Inertial Motion Near The Earth, In The Divergent Matter Model

[kefischer]

Inertial Motion Near The Earth,

In The Divergent Matter Model


The "temporary absolute space" that must exist,
in the model is the same Galilean, Euclidean, Newtonian,
3-D space of classical (Newtonian) mechanics, that
cannot change, it is even more definite than the way
it is used in Newtonian mechanics.
It does not change in any way as matter expands
in the model, it can't change just because of what
matter is presumed to be doing.

An object projected upward with any kind
of catapulting mechanism (like a mortar or
howitzer) continues upward indefinitely, never
slowing as in Newtonian attractive gravitation.

But it appears to slow, stop, and begin
falling, only because that is what the observer
sees, measures, and assumes.


There is a slight difference from what Newton
predicts though, because of the lengthening unit
of time in the model.
Even though the meterstick and second do
lengthen (co-vary) in unison, the lengthening
time interval adds time for the motion to take
place and proceed to cover more distance
than in pure Newtonian mechanics.

But even without that complication, the
motion is much different than what is assumed
from observation and measurement with the
"current" meterstick and second of time.
On the way up, the catapulted object
moves at constant velocity (neglecting the
expanding time interval), _relative_ to, the
upward velocity of the surface, which _must_
have an upward velocity (in the model) that
is increasing because of both the upward
positive acceleration of the surface, and
the expanding time interval.


This is a difficult thing to apply math to,
even neglecting the expanding time interval.
The simple math is just the object in
inertial motion, and the surface of Earth
getting farther behind in the beginning
until the surface increases it's velocity
enough to start gaining, and finally,
catching up to the object.

The problem is even more simple
than the attraction model, but the math
is more complicated.


For a slow "muzzle velocity", this
only takes a few seconds, and the distance
and deviation from Newtonian attraction
times is not much.

With new technology, it is possible
to calculate and measure the difference,
provided the Divergent Matter model
predictions are well understood.
This is the most simple math problem
(in the model), only involving freefall,
orbits are more complicated.

The motion of the object is only,
and always upward in the problem,
and the starting upward velocity of the
surface of Earth and the object can be
ignored, as they are identical before the
catapult, yet very substantial, and that
is what complicates the precise math
exercise.

This is raw "Gravity" in the model,
without any "relativity" of observer view-
point considered.


Submissions of shortcut formulas
would be appreciated.

[fuller...@hotmail.com]

Phee Phi Pho Phum.
I smell the blood of an English man.

Phi
Phibonacci
Fibonacci
610/377

[pnal...@gmail.com]

So, Ken, when you get slammed in your other DuMb posts, after you run out of arguments because you can't possibly respond because there simply aren't any answers that work, you merely fold your tent and start all over again from scratch, pumping out the same old drivel in a new post. How original of you. This is exactly what Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge does, for example, and everyone knows that he is a complete idiot and as dumb as a fence-post. Even you know that, and you don't know a lick of physics either.

So I have to ask myself, "what drives Ken to continue to promote a theory that is a complete dead end, over and over again, without skipping a beat?"

It all comes back to you being a religious zealot, embracing your DuMb theology with your blind faith, forging ahead and damn the torpedoes, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Of course, you don't know enough physics to comprehend that this overwhelming evidence really does sink your ship, but rather, you chose to ignore it out-of-hand. You don't know what you don't know, and refuse to educate yourself, instead you just continue to wash, rinse and repeat, over and over again.

You just can't stand the thought that you have totally wasted 72 years of your long life chasing a rainbow, and looking for the mythical pot of gold at its end.

\Paul A

[kefischer]

There has been nothing of any merit
to respond to, but in essence just confusion
with classical physics, and thinking that the
classical physics applies to any situation.

>you merely fold your tent and start all over again from scratch,
>pumping out the same old drivel in a new post.

If you are not interested, why do you
respond? The Divergent Matter model
is the most solid model that can ever exist,
because there is only one postulate, an
assumption that matter is expanding due
to in an imbalance of the elementary
charges.
It has to be self consistent because all
of the processes contained are just the
inevitable result of the chain of processes
resulting from matter expanding.

> How original of you. This is exactly what Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge does,
>for example, and everyone knows that he is a complete idiot and as dumb
>as a fence-post. Even you know that, and you don't know a lick of physics either.

Sure, I can hardly tie my shoes without
a page of instructions in front of me.

>So I have to ask myself, "what drives Ken to continue to promote a theory
>that is a complete dead end, over and over again, without skipping a beat?"

