Gravity and black holes
in [Math]
|
Prev: full solution manual for: Orbital Mechanics: For Engineering Students by Howard Curtis 2nd edition (includes matlab scripts)
Next: Row of urinals puzzle
From: glird on 31 Jan 2010 13:10 On Jan 30, 4:46 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > There is some truth in your ideas. Polish the > explanation and you will be aligned with my New Science. My ideas were formulated circa 1953 and first published in 1965. I've been polishing them up ever since. ;-) Incidentally, you can download a free copy of that book, "The Nature of Matter and Energy", from http://www.spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/ If you do, concentrate on Chapter 43, which -- together with the formula on pg 152 -- preempted your New Science. Regards, glird
From: spudnik on 31 Jan 2010 21:59 may we call it, the hypostential ur-stuff?... so, if you are going to create a theory, what is an experiment that would show any thing, other than ordinary matter & antimatter would necessitate? > Mass NEVER displaces ether!! Ether flow through mass is required for > the mass to exist! NoEinstein thus: Brun's constant is, the sum of the reciprocals of the twin primes; is it transcendental? --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com
From: xxein on 1 Feb 2010 19:06 On Jan 30, 4:41 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 waynot 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. > > Ive shot Einsteins notions about relativity all to HELLwhere 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 - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - xxein: So you agree that this is good enough to start a new understanding of the actual physic.
From: Androcles on 1 Feb 2010 19:45 "xxein" <xxein(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:bc2c59f8-8111-443f-ac03-c03a87c8604d(a)e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... On Jan 30, 4:41 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 �- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - xxein: So you agree that this is good enough to start a new understanding of the actual physic. =========================================== I'll give you a head start. It's an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts. Now reply with why your version simply has to be physically true and all others are false. When you get done, be prepared to be made foolish. =================================================
From: john on 1 Feb 2010 21:21
On Jan 30, 3:41 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > Mass NEVER displaces ether!! Ether flow through mass is required for > the mass to exist! NoEinstein - Rephrase? Energy flow through the aether falls into discrete 3D standing waves which because of their explicit frequencies are nourished by the aether's frequency.A collection of these standing waves, or atoms, makes up a mass. Each standing wave is simply a pattern of energy movement through the aether at that point. If it comes over here, it will be that same pattern using the aether over here. If there is a flow of the aether it moves into and out of the mass itself with no effect on the mass. The mass *is* the aether wherever it is. They are not separate things. john |