On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 06:02:21 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

You really need to learn some physics.

Thank you very much.

Do you know why gasses expand?

Because my balloon busted, boo hoo.

You claim to be looking for mechanisms.
Do you understand the mechanism behind the expansion of gasses?

I think so.

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

Well, obviously you have a poor understanding of
what I proposed, or you have a wild imagination.

Do you mean if they are contained and expand,
causing an increase in temperature and pressure?

If so, don't worry about it, the container is also
expanding, so the temperature and pressure will remain
constant.

If you have some other bizarre impression, then
describe it and maybe somebody can help explain.

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

I went to welding school in 1943, and learned how
acetylene, oxygen, helium and hydrogen behave.

I have written a treatise on bouyancy that is far
better than any I have seen.

I don't know where you are pulling all these
imaginary problems from, do you have these problems
in everything you do?

I think one of the problems today is the specialization
by everyone, many of whom know liittle of anything other
than their specialty.

I know enough physics to allow me to do all the
things I want to do, but I also know everything else there
is to know, and that allows me to do almost anything I want.

I suppose if you have a water leak you call a plumber,
and if a fuse blows, you call an electrician.

I would appreciate it if you would tell NASA just
how stupid the elevator to orbit is, it is bad enough that
morons are involved in it, but taxpayers money is being
wasted.
There are a lot of things you could be telling people
things won't work, or that they are not interested in
something.

Is there some reason you see fit to be an adversary,
even if you have to invent some bogus problem like
gases increasing in temperature.

I am making gains in everything I do, and I have
been doing this since about 1945, and I see no reason
to stop.

Joe Fischer

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...
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?

Your claim was - 'If all matter expands, the way gases do,' Very simple
considerations indicate it is nonsense eg for your claim to be true since
gasses are made of particles which, if your explanation is true would need
to be made of gasses, which ............ in a turtle all the way down type
explanation. All the evidence we have is electrons for example are point
particles whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

Rest of rubbish snipped.

Bill

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message ...
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.

10 light years as seen in one frame, divided by 1 year as seen
in another frame, is not defined as velocity in that theory.
Perhaps you are alluding to a theory that defines velocity as a
distance divided by a time, when both quantities are expressed
in the same reference frame.
Exercises:
According to this theory, supposing that the distance I cover as
seen by you is 10 light years and that our relative speed is 0.9c,
- how long would it take me to cover the distance as seen by you?
- how long would it take me to cover the distance as seen by me?
- what would be the distance that I cover as seen by me?

Dirk Vdm

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.

Logic is not always logic. Illogical statements are not logical. Is
that logical?

Joe Fischer wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 06:02:21 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

You really need to learn some physics.

Thank you very much.

Do you know why gasses expand?

Because my balloon busted, boo hoo.

That is not an answer. I will try one more time. Do you
know why gasses expand?

You claim to be looking for mechanisms.
Do you understand the mechanism behind the expansion of gasses?

I think so.

Then describe in plain English why gasses expand.

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

Well, obviously you have a poor understanding of
what I proposed, or you have a wild imagination.

Do you mean if they are contained and expand,
causing an increase in temperature and pressure?

If so, don't worry about it, the container is also
expanding, so the temperature and pressure will remain
constant.

You are just confusing yourself now. Gasses do expand. We can
measure and observe that. A gas will spread out to
fill whatever container it is. Containers do not expand.
Even according to your model we would not observe a container
expanding. However according to your model we should observe
gasses expanding, because we in fact do observe them expanding.

So once again, why do gasses expand?

If you answer that, think about what would be necessary
for a gas to double in volume at a constant rate.

This is very basic and intuitive stuff.

Stephen

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 06:02:21 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

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.

What unexplored experiments?

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.

Too late, the moron syndrome has already taken him.

Do you know why gasses expand?

He does not...

You claim to be looking for mechanisms. Do you understand the
mechanism behind the expansion of gasses?

He does not...

If gasses behaved they way you claimed, they 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,

No, he would not...

positive results are the goal, but if no progress is being
made, all models remain to be studied.

He doesn't really mean this...

You apparently have no real interest in understanding gravity

No he doesn't, he just wants others to vindicate his moronic
dementa.

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.

Let's go with the idea that the surface gravity of the Earth
is due to an outward increase in it radius r. First, as can
be seen & tested,

a = v^2/r

And v is the radial expansion velocity dr/dt. Given that for
any time after some arbitrary instant where t = 0, r is
initial, we must have,

r(t) = r + at^2/2

Where dr = at^2/2. The change in velocity during time t
is simply,

v = at

A problem (which I know Kenny-Joe can't answer) is, given a
constant surface acceleration of 9.81 m/sec^2, and an initial
radius of 6,374,000 km, what will be the radius and time when
v gets to c (assume no relativistic effects, yet)...

