continuation of the general rebuttal to "Lesage's Shadows":


This post is with regard to Part IV: Philosophical Objections: (About 4/5 of
the way down the page, paragraph beginning: "We mentioned previously the
problem of infinite regress")

There is nothing of substance in this section of "Shadows". This is merely
a listing of several unsupported accusations, and straw-man arguments that
have nothing to do with any Le Sagian theory.

"We mentioned previously the problem of infinite regress for the forces of
attraction holding the ultra-mundane particles together. "

As noted above, the claim that Le Sagian corpuscles required internal
structure was completely fraudulent.

"Naturally the same problem applies to the structures of ordinary
macroscopic objects. In fact, the very existence of stable macroscopic
objects is a problem, because one of the basic premises of a Lesagean theory
is that forces are to be understood solely in terms of inertial motions and
collisions between particles,"

This statement is an outright fabrication of "Shadows". There is no generic
"premise" in any Le Sagian theory that all forces are the results of
collisions between particles. Le Sagian theory explains only gravitation.
It never claims to explain the other three forces of nature.

"which implies that all forces must be reducible to "pushes". The problem
then is to account for the stability of macroscopic bodies, conceived as
extremely sparse configurations of inertial particles."

This statement is a completely fraudulent invention of "Shadows". Le Sagian
matter models do not require "sparse configurations" of anything.

"These particles may bounce off each other, but this will just cause them to
disperse. No combination of bouncing (i.e., repelling) interactions alone
will result in a stable coherent configuration of particles in the shape of,
say, a penny."

This is a completely unsupported claim -- also flatly untrue.

"Needless to say, we cannot claim macroscopic objects are held together by
gravity, because the forces needed to hold macroscopic bodies together and
maintain their various shapes must be vastly stronger than the force of
gravity."

Of course no Le Sagian model does such a thing. This argument is purely
invented, irrelevant, and fraudulent.

And once again, in the interest of brevity, we skip several ranting
paragraphs that are unsupported by anything within the skipped paragraphs;
and by anything that went before in "Shadows".

....

(See Modification Note 5, in Changes post)

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
greywolf42
2005-01-18 03:08:33 UTC
Permalink
This is a continuation of the general rebuttal to "Lesage's Shadows":

This post is with regard to Part III-C) Gravitational Aberration (and Drag
Again): (approx. Ÿ down the page, phrase beginning "the finite speed of the
ultra-mundane particles .")


"(T)he finite speed of the ultra-mundane particles (or waves) poses
additional problems, namely, drag and aberration. These problems are
especially acute if we set vg to "just" the speed of light. Drag and
aberration both tend to upset the stability of planetary orbits. Proponents
of Lesage theories sometimes argue that these two effects can compensate for
each other, but this is not the case. To understand why, consider the
simple two-body system shown below."

{figure for orbital aberration here}

Note: The blue line and sphere in the above figure from "Shadows" have
nothing to do with gravitational force. Since mass M was never "at" the
blue position, no real force (depletion of corpuscle momentum) could have
originated there. Nor is any justification provided in "Shadows" for putting
it there. Gravitational force is a real force - not simply an appearance.

"Let m and M be the masses of the two bodies, with radial distances r and R
from the center of mass, and orbital speeds v and V respectively, and let vg
denote the finite speed of the Lesagean particles. Clearly we have m/M =
R/r = V/v. The total "aberration" between the actual and the apparent
positions of the mass M as seen from the mass m is due to two causes.
First, there is the "Bradley effect" discussed previously."

The "Bradley effect" has no bearing whatsoever on the determination of the
gravitational aberration. "Shadows" admits, above, that the "Bradley effect"
is a factor affecting the drag force - but is less than trivial on that
force. But the gravitational aberration angle is a factor affecting the
central gravitational force (which is 8 orders of magnitude greater than the
drag force, by "Shadows"' own calculation). In the interest of brevity, the
rest of this irrelevancy in "Shadows" will be passed by here.

.

"The second cause of aberration is the fact that the incoming rays striking
the mass m at a given time did not originate at the mass M at that same
time, but rather at the mass M at an earlier time. Thus the true direction
of the incoming rays is offset from the true current position of the mass M
by the angle s,"

There is no angle 's' in the above graphic. Apparently, "Shadows" meant
angle '?'. This is the angle between bB and bA - which is the correct
gravitational aberration angle.

"which is approximately equal to V/vg (because the sine of that angle is
roughly the distance from A to B divided by the distance from A to b, and
this is in the same ratio as the speeds)."

Instead of determining what the aberration angle is, "Shadows" simply
performs a hand-wave assertion that sigma is equal to v/vg. But this is not
the
aberration angle . unless m = M. A straightforward (though tedious)
geometrical evaluation of the above graphic provides:

sigma = sqrt [2 - delta(1+m/M)+ {(m/M)2 -1}/ {delta(1+m/M)}]

where delta is the factor difference between distance Ab / Bb:

delta = 1 / sqrt[1 + m/M (v/vg)^2]

Only where m = M does sigma resolve to v/vg for small angles. At that
point, the aberration angle is maximum for m = M. The aberration angle is
reduced roughly by the ratio m/M as the body masses differ. In general, the
aberration angle is approximately (m/M) (v/vg). While this doesn't affect
"Shadows"' calculation (because of a later, additional error), this
variation from v/vg is required for all Le Sagian theories.

"Thus we have the total aberration angle ..."

The gravitational aberration is only a function of gravitation. There is
no "Bradley aberration" component - because (as noted earlier by "Shadows")
Bradley aberration affects only the drag force. Whereas gravitational
aberration affects the central force.

"For the smaller of the two bodies this effect is smaller than the Bradley
aberration, which we've already seen is much too small to compensate full
for the drag, so the combined aberration cannot compensate full for the
drag."

This is a completely fallacious statement. The reason that it is fallacious
is that "Shadows" claims that the force from "Bradley aberration" is due to
a fractional reduction of the Feynman drag force. Whereas the gravitational
aberration force is a fraction of the central gravitational force - a factor
of 10^8 higher, by "Shadows"' own calculation. Hence, the angle alone is
not sufficient to claim that the aberration force is less than the Bradley
force. (Aside from the fact that "Shadows" has never shown that angle beta
is the Bradley angle, or even that it applies.)

I'm not sure where the author of "Shadows" got this particular idea. Many
calculations exist that clearly show that aberration force based on the
speed of light transmission is usually considered far greater than the drag
force - primarily because they assume that the aberration angle is
proportional to (v/vg) instead of proportional to (m/M) (v/vg).

Once again, we may bypass the rest of the verbiage in this section of
"Shadows". "Shadows" falsely asserts that one can determine the relative
contributions from "Bradley" aberration (a reduction of drag) with
gravitational aberration (a fraction of the central force) by simply
comparing calculated angles . without considering the magnitude of the
forces that they modify.

(See Modification Note 4, in Changes post)

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
greywolf42
2005-01-18 03:08:35 UTC
Permalink
This is a continuation of the general rebuttal to "Lesage's Shadows":

This post is with regard to Part V: Summary: (About 9/10 down the page.
Paragraph beginning "From a methodological standpoint.")

"From a methodological standpoint it's worth reflecting on the nature of the
series of rationalizations that have been required in the efforts to
maintain the viability of this model. "

What is actually amazing is the number and nature of the series of
rationalizations that have been proffered to claim disproof of any given
theory of Le Sagian nature. Why, for example, is there no "disproof" of any
Le Sagian theory that is based on actual equations from that theory?

"The basic model consists of a flow of unseen particles in all directions
tending to push the seen particles together, but this model tends to suggest
many things (e.g., drag, saturation, aberration, heat transfer, temporal
decay, mass accretion, dependence on volume, etc.) that are contrary to
observation,"

"Shadows" lists a series of effects that it claims are contrary to
observation. But look at the contents of the list:

Saturation was not addressed by "Shadows". Temporal decay (sic, orbital
decay) is simply a repeat of the drag claim - hence merely repetition of a
claim. Mass accretion was not addressed by "Shadows". Dependence on volume
was not addressed by "Shadows". And the ever-popular "etc." Which is simply
a slimy way of implying that there is more - when the claimant has no idea
what this may be.

In short, "Shadows" has attempted to address only three kinematic issues:
drag, aberration and heat induction. It has failed miserably on each one.
And each and every one of these claims was based on a flawed claim for the
value of a single parameter: the speed of the corpuscles. Which is a far
cry from "many 'things' contrary to observations."

"so we have found it necessary to make extreme and convoluted assumptions
about both the unseen and the seen particles in order to nullify the
unwanted tendencies of the model. "

What "Shadows" attempts to do here is to continue the fiction that there is
only one "Fatio/Le Sage theory." It is unlikely that any class of theories
that spans over 200 years will not gather some change from new data - as
both opponents and proponents become more knowledgeable.

"In fact, almost every inherent attribute of this model is inconsistent with
the facts of gravity, and therefore must be minimized or nullified by
setting some parameter of the model to near infinity or near zero."

This is another complete fabrication by "Shadows". The only parameter that
has ever been set "near infinity" is the speed of gravity in some (not all)
models. No parameters have been set to near zero. And no other parameters
have been set to near infinity. Perhaps "Shadows" is trying to imply that
purely elastic and purely inelastic collisions are not real. But proponents
of Le Sagian theories have never argued for perfection. Nor are such claims
needed to explain observations.

"The positing of these unseen particles has taught us nothing new about
gravity. Instead, we are using our pre-existing knowledge of gravity to
infer things about the posited unseen particles as well as about the
constitution of ordinary matter."

Pioneer drag was predicted by Le Sage theory. "Anomalous" heat of Neptune
was predicted by Le Sage theory. The "mostly space" condition of normal
matter was predicted by Le Sage theory. And kinetic gravity theories are the
only causal theories of gravity available. Perhaps the author of "Shadows"
(using the imperial "us") is simply unwilling to learn.

"Even if we overlook the fact that many of the implications are incompatible
with our current best models of elementary particles"

This is another complete fabrication by "Shadows". Le Sagian gravity is
completely compatible with our current models of elementary particles. The
part where the particles (whether atoms or nucleons) are mostly empty space.
It is precisely the transparency of these models that lends itself to a Le
Sagian model at the smallest levels where gravitation has been
experimentally confirmed (neutrons).

"(not to mention the fact that even if the model was correct it would not
eliminate the need for an elementary force of attraction), "

Gravitation is an elementary force of attraction. It matters not that it is
really a "push", instead of a "pull." Le Sagian theories do not attempt to
claim proof of the other three forces of nature. But then, neither does GR,
Newton, or any other theory of gravitation.

"we still would have to question the value of hypothesizing an occult entity
(ultra-mundane particles) and then inferring the occult attributes of this
occult entity necessary to yield the observed phenomena."

The same slander (the word "occult" for guilt-by-association) could be
applied to the proposed existence of molecules of air - before they were
resolved in a microscope. The value is in the scientific method. For Le
Sagian gravity theories are the only cause-and-effect, physical model of
gravity yet proposed. Even if they turn out to be wrong, the cause of
science is advanced by their proposal.

"Incidentally, although Lesage's model is much the same as had previously
been proposed by Nicolas Fatio, such models are almost invariably referred
to in modern literature as "Lesage theories" rather than "Fatio theories".
This may be because Lesage gave a more detailed and lucid account of it, or
it may simply be that those who discussed such theories in later years were
unaware of Fatio's priority."

The reason is that Fatio's theory was both incomplete, and did not reproduce
Newton's gravitational force equation well. But Le Sage's theory was both
complete, and did reproduce Newton's equation.

Lastly, "Shadows" provides some historical information on Fatio - lifted and
rephrased, once again, from van Lunteren. The only purpose appears to be to
impugn the sanity and abilities (and moral character) of Fatio. The obvious
purpose is the tarring Le Sage with the brush of guilt-by-association.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
greywolf42
2005-01-18 03:08:37 UTC
Permalink
This is a continuation of the general rebuttal to "Lesage's Shadows":

This post is with regard to Substantive Changes to "Shadows" noted on
January 12th, 2005:


Modification Note 1:

In the history "section," "Shadows" has added a substantially new qualifier
to the brief mention of Le Sage's ultra-mundane corpuscles: ". and with a
nearly infinite mean free path." This latter phrase is simply distortion.
The term used by Le Sage was "rarely collided with each other." Obviously,
Le Sage intended a long mean free path. But Le Sage only needed a range
equal to the solar system. Which is hardly infinite.

