On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:28:29 GMT, "Bill Hobba" wrote:

By consensus - not by some guy posting something idiotic then claiming he
has different meanings than the usual ones for what he proposing. Such is a
well known crank tactic. If you want to use words in a different way define
it before making statements like: 'If all matter expands, the way gases do,
this in itself,'. Actually expand is not a concept of physics - its meaning
in the English language is far too well know to be subject to semantic
waffle.

Rest of rubbish snipped.
Bill

If you don't know what expand means then look it up.

If you don't think gases expand to infinity in free space,
ask a physicist.

It would be nice if you could argue specific points,
instead of generalities.

Apparently you like the garbage postings in this
newsgroup by the other nuts and flakes better than mine. :-)

Joe Fischer

Joe Fischer wrote:
Don't get ahead of me or yourself

snip

If all matter expands, the way gases do, this in itself, provides the
basis for a model of gravitation to use for thought experiments and possibly
for finding unexplored experiments to compare with other models.

Do you honestly believe that two "balls" of gas of different sizes
would both "expand" and double their size in the same amount of time?

If so, then are are wrong.

If not, then you are basing your model on a false premise.
You are essentially lying to yourself and everyone else when
you say "if all matter expands, the way gasses do" because
your model requires matter to expand in a way that gasses do not.

Stephen

$ 'GR cannon-ball "feelings"'; By jOE Fischer
[Who cares a cannon-ball has "no feeling" off a TOWER of PiZZA.]
[There is NO cannon-ball, in GR (NO mass RELATED to G_uv=T_uv).]
brian a m stuckless

Henry Haapalainen wrote: "Joe Fischer"
kirjoitti viestissä ...
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 22:11:56 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
wrote: "Joe Fischer" wrote :
: Acceleration is a change of motion or change in rate of
: motion, but is not as easy to define in the Electrodynamic
: Divergence of Matter as in other models.

Simply more kooky nonsense. Acceleration has a well defined
meaning in physics as rate of change of velocity.

Or rather well defined in Newtonian mechanics.
Physics changes quite often.

And velocity also has a well defined
meaning - rate of change of position.

I seem to remember a well accepted theory that
predicts traveling 10 light years in one year
at .9 c.

I had the perception that you embraced General
Relativity, but if you don't like the idea of time slowing,
I must have been wrong.

Stick to the usual meanings and you may be able to get
somewhere. Rest of rubbish snipped.
Bill

Good advice, never try anything new, just do the
same forever.

Joe Fischer

Acceleration is not always acceleration. Observer in a free-fall
does not feel any acceleration.

Henry Haapalainen

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:28:29 GMT, "Bill Hobba" wrote:

By consensus - not by some guy posting something idiotic then claiming he
has different meanings than the usual ones for what he proposing. Such is
a
well known crank tactic. If you want to use words in a different way
define
it before making statements like: 'If all matter expands, the way gases
do,
this in itself,'. Actually expand is not a concept of physics - its
meaning
in the English language is far too well know to be subject to semantic
waffle.

Rest of rubbish snipped.
Bill

If you don't know what expand means then look it up.

No need to look it up - it means get bigger.


If you don't think gases expand to infinity in free space,
ask a physicist.

That was not your claim.


It would be nice if you could argue specific points,
instead of generalities.


OK - electrons are known to be point particles and to gravitationally
interact. Explain to me how a point can expand?

Bill


Apparently you like the garbage postings in this
newsgroup by the other nuts and flakes better than mine. :-)


Joe Fischer

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 00:46:43 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

Joe Fischer wrote:
Don't get ahead of me or yourself
snip
If all matter expands, the way gases do, this in itself, provides the
basis for a model of gravitation to use for thought experiments and possibly
for finding unexplored experiments to compare with other models.

Do you honestly believe that two "balls" of gas of different sizes
would both "expand" and double their size in the same amount of time?

I do, but why not ask a physicist, this is something that can
be tested.
But gases are highly compressable, much more than solid
or liquid matter, and that is anticipated in the model.

Matter is somewhat compressable too, the matter at the
center of the Earth approachs gold in density, surely it is not
mostly gold.

