I have drafted the cosmological model presenting itself in recent posts in more precise terms in the article:
which is now available for inspection. Computational simulations are awaiting.
Compare with Computational Thermodynamics, Chap 32.
I have drafted the cosmological model presenting itself in recent posts in more precise terms in the article:
which is now available for inspection. Computational simulations are awaiting.
Compare with Computational Thermodynamics, Chap 32.
Turbulent dissipation replaces entropy in this formulation of the 2nd law, see the refs.
Claes…
Can you see any future possibilities to create or to collect antimatter and to put it into a container?
If so, we have the makings of flying carpets and space crafts of our boyish dreams within reach.
Very interesting indeed.
Bo E,
Claes (who I think has made some major contributions to thermodynamics and Earth science, and has helped inspire my recent contribution on the previous post about Laplace’s equation) has produced a work which, to be true, requires that rho be negative in certain places within the universe.
For rho to be negative in a place requires one of the following:
– Number of particles of matter/antimatter in a defined region of space < 0.
– Particles of antimatter have negative mass. I am no expert on particle physics, but I do not believe that that premise has any scientific support — quite the contrary. Even if it did, such support would in my opinion have to depend on both general relativity and quantum physics, which are known to be mutually exclusive.
– Space in the defined a region is somehow "negative". I don't believe that Claes believes that this is possible. It is, of course, absurd, and it is exactly how general relativity attempts to conclude that "antigravity" is possible, i.e. only in regions of negative space.
There are other problems with this work, but I will write about this more later.
RTF
Correction: “in the defined a region” should be “in a defined region”.
RTF
Claes,
I am just now noticing your modification in section 5 of Laplace’s equation to rho = |delta phi| from rho = delta phi. I’m sorry for being slow about this.
It appears that in making that change, you are responding in your own way to what I wrote on your previous post. If that is the case, I thank you for that.
May I ask if you can elaborate on what you mean when you say that in this new model, the generation of gravitational potential is “a local operation of differentiation”, which you imply does not require the existence of action at a distance? I am trying to picture what is implied physically by the distinction between a local operation of differentiaion and a global operation of differentiation; but I am failing in that effort.
Thank you for any advice you can offer.
Richard
While Claes pores over my hypothesis about gravitation (which I posted at
claesjohnsonmathscience.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/laplaces-equation-as-gods-equation )
and tries to disprove its claim that the Laplace equation cannot be used to accurately model gravity even for regular matter (an effort which I am truly baffled by), I would like to ask if CementaFriend is in the audience, and if so, if he has any thoughts about the matter.
The way I figure it, it would help the time to pass more quickly if the readers of this blog talked about something.
This is not the first time I have expressed my belief to others that gravitational energy is newly inserted into the universe continuously at every point in time that a particle has mass. (Though it is the first time I have published the notion in text form, as opposed to just speaking about it.)
To me, it is self-evident that the idea must be true, because if not then some combination of heat, motion, and EM must be convertible into gravitation without adding mass to the particle.
And from what I can tell, all experimental evidence is in agreement that such a phenomenon has never been observed. Furthermore, no theory I have ever come across (including those of Claes Johnson) has even come close to claiming that it is possible. Thus, the idea that it is prohibited within nature, at least at a scale that would make it the only source of observed gravitation, is one of those rare ideas regarding nature about which I have no doubt whatsoever.
And if the idea is true (i.e. if the idea that all newly observed gravitation arises from the convertibility of those other energies into gravitation is false), then it seems to me that the Laplace equation (with or without Claes’ new modification of absolute value for delta phi) cannot be part of an accurate model of the interaction between objects.
If I am wrong about this, I would very much like to be shown why.
RTF
RTF, some people are only human (ie not superhumans in some aspects). Right now I am time constrained (battling with accounts, family, etc) plus some health problems. For the next two months I will be just an occasional viewer trying to learn more but not commenting.
Claes I mentioned you and your blogs at http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/. A solar researcher was looking for someone to help with maths for a dynamic model http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/solar-researcher-offers-10k-reward-for-published-dynamic-version-of-static-analysis/. I hope that is all right. I appreciate your maths skills and your innovative thinking.
dimitri seneca snowden
this is brilliant! YOU are brilliant!
pardon my naivety and ignorance but, within this presentation i’m having a hard time with the exclusion of entropy or was that covered in the 2nd law to satisfy thermodynamics?