Elysium and Interior Solutions

<b>[Benish] " ... you (offered) to explain the accelerometer readings ( ... ) in terms of expansion of matter in three-dimensional space."</b>



Time is the key. How long has stuff been expanding?

v = a * t
How fast is the surface of &lt;some thing&gt; expanding? It depends on how long is has been expanding.

s = v * t
How far has the surface of &lt;some thing&gt; expanded? It depends on how long it has been expanding.

Everything is made of atoms.
Everything expands because the atoms inside are expanding.
The atoms have been expanding for a long long time.

So the current speed of expansion is huge. Very huge.
And the current distance that things have expanded (their size) is huge.

<b>Current <u>changes</u></b> in speed of expansion and size of any object is tiny compared to the accumulated speed and size of thae same object. Unless we watch it for a long time and measure it very carefully, we do not see (detect) the changes.

So even though the two spheres of different density are in fact expanding at different rates, we cannot detect this without watching them for a very long time. Another "un done" experiment?

Larry,

An accelerometer at the surface (= R) reads 10 m / s^2. An accelerometer at the top of a pole 2R from the center reads 2.5 m / s^2. The idea is to explain these readings as expansion rates in three-dimensional space without having the surface catch up to the top of the pole, but having these proportions remain intact. Surely the meters in these accelerations represent lengths that can also be used to measure R, whether it be 64 or 6,400,000, for example.

Your explanation would be more convincing if it provided definite, physically possible magnitudes ("very huge"?), initial conditions and an equation showing how the picture holds together. So far, I'm still not seeing it.


RBenish

Benish,

My intent was only to show how something that might be called "static acceleration" can occur in a 3D Expanding Matter model. I thought I had made that clear, so I apologize if I misled you (or anyone else).

Regards,
LB

<b>[Benish] "Concerning the problem of 360 degree orbits, ... I won't go into detail because ... space curvature and extra dimensions ... .

In my model the generation of space, the outward movement of matter and space is the cause of curvature.

Perhaps to you that is only hand waving."</b>



<b>[Benish] "Perhaps we don't share enough common ground to constructively pursue these questions."</b>



Reading between the lines, I see that your theory is also not able to explain orbits (without invoking unobtanium).



<b>[Benish] "Does the test object oscillate or not? We really ought to let Nature answer this.</b>

Someday it will happen, perhaps in part because of your efforts. You can be proud of your contribution, no mattter how it turns out.

LB

Larry,

I guess we all have our invocations.

Happily, we agree to let "Ithuriel's spear" (of experiment) have the last word.

Thank you for an enlightening dialog.

RBenish