[geocentrism] Re: Overview Barbour & Bertotti
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 20:22:52 -0500
Before you send it, Philip, what are you charging?. in yankee dollars?
Do you price per squiggle?
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of philip madsen
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 4:55 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Overview Barbour & Bertotti
I have the B&B paper in adobe file (1mb) which I can send to those wanting
it.. a bit too hard for meee.. lots of squigly maths stuff.. Philip.
Gravity and Inertia in a Machian Framework
by J. B. Barbour and B. Bertotti
[Il Nuovo Cimento, 32B(1):1-27, 11 March 1977]
Preliminary overview of this paper by John K. Domen
This paper is an initial and still incomplete, fundamental and quantitative
exposition of the physics proposed by Ernst Mach (~1883) that the influence
of the entire material universe must be considered when treating the motions
of systems we know, like the planetary system. Current physics in general,
and relativity in particular, neglect the influence of the universe on local
phenomena. The laws of motion of local systems, is termed LOCAL PHYSICS,
whereas the more embracive laws which affect the universe, is termed PROTO
PHYSICS. Local physics becomes a subset of proto physics. The paper starts
with a dual approach: 1) time is not a real dimensional parameter, but is
merely a measure of the succession of events ? the universe passing through
a sequence of relative configurations of many particles; 2) Physics deals
with the relations between things, and a specific geometry does not dictate
a basis for physics.
In LOCAL physics, the location, r, of a ?particle? in Newtonian physics is
found from velocity (v), time (t) and perhaps a constant (a): r ~ r+vt+a;
and time (t) increases by a constant: t~t+c. In PROTO physics, the authors
also start with bodies (not necessarily point like), but the laws of
mechanics and electromagnetism that describe their motion should only
contain the relative distances between these bodies. Location, r, of a body
is described as: r ~ A(T) *r + g(T), where T ~ f(T). T is an arbitrary
increasing parameter (not time t), A is a matrix allowing an arrangement of
T, and g and f are some expressions (functions) of T.
First a general equation (the Lagrangian) describing the motion of particles
is written. Then an energy equation (the Hamiltonian) for various energies
[kinetic, potential, rotational] is written which depends only on position
and momentum, and not velocity explicitly, as velocity expressly involves
time.
Some of the results of their calculations that have emerged from this proto
physics approach are:
1. For a stationary hollow material shell, the same Newtonian
gravitation type force is calculated outside and on the shell, and zero
inside the shell.
2. If just two bodies are considered, a slow motion approximation of
the proto physics formulas yields Kepler?s equations for planetary motion
along with the terms for the advance of the perihelion and slow variation of
the planetary period.
3. A generalized velocity for the universe is calculated that is close
to the experimental observed speed of light. The inference is that the
universe dictates the properties of light. Velocity of light in local
physics is not an intrinsic feature of relativistic ?space-time,? but is
rather a reflection in local physics of the averaged motion of the Universe
at large. Also the gravitational constant is of protophysical origin, and
the calculation of the nominal density and radius of the universe is in
general agreement with commonly accepted values.
4. Overall motion of the universe is imprinted on local physics through
an unusual time-dependent gravitational constant: G = 4*R*(DR**2)/M where R
is the universe radius, DR is its velocity, and M is its mass.
5. If the universe is considered as a rotating ?hollow? sphere (or
disc, or ring), the resulting forces generated by this sphere on a test body
near the center of the sphere are real 1) Coriolis and 2) centrifugal
forces. These ?frame dragging? forces can move an undriven Foucault
pendulum, stabilize geosynchronous satellites, etc. These forces are not
fictitious, but real, and would be generated by a rotating universe.
Thirring-Lense around 1917 solved formulas from general relativity for a
rotating spherical shell and obtained similar expressions for centrifugal
and Coriolis forces. But the relativistic formulas gave wrong coefficients
and produced a spurious axial force.
6. The same rotating hollow sphere is again considered, but with a test
particle at a great distance from the sphere. The gravitational attraction
by the sphere is not the same as if the mass of the sphere were concentrated
at its center. An increase and orientation dependence of the gravitational
constant is predicted, such that gravity force could be caused by internal
motion itself of the sphere material. Gravity and inertia (matter) are
related as magnetism and electricity. And since material is made of charged
particles (which are not points, but extended), gravity arises from the
distribution of the electric and magnetic fields generated by the atomic
particles, which are not points, but are moving and extended. Nearby matter
increases the inertia of a body.
