Acceleration and Velocity in the Expanding Matter model
Joe Fischer
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.
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.
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.
Acceleration is defined as "what an accelerometer
reads", which may be considered a valid definition unless
proven otherwise.
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.
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.
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.
In prior models the apparent change in velocity
of an object moving radially to the planet was considered
to be due to an "attractive force".
In the EDM model, both the upward radial surface
accceleration and the radial velocity of objects moving
relative to the surface must be considered according to
the circumstance and prior motion.
The object must be considered to be in inertial
motion as long as it is not rocket powered, does not
have contact interaction with the atmosphere, the surface,
or other objects or physical entities (like radiation
pressure or magnetism).
The kinematics of the EDM model are visualized
best by using the lengths of the units (distance and
time) measured at the start of a calculation.
A specified background grid can be drawn using
these temporary "absolute" units for the duration of
the calculation.
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.
Any method of presenting or describing the motion
of objects in this model is welcomed, and may include
both the kinematics of free motion and the dynamics
in collisions and contact interactions.
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.
The only other publication describing the model
(that I know of) appeared in "Physics Essays" about
6 or 8 years ago. I do not believe that paper
considered the lengthening unit intervals either.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Phil Glasgow
> 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. Perhaps
it is more complex than you think in your gravity theory. In
relativity, fields (to include gravity)are invariant constructions,
but then you don't model gravity as a field do you?
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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?
>
> 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.
In the past, I went to great lengths to show you why this model is
inconsistent with the real world. I gave up a long time ago. I am
just hoping that now that you are running into problems you have
discovered on your own, you will face the music regarding divergent
matter.
> The only other publication describing the model
> (that I know of) appeared in "Physics Essays" about
> 6 or 8 years ago. I do not believe that paper
> considered the lengthening unit intervals either.
Joe, ultimately, rather than concerning yourself with whether you are
responsible for divergent matter, you may find it more beneficial to
have no relationship to the idea at all.
Cheers, Phil
Joe Fischer
: Joe Fischer <grav...@shell1.iglou.com> 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.
: Perhaps
: it is more complex than you think in your gravity theory.
It is a gravity 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.
Matter expanding continuously would be an invariant
construction, though not in the same way as a static medium
or physical interacting field exerting forces.
:> 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.
Sorry it doesn't use Euclidean space, sorry it
doesn't define space, sorry I don't consider "space"
as having physically measurable attributes.
:> 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.
:> 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.
:> 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.
:> 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.
:> 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.
:> 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.
: In the past, I went to great lengths to show you why this model is
: inconsistent with the real world.
No you didn't, you argued for your non-existent aether.
: I gave up a long time ago.
That is half way, now try to see what physics
is about.
: I am
: just hoping that now that you are running into problems you have
: discovered on your own, you will face the music regarding divergent
: matter.
I am not running into problems, the model has
many things associated with relativity built in.
I don't anticipate "facing music".
:> The only other publication describing the model
:> (that I know of) appeared in "Physics Essays" about
:> 6 or 8 years ago. I do not believe that paper
:> considered the lengthening unit intervals either.
:
: Joe, ultimately, rather than concerning yourself with whether you are
: responsible for divergent matter, you may find it more beneficial to
: have no relationship to the idea at all.
: Cheers, Phil
I am not responsible for nature, and I am not
concerning myself with responsibility, the above was
just to inform readers of the other publications that
I am aware of.
My writing about the model predates the others
by a few years, so that has never been a concern.
Once people begin to see the precision with
which the model can specify physical processes the
model will become a new toy for mathematicians, as
it is an interesting and complex puzzle with well
defined results.
It is a lot more interesting than invisible
mediums or invisible black holes.
Joe Fischer
--
3
PHILLIP V GLASGOW
Stuff I find unworthy of comment.
Ok Joe. Lets use Divergent Matter. There is no field, there is no ether,
there is only the surface of the Earth expanding at an accelerated rate.
Assume no atmosphere Joe, so there is absolutely nothing between the surface
and a rocket which hovers above the surface of the Earth at two Earth radii.
The rocket hovers such that its nose always points at the same star.
(1) Calculate what the proper acceleration of the rocket must be to maintain
this physical situation. Please show us the calculation. Sure hope you get
2.45 m/s^2 or you are absolutely wrong to begin with.
(2) Explain to us why when the Earth's surface accelerates at 9.80 m/s^2 it
does not overtake the rocket which accelerating only at 2.45 m/s^2 in
approximately 1000 seconds. Show us the calculation which is derived from
your postulate of the Earth is expanding. I've got a better idea, prove it
with a theorem, show us what you do assume and why mathematically it is not
possible for the Earth to overtake the rocket.
(3) It you have added the ad hoc assumption that space is expanding between
the rocket and the surface (heck, I don't know you purport to solve this
conundrum), then show us that expanding space would not affect the
acceleration at the surface and then show us the physical situation in this
expanding space that it must lift the rocket with enough acceleration that
the surface can not overcome it and why this acceleration is not felt by the
rocket.
Here's your chance Joe. Show us how to use Divergent Matter.
Cheers, Phil
Joe Fischer
: Stuff I find unworthy of comment.]
:
: Ok Joe. Lets use Divergent Matter.
No, let's not use it, let's study and compare it.
: There is no field, there is no ether,
: there is only the surface of the Earth expanding at an accelerated rate.
Not "only", if matter expands, then meter sticks lengthen.
: Assume no atmosphere Joe, so there is absolutely nothing between the surface
: and a rocket which hovers above the surface of the Earth at two Earth radii.
That means it has to be accelerating, if there is no
attractive field, no Newtonian gravitation, then rocket thrust
produces acceleration.
