User talk:LeSagian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 LeSage Gravity Controversy 2 My Version of Le Sage Article 3 My Take on the Energy Deposition Problem 4 LeSage gravity (again)

[edit] LeSage Gravity Controversy

Read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. One more edit and you will be blocked. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What you need to do is discuss the topic on the talk page and come to a consensus. I know nothing about the article but I saw it come up in the recent changes with 8 edits, so I checked it out. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have tried, look at the discussion page... I have explained & refuted his claim of Vanity Press, I have put details, and referred him to the discussion page. If you look at [[1]] this started today with no other contributions from him. Read his tone & venomous demeanor???

i've left a message on his talk page. Are you asking for protection on the article? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Protection usually comes before mediation. That way the editors have the chance to solve the problem themselves. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's protected now. I will check on it to see if progress has been made. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Version of Le Sage Article

Given the fact that we have one Anon (63.24... using, to date Socks (ELQ22, SneltCatNoc, RundAudio, FixWiki) to continually edit the Le Sage site with negative POV edit I've decided to place a version here that I think is more neutral & correct. April 19, 2006

Removed now that the edit war appears to be over. I have replaced it with a proposed solution to the energy deposition problem in Le Sage's model. July 9, 2006

The edit war with 63.24... anon under the guise of SJC1 is back thus a good version of the page is restored to my user page LeSagian 06:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Take on the Energy Deposition Problem

Herein I will attempt a derivation of the energy deposition for the Le Sage model. I take as a starting point the standard momentum flux φ and mass attenuation coefficient μ terms, these are derived in references^{[1] [2]}

In LeSage's theory these parameters are fundamentals, what in modern science is known as the gravitational constant G is defined in LeSage's model as,

G = φμ²

The energy deposited in an attenuating body can be expressed as,

φ' = φ − φ_o

Given,

φ_o = φe ^{− μρt}

Where ρ = mass density and t = linear thickness

For the weak limit (μρt < < 1), we get,

φ' = 2φμρr

Assuming we are dealing with spherical attenuators such that t = 2r. To get the total input energy we must integrate this over the entire volume. Given that mass density multiplied by that volume gives us the the total mass M, the total energy E input is simply,

E = 2φμMr

Let's look at this more formally. Consider the following illustration,

In the illustration symbol £ represents θ and symbol ¿ represent ψ

As can be seen, any ray traversing the sphere on the X-Y plane from the left through the origin travels a distance 2rSinθ. Thus, for the X-Y plane the weak limit solution is,

Since we evaluate this from 0 to 180 degrees the solution is simply,

φμρ2r

We now rotate this plane round the X axis 180 degrees to define the sphere. This gives us,

Again, resulting in,

φμρ2r

Which brings us full circle...

Note that nowhere in the derivation does the gravitational constant G appear or is applicable. Further, neither does the surface gravitational acceleration calculated from G. Trying to use G or the surface gravitational acceleration (or escape velocity) to evaluate the deposited energy is shown here to be an invalid approach and any results based upon such approaches will also be invalid.

[edit] LeSage gravity (again)

Paul - I am not interested in getting into the middle of this business again. However, I would like to point out that it is a very bad sign that a fellow supporter of Le Sage gravitation (named D. Hainz) is also opposing your edits. I know that you are passionate about this subject, but passion is not an asset in Wikipedia. You are therefore once again advised to back off. --EMS | Talk 02:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Then don't... & you back off. However, I doubt you speak the truth... If you have something to say about the topic say it, quit whining... As I said (and feel free to compare the text) I did not change a single phrase of what was there, just quantified the assumption that the topic is based on. Show otherwise...

I see no good coming of my getting into the current discussion as it involves a level of detail and rigor that is well above and beyond that which I wish to devote to Le Sage's theory of gravitation. All that I can do is to ask you to step back and reconsider what you are doing. Accusations of putting original research into the article are fairly serious, and this is not the first time that you have had this happen to you. Once again, I won't get involved directly at this time. However, it past history is any guide, it would be helpful if you would cool it for now and not continue the recent edit war. --EMS | Talk 22:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)