Elysium and Interior Solutions

I think the idea Mark, is that the whole kit and cabbodle is expanding. That must include the accelerometers. If every constant in the universe expanded uniformly then wew couldn't tell but these accelerometers seem to "know" about inertial energy. I can't see how it can happen.

Where is the source cause for this unilateral expanding mass & space? Also, wobbles from gravitational forces can be found everywhere. In searching for stars with planetary systems in deep space, one of the criteria is to look for Suns that show a 'wobble' from motion around a common gravitational center which is not the center of the Sun's mass! Same with Binary Star systems, the center of gravity is somewhere between the masses and is the common point for rotation.

So the point is a gravitational force no doubt would self correct inertia of object falling towards gravitational center and would not stop dead in its tracks unless the forces of gravity were so strong but even then the object might implode into a stream of plasma Aether particles.

Gravitation is the same force if mass expands or does not expand, and since you cannot step out of this frame of reference you would not be able to compare motions from changing relativities due to expansion. Inertia and gravitational breaking of falling object would create oscillations regardless as object reached zero point.

John

Mark

Since I have so often referred to accelerometers, it is high time I describe the instrument I have in mind. It is an idealized thing, but one that could be approximated in real life. Basically, it's a "black box" whose innards contain levers, springs, masses and whatever else is needed to measure acceleration. Calibration is important. The ideal calibration that I have assumed in every instance, would be the result of the following operation carried out in "outer space" on a negligibly massed rotating body. If the box is at the center (axis of rotation) or at rest with respect to the axis, its reading is zero. When mounted and aligned perfectly along a radius (perpendicular to the axis) the device gives a negative (centripetal) reading equal to –w^2 r, where w is the angular velocity and r is the radial distance. To make sure it works also for positive accelerations the orientation of the box needs to be inverted.

Since this discussion concerns matters of principle in greatly varying models of gravity, details of the construction of the device do not really matter. I think all participants would accept all of the above.


RBenish

Larry,

Well, I am stumped and befuddled.

I am stumped because I don't see the answer to your riddle. You say that, in addition to the equation I have referred to, you've used "several other" equations (the "twist" that you omitted from my quote). Why is it not sufficient to use only the one ("untwisted") equation, which says one sphere doubles and the other sphere triples in size?

I would like to point out that we actually have (at least) three riddles: 1) The problem with the two initially equal sized masses (two different "surface" accelerations); 2) The problem with the single mass and tall pole (wide range of accelerations along a seemingly rigid body); and 3) The dropped object in a diameter tunnel problem.

I am befuddled because you seem to be saying that some kind of expanding matter model may well be consistent with what we know about gravity. I don't think you'd send me on a wild goose chase, and yet you've recommended that I pursue completion of my experiment. As I have said, I think doing the experiment is a good idea independent of my model; it would be good to see empirical evidence extend all the way to the center of a massive body, no matter whose model is correct. But if there is some other conclusive reason to rule out my model, then (to borrow Tom's expression again) I'd rather do something else with my limited lifespan.

So, you seem to be saying that all three riddles can be solved in terms of expanding matter using only three space dimensions. It makes me wonder why you have not pursued this line of thought yourself and urged completion of the experiment so that you could conclusively rule such models out (or in).

I am on the edge of my seat.


RBenish

<b>[Mark Vitrone] "Here is a simpler way to determine if the substance is expanding differently over time. Encase a sphere of metal inside a shell of another metal, make sure that the metal predicted to expand more is on the inside. Let them sit and watch the inner sphere break through the outer shell. I don't think this will happen though..."</b>

You are right. In fact this experiment has been done millions of times. Paint is less dense than steel, so it should expand less rapidly.

But be careful. If Expanding Matter theory were correct, how long would it take for this effect to become noticeable? See my next reply to Bemish for an answer.

Benish,

One more clue. Another equarion you need to think about in this regard is v = a * t.

How fast is Earth's surface moving?