: The rocket hovers such that its nose always points at the same star.
If orbiting the sun is ignored, then fine, the thrust
required to hover would have to be just the right amount to
stay the same _apparent_ distance from the surface.
A rocket at that altitude would have had to attain a
greater outward radial velocity greater than the surface to
reach that altitude. This may be one of the things you
are leaving out.
I think the space-time diagrams of General Relativity
take prior motion into consideration, even though Newtonian
gravitation concepts seem to allow simply placing an object
any place and release it.
: (1) Calculate what the proper acceleration of the rocket must be to maintain
: this physical situation. Please show us the calculation. Sure hope you get
: 2.45 m/s^2 or you are absolutely wrong to begin with.
Right, it should be one-quarter g, but please outline
the math for me, I am out of practice. I am sure Bilge
or Frank Wappler will help you with any mistakes.
: (2) Explain to us why when the Earth's surface accelerates at 9.80 m/s^2 it
: does not overtake the rocket which accelerating only at 2.45 m/s^2 in
: approximately 1000 seconds.
Haven't you been reading where I say that outward
velocity of the surface is the primary feature of gravity,
and can have more of an effect than the surface acceleration,
which does provide surface gravity.
The rocket would already have an outward/upward
velocity greater than the surface, and that velocity
covers more distance with each passing second.
Maybe if you would do the math for me it would
give you a feeling of accomplishment, which is more
than you will ever get from the aether infatuation.
: Show us the calculation which is derived from
: your postulate of the Earth is expanding.
It isn't the Earth expanding, it is all matter,
and all unit intervals associated with matter.
Larger objects have to expand with a greater
velocity to maintain the same relative size as a
small object, and less dense objects have to expand
with a greater velocity and less acceleration.
: I've got a better idea, prove it with a theorem,
You write the words, and I will study them.
: show us what you do assume and why mathematically it is not
: possible for the Earth to overtake the rocket.
Please think about it a while and you will feel
better about it. Peoplewho have preconceived notions
always try to ignore or refute things that are handed
them.
The answer is in the effect of the rocket having
a greater velocity to begin with once it reaches the
4000 mile altitude, and that velocity is then held
constant bu the unit interval indexed constant effect
of velocities.
: (3) It you have added the ad hoc assumption that space is expanding between
: the rocket and the surface (heck, I don't know you purport to solve this
: conundrum), then show us that expanding space would not affect the
: acceleration at the surface and then show us the physical situation in this
: expanding space that it must lift the rocket with enough acceleration that
: the surface can not overcome it and why this acceleration is not felt by the
: rocket.
Can't you forget "space" and think of "distance"
between material objects?
: Here's your chance Joe. Show us how to use Divergent Matter.
: Cheers, Phil
I have asked for help, and you are gloating, but
somebody will have better reasons to study the problem.
I do apreciate the discussions and questions,
as they help in realuzing what is needed to make the
model understandable.
I feel disappointed that you seem to still be
clinging to a static rigid "space" that apparently
has attributes of "length'.
That is something that was dispensed with by
relativity, and is not used in the EDM model.
The relevant factors are length of material
objects, the length of the second, and the relationship
between the two and how those change velocity and
acceleration, and how constants result.
I am not doing a good job of explaining the
mechanics, maybe someone else will help.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Graham Rounce
But I can't get over the apparent prediction that a hollow object would
produce as much "gravitational attraction" as a similar solid one of the
same substance.
How do *you* get over it?
Graham Rounce
Joe Fischer
: Joe - I like the idea a lot, not least for its sheer audacity.
The concept is just what is required to make
accelerometer readings fit.
: But I can't get over the apparent prediction that a hollow object would
: produce as much "gravitational attraction" as a similar solid one of the
: same substance.
:
: How do *you* get over it?
This points out that there is a lot more physics
involved than appears in Newtonian gravitation.
The result must be close to the same, but a lot
more is involved.
It would not be possible to have a hollow Earth,
so that is not a problem. A small hollow sphere would
expand, and if contact with a sphere of greater mass,
would just "push itself away" instead of affecting the
motion of the other sphere.
The apparent attraction of objects not in
contact is a different problem.
The model may actually predict something
different than Newtonian gravitation, but that may
be alright, as I don't know of any experiments that
test hollow spheres against solid spheres for the
apparent "attraction".
There is some question in my mind about
using the torsion balance and forcifully swinging
the 'source" objects back and forth, but only
because I don't know how well the transfer of
torque from starting and stopping the source
objects is isolated from the Earth and supprt
frame.
The Boys experiments may very well
be a huge problem to explain, but raw data
is hard to come by without being able to go
to specific libraries or archives.
Surface gravity should be all the
various shells of different densities summed
and subjected to a constant for density and
radius.
Newtonian gravitation is a little
lucky in this regard because objects of
astronomical size have the highest density
spheres or spherical shells closest to the
center of mass.
The apparent atttraction is a problem
in some cases, such as a gravimeter reading a
mile awau being substantially different at the
same elevation.
But the model is far from mature, and
seems interesting enough to work on understanding.
Joe Fischer
--
3
PHILLIP V GLASGOW
> PHILLIP V GLASGOW <pas...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> :Joe Fischer <grav...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote:
> :[snipped
> : Stuff I find unworthy of comment.]
> :
> : Ok Joe. Lets use Divergent Matter.
>
> No, let's not use it, let's study and compare it.
Well for me, study is to utilize theory in predictive scenarios. That is,
learn how to mathematically predict the outcomes of experiments.
> : There is no field, there is no ether,
> : there is only the surface of the Earth expanding at an accelerated rate.
