Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 16 Mar 2010 14:48 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!
From: Sam Wormley on 16 Mar 2010 14:53 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?
From: mpc755 on 16 Mar 2010 14:55 On Mar 16, 2:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 16, 1:30 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 16, 1:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 16, 1:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Sure it does....no matter, no physical property. > > > > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but physics has said differently for the last couple > > > > > hundred years at least. > > > > > > You have it in your head that the only things real in the universe are > > > > > material things, and that real physical descriptions are always about > > > > > material and only material things, and that anything else that is > > > > > described must be some kind of illusion or mathematical trick. This is > > > > > not the case. Physical descriptions and in fact physical theories > > > > > involve the immaterial as well as the material. > > > > > > To a physicist, for example, an electric field is a very real thing -- > > > > > it can carry energy and momentum just as well as a material thing can > > > > > -- and it is completely immaterial. > > > > > It's magic! > > > > No, not at all. > > > > Magic is what audience members use to describe what a magician did > > > when they don't know how he did it. I'll tell you the same thing that > > > I told Seto: > > > ========================================= > > > Magicians fool audiences easily because the audience members see > > > something happening and they think there is only one or two ways this > > > could occur. Then the magician shows the audience that those one or > > > two ways are not what's going on here. Then the audience members think > > > it must be magic because they've run out of conceivable explanations > > > for what they saw, when the magician knows there is yet another way > > > this could occur. There is no magic. > > > > There is no magic in physics, either. It's just that sometimes the > > > explanation is different than the one or two things you can think of > > > for an explanation. > > > ========================================= > > > When you state energy and momentum are carried through a field which > > is completely immaterial you are choosing to believe in magic. > > I'm not choosing anything. This stuff comes from nature, not from me. > Fields are experimentally measurable. The energy that is contained in > the field is measurable. The momentum that is contained in the field > is measurable. How to measure them is documented in freshman physics > books. > > Now, it is true that I *do* choose to believe what my own eyes tell me > in measurements. I *do* choose to believe that if something is > measured in nature, then that's how nature is. > > You may *choose* to not believe measurements. You may *choose* to > believe what you want about nature, and to hell with measurements. > That's up to you. But then what you're doing doesn't have anything to > do with science. > > > > > You do > > not want to understand what is occurring in nature so you just make > > stuff up. > > > The aether is material. > > > > > > Matter can disappear completely, > > > > > And more magic! > > > > Again, not at all. There never has been any physical law that says > > > matter cannot be created or destroyed. Inventing such a law would be > > > pointless, as the universe obviously doesn't obey this law. > > > Of course the universe obeys the law where mass is neither created nor > > destroyed. > > Why? Just because you SAY so? Where are the measurements that prove > that matter cannot be created or destroyed? Why is it that you think > you can just make statements and insist that they are so just because > you SAY they are so? > > > > > Just because you choose to believe in the magic of the Big > > Bang does not make it true. The Big Bang is the Big Ongoing. The > > following image is of the jet stream the universe is, or the jet > > stream the local universe exists in: > > >http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html > > > > > > yielding energy, but there are physical properties that remain (and > > > > > some of them remain unchanged) through that disappearance. > > > > > > Light is not material, and yet it has wavelength, frequency, > > > > > intensity, energy density, momentum, angular momentum, and a slew of > > > > > other very physical properties. > > > > > Yes, and light waves propagate through a void! > > > > Yes, they do. Waves are phenomena that occur both with media and > > > without them. > > > Of course not. What you are suggesting is pure magic. You are > > suggesting a non-material light propagates through a void. > > Yes, indeed. This has been understood for hundreds of years, and it is > covered in freshman physics books. There is no such thing as magic. > There is only stuff that happens when you don't understand how it > happened. > > > > > I realize you will never understand this because you are conceptually > > deficient but one of your previous posts discussed gravity as not > > consisting of the absurd nonsense of graviton but of quanta. > > LOL. Do you know what "graviton" and "quanta" mean? > > > > > > > This quanta is the aether. > > > Try and rationalize your delusional denial of gravity consisting of > > quanta while non-material light propagates through a void. You can't. > > One of your concepts is complete nonsense, and its not the aether as > > quanta. It is a non-material light propagates through a void. > > > I doubt this will ever occur for you, but your head would not hurt if > > you were able to realize the concept of the aether as quanta. With > > this concept you get the pressure associated with the quanta displaced > > by matter is gravity. You get the pressure associated with the quanta > > determines the rate at which atomic clocks tick. You get the medium in > > which light waves propagate. > > > Your so close to understanding nature you don't even realize it but it > > is more important for you to not abandon your incorrect beliefs than > > it is to be correct. > > It has nothing to do with beliefs. Immaterial fields are *measurable*. > > > > > Your quanta even gets you the wave the moving C-60 molecule creates in > > a double slit experiment. No need for the future to determine the > > past. > > > It is time for you to decide to choose quanta or void. > > LOL. You don't even know what the words mean, I guess. > > You don't even realize there is a difference between quanta and void. Your state of delusional denial is worse than I thought.