Modification Note 2:

"Shadows" has removed it's overt identification of it's use of Darwin's
model. The following sentences were removed:

"But now we must assume the fundamental opaque particles comprising ordinary
matter are extremely tiny, spherical, with identical size and inertial mass
(or, if there are different sizes, they must be combined always in the same
proportions in macroscopic bodies), and do not align themselves in such a
way as to alter their combined gravity. (Actually, a detailed analysis of
the mutual force between two opaque spherical objects given by George Darwin
in 1905 shows that the force is not actually a pure inverse-square relation
unless the objects are exactly the same size.)"

The only problem is that "Shadows" continues to use Darwin's model, instead
of Le Sage's model. It merely has tried to bury the evidence.

Modification Note 3:

"Shadows" has added three new paragraphs at this point:

"We now know that the atoms and molecules comprising ordinary matter
actually do consist of very tiny particles in mostly empty space (neglecting
the fields), which makes it possible for very weakly interacting particles
like neutrinos to pass through the entire Earth (for example) quite easily.
The "transparency" of matter can, with some justification, be regarded as a
prediction of Fatio-Lesage theories, since the atomic structure of matter
was unknown when the theories were first put forward. On the other hand,
according to a Lesagean theory, we can have equality between inertial and
gravitational mass only if all matter consists of identical elemental opaque
entities (i.e., entities of exactly the same size, shape, and inertial
density) in exactly the same proportion, whereas we now know that different
kinds of material substances consists of different combinations of protons,
neutrons, and electrons. Furthermore, we now know that both the inertial and
the gravitational masses of these substances depend on their binding energy
as well as the number of elementary particles they contain, and indeed we
know that even pure energy (light) is affected by gravity precisely in
accord with the equivalence principle. All these facts are inherently
incompatible with the Lesagean model of gravity. Any suggestion that we can
restore inertial and gravitation equivalence to Lesage's model by regarding
protons, neutrons, and electrons as composite bodies formed from a single
species of identical opaque particles merely introduces another layer of
structure, requiring elementary attractive forces to maintain it - the very
thing Lesagean theory is intended to obviate."

"Moreover, the structure of matter actually proposed by Lesage consisted not
of particles, but of a lattice of elemental bars forming a mesh of "cages",
which he was compelled to postulate in order to account for the structural
stability of matter with seem to appeal to any elementary attractive forces.
Needless to say, Lesage's proposed structure of matter has now been
falsified, and it's easy to see this structure was logically untenable to
begin with, because the essential tension in the bars of the cages
represents an elementary attractive force, which is inconsistent with the
categorical Lesagean rejection of such forces. (We may also mention that any
regular lattice structure would tend to exhibit non-isotropic gravity, due
to the fact that the bars would be aligned with each other more in some
directions than in others.)"

"Still, setting aside the fundamental incompatibility between Lesagean
theory and the stability of matter, we can proceed to assess the other
consequences of such a theory, based on the assumption that matter is
composed of a very sparse agregate of fundamental opaque spherical particles
with identical size and inertial mass (or, if there are different sizes,
they must be combined always in the same proportions in macroscopic bodies),
and with the assumption that these particles do not align themselves in such
a way as to alter their combined gravity. {Attaching here to the beginning
of the pre-existing paragraph}


Modification Note 4:

"Shadows" has now inserted a classic example of inverted reasoning, outright
misrepresentation, and ad hominem vitriol.

"Incidentally, some neo-Lesageans (of the crackpot variety) have suggested
that the motion of the planets through the radiation field of ultra-mundane
particles "

This is another complete fabrication. No Le Sagian theory is based on a
"radiation field" at all. A Le Sagian theory - even a Fatio one - is based
on movement of corpuscles, not radiation. And no such proposal for fluid
currents has ever been made by a proponent of light-pressure theory.

"imparts a "swirl" to the field, thereby reducing or eliminating the drag.
Needless to say (or so one would have thought), this suggestion is totally
incompatible with the most basic pre-requisites of Lesagean models, because
a radiation field"

This argument is an outright fraud on the part of "Shadows". Once again, a
radiation field is never part of a Le Sagian model.

"gives something like an inverse-square force only over distances comparable
to the mean-free path of the radiation particles. "

Here "Shadows" tries to twist out of the fraud by inventing the term
"radiation particles."

"Any interaction between particles destroys the inverse-square relation. "

This last statement is not supported anywhere in "Shadows", and it is
patently false.

It is interesting to note that the prediction of a "swirl" in the fluid
around a rotating body is identical to the Lenz-Thirring effect in GR. The
same effect should manifest for two bodies orbiting a common center of mass.

Once again, we may now bypass the rest of "Shadows"' rants on the subject -
as the basis for that rant has been shown to be fraudulent.

Modification Note 5:

"Shadows" has attempted to insert some information on Le Sage's model in
this philosophical tirade:

"Lesage himself recognized this fundamental problem, and this is why he
suggested (as mentioned above) that ordinary macroscopic bodies are
constructed like "cages", i.e., a lattice network of tiny inter-connected
bars. The idea was that the lattice was sparse enough to be virtually
transparent to ultra-mundane particles, but still could maintain the
structure of macroscopic bodies. This scheme may distract some critics, but
it does nothing to actually solve the problem, because the bars of the cages
obviously must have tensile as well as compressive strength, so each of them
represents an elementary attractive force, which is precisely what the
shadow theory is supposed to do without."

Once again, a total distortion of Le Sage's work. Le Sage did not propose
the cages as a literal model of the physics of particles. Atoms themselves
had not yet been proven, and the structure of matter was still 150 years
away. The lie in "Shadows" is the total refusal of the author of "Shadows"
to acknowledge that the matter models in Le Sagian theories have evolved to
match the knowledge of the atom.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Shadows
2005-01-20 14:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Sad to say, after reading all nine(!) of Greywolf42's posts in this
series, it turns out that he has no valid criticisms at all. Here's a
summary:

Post 1: Greywolf42 asserts that "Shadows" conflates and/or does not
consider the full range of Lesagean theories. This allegation is
false, as any reader can easily verify. Each and every one of the
variants listed by Greywolf42, plus others, are clearly delineated and
described in detail in "Shadows". In brief, the primitive concept of
fully opaque macroscopic bodies is disposed of as trivially
inconsistent with the facts; the possibility and consequences of
ultra-mundane particles moving at various speeds, including c or much
greater than c, is addressed in detail; the possibility of replacing
the ultra-mundane particles with waves is discussed; the effects of
reflection versus absorption are discussed. In addition, proposals
(e.g., Thomson's secondary re-radiation) for avoiding the heating
problem are also discussed in detail. Greywolf42's inability to
recognize what is being discussed in each case is largely due to his
evident failure to grasp the distinction between microscopic and
macroscopic descriptions, which causes him repeatedly to confuse the
opaque elementary particles of matter with opaque macroscopic bodies.

The only other content of Post #1 is the several charges of plaigerism
and/or "cribbing". Greywolf42 flatly asserts that the historical
information in "Shadows" was plaigerized from a book called Pushing
Gravity. Now, it so happens that the author of "Shadows" has never
laid eyes on this book (which, judging from the online sales pitches,
is a collection of writings by a group of hardcore pseudo-scientific
crackpots, including, it seems, Greywolf42 himself). Greywolf42 also
claims that "Shadows" is plaigerized from a discussion of Lesagean
theories contained in Roseveare's book on Mercury's Precession, but
hilariously, in the only two actual comparisons he makes, it turns out
in one case that his complaint is that "...Roseveare is completely
ignored in [Shadows]", and in the other that "this is a flat
contradiction of ... Roseveare's description ...". Is it possible that
Greywolf42 thinks the word "plaigerism" means writing something
different than what has been written by someone else?

Similarly, Greywolf42 alleges that the analysis of the heat problem in
"Shadows" is plaigerized from Poincare's classic essay, which is at
least summarized in every discussion of Lesage theory, and yet when
Greywolf42 actually gets around to discussing the topic, his complaint
turns out to be that the treatment in "Shadows" is grossly
INconsistent with Poincare's essay - from which it was supposedly
plaigerized. The truth, as anyone who wishes to read the two texts can
easily verify for themselves, is that the analysis of the heat problem
in "Shadows" is quite different from Poincare's classic analysis, but
the conclusions are perfectly consistent. (Greywolf42 is confused
about the consistency due to his failure to realize that Poincare has
the flux density inversely proportional to the square of the velocity
of the ultra-mundane particles.) Of course, Greywolf42 regards
consistency with Poincare (and Maxwell and Thomson) as a bad thing,
because he insists, contrary to the findings of every serious person
who has ever studied the matter, that there is no heat problem at all,
even without Thomson's secondary re-radiation.

Post #2: Ironically, this post begins with the claim that "Shadows"
completely ignores Thomson's (Lord Kelvin's) work on the subject,
which is simply false. The subject of Thomson's proposed solution to
the heat problem is discussed in detail. One must wonder how carefully
Greywolf42 has actually read "Shadows".

In any case, Post #2 goes on to say "Shadows" presents a "decent
review" of the historical background, with only two "errors of
comission". The first is that Greywolf42 claims "Shadows" is talking
only about wave theories because it describes the flux of ultra-
mundane particles as a "radiation field". For some unknown reason,
Greywolf42 believes the word "radiation" necessarily signifies waves
rather than particles. This is so silly as to need no reply. The
second "error" detected by Greywolf42 is that "Shadows" claims the
Newton-Cotes "action at a distance" model became the dominant paradigm
for physical forces in the centuries after Newton. Obviously this
claim is not an error at all, but a simple statement of well-known
historical fact which any knowledgeable person can confirm.

Post #3: Here, as discussed under Post #1, Greywolf42 charges that the
analysis of the heat problem in "Shadows" is "cribbed" from Poincare,
and then goes on to complain about how different they are. By the way,
"Shadows" explicitly references Poincare's classic analysis, which is
well known, and compares those results with it's own, quite different,
derivation, and shows them to be consistent. (However, the author of
Shadows has never heard of the particular "1946" reference that
Greywolf42 cites.)

Greywolf42's only real complaint in Post #3 is that he disputes the
results of the heat transfer analysis. His disagreement on this point
is not just with "Shadows", but with Maxwell, Thomson, Darwin, and
Poincare, all of whom concluded that Lesage theory entails a drastic
heat problem (without some radical re-radiation mechanism). His
disagreement is based on his failure to understand the perfectly
general arguments by which we can deduce the amount of heat that must
be transferred to a body for a given amount of momentum transfer and a
given speed of interaction. Greywolf42 also fails to understand that
reflected particles do not contribute at all to the net force which
two spherical bodies exert on each other, so the momentum transfer is
due entirely to the absorbed particles. Greywolf42 is also confused by
the exponent of the v_g dependency in the energy, since Poincare
refers to a cubic dependence whereas the derivation in "Shadows" shows
that the energy for a given amount of momentum is linearly
proportional to v_g. Nevertheless, to Greywolf42's astonishment,
Poincare and Shadows arrive at comparable results. What Greywolf42 has
failed to understand is that Poincare multiplies his v_g cubed by the
flux density, which (in accord with basic kinetic theory) is inversely
proportional to the square of the mean particle velocity. Hence the
energy is directly proportional to v_g in both treatments, and the
fact that these different derivations give comparable results is not
nearly as astonishing as Greywolf42 imagines.

Post #4: Again this post begins with the customary charge of
plaigerism, this time of "Feynman's drag argument", and Laplace for
good measure. Again, the author of "Shadows" has never laid eyes on
"Feynman's drag argument", and again it turns out that Greywolf42's
main complaint is that the argument presented in "Shadows" is grossly
INconsistent with the source from which it is allegedly plaigerized.

The remainder of Post #4 simply details Greywolf42's failure to
understand the effects of drag and aberration in Lesagean models. In
particular, he fails to understand the distinction between the two
sources of aberration in orbiting systems, and the relation between
Bradley aberration and drag. Also, he erroneously believes the
derivations assume that macroscopic bodies are opaque, so everything
is absorbed, even though this is explicitly not the case. Macroscopic
bodies are almost entirely transparent to the ultra- mundane flux, and
this is fully accounted for in the analysis, as is the possibility of
some amount of reflection. Greywolf42 is also hopelessly confused by
an unfortunate typo in "Shadows"; where it says rho U dt is the RATE
of mass accretion in the increment of time dt, it should (obviously)
say it is the QUANTITY of mass accretion in that time increment. This
is what leads Greywolf42 to the apparent discrepancy in units. No one
who was really following the derivation would have any difficulty
spotting this obvious typo.