>
> Not "only", if matter expands, then meter sticks lengthen.
So everything expands at the same rate. That is, it doubles in size every
1000 seconds?
> : Assume no atmosphere Joe, so there is absolutely nothing between the
surface
> : and a rocket which hovers above the surface of the Earth at two Earth
radii.
>
> That means it has to be accelerating, if there is no
> attractive field, no Newtonian gravitation, then rocket thrust
> produces acceleration.
Yes, that is what I had in mind.
> : The rocket hovers such that its nose always points at the same star.
>
> If orbiting the sun is ignored, then fine, the thrust
> required to hover would have to be just the right amount to
> stay the same _apparent_ distance from the surface.
Well isn't the right amount 9.80 m/s^2 then? That's what the accelerometer
on the surface reads does it not? Do agree that if the surface and the
rocket co-accelerate they will remain the same distance apart? If not why?
And how do I relate this understanding mathematically.
> A rocket at that altitude would have had to attain a
> greater outward radial velocity greater than the surface to
> reach that altitude. This may be one of the things you
> are leaving out.
Don't let me leave it out. Show me what the velocity of the rocket is and
what frame of reference it is quantified with respect to.
> I think the space-time diagrams of General Relativity
> take prior motion into consideration, even though Newtonian
> gravitation concepts seem to allow simply placing an object
> any place and release it.
Well, whatever. I can't figure out how to implement Divergent matter so you
would really help if you could just describe in a quantitative way, using a
mathematical relationship, just what parameters are necessary for the
physical situation of a rocket hovering at 2 Earth radii.
> : (1) Calculate what the proper acceleration of the rocket must be to
maintain
> : this physical situation. Please show us the calculation. Sure hope you
get
> : 2.45 m/s^2 or you are absolutely wrong to begin with.
>
> Right, it should be one-quarter g, but please outline
> the math for me, I am out of practice. I am sure Bilge
> or Frank Wappler will help you with any mistakes.
Well in Newton's gravity:
a=GM/r^2 so yes 1/4 g is what Newton predicts. Is your prediction the same
as his?
> : (2) Explain to us why when the Earth's surface accelerates at 9.80 m/s^2
it
> : does not overtake the rocket which accelerating only at 2.45 m/s^2 in
> : approximately 1000 seconds.
>
> Haven't you been reading where I say that outward
> velocity of the surface is the primary feature of gravity,
> and can have more of an effect than the surface acceleration,
> which does provide surface gravity.
OK. Just describe what you are saying mathematically. What is the MORE OF
AN EFFECT effect? How is it related mathematically to surface velocity and
surface acceleration? AND how does it prevent (mathematically speaking) the
surface from overtaking the hovering rocket?
> The rocket would already have an outward/upward
> velocity greater than the surface, and that velocity
> covers more distance with each passing second.
Great. Just quantify it. What is the velocity of rocket relative to the
surface?
> Maybe if you would do the math for me it would
> give you a feeling of accomplishment, which is more
> than you will ever get from the aether infatuation.
How can I do the math for you? It is your theory and frankly I don't know
what the mathematical relationships are to be. And there is the MORE OF AN
EFFECT effect which I know nothing about.
> : Show us the calculation which is derived from
> : your postulate of the Earth is expanding.
>
> It isn't the Earth expanding, it is all matter,
> and all unit intervals associated with matter.
OK. Does all matter double in size every 1000 seconds?
> Larger objects have to expand with a greater
> velocity to maintain the same relative size as a
> small object, and less dense objects have to expand
> with a greater velocity and less acceleration.
So the answer above is yes?
> : I've got a better idea, prove it with a theorem,
>
> You write the words, and I will study them.
How am I to write a proof when I don't know what the math of your theory is.
You see, by my calculations, assuming the surface is accelerating at 9.80
m/s^2 and the rocket is accelerating at 2.45 m/s, the surface will indeed
overtake the rocket. But the physical situation, both in GR and in
Newton's gravity, is a static one where they always remain in the same place
wrt one another. This is because they are field theories instead of a
surface action theory like DM.
So it is you who should provide the mathematical proof, not me. Will you?
> : show us what you do assume and why mathematically it is not
> : possible for the Earth to overtake the rocket.
>
> Please think about it a while and you will feel
> better about it. Peoplewho have preconceived notions
> always try to ignore or refute things that are handed
> them.
I am not refuting a thing. In fact, I am giving you the opportunity to show
us your wares and how they work in the language of physics, mathematics.
For my part, I honestly don't see how you can do it, but then if you can, I
am convinced that it will titillate the intellect. No, I am not refuting
you. I'm being downright civil, I am listening to you and giving you
something you have never offered me, an opportunity to discuss the logical
and mathematical demands of physical notions which are preferred by you.
> The answer is in the effect of the rocket having
> a greater velocity to begin with once it reaches the
> 4000 mile altitude, and that velocity is then held
> constant bu the unit interval indexed constant effect
> of velocities.
OK then. Let us quantify the effect by determing the velocity of the rocket
relative to the surface. In Newton's theory, it is zero, but it is not in
yours. Just what is its velocity?
> : Here's your chance Joe. Show us how to use Divergent Matter.
> : Cheers, Phil
>
> I have asked for help, and you are gloating,
Not really. You have been quite uncivil regarding others' viable
application of physical notions which are part of actual working,
mathematically expressible, models of physics. You have been intolerably
rude to me. For all that you may think me to be gloating, I am truly giving
you something you never gave me. An opportunity to state your case and have
it evaluated without prejudice. Don't get me wrong. If it doesn't make
sense to me, I will ask you clarify, if I perceive another problem you will
be asked to model it mathematically so that I can see my error. Yes, I do
not understand how divergent matter can work mathematically to yield
accurate predictions. Here is your opportunity to show me how it is done.
