[General] You Eq.2 in your paper

[Hodge John]

WolfThanks for your paper. Your Eq.2 appears as a fluid flow. Please expand on yourtreatment of the time derivative term. What effect would differentiate yourmodel with other models? How could the time derivative be effective in anexperiment? How would this term be different from merely proportional to thegradient term? Is the time derivative term like an acceleration or velocity? You suggest it would be effective at larger distances.I ask because the existence of the time derivative term isthe most problematical part of my STOE. I consider the “space” (plenum) has asubstantive existence rather than being merely a backdrop for matter to playits role. Therefore, it should have some fluid flow characteristics. However,gravity potential seems to be only 1/r. In the analysis of galaxy rotationcurves, I used the gradient without the time derivative term despite theoutflow of matter (hydrogen and other stuff) on the rational that the timederivative term was proportional to the gradient (not an acceleration). Thederivation of the photon trajectory in Young’s Experiment simulation included asimilar assumption where the term was a velocity (not velocity squared whichwould render a turbulence in the flow) that rendered a description of inertiaof space (plenum).    Hodge
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/026f5cef/attachment.htm>