This is the model of buoyancy using Newtonian Mechanics. It is easy to see how this simple model captures the community communal approval.
Tomorrow I will show how the Standard Vibration Model does a better job of describing what is observed in atmospheric interactions without using gravity or mass.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The N-Body Problem":
Now, buoyancy.Buoyancy does not fly in the face of gravity. Gravity, when acting on an object in isolation, holds. The theory of gravity says nothing more than this... that two masses, when considered in isolation, attract one another with some force. There might be other interactions adding additional forces, but somewhere in the big pile of forces acing on a mass is a contribution from gravity, and it conforms to a simple equation.
Buoyancy is a phenomenon that occurs in a large, complex system... A single solution to the simple 2-mass gravity law is not suffucicient in this situation, and nobody backing gravitational theory is saying that it is. But it does contribute in an important way. Allow me to attempt to explain...
If we consider the balloon and earth in complete isolation, it would accelerate downward at G*m-sub-earth/r-sub-earth-
But this isn't a two body system. There is a third player... air. And in this system, the three bodies are acting on each other. The gravitational force between air and the balloon can be neglected, since the balloon is so small in this instance and the air is so widely distributed (I hope we don't conflict on that assumption... but if we do, I'll happily defend it).
So let's start with the air. Being acted on by gravity, it is all trying to be pulled downward. This is creating pressure at all places within the air, at increasing values at lower altitudes, since there is more weight on top of the air at lower heights. This pressure is acting against gravity. It is the resistance of the air to being compressed into a singularity, primarily driven by kinetic forces of the matter being compressed. Everywhere there is a force pushing down (gravity) and everywhere there is a force pushing up resisting it. Thus we acheive equilibrium and a stable atmosphere.
Enter the balloon. Imagine, if you will, we identify the spherical surface, centered at the earth's origin, who's radius extends just to the bottom of the balloon. Thus, we can talk about the air beneath that altitude (which I'll call lower air), and the air above that altitude (higher air). So the lower air is all the air around the world beneath the altitude of the balloon, and higher air is the rest (which is where the balloon is). Everywhere over earth's surface, the lower air is pushing up at a certain force... the force required to hold the higher air bay... exactly the same force, but opposite in direction, as gravity is generating from the higher air. Without the balloon, it's a uniform equillibrium. But now, in one cylindrical column of higher air, there's a balloon... a balloon that is lighter than the surrounding air.
So now there's a particular place where the higher air is lighter. And so the lower air is no longer in equilibrium at that place. It's pushing up with the same force as all the rest of the lower air, but the air above it in that particular spot is pushing down with less force due to the lighter mass balloon. And so the net force, the combination of the upward pressure and the gravitationally-induced downward weight, is non-zero, and upward acceleration results.
This continues until a new equilibrium between air pressure and gravity is reached, which will occur when the balloon rises to a state of equi-density with it's surrounding.
And all of this was explained nicely with gravity as a key contributor.
End of Anonymous' description.
------------------
The Standard Vibration Model
It is assumed that the reader has already read the papers
The Structure of Baryons
Variables Involved in Baryonic Motion
NASA Heavy lift balloons
The interesting thing about these heavy lift balloons is that they are capable of carrying a 1000-kg instrument to approximately 33 km giving little or no day/night altitude variation and ultimately 100-day flights[1].
At launch these balloons are filled with helium to 5% of the volume of the balloon. Any more than that and the balloon would rupture during the ascent. As the balloon rises in the atmosphere the helium expands to fill 100% of the volume of the balloon. The balloons are corrugated allowing for this expansion.
This would require the expansion of the helium atoms during ascent. This would mean the length of the gluon between quarks is a shorter length before launch and a longer length at altitude. The distance between atoms remains the same allowing for a smooth expansion.
I am going to add a drawing here to explain the distance continuity between helium atoms.
Literally the helium expands. There is almost no leakage since the helium atoms are now larger than the holes in the balloon. They have to pop the balloon to return the payload back to Earth.
------------
[1] NASA Heavy Lift Balloon Program
So the standard theory has a perfectly good explanation for the varying volume of the balloon... lower atmospheric pressure is higher, and therefore exerts more force on the balloon. In this model, the average density of the helium is decreasing with altitude as the atoms spread out. The kinetic theory of gasses explains the behavior of the gas molecules... they zoom around with energy, exerting force on the surrounding material and speeding off into all corners of a region, which explains pressure and expansion.
ReplyDeleteSo back to your model... The one comment that really stands out is: "This would require the expansion of the helium atoms during ascent." Not sure why that's the only logical conclusion.
Standard theory simply explains that the gas expands in space... the particles have kinetic energy, and want to fly off into the distance. Why was this not an acceptable answer? Or is it totally acceptable in the context of the standard theory, and you're just ignoring that and stating how it works in your theory? So by "required", you just mean in your model?
And in the standard model, it's obvious what happens when you release one particle in a region... it zooms around happily within it. In your model, what happens? Does that single particle expand to fill the region? No matter how big the region, or is there a limit? If there's a limit... why? And while we're there, why doesn't the atmosphere fly off into space, and all the atoms within it expand infinitely until all of the universe is filled with Earth's atmosphere?
And most importantly... was that your explanation of the buoyancy issue in the standard vibration model, or are you still working on that?