Post #5: Again, the 5th post begins with the customary accusation of
plaigerism, which Greywolf42 supports by first quoting a long passage
from Roseveare (apparently his favorite source of information) and
then complaining that "Shadows" does NOT echo it.

The "substance" of Greywolf42's 5th post is simply that he fails to
grasp the distinction between macroscopic and microscopic
descriptions. He doesn't realize that although macroscopic bodies
(according to Lesage) are nearly transparent to ultra-mundane
particles, those bodies are composed of very small and widely spaced
opaque elementary entities, the bars of Lesage's "cages", or, more
sensibly, the elementary particles. What Darwin and every other (sane)
person who has ever thought about Lesage's theory (including Lesage)
realized is that the total gravity of an agregate of elementary opaque
particles, if they are sufficiently spaced to avoid unrealistic
shielding and saturation, is simply the sum of the individual
gravities, and the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass
requires that the elementary entities be identical in size and shape.
Hence it is sufficient to determine the gravitational attraction
between two opaque elementary entities. Contrary to what Greywolf42
supposes, this in no way implies that Darwin (or Poincare or Lesage or
anyone else) assumed macroscopic bodies are opaque. His analysis, as
well as the analysis presented in "Shadows", is perfectly applicable
to Lesage's theory. As usual, Greywolf42's objection is simply based
on a complete misunderstanding of the fundamentals of the subject.

Following this comes one of the most damning examples of Greywolf42's
utter lack of comprehension of the most basic workings of a Lesage
model. He quotes "Shadows" as saying that the ultra-mundane particles
"must not interact with each other at all, because the slightest
interaction would smudge out the shadow effect and thereby destroy the
inverse-square relation." Now, this is a plain statement of
self-evident fact, one that everyone who has ever thought about
Lesage's model conceeds. The mean free path of the ultra-mundane
particles must exceed the scale on which the flux yields an inverse
square force, for the reason stated. Greywolf42 replies "This is an
unsupported accusation, and also flatly untrue. If the particles
interact with each other elastically, the vector of momentum in the
fluid is not changed." Incredible. It's hard to avoid the conclusion
that Greywolf42 actually does not understand that Lesage's omni-
directional flux is NOT a fluid, it is a radiation field of purely
non-self- interacting streams of particles. The depth of
misunderstanding that his comment reveals is truly stunning.

Post #6: In this post Greywolf42 merely fumes over the perceived
injustice (based on all the foregoing misunderstandings) of the
"Shadows" article. Then he objects to the additional and somewhat
embarrassing historical information about Fatio that is included at
the end of the article, and again levels the charge of plagerism, this
time relative to the book of Greywolf42 and his fellow crackpots,
which the author of the "Shadows" has never laid eyes on.

Post #7: In this post Greywolf42 reacts to the "Shadows" assertion
that the basic intent and motivation of Lesagean theories is to
dispense with action at a distance, and replace it with contact
impulse interactions of material entities. It's odd that Greywolf42
objects to this, because it was the expressly stated motivation of
every proponent of the theory from Fatio to Thomson. Greywolf42 also
objects to the "Shadows" assertion that the failure of Lesagean theory
to dispense with action at a distance (for the forces necessary to
account for structural stability and absorption properties of ordinary
matter, which are essential for the working of Lesage's theory)
undermines the cogency of the theory. Again, his lack of appreciations
for the most basic issues of Lesagean theory is stunning.

Greywolf42 goes on to expose more of his ignorance and
misunderstandings, e.g., questioning why Lesage's theory implies
sparse configurations of inertial particles, why impulse interactions
alone can never account for stable agregates, and so on.

Post #8: In this post Greywolf42 lodges a series of misguided
complaints based on his thorough lack of understanding of aberration
and drag effects. At one point his confusion is worsened (if that's
possible) by the fact that the greek character sigma came out as "s"
in his browser, and he couldn't find an "s" in the diagram. He labels
every deductive step which goes over his head (which is nearly all of
them) as "hand- waving". Suffice it to say that the derivations of the
aberration and drag effects presented in the "Shadows" article are
correct and speak for themselves, as anyone who wishes to take the
trouble can verify.

Post #9: In this post Greywolf42 documents with a slightly bizzare
sense of indignation a number of additions that have been made to the
"Shadows" article since he first viewed it. (In Post #1 he urges his
readers to notify him if they notice any future edits.) He also makes
a few comments, such as that the mean free path of ultra-mundane
particles only needs to be the size of the solar system. Now, if he
really understands this, why was he claiming earlier that elastic
collisions between the ultra-mundane particles have no adverse effect
on the inverse-square force? And why doesn't he mention that "Shadows"
says exactly the same thing, i.e., that we know the mean free path is
at least as big as the diameter of the solar system? In any case, the
post contains nothing in the nature of a "rebuttal".

Overall, Greywolf42's posts are devoid of merit, and merely display
his own remarkable depth of misunderstanding.
Paul Stowe
2005-01-21 01:45:39 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:52:21 GMT, ***@nospam.com (Shadows)
a.k.a. Bilge wrote:

Crap...

[Snip...]

Netpath of "Shadow",

Path: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com!
newsdbm01.news.prodigy.com!
newscon07.news.prodigy.com!
newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!
prodigy.com!
newscon02.news.prodigy.com!
prodigy.net!
wns13feed!
worldnet.att.net!
199.45.49.37!
cyclone1.gnilink.net!
spamkiller.gnilink.net!
gnilink.net!
trnddc02.POSTED!
41a278ad!not-for-mail

Netpath of Bilge,

Path: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com!
newsdbm01.news.prodigy.com!
newscon07.news.prodigy.com!
newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!
prodigy.com!
newscon02.news.prodigy.com!
prodigy.net!
wns13feed!
worldnet.att.net!
199.45.49.37!
cyclone1.gnilink.net!
spamkiller.gnilink.net!
gnilink.net!
trnddc02.POSTED!
41a278ad!not-for-mail

Paul Stowe
greywolf42
2005-01-21 04:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Stowe
Crap...
[Snip...]
Netpath of "Shadow",
Path: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com!
newsdbm01.news.prodigy.com!
newscon07.news.prodigy.com!
newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!
prodigy.com!
newscon02.news.prodigy.com!
prodigy.net!
wns13feed!
worldnet.att.net!
199.45.49.37!
cyclone1.gnilink.net!
spamkiller.gnilink.net!
gnilink.net!
trnddc02.POSTED!
41a278ad!not-for-mail
Netpath of Bilge,
Path: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com!
newsdbm01.news.prodigy.com!
newscon07.news.prodigy.com!
newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!
prodigy.com!
newscon02.news.prodigy.com!
prodigy.net!
wns13feed!
worldnet.att.net!
199.45.49.37!
cyclone1.gnilink.net!
spamkiller.gnilink.net!
gnilink.net!
trnddc02.POSTED!
41a278ad!not-for-mail
Not that anyone is too surprised. Bilge "alerted" everyone to the new page,
in November. And "Shadow" modified the page as soon as I pointed out basic
problems to Bilge.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Bilge
2005-01-21 13:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Paul Stowe,
Not only are too stupid to do physics, you're too stupid to
play detective. Of course, this is your usual modus operendi.
You are dishonest and you lie at every opportunity.

I am not ``Shadows,'' but like everything else you post, facts
don't get in the way of your opinion, so I don't expect you
to retract your statement. Despite what you would like to
believe, I'm not the only person who thinks you are an idiot.
Your fact checking skills are as poor as your physics skills.
Post by Paul Stowe
Crap...
[Snip...]
Netpath of "Shadow",
Path: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com!
newsdbm01.news.prodigy.com!
newscon07.news.prodigy.com!
newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!
prodigy.com!
newscon02.news.prodigy.com!
prodigy.net!
wns13feed!
worldnet.att.net!
199.45.49.37!
cyclone1.gnilink.net!
spamkiller.gnilink.net!
gnilink.net!
trnddc02.POSTED!
41a278ad!not-for-mail
Netpath of Bilge,
Path: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com!
newsdbm01.news.prodigy.com!
newscon07.news.prodigy.com!
newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!
prodigy.com!
newscon02.news.prodigy.com!
prodigy.net!
wns13feed!
worldnet.att.net!
199.45.49.37!
cyclone1.gnilink.net!
spamkiller.gnilink.net!
gnilink.net!
trnddc02.POSTED!
41a278ad!not-for-mail
Paul Stowe
greywolf42
2005-01-21 04:19:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shadows
Sad to say, after reading all nine(!) of Greywolf42's posts in this
series, it turns out that he has no valid criticisms at all. Here's a
Well, at least "Shadow" has the courtesy to respond directly into the group
this time -- instead of simply trying to make changes to the page without
notice. But then -- as I noted to Bilge -- there is no way to salvage the
content of the page, when faced with specific disposal of Shadow's rants.

I must thank Phillip Helbig, for his serendipitous note in
sci.physics.research, this morning:
"Many if not most posts from Physicsforums do not include ANY quoted text
from the article they are replying to. While quoting too much text
and/or positioning it after your reply is bad, quoting none at all is
usually even worse, since there is no indication of the context. ...
In any case, please quote enough text to establish the
context THEN add your reply."

Shadow does not either quote or address a single one of my specific
rebuttals to his assertions about physics in "Shadows." Instead, he makes
wild, distorted allegations about my general purpose. To further sow
confusion, Shadow comes up with his own numbering system for posts.
(Shadow's "Post 2" is my "Part I", etc.)

To alleviate this confusion; to allow others to actually see easily see the
contextual arguments (if they wish); and to cut down the size of this
unwieldy missive, I will simply provide links to my prior posts.

My apologies for the length of the post. But Shadow's intent seems to be to
mash as many statements as possible into a given post.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Rebuttal to Lesages Shadows (General)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/982030b9f3d78
380
Post by Shadows
Greywolf42 asserts that "Shadows" conflates and/or does not
consider the full range of Lesagean theories. This allegation is
false, as any reader can easily verify. Each and every one of the
variants listed by Greywolf42, plus others, are clearly delineated and
described in detail in "Shadows".
What a pathetic lie, Shadow! Le Sage's own variant was not mentioned *at
all* in the original page (on Jan 4, 2005). This is the main change that
"Shadows" made to the page by January 12th -- to try to cover up the
deliberate distortion. Nor are many of the primary Le Sagian theories
identified in "Shadows" -- even today.

And "Shadows" *still* calculates only with Darwin's 1905 theory -- yet
*still* calls it the "Fatio/Lesage" theory. The only description of Le
Sage's theory (added on 1/12) is to term Le Sage's actual theory a
"distraction."
Post by Shadows
In brief, the primitive concept of
fully opaque macroscopic bodies is disposed of as trivially
inconsistent with the facts;
Since that is not part of either Le Sage's theory or my rebuttal, that
demonstrates the pure strawman nature of both "Shadows" and Shadow. :)
Post by Shadows
the possibility and consequences of
ultra-mundane particles moving at various speeds, including c or much
greater than c, is addressed in detail;
"Shadows" simply makes the false claim that the speeds must
be vastly greater than 'c' (using hand-waving arguments, coupled with
hilariously erroneous mathematical manipulations).
Post by Shadows
the possibility of replacing
the ultra-mundane particles with waves is discussed;
But waves aren't a Le Sage theory. Nor are the proponents of such theories
identified in "Shadows."
Post by Shadows
the effects of reflection versus absorption are discussed.
Acutally, all "Shadows" does is make a bald assertion that reflection won't
work:

"(Note that we can exclude from consideration all the reflected particles,
because these contribute nothing to the net force on a body, e.g., with
perfect reflection there would be no net force at all. Thus we need consider
only the absorbed particles.)"