7. The calculations imply that each material object has a mass
distribution that is not the same in all directions (is anisotropic). A
further item from Mach?s principle is that the mass of a body is determined
by the total distribution of matter in the universe. This should also be
true if the body is a lithium nucleus. To test whether astronomical matter
is uniformly distributed, the Hughes(-Drever) experiment (1957) assumed the
opposite, and that if a lithium nucleus is accelerated in different
directions in regard to astronomical matter, the mass of the lithium nucleus
should change. A lithium salt-water solution was surrounded by a fixed
magnet, and driven by microwaves. If there is more mass in the universe in
one direction than another, then as the orientation of the earth to the
universe varies over 12 hours, there should be a change in the lithium
nuclear mass by Mach?s principle; and this should exhibit itself in a shift
of the nuclear resonant frequencies emitted over this 12-hour period. No
frequency shift was observed to a high precision, indicating astronomical
mass is uniformly distributed. The Hughes calculations were based primarily
on our galaxy, rather than the universe. Whether this experiment is
detrimental to one conclusion in Barbour?s paper [that the mass distribution
in a body is not uniform] may be questionable, on the basis of whether the
experiment was extensive enough, and on assertions that astronomical matter
is not uniformly distributed.
A curious result is that the bulk of the matter in the universe may be
receding or approaching us with a velocity about half the speed of light.
8. Relativistic theories calculate planetary motion with accuracy, but
the theories use ?constants? c (speed of light) and G (gravity constant),
introduced as absolutes, whereas they should be derived from PROTO physics,
as this paper shows.
Final comments
Other developments besides this paper have given a replacement for
relativity, without the need for any mysterious concepts contrary to reason
or common sense. The mathematical constructs and derived concepts of
?curved space,? placing time and location on the same level, Minkowski
space, contraction in direction of motion, light speed independent of the
motion of the observer, etc. are not necessary. Attaching importance to a
coordinate system (?inertial? frame moving at a constant velocity) and a
misconception with Maxwell?s electrodynamics helped turn physics on a side
path.
These concepts were initially promoted as an alternate explanation to the
Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, and similar ones. A new basis is that
a material object (basically electrons, protons, elementary particles, etc.)
are not point objects, but distributed, rotating rings of electric charge
that produce electric and magnetic energy (fields), which interact with all
other fields, generated by all other ?particles.? The already established
laws of electrodynamics and physics are applied. Feedback on the charge
itself produces a field that opposes the charge?s motion. It is this
electrical nature of a charge which reacts against itself (making the
particle anisotropic) and which must also include the fields from all other
charges in the universe.
The logical conclusion is that inertia is of electrical origin. Space, or
the ?aether?, has electrical-magnetic properties and energy, exhibited by
its impedance. Material bodies also have characteristic impedance. A more
fundamental approach shows a body?s inertia arises from its gravitational
interaction with the entire universe, not just our galaxy. Calculations are
done with relative positions, relative velocities, and relative
accelerations between bodies, not with absolute ?inertial? frame locations.
The equations that treat this fundamental physics approach calculate the
observed increase in mass (inertia) when an object is accelerated toward the
speed of light, the radius (size) of a particle becoming smaller when
acquiring higher velocity, and further observables. Relativity becomes
irrelevant.
___________________
If any of my comments on this paper are found to be misleading, I am open to
correction
For further discussion, contact me at . . .
John K Domen
95 Toby Drive
Succasunna NJ 07876
For scientific models of the geocentric cosmological system of the universe,
consult chapters 27 and 29 [Geocentricity, 1] for a brief qualitative
summary of several models.
Periodically, articles in The Biblical Astronomer 2 expand on these models.
_____
1 Geocentricity. Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D. 1992. Available from Brian V.
Lamb, Quarryside, Castletown, Caithness, Scotland KW14 8SS.
2 The Biblical Astronomer, a quarterly journal, 4527 Wetzel Avenue,
Cleveland OH 44109-5347, USA.
Other related posts:
