Don't get ahead of me or yourself

Electrodynamic Divergence of Matter

This paper and this thread is not an attempt to formalize the model,
but more to lay the groundwork and provide some information about the
subject model to those capable and inclined enough to attempt formalization.

Starting with the least possible consideration, two spheres of equal
size and constant density large enough to have some measurable amount
of outward surface acceleration, first just touching each other in free space;
The expansion can be considered to result from the same close
range internal forces as in gases, but controlled in solids and liquids by
the inertial resistance of the outer parts of larger objects, gas, liquid, or
solid.

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.

Any attempt to separate the two spheres should be resisted by
the precise amount the two spheres are being accelerated apart by the
expanding surfaces.

Since the surface points in contact should be in inertial motion,
the centers of mass should be 4-accelerated apart by an amount that
is a whole proportion of the surface gravity of either sphere alone.
Is this acceleration 1, or 2 (in units of "s1-g" for a single sphere)?

Is the force needed to be applied a whole proportion of the
mass of one of the spheres, and is this force (in kg or pounds) 1 or 2?

If the two spheres are separated to one diameter apart, and
released, there will be a short period of time pass before the surfaces
come in contact.

If the two spheres are separated to two diameters apart, is
the time period before contact 1 or 2 times that of one diameter apart?

This will be slow going, with many bumps along the way.

Joe Fischer

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

Electrodynamic Divergence of Matter

This paper and this thread is not an attempt to formalize the model,
but more to lay the groundwork and provide some information about the
subject model to those capable and inclined enough to attempt formalization.

Starting with the least possible consideration, two spheres of equal
size and constant density large enough to have some measurable amount
of outward surface acceleration, first just touching each other in free space;
The expansion can be considered to result from the same close
range internal forces as in gases, but controlled in solids and liquids by
the inertial resistance of the outer parts of larger objects, gas, liquid, or
solid.

If all matter expands, the way gases do,

Bzzzt!

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...
Don't get ahead of me or yourself

Electrodynamic Divergence of Matter

This paper and this thread is not an attempt to formalize the
model,
but more to lay the groundwork and provide some information about the
subject model to those capable and inclined enough to attempt
formalization.

Starting with the least possible consideration, two spheres of
equal
size and constant density large enough to have some measurable amount
of outward surface acceleration, first just touching each other in free
space;
The expansion can be considered to result from the same close
range internal forces as in gases, but controlled in solids and liquids by
the inertial resistance of the outer parts of larger objects, gas, liquid,
or
solid.

If all matter expands, the way gases do,

Since it does not - well the implication is rather obvious. You have been
posting the same kooky nonsense for many years -
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...8ef89c757c4f16

Bill

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.

Any attempt to separate the two spheres should be resisted by
the precise amount the two spheres are being accelerated apart by the
expanding surfaces.

Since the surface points in contact should be in inertial
motion,
the centers of mass should be 4-accelerated apart by an amount that
is a whole proportion of the surface gravity of either sphere alone.
Is this acceleration 1, or 2 (in units of "s1-g" for a single
sphere)?

Is the force needed to be applied a whole proportion of the
mass of one of the spheres, and is this force (in kg or pounds) 1 or 2?

If the two spheres are separated to one diameter apart, and
released, there will be a short period of time pass before the surfaces
come in contact.

If the two spheres are separated to two diameters apart, is
the time period before contact 1 or 2 times that of one diameter apart?

This will be slow going, with many bumps along the way.

Joe Fischer

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:03:46 GMT, "Bill Hobba" wrote:

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
.. .
Don't get ahead of me or yourself

Electrodynamic Divergence of Matter
[snip]
If all matter expands, the way gases do,

Since it does not - well the implication is rather obvious. You have been
posting the same kooky nonsense for many years -
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...8ef89c757c4f16

Bill

Bill, are you the guy with the big telescope in his back yard?

Since you referenced the above link, I feel compelled to respond
to it, it seems like I was being reasonable and the other person was being
somewhat closed minded, or else dedicated to a particular model of gravity.

Quoted from the link above.

: 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.
:
: Velocity is a very complex parameter in the model.
:
: If so, then what is the benefit of divergent matter theory.

It provides a physical mechanism for gravity,
one that is consistent with the proper acceleration
of the surface, and one that does not need speculation
about propagated particles or mediating mediums.

