Prev: full solution manual for: Orbital Mechanics: For Engineering Students by Howard Curtis 2nd edition (includes matlab scripts)
Next: Row of urinals puzzle
From: spudnik on 26 Jan 2010 23:46
nothing, unless you stick a "lightcone" in the works,
instead of a "flipbook."

thus:
your "shop talk" seems to lack specificity, but
if you could describe adiabatic processes, then
I'd thank you.

thus:
there is nothing at all wrong with the Lorentz transforms, if
you really consider that light is a limit
on the internal motions of electrons in an atom,
that is moving at high speed. in deed,
what phenomenon requires speed over that of light,
other than science fictionalizing?

thus:
decimals places are not going to do, if
you didn't get what I wrote. bascailly,
M&M did not get any null or "nil" result, and
this has been amply recalibrated
-- see Cahill's (Surfer's [*]) fig.3, I think e.g. --
over the years since the 1880s, viz D.C.Miller.
* if you look at his other paper's,
he tries to be all things to all people -- or, at least,
two people, each reading one of two papers,
that I peruzed!

thus:
well, Nik Tes researched it!... let's hit the hight points: a)
Michelson and Morely did not get a "null,"
nor did his successors, D.C.Miller e.g.; b)
Pascal discovered the vacuum, but didn't know
about partial-pressures of mercury in the "plenum" of the column or
of gasses in the mercury e.g.; c)
space-time is phase-space, period, and
is almost always an obfuscation -- but
Minkowski died, before he could qualify any
of his lagubrious slogans.
> Vacuum; Space-time; Aether.

thus:
what is a knotted polygon?
let me guess; if
the edges are links with universal joints
between them, then a hexagon can be "knotted"
in the conventional sense (of not being the unknot
or circle).

thus:
if you tell you-know-who about -1 being prime,
we'll have to kill you,
then de-finite-ly ourselves, out of boredom!

--les OEuvres!
http://wlym.com
From: glird on 29 Jan 2010 14:13
On Jan 26, 7:02 pm, Uncle hate wrote:
> glird wrote:
>
> > On Jan 25, 9:37 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > xxein:  Now how does mass attract?
>
> >   Of itself, a mass ("quantity of matter") doesn't attract anything.
>
> > xxein: A mass cannot exist as a closed system.
>
> >   In that there is no place in the universe where a "closed system"
> > exists, it is true that a mass does not exist as a closed system.
>
> > xxein: How about our Sun?  It gives off tremendous radiation energy.  But it still attracts.  Why?
>
> > glird:  Because the Sun is a matter-unit,
thus -- as ALL matter units do -- has a
density gradient surrounding it. That grad d
penetrates all embedded bodies. It sums
with their own density gradients. Therefore a
net gradient arises INSIDE of each atom in
every embedded object. This net grad d is
stronger on the side closest to the matter-unit's
nucleus, which in this case is the Sun.
  Because matter resists compression
increasingly stronger as its density increases,
the resistance to an atom's own internally
circulating wave systems is stronger
on the denser side.  That's WHY a
"gravitational FORCE" arises inside of every
atom of any object embedded in, thus part of
the density gradient ("gravitational FIELD"). >
>
> idiot