Ah Kenny-Joe will argue that the Lorentzian gamma factor will
come into play. Well, we know that,

x' = x/gamma
t' = t(gamma)

and

gamma = 1/Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2)

thus,

x'/t' = (x/gamma)/(t(gamma)) = v/gamma^2 = v'

So, the next question for Kenny-Joe to answer is, how would
this affect observations of the surface of Earth by distant
abservers, and when would these become noticable?

Next how would such affect small satellites in orbit? Oh,
I forgot, Kenny-Joe can't explain a simple orbit

The bottom line is, Kenny-Joe's dementa has no similarity
to Einstein's general theory of relativity, nor does
Einstein's theory in any way support or match it!

Paul Stowe

Paul Stowe wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 06:02:21 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

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.

What unexplored experiments?

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.

Too late, the moron syndrome has already taken him.

Do you know why gasses expand?

He does not...

You claim to be looking for mechanisms. Do you understand the
mechanism behind the expansion of gasses?

He does not...

If gasses behaved they way you claimed, they 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,

No, he would not...

positive results are the goal, but if no progress is being
made, all models remain to be studied.

He doesn't really mean this...

You apparently have no real interest in understanding gravity

No he doesn't, he just wants others to vindicate his moronic
dementa.

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.

Let's go with the idea that the surface gravity of the Earth
is due to an outward increase in it radius r. First, as can
be seen & tested,

a = v^2/r

And v is the radial expansion velocity dr/dt. Given that for
any time after some arbitrary instant where t = 0, r is
initial, we must have,

r(t) = r + at^2/2

In order for the expansion theory to work, at least
as far as I have been able to determine given the sketchy
descriptions, objects must expand at an exponential rate.
Everything must double in size at the same rate in order to
maintain the illusion that everything has stayed the same size.
So r(t) must[1] look something like

r(t) = R * E^f(t)

where R is the "initial" radius, E is the expansion rate,
and f is some increasing function. Suppose f(t)=t.
Then the acceleration at the surface of the Earth would
be
r''(t) = R * ln(E) * ln (E) * E^f(t)

This is in "real" meters and "real" seconds. Because
the meters we measure are also increasing at the same rate,
the acceleration we would measure is

a(t) = R * ln(E) * ln(E)

Note the dependency on R. No matter what we use for
f(t) there will be this dependency on R. So according
to this strength of gravity is proportional to the
radius of an object.

However, the moon's radius is 1/4 the Earths,
but its surface gravity is 1/6 the Earths. So there
is no need to introduce anything as sophisticated as
relativity to find a contradiction. Just explaining
the fact that surface gravity is proportional to
mass and not radius seems to be impossible.

Stephen

[1] I suppose there might be some convoluted for
the "real" radius over time that avoids this problem,
but I can't see what it might be.

wrote:

snip

In order for the expansion theory to work, at least
as far as I have been able to determine given the sketchy
descriptions, objects must expand at an exponential rate.
Everything must double in size at the same rate in order to
maintain the illusion that everything has stayed the same size.
So r(t) must[1] look something like

r(t) = R * E^f(t)

snip

[1] I suppose there might be some convoluted for
the "real" radius over time that avoids this problem,
but I can't see what it might be.

I just realized that I was making an unnecessary assumption,
so there are lots of other potential solutions, but they
all seem to have the same problem.

So we could have something like
r(t) = R * t^2
in which case
r''(t) = 2R

Of course in measurable meters, this would be 2R/t^2, which
would mean that the surface gravity of the Earth was
decreasing. However Joe has mentioned that time changes as
well, so if measureable seconds change at the appropriate
rate this will cancel out. Gravity is still dependent
on radius however, which is a big problem.

We would also apparently have to create an entirely new mechanics,
which seems a silly and circular way to find a mechanism for gravity.

Stephen

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 16:14:58 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

[snip]
Stephen

[1] I suppose there might be some convoluted for
the "real" radius over time that avoids this problem,
but I can't see what it might be.

That is probably the most intelligent supposition
you ever made, thank you.

And this was a great post, I appreciate it,
but I don't know if the great mathematician Paul Stowe
will accept your equations. :-)

While Newton uses mass and radial distance,
Divergent Matter seems to offer more resolution, using
density and radius for homogenous spheres, but for
comparing spheres all of the same density, radius is
all that is needed.

Also, the collision forces of expanding gases
is reduced as the mean free path increases, so there
is a slowing, but the changes in unit intervals causes
things like surface gravity to be a constant.

Frankly, I think a lot about constants in nature
could be an interesting side line of this model, even
the constancy of the measured velocity of light.

If your checking to see if double the radius,
double the surface gravity holds true (for spheres
of the same density not compressed), then I won't
have to abandon the model yet. :-)

Thanks again,

Regards,

Joe Fischer

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 16:58:38 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

We would also apparently have to create an entirely new mechanics,
which seems a silly and circular way to find a mechanism for gravity.

Stephen

Oh, you mean engineers would still want to use Newton for
most problems? Gee. :-)

Joe Fischer