Physical Axioms and Attractive Forces

Mark Vitrone wrote: “You seem to promote the fact that acceleration past light speed is impossible, it is observed to be true for gravity.”

All I’m trying to promote is logical consistency. We were talking about accelerating charged particles by subjecting them to strong electric fields. Everyone agrees that such particles never exceed the speed of light. I asked TVF why this was so, and he said it’s because the electric force propagates only at the speed of light, so it can’t push anything faster than the speed of light. I reminded him that his entire world view is based on the bedrock belief that the electric force (not to be confused with electromagnetic waves) propagates at a speed many times greater than the speed of light. This showed that his ideas are blatently self-contradictory. If his belief in superluminal forces (both electric and gravitational) is correct, then particles accelerated by electric fields ought to achieve superluminal speeds, but they don’t. So something is deeply wrong with TFV’s beliefs. Do you have any idea what it could be?

Likewise with regard to aberration, TVF believes that he espouses Lorentzian relativity, and he also believes that the aberration angle is arctan(v/c). Again his beliefs are self-contradictory, because according to Lorentzian relativity the aberration angle is actually arcsin(v/c). So either his is wrong about the aberration angle or he is wrong in believing that his ideas are consistent with Lorentzian relativity. Which do you think is the case?

TVF also suspects (although he isn’t quite sure) that the sound from an ice cream truck propagates through the air more rapidly in the forward direction than in the rearward direction. In other words, he thinks you can increase the speed of a wave in a medium by “launching it” from a moving source. Conversely, if the source is stationary but the medium is flowing past, he thinks the wave propagation speed is relative to the source, not the medium. Now, we all know that he’s mistaken about this, so we’re trying to help him understand why waves propagate through a medium at a characteristic speed relative to the medium, independent of the speed of the source.

Gregg and I are now trying to help TVF straighten out his thinking. We welcome you help as well. Unfortunately, as often seems to happen when TVF is confronted with the inconsistencies in his beliefs, he has been called away by other business, so any words of wisdom we have to offer may not help him, but at least anyone else who happens by this site will benefit from seeing TVF's errors "illuminated".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nonneta</i>
<br />Gregg,
Your disagreement is with TVF, not with me. He is the one who claims that an electric field conveys force at much greater than the speed of light. He is also the one who claims that, by the application of such force, particles ought to be accelerated to arbitrarily great speeds, much greater than light. Now, as you and I both know, TVF is quite wrong about this. I welcome your help in trying to educate him.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr noshade size="1">

Nothing could be futher from the truth. Dr. Van Flandern has most distinctly not made that claim. And you have played your card a bit too soon. It is now obvious that you have no intellectual curiosity about matters in physics but are simply engaged in a game of baiting for the sole satisfaction of your own emotional ego. You have become irrelevant. You have nothing to contribute to this subject.[/quote]


Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nonneta</i> This showed that his ideas are blatently self-contradictory. If his belief in superluminal forces (both electric and gravitational) is correct, then particles accelerated by electric fields ought to achieve superluminal speeds, but they don’t. So something is deeply wrong with TFV’s beliefs. Do you have any idea what it could be?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I see that you have mistaken self-contradiction for two different situations. Electric field lines and gravity communicate nearly instantaneously. A re-read of TVF's article in Pushing Gravity might help you to understand his position which I support because of observations. I appreciate your desire to participate, just please be a little clearer about what you think the alternative position is. It does little good to say, "this is incorrect," if you don't say, "because of this..."

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Likewise with regard to aberration, TVF believes that he espouses Lorentzian relativity, and he also believes that the aberration angle is arctan(v/c). Again his beliefs are self-contradictory, because according to Lorentzian relativity the aberration angle is actually arcsin(v/c). So either his is wrong about the aberration angle or he is wrong in believing that his ideas are consistent with Lorentzian relativity. Which do you think is the case? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I can't and won't speak for what TVF claims, perhaps it is a typo. I can only point out that his work on GPS used some of these calculations and the system times correctly. Once again, I try to point to an example of Meta science working in application.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> TVF also suspects (although he isn’t quite sure) that the sound from an ice cream truck propagates through the air more rapidly in the forward direction than in the rearward direction. In other words, he thinks you can increase the speed of a wave in a medium by “launching it” from a moving source. Conversely, if the source is stationary but the medium is flowing past, he thinks the wave propagation speed is relative to the source, not the medium. Now, we all know that he’s mistaken about this, so we’re trying to help him understand why waves propagate through a medium at a characteristic speed relative to the medium, independent of the speed of the source. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You can launch a transverse wave from a moving object and increase its forward velocity so long as its not light. I have demonstrated this on a forward moving cart shooting smoke balls out of my Airzooka in physics class. Wave speed is the fixed + the speed of the cart. I calculated this by shooting the smoke through two photogates. In case one: I shoot stationary and find the wave speed. In case two: I am on cart that students push. I sit on the cart which travels through two photo gates, I then shoot a smoke ball through two more photogates. We have also used stopwatches to verify. Light refused to go faster because of the pressure waves set up in the elysium. I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand. You are content believing that EM propagates without a medium, despite the fact that every other transverse wave needs a matter-based medium for conduction.