If nothing else, at least you can begin to know the rigor which I apply to
my thinking and the things I contemplate.
> I do apreciate the discussions and questions,
> as they help in realuzing what is needed to make the
> model understandable.
I'm glad to hear you say that. You are welcome. But if you could do me
just one favor. Please be more tolerant of the views of others.
> I feel disappointed that you seem to still be
> clinging to a static rigid "space" that apparently
> has attributes of "length'.
Joe, you know very little about what I do think. Unique positions in a
Euclidean space are merely places where events may occur and correspond with
the coordinates of relatively moving coordinate systems. They don't
prevent relativity. In any event, this thread is about me and my thoughts
of the uniqueness of the places where events occur, it all about DM and how
it works mathematically.
> That is something that was dispensed with by
> relativity, and is not used in the EDM model.
Then a good theorem for you to perform is one which shows positions in an
absolute space are incompatible with EDM. I am looking forward to it.
> The relevant factors are length of material
> objects, the length of the second, and the relationship
> between the two and how those change velocity and
> acceleration, and how constants result.
Great. Please show me how it works with mathematical relationships.
> I am not doing a good job of explaining the
> mechanics, maybe someone else will help.
Joe, what is your training in mechanics and mathematics? Do you have any
experience with kinematics (which is applicable in the problem I posed) or
calculus?
Cheers, Phil
Joe Fischer
:> : Ok Joe. Lets use Divergent Matter.
:>
:> No, let's not use it, let's study and compare it.
:
: Well for me, study is to utilize theory in predictive scenarios. That is,
: learn how to mathematically predict the outcomes of experiments.
I would agree if the model were well defined mathematically.
:> : There is no field, there is no ether,
:> : there is only the surface of the Earth expanding at an accelerated rate.
:>
:> Not "only", if matter expands, then meter sticks lengthen.
:
: So everything expands at the same rate. That is, it doubles
: in size every 1000 seconds?
I think everything has to double in size in the
same time period, I don't know the exact length.
:> : Assume no atmosphere Joe, so there is absolutely nothing
:> : between the surface and a rocket which hovers above the
:> : surface of the Earth at two Earth radii.
:>
:> That means it has to be accelerating, if there is no
:> attractive field, no Newtonian gravitation, then rocket thrust
:> produces acceleration.
:
: Yes, that is what I had in mind.
:
:> : The rocket hovers such that its nose always points at the same star.
:>
:> If orbiting the sun is ignored, then fine, the thrust
:> required to hover would have to be just the right amount to
:> stay the same _apparent_ distance from the surface.
:
: Well isn't the right amount 9.80 m/s^2 then?
No. It would be in Euclidean space, and
with Newtonian mechanics.
: That's what the accelerometer
: on the surface reads does it not? Do agree that if the surface and the
: rocket co-accelerate they will remain the same distance apart? If not why?
: And how do I relate this understanding mathematically.
:
:> A rocket at that altitude would have had to attain a
:> greater outward radial velocity greater than the surface to
:> reach that altitude. This may be one of the things you
:> are leaving out.
:
: Don't let me leave it out. Show me what the velocity of the rocket is and
: what frame of reference it is quantified with respect to.
I don't think the DM model submits to the use
of frames, the geometry does not seem to allow the
use of a static space, although there are a few
different ways to view the kinematics.
:> I think the space-time diagrams of General Relativity
:> take prior motion into consideration, even though Newtonian
:> gravitation concepts seem to allow simply placing an object
:> any place and release it.
:
: Well, whatever. I can't figure out how to implement Divergent matter so you
: would really help if you could just describe in a quantitative way, using a
: mathematical relationship, just what parameters are necessary for the
: physical situation of a rocket hovering at 2 Earth radii.
The rocket would still have the velocity it needed
to get to that altitude plus the velocity of the surface
that it had before it started.
It doesn't matter where it came from, those values
will have to be reached in some way.
The way of viewing the geometry that shows what
the model predicts is using the units that exist at the
start of the problem, say right now.
There is no way to know the outward velocity of
the surface, so for now, an estimate is needed, maybe
when the model is better defined higher mathematics can
give a fairly precise value for the outward velocity of
the surface.
Now, a problem arises concerning the unit lengths,
we want to use the lengths that exist now all through
the problem, but each second gets longer as diameters
increase, and we want to keep track of that, but not
use those longer units.
One way to estimate the outward velocity of
the surface is to take the distance the surface has
traveled in the last doubling period (say 1000 seconds)
and divide by 1000 seconds to get a maximum limit
on the velocity.
This value should be about escape velocity
from the surface or less.
:> : (1) Calculate what the proper acceleration of the rocket must be to
: maintain
:> : this physical situation. Please show us the calculation. Sure hope you
: get
:> : 2.45 m/s^2 or you are absolutely wrong to begin with.
:>
:> Right, it should be one-quarter g, but please outline
:> the math for me, I am out of practice. I am sure Bilge
:> or Frank Wappler will help you with any mistakes.
:
: Well in Newton's gravity:
:
: a=GM/r^2 so yes 1/4 g is what Newton predicts. Is your prediction
: the same as his?
In current corrected unit lengths, probably.
In the starting unit lengths that we want to use,
probably not. And the larger velocity value that
the rocket has attained in getting to the 2r altitude
has to be considered, in the units we want to use,
the increased velocity may result in a contribution
of apparent additional acceleration that must account
for the difference between 9.81 and 9.81 / 4 at 2r.
Not only is the math required to be different,
the terminology has to be expanded to cover the different
ways of viewing the changing positions and events.
