Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 16 Mar 2010 02:21 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 > a C-60 molecule to enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits > simultaneously without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a > change in momentum, that is not what is important. What is important > is the mathematics of QM are able to determine the type of > interference pattern the C-60 molecule creates. > > Never mind what QM requires of the C-60 molecule is physically > impossible in nature. No, that is not what is important. For in QM, we > make stuff up like 'wave function probabilities' are physical. No > matter the fact that a wave function probability is a mathematical > construct. That is not what is important. What is important is the > ability to remain in a state of delusional denial. > > Do you want to play the 'future determines the past' and other > nonsensical answers from the delusional denial QM club? And here we > go... > > Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule > is in the slits. If the detectors are left at the exits the C-60 > molecule is always detected exiting a single slit. If the detectors > are placed and then removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 > molecule is in the slits the C-60 molecule creates and interference > pattern. > > How is this possible? > > Only one of your delusional denial club members has even offered up an > answer and the answer by your club member was the future determines > the past. You read that right. The C-60 molecule will enter one or > multiple slits depending upon there being, or not being, detectors at > the exits to the slits when it gets there in the future. > > In AD, the C-60 molecule always enters a single slit and the > displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates in the aether enters and > exits multiple slits. Detectors at the exits to the slits causes > decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns the > wave into chop) and there is no interference. When the detectors are > removed prior to the C-60 molecule exiting the slit the displacement > wave exits the slits and creates interfere which alters the direction > the C-60 molecule travels. > > Your answer? I want to know some of your aether's measured properties and how were the measurements made. Cite publications and/or governing equations.
From: mpc755 on 16 Mar 2010 02:28 On Mar 16, 2:21 am, 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 > > a C-60 molecule to enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits > > simultaneously without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a > > change in momentum, that is not what is important. What is important > > is the mathematics of QM are able to determine the type of > > interference pattern the C-60 molecule creates. > > > Never mind what QM requires of the C-60 molecule is physically > > impossible in nature. No, that is not what is important. For in QM, we > > make stuff up like 'wave function probabilities' are physical. No > > matter the fact that a wave function probability is a mathematical > > construct. That is not what is important. What is important is the > > ability to remain in a state of delusional denial. > > > Do you want to play the 'future determines the past' and other > > nonsensical answers from the delusional denial QM club? And here we > > go... > > > Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule > > is in the slits. If the detectors are left at the exits the C-60 > > molecule is always detected exiting a single slit. If the detectors > > are placed and then removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 > > molecule is in the slits the C-60 molecule creates and interference > > pattern. > > > How is this possible? > > > Only one of your delusional denial club members has even offered up an > > answer and the answer by your club member was the future determines > > the past. You read that right. The C-60 molecule will enter one or > > multiple slits depending upon there being, or not being, detectors at > > the exits to the slits when it gets there in the future. > > > In AD, the C-60 molecule always enters a single slit and the > > displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates in the aether enters and > > exits multiple slits. Detectors at the exits to the slits causes > > decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns the > > wave into chop) and there is no interference. When the detectors are > > removed prior to the C-60 molecule exiting the slit the displacement > > wave exits the slits and creates interfere which alters the direction > > the C-60 molecule travels. > > > Your answer? > > I want to know some of your aether's measured properties and how > were the measurements made. Cite publications and/or governing > equations. Another member of the delusional denial club, sponsored by QM and brought to you by ignorance brought on by a refusal to understand aether is a material. 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf 'LOUIS DE BROGLIE The wave nature of the electron Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1929' http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie-lecture.pdf In AD, de Broglie's statement of a moving particle has an associated wave is stated as a moving particle has an associated aether wave and a moving particle of matter has an associated aether displacement wave.
From: G. L. Bradford on 16 Mar 2010 05:01 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:6f9fd30b-c480-4210-b7ae-4fc81b72d26e(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... On Mar 15, 2:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 15, 1:25 pm, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 10:08 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 15, 9:04 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 15, 6:43 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > Not a whole lot to add to what Inertial in particular said. > > > > > > In GR, gravity is a virtual force in a similar way to centrifugal > > > > > force in > > > > > Newton. In both cases its really an acceleration, and the force is > > > > > just the > > > > > product (literally) of this acceleration and the mass of the > > > > > object. > > > > > > Einstein in GR gave a geometric interpretation of what gravity is. > > > > > This is > > > > > very appealing, because it provides a mechanism for force at a > > > > > distance. > > > > > Wrong it provides no such physical mechanism. It merely assumes the > > > > existence of a physical entity caLLED the fabric of spacetime for > > > > the > > > > interacting object to follow. The problem with such assumption is: > > > > What is the fabric of spacetime physically? This question is > > > > relevant > > > > because SR/GR deny the existence of physical space. > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > What ? ".... SR/GR deny the existence of physical space......" > > > > What the devil are you saying man ????? > > > > The theory of relativity says that gravity IS deformation of space. > > > How can this same theory deny the existence of space ??? Better visit > > > your optometrist really, really soon. > > > Sigh...How can you deform space when space is defined by Einstein as > > "empty space".???? > > Being empty means it has no matter in it. Having no matter in it does > not mean that space cannot have physical properties. Physical > properties are not limited to matter. Bullshit. fields are stresses in a solid medium occupying space according to steven weinberg ==================== Define a Lagrange point, Ken. What it is. Why it is. Why it orbits. Why it could be launched from. Why, if one of the more stable ones, it can be orbited. GLB ====================
From: eric gisse on 16 Mar 2010 05:20 kenseto wrote: [...] >> > Sigh...How can you deform space when space is defined by Einstein as >> > "empty space".???? >> >> Being empty means it has no matter in it. Having no matter in it does >> not mean that space cannot have physical properties. Physical >> properties are not limited to matter. > > Bullshit. fields are stresses in a solid medium occupying space > according to steven weinberg Where does Weinberg say that, Ken?
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 16 Mar 2010 07:19
Koobee Wublee wrote on Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:08:24 -0700: > On Mar 15, 12:40 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> In other theories, such as Newtonian gravity, gravitation is modeled as >> a force. > > Interpreting GR as no force is just a cult in interpretation. One can > easily show mathematics that results in gravitational force under the > concept of GR. <shrug> No. gravity cannot be consistently interpreted as a force in GR. >> At present, the best model we have of gravity that is generally >> accepted in the physics community is General Relativity. But there are >> rather solid indications that it is incomplete, and must be replaced by >> a better theory; unfortunately, at present we don't know what that >> theory might look like, and seem to be depressingly far from >> understanding even how to approach it. > > GR is just wrong right from the very start. Newtonian gravity still > remains the only working, realistic model. <shrug> This is a plain nonsensical statement. GR is consistent and verified in a collection of experiments. Newtonian theory is also consistent and verified in another collection of experiments (astronomers use a lot Newtonian theory to study galactic motion for example). We can paraphrase here to Dirac: "We have at hand one theory [NG] for dealing with non-relativistic effects and a separate disjoint theory [GR] for dealing with certain relativistic effect". (...) >> This can be modeled either way. There are a number of measurements that >> imply GR is considerably more accurate than Newtonian gravity. But >> don't think this implies that your second description is "correct" just >> because GR models it that way -- other "gravitational force" models can >> obtain equally-accurate agreement with observations. > > GR predicts anything just under the sun. Another plain wrong statement. Its predictions are known and tested. (...) -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |