'Edge' of the Universe

Hi Larry

I have been absent awhile.

I have no problem with replacing "repulsive" with "pushing". My point is that all interaction involves collision. It may be elastic or inelastic collision. If I roll two steel ball bearings together, they will "repulse" each other with no apparent deformation. If I roll two silly putty balls together, they might very well stick together and show massive deformation. You have mentioned that an apparent attraction could be manifested by having particles go around object B and push it from the rear thus showing an apparent attraction of object B to object A. This is a combination of pushing force and GEOMETRY!

The apparent attraction between protons and electrons is an assumption. It has not been observed. It has been assumed that an electron is a particle. I will counter that an electron is an assembly of Elysons. You may then ask "isn't that a clear demonstration of attractiveness among Elysons?" I will counter that the assembly can be formed by repulsive collisions of Elysons with the geometry of the proton. The electron would be a dynamic population of Elysons, with many of them constantly entering and leaving. What happens to an Elyson wave which collides with a proton? It may be reflected or it may be "absorbed" into the electron. When the electron has acquired too many Elysons or the Elysons are too hot, a wave will be emitted (a push).

Proposing that a proton has geometry is heresy. Okay, I am a heretic. Once I commit this "high treason" or "ultimate sin", I can then build a solar system from pure hydrogen with ease. No further aid is needed from bailing wire, chewing gum, elephant snot or duct tape (quack). For the gravitational flux: one particle, the graviton. For the light carrying medium: one particle, the Elyson. For matter: one particle, the proton. The other 150 fundamental particles can take a hike.

Gregg Wilson

[Jim] "In this example the trick is using two rest frames to set the groundwork and only one rest frame is used to make the calculation."

I guess I'm still not getting your point. I count two rest frames being used for calculation, so of course I can't see the trick.

Could you lead me step by step through the process so I can understand what you mean?

LB

LB, So are you saying the calculation is correct? I don't want to explain what I said-if you don't explain what you are asking.

[Jim] " ... explain what you are asking.

I am asking for a description of the trick. Something with a little more detail than "there is a trick".

===

Since you claim to have no technical background or experience, I'll help you get started with a hint.

(
HINT - start by just quoting the example. But break it up into separate sentences, and give each one a reference number.

Then after each sentence, make a comment on that sentence. Things like "this sentence refers to rest frame #1", or "this sentence is referring to the same frame as sentence #X". Another possible comment is "this sentence is not involved in the trick".

You should make at least one comment for each sentence. But some sentences will probably need two or more comments.
)

Regards,
LB

PS - I count 10 sentences in the example.

If you decide to break a long sentence into several parts, you should give them related reference numbers. For example, if sentence #42 was long enough to justify splitting into 4 parts, I suggest numbering each part as 42a, 42b, 42c and 42d.

LB