And the above claim is flatly untrue.
Post by Shadows
In addition, proposals
(e.g., Thomson's secondary re-radiation) for avoiding the heating
problem are also discussed in detail.
It *is* true that "Shadows" spends a lot of space discussing the issue --
but not in the history section (which is under discussion at the moment).
Post by Shadows
Greywolf42's inability to
recognize what is being discussed in each case is largely due to his
evident failure to grasp the distinction between microscopic and
macroscopic descriptions, which causes him repeatedly to confuse the
opaque elementary particles of matter with opaque macroscopic bodies.
LOL! I never discussed or implied any *macroscopic* descriptions. This is
simply another strawman of Shadow's. Made to distract from Shadow's false
claim that "Le Sage's theory" used opaque spheres. Le Sage's *microscopic*
masses were *not* opaque! That was Darwin.
Post by Shadows
The only other content of Post #1 is the several charges of plaigerism
and/or "cribbing". Greywolf42 flatly asserts that the historical
information in "Shadows" was plaigerized from a book called Pushing
Gravity.
Well, "Shadows" *does* use the same quotations, in the same order, as Frans
van Lunteren's paper in the book "Pushing Gravity." The simple solution
would be for Shadow to identify the source(s) of the historical information.
But Shadow won't do this. Incidentally, I never made any charge of
plagiarism. I simply complained that "Shadows" cribbed from various sources
without crediting them.
Post by Shadows
Now, it so happens that the author of "Shadows" has never
laid eyes on this book
Shadow now claims that (s)he hadn't read the book "Pushing Gravity" at all.
This puts the lie to any claim that Shadow might make to be knowledgeable
about modern Le Sagian theory!
Post by Shadows
(which, judging from the online sales pitches,
is a collection of writings by a group of hardcore pseudo-scientific
crackpots, including, it seems, Greywolf42 himself).
The standard special plead. (I don't have to look, I know the answer....)
Post by Shadows
Greywolf42 also
claims that "Shadows" is plaigerized from a discussion of Lesagean
theories contained in Roseveare's book on Mercury's Precession,
Apparently, Shadow did rely upon Roseveare's work (but wants to divert
attention). I simply chastised "Shadows" for not identifying the source of
it's information. What I said was "'Shadows' relies heavily on
{Roseveare} - though 'Shadows' never identifies the source of the material."
Post by Shadows
but
hilariously, in the only two actual comparisons he makes, it turns out
in one case that his complaint is that "...Roseveare is completely
ignored in [Shadows]", and in the other that "this is a flat
contradiction of ... Roseveare's description ...". Is it possible that
Greywolf42 thinks the word "plaigerism" means writing something
different than what has been written by someone else?
I identified the source for others, so that they could see the obvious
distortions of the source made by Shadow. I never accused anyone of
plagerism (nor used any variant of the word).
Post by Shadows
Similarly, Greywolf42 alleges that the analysis of the heat problem in
"Shadows" is plaigerized from Poincare's classic essay, which is at
least summarized in every discussion of Lesage theory,
Citations, please. How do you know, if you refuse to read discussions of Le
Sage theory?
Post by Shadows
and yet when
Greywolf42 actually gets around to discussing the topic, his complaint
turns out to be that the treatment in "Shadows" is grossly
INconsistent with Poincare's essay - from which it was supposedly
plaigerized.
Again, I never used the word plagierize -- nor accused anyone of it. What I
simply did was to identify the source of the approach, and demonstrated how
Shadow had fouled it up, by screwing up the math.
Post by Shadows
The truth, as anyone who wishes to read the two texts can
easily verify for themselves, is that the analysis of the heat problem
in "Shadows" is quite different from Poincare's classic analysis, but
the conclusions are perfectly consistent.
Reference, please. What is the citation for the "classic analysis?"
Post by Shadows
(Greywolf42 is confused
about the consistency due to his failure to realize that Poincare has
the flux density inversely proportional to the square of the velocity
of the ultra-mundane particles.)
How would we know, since "Shadows" is inconsistent with them all?
Post by Shadows
Of course, Greywolf42 regards
consistency with Poincare (and Maxwell and Thomson) as a bad thing,
Nonsense. I consider errors a bad thing. And if an error was made by
Laplace (as in this case), and that value was simply accepted by Poincare,
Maxwell and Thomson), then I am free to note it.
Post by Shadows
because he insists, contrary to the findings of every serious person
who has ever studied the matter, that there is no heat problem at all,
even without Thomson's secondary re-radiation.
The classic special plead, ad hominem. The question is -- of course -- what
the substantive arguments reveal about the conclusions. Not who made the
conclusions.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Rebuttal to Lesages Shadows (Part I), Historical Introduction
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3db4a663f4a27
799
Post by Shadows
Ironically, this post begins with the claim that "Shadows"
completely ignores Thomson's (Lord Kelvin's) work on the subject,
which is simply false.
Yes, Shadow's statement above is false. For what I wrote was: "Indeed,
aside from a brief mention of the original paper citation, "Shadows" does
not discuss the history of Le Sage's theory at all! The revival of Le Sagian
gravitation by Lord Kelvin (and other leading physicists) in the 1870's is
completely bypassed."
Post by Shadows
The subject of Thomson's proposed solution to
the heat problem is discussed in detail. One must wonder how carefully
Greywolf42 has actually read "Shadows".
I said that the history of Le Sage's theory was not mentioned. And Kelvin's
revival of the theory was not mentioned anywhere in the page.
Post by Shadows
In any case, Post #2 goes on to say "Shadows" presents a "decent
review" of the historical background, with only two "errors of
comission". The first is that Greywolf42 claims "Shadows" is talking
only about wave theories because it describes the flux of ultra-
mundane particles as a "radiation field". For some unknown reason,
Greywolf42 believes the word "radiation" necessarily signifies waves
rather than particles. This is so silly as to need no reply.
Yes, Shadow's lie is very silly, and very obvious. For what I stated was
that "radiation" needs a matter source (to be radiation). And "Shadows"
never identifies Le Sagian particles as what their proponents *always*
represented it as .... a fluid (not a 'radiation field').

Lower down in the post, Shadow clarifies his (her) position:
"It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Greywolf42 actually does not
understand that Lesage's omni-directional flux is NOT a fluid, it is a
radiation field of purely non-self- interacting streams of particles."

But this is not part of any Le Sagian theory -- it is only Shadow's personal
feelings. (It is "self-evident" to Shadow.) Non-interacting particles
require a matter source. In other words, Shadow is talking about "gravity
rays."
Post by Shadows
The
second "error" detected by Greywolf42 is that "Shadows" claims the
Newton-Cotes "action at a distance" model
Newton never had an "action-at-a-distance" model. "Hypothesis non fingo."
Post by Shadows
became the dominant paradigm
for physical forces in the centuries after Newton. Obviously this
claim is not an error at all, but a simple statement of well-known
historical fact which any knowledgeable person can confirm.
But for which Shadow has no reference. ;)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Rebuttal to Lesages Shadows (Part II): Introduction of the Physics of the Le
Sagian mechanism
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/53e6d3fafce5c
1ad
Post by Shadows
Here, as discussed under Post #1, Greywolf42 charges that the
analysis of the heat problem in "Shadows" is "cribbed" from Poincare,
and then goes on to complain about how different they are.
I *did* complain about the ludicrously elementary arithmetic errors that
Shadow made. And how trivial they are to identify: mixed units in the
equations.
Post by Shadows
By the way,
"Shadows" explicitly references Poincare's classic analysis,
A pathetic lie. "Shadows" provides not a single reference to a single paper
or book, anywhere in the page. "Shadows" simply mentioned Poincare's name
twice, with the value "10^17 times the speed of light" for the speed of
gravity.
Post by Shadows
which is
well known, and compares those results with it's own, quite different,
derivation, and shows them to be consistent.
Except that Shadows comes up with a completely different numerical answer,
and a completely different dependence on the speed of the corpuscles. They
are "consistent" only in that both analyses claim that the heat is too
great.
Post by Shadows
(However, the author of
Shadows has never heard of the particular "1946" reference that
Greywolf42 cites.)
So, what reference did Shadow use? (S)he still won't say....
Post by Shadows
Greywolf42's only real complaint in Post #3 is that he disputes the
results of the heat transfer analysis.
I never claimed merely to disagree with the result. I clearly noted
that the entire problem setup was wrong. "Shadows" does not use equations
from Le Sagian theory at all. Yet makes assertions about what Le Sagian
theory should predict.
Post by Shadows
His disagreement on this point
is not just with "Shadows", but with Maxwell, Thomson, Darwin, and
Poincare, all of whom concluded that Lesage theory entails a drastic
heat problem (without some radical re-radiation mechanism).
Ah, the worship of authority!

All of the above concluded that the heat problem arose from particles moving
at 10^17 c (as Laplace had initially calculated). Since that common
assumption was shown to be wrong -- so were all the conclusions.
Post by Shadows
His
disagreement is based on his failure to understand the perfectly
general arguments by which we can deduce the amount of heat that must
be transferred to a body for a given amount of momentum transfer and a
given speed of interaction.
My argument is based on only two things. 1) "Shadows" did not use Le Sagian
theory to determine the predictions of Le Sagian theory -- it simply
asserted what the equations should be. 2) "Shadows" never justified it's
hand-waving assertions. The latter is what Shadow now claims are "perfectly
general arguments". But (s)he still provides no basis for ignoring actual
Le Sagian equations.


Gravitational Force Law: p 188 (one of several ways)
F_g = Phi_0 mu_s^2 m M / r2 = G m M / r^2

Drag from Inertial Motion: p 197
F_d = sqrt(3) Phi_0 mu_s m v / vg

In the above equations, Phi_0 is the momentum flux of the Le Sagian aether
(kg/m-sec2), and mu_s is the mass attenuation coefficient (m2/kg). The
ratio between the two forces is therefore given by the equation:

Fd/Fg = [sqrt(3)/mu_s M] (v/vg)

The overall form of the above equations does not change from one Le Sagian
to the next. There is always a "mu_s" term (or variant) that prevents one
from determining the drag-to-gravity ratio from purely gravitational
permutations. {In Darwin's theory, it is (v a b).}

Shadow simply ignores the little problem.
Post by Shadows
Greywolf42 also fails to understand that
reflected particles do not contribute at all to the net force which
two spherical bodies exert on each other, so the momentum transfer is
due entirely to the absorbed particles.
Since Shadow never addressed the issue (and has not supported his claim
here), there is nothing for me to "understand". I'm quite aware that others
have made the claim. Indeed, the use of the term "spherical body" is an
explicit reference to Darwin's theory once again. (And Darwin did not
calculate the affect of the reflected bodies at all.)
Post by Shadows
Greywolf42 is also confused by
the exponent of the v_g dependency in the energy, since Poincare
refers to a cubic dependence whereas the derivation in "Shadows" shows
that the energy for a given amount of momentum is linearly
proportional to v_g.
I'm not 'confused' at all. I merely pointed out that -- if the
calculation is "general" as Shadow claims above -- that Poincare and Shadow
*must* come up with the same velocity dependence. In fact, I believe that
Shadow (once again) simply fouled up a calculation.
Post by Shadows
Nevertheless, to Greywolf42's astonishment,
Poincare and Shadows arrive at comparable results.
The results are "comparable" only in that both claim heat death of the
Earth. Poincare does not kill the Earth if vg = c, only if vg = 10^17 c.
Whereas "Shadows" claims that the Earth dies at vg = c.
Post by Shadows
What Greywolf42 has
failed to understand is that Poincare multiplies his v_g cubed by the
flux density, which (in accord with basic kinetic theory) is inversely
proportional to the square of the mean particle velocity. Hence the
energy is directly proportional to v_g in both treatments, and the
fact that these different derivations give comparable results is not
nearly as astonishing as Greywolf42 imagines.
Shadow has spent a lot of time trying to show that "Shadows" results
are just as good as Poincare's. However, Shadow has completely ignored the
two fundamental arguments that I made in my post. Where were that the
approach did not actually use Le Sagian equations to come up with the
"predictions" of Le Sage theory. And that the assumption of the speed of
gravity being 10^17 c is bogus.