Uncle matzebAll left out the first few words in
his irrelevant confession, which should have said,
"I {Uncle Al} am an idiot."
From: NoEinstein on 30 Jan 2010 16:41
On Jan 25, 9:37 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jan 19, 9:06 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 16, 11:07 pm,xxein<xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Dearxxein: The MMX was a successful design for measuring distances
> > and angles, but was totally wrongly designed to detect the time the of
> > travel of light. Why? M-M had TWO test courses of light but no
> > CONTROL, or unchanging point-of-reference. And... if the time of
> > travel of light had been, or could be, slowed by the flow of ether,
> > then, ether most have DRAG. And if ether has drag, then light
> > traveling through such would eventually be slowed to velocity zero.
> > The Earth would be a very dark place, and no biological systems could
> > exist. Please know that I've totally disproved SR and GR (beyond the
> > latter being a very close ANALOGY). Read some of the following links
> > to understand why. — NoEinstein —
>
> xxein: Why must ether have a drag? Light passes through it at a
> constant speed.
>
Ether drag was the stupid assumption planted by J. C. Maxwell that
caused the M-M experiment to be performed in the first place. Not a
single scientist before yours truly has realized that ether only
NURTURES the light on its way—not slows it down. And the only way
light could nurture light passage is if the tangential velocity of the
smallest energy units of the ether, units I call IOTAs, have a
tangential velocity of 'c'. Either not only moves, it varies in
density throughout the Universe.
>
> In the context of a SR-GR relativity, I almost hate to use the word
> 'relativity'. But one exists. Just not the way it is popularly
> presented to us.
>
I’ve shot Einstein’s notions about… relativity all to HELL—where they
deserve to be!
>
> Drag? Ether? Did you ever consider that the ether could move? There
> is absolutely nothing to prove that it doesn't.
>
Ether is constantly flowing.
>
> Now how does mass attract? My guess is that absorbs energy. Why does
> a moon of Jupiter not travel a straight line tangent away? My guess
> is that the moon follows the energy path. Where is this energy? If
> it were static, there is no curvature. There must be a movement of
> energy.
>
Masses attract because they radiate light or charged particles between
themselves. In doing so, the internal ether within the atoms becomes
depleted. That allows the ether beyond the bodies to flow down as
GRAVITY. But because the depletion of ether is LESS on the facing
sides of objects than on the opposing sides, there is greater ether
flow (gravity) on the opposing sides which forces the two objects to
move toward one another.
>
> Why does mass absorb energy? Because there is no internal perpetual
> energy to support it's sole existence. A mass cannot exist as a
> closed system. Energy is available from the outside, however.
>
Varying ether flow and density accounts for everything observed about
the Universe. Ether flows in response to pressure differentials, much
like in weather systems on Earth. When photons or charged particles
get emitted by any mass, there is a negative pressure created within
the mass which allows more ether energy to flow in. The energy OUT
must be replaced by the energy IN. The latter realization is why I
know that Black Holes have ZERO gravity, because all energy (light)
out has stopped. The star distribution data for the Andromeda Galaxy
shows how stars that had been destined to be eaten up by the massive
star, suddenly flew out on their tangents when that star went...
Black.
>
> Think for a short minute. All of the NON-INERTIAL activity going on
> in a mass requires energy to proceed. Where does it get it from?
> Sure. The nuclei can decay and give off energy. But where does it go
> and why should it be contained within the mass when we see that such a
> radiation is transmitted outward and affects other distant masses?
>
Every time a photon is emitted, the polar IOTAs clump in front and get
carried along for the ride. Eventually, those transported IOTAs wind
up at various points near the massive object which emitted the light.
THAT is why the flow process approaches perpetual motion. As long as
masses are above absolute zero, gravity will continue to flow down.
>
> How about our Sun? It gives off tremendous radiation energy. But it
> still attracts. Why? Because its internal process requires more
> energy to exist than the energy that is expended over a certain time.
> Otherwise, zilch for an extended lifetime of this process.
>
The flowing ether toward the Sun exactly matches the energy the Sun
emits. Sunspots are the areas of maximum downward ether flow. The big
oval spots on Jupiter, as well as the bands, are caused by their being
favored paths of travel by the downward flowing ether. Those spots
are ovals because the ether spirals into Jupiter and is only vertical
at the surface. The same is true for gravity flow on the Earth. A
billion dollar satellite has been put into Earth orbit, purportedly to
prove that Einstein's theories are correct in "predicting" that
gravity isn't perpendicular above the Earth. I could have told the
World that fact without taxpayers having to spend a penny (because of
the shamefully WASTEFUL NSF)!!
>
> NOW, think about it. How did our Sun come into existence (as a mass)
> in the first place? It wasn't formed from an equilibrium of energy,
> was it? There was a deformity in the ideal equilibrium, wasn't
> there? Is an adiabatic process foreign to your thinking? Adiabatic
> processes cannot arise from an equilibrium.
>
My New Science can explain everything. However, time doesn't allow me
to elucidate on such a broad topic in just one reply.
>
> We don't know all about adiabatics except for recognizing certain
> thresholds that we can measure and put to some math. We don't really
> know the trigger mechanism. But it's there. It is hidden in the
> physic we DON'T know.
>
Keep on thinking deeply. The answers all lie in the better
understanding of ether flow and density.
>
> Mass displaces ether??? That is less than there is a fire god.
>
Mass NEVER displaces ether!! Ether flow through mass is required for
the mass to exist! — NoEinstein —





From: NoEinstein on 30 Jan 2010 16:46
On Jan 26, 4:01 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 9:37 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> xxein:  Now how does mass attract?  
>
>   Of itself, a mass ("quantity of matter") doesn't attract anything.
>
> xxein: A mass cannot exist as a closed system.
>
>   In that there is no place in the universe where a "closed system"
> exists, it is true that a mass does not exist as a closed system.
>
> xxein: How about our Sun?  It gives off tremendous radiation energy.
>  But it still attracts.  Why?  
>
>  Because the Sun is a matter-unit, thus -- as ALL matter units do --
> has a density gradient surrounding it. That grad d penetrates all
> embedded bodies. It sums with their own density gradients. Therefore a
> net gradient arises INSIDE of each atom in every embedded object. This
> net grad d is stronger on the side closest to the matter-unit's
> nucleus, which in this case is the Sun.
>   Because matter resists compression increasingly stronger as its
> density increases, the resistance to an atom's own internally
> circulating wave systems is stronger on the denser side.  That's WHY a
> "gravitational FORCE" arises inside of every atom of any object
> embedded in, thus part of the density gradient ("gravitational FIELD")
> of the parent unit.
>
> glird

There is some truth in your ideas. Polish the explanation and you
will be aligned with my New Science. — NoEinstein —
From: glird on 31 Jan 2010 12:36
On Jan 30, 4:46 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 4:01 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 9:37 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > xxein:  Now how does mass attract?  
>
> >   Of itself, a mass ("quantity of matter") doesn't attract anything.
>
> > xxein: A mass cannot exist as a closed system.
>
> >   In that there is no place in the universe where a "closed system"
> > exists, it is true that a mass does not exist as a closed system.
>
> > xxein: How about our Sun?  It gives off tremendous radiation energy.
> >  But it still attracts.  Why?  
>
> >  Because the Sun is a matter-unit, thus -- as ALL matter units do --
> > has a density gradient surrounding it. That grad d penetrates all
> > embedded bodies. It sums with their own density gradients. Therefore a
> > net gradient arises INSIDE of each atom in every embedded object. This
> > net grad d is stronger on the side closest to the matter-unit's
> > nucleus, which in this case is the Sun.
> >   Because matter resists compression increasingly stronger as its
> > density increases, the resistance to an atom's own internally
> > circulating wave systems is stronger on the denser side.  That's WHY a
> > "gravitational FORCE" arises inside of every atom of any object
> > embedded in, thus part of the density gradient ("gravitational FIELD")
> > of the parent unit.
>
> > glird
>
> There is some truth in your ideas.  Polish the explanation and you
> will be aligned with my New Science.  — NoEinstein —

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Prev: full solution manual for: Orbital Mechanics: For Engineering Students by Howard Curtis 2nd edition (includes matlab scripts)
Next: Row of urinals puzzle