Question about gravity
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 16 Mar 2010 15:39 On Mar 16, 2:29 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In article <c70a6d13-d455-4c1b-a89d-638c0e184597 > @g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > In article <5de7f693-2ded-4ba8-b3d0-ebb76db8285c@ > > > 19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>, thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 3:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:48 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 3/16/10 1:06 AM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 1:55 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> On 3/16/10 12:49 AM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mar 16, 1:31 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 3/15/10 2:13 AM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> In Aether Displacement, my theory, matter and aether are different > > > > > > > > > >>>>> states of the same material. > > > > > > > > > > >>>> If your Aether existed, one would be able to detect it > > > > > > > > > >>>> and measure measure its properties. > > > > > > > > > > >>> It is detectable. It is measurable. Every time a double slit > > > > > > > > > >>> experiment is performed the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single > > > > > > > > > >>> slit. It is the displacement wave in the aether the moving C-60 > > > > > > > > > >>> molecule makes in the aether which enters and exits the available > > > > > > > > > >>> slits and creates interference upon exit the slits. This alters the > > > > > > > > > >>> direction the C-60 molecule travels. > > > > > > > > > > >> What are some of its measured properties and how were the > > > > > > > > > >> measurements made. Cite publications and/or governing equations. > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, the old I wish to remain ignorant so anything that has already > > > > > > > > > > been calculated is correct no matter how nonsensical it is. The > > > > > > > > > > delusional denial defense. Even though it is physically impossible for... > > > > > > > > > > You haven't answered my question! > > > > > > > > > I did. Even if you think I didn't why are you afraid to answer mine? > > > > > > > > "I did. It's there somewhere. OK, even if it's not there, I did > > > > > > > anyway. So let's pretend I did, and now answer my question, or admit > > > > > > > that you're afraid to answer it." > > > > > > > > Geez, if you were any good at manipulation, then at least you'd be > > > > > > > fun, but as it is you're just being pathetic. > > > > > > > The definition of pathetic is your 'understanding' of nature. > > > > > > > In one post you say gravity is most likely due to quanta even though > > > > > > attempting to understand quanta as the reason for gravity hurts your > > > > > > conceptually deficient head at the same time you state non-material > > > > > > light waves travel through a void. > > > > > > > So, what is it? Is gravity due to quanta > > > > > > Most likely. That's what I said. > > > > > > > or is space a void? > > > > > > It is devoid of matter, though it is not devoid of physical > > > > > properties. That's what I said. > > > > > > Now, feel free to ask me another question about something I did not > > > > > say. > > > > > Oh, and 4+17=32 > > > > Does space consist of quanta or is space a void? > > > Answered above. > > Oh, and 4+17=32. > > Does light propagate through quanta or a void? I have no idea why you repeat questions that have been answered. It appears to be a personality defect. 4+17=32.
From: kenseto on 16 Mar 2010 15:41 On Mar 16, 2:53 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/16/10 12:20 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > On Mar 16, 10:48 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 3/16/10 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > > >>> Empty space by definition cannot have property. permittvity and > >>> permeability are properties of a unique medium occupying space. > > >>> Ken Seto > > >> Haven't you notice this property of space that it in expanding > >> at roughly 71 km/s/Mpc ? > > > Wormy it is not space that is expanding. It is the objects in the > > medium that are moving apart wrt each other. > > How can you tell? By observation as you listed above....roughly 71 km/s/mpc
From: mpc755 on 16 Mar 2010 15:42 In article <721ab03f-626c-4d39-a6b3-fdd74d5a4ed4 @r1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com says... > > On Mar 16, 2:29 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > In article <c70a6d13-d455-4c1b-a89d-638c0e184597 > > @g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > In article <5de7f693-2ded-4ba8-b3d0-ebb76db8285c@ > > > > 19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>, thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 3:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:48 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3/16/10 1:06 AM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 1:55 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> On 3/16/10 12:49 AM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mar 16, 1:31 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 3/15/10 2:13 AM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> In Aether Displacement, my theory, matter and aether are different > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> states of the same material. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> If your Aether existed, one would be able to detect it > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and measure measure its properties. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> It is detectable. It is measurable. Every time a double slit > > > > > > > > > > >>> experiment is performed the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single > > > > > > > > > > >>> slit. It is the displacement wave in the aether the moving C-60 > > > > > > > > > > >>> molecule makes in the aether which enters and exits the available > > > > > > > > > > >>> slits and creates interference upon exit the slits. This alters the > > > > > > > > > > >>> direction the C-60 molecule travels. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What are some of its measured properties and how were the > > > > > > > > > > >> measurements made. Cite publications and/or governing equations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, the old I wish to remain ignorant so anything that has already > > > > > > > > > > > been calculated is correct no matter how nonsensical it is. The > > > > > > > > > > > delusional denial defense. Even though it is physically impossible for... > > > > > > > > > > > > You haven't answered my question! > > > > > > > > > > > I did. Even if you think I didn't why are you afraid to answer mine? > > > > > > > > > > "I did. It's there somewhere. OK, even if it's not there, I did > > > > > > > > anyway. So let's pretend I did, and now answer my question, or admit > > > > > > > > that you're afraid to answer it." > > > > > > > > > > Geez, if you were any good at manipulation, then at least you'd be > > > > > > > > fun, but as it is you're just being pathetic. > > > > > > > > > The definition of pathetic is your 'understanding' of nature. > > > > > > > > > In one post you say gravity is most likely due to quanta even though > > > > > > > attempting to understand quanta as the reason for gravity hurts your > > > > > > > conceptually deficient head at the same time you state non-material > > > > > > > light waves travel through a void. > > > > > > > > > So, what is it? Is gravity due to quanta > > > > > > > > Most likely. That's what I said. > > > > > > > > > or is space a void? > > > > > > > > It is devoid of matter, though it is not devoid of physical > > > > > > properties. That's what I said. > > > > > > > > Now, feel free to ask me another question about something I did not > > > > > > say. > > > > > > > Oh, and 4+17=32 > > > > > > Does space consist of quanta or is space a void? > > > > > Answered above. > > > Oh, and 4+17=32. > > > > Does light propagate through quanta or a void? > > I have no idea why you repeat questions that have been answered. It > appears to be a personality defect. > > 4+17=32. You stated gravity is most likely due to quanta. I am asking you if light propagates through the quanta.