And it is bogus because there is a direct measure of the speed of gravity
that does not depend on (erroneous) orbital stability-due-to-drag
arguments -- the NNPA of orbits:

vg = sqrt [K pi^3 / (delta theta) a (1 - e^2)]

where delta theta is the advance of the apsides (perihelion or periastron)
per orbit; K is a numerical constant that depends upon the theory used (8
for "flat" space and Entwurf GR, 24 for "modern" GR); a is the semi-major
axis of the planetary orbit; and e is the eccentricity of the orbit.

vg is measured to be on the close order of c.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Rebuttal to Lesages Shadows (Part III-A): Arguments on Kinetic Theories of
Gravitation -- Laplace/Feynman Drag
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ab1f374a72cab
477
Post by Shadows
Again this post begins with the customary charge of
plaigerism, this time of "Feynman's drag argument", and Laplace for
good measure. Again, the author of "Shadows" has never laid eyes on
"Feynman's drag argument",
LOL! Then Shadow has no business writing about Le Sagian theory. But this
is simply a pathetic lie -- as Shadow still won't tell us where (s)he got
it.
Post by Shadows
and again it turns out that Greywolf42's
main complaint is that the argument presented in "Shadows" is grossly
INconsistent with the source from which it is allegedly plaigerized.
This is getting old. I never accused "Shadows" of plagiarizing. I simply
chastized "Shadows" for never identifying it's sources. But I think that is
deliberate on Shadow's part. Because Shadow has obviously distorted every
source that (s)he used.
Post by Shadows
The remainder of Post #4 simply details Greywolf42's failure to
understand the effects of drag and aberration in Lesagean models.
The classic special plead.
Post by Shadows
In
particular, he fails to understand the distinction between the two
sources of aberration in orbiting systems, and the relation between
Bradley aberration and drag.
The classic special plead.
Post by Shadows
Also, he erroneously believes the
derivations assume that macroscopic bodies are opaque, so everything
is absorbed, even though this is explicitly not the case.
I didn't make any such claim in this section. As I am well aware that it is
irrelevant to the "kinetic arguments" that I identified. The 'opacity'
argument was made in different posts -- against different claims made in
"Shadows."
Post by Shadows
Macroscopic
bodies are almost entirely transparent to the ultra- mundane flux, and
this is fully accounted for in the analysis, as is the possibility of
some amount of reflection.
Since I never made any such argument in the drag post, the above is simply
an attempt to distract from the actual issue.
Post by Shadows
Greywolf42 is also hopelessly confused by
an unfortunate typo in "Shadows"; where it says rho U dt is the RATE
of mass accretion in the increment of time dt, it should (obviously)
say it is the QUANTITY of mass accretion in that time increment. This
is what leads Greywolf42 to the apparent discrepancy in units. No one
who was really following the derivation would have any difficulty
spotting this obvious typo.
I understood that Shadow didn't actually mean rate (that was trivial and not
worth even mentioning). A single word typo (or change in word) does not
change the unitary discrepancy in the later equations! *EVERY* equation in
"Shadows" following this point contains mixed units:

=============
....the units aren't consistent. The LHS of the equation is:

mv + [rho(vg+v)dt] vg - [rho(vg+v)dt] vg

The first term has units of kg-m/sec, and the second two terms have units of
kg/m-sec. Similarly (and for the same reason), the RHS is also mixed units:

[m + rho(vg-v)dt + rho(vg+v)dt + rho vg dt + (1-k) rho vg dt ] u

Inside the brackets, the first term has units of kg. The rest of the terms
have units of kg/m2.
=============

This has nothing to do with Shadow's poor choice of words between quantity
and rate, above!


Besides, the issue isn't simply the mathematical incompetence of Shadow.
The entire approach is flawed. The central point of the issue is that:

"One cannot use presumed orbital stability to derive the drag term in a
medium theory, because the drag term is not separable from the aberration
acceleration term in such a theory. To make the claim here is to presume the
answer."

Shadow refuses to use Le Sagian theory, or use Le Sagian equations -- yet
makes assertions about Le Sagian theory will predict.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Rebuttal to Lesages Shadows (Part III-B): Arguments on Kinetic Theories of
Gravitation -- Claims for Mass Accretion / Gravitational Induction Heating
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7774fceb5b510
404
Post by Shadows
Again, the 5th post begins with the customary accusation of
plaigerism,
And again, Shadow can't resist the bald-faced lie.
Post by Shadows
which Greywolf42 supports by first quoting a long passage
from Roseveare (apparently his favorite source of information) and
then complaining that "Shadows" does NOT echo it.
Naw, I complained about you distorting it.
Post by Shadows
The "substance" of Greywolf42's 5th post is simply that he fails to
grasp the distinction between macroscopic and microscopic
descriptions. He doesn't realize that although macroscopic bodies
(according to Lesage) are nearly transparent to ultra-mundane
particles, those bodies are composed of very small and widely spaced
opaque elementary entities, the bars of Lesage's "cages",
Excuse me? The claim about Le Sage's "cages" doesn't exist anywhere in
this section. (Those were added only to hide the fact that "Shadows"
actually uses Darwin's theory.)
Post by Shadows
or, more
sensibly, the elementary particles. What Darwin and every other (sane)
person who has ever thought about Lesage's theory (including Lesage)
realized is that the total gravity of an agregate of elementary opaque
particles, if they are sufficiently spaced to avoid unrealistic
shielding and saturation, is simply the sum of the individual
gravities,
What a pathetic effort! So, anyone other than Darwin who ever worked on Le
Sage's theory was insane?
Post by Shadows
and the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass
requires
That's GR -- not Le Sage's theory.
Post by Shadows
that the elementary entities be identical in size and shape.
Now *where* did you get this gem, Shadow? Just because Darwin assumed
that all elementary particles were identical, hard spheres; does not mean
that this is the only possibility. It did make Darwin's math more
tractable, however.
Post by Shadows
Hence it is sufficient to determine the gravitational attraction
between two opaque elementary entities.
Unfortunately, no one except Fatio and Darwin use opaque entities in Le Sage
theory. Le Sage doesn't, for example.
Post by Shadows
Contrary to what Greywolf42
supposes, this in no way implies that Darwin (or Poincare or Lesage or
anyone else) assumed macroscopic bodies are opaque.
I never said anything about opaque *macroscopic* bodies. The point is that
your analysis (Darwin's analysis) assumes opaque *MICROscopic* bodies. But
only Darwin and Fatio make this assumption. Yet "Shadows" attempts to
attach this limit to *all* Le Sage theories.
Post by Shadows
His analysis, as
well as the analysis presented in "Shadows", is perfectly applicable
to Lesage's theory.
A bald-faced lie. Le Sage's matter was primarily transparent to
ultramundane corpuscles.
Post by Shadows
As usual, Greywolf42's objection is simply based
on a complete misunderstanding of the fundamentals of the subject.
Nonsense. You simply created your own strawman, and accused me of claiming
that *macroscopic* bodies had to be spherical.
Post by Shadows
Following this comes one of the most damning examples of Greywolf42's
utter lack of comprehension of the most basic workings of a Lesage
model.
I can't wait for this one!
Post by Shadows
He quotes "Shadows" as saying that the ultra-mundane particles
"must not interact with each other at all, because the slightest
interaction would smudge out the shadow effect and thereby destroy the
inverse-square relation."
Well, yes. I see that I quoted correctly.
Post by Shadows
Now, this is a plain statement of self-evident fact,
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
Post by Shadows
one that everyone who has ever thought about
Lesage's model conceeds.
In other words, Shadow thinks this is so, but has never seen it done
anywhere. And it is trivially disprovable, for I have thought about Le
Sage's model for many years. Yet I don't concede this at all. The claim is
like saying that pressure disappears if the molecules collide in between the
walls of a pressure chamber.
Post by Shadows
The mean free path of the ultra-mundane
particles must exceed the scale on which the flux yields an inverse
square force, for the reason stated.
LOL! The "reason stated" was that it is self-evident.
Post by Shadows
Greywolf42 replies "This is an
unsupported accusation, and also flatly untrue. If the particles
interact with each other elastically, the vector of momentum in the
fluid is not changed." Incredible.
Well, it certainly remains an unsupported assertion. Unless one claims that
assertions of "self-evidence" are sufficient for the scientific method.

Certainly, Shadow has not attempted to counter my claim that "If the
particles interact with each other elastically, the vector of momentum in
the fluid is not changed." Indeed, the removal of momentum from the fluid
would require a change to Newton's laws.

Gravity is not the result of "gravity rays". It is the result of the total
contributions of interactions with corpuscles coming from 4 pi steradians
around a matter body.
Post by Shadows
It's hard to avoid the conclusion
that Greywolf42 actually does not understand that Lesage's omni-
directional flux is NOT a fluid, it is a radiation field of purely
non-self- interacting streams of particles.
That is called light-pressure theory, Shadow. Certainly Fatio presumed a
fluid. Le Sage did, too. Maxwell did. Lord Kelvin did. Van Flandern did.
Paul Stowe and I did.
Post by Shadows
The depth of
misunderstanding that his comment reveals is truly stunning.
Yes. But in the reverse sense. ;)

Whenever someone resorts to "self-evident" claims, followed by histrionics,
one easily concludes that they have realised they lost the argument.

But before we leave this section, lets look at what the discussion was
actually about in the gravitational heating post. (This is what Shadow is
trying to hide, via distraction.)


"Shadows" has made several hand-waving assertions that specific
equations *are* this or that. Yet Shadow has not used any Le Sagian theory
or Le Sagian equations to make these claims.

"Just as with drag forces, it is not possible to determine the energy
deposition rate in a Le Sagian theory from orbital dynamics, alone - and for
the same reason. Drag and heating effects are one-body problems. Orbital
dynamics result from two-body problems. Corpuscle heating of matter is a
function only of the mass of the heated body. The same quantity of heat
will be generated whether the body is sitting alone in the cosmos, or in a
tight orbit around a neutron star. Yet "Shadows"' calculation depends upon
the mass of the companion star, via the orbital radius and tangential
velocity of the orbit. This dependence, alone, clearly demonstrates that
'Shadows'' calculation is again incorrect."

Gravitation can only give us the product of Phi_0 mu_s^2. While both
heating and drag are dependent upon the product of Phi_0 mu_s^1. You can't
get there from simply playing with orbital numbers.

Shadow has no counter for the above argument. So Shadow sprays random
accusations in all directions ... hoping that no one will notice the loss of
the argument.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Rebuttal to Lesages Shadows (Part III-C): Arguments on Kinetic Theories of
Gravitation -- Gravitational Aberration (and Drag Again)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6fdf4a19783e5
397
Post by Shadows
In this post Greywolf42 merely fumes over the perceived
injustice (based on all the foregoing misunderstandings) of the
"Shadows" article.
LOL! Shadow has nothing available to counter the very explicit and specific
analyses in my rebuttal. So he reverts to pure characterization.
"Injustice" was never an issue.

There were two substantive issues in this section:

1) "Shadows" falsely asserts that one can determine the relative
contributions from "Bradley" aberration (a reduction of drag) with
gravitational aberration (a fraction of the central force) by simply
comparing calculated angles ... without considering the magnitude of the
forces that they modify.

2) The aberrational angle is roughly proportional to (m/M) (v/vg), not
simply the factor (v/vg) claimed by Shadows' hand-waving.

{remove complaints about wrong section to correct section (8)}
Post by Shadows
At one point his confusion is worsened (if that's
possible) by the fact that the greek character sigma came out as "s"
in his browser, and he couldn't find an "s" in the diagram.
That's why *I* pointed out the typo. ;)


Shadow didn't have much to say on this one. Of course, he *was* dead in the
water.

"Shadows" falsely asserts that one can determine the relative
contributions from "Bradley" aberration (a reduction of drag) with
gravitational aberration (a fraction of the central force) by simply
comparing calculated angles ... without considering the magnitude of the
forces that they modify.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Rebuttal to Lesages Shadows (Part IV): Philosophical Objections
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/440347db69626
a4c
Post by Shadows
In this post Greywolf42 reacts to the "Shadows" assertion
that the basic intent and motivation of Lesagean theories is to
dispense with action at a distance, and replace it with contact
impulse interactions of material entities. It's odd that Greywolf42
objects to this, because it was the expressly stated motivation of
every proponent of the theory from Fatio to Thomson.
That's why I never objected to such a motivation. What I reacted to was
your obvious distortions. Which you don't address here, of course.
Post by Shadows
Greywolf42 also
objects to the "Shadows" assertion that the failure of Lesagean theory
to dispense with action at a distance (for the forces necessary to
account for structural stability and absorption properties of ordinary
matter, which are essential for the working of Lesage's theory)
undermines the cogency of the theory.
No, what I object to is your misrepresentations about the theory.
Post by Shadows
Again, his lack of appreciations
for the most basic issues of Lesagean theory is stunning.
Zero-content, special plead.
Post by Shadows
Greywolf42 goes on to expose more of his ignorance and
misunderstandings, e.g., questioning why Lesage's theory implies
sparse configurations of inertial particles, why impulse interactions
alone can never account for stable agregates, and so on.
Zero-content, special plead, again.

