Are Electric Fields Distrorted By Gravity? [Relativity]

Prev: Relativistic "Doppler" shift, and why bp hates cap&trade derivatives [*], if they do.
Next: Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion, and whether Murdoch/bp hate Captain Tax derivatives [*], re "climategate controversy."

From: BURT on 7 Aug 2010 18:51

On Aug 7, 3:07 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 01:00:25 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 01:36:26 -0700 (PDT), "n...(a)bid.nes"
> >> <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Aug 4, 3:28 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
> >>>> SPACE CARRYING A FIELD IS NOT THE SAME AS SPACE DEVOID OF FIELDS.
>
> >>> There is no place in the Universe "devoid of fields".
>
> >> The WFT says that fields are quantized and the inverse square law must
> >> eventually break down. The starts to occur at the WDT (Wilson Density
> >> Threshold) and genuine holes of 'nothing' form momentarily in space...like
> >> foam plastic. The lower the density, the bigger the holes..(Note: density
> >> involves fields as well as ordinary matter)
>
> >> Below the WDT light behaves 100% ballistically in the holes. It is very
> >> close to being that in a high vacuum anyway.
>
> >Given that there are no observations supporting ballistic theory, I can't
> >help but wonder where this inside information comes from.
>
> Every known experiment support BaTh.
>
> Henry Wilson...
>
> .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Where did first light CMBR come from at the Big Bang?

Mitch Raemsch

From: Edward Green on 8 Aug 2010 15:53

On Aug 5, 10:01 am, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> Dear Henry Wilson DSc:
>
> On Aug 4, 3:29 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 15:04:16 -0700 (PDT),dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> ...
> > >Note that materials affect electric (permittivity
> > >is pretty constant but not exactly so) and magnetic
> > >(ferro-, para- and dia-magnetism) fields
> > >differently than there mass would otherwise
> > >indicate.
>
> > >I had hoped you would have asked if measurements
> > >had been done to establish how those fields are
> > >altered by "elevation" in a g field (as opposed
> > >to "horizontal" distance). That would be
> > >interesting...
>
> > At least you are taking the question seriously
>
> Except for your massive leap from "do these fields deform" to "they
> must be the cause of gravitation".
>
> > even if you don't have any answers...
>
> I had an answer. The answer is, your conclusion doesn't follow, as my
> jello example showed.

I am reminded of irreversible thermo, though: if a gradient in A
drives a flux in B, the converse is often true. Or maybe always true.
(I'm not sure now if this is a theorem or a hypothesis). Obviously
your jello example doesn't quite fit this mold.

From: Henry Wilson DSc on 8 Aug 2010 18:52

On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 15:51:24 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Aug 7, 3:07�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 01:00:25 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>> >> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 01:36:26 -0700 (PDT), "n...(a)bid.nes"
>> >> <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>On Aug 4, 3:28 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>> >>>> SPACE CARRYING A FIELD IS NOT THE SAME AS SPACE DEVOID OF FIELDS.
>>
>> >>> �There is no place in the Universe "devoid of fields".
>>
>> >> The WFT says that fields are quantized and the inverse square law must
>> >> eventually break down. The starts to occur at the WDT (Wilson Density
>> >> Threshold) and genuine holes of 'nothing' form momentarily in space...like
>> >> foam plastic. The lower the density, the bigger the holes..(Note: density
>> >> involves fields as well as ordinary matter)
>>
>> >> Below the WDT light behaves 100% ballistically in the holes. It is very
>> >> close to being that in a high vacuum anyway.
>>
>> >Given that there are no observations supporting ballistic theory, I can't
>> >help but wonder where this inside information comes from.
>>
>> Every known experiment support BaTh.
>>
>> Henry Wilson...
>>
>> .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Where did first light CMBR come from at the Big Bang?

there was NO big bang

>Mitch Raemsch

Henry Wilson...

........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.

From: Henry Wilson DSc on 8 Aug 2010 18:59

On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 15:11:09 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On Aug 8, 5:00�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 17:03:59 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Aug 7, 5:13�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 05:51:32 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> there are none.
>
>As I said...
>
>>
>> >This is religious fervor -- paying attention only to those things that
>> >support what you want to believe.
>>
>> You should know all about religious fervour, diaper.
>
>On the contrary, I like documented, corroborated, published results.
>To you, that means nothing.
>
>That's what marks what you do as religious fervor. Own it, Henry.

there is not one piece of evidence that cannot be explained by BaTh.

Henry Wilson...

........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.

From: PD on 8 Aug 2010 19:31

On Aug 8, 5:59 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 15:11:09 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 8, 5:00 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 17:03:59 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Aug 7, 5:13 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 05:51:32 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> there are none.
>
> >As I said...
>
> >> >This is religious fervor -- paying attention only to those things that
> >> >support what you want to believe.
>
> >> You should know all about religious fervour, diaper.
>
> >On the contrary, I like documented, corroborated, published results.
> >To you, that means nothing.
>
> >That's what marks what you do as religious fervor. Own it, Henry.
>
> there is not one piece of evidence that cannot be explained by BaTh.

Sorry, but BaTh adorned by gremlins carrying your name (like "Wilson
Magic Properties Bubbles") is not BaTh.
Moreover, BaTh makes certain predictions that are in conflict with
experiment, regardless whether you ignore the experiments with a wave
of your hand or not.

>
> Henry Wilson...
>
> .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.