Subject: Fwd: [AIAS] Fwd: Extension of ECE momentum theory
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:42:28 EST
Many thanks Barry, your own work is most interesting and we should think of deriving one from the other and vice versa.
I agree. I am very sure that a whole new world of mathematical physics is about to open up. I have thought for more than 40 years that this would happen, but now it seems more true than ever. Laithwaite seemed to be on the verge of something big many years ago, before he made a fool of himself with some elementary mistakes. Keep up the good work.
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 10:49 AM
Subject: AW: [AIAS] Fwd: Extension of ECE momentum theory
Thanks fort he hints. Nevertheless it would be interesting to see if Navier-Stokes can be derived from ECE theory directly.
> —–Urspr?ngliche Nachricht—– > Von: barry_hunt] at [cinci.rr.com [mailto:barry_hunt] at [cinci.rr.com] > Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Januar 2009 16:23 > An: EMyrone] at [aol.com > > Betreff: Re: [AIAS] Fwd: Extension of ECE momentum theory > > Myron & Horst, > > The expression for the mass m of a fluid element of volume V should be > V*rho, not (1/V)*rho. > > The Navier-Stokes equations are “complete” and DO include all linear and > angular terms. The reason they do not match experiment in some cases is > that “turbulence” is “random” and has to be “modeled”; the same “model” > does not describe all possible situations. > > Also, The GENESIS Identity (that you have looked at), when applied to > fluid dynamics, contains local or global “spin” in the curl term. This is > usually called “vorticity”. The velocity induced by a vortex element > involves (in 3-D) an inverse square VECTOR product with the radius (unit) > vector. In contrast, the div term (compressibility) involves just the > simple inverse square TIMES the radius (unit) vector. > > Regards, > > Barry > > —- EMyrone] at [aol.com wrote: > >