Which is why Shadow never addressed any of my comments at all in this
section.

But, we can let this section die, because there is nothing of substance in
this section of "Shadows", in the first place. It is merely a listing of
several unsupported accusations, and straw-man arguments that have nothing
to do with any Le Sagian theory.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Rebuttal to Lesages Shadows (Part V): Summary
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3bfa252862d7d
98c
Post by Shadows
In this post Greywolf42 lodges a series of misguided
complaints based on his thorough lack of understanding of aberration
and drag effects.
Let's see what Shadow has to back up this claim.

{move complaint to correct section (6)}
Post by Shadows
Then he objects to the additional and somewhat
embarrassing historical information about Fatio that is included at
the end of the article,
Yes. Because it is included there solely for guilt-by-association purposes.
Post by Shadows
and again levels the charge of plagerism, this
time relative to the book of Greywolf42 and his fellow crackpots,
which the author of the "Shadows" has never laid eyes on.
I never made a charge of plagerisim. Of course, Shadow won't tell us his
sources, so (s)he'll just have to accept the charge of cribbing without
crediting the source.
Post by Shadows
He labels
every deductive step which goes over his head (which is nearly all of
them) as "hand- waving".
There were no deductive steps in this section. This was a summary.
Post by Shadows
Suffice it to say that the derivations of the
aberration and drag effects presented in the "Shadows" article are
correct and speak for themselves, as anyone who wishes to take the
trouble can verify.
But we just "verified" that the assertions (I can't go so far as to call
them 'derivations') are all wrong. And Shadow has nothing to support his
claim -- since he refuses to provide any references to support his claims.
All he has is his "mixed-unit" equations. ;)


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Rebuttal to Lesages Shadows (changes to Jan 12, 2005)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a5a08ded256cc
736
Post by Shadows
In this post Greywolf42 documents with a slightly bizzare
sense of indignation a number of additions that have been made to the
"Shadows" article since he first viewed it.
I only point out that these "changes" were made primarily to hide the
fact that "Lesage's Shadows" does not actually analyse the theory of Le
Sage -- as I pointed out in the newsgroup.
Post by Shadows
(In Post #1 he urges his
readers to notify him if they notice any future edits.)
Shadow seems irritated by the thought that someone might check his work. ;)
Post by Shadows
He also makes
a few comments, such as that the mean free path of ultra-mundane
particles only needs to be the size of the solar system.
And Shadow, of course, refuses to address the substance of my comments at
all. I pointed out the solar system distance because Shadow had falsely
asserted that the mean free path had to be essentially "infinite."
Post by Shadows
Now, if he
really understands this, why was he claiming earlier that elastic
collisions between the ultra-mundane particles have no adverse effect
on the inverse-square force?
Because they don't, Shadow. They're elastic collisions. The average
momentum vector in the fluid is unchanged. And gravity is a function of the
average momentum vector.
Post by Shadows
And why doesn't he mention that "Shadows"
says exactly the same thing, i.e., that we know the mean free path is
at least as big as the diameter of the solar system?
Because "Shadows" didn't say any such thing, of course -- until January
12th. And because the statement in "Shadows" that I was addressing was a
*new* claim that *Le Sage's theory* required particles "...with a nearly
infinite mean free path." And Le Sage's theory had no such requirement --
even if Shadow thinks that Darwin's model needs this.

Now, Shadow did add the following (unsupported) claim to the January 12th
version:

"(S)ince the inverse-square relation holds good at least on the scale of the
solar system, we know the mean free path of the ultra-mundane particles
exceeds the diameter of the solar system, which implies that virtually all
the ultra-mundane particle traverse straight through the solar system
without striking anything. "

This is simply a fallacious, argument-by-assertion. It is also wrong.
Shadow simly *assumes* that a collision will erase any momentum flux,
because a single corpuscle has changed direction. Shadow is still thinking
about his "radiation field," not Le Sage's theory.
Post by Shadows
In any case, the
post contains nothing in the nature of a "rebuttal".
Overall, Greywolf42's posts are devoid of merit, and merely display
his own remarkable depth of misunderstanding.
Shadow's post doesn't address a single specific comment in any of my posts.
Shadow merely makes false, general assertions about my intent -- in order to
cover the fact of Shadow's own bald assumptions, disastrous mathematics,
gross distortions, and Shadow's unwillingness to apply even a single
equation of Le Sage theory.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Shadows
2005-01-21 07:34:54 UTC
Permalink
I see Greywolf42 has progressed from rank crackpotism to
full-on dementia, so I will let him be, and hope he receives the
help he so badly needs. If anyone is interested, all his fundamental
misconceptions regarding Lesagean theories of gravity are
explained in my previous message.
greywolf42
2005-01-21 18:44:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shadows
I see Greywolf42 has progressed from rank crackpotism to
full-on dementia, so I will let him be, and hope he receives the
help he so badly needs. If anyone is interested, all his fundamental
misconceptions regarding Lesagean theories of gravity are
explained in my previous message.
"Shadow" covers his/her eyes, snips the evidence, and runs from the field
... leaving a trail of vitriol and insults behind. Once again not
addressing a single substantive claim made in rebuttal to the morass of
bilge-muck; and fragmentary and unitarily mixed-up arithmetic posted under
the misleading title "Lesage's Shadows."

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Paul Stowe
2005-01-21 23:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by greywolf42
Post by Shadows
I see Greywolf42 has progressed from rank crackpotism to
full-on dementia, so I will let him be, and hope he receives the
help he so badly needs. If anyone is interested, all his fundamental
misconceptions regarding Lesagean theories of gravity are
explained in my previous message.
"Shadow" covers his/her eyes, snips the evidence, and runs from
the field ... leaving a trail of vitriol and insults behind.
Once again not addressing a single substantive claim made in
rebuttal to the morass of bilge-muck; and fragmentary and
unitarily mixed-up arithmetic posted under the misleading title
"Lesage's Shadows."
Well Barry what did you expect from an incompetent Bozo who got his
bluff called???

Paul Stowe
Bilge
2005-01-22 16:41:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Stowe
Post by greywolf42
Post by Shadows
I see Greywolf42 has progressed from rank crackpotism to
full-on dementia, so I will let him be, and hope he receives the
help he so badly needs. If anyone is interested, all his fundamental
misconceptions regarding Lesagean theories of gravity are
explained in my previous message.
"Shadow" covers his/her eyes, snips the evidence, and runs from
the field ... leaving a trail of vitriol and insults behind.
Once again not addressing a single substantive claim made in
rebuttal to the morass of bilge-muck; and fragmentary and
unitarily mixed-up arithmetic posted under the misleading title
"Lesage's Shadows."
Well Barry what did you expect from an incompetent Bozo who got his
bluff called???
You mean by failing to rebut one single result derived on
that web page?
Paul Stowe
2005-01-22 16:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bilge
Post by Paul Stowe
Post by greywolf42
Post by Shadows
I see Greywolf42 has progressed from rank crackpotism to
full-on dementia, so I will let him be, and hope he receives the
help he so badly needs. If anyone is interested, all his fundamental
misconceptions regarding Lesagean theories of gravity are
explained in my previous message.
"Shadow" covers his/her eyes, snips the evidence, and runs from
the field ... leaving a trail of vitriol and insults behind.
Once again not addressing a single substantive claim made in
rebuttal to the morass of bilge-muck; and fragmentary and
unitarily mixed-up arithmetic posted under the misleading title
"Lesage's Shadows."
Well Barry what did you expect from an incompetent Bozo who got his
bluff called???
You mean by failing to rebut one single result derived on
that web page?
Only in the fog of the twisted mind of Bilge, a.k.a. Shadows,
Zombiewoof, ...etc.

Paul Stowe
Bilge
2005-01-22 23:40:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Stowe
Only in the fog of the twisted mind of Bilge, a.k.a. Shadows,
Zombiewoof, ...etc.
It's really hard to believe you are that stupid.
Paul Stowe
2005-01-22 23:48:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bilge
Post by Paul Stowe
Only in the fog of the twisted mind of Bilge, a.k.a. Shadows,
Zombiewoof, ...etc.
It's really hard to believe you are that stupid.
I think you can be assured that sentiment is mutual... At
least I NEVER hide behind different aliases...

Paul Stowe
Bilge
2005-01-24 06:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Stowe
Post by Bilge
Post by Paul Stowe
Only in the fog of the twisted mind of Bilge, a.k.a. Shadows,
Zombiewoof, ...etc.
It's really hard to believe you are that stupid.
I think you can be assured that sentiment is mutual... At
least I NEVER hide behind different aliases...
What you mean is that no one incorrecty accuses you of using an alias
because he/she needs a way to divert attention from the subject and
is too stupid (or dishonest) to bother checking his/her facts. Face
it paul, you have to invent irrelevat diversions in order to avoid
the subject. Facts don't depend on who posts them, except in your
personal soap opera world, where you think the best bullshit, gossip
and anklebiting are what counts. You're just pissed because shadows
reamed you and for some perverse reason you think identifying him/her
as me counts as a valid rebuttal. If you spent half as much time
studying physics as you spend trying to create a conspiracy drama,
you might actually learn something.
greywolf42
2005-01-23 19:53:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by greywolf42
A Rebuttal to the Claims in "Lesage's Shadows*"
*http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath131/kmath131.htm
Shadow has made yet more changes to the "Shadows" webpage, on January 20th.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2080fab1f8cc1
d21

This post addresses the substantive (non-editorial) changes made between
January 15th and 20th. Changes are in the order they occur in the page.

Shadow has once again deliberately distorted Le Sage's hypothesis. Le
Sage's model is not complex, but Shadow can't seem to post anything remotely
resembling it. From Roseveare, p 109:

"Le Sage conceived of matter as being built up of indivisible particles in
the form of cages with bars of extremely small diameter. Space was
continually traversed by gravific particles of extremely high velocities in
all directions and rarely collided with each other. An isolated body in
space would not be moved by these gravific corpuscles because it received an
equal number of impulsions (from the corpuscles hitting the cage bars) on
all sides. If another body was brought up towards this previously isolated
body, the latter would be shielded to a certain extent by the former from
the corpuscles approaching from that direction. The equilibrium of
impulsions thus disturbed, the bodies would be pushed towards each other as
if they were attracted."

"'It is not necessary to be very skilful to deduce from these suppositions
all the laws of gravity, both sublunary and universal (and consequently also
those of Kepler, etc.) with all the accuracy with which observed phenomena
have proved those laws. Those laws, therefore, are inevitable consequences
of the supposed constitutions.' (W. Thomson, 1873, p 323)' 'On the
ultramundane corpuscles of Le Sage.' Phil. Mag (Ser. 4), 45, p321-32."


Most of the following changes are merely Shadow (falsely) asserting that "Le
Sage's" model is based on a "radiation field." Shadow wishes to replace
"ultramundane corpuscles" with simple photons of unstated energy. Because
that is an easier target.


Change #1: (Historical "section")

The first mention of Le Sage in the webpage. Shadow has changed the
Post by greywolf42
Lesage suggested ... that space is filled with some kind of radiation
streaming uniformly in all directions, not interacting with itself, and
massive bodies intercept a fraction of the radiation striking them, so they
cast shadows. If two massive bodies are brought close together, they
partially shield each other from the radiation, resulting in a net force on
each body toward the other. The radiation was supposed to consist of tiny
particles, which Lesage called "ultra-mundane particles", moving at very
high speed in all directions, and with a nearly infinite mean free path.
Lesage suggested ... that space is filled with an omni-directional
radiation field consisting of tiny particles - which Lesage called
'ultra-mundane particles' - moving at very high speed in all directions,
and with a nearly infinite mean free path. These ultra-mundane
particles cross each others' paths but do not interact or interfere
with each other in any way.
That's not Le Sage's model. Only waves don't "interact" with each other in
any way.
Post by greywolf42
However, massive bodies intercept a fraction of the radiation striking
them, so they cast shadows. If two massive bodies are brought close
together, they partially shield each other from the radiation, resulting in
a net force on each body toward the other.
Again, Le Sage uses corpuscles. Not radiation.


