Re: Zero Geodesic Deviation

On Mon, "Thomas Heger" <hballo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


>Joe Fischer wrote:
>> The Divergent Matter model is really crazy and bizarre,
>> but it is the only one that I know of that doesn't require a
>> medium or particles or fields.
>>
>> It is about matter expanding, mostly with just velocity,
>> but a little bit of acceleration.
>
>Why should matter expand?

Why should it stay a constant size?

I don't say "it should" expand, I only say that if
it does expand from an imbalance in atomic or molecular
electromagnetic forces, then that could account for what
we see as changes in motion due to what we call gravity.

>It would violate the law of conservation of energy.

Gravity is very much involved in the creation of
Newtonian mechanics, Galileo did many experiments
that gave Newton the data to devise the mechanics.
Gases expand infinitely in space, so why would
matter expanding be a problem?

>Gravitation pushes matter together as far as I know.

According to Newton, pulls things together, or
pulls things down toward the center of the Earth.

>Expansion requires energy and where should that come from?

The same place the energy that makes gases expand
comes from.
I said it was crazy and bizarre.

>>>Its necessary to kill the holy cows of physics: one are 'fields' (the
>>>other
>>>is 'matter')
>>
>> Well, I have to stick with matter, it is the thing we are
>> able to measure and work with.
>> There are fields, but for gravity, just the math is treated
>> as a field.
>
>What I ment was: to explain something basic like 'matter', we can use only
>principles more basic.

That is pretty well worked out with atomic theory and
molecular chemical processes.

>>>I don't think, that anything in the world will do you the favor of
>>>following
>>>any kind of formula if not forced by heavy constraints.
>>
>> I don't think one formula will work with the Divergent
>> Matter model, Newtonian gravity uses all the other aspects
>> of Newtonian mechanics in problems.
>> But the model isn't important, except to have something
>> to study, some pattern to follow to see where it leads.
>>
>>>There are only a few
>>>choices: the conservation laws, topology of space, quantum effects,
>>>probability effects, that come from big numbers.

All I tried to do was study a possible cause of gravity,
the mechanism by which it works, without the attractive field,
and found part of my ideas were already thought of in the
Principle of Equivalence where a box in space is pulled by
a rope, and that creates relative motion like gravity.

>> The model does not assign attributes to space, but
>> considers the distance between objects in empty space
>> as just what the meter stick measures.
>
>I like the idea of assigning attributes (properties) to space and to
>derivate 'length' from time.

Well, I haven't been able to measure space, and time is
just how long it takes to move from here to there.

>>>The field-theorists are much to proud about their knowledge of mathcad,
>>>that they forget to deliver an answer to the question: what is a field.
>>>thomas heger
>>
>> I think they realize it is just a way to do the math,
>> gravity is very mysterious.
>
>Gravity is a very obvious phenomenon, since we all are dragged down by a
>strong force.

But there has not been a satisfactory mechanism that
can produce the forces observed.

>I would like to have a model for gravity containing only space and energy
>as entities in it.

Do you mean energy of light? Energy is not an
entity in of itself, it can be heat, it can be electricity,
it can be potential energy in something, and energy
of motion but there is no "energy" that I know of without
matter.

And I still can't measure space.

>>I think there are enough
>> physicists it doesn't make sense to ignore any model,
>> schools perhaps should assign at least a couple of
>> graduate students to work on any model that is ever
>> proposed.
>> Having all of them working on the same one or
>> two models doesn't make sense.
>> And letting them all chose the model they want
>> to work on will allow them to chose the one they think
>> may be the right one, just to avoid the wrong ones.
>
>Certainly, but at the end the audience wants to know, what they should
>believe.

Some do, but many want to decide for them selves.

Even the stray cats around here are very strong willed
and do what they want.

>> I think the best models are ones which produce
>> Einstein's Principle of Equivalence results as a natural
>> result of physical processes, rather than from principles
>> or postulates.
>>
>> Electromagnetism works good at short range, but
>> at long range, all it can do is produce heat or destructive
>> rays.
>
>Its really a tough challenge, to proove quantum-physics is wrong in any
>case, since they are doing a very good job and they are awfully successful.

I would not try. Actually, expanding matter would
be a quantum process, and caused by the other two forces,
the strong and the electro-weak.

Joe Fischer

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?
    ... understanding of science and the forces of nature comes, mainly, from ... caused us - laymen and scientists alike - to look at matter and energy ... Relativity, for instance, claims that light has gravity. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Is the Sun mostly dark matter ?
    ... As the matter moves in response to the ... energy is converted between the two. ... to accelerate outer stars faster'- or words to that effect. ... galaxies do not agree with our theory of gravity. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Query about Range of validity of field equations in Quantum Field Theory
    ... "Quantum Gravity is an oxymoron" ... with matter and energy. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Zero Geodesic Deviation
    ... matter together as far as I know. ... >>Its necessary to kill the holy cows of physics: ... > gravity is very mysterious. ... rather than from principles ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is the Sun mostly dark matter ?
    ... As the matter moves in response to the ... energy is converted between the two. ... to accelerate outer stars faster'- or words to that effect. ... galaxies do not agree with our theory of gravity. ...
    (sci.physics)