:> : (2) Explain to us why when the Earth's surface accelerates at 9.80 m/s^2
: it
:> : does not overtake the rocket which accelerating only at 2.45 m/s^2 in
:> : approximately 1000 seconds.
:>
:> Haven't you been reading where I say that outward
:> velocity of the surface is the primary feature of gravity,
:> and can have more of an effect than the surface acceleration,
:> which does provide surface gravity.
:
: OK. Just describe what you are saying mathematically.
If I could do that, it would mean the model was
already formalized.
: What is the MORE OF
: AN EFFECT effect? How is it related mathematically to surface velocity and
: surface acceleration? AND how does it prevent (mathematically speaking) the
: surface from overtaking the hovering rocket?
If the rocket has a higher velocity than the surface,
then it covers more than the same distance the surface moves
per second.
Maybe it would help to visualise the radius of the
Earth at 1, 2, 3, and 4 doubling periods, which would be
2, 4, 8 and 16 times the starting radius.
Some new math techniques may be needed, or some
existing techniques may exist that can be adapted to
the problem, I don't know.
:> The rocket would already have an outward/upward
:> velocity greater than the surface, and that velocity
:> covers more distance with each passing second.
:
: Great. Just quantify it. What is the velocity of rocket
: relative to the surface?
I think it has to be a function of the velocity
of the surface, which I don't know exactly.
Lets just estimate, and say the outward velocity
of the surface is 30000 feet per second, and the outward
velocity of the rocket at 2r is 60000 feet per second,
that would seem to mean the rocket wouldn't have to
accelerate at all in order to hover, so that probably
isn't right.
:> Maybe if you would do the math for me it would
:> give you a feeling of accomplishment, which is more
:> than you will ever get from the aether infatuation.
:
: How can I do the math for you?
I don't know, maybe somebody else will help.
: It is your theory and frankly I don't know
: what the mathematical relationships are to be.
I have an idea of what the complications
of the model are, but obviously I don't know the
values or relationships exactly.
: And there is the MORE OF AN
: EFFECT effect which I know nothing about.
It is due to the lengthening units,
and the fact that the radius of the planet is
a distance length, while the parameters of the
motion of the rocket are not constrained by
the distance between molecules like the Earth.
The complexity of the model over usual
mechanics is substantial. And I don't claim
to be a swift thinker.
I have always thought that computer
graphics output from an algorithm might be
the best way for presenting the model visually.
:> : Show us the calculation which is derived from
:> : your postulate of the Earth is expanding.
:>
:> It isn't the Earth expanding, it is all matter,
:> and all unit intervals associated with matter.
:
: OK. Does all matter double in size every 1000 seconds?
That value can be used as a starting point,
but revised as more is established.
:> Larger objects have to expand with a greater
:> velocity to maintain the same relative size as a
:> small object, and less dense objects have to expand
:> with a greater velocity and less acceleration.
:
: So the answer above is yes?
I think maybe.
:> : I've got a better idea, prove it with a theorem,
:>
:> You write the words, and I will study them.
:
: How am I to write a proof when I don't know what the math of your theory is.
: You see, by my calculations, assuming the surface is accelerating at 9.80
: m/s^2 and the rocket is accelerating at 2.45 m/s, the surface will indeed
: overtake the rocket. But the physical situation, both in GR and in
: Newton's gravity, is a static one where they always remain in the same place
: wrt one another. This is because they are field theories instead of a
: surface action theory like DM.
I think your grasp of the problem is good, and
you may vary well be able to write a formula using symbols
instead of nmbers.
: So it is you who should provide the mathematical proof, not me. Will you?
Given enough time, probably. I apologize for
mentioning the model before having it formalized.
But in my defense I cite a number of papers by
Einstein before 1916 that were titled as if they were
the formalized theory of GR, but were not.
:> : show us what you do assume and why mathematically it is not
:> : possible for the Earth to overtake the rocket.
:>
:> Please think about it a while and you will feel
:> better about it. Peoplewho have preconceived notions
:> always try to ignore or refute things that are handed
:> them.
:
: I am not refuting a thing.
Sorry, I thought you were insisting on using
Newtonian concepts of position, distance, time, speed
and acceleration.
If nothing else, this all points out how
wonderfully simple Newtonian mechanics is.
: In fact, I am giving you the opportunity to show
: us your wares and how they work in the language of physics, mathematics.
I am not requesting an audition. :-)
: For my part, I honestly don't see how you can do it, but then
: if you can, I am convinced that it will titillate the intellect.
The object is to have a working causal nechanism
for gravitation that does not require forces acting on
free moving objects, especially at great distances.
: No, I am not refuting
: you. I'm being downright civil, I am listening to you and giving you
: something you have never offered me, an opportunity to discuss the logical
: and mathematical demands of physical notions which are preferred by you.
And I appreciate it, I never was able to do that
with your notions of an aether because i didn't see how
any attributes could ever be established for an aether,
and even if there could be, the concept of forces acting
does not seem compatible with General Relativity.
:> The answer is in the effect of the rocket having
:> a greater velocity to begin with once it reaches the
:> 4000 mile altitude, and that velocity is then held
:> constant bu the unit interval indexed constant effect
:> of velocities.
:
: OK then. Let us quantify the effect by determing the velocity of the rocket
: relative to the surface. In Newton's theory, it is zero, but it is not in
: yours. Just what is its velocity?
I think it has to be something like 1.75 times
the outward velocity of the surface, more or less.
:> : Here's your chance Joe. Show us how to use Divergent Matter.
