Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: NoEinstein on 11 Jan 2010 15:10 On Jan 7, 9:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Gamma rays are at the top of the energy spectrum. Matter can emit photons, such as infrared, but no mass is lost in the process. That is because photonsbasically, concentrations of ether, or IOTAsget replenished by the gravitational ether that is constantly replacing the lost ether. However, when matter emits a gamma ray (probably a proton), the mass gets lowered, and will not be replenished by the inflow of more ether. If gamma rays are... 'just' light, as you say, then there would be no lowering of the mass due to atomic decay. Talk, science, PD, or shut your puppet (to the status quo) mouth! NoEinstein > > On Jan 6, 8:14 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jan 1, 1:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 31 2009, 6:19 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 23, 9:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 22, 7:00 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear PD: NOW you are agreeing that gamma rays carry away the "mass" > > > > > > of the two particles. > > > > > > Please read what I said. There is no mass that is associable to each > > > > > photon. > > > > > ... Please point out where I said otherwise! NE > > > > Sure. On December 22, you said this: "Radioactive decay LOWERS the > > > atomic weight by > > > the release of three particles. Between them, the mass gets spooned > > > away from the mother mass. So, those three particles must have mass > > > themselves. Mine is proof by reasoning." > > > Where does my statement mention anything about... photons? > > Gamma rays are photons, NoEinstein. Please check your facts before you > mouth off. > > > Loose your > > smoke and mirrors, PD. You don't have the brains to be even a > > magician. NE - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 11 Jan 2010 15:14 On Jan 7, 9:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 6, 8:19 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jan 1, 1:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Folks: If PD has ever paraphrased any experiment or any other of his > > supposed proofs regarding science, I would like to hear about it. > > As I said, you are not entitled to that service for free. I'd be more > than happy to point to where you can look it up. > > > > > He > > avoids discussing real science like a plague. That's probably because > > PD has a terminal case of Einstein's disease. NoEinstein > > > > On Jan 1, 8:06 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 6 2009, 10:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 6, 2:37 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 4, 1:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Oct 30, 3:47 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Oct 27, 4:09 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: You have one standard, and one standard > > > > > > > > alone for what "true" science is, namely: Anything that has ever been > > > > > > > > printed in a college textbook is "...the truth, the whole truth, and > > > > > > > > nothing but the truth." > > > > > > > > No. What is verified by experiment is the truth. However, textbooks do > > > > > > > a pretty good job of summarizing what has been found that way to be > > > > > > > the truth. > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > it is funny as PD is talking as he was > > > > > > the priest of the Goddess of science: > > > > > > > experiments are the truth always ??? (:-) > > > > > > > PD forgot that an experiment means nothing > > > > > > unless it is INTERPRETATED !! > > > > > > That's incorrect, Porat. You've obviously not done a science > > > > > experiment. > > > > > > > here is an example > > > > > > > experiment tells us that it more difficult in order to add valicity > > > > > > No, that's not what experiment tells you. Various theories make > > > > > predictions about what will be observed numerically about the final > > > > > velocity of an object after a force has been applied. Measurement in > > > > > experiment simply tells you which of these models got the prediction > > > > > ------------------- > > > > you hand waving is good as a harmful deceptive ** lie** !!! > > > > as long you dont tell us exactly **which experiments** > > > > and how they are done!! > > > > and then we will be able to reexamine them !!! > > > > I've already told you where to look up the documentation about which > > > experiments have been done and how they are done. > > > You'd like to have that documentation summarized here. > > > You are not entitled to that service for free. > > > You are certainly capable of looking up that documentation yourself. > > > > > i examined in past many experiments > > > > and saw clearly the mistaken interpretation of parrots > > > > > TIA > > > > Y.Porat > > > > ------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well! Now PD is requiring that I (or others) must pay to hear him discuss actual science! Since he has never discussed science in the past, then, I would suppose that the amount of money PD could command for looking things up would be minus infinity dollars. Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 11 Jan 2010 15:15 On Jan 7, 11:36 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Jan 6, 6:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 5, 1:36 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > On Jan 1, 10:09 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 31 2009, 6:18 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 23, 9:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear PD the Parasite Dunce: You said: "The evidence against nonzero > > > > > mass for gamma rays is in the experimental literature." But you > > > > > haven't explained how radioactive decay can LOWER the atomic weight... > > > > > unless either or all of the gamma, beta, and alpha particles have > > > > > mass. Good reasoning will trump you references to errant science > > > > > every time! NoEinstein > > > > > If you're looking for an explanation, then let's first clear up a > > > > misconception. > > > > Mass is not a conserved quantity. There is no conservation of mass > > > > law. Therefore, if mass disappears, it does not have to be carried > > > > away by anything. > > > > This is a good example of mass converting to energy, with the result > > > > that there is less mass than before. > > > > Another example is ordinary carbon. > > > > If you add up the mass of 6 protons and 6 neutrons, you find you get a > > > > number that is different than the mass of a carbon-12 nucleus. Where > > > > did the extra mass go? It was converted to energy. There is now less > > > > mass than there was originally. > > > > Um uh-oh, this is another pop misconception. Mass and energhy do not > > > interconvert, and neither does E=mcc imply they do. However, > > > potential energhy becomes cinetic energhy, and the mass of the sýstem > > > stays--but mass then becomes within another set of bodies. > > > > -Aut > > Dear Autymn: Einstein was correct when he said that mass can be > > converted into energy and energy can be converted into mass. But he > > not- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - .... Not what? NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 11 Jan 2010 15:33 On Jan 8, 8:08 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 23 2009, 9:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 22, 6:42 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Dec 21, 4:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Radioactive decay LOWERS the atomic weight by > > > the release of three particles. > > > Three particles? Not in gamma decay. Perhaps you are confused. > > > > Between them, the mass gets spooned > > > away from the mother mass. > > > Not so. The mass of the products does not add up to the mass of the > > parent. Mass is not conserved. This is a *measured* fact. > > How do you know that the missing weight is due to "mass is not > conserved"? > Saying mass-energy is conserved prevents others, like PD, from sidestepping disproofs of SR. NE > > > > So, those three particles must have mass > > > themselves. Mine is proof by reasoning. > > Particles have weight. The dark matter that is also released does > not. > Thanks for agreeing that particles have weight! All discussions of... dark matter are part of a lame attempt to stop the supposed (sic) expansion of the Universe. All mass estimates for the Universe (or for galaxies) used Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. But Newton, nor anyone else before yours truly, never realized that very HOT bodies have more gravity per unit mass than cold bodies. That one correction will account for ALL of the supposed (sic) missing mass in the UNIVERSE! Never again will arguments over the Big Bang and... the Big Crunch be needed, because those never happened! Gravity functions only over distances not much greater than the galactic intervals. Cosmology needs to be scrapped in its present stupid state! NE > > > But your reasoning is counter to experimental *measurement*. > > Measurement is what's used in science to determine what the real facts > > are. When reasoning comes in conflict with measured facts, then it's > > the reasoning that is put in doubt, every single time. > > Experiments measure quantities. In physics, nobody know nor cares > what they are quantities OF. When reasoning says it is impossible for > waves to be conducted by nothing (called "empty space"), that remaisn > true regardless of > how much our measurements reveal. > Yes! NE > > > > Yours is "proof" (sic) by hard-headed lies. > > > Sorry, but not the case. Reality is determined by measurement. > > Measurements are not lies. > > Measurements yield quantities. The quantities are not lies. But > until we know WHAT is being quantified, we know nothing about reality > other than the quantities themselves. Scientists have been very good at measuring quantities, but very POOR at knowing just what those quantities imply. With proper REASONING, very few MEASUREMENTS are needed to understand the Universe! NoEinstein > > glird
From: NoEinstein on 11 Jan 2010 15:56
On Jan 9, 9:34 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 7:00 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > Photons and all matter are composed of ether units I > > call IOTAs. Whether a mass is at rest or not has little or no effect > > on its massonly on the KE of that mass should such impact another > > mass. Velocity does NOT increase the mass of any object! > > Although I agree with your last sentence, some questions remain open. > 1. Does an iota have any weight? > No, such are the tiniest energy units. > > 2. Is an iota a particle? > No. > > 3. Are iotas incompr4essible? > IOTAs can tangle like keys on a chain. There are probable a relatively small number of configurations of the tangles. Because IOTAs are POLAR, IOTAs can align with others to form long chains of magnetic flux which can encircle the Universe like a meniscus. But the chains can be broken by large, random concentration of photons. The Earth's magnetosphere must assume fairly fixed locations for the rings of IOTAs. Things like solar flares can break those chains, and disrupt out electrical power grids. IOTAs are incompressible except for brief distortions of the energy during the tangling processes. > > 4. If the answer to q 3 is No, then why do you need iotas at all? > I don't need IOTAs, personally. Reasoning demands that they exist in order to explain UVL (the universal velocity of light). For too long... 'c' has been used to imply that no matter can exceed 'c'. The velocity of all light emissions is UVL plus or minus 'v'. A light shined forward from a spaceship traveling at UVL would move ahead at velocity 2 UVL! An UVL is universal, because such represents the tangential velocity of the energy of all IOTAs, and is the reason that light emits at UVL. > > Why not let "aether" denote "the continuous compressible > non-particulate form of the same matter out of which particles > are made"? > Ether (and IOTAs) is the Mother Energy for constructing the entire Universe! NoEinstein > > glird |