If so, then are are wrong.

Perhaps, but that is what models are for, to provide
something to test, to prove wrong. Things can be proven
wrong, they just can't be proven wrong.

Are you aware that all gases have the same number
of molecule/atom units in a liter at standard temperature and
pressure?

And more massive molecules would resist the
expansion more, at the surface of the expanding sphere.

The same with matter, the density of matter does
not follow a pattern hardly at all, perhaps it is the expansion
that partially establishes the density.

If not, then you are basing your model on a false premise.
You are essentially lying to yourself and everyone else when
you say "if all matter expands, the way gasses do" because
your model requires matter to expand in a way that gasses do not.
Stephen

Well, matter does appear to expand when heated, and
appears to contract when cooled, which could result because
the measuring devices are kept at constant temperature.
Being made of the same material as the material being
tested causes a serious problem, and naturally, everybody
says, what, me expanding?
They say the Earth can't be expanding because it
stays less than 4000 miles in radius, which is a juvenile remark.

If there were any progress at all being made in finding
some other mechanism for gravity, I would be delighted,
positive results are the goal, but if no progress is being made,
all models remain to be studied.

Joe Fischer

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 01:32:00 GMT, "Bill Hobba" wrote:

"Joe Fischer" wrote:
If you don't think gases expand to infinity in free space,
ask a physicist.

That was not your claim.

What was my claim about gases? Because of most
materials, gas, liquid and solid being composed of not only
all the elements, changing phase at different temperatures,
but also being mixtures and numerous chemical compositions,
any propositions concerning all materials becomes very
complicated.
That is why I try to restrict the discussion to one
specific chemical element in the beginning, but everybody
wants to get to orbits and other complicated processes
right off the bat.

It would be nice if you could argue specific points,
instead of generalities.


OK - electrons are known to be point particles and to gravitationally
interact. Explain to me how a point can expand?
Bill

I am not sure they do, but I also do not think that
electrons have ever been tested to be attracting each other
gravitationally.

I am sure they appear to "fall" like everything else,
and they surely add to the mass of an object they are a
part of, but I don't know of a specific experiment that suggests
they "gravitationally interact", whatever that means.

The very reason that everything can "fall" the same,
is because nothing "falls" because of gravity.

If anybody knows of any claim I make like this that
is not essentially the same as im General Relativity, please
let me know.

Joe Fischer

brian a m stuckless wrote:
$ 'GR cannon-ball "feelings"'; By jOE Fischer
[Who cares a cannon-ball has "no feeling" off a TOWER of PiZZA.]
[There is NO cannon-ball, in GR (NO mass RELATED to G_uv=T_uv).]
brian a m stuckless

Henry Haapalainen wrote: "Joe Fischer"
kirjoitti viestissä ...

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 22:11:56 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
wrote: "Joe Fischer" wrote :

: Acceleration is a change of motion or change in rate of
: motion, but is not as easy to define in the Electrodynamic
: Divergence of Matter as in other models.

Simply more kooky nonsense. Acceleration has a well defined
meaning in physics as rate of change of velocity.

Or rather well defined in Newtonian mechanics.
Physics changes quite often.


And velocity also has a well defined
meaning - rate of change of position.

I seem to remember a well accepted theory that
predicts traveling 10 light years in one year
at .9 c.

I had the perception that you embraced General
Relativity, but if you don't like the idea of time slowing,
I must have been wrong.


Stick to the usual meanings and you may be able to get
somewhere. Rest of rubbish snipped.
Bill

Good advice, never try anything new, just do the
same forever.

Joe Fischer


Acceleration is not always acceleration. Observer in a free-fall
does not feel any acceleration.

Henry Haapalainen



You and others seem to be unable to deal with the concept of a
definition. Terms such as velocity and acceleration are defined terms.
Velocity and acceleration are defined as vector quantities as is
position displacement. Simple well defined math (its called differential
calculus) allows us to take the concept of the position of a body and
its displacement and define velocity and acceleration. A definition
cannot be wrong. It can be inconsistent or useless by not corresponding
to anything important in the physical world. But it cannot be wrong. BY
DEFINITION a definition cannot be WRONG.