:> : Cheers, Phil
:>
:> I have asked for help, and you are gloating,
:
: Not really. You have been quite uncivil regarding others' viable
: application of physical notions which are part of actual working,
: mathematically expressible, models of physics. You have been intolerably
: rude to me.
I guess my opinion of aether concepts were showing,
it wasn't anything personal.
: For all that you may think me to be gloating, I am truly giving
: you something you never gave me. An opportunity to state your case and have
: it evaluated without prejudice. Don't get me wrong. If it doesn't make
: sense to me, I will ask you clarify, if I perceive another problem you will
: be asked to model it mathematically so that I can see my error. Yes, I do
: not understand how divergent matter can work mathematically to yield
: accurate predictions. Here is your opportunity to show me how it is done.
: If nothing else, at least you can begin to know the rigor which I apply to
: my thinking and the things I contemplate.
I have an awe for what higher mathematics can do,
and I hope between mathematicians and computer graphics
presentations the model will be more understandable and
precise predictions will be possible.
I have been trying to approach each small issue
separately, and hoping it will all come together eventually.
:> I do apreciate the discussions and questions,
:> as they help in realuzing what is needed to make the
:> model understandable.
:
: I'm glad to hear you say that. You are welcome. But if you could do me
: just one favor. Please be more tolerant of the views of others.
Ok, but not where aether is concerned. :-)
:> I feel disappointed that you seem to still be
:> clinging to a static rigid "space" that apparently
:> has attributes of "length'.
:
: Joe, you know very little about what I do think.
I only know from what I read here.
: Unique positions in a
: Euclidean space are merely places where events may occur and correspond with
: the coordinates of relatively moving coordinate systems. They don't
: prevent relativity. In any event, this thread is about me and my thoughts
: of the uniqueness of the places where events occur, it all about DM and how
: it works mathematically.
It should have part of what has been part of
relativity built in.
I am not sure including gravity in with relativity
was a good idea, but Einstein was working with relativity
and trying to make relativity work, and had to address
the problem that gravity caused in messing up the idealistic
and simple nature of Euclidean space and Newtonian mechanics.
:> That is something that was dispensed with by
:> relativity, and is not used in the EDM model.
:
: Then a good theorem for you to perform is one which shows positions in an
: absolute space are incompatible with EDM. I am looking forward to it.
We were trying to specify a certain temporary
space in using the temporary absolute units specified
as the starting or "now" units.
Maybe there is a better way, I don't know.
:> The relevant factors are length of material
:> objects, the length of the second, and the relationship
:> between the two and how those change velocity and
:> acceleration, and how constants result.
:
: Great. Please show me how it works with mathematical relationships.
I will be trying a little at a time, I think
your discussion will help a lot, thanks.
:> I am not doing a good job of explaining the
:> mechanics, maybe someone else will help.
:
: Joe, what is your training in mechanics and mathematics?
Next to none, what is yours?
: Do you have any experience with kinematics
: (which is applicable in the problem I posed)
Only in trying to straighten out the misconceptions
of kinetic energy and associated processes.
: or calculus?
: Cheers, Phil
That would help, wouldn't it. :-)
I have not been able to see how existing
math can handle the problems inherent in the EDM
model, but that is my lose, I should have been
thinking ahead more.
But frankly, I started out at age 16
just wanting to explain and understand surface
gravity as part of a rational model that did
not require action at a distance, and ended up
drawn into this complicated mess.
In my defense, you don't see any better
results from those who claim to know math, do you?
Joe Fischer
--
3
PHILLIP V GLASGOW
is,
> : learn how to mathematically predict the outcomes of experiments.
>
> I would agree if the model were well defined mathematically.
The models I work with are.
> : So everything expands at the same rate. That is, it doubles
> : in size every 1000 seconds?
>
> I think everything has to double in size in the
> same time period, I don't know the exact length.
>
> :
> :> : The rocket hovers such that its nose always points at the same star.
> :>
> :> If orbiting the sun is ignored, then fine, the thrust
> :> required to hover would have to be just the right amount to
> :> stay the same _apparent_ distance from the surface.
> :
> : Well isn't the right amount 9.80 m/s^2 then?
>
> No. It would be in Euclidean space, and
> with Newtonian mechanics.
Bzzzt. When I apply Newton's theory I get 2.45 m/s^2. Don't Newton's Laws
work in your theory at low relative velocities just like they do in
relativity? Your space and your mechanics must be defined if I am going to
make sense of it. You have chosen to consider field theory foolishness so
you just can't make the same predictions as a field theory without twisting
up space and kinematic laws. It's a conundrum for the heuristic of surface
action.
> : That's what the accelerometer
> : on the surface reads does it not? Do agree that if the surface and the
> : rocket co-accelerate they will remain the same distance apart? If not
why?
> : And how do I relate this understanding mathematically.
Joe the question above is critical to my making sense of DM. Please answer
it if you can.
> :> A rocket at that altitude would have had to attain a
> :> greater outward radial velocity greater than the surface to
> :> reach that altitude. This may be one of the things you
> :> are leaving out.
> :
> : Don't let me leave it out. Show me what the velocity of the rocket is
and
> : what frame of reference it is quantified with respect to.
>
> I don't think the DM model submits to the use
> of frames, the geometry does not seem to allow the
> use of a static space,
Not even one's rest space? Isn't DM a relativitistic theory, which means
that the laws of physics are functions of relative velocity?
>although there are a few
> different ways to view the kinematics.
At low relative velocities, Newton's work great and Einstein's approach
Newton's which can be conceived as a limit to Einstein's. What kinematics
work in DM?
> :
> : Well, whatever. I can't figure out how to implement Divergent matter so
you
> : would really help if you could just describe in a quantitative way,
using a
> : mathematical relationship, just what parameters are necessary for the
> : physical situation of a rocket hovering at 2 Earth radii.
