[geocentrism] Re: Overview Barbour & Bertotti
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:01:39 -0800 (PST)
Philip,
can you send me a copy of what you have too to allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks,
Allen Daves
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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:
For a stationary hollow material shell, the same Newtonian gravitation type
force is calculated outside and on the shell, and zero inside the shell.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Astronomer2 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:
