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: Urion on 2 Feb 2010 19:39 Personally I don't believe black holes even exist. They sound too far- fetched and unrealistic to me. There's something new out there but I don't think it's black holes.
From: NoEinstein on 8 Feb 2010 16:03 On Jan 31, 1:10 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > Dear glird: Your link contains discussions of many of the same issues being debated today. When I set out to correct the errors and lack of logic in much of physics and cosmology, I knew that I couldn't use the reference materials of otherslest I become biased. My main tool in my New Science was simply my own reasoning ability. I was determined not to lock-in any notion about science until I could reconcile most, if not all, of the observations in physics. I accept the DATA, but don't blindly accept the interpretations of others as to what the data proves. Simply stated: Every physical observation in the Universe relates to the varying ether flow and density at any point. Ether is the ENERGY from which everything is made! NoEinstein > > 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: NoEinstein on 8 Feb 2010 16:04 On Feb 1, 7:06 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Give it a try! NE
From: NoEinstein on 8 Feb 2010 16:06 On Feb 1, 9:21 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > 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 You're getting warm! NE
From: spudnik on 8 Feb 2010 16:41
you're getting fuzzier than Nein Eins Tein; you're getting older! > > 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. > You're getting warm! thus: space-time is phase-space, period, and is almost always an obfuscation -- but Minkowski died <at about 45>, 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). --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com |