It is the model of this Diverging Universe,
would you like me to rename it the "Divergent
Universe Model: Best-of All"? :-)

>It all comes back to you being a religious zealot, embracing your DuMb
>theology with your blind faith, forging ahead and damn the torpedoes,
>despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

There is no evidence to the contrary,
there is an appearance of attraction that
is wrong, and there are reasons why the
appearance of attraction happens.

>Of course, you don't know enough physics to comprehend that this
>overwhelming evidence really does sink your ship,

If you think what Gary writes has any
relationship to physics or logic, you are
sadly mistaken.

>but rather, you chose to ignore it out-of-hand.
>You don't know what you don't know, and refuse
>to educate yourself, instead you just continue to wash,
>rinse and repeat, over and over again.

Of course I repeat, because there is
no way to change anything, it is like a car,
you put it in forward, it goes forward, you
put it in reverse, it backs up.

>You just can't stand the thought that you have totally
>wasted 72 years of your long life chasing a rainbow,
>and looking for the mythical pot of gold at its end.
>
>\Paul A

What pot of gold? :-)

I have what I wanted, an understanding
of gravity, and I got a bonus, a model of the
universe that covers more of science than
any other model.

You are the religious fanatic, believing
that what you see is all there is.

Your viewpoint is fine for observational
astronomy, but it is detrimental to theoretical
physics.

Divergent Matter will be the model most
used in astrophysics and cosmology because
of the bountiful high energy sources described
by the model.
All you and Gary are doing is using your
freshman thought patterns to hold me back
from discussing the exciting parts of the
model.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 12:17:55 AM UTC-6, kefischer wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 20:59:50 -0700 (PDT), pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > So, Ken, when you get slammed in your other DuMb posts,
> > after you run out of arguments because you can't possibly respond
> > because there simply aren't any answers that work,
>
> There has been nothing of any merit
> to respond to, but in essence just confusion
> with classical physics, and thinking that the
> classical physics applies to any situation.

The same, tired old straw man argument while ignoring the meat.

> > you merely fold your tent and start all over again from scratch,
> > pumping out the same old drivel in a new post.
>
> If you are not interested, why do you respond?

Because of the delusional LIES you keep regurgitating:

> The Divergent Matter model is the most solid model that can ever exist,

What a pile of stinking, lying crap!

> because there is only one postulate,

No, there isn't. You are even delusional about THAT! Your next piece of
lying crap is that time must "expand" also. And your next piece of lying
crap is that light "expands" also. And your NEXT piece of lying crap is
that DuMb can explain orbits when it is patently obvious that it can't.
And your next piece of lying crap is that "expanding light" acts as a
"telescope" so objects appear larger than they actually were in the past.
Postulates layered on postulates to address all the observations that
refute DuMb (which are just as stupid as the first - or more so. And the
next piece of lying crap is this:

> an assumption that matter is expanding due
> to in an imbalance of the elementary charges.

There is NO imbalance. This is also IOTTMCO except to those too mentally-
imbalanced to accept reality.

> It has to be self consistent because all
> of the processes contained are just the
> inevitable result of the chain of processes
> resulting from matter expanding.

And that's another piece of lying crap because DuMb is NOT even self-
consistent.

> > How original of you. This is exactly what Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge does,
> > for example, and everyone knows that he is a complete idiot and as dumb
> > as a fence-post. Even you know that, and you don't know a lick of physics
> > either.
>
> Sure, I can hardly tie my shoes without
> a page of instructions in front of me.

Non sequitur and straw man argument again.

> > So I have to ask myself, "what drives Ken to continue to promote a theory
> > that is a complete dead end, over and over again, without skipping a beat?"
>
> It is the model of this Diverging Universe,
> would you like me to rename it the "Divergent
> Universe Model: Best-of All"? :-)

I would like you to rename yourself "gone with the wind"

> > It all comes back to you being a religious zealot, embracing your DuMb
> > theology with your blind faith, forging ahead and damn the torpedoes,
> > despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
>
> There is no evidence to the contrary,

Delusional liar.

> there is an appearance of attraction that is wrong,

Assertion is neither evidence nor a valid argument.

> and there are reasons why the appearance of attraction happens.

Sure there is. It's called GENERAL RELATIVITY.

> > Of course, you don't know enough physics to comprehend that this
> > overwhelming evidence really does sink your ship,
>
> If you think what Gary writes has any
> relationship to physics or logic, you are
> sadly mistaken.

Another delusional rant full of lies.

