A Possible Mechanism For Gravity Without Forces Acting at a Distance

**stephen@nomail.com** · #61 November 2nd 05 posted to sci.physics.relativity

Joe Fischer wrote:
On Tue, wrote:

Joe Fischer wrote:
Both initial and new are real, but at the end of the problem,
the values need to be identified as "new".

What end to the problem? Does expansion end at some point?

The intermediate values will become too large in other than
advanced math if the problem covers too much time.

The size of the numbers has nothing to do with how advanced
the math is. Multiplication is basic math, no matter
how larger the numbers are. You are just spouting nonsense.
Multiplying two really large numbers may take a long time,
but there is nothing advanced about it.

Where did you get these numbers from? You claim not to have
a theory, and you claim not to have any equations, so I really
do not see how you could have determined any of these numbers.
If you just made up the numbers, then yes they are a fiction.

I note that you did not answer this question.

It appears you forgot what you were attempting to
"prove" with the math. I was just trying to provide my
inpression of what is needed to do preliminary math.

You provided a bunch of numbers. Where did they
come from? Again, you have not answered the question.

I know what I was attempting to prove with the math.
I was attempting to prove that if surface gravity
is the result of the outward acceleration of a planet's
expanding surface, then the surface gravity of a planet depends
only on the planet's radius, not on its mass. This
is not true of the Universe we observe.

You have yet to raise an actual objection to the math.

Maybe you could post or copy and paste the
results you got, and the objective it accomplishes.

More nonsense. You obviously have no justification
for any of those numbers you posted.

Stephen

**Joe Fischer** · #62 November 3rd 05 posted to sci.physics.relativity

On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 19:42:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

Joe Fischer wrote:
The intermediate values will become too large in other than
advanced math if the problem covers too much time.

The size of the numbers has nothing to do with how advanced
the math is. Multiplication is basic math, no matter
how larger the numbers are. You are just spouting nonsense.
Multiplying two really large numbers may take a long time,
but there is nothing advanced about it.

Well, I tried to multiply 3 times 4, ran out of fingers and
had to use some toes.

Where did you get these numbers from? You claim not to have
a theory, and you claim not to have any equations, so I really
do not see how you could have determined any of these numbers.
If you just made up the numbers, then yes they are a fiction.

I note that you did not answer this question.

It appears you forgot what you were attempting to
"prove" with the math. I was just trying to provide my
inpression of what is needed to do preliminary math.

You provided a bunch of numbers.

I only remember 4, an approximate radius of the Earth,
ronuded up to nearest thousand, in miles, times the number
of feet in a mile The acceleration of gravity in feet/sec/sec
so it matches the other numbers, and an estimate of the
outward velocity of the surface (estimate factors follow).
And my second guess of the doubling time.

Where did they come from?

I made them up.

Again, you have not answered the question.

What question?

I know what I was attempting to prove with the math.
I was attempting to prove that if surface gravity
is the result of the outward acceleration of a planet's
expanding surface, then the surface gravity of a planet depends
only on the planet's radius, not on its mass.

Why would you want to prove that, is that your theory?

This is not true of the Universe we observe.

What is not true?

You have yet to raise an actual objection to the math.

Maybe you could post or copy and paste the
results you got, and the objective it accomplishes.

More nonsense. You obviously have no justification
for any of those numbers you posted.
Stephen

Make up your own then. I thought you were
working on proving that the Earth and Sun would not
maintain proportionate size, what happened to that?

Joe Fischer

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A Possible Mechanism For Gravity Without Forces Acting at a Distance	brian a m stuckless	Physics - General Discussion	2	October 29th 05 07:52 AM
Higgs mechanism and the emergence of gravity equivalent to inertia	Jack Sarfatti	The Theory of Relativity	0	August 1st 05 11:36 PM
Emergent gravity and Higgs mechanism in particle physics	Jack Sarfatti	The Theory of Relativity	0	August 1st 05 08:16 PM
asked students to name two vertical forces acting on a ball, hit straight up	Don McDonald	Physics - General Discussion	4	December 6th 04 08:33 AM
magnetic lines, not acting at a distance	TimR	Physics - General Discussion	7	May 28th 04 07:51 AM