Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: anti-gravity? [OT]
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 21:56:53 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <v06fe8$14lpj$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v01ii2$3tno2$1@dont-email.me>
 <1qsepmy.1igbph81ebujn0N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>
 <v05u24$10qfa$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 21:56:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="117418f858e0e7d8946f9dd5a627b64b";
	logging-data="1201971"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/OQi4TBLWpuZVtvp2xuolV"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HrzNc1RAXCSjMBSqRuzvof8/U1A=
In-Reply-To: <v05u24$10qfa$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5453

On 4/22/24 17:00, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>>
>>> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
>>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
>>> earths-gravity/>
>>
>> Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
>> heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
>>
>> It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
>> we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
>> pressure.  It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
>> we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
>>
>> The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
>> When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
>> from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
>> towards each other.
>>
>> I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
>> how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
>> from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
>> observed effects.
>>
>>
> 
> Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
> mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t
> fit easily into such a picture.
> 
> Also, the rate at which the hypothetical particles collide with matter has
> to be extremely large in order to work with very dense matter, such as free
> neutrons.
> 
> Neutrons have been observed to follow Newtonian gravity to very high
> accuracy in the lab.
> 
> And then there’s the complete absence of Brownian motion in free particles.
> With some huge flux of particles carrying the sort of momentum that would
> be required to account for the gravitational motion of free neutrons, the
> resulting fluctuations would be very visible.
> 
> Besides, if the particles bounce off the gravitating objects, their
> velocity distribution will change as a consequence. (Some of them will
> rattle around between them, going faster and faster as the objects get
> closer.)  Thus there will be a wake effect, like a small plane taking off
> right after an A380.  No such effects are observed.
> 
> Not to pile on, or at least not as much as the notion deserves, but if
> relativity is completely wrong, then there is only one velocity in a given
> reference frame for which the drag force of such a particle ensemble is
> zero.
> 
> And, of course, there’s the question of the origin, distribution, and
> regulation of the momentum-carrying particles.
> 
> To have any chance of avoiding even these purely classical effects, the
> particles would have to have infinite speed, zero mass, perfectly uniform
> and isotropic distribution in both position and direction, perfectly timed
> arrival at each object to make the fluctuations cancel out, and on an on.
> 
> This is the luminiferous ether, on stilts.
> 
> And then there are matter-wave interferometers, which work not only on
> electrons, but on neutrons and even buckyballs.  They set far tighter
> limits on most of these classical effects.
> 
> So no, these sorts of theories are not good candidates to explain gravity
> or other relativistic effects.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Phil Hobbs
> 

If you're interested in outlandish theories for gravity -and much else-
read the two papers published by Wolfgang Schnell in 'Il Nuovo Cimento'
in 1998. Starting from a model of the universe as a dense spherical
chunk of very rigid particles that can sustain shear and compression
waves and dislocations, he derives the existence of mass and electric
charge, relativity and gravity, and works out the masses of a whole
list of elementary particles.

There were two papers. I have them here:
W. Schnell, A non-local wave model for particles and fields,
Il Nuovo Cimento, VOL. 113 B, N. 2, Febbraio 1998
<https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-1.pdf>
and
<https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-2.pdf>.

Nobody paid much attention. They are altogether too weird, but
intriguing nevertheless.

Jeroen Belleman