Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / November 2005

> >> Dear em:
> >> ... when/if it is fact.
> >A lot of effort and energy has been expended to find limitations
> >and/or error with GR. To date none has been found.
> >
> >That is good enough for me. I'll I'll put my money on WEP EEP
> >and GR and declare them absolute.
>
>           Isn't relativity meant to replace "absolute". :-)
>
> >> It would have to be expanding on very large scales, to avoid
> >> detection.
> >> And any such expansion would not be a Loretnz aether.
> >
> >If every Aetheric particle in the universe was simultaneously
> >expanding at the same rate, in such manner that all rulers and
> >units of measure, even the wave length of light would also have
> >to be effected by this expansion.
>
>           Right, and this is one of the things about Divergent
> Matter that I like, even though I have no interest at all in
> Special Relativity.
>
>           I study Divergent Matter as both a model for gravity,
> and as a model to make many different processes part of a pattern
> rather than haphazard.
>
> >If the propagation of light was indeed mediated by say the
> >propagation of a longitudinal vacuum wave then as the particles
> >of Aether increased in size, so too would the frequency of any
> >event be automatically carried with it.
>
>          There is no aether, and none is needed. --

> --    Because of the fact that light appears to instantly
> "travel" at c when it is emitted, --

> -- the expansion on matter resulting in a lengthening meter
> and a lengthening unit of time, light could "travel" farther in
> succeeding seconds, but would still retain the same frequency and
> wavelength to "current" meters and seconds.
>
>         But the real kicker is that the longer second, allowing
> light to "travel" farther each succeeding second would mean that
> the "speed" of light would always be measured as c, --

> -- AND that _nothing_ having mass that must accelerate could
> ever "travel" as fast as light.

>         So the expanding matter (Divergent Matter) model absolutely
> requires that c is --

> -- a limiting velocity.
>
> >No, it is not the Lorentz Aether, (nor Einstein's either), --

> -- but then again if Lorentz had of completed the task of unmasking
> the Aether, everybody would have yelled, 'BINGO.'
>
>          There is no aether, why mention it.

> >I am thinking more the geodesic is not caused by a physical
> >curvature of space more so the expansion of space itself and
> >the earth racing up to met it.
>
>          The "geodesic" is simply an object following through
> on it's present motion and proceeding in inertial motion without
> any interaction of any kind.      "Space" has no attributes and
> needs none, the distance between objects changes, and that makes
> it appear as if space had an attribute of length on 3 axes.
>
>           That is why the concept of "attraction" due to gravity
> has no place in physics.

> Joe Fischer