Change #2: (Historical "section")
Post by greywolf42
Of course, in order to give a force that is proportional to the mass rather
than to the size of an object, it is necessary for macroscopic bodies to be
almost perfectly transparent to the ultra-mundane particles, so only a tiny
fraction of the particles passing through an object are actually
intercepted.
"...and to explain why saturation does not occur, i.e., why there is no
apparent depletion of the capacity for gravity in the vicinity of massive
bodies, we must suppose that ..."
This is a change made in response to my identification of the source of
"Shadows" history (Roseveare).
=========
"and it also avoids the saturation problem."

This phrase is the key that confirms "Shadows" is relying on a distorted
rendition of Roseveare's text. "Shadows" does not provide any mention of a
saturation problem at any other point . but Roseveare did. And it did so in
just the same relation to the rest of the narrative.
========

By merely stating a definition of saturation, Shadow attempts to deflect the
criticism.


Change #3: (Intro Physics of the LeSagian mechanism)

The illustration of Darwin's model (which "Shadows" titles the "Fatio-Lesage
Model") has been changed. Shadow has drawn "bars" that (s)he claims
represent the "cages" that Le Sage discussed in his model of matter. An
entirely new paragraph has been inserted into the text, immediately below
Post by greywolf42
"It's noteworthy that the bars comprising the 'cages' that hold the
elementary particles of matter together in the macroscopic body represent
primitive forces of both attraction and repulsion, "
Once again, "Le Sage conceived of matter as being built up of indivisible
particles in the form of cages with bars of extremely small diameter." The
particles *THEMSELVES* are cages in Le Sage's theory -- the bars don't
connect the 'indivisible particles' together!

Shadow has created a "new" kinetic theory of gravity. One in which the
force of gravity is proportional to the *factorial* of the number of
elemental particles -- instead of one that is proportional to mass! For the
number of bars are proportional to mass -- in Le Sages theory.

In Shadow's new theory, the number of bars is the factorial of the number of
elementary particles: (n-1)!. A single neutron or proton would not
gravitate at all, because it would have no "bar". A deuteron would have 1
unit of gravitation. A tritium nucleus would have 3 units of gravitation.
An alpha particle would have 6 units of gravitation. (etc.)
Post by greywolf42
but no attempt is made to
account for these essential forces in any mechanistic sense.
That's because there is no such thing. Le Sage's "cage" model was developed
in 1750. Long before elemental particle models of matter existed.
Contemporary Le Sagian models don't require cages for matter models.
Post by greywolf42
It's also worth
noting that the ultra-mundane particles do not comprise a fluid, they
comprise an omni-directional radiation field, which is an entirely
different concept.
Yes, an "omni-directional radiation field" *IS* a *completely* different
concept from Le Sage. It is nothing more than the "light-pressure" kinetic
model. Shadows has simply replaced the word "photon" with "particle."
Post by greywolf42
In a fluid, contiguous elements are in equilibrium with each other,
Not all fluids are in equilibrium. It depends upon the scale of the effect
versus the mean free path of the particles.
Post by greywolf42
whereas in the Fatio-Lesage radiation field there are streams of
ultra-mundane particles moving arbitrarily close to each other in opposite
directions. The state of this omni-directional flux is the conceptual
opposite of thermodynamic equilibrium.
And it has nothing to do with either Fatio, or Le Sage. But since Shadow
finds even historical models too difficult to attack, (s)he simply makes up
strawmen. There is no such thing as a "Fatio-Lesage radiation field."


Change #4: (Intro Physics of the LeSagian mechanism)
Post by greywolf42
Moreover, the structure of matter actually proposed by Lesage consisted not
of particles, but of a lattice of elemental bars forming a mesh of 'cages',
which he was compelled to postulate in order to account for the structural
stability of matter with seem to appeal to any elementary attractive
forces. Needless to say, Lesage's proposed structure of matter has now been
falsified, and it's easy to see this structure was logically untenable to
begin with, because the essential tension in the bars of the cages
represents an elementary attractive force, which is inconsistent with the
categorical Lesagean rejection of such forces. (We may also mention that
any
Post by greywolf42
regular lattice structure would tend to exhibit non-isotropic gravity, due
to the fact that the bars would be aligned with each other more in some
directions than in others.)
But no one seriously proposed Le Sage's structures as a "real" model of
matter. Not even Le Sage. What Shadow ignores is the Le Sagian models that
have improved Le Sage's original model.


Change #5: (Intro Physics of the LeSagian mechanism)
Post by greywolf42
At some finite distance from a fundamental opaque particle of ordinary
matter its image will become indistinguishable from a point, by which time
the inverse-square relation will have been totally lost.
(Some benefit is gained by large macroscopic aggregates in determining the
average transmissivity to a precision greater than that of the resolution
on the individual particles, but it's still necessary for the radiation
field
Post by greywolf42
to have extraordinary angular resolution, as Lesage himself acknowledged.)"
A bold-faced lie by Shadow. Le Sage never discussed "precision" of angular
resolution.


Change #6: (Claims for Gravitational Induction Heating)
Post by greywolf42
Quantitatively, Lesage's theory implies that the ultra-mundane particles
impart enough momentum to a planet of mass mp moving in a circular orbit
with speed vp to completely reverse it's direction every half revolution.
(Note that we can exclude from consideration all the reflected particles,
because these contribute nothing to the net force on a body, e.g., with
perfect reflection there would be no net force at all. Thus we need
consider only the absorbed particles.)
Shadow provides merely another assertion. Wrong too. See Slabinsky's paper
in "Pushing Gravity", p123. See also p. 183.


Change #7: (Claims for Gravitational Induction Heating)
Post by greywolf42
"By the way, Thomson also suggested that the slow-moving and rapidly
spinning (or vibrating) ultra-mundane particles after colliding with matter
were re-habilitated into fast-moving non-spinning particles by interaction
with the other ultra-mundane particles. ..."
"...The principle of Clausius is not applicable, so Thomson's plausibility
argument is invalid."
However, Shadow's argument against Clausius rests entirely upon his personal
(and unsupported) claim that the corpucles cannot interact with each other.
Certainly Thomson thought that they did. An since Shadow is the only person
that I've ever known who has made the assertion, I'll trust Lord Kelvin on
this one.


Change #8: (Gravitational aberration)
Post by greywolf42
"Of course, the speed of the ultra-mundane particles is many orders of
magnitude greater than the speed of the planets, so on the time scale of
the ultra-mundane particles the planets are virtually stationary, which
implies that they could have no "flinging" effect on the radiation in
any case, even if a significant fraction of the ultra-mundane flux
interacted with the planets (which it doesn't)."
"(Of course, the speed of the ultra-mundane particles is many orders of
magnitude greater than the speed of the planets, so on the time scale of
the ultra-mundane particles the planets are virtually stationary, which
implies that they could have no "swirling" effect on the radiation field,
even if a significant fraction of the ultra-mundane flux interacted
with the planets - which it doesn't)."
Trivially false. If the above were true, then there could be no winds with
speeds significantly less than sonic speed.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Timo Nieminen
2005-01-23 23:19:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by greywolf42
Post by greywolf42
A Rebuttal to the Claims in "Lesage's Shadows*"
*http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath131/kmath131.htm
Shadow has made yet more changes to the "Shadows" webpage, on January 20th.
[cut]
Post by greywolf42
Shadow has once again deliberately distorted Le Sage's hypothesis. Le
Sage's model is not complex, but Shadow can't seem to post anything remotely
resembling it. From Roseveare, p 109
Why not reveal le Sage's hypothesis in all its glory by making it
available to all? Lucrece Newtonien is out-of-copyright, so you could
freely publish a translation, perhaps on www. Perhaps the Smithsonian
translation is out-of-copyright now as well.
--
Timo
greywolf42
2005-01-24 18:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Post by greywolf42
A Rebuttal to the Claims in "Lesage's Shadows*"
*http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath131/kmath131.htm
Shadow has made yet more changes to the "Shadows" webpage, on January 20th.
[cut]
Post by greywolf42
Shadow has once again deliberately distorted Le Sage's hypothesis. Le
Sage's model is not complex, but Shadow can't seem to post anything
remotely resembling it. From Roseveare, p 109
Why not reveal le Sage's hypothesis in all its glory by making it
available to all?
??? Le Sage's hypothesis *is* available to all. Read the quote that you
snipped, by Roseveare.

Read "Pushing Gravity." Read Laplace. Read Maxwell. Read Kelvin. Read
Poincare. Read Feynman. Just because "Shadows" is a rabid, dishonest, and
incompetent effort should not dissuade you from checking up on it. But you
now can see why "Mathpages" *never* includes references. If it made it easy
to check up on it, a reader would find out about the embedded lies too
easily.
Post by Timo Nieminen
Lucrece Newtonien is out-of-copyright, so you could
freely publish a translation, perhaps on www. Perhaps the Smithsonian
translation is out-of-copyright now as well.
That's one reason that libraries exist. And interlibrary loan. And copy
services. Go for it.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Timo Nieminen
2005-01-24 23:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Shadow has once again deliberately distorted Le Sage's hypothesis. Le
Sage's model is not complex, but Shadow can't seem to post anything
remotely resembling it. From Roseveare, p 109
Why not reveal le Sage's hypothesis in all its glory by making it
available to all?
??? Le Sage's hypothesis *is* available to all. Read the quote that you
snipped, by Roseveare.
Read "Pushing Gravity." Read Laplace. Read Maxwell. Read Kelvin. Read
Poincare. Read Feynman.
You don't like primary sources?

Why not actually read le Sage?

Why not make le Sage accessible, in English, to those without easy access
to libraries?
Post by greywolf42
Just because "Shadows" is a rabid, dishonest, and
incompetent effort should not dissuade you from checking up on it. But you
now can see why "Mathpages" *never* includes references. If it made it easy
to check up on it, a reader would find out about the embedded lies too
easily.
And yet, you don't seem to be too interested in making it easy for other
people to check. I'm not the one complaining about other people's
descriptions of le Sage's theory.
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
Lucrece Newtonien is out-of-copyright, so you could
freely publish a translation, perhaps on www. Perhaps the Smithsonian
translation is out-of-copyright now as well.
That's one reason that libraries exist. And interlibrary loan. And copy
services. Go for it.
You don't want to make it easily accessible and freely available? You
don't think it's an important document?

If I thought it was important (and out-of-copyright), with no English
translation readily available, I'd publish a translation. Personally, I
wouldn't bother for Lucrece Newtonien, but you appeared to regard it a lot
more highly. My mistake, sorry.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
greywolf42
2005-01-25 02:58:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Shadow has once again deliberately distorted Le Sage's hypothesis.
Le
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Sage's model is not complex, but Shadow can't seem to post anything
remotely resembling it. From Roseveare, p 109
Why not reveal le Sage's hypothesis in all its glory by making it
available to all?
??? Le Sage's hypothesis *is* available to all. Read the quote that you
snipped, by Roseveare.
Read "Pushing Gravity." Read Laplace. Read Maxwell. Read Kelvin.
Read
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Poincare. Read Feynman.
You don't like primary sources?
Why not actually read le Sage?
Why not make le Sage accessible, in English, to those without easy access
to libraries?
Which do you want, primary or English?
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Just because "Shadows" is a rabid, dishonest, and
incompetent effort should not dissuade you from checking up on it. But you
now can see why "Mathpages" *never* includes references. If it made it easy
to check up on it, a reader would find out about the embedded lies too
easily.
And yet, you don't seem to be too interested in making it easy for other
people to check. I'm not the one complaining about other people's
descriptions of le Sage's theory.
My purpose is life is not to do everyone's work for them. If the list above
is not sufficient for other English readers, you go right ahead.
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
Lucrece Newtonien is out-of-copyright, so you could
freely publish a translation, perhaps on www. Perhaps the Smithsonian
translation is out-of-copyright now as well.
That's one reason that libraries exist. And interlibrary loan. And copy
services. Go for it.
You don't want to make it easily accessible and freely available? You
don't think it's an important document?
I don't think that it's important that it be "freely available." Which
appears to mean 'in a form that Timo doesn't have to make an effort for.' I
see no purpose in so doing -- just for your personal benefit.
Post by Timo Nieminen
If I thought it was important (and out-of-copyright), with no English
translation readily available, I'd publish a translation. Personally, I
wouldn't bother for Lucrece Newtonien, but you appeared to regard it a lot
more highly. My mistake, sorry.
LOL! Timo, I regularly travel 150 miles to go to a good library. Go ye and
do the same.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Timo Nieminen
2005-01-25 03:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
Why not reveal le Sage's hypothesis in all its glory by making it
available to all?
??? Le Sage's hypothesis *is* available to all. Read the quote that
you
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
snipped, by Roseveare.
Read "Pushing Gravity." Read Laplace. Read Maxwell. Read Kelvin.
Read
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Poincare. Read Feynman.
You don't like primary sources?
Why not actually read le Sage?
Why not make le Sage accessible, in English, to those without easy access
to libraries?
Which do you want, primary or English?
I suspect most English-speaking people would want an English version. You
might note that I suggested publishing an *English* version. There's
little point in publishing a French version, since it's already freely
available on www.