Additional remark October 28, 2005

Actually, it is much more than that, and does much
more than that, it allows extremely close examinations of
the basics of the particular model it studies.
Some models are a hodgepodge of rules and patches,
the Divergent Matter model rigidly restricts what physical
processes can do or be.

A does provide ___A___ physical mechanism for
gravity, at least a _possible_ physical mechanism for
gravity, rather than ___THE___ physical mechanism
for gravity.

: Perhaps
: it is more complex than you think in your gravity theory.

It is a gravity theory.

Additional remark October 28, 2005

It still is ___A___ gravity theory/model in the way
the layman defines theory.

: In relativity, fields (to include gravity) are invariant
: constructions, but then you don't model gravity as a field do you?

Right, and you are using the word "field" to
mean a physical interacting entity that exerts, which
I don't think GR goes to that extent.

Additional remark October 28, 2005

Any model that requires a force acting at a distance,
regardless of whether it uses attractive particles, fields,
mediums, or strong little elves too small to see, is moronic,
simply because it is impossible to have any of those
mechanisms that can exert a force flux through a given
cross section anywhere close to what strong materials
like steel, reinforced plastic, or carbon fiber can do.

: The Electrodynamic Divergence of Matter model (EDMm)
: does not assign or recognize any attributes of "space".
: This seems to agree with relativity in that velocity
: can only be measured or thought of as _relative_ velocity
: between _two_ objects.
:
: It's getting deeper. Can only .... head shaking.

Additional remark October 28, 2005

I regret this other person felt that the basic premise
of relativity is something for him to shake his head about,
there are no mile markers in space, there are no grids of
rigid coordinates, there is nothing in space, except matter
and the electromagnetic spectrum.

------------ Original Remark
Sorry it doesn't use Euclidean space, sorry it
doesn't define space, sorry I don't consider "space"
as having physically measurable attributes.

Additional remark October 28, 2005

Why am I apologizing for something that seems more
like a background free geometry than model other than GR
that I know of.

: But since the EDM model is based on matter and meter
: sticks expanding continuously, and the second lengthening
: continuously, velocity may not be as definitively defined
: as in some other models.
:
: Well thats too bad, Joe. No one will care to use it then.

Time will tell. The fact is, the model exists,
and is based on matter and physics, not vaporous spirit
mediums.

Additional remark October 28, 2005

I really don't thing theorticians much care what a
model requires, it needs to be self consistent, and offer
some useful representation of nature.
Einstein's Principle of Equivalence does that, and
he always said it is useful to study the effects observed
on an accelerating elevator in order to learn more about
gravity.
I really don't understand why any gravity theorist
would consider a model that does not follow or build on
the Principle of Equivalence of an accelerating elevator
and a room on the Earth's surface.

: Velocity can be defined in real time as mesaured
: relative to another object as in other models, but this
: measurement may not agree in some cases.
:
: Then it must be false.

No, it is defined by the model, as relative measurement.

Additional remark October 28, 2005

In the last few years there seems to be more and
more measurements disagreeing with presumptions about
what they should be according to existing thought.

: As the length of the second lengthens because the
: meter stick constantly lengthens as matter expands, the
: distance an object moves in translation is not the same
: at slow speed as at higher speeds.
:
: Then abandon it immediately. That's what I do when something
: isn't working.

Where is the switch where you turn off your ether.

Additional remark October 28, 2005

There exists no model providing a possible physical
mechanism for gravity, and abandoning any model because
of problems encountered is foolish.
Any model that induces or promotes thought is useful.

: And as the planet is expanding with a substantial
: velocity of the surface outward radially from the center
: of mass, then velocity measured in the radial direction,
: may not be the same as measured along the surface.
:
: I don't know what this is supposed to mean, but if it is problem for
: you predictively regarding known empirical outcomes, abandon it
: immediately.

It isn't a problem, it is the correct way to
view freefall, not upside down and backwards as in
Newtonian gravitation.

Additional remark October 28, 2005

Actually, if a problem is encountered, it should for
a short time at least, cause an interested person to examine
the problem deeper and to become more determined until
such time that a number of unresolvable problems occur.

: Because of the expansion of matter, each instant
: the measured distances, lengths, and time interval will
: lengthen slightly, and after about a thousand seconds
: more or less, the radius of the planet and the diameter
: of any object will have doubled, RELATIVE TO those
: beginning unit lengths used to mark the background grid.
:
: And why don't you see a problem with that?