Again, I'm not being a douche... I'm just trying to find the limits of my understanding of your theory.
Dear Aaron: Fascinating topic. The bouyancy of various gases, etc. The molecules being of a tighter bond in one substance would make either a bouyancy or a gravity effect. Things float or are bouyant in H20 because the water molecules are closer together, whereas the item being introduced would float or be bouyant because they do not relate to the same surface tension of the water molecules. Also doesnt water act as an almost "amoeba"-like entity which would create this effect. Water being rather foreign physically speaking (to other elements?).
ReplyDeleteAsking questions is not hurtful. I understand that you are trying to find the limits of my model. I expect that. I find it difficult to find the limits of my model without solid, interesting and most importantly difficult questions. This is one reason I take time to answer questions. I want to give solid and interesting answers.
ReplyDeleteI hope that everything I discuss on this blog enhances my description of this model.
The difficulty with this stream of consciousness blog is somewhere in the 300+ postings I have modified my model of the gluon. I expanded my description of the gluon to include the quarks. Quarks are two intertwined strands of gluons. Analogy of a quark would be a ball of yarn. This would allow for expansion of the gluon's length to explain the changes in density.
One of the main points of this model is asymmetrical vibrations.
I am exhausted and am going to spend the night thinking about your questions. I will respond with a more thorough solution tomorrow.
Thanks again for reading my work.
Aaron
Dear Aaron: "No real records of Apollo Program" Youtube video is not working in Canada; apparently due to copyright laws in Canada regarding PBS. Dang! What was it about?
ReplyDeleteRE chiccoreal: I would argue that it has nothing to do with surface tension.
ReplyDeleteBut of course something like surface tension can contribute in a minor way to act against buoyancy, by resisting deformation along the walls of the object. Or imagine placing a low density object into an extremely viscous fluid... the buoyant acceleration would be severely retarded due to the resistance of the fluid to shear. So sure, loads of other forces can be at play in a real system.
And I could see how one could attribute buoyancy to tension... you could argue that the tension is squeezing the object up much like trying to tightly grip a bar of wet soap, where one's hands would represent a material under tension, and the soap's motion buoyancy.
But the problem there is that it wouldn't be enough. You'd need some way to show that the only obvious direction for the object to "slip" is up. With tension as the sole contributor, you'd end up in a state of equilibrium, with the surrounding material's tension enclosing the object on all sides... it would just float in the same place, being pushed equally in every direction.
In the classic theory, the Earth's gravity is filling that role explicitly (rather than being a byproduct of tension), by providing higher pressures at regions closer to the gravity source, and thus provides a model where the motion of a buoyant object will be exactly as observed... away from Earth. And it does so without actually requiring tension to provide the motivating force... the kinetic energy of the particles and gravity do the job just fine. And the equations derived from theory, even when one naively neglects other forces at play, calculate to a remarkably high degree of accuracy the acceleration with only the masses and the gravitational force as input.
Anyway, I'll let it go and give Aaron some time to elaborate.
Hi, chiccoreal
ReplyDeleteIt is nice to hear from you again. The video is about how NASA could not build a Saturn 5 rocket, since they do not have a cohesive set of plans or an understanding of how the systems worked. They did not demand a set of drawings or reasoned plans from their subcontractors.
In order to understand how to build the Ares system they had to take the last Saturn 5, which was sitting in the open atmosphere, dismantle it and try to figure out how it worked. They had to go to junk yards to find parts from these rockets that were built but never used. Pathetic at best.
Since I produced a simple description of buoyancy, it did not include effects like surface tension, temperature, magnetism, electricity, and other effects. I really tried to explain the main force carrier involved in buoyancy. Since the noble gas Helium is used to fill the balloon and the material used to make the balloon is inert, they have had a high success rate in using these.
chiccoreal brings an interesting an interesting point about water and gasses. I am going to use gas and water as similar example to the balloon.
Back when I was a child and would swim in a pool. I would go to the bottom of the pool and release some air in a small bubble. I would follow the bubble's ascent and notice that the bubble was much larger towards the surface. The shape of the rising bubble would change from a teardrop shape to a more flat pancake shape due to aerodynamics of the less dense gas pushing the more dense water out of the way.
Surface tension would deform the shape and consistency of the bubble as it traveled. By the time the bubble hit the surface it tended to be many bubbles. The bubble also tended to raise water above the level of the surface level of the pool.
I will be back later, I need to go to the food store.
Thanks for reading my work.
Aaron
This is from Anon's comment.
ReplyDelete"But the problem there is that it wouldn't be enough. You'd need some way to show that the only obvious direction for the object to "slip" is up. With tension as the sole contributor, you'd end up in a state of equilibrium, with the surrounding material's tension enclosing the object on all sides... it would just float in the same place, being pushed equally in every direction."
----------
That is a difficult question.
I'm going to start a new posting on this topic. I think there are several issues that I need to elaborate on.
I will have a draft finished tomorrow. It will describe how information travels from one gluon to another baryon's gluon. And how that communication causes movement, temperature, magnetic fields, and electric fields.
I have already written this process in several of the blogs postings. I just wish to put them together and develop them some more.
At the end of all of this I will have answered your question about this model. Thank you for participating.
Aaron