[cut]
Post by greywolf42
My purpose is life is not to do everyone's work for them. If the list above
is not sufficient for other English readers, you go right ahead.
How much work can it be? I mean, surely you've already translated it for
your own benefit.
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
Lucrece Newtonien is out-of-copyright, so you could
freely publish a translation, perhaps on www. Perhaps the Smithsonian
translation is out-of-copyright now as well.
That's one reason that libraries exist. And interlibrary loan. And
copy
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
services. Go for it.
You don't want to make it easily accessible and freely available? You
don't think it's an important document?
I don't think that it's important that it be "freely available." Which
appears to mean 'in a form that Timo doesn't have to make an effort for.' I
see no purpose in so doing -- just for your personal benefit.
Post by Timo Nieminen
If I thought it was important (and out-of-copyright), with no English
translation readily available, I'd publish a translation. Personally, I
wouldn't bother for Lucrece Newtonien, but you appeared to regard it a lot
more highly. My mistake, sorry.
LOL! Timo, I regularly travel 150 miles to go to a good library. Go ye and
do the same.
I'm not making the suggestion for my own benefit. I already have a copy
of the original. It doesn't interest me enough to bother getting a
translation, or translating it for my own future convenience.

If you don't think le Sage's writings are important enough to be easily
and freely available in English, that's fine. I've got no problem with
that. As I said, I was mistaken to believe that you might think them
important enough, sorry.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
greywolf42
2005-01-25 18:34:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
Why not reveal le Sage's hypothesis in all its glory by making it
available to all?
??? Le Sage's hypothesis *is* available to all. Read the quote that
you
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
snipped, by Roseveare.
Read "Pushing Gravity." Read Laplace. Read Maxwell. Read Kelvin.
Read
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Poincare. Read Feynman.
You don't like primary sources?
Why not actually read le Sage?
Why not make le Sage accessible, in English, to those without easy access
to libraries?
Which do you want, primary or English?
I suspect most English-speaking people would want an English version. You
might note that I suggested publishing an *English* version. There's
little point in publishing a French version, since it's already freely
available on www.
Then why don't you post the weblink?
Post by Timo Nieminen
[cut]
Post by greywolf42
My purpose is life is not to do everyone's work for them. If the list above
is not sufficient for other English readers, you go right ahead.
How much work can it be? I mean, surely you've already translated it for
your own benefit.
Why? I read French. And I'd have to dig it out of my paper archives in the
garage.
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
Lucrece Newtonien is out-of-copyright, so you could
freely publish a translation, perhaps on www. Perhaps the Smithsonian
translation is out-of-copyright now as well.
That's one reason that libraries exist. And interlibrary loan. And
copy
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
services. Go for it.
You don't want to make it easily accessible and freely available? You
don't think it's an important document?
I don't think that it's important that it be "freely available." Which
appears to mean 'in a form that Timo doesn't have to make an effort for.' I
see no purpose in so doing -- just for your personal benefit.
Post by Timo Nieminen
If I thought it was important (and out-of-copyright), with no English
translation readily available, I'd publish a translation. Personally, I
wouldn't bother for Lucrece Newtonien, but you appeared to regard it a lot
more highly. My mistake, sorry.
LOL! Timo, I regularly travel 150 miles to go to a good library. Go ye and
do the same.
I'm not making the suggestion for my own benefit. I already have a copy
of the original. It doesn't interest me enough to bother getting a
translation, or translating it for my own future convenience.
If you don't think le Sage's writings are important enough to be easily
and freely available in English, that's fine. I've got no problem with
that. As I said, I was mistaken to believe that you might think them
important enough, sorry.
LOL! Timo, you don't usually resort to trolling. Bye.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Timo Nieminen
2005-01-25 20:46:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
I suspect most English-speaking people would want an English version. You
might note that I suggested publishing an *English* version. There's
little point in publishing a French version, since it's already freely
available on www.
Then why don't you post the weblink?
[cut]
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
My purpose is life is not to do everyone's work for them.
I'm not the one who cares if people are misled by distorted secondary
sources on le Sage's theory. I didn't bother to bookmark the site. Google
finds it.
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
If you don't think le Sage's writings are important enough to be easily
and freely available in English, that's fine. I've got no problem with
that. As I said, I was mistaken to believe that you might think them
important enough, sorry.
LOL! Timo, you don't usually resort to trolling. Bye.
Agreement with you is trolling?
--
Timo
greywolf42
2005-01-29 03:50:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
I suspect most English-speaking people would want an English version. You
might note that I suggested publishing an *English* version. There's
little point in publishing a French version, since it's already freely
available on www.
Then why don't you post the weblink?
[cut]
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
My purpose is life is not to do everyone's work for them.
I'm not the one who cares if people are misled by distorted secondary
sources on le Sage's theory.
Then why did you mention it, Troll?
Post by Timo Nieminen
I didn't bother to bookmark the site. Google
finds it.
What a lame excuse. I didn't find any such link with Google. I suspect you
found one of the links that *seem* to find Le Sage's work -- but actually
don't do so.
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
If you don't think le Sage's writings are important enough to be
easily and freely available in English, that's fine. I've got no
problem with that. As I said, I was mistaken to believe that you
might think them important enough, sorry.
LOL! Timo, you don't usually resort to trolling. Bye.
Agreement with you is trolling?
Bye in this thread, troll.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Timo Nieminen
2005-01-29 04:09:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
I suspect most English-speaking people would want an English version.
You
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
might note that I suggested publishing an *English* version. There's
little point in publishing a French version, since it's already freely
available on www.
Then why don't you post the weblink?
[cut]
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
My purpose is life is not to do everyone's work for them.
I'm not the one who cares if people are misled by distorted secondary
sources on le Sage's theory.
Then why did you mention it, Troll?
It appeared that you cared. I thought you might be interested.
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
I didn't bother to bookmark the site. Google
finds it.
What a lame excuse. I didn't find any such link with Google. I suspect you
found one of the links that *seem* to find Le Sage's work -- but actually
don't do so.
Given that I have an electronic copy of it that I found recently via
google (or possibly google scholar) - I looked for it and found it out of
curiosity inspired by your rebuttal - it must be possible to locate it.

Did you by any chance happen to search for the title of the work and the
date of publication?

1782 and Newtonien brings it up as the *very first hit*.

Oh well, looks like I had to do your work for you.
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
If you don't think le Sage's writings are important enough to be
easily and freely available in English, that's fine. I've got no
problem with that. As I said, I was mistaken to believe that you
might think them important enough, sorry.
LOL! Timo, you don't usually resort to trolling. Bye.
Agreement with you is trolling?
Bye in this thread, troll.
Agreement with you and helping you find a work you're interested in online
is trolling?

Oh my!

I'll try not to do that again!
--
Timo
Franz Heymann
2005-01-29 07:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
I suspect most English-speaking people would want an English
version.
Post by greywolf42
You
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
might note that I suggested publishing an *English* version. There's
little point in publishing a French version, since it's
already freely
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
available on www.
Then why don't you post the weblink?
[cut]
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
My purpose is life is not to do everyone's work for them.
I'm not the one who cares if people are misled by distorted
secondary
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
sources on le Sage's theory.
Then why did you mention it, Troll?
Post by Timo Nieminen
I didn't bother to bookmark the site. Google
finds it.
What a lame excuse. I didn't find any such link with Google. I suspect you
found one of the links that *seem* to find Le Sage's work -- but actually
don't do so.
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by greywolf42
Post by Timo Nieminen
If you don't think le Sage's writings are important enough to be
easily and freely available in English, that's fine. I've got no
problem with that. As I said, I was mistaken to believe that you
might think them important enough, sorry.
LOL! Timo, you don't usually resort to trolling. Bye.
Agreement with you is trolling?
Bye in this thread, troll.
Standard out, even to the point of keeping the door open

Franz

FrediFizzx
2005-01-25 21:16:06 UTC
Permalink
"greywolf42" <***@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message news:2jwJd.5719$***@fe07.usenetserver.com...
| Timo Nieminen <***@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
| news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0501251300550.1033-***@localhost...
| > On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, greywolf42 wrote:
| >
| > > Timo Nieminen <***@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
| > > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, greywolf42 wrote:
| > > >
| > > > > Timo Nieminen <***@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
| > > > >
| > > > > > Why not reveal le Sage's hypothesis in all its glory by
making it
| > > > > > available to all?
| > > > >
| > > > > ??? Le Sage's hypothesis *is* available to all. Read the
quote
| that
| > > you
| > > > > snipped, by Roseveare.
| > > > > Read "Pushing Gravity." Read Laplace. Read Maxwell. Read
Kelvin.
| > > Read
| > > > > Poincare. Read Feynman.
| > > >
| > > > You don't like primary sources?
| > > >
| > > > Why not actually read le Sage?
| > > >
| > > > Why not make le Sage accessible, in English, to those without
easy
| access
| > > > to libraries?
| > >
| > > Which do you want, primary or English?
| >
| > I suspect most English-speaking people would want an English
version. You
| > might note that I suggested publishing an *English* version. There's
| > little point in publishing a French version, since it's already
freely
| > available on www.
|
| Then why don't you post the weblink?
|
| > [cut]
| >
| > > My purpose is life is not to do everyone's work for them. If the
list
| above
| > > is not sufficient for other English readers, you go right ahead.
| >
| > How much work can it be? I mean, surely you've already translated it
for
| > your own benefit.
|
| Why? I read French. And I'd have to dig it out of my paper archives
in the
| garage.
|
| > > > > > Lucrece Newtonien is out-of-copyright, so you could
| > > > > > freely publish a translation, perhaps on www. Perhaps the
| Smithsonian
| > > > > > translation is out-of-copyright now as well.
| > > > >
| > > > > That's one reason that libraries exist. And interlibrary
loan. And
| > > copy
| > > > > services. Go for it.
| > > >
| > > > You don't want to make it easily accessible and freely
available? You
| > > > don't think it's an important document?
| > >
| > > I don't think that it's important that it be "freely available."
Which
| > > appears to mean 'in a form that Timo doesn't have to make an
effort
| for.' I
| > > see no purpose in so doing -- just for your personal benefit.
| >
| > > > If I thought it was important (and out-of-copyright), with no
English
| > > > translation readily available, I'd publish a translation.
Personally,
| I
| > > > wouldn't bother for Lucrece Newtonien, but you appeared to
regard it a
| lot
| > > > more highly. My mistake, sorry.
| > >
| > > LOL! Timo, I regularly travel 150 miles to go to a good library.
Go ye
| and
| > > do the same.
| >
| > I'm not making the suggestion for my own benefit. I already have a
copy
| > of the original. It doesn't interest me enough to bother getting a
| > translation, or translating it for my own future convenience.
| >
| > If you don't think le Sage's writings are important enough to be
easily
| > and freely available in English, that's fine. I've got no problem
with
| > that. As I said, I was mistaken to believe that you might think
them
| > important enough, sorry.
|
| LOL! Timo, you don't usually resort to trolling. Bye.

Ah sheesh Barry, I think you owe Timo an apology. He is one of the
nicest and most helpful persons on these groups.

FrediFizzx
greywolf42
2005-01-28 22:21:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by FrediFizzx
| > If you don't think le Sage's writings are important enough to be
easily
| > and freely available in English, that's fine. I've got no problem
with
| > that. As I said, I was mistaken to believe that you might think
them
| > important enough, sorry.
|
| LOL! Timo, you don't usually resort to trolling. Bye.
Ah sheesh Barry, I think you owe Timo an apology. He is one of the
nicest and most helpful persons on these groups.
Usually. Just not this time. Hence, my comment.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Loading...