>
> The rocket would still have the velocity it needed
> to get to that altitude plus the velocity of the surface
> that it had before it started.
What velocity is needed to get to that altitude if no forces are acting on
the rocket?. In Newton's theory, the velocity is 7910 m/s. Is that what it
is in your theory?
> It doesn't matter where it came from, those values
> will have to be reached in some way.
Joe, I am willing to accept your description as valid only if you will
quantify THOSE VALUES, provide adequate mathematics to make the prediction,
and if they be consistent with real world experience.
> The way of viewing the geometry that shows what
> the model predicts is using the units that exist at the
> start of the problem, say right now.
> There is no way to know the outward velocity of
> the surface, so for now, an estimate is needed, maybe
> when the model is better defined higher mathematics can
> give a fairly precise value for the outward velocity of
> the surface.
But if the laws which work in DM are relativistic, the precise value need
not be known. The velocity of the rocket with respect the surface is a
relative velocity. You should be able to quantify it. So please describe
the physical parameters which are required for the scenario if it is at all
possible in DM. If it is not possible please show me why the mathematics of
DM require it to be impossible.
> Now, a problem arises concerning the unit lengths,
> we want to use the lengths that exist now all through
> the problem, but each second gets longer as diameters
> increase, and we want to keep track of that, but not
> use those longer units.
Diameters are increasing? So is space and our coordinates systems
increasing all at the same time?
Critical to predictions, what is the surface acceleration with respect to?
The surface change velocity wrt to what frame of reference, Joe?
> One way to estimate the outward velocity of
> the surface is to take the distance the surface has
> traveled in the last doubling period (say 1000 seconds)
> and divide by 1000 seconds to get a maximum limit
> on the velocity.
Well, with Newton's and Einstein's kinematics, the velocity from zero in a
1000 seconds would be approximately 9800 m/s and would not be limited to
this velocity.
So in your theory the velocity is limited to approximately 6378 m/s. After
a 1000 seconds, is the situation static or does it cycle like a
merry-go_round?
> :> : 2.45 m/s^2 or you are absolutely wrong to begin with.> :>
Right, it should be one-quarter g, but please outline
> :> the math for me, I am out of practice. I am sure Bilge
> :> or Frank Wappler will help you with any mistakes.
> :
> : Well in Newton's gravity:
> :
> : a=GM/r^2 so yes 1/4 g is what Newton predicts. Is your prediction
> : the same as his?
>
> In current corrected unit lengths, probably.
> In the starting unit lengths that we want to use,
> probably not. And the larger velocity value that
> the rocket has attained in getting to the 2r altitude
> has to be considered, in the units we want to use,
> the increased velocity may result in a contribution
> of apparent additional acceleration that must account
> for the difference between 9.81 and 9.81 / 4 at 2r.
So you are saying that the rocket has a different velocity than it appears
to have. You see in Newton's theory, it appears to have no relative
velocity wrt the surface. That is a measurement I can make.
To me this makes it inferior because I can not measure its ACTUAL RELATIVE
VELOCITY. It just doesn't make sense to me. If DM is a relativity theory,
why can't I measure actual relative velocities wrt my rest frame?
> Not only is the math required to be different,
> the terminology has to be expanded to cover the different
> ways of viewing the changing positions and events.
That's fine. But I don't how to do it. How do I do it.
> :> Haven't you been reading where I say that outward
> :> velocity of the surface is the primary feature of gravity,
> :> and can have more of an effect than the surface acceleration,
> :> which does provide surface gravity.
> :
> : OK. Just describe what you are saying mathematically.
>
> If I could do that, it would mean the model was
> already formalized.
You mean to tell me that you have not formalized the mathematical model for
DM? Haven't you been working on this since the '50s?
> : What is the MORE OF
> : AN EFFECT effect? How is it related mathematically to surface velocity
and
> : surface acceleration? AND how does it prevent (mathematically speaking)
the
> : surface from overtaking the hovering rocket?
>
> If the rocket has a higher velocity than the surface,
> then it covers more than the same distance the surface moves
> per second.
What is distance in DM? Is it something other than the interval separating
two events relative to one's own coordinate system.
> Maybe it would help to visualise the radius of the
> Earth at 1, 2, 3, and 4 doubling periods, which would be
> 2, 4, 8 and 16 times the starting radius.
That's not helping me understand how the scenario I proposed is physically
and mathematically defined in DM.
> Some new math techniques may be needed, or some
> existing techniques may exist that can be adapted to
> the problem, I don't know.
Well it sounds to me that you need some other notion of distance than
relative distance. I don't think DM can be a relativity theory at all.
> :> The rocket would already have an outward/upward
> :> velocity greater than the surface, and that velocity
> :> covers more distance with each passing second.
> :
> : Great. Just quantify it. What is the velocity of rocket
> : relative to the surface?
>
> I think it has to be a function of the velocity
> of the surface, which I don't know exactly.
> Lets just estimate, and say the outward velocity
> of the surface is 30000 feet per second, and the outward
> velocity of the rocket at 2r is 60000 feet per second,
> that would seem to mean the rocket wouldn't have to
> accelerate at all in order to hover, so that probably
> isn't right.
Well with Newton' kinematics, the surface will overtake the rocket according
to the following theorem.
distance(surface) = v*t + 1/2 a*t^2 = d(rocket)
distance(rocket)=6378000 + v*t + a*t^2
When the surface overtakes the rocket distance surface and distance rocket
are equal as they are measured from the surface starting point, hence
30000t + 1/2*9.80+ t^2 = 6378000 + 60000t +1/2*2.45*t^2
3.675*t^2 - 30000*t - 6378000 = 0
Using the quadratic formulate we find that the surface overtakes the rocket
in 8370.60 seconds and that the rocket overtook the surface 207.33 seconds
before the experiment commenced.
