Re: Zero Geodesic Deviation

On 13 Dec surrealistic-dream@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>Thomas Heger wrote:
>> >>Why should matter expand?

But you responded to some of his statements and
some of mine.

Then I replied;

>> > Why should it stay a constant size?

and I want to thank you for replying to this, it looks
at first glance as if it is the only response I have received
in 17 years of discussing Divergent Matter online that
reflects any understanding of physics as original thought
at all. All other responses seem to assume that
Newtonian concepts are irrefutable, or that thinking of
anything other than GR would be wasted time.

>If gravity on the surface of the earth (at radius R) is the result of
>the expansion of the earth, then we have a problem according to
>Newton's laws. In those laws, the force of gravity diminishes as one
>approaches the center of the earth.

No, Newton does not say that at all, that is evident in
the simplistic formulas used for Eotvos and other experiments
related to nearly spherical objects.
It of course assumes concentricity of mass distribution
and in some cases homogeneous density throughout, but
certain distributions of mass and density still allow those
formulas, like concentric spherical shells of various densities.

>So, consider a thin spherical shell
>of matter of thickness dr at a radius r < R. The outward acceleration
>of a particle in this shell is of magnitude less than that at the
>surface of the earth.

It would be if the Earth were an ideal homogeneous
density sphere, yes. But I am afraid you have missed
the point I have been trying to make that the expansion
is exclusively uniform velocity inertial motion that I have
called "residual outward velocity" of the surface or any
point within the Earth.
Yes, there is an acceleration involved, but it is not
the major contribution to the expansion.

This is an interesting subject, because it forces
us to view motion as velocity, and acceleration as
simply altering velocity, with the observed consequences.

>This implies that the shell of particles
>comprising the surface of the earth (in an idealized model, of course)
>is accelerating away from all other interior shells of particles.

No, each shell is only moving outward due to being
pushed by the expansion of all the shells below it, as far
as the _acceleration_ is concerned. And the velocity
is a constant in terms of the current radius, which is also
a constant ratio of the meter stick made of the same matter.

But, ___IF___ a shell could be made of noncompressium
of sufficient rigidity to be a thin shell the size of the radius
of the Earth, and of the average density of the whole Earth,
then the acceleration of the surface should be the same as
for the real Earth. This is an untested difference.

But there would be a difference, if a very heavy object
were placed on the surface, the shell would not respond
in the same way the Earth with the much greater mass
would respond.
Newtonian gravitation does have formulas for
calculating the gravity for objects that are not spherical
or homogeneous density, but they require integration
or summation and are not as simple as the popular one.

To some extent, Newtonian mechanics would still
be valid, the center of mass would be drasticly changed,
and the heavy object would not experience the same
acceleration it would if placed on the surface of Earth.

>> > 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.
>>
>> ?????

Thomas, did those question marks mean you are
not familiar with the work of Galileo and the extent to
which Newton used his data to develop mechanics?

One thing cannot be a coincidence, the nominal
local acceleration of gravity is in exact multiples of
the English unit of length called the foot, this can be
seen in the series

1, 3, 5, 7.............

Which gives the distance an object falls in
one-quarter of a second, and after 4 quarter seconds,
an object falls 16 feet the first second.
And if the series is continued, the acceleration
of 32 feet per sec per sec is evident.

This would have to be an extraordinary coincidence
if the unit called the foot was established by any other
means besides the experiments of Galileo and Newton.

>> > 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 didn't respond to this before, quarks are
well described in the literature and at least some
of them have been measured and observed.

>> >>>>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,
>
>What makes you think that there's always a mechanism behind everything?

This is the only thing in physics that is a given,
it is a certainty. While not all processes are not
well known, some are, and more are being understood
all the time.

This may be more obvious in chemistry or other
aspects of physics, chemical reactions are pretty
well defined, it may depend on how many layers
of turtles you want to study.

>> > 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.
>
>Are you saying that you expect physicists to be the purveyers of truth
>of what the universe is really up to? A physical theory is just a
>made-up thing, and no explanation in physics is unique. The universe
>doesn't even know what a theory is.

I think he is saying others do not have the capability.

>> Physics has a strong influence on what people believe, thats why scientist
>> should be carefull about what they proclaim.
>
>Please explain this comment more fully. Most people never listen to
>physicists anyway.

He is right if physicists want to get paid, most everybody
has a boss in some way, except maybe Howard Hughes, but
some of the greats still proclaimed what they thought, except
one was executed, which brought at least Coperincus in line,
if I have the history right.

>> > 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.
>
>What about the unexplained principle of the expanding matter?

It isn't a principle, it is a guess, raised by me personally
for my own use to the status of a single postulate, matter
is expanding with an acceleration, in the model, Divergent
Matter, and a residual velocity of the surface and other
effects follow the consequences of this.

But I was about 16 when I did that, having recognized
the identicalness of surface gravity and acceleration when
I was about 8 or 10 on a school playground merry-go-round.

There are some extremely interesting predictions
possible, some differ from Newton or Einstein, but many
do not differ quantitatively.

Some are real problems, but do force consideration
of basic mechanics and concepts of inertia, indexing
rotation and motion vectors, etc.

It is as much fun for me as the idiotic discussions
some people get involved in over SR.

Joe Fischer

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: On spherical gravitational collapse and the stability of classical black holes.
    ... horizon, and that the mass is M, but I disagree that matter ... Instead of a single shell of matter, ... Schwarzschild radius at the same time, ... Let us agree that there are indeed boosters attached to the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OT: Jefferson?????????????????????????????????
    ... Now as to Newton, J. D. Bernal wrote: "In fact, modern science was actually born out of the Christian belief that God was rational and personal. ... "Next we come to the proposition that agreement on the part of the Fathers, when they all accept a physcial proposition of the Bible in the same sense, must give that sense authority to such a degree that belief in it becomes a matter of faith. ... But the motion of the earth and stability of the sun is not an opinion of that kind, inasmuch as it was completely hidden in those times and was far removed from the questions of the schools; it was not even considered, much less adhered to, by anyone. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: Hafele & Keating, Einstein, Dingle,Cocke, and Scott Murray
    ... >>surface of the earth, ... > Acceleration, by its very nature, is not 'relative' to anything. ... They measure their relative speeds. ... >>used in the inertial frame, as in that frame g doesn't occur but instead ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: On spherical gravitational collapse and the stability of classical black holes.
    ... horizon, and that the mass is M, but I disagree that matter ... Instead of a single shell of matter, ... corresponding Schwarzschild radius, and in mine, there are two black ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Pioneer Anomaly discussion continued
    ... and that means that the Doppler shifts ... station positions in the East-West direction, ... consequence on station longitudes of *your* supposition that the earth ... I considered what effect the anomalous acceleration ...
    (sci.astro)
Loading