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 04:56:04 GMT, fkasner wrote:


You and others seem to be unable to deal with the concept of a
definition. Terms such as velocity and acceleration are defined terms.

If they are components of a system of mechanics, then that
model defines them.

Those terms alone are defined by Newtonian mechanics,
but in other models there can be other, more specific terms.

Velocity and acceleration are defined as vector quantities as is
position displacement.

Position relative to what? Referenced to what?

In Newtonian mechanics, the surface of the Earth
is assumed to correspond to a rigid rectilinear coordinate
system, the one described by Euclid, and LET and SR
also need this same type of coordinate system.

Simple well defined math (its called differential
calculus) allows us to take the concept of the position of a body and
its displacement and define velocity and acceleration.

Provided the mechanics has defined the coordinate system.

I don't know what stuck clueless or falling space henry
uses for a coordinate system, but personally I don't see any
way to define a coordinate system without using material
objects as references, it is certain space will not provide
any references, and a lot of gravitational physics only uses
one large object and one very small test object.

A definition
cannot be wrong. It can be inconsistent or useless by not corresponding
to anything important in the physical world. But it cannot be wrong. BY
DEFINITION a definition cannot be WRONG.

Is this an English class? There exists a number of different types
of velocity and acceleration, all named differently, and they are not just
different names for the same process.

It may be that the next theory or model that comes along will
have to define a certain kind of acceleration and velocity, and perhaps
even more than one of each.

Have you followed this thread, or are you acquainted with
the premise of the subtitle material I was trying to present before
responders tried to get ahead of me?

If there were such a thing as Divergent Matter, then all
the existing definitions would have to be examined.
The quarter mile drag strip would be getting longer,
doubling in length about every ten minutes.

But the meter stick would also double in length every
ten minutes, and the second would double in length every
ten minutes (longer pendulums have a longer period).

On the drag strip, all this would not have much
of an effect, but there may be situations where large
effects would occur.

Sometimes I do things a little bit different, as
far as I know, parabolas have always been drawn
by ploting points generated by an equation.
I don't do that, but I have drawn and machined
parabolas with instruments I built.

Trying to document the Divergent Matter model
is very difficult, because it is very different.
I don't think the math would be as difficult as
that of General Relativity, but it would be very different,
with all differently defined terms.

But frankly, over the last 35 years that I have
been writing about it, I have not found a single person
who approached it in a mature and open minded way.

It seems like every person has an agenda, or
a fixation, or are rigidly disciplined, or lack the ability
to understand even simple physical things.

Knowing the mechanism of gravity may not
mean much for surface dwellers, it might help a lot
in astrophysics and cosmology.

And new definitions will be needed.

Joe Fischer

Dear Mr. fkasner:

Please stop trying to fight insanity. He who battles insanity has it
transferred to themself once the battle is over. The purpose of Usenet
is for a bunch of narcissistic fraternity brats to use up all of
America's precious computer memory (isomorphic to fossil fuel
depletion) and bring down the General System. No meaningful dialectic
is intended. Have a nice day.

Joe Fischer wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 00:46:43 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

Joe Fischer wrote:
Don't get ahead of me or yourself
snip
If all matter expands, the way gases do, this in itself, provides the
basis for a model of gravitation to use for thought experiments and possibly
for finding unexplored experiments to compare with other models.

Do you honestly believe that two "balls" of gas of different sizes
would both "expand" and double their size in the same amount of time?

I do, but why not ask a physicist, this is something that can
be tested.

You really need to learn some physics. Do you know why
gasses expand? You claim to be looking for mechanisms.
Do you understand the mechanism behind the expansion of gasses?

If gasses behaved they way you claimed, the would spontaneously
and continuously increase in temperature. This does
not happen in the real world.

snip


If there were any progress at all being made in finding
some other mechanism for gravity, I would be delighted,
positive results are the goal, but if no progress is being made,
all models remain to be studied.

You apparently have no real interest in understanding gravity
as you apparently have no interest in learning anything about
physics. Try figuring out how gasses behave in the real
world and why. It is not that hard.

Stephen