Sure the rocket has a greater velocity to begin with but it can not hover if
surface action is the cause of gravity. In fact it can not escape the
surface at all if surface action is the cause.
So yes, you have to devise a whole new set of kinematics and geometry. But
why would you want to, when what we already have works so well?
>
> : It is your theory and frankly I don't know
> : what the mathematical relationships are to be.
>
> I have an idea of what the complications
> of the model are, but obviously I don't know the
> values or relationships exactly.
Yes, obviously.
Joe, I've dealt with the problem before. I can not find away to express it
mathematically at all.
>
> :> : show us what you do assume and why mathematically it is not
> :> : possible for the Earth to overtake the rocket.
> :>
> :> Please think about it a while and you will feel
> :> better about it. Peoplewho have preconceived notions
> :> always try to ignore or refute things that are handed
> :> them.
> :
> : I am not refuting a thing.
>
> Sorry, I thought you were insisting on using
> Newtonian concepts of position, distance, time, speed
> and acceleration.
> If nothing else, this all points out how
> wonderfully simple Newtonian mechanics is.
No. I was insisting that you define the concepts of position, distance,
time, speed, and acceleration so that I may understand how to use your DM
theory.
> : No, I am not refuting
> : you. I'm being downright civil, I am listening to you and giving you
> : something you have never offered me, an opportunity to discuss the
logical
> : and mathematical demands of physical notions which are preferred by you.
>
> And I appreciate it, I never was able to do that
> with your notions of an aether because i didn't see how
> any attributes could ever be established for an aether,
> and even if there could be, the concept of forces acting
> does not seem compatible with General Relativity.
Joe, if I can be so brusk as to say, your understandings regarding such
things is extremely limited and scewed by your inability to evaluate them
logically in the context of their logical systems and the mathematical
relationships they have to predicted outcomes. This really makes your
opinion about such matters a non-material concern for me. There is a major
difference between you and me. I really do think scientifically, always
keeping in mind that it is inappropriate to practice thought which is not
expressible mathematically as a model consistent with real word
measurements.
> :>
> :> I have asked for help, and you are gloating,
> :
> : Not really. You have been quite uncivil regarding others' viable
> : application of physical notions which are part of actual working,
> : mathematically expressible, models of physics. You have been
intolerably
> : rude to me.
>
> I guess my opinion of aether concepts were showing,
> it wasn't anything personal.
But it is personal when you attack my intelligence. Do you think me to be
stupid because I find the aether to be an adequate assumption for a
predictive model of physics?
> :
> : I'm glad to hear you say that. You are welcome. But if you could do me
> : just one favor. Please be more tolerant of the views of others.
>
> Ok, but not where aether is concerned. :-)
Why so? If you can contemplate surface action which makes no sense to
anyone as a mathematically expressible model, how can you be so terse as to
be completely intolerant of ether which does make sense as a mathematically
expressible predictive model? You are asking for your cake and eat it too.
There is no fairness in your behavior.
> :> I feel disappointed that you seem to still be
> :> clinging to a static rigid "space" that apparently
> :> has attributes of "length'.
> :
> : Joe, you know very little about what I do think.
>
> I only know from what I read here.
>
> : Unique positions in a
> : Euclidean space are merely places where events may occur and correspond
with
> : the coordinates of relatively moving coordinate systems. They don't
> : prevent relativity. In any event, this thread is about me and my
thoughts
> : of the uniqueness of the places where events occur, it all about DM and
how
> : it works mathematically.
Well, LT's are consistent with this space Joe. How do I know this? I did
the work and proved it by theorem. Actually, you are being lazy. You deny
the uniqueness of position unrigorously and then claim they are something
other than unique without defining them whatsoever. I am only bound by what
the mathematical relationships prove to be so.
> I am not sure including gravity in with relativity
> was a good idea, but Einstein was working with relativity
> and trying to make relativity work, and had to address
> the problem that gravity caused in messing up the idealistic
> and simple nature of Euclidean space and Newtonian mechanics.
Einstein could not allow local action in his logical system because he
wished to distinguish his theory from its roots in Lorentz' ether. To
accept local action, it to agree with Lorentz.
> :> That is something that was dispensed with by
> :> relativity, and is not used in the EDM model.
> :
> : Then a good theorem for you to perform is one which shows positions in
an
> : absolute space are incompatible with EDM. I am looking forward to it.
>
> We were trying to specify a certain temporary
> space in using the temporary absolute units specified
> as the starting or "now" units.
> Maybe there is a better way, I don't know.
I don't know of any. You are going to have trouble with the notion of
temporary absolute units. You must use only relative units if is to survive
at all.
>
> :> I am not doing a good job of explaining the
> :> mechanics, maybe someone else will help.
> :
> : Joe, what is your training in mechanics and mathematics?
>
> Next to none, what is yours?
Engineering. Particulary the mechanics of fluids.
> : Do you have any experience with kinematics
> : (which is applicable in the problem I posed)
>
> Only in trying to straighten out the misconceptions
> of kinetic energy and associated processes.
But how can you straighten out misconceptions if you have no practical
experience with them?
>
> In my defense, you don't see any better
> results from those who claim to know math, do you?
>
Yes, I see both Einstein's and Newton's models as superior to DM. I can
practice them and make predictions which correspond to coordinates of events
in a well defined coordinate space. So the results are far better, don't
you agree?
Cheers, Phil