From: PD on 16 Mar 2010 15:43 On Mar 16, 2:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In article <y7mdnfvbceTsQQLWnZ2dnUVZ_hwAA...(a)mchsi.com>, swormley1 > @gmail.com says... > > > > > On 3/15/10 2:13 AM, mpc755 wrote: > > > In Aether Displacement, my theory, matter and aether are different > > > states of the same material. > > > Has this Aether ever been detected? Double slit experiments > > don't count as there are completely explained without the need > > for an aether. Quantum mechanics predicts the observations quite > > nicely. > > Of course QM does not explain what occurs physically in nature. If it > did you would be able to answer my thought experiment without absurd > nonsense as to the future determining the past. Oh, I see, so you not only want an explanation, but you are demanding an explanation you can believe. Sorry, but no soap. Science doesn't owe you an explanation you're willing to believe. What you believe is your choice. If you want to believe that it's absurd that there's a church in Rome, then no one owes you proof that there is in fact a church in Rome. If you demand that someone show you a map of Rome that shows that there are no churches there because you refuse to believe there are churches there, then you're going to be barking up the wrong tree. Scientists use experimental measurements to determine what they believe. They don't rely on their own heads to decide what to believe and not believe. You've chosen to rely on your own head. That's fine. You're a nutjob. > > This is where you are at: > 1. You can't answer my thought experiment. > 2. You insist QM explains what occurs in nature. > 3. go back to step 1. > > The delusional denial loop. > > A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). While the C-60 molecule is in the > slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits to the slits. When there are > detectors at the exits to the slits the C-60 molecule is always > detected exiting a single slit. If the detectors are placed and > removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the > slit(s) the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern. > > How is this possible with your 'understanding' of nature? > > Don't be shy. Go ahead and answer the question. > > I will take your next non-answer to be what it is. Admittance you can > not answer the question without absurd nonsense such as the future > determines the past. > > In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the > associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available > slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the > slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting > the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether > displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no > interference. > > When you answer my thought experiment you will provide evidence you are > not completely full of absurd nonsense.
From: mpc755 on 16 Mar 2010 15:44
In article <2281bc3a-ec19-42a3-9b1a-c4ff5cd1b276 @a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com says... > > On Mar 16, 2:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > In article <y7mdnfvbceTsQQLWnZ2dnUVZ_hwAA...(a)mchsi.com>, swormley1 > > @gmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > On 3/15/10 2:13 AM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > In Aether Displacement, my theory, matter and aether are different > > > > states of the same material. > > > > > Has this Aether ever been detected? Double slit experiments > > > don't count as there are completely explained without the need > > > for an aether. Quantum mechanics predicts the observations quite > > > nicely. > > > > Of course QM does not explain what occurs physically in nature. If it > > did you would be able to answer my thought experiment without absurd > > nonsense as to the future determining the past. > > Oh, I see, so you not only want an explanation, but you are demanding > an explanation you can believe. Sorry, but no soap. Science doesn't > owe you an explanation you're willing to believe. What you believe is > your choice. If you want to believe that it's absurd that there's a > church in Rome, then no one owes you proof that there is in fact a > church in Rome. If you demand that someone show you a map of Rome that > shows that there are no churches there because you refuse to believe > there are churches there, then you're going to be barking up the wrong > tree. > > Scientists use experimental measurements to determine what they > believe. They don't rely on their own heads to decide what to believe > and not believe. You've chosen to rely on your own head. That's fine. > You're a nutjob. > You stated gravity is most likely due to quanta. Does light propagate throught the quanta? |