> > but rather, you chose to ignore it out-of-hand.
> > You don't know what you don't know, and refuse
> > to educate yourself, instead you just continue to wash,
> > rinse and repeat, over and over again.
>
> Of course I repeat, because there is no way to change anything,

Which proves you are delusional. If there's no way to change anything,
it is insane to keep trying to do it.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different
results." -- Albert Einstein

> it is like a car, you put it in forward, it goes forward, you
> put it in reverse, it backs up.

Non sequitur, irrelevant.

> > You just can't stand the thought that you have totally
> > wasted 72 years of your long life chasing a rainbow,
> > and looking for the mythical pot of gold at its end.
> >
> >\Paul A
>
> What pot of gold? :-)
>
> I have what I wanted, an understanding
> of gravity, and I got a bonus, a model of the
> universe that covers more of science than
> any other model.

Sigh! Proof that you are an outrageous, delusional nutjob.

> You are the religious fanatic, believing
> that what you see is all there is.

Another straw man argument. Actually, religious people believe that
there is more than what can be seen, so you obviously can't even mount
a good straw man argument :-)

> Your viewpoint is fine for observational
> astronomy, but it is detrimental to theoretical
> physics.

Another mischaracterization of the facts. Theoretical physics is subject
to observational evidence (i.e., experiment). You dodge experimental
evidence at every turn. You are just like Pentcho Valev.

> Divergent Matter will be the model most
> used in astrophysics and cosmology because
> of the bountiful high energy sources described
> by the model.

More extremely delusional poppycock.

> All you and Gary are doing is using your
> freshman thought patterns to hold me back
> from discussing the exciting parts of the
> model.

Nobody's holding you back, nutjob, as evidenced by your regurgitation
of flatulent bullshit all over this group. Would that you could be
"held back" from posting your stinking road apples demonstrating how
abysmally stupid a human mind can sink to.

[Euclid Baumann]

kefischer wrote:
> The "temporary absolute space" that must exist,
> in the model is the same Galilean, Euclidean, Newtonian,
> 3-D space of classical (Newtonian) mechanics, that cannot change, it is
> even more definite than the way it is used in Newtonian mechanics.
> It does not change in any way as matter expands
> in the model, it can't change just because of what matter is presumed to
> be doing.

Enough. You are such an immense intestine, you never will understand the
splendiferousness of Divergent Matter.

[fuller...@hotmail.com]

Gravity is "increasing entropy".
In relation to space time, mass is enlarging
Because space time is equivalent to kinetic energy.

Mass is enlarging "RELATIVE" to space time = Gravity.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 10/11/2015 9:24 PM, kefischer wrote:
> Inertial Motion Near The Earth,
>
> In The Divergent Matter Model

What you call a model is not what scientists call a model.

--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[kefischer]

No math majors here, is there, the
problem is too difficult?

Two dragster race cars, one goes across
the starting line at 98 meters/sec, the other
starts from the starting line at the instant
the first crosses it at 9,8 meters/s/s.

Ho long before the second car catches
up to the first, and how far do the two cars
go before their from bumpers are even?

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 2:10:53 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:

> No math majors here, is there, the
> problem is too difficult?
>
> Two dragster race cars, one goes across
> the starting line at 98 meters/sec, the other
> starts from the starting line at the instant
> the first crosses it at 9,8 meters/s/s.
>
> Ho long before the second car catches
> up to the first, and how far do the two cars
> go before their from bumpers are even?

This problem is drop-dead easy. If you can't answer this for yourself you have no business whatsoever asking others to do your work for you. It's your theory (and definitely NOT a model) and it is up to you to present it mathematically.

Of course, you have zero chance of producing either challenge...

[kefischer]

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:52:51 -0700 (PDT), pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 2:10:53 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
>
>> No math majors here, is there, the
>> problem is too difficult?
>>
>> Two dragster race cars, one goes across
>> the starting line at 98 meters/sec, the other
>> starts from the starting line at the instant
>> the first crosses it at 9,8 meters/s/s.
>>
>> Ho long before the second car catches
>> up to the first, and how far do the two cars
>> go before their from bumpers are even?
>
>This problem is drop-dead easy.

Of course, it's the Newtonian part,
do you have a shortcut, I have to do it
the long way with grade school math.

Once the expansion and time dilation
is included, it becomes more difficult.

>If you can't answer this for yourself you have no business whatsoever asking others to do your work for you.

I don't want to make a mistake,
so I always try to err on the safe side.

>It's your theory (and definitely NOT a model) and it is up to you to present it mathematically.

I may want to disown it.

>Of course, you have zero chance of producing either challenge...

What odds are you giving?

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 8:58:16 AM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:

A million-to-1 might be too conservative...