Re: Zero Geodesic Deviation

On Sun, "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>"Joe Fischer" wrote:
>> On Sun, "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>"Joe Fischer" wrote:
>>>> I suspect most scientists have not considered a model
>>>> where the unit intervals constantly change with the passage
>>>> of time.
>>>
>>>They most certainly have - research the origin of gauge theory. In
>>>particular have a look at the contributions of Weyl whose original gauge
>>>theory allowed for precisely that - amongst other things.
>>
>> That has nothing to do with the type of physics
>> the Divergent Matter model requires, the general class
>> of gauge theories are math theories.
>
>Not this rubbish again.

It isn't rubbish, and there is a big difference in the
type of theories. Most gravity theories are field theories,
and the math is done as if they were field theories.
The divergent Matter model is a purely mechanical
model, where all the processes involved are at the atomic
or molecular level.
Frankly the level of your debunking is dropping.

>Any theory that makes predictions in accord with
>observation is a valid theory regardless of if it is expressed in the
>language of math or not.

Where did I ever say any model was invalid because of
the way it is expressed?
I have said ether models of gravity are invalid because
they cannot cause gravity.
I do not understand why anybody can think theories
that require "forces" could be valid, and that is the primary
reason physicists even think about theories other than
Newton.

>> Any physicist interested in gravity would do well to
>> work out the theory before starting any math.
>
>All modern theories use mathematical formalism. Your obvious
>inability to grasp such does not change the facts.

The formalism is good, the inability to state what
processes are involved is the problem.

The writing of Einstein changed dramatically when
the mathematicians got involved. Would you be one
of those who say that Einstein was not a good mathematician?

>> I am going on assumption that the math for the
>> physics of the Divergent Matter model does not exist yet,
>> but surely it will some day.
>>
>> But as long as physicists say the reference frames
>> are falling,
>
>Since that is not what physicists say all you are doing, as usual, is
>exposing your ignorance.
>Bill

Almost every physicist has a different analogy and
a different description of the physics involved in gravity.
But most good physicists will say that knowledge
of gravity is not complete, and far from it.
I know of no physicist who will acknowledge that
the surface of the Earth is accelerating away from the
center of mass of the Earth. They can't, because
it would cause a big problem for them personally.

I haven't found a single person who doesn't ask
why the moon follows a curved path around the Earth.
And I haven't found anyone who accepts that
a pendulum is an accelerometer, and should not be
classed as an oscillator. Without acceleration a
pendulum is just an unbalanced wheel.
Frankly, most of the discussions of gravity are
at a ridiculous level of understanding, most people
are talking way over their head, while I state the
things I do not know.
In other words, I do not try to BS people into
thinking I know or understand something.
If you would read all the documents associated
with my patent it would be obvious that I knew
clearly what I was saying.

And all this boils down to one fact, nothing is
known about gravity except what it does, observation
shows that, so all field theories, and there are lots
of them, are just so many wasted words on paper.
I will go even further, there is no way gravity
can work other than what the Divergent matter model
describes and requires.
Matter expanding can exert the forces involved,
absolutely nothing else is capable of doing so.
The level of intelligence is falling day by day,
things like the elevator to orbit is an example of
morons dreaming the unattainable.

I admit I was wrong about not believing a rocket
as big as the Saturn V was possible, but that was only
as couple of orders of magnitude mistake, the elevator
to orbit is a 20 or 30 orders of magnitude impossibility,
yet there are people who funded it, and people who
promote it, and people who work on the project.
But at least some benefit will come of the research
on materials, the talent will not be wasted, but the dream
will not be attained.

>> the apple falls and and the readings of an
>> accelerometer on the surface of the Earth are wrong,
>> then there will be no advances in gravity theory.
>>
>> But the dollar value of the prizes for gravity essays
>> is going way up, according to this link it is now $3500.
>>
>> http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org

I really think there should be more like this done
to generate interest in understanding gravity, at least
it makes the point that more understanding is needed,
while you seem to be saying everything is ok and that
present gravity theory covers everything.

Does that mean that you know more than all the
people who submit papers to the above link, they must
believe that something is lacking in gravity theory.

Frankly, your negative attitude is depressing,
and the emphasis on math is not impressing anybody.
The books written by some of the gravity field
theorists are very thin, and say nothing intelligent,
the math is just an ego trip.
It is mostly misunderstood, and mostly vain
attempts to add to knowledge, but does just the
opposite, it adds to the confusion.

I can't say that full understanding of gravity
will make any money or save any money or even
make anything new possible.
In fact I state that antigravity is impossible,
that shielding gravity is impossible,
But there still are strong reasons to understand
it fully. And field theories will never help in this.

Joe Fischer

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Physics versus Mathematics
    ...  Bend your math anyway you like. ... Go to the beach and see if a wave imparts some force. ... can't quite do the same for gravity. ... physic or what we describe as physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Superiority of LET over SR!
    ... Ilja Schmelzer wrote: ... >> gravity is not evidence against LET ether! ... LET, as a physical explanation of SR math, is ... based on any physics, it is merely in the choice of ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The speed of gravity revisited
    ... You are confining your arguments, and apparently your thinking, to the math of GR. ... a spacecraft in a circular orbit around the Sun at a distance of 1200 au has an infinite gravity propagation speed by Newton's rules, has gravity propagating at the speed of light in GR, yet the two are equivalent? ... But this is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the instantaneous position for this and for all other cases you consider. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?
    ... "Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message ... Not sure math must dominate though. ... Guess it depends on what gravity really is. ... Then you're saying you think it responds in the same way as mass? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Lorentz Ether Theory and FTL Paradoxes
    ... Lorentz couldn't do a gravity, but had SR nailed to its math and Mach ... Dimensions and how I was going to ... physics with a LOT of math to describe that little, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)