Re: Zero Geodesic Deviation


>>
>>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.

I will try to find out if your arguments make some sense. I must read some
physics book for that. But in my eyes its a contradiction, that objects
intend to expand against a force that pulles them together.

>>>>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.

It ends with quarks. But what are quarks?

>>>>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.

If think of it the other way round: matter as a form of energy and 'space'
the thing to carry it. (mybe my ideas are even more bizzar then yours ;-)
....)

That has the advandage of not using matter to explain 'matter'.

> And I still can't measure space.

'space' is an obvious phenomenon as well (I just need to look into the sky),
like gravity and energy. Matter and fields are things, that could be
regarded as something, that could possibly be derivated from something else,
for example as form of energy.

>>>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.

Thats the duty of scientists. People want solutions, not questions.
Physics has a strong influence on what people believe, thats why scientist
should be carefull about what they proclaim.


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

Thats the sense of forums like this. Thats why everybody is allowed to claim
strange ideas here.

>>> 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.

Can't comment that. Are there any websites (or books), to read about that
theory?

> Joe Fischer
>

Thomas Heger


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Zero Geodesic Deviation
    ... we see as changes in motion due to what we call gravity. ... >It would violate the law of conservation of energy. ... matter expanding be a problem? ... rather than from principles ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • 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: 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)