Finally, TVF, will respond when he is finished editting, he always does, please be patient. I suggest a good reading of Dark Matter and Pushing Gravity if you haven't already done so. It helps understanding. Besides, this format is more conversational. In written works, you, myself, and TVF, have the time to edit, rework, and solidify arguments. That time is ours to spend at the rate we which. In this format, I find that I have to balance my argument vs. reply time. I will assume that some comments may have typos or misnomers for this same reason. I am not a "TVF is always right disciple" either. I just want to make sure that you fully appreciate the arguments for these ideas in their full format: published, peer-reviewed literature.







Mark Vitrone

Gregg, on the matter of attractive forces. The opinion held is that the MM explains them by attributing attraction to the net forces envoked by shielding between two "gravitationally opaque" substances. Bombardment from all directions is shielded directly between the two objects. This causes net "attraction" but is based on a push, instead of a pull.

Nonneta is not out of line to disagree, I explained that as long as he uses some support in his counterarguments that he would not be baiting. Thanks for the support though.


Mark Vitrone

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by MarkVitrone</i>
<br />Gregg, on the matter of attractive forces. The opinion held is that the MM explains them by attributing attraction to the net forces envoked by shielding between two "gravitationally opaque" substances. Bombardment from all directions is shielded directly between the two objects. This causes net "attraction" but is based on a push, instead of a pull.

Nonneta is not out of line to disagree, I explained that as long as he uses some support in his counterarguments that he would not be baiting. Thanks for the support though.


Mark Vitrone
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<hr noshade size="1">Mark, I have stated many times on the Messageboard my contention that any "apparently" attractive force can be explained as a combination of geometry and pushing force. This is a generalization of your statement, so I think we are in agreement.

nonenta has attributed many false claims on Dr. Van Flandern. He contradicts himself constantly. As an ex-Marine and startup engineer, I don't put up with "nitwit thinking" in the field for very long. The goal is to startup the plant, not have an endless debate.


Gregg Wilson

Mark Vitrone said: “I see that you have mistaken self-contradiction for two different situations. Electric field lines and gravity communicate nearly instantaneously.”

Hello? Anyone home? Have some coffee Mark. You need to wake up. You just repeated exactly what I said.

Once again, TVF asserts that electric and gravitational forces propagate superluminally. He also asserts that electric forces do not accelerate particles to superluminal speeds because electric forces propagate only at the speed of light. I am merely pointing out that those two assertions are self-contradictory. Surely no one disputes this. The only way TVF can repair this obvious self-contradiction is by denying one of those two assertions. Unfortunately, if he denies the first, he must discard his entire world view, which, as you know, is predicated on his belief in the superluminal propagation of electric and gravitational forces. On the other hand, if he denies the second assertion, he is overwhelmingly falsified by an abundance of empirical facts.

Mark Vitrone said: “I can't and won't speak for what TVF claims [about the aberration angle], perhaps it is a typo.”

No, it obviously is not a typo, because when I pointed out his error, and gave him the correct aberration angle, namely arcsin(v/c), he still denied it, and repeated his claim that the aberration angle is arctan(v/c). How in the world could you imagine that this is a “typo”?

I’m sorry Mark, but the facts are exactly as I’ve stated them. TVF claims to adhere to Lorentzian relativity, and he also claims the aberration angle is arctan(v/c). Now, according to Lorentzian relativity, the aberration angle is actually arcsin(v/c), so once again, we see that TVF’s ideas are based on fundamentally self-contradictory premises. And once again he faces the unenviable choice of either renouncing a cherished belief that is central to his world view, or else maintaining an assertion that is falsified by abundant empirical data.

Mark Vitrone said: “You can launch a transverse wave from a moving object and increase its forward velocity so long as its not light. I have demonstrated this on a forward moving cart shooting smoke balls out of my Airzooka in physics class.”

A smoke ball launched from an airzooka is not a transverse wave, nor is it a longitudinal wave. It is forced convection. One can induce a slow breeze or a fast breeze. This does not in any way change the fact that waves in a medium propagate at a characteristic speed relative to the medium – which is the subject under discussion.

Mark Vitrone wrote: “You are content believing that EM propagates without a medium, despite the fact that every other transverse wave needs a matter-based medium for conduction.”

Most people struggle with that issue in junior high school, and gradually realize the fallacy of that reasoning. Here’s how the thinking of a typical person progresses: Think about those “matter-based media”. They seem to be continuous substances at the macroscopic level, but if we examine them more and more closely, we find that they actually consist of discrete entities (atoms) that are not actually in contact with each other. They interact with each other by means of electromagnetic fields. In other words, every matter-based medium is actually constructed out of electromagnetic fields. At this point, most people can see how silly it would be to imagine that electromagnetic fields are constructed out of a matter-based medium! Can you see what’s so silly about that? It would be like explaining to your students that gold is made of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and when they ask you what protons are made of, you tell them: Um.. gold! This is called a nested recursive loop. Many of TVF’s ideas (that we haven’t covered yet in this thread) involve precisely this kind of “turtles all the way down” reasoning. For example, his belief in an infinite heirarchy of substances, required by any kind of Lesage mechanism. That kind of thinking is not well-regarded by scientists.