Because it is what the model requires. No problem
is worse than trying to detect the medium that produces the
mutual attraction of Newtonian gravitation, or invisible
and non-existent mediums pervading a dimensionless space.

Additional remark October 28, 2005

Also, the universe is expanding at a rate that is
totally incomprehensible by the human mind, but it is
accepted as fact on the basis of spectra.

It should not be unexpected to find that other
things are expanding, even if they by all previous
methods of measurement seemed to be of fixed size.

If there were no surprises in physics, it would
not be nearly as interesting. In fact at the present
time, the surprises are piling up, and a time may come
when patches to existing models will not be able to
explain them.

Then all models must be reexamined for clues
to which way to proceed.

: Further discussion requires specification of
: actual examples.
:
: The original booklet by James Carter titled
: "Gravity Does Not Exist" contains some art work that
: illustrates certain examples, but does not appear to
: take the lengthening meter stick or lengthening time
: interval into consideration.
:
: Don't worry, James doesn't have a viable divergent matter theory but
: at least his lengthening meter stick is in common with you. James is
: a great guy, but he has no theory. It simply can not be shown to be
: consistent with reality.

Apparently you don't have some of the booklets.

Additional remark October 28, 2005

It is a little early to rule out any model which at
least is some related to the Principle of Equivvalence of
an upward accelerating elevator and a room on Earth.

And there will never come a time when a model
that identifies freefall as inertial motion.

More later;

Joe Fischer

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:03:46 GMT, "Bill Hobba" wrote:

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
. ..
Don't get ahead of me or yourself

Electrodynamic Divergence of Matter
[snip]
If all matter expands, the way gases do,

Since it does not - well the implication is rather obvious. You have been
posting the same kooky nonsense for many years -
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...8ef89c757c4f16

Bill

Bill, are you the guy with the big telescope in his back yard?

Since you referenced the above link, I feel compelled to
respond
to it, it seems like I was being reasonable and the other person was being
somewhat closed minded, or else dedicated to a particular model of
gravity.

Quoted from the link above.

: 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. And velocity also has a well defined
meaning - rate of change of position. Stick to the usual meanings and you
may be able to get somewhere.

Rest of rubbish snipped.

Bill

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

"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 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.

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

Joe Fischer wrote:

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

Acceleration has a well defined meaning in
physics as rate of change of velocity.

Or rather well defined in Newtonian mechanics.

It's just as true in relativity. 4-acceleration is the rate of
change of 4-velocity.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...s/node115.html


---Tim Shuba---

On Sat, "Henry Haapalainen" wrote:

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

Henry Haapalainen

Right, and freefall is not acceleration to the freefaller, it just
appears to be an acceleration to an observer using the surface
of the Earth as a reference in some way.

Henry, you are upside down. :-)

Falling space is just a disoriented view of Divergent matter. :-)

I think I have more faith in physicists and their measurements
and their instruments than anybody else, I am sure if space had any
attributes, they could detect them, I am sure there are NO other
particles besides the ones that have been detected that could be
the carriers of gravity.

I am sure there is no aether, that concept was never argued
after 1910 (Minkowski and Einstein) by even Lorentz, even though
he devoted a lot of work, and did some very good physics for the
era he worked in.

In am sure there is no gravitational "field", because I am
sure modern physicists could detect it in some way, or shield it,
or even control it, but they can't, and never will, because it
does not exist.

I am sure that the concept of the constant c is correct,
else spectra could not be so well defined and identified.

And I am sure that no force except inertia can produce
the things gravity does.

But, I also can't see how falling space could push
mountains down as hard as gravity does, and neither can
anything else push mountains down as hard as gravity,
so that is why I think the thing that _seems_ to push
things down can only be the inertial resistance of the
things that _appear_ to be pushed down.

That is why I think Einstein was on the right track,
and the reason that General Relativity is so accurate
is because it is based on freefall _being_ inertial motion,
and surface gravity being a real, proper, acceleration.

I also feel that anybody that works with General
Relativity should say these same things, not necessarily
that matter is expanding, but they should say that any
time acceleration is felt, it is acceleration, and any time
zero acceleration is felt, it is inertial motion.

I only hope nobody damages their career doing so.

Joe Fischer