From: PD on 16 Mar 2010 15:00 On Mar 16, 1:55 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 16, 2:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 16, 1:30 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 16, 2:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 16, 1:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 16, 1:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Sure it does....no matter, no physical property. > > > > > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but physics has said differently for the last couple > > > > > > hundred years at least. > > > > > > > You have it in your head that the only things real in the universe are > > > > > > material things, and that real physical descriptions are always about > > > > > > material and only material things, and that anything else that is > > > > > > described must be some kind of illusion or mathematical trick. This is > > > > > > not the case. Physical descriptions and in fact physical theories > > > > > > involve the immaterial as well as the material. > > > > > > > To a physicist, for example, an electric field is a very real thing -- > > > > > > it can carry energy and momentum just as well as a material thing can > > > > > > -- and it is completely immaterial. > > > > > > It's magic! > > > > > No, not at all. > > > > > Magic is what audience members use to describe what a magician did > > > > when they don't know how he did it. I'll tell you the same thing that > > > > I told Seto: > > > > ========================================= > > > > Magicians fool audiences easily because the audience members see > > > > something happening and they think there is only one or two ways this > > > > could occur. Then the magician shows the audience that those one or > > > > two ways are not what's going on here. Then the audience members think > > > > it must be magic because they've run out of conceivable explanations > > > > for what they saw, when the magician knows there is yet another way > > > > this could occur. There is no magic. > > > > > There is no magic in physics, either. It's just that sometimes the > > > > explanation is different than the one or two things you can think of > > > > for an explanation. > > > > ========================================= > > > > When you state energy and momentum are carried through a field which > > > is completely immaterial you are choosing to believe in magic. > > > I'm not choosing anything. This stuff comes from nature, not from me. > > Fields are experimentally measurable. The energy that is contained in > > the field is measurable. The momentum that is contained in the field > > is measurable. How to measure them is documented in freshman physics > > books. > > > Now, it is true that I *do* choose to believe what my own eyes tell me > > in measurements. I *do* choose to believe that if something is > > measured in nature, then that's how nature is. > > > You may *choose* to not believe measurements. You may *choose* to > > believe what you want about nature, and to hell with measurements. > > That's up to you. But then what you're doing doesn't have anything to > > do with science. > > > > You do > > > not want to understand what is occurring in nature so you just make > > > stuff up. > > > > The aether is material. > > > > > > > Matter can disappear completely, > > > > > > And more magic! > > > > > Again, not at all. There never has been any physical law that says > > > > matter cannot be created or destroyed. Inventing such a law would be > > > > pointless, as the universe obviously doesn't obey this law. > > > > Of course the universe obeys the law where mass is neither created nor > > > destroyed. > > > Why? Just because you SAY so? Where are the measurements that prove > > that matter cannot be created or destroyed? Why is it that you think > > you can just make statements and insist that they are so just because > > you SAY they are so? > > > > Just because you choose to believe in the magic of the Big > > > Bang does not make it true. The Big Bang is the Big Ongoing. The > > > following image is of the jet stream the universe is, or the jet > > > stream the local universe exists in: > > > >http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html > > > > > > > yielding energy, but there are physical properties that remain (and > > > > > > some of them remain unchanged) through that disappearance. > > > > > > > Light is not material, and yet it has wavelength, frequency, > > > > > > intensity, energy density, momentum, angular momentum, and a slew of > > > > > > other very physical properties. > > > > > > Yes, and light waves propagate through a void! > > > > > Yes, they do. Waves are phenomena that occur both with media and > > > > without them. > > > > Of course not. What you are suggesting is pure magic. You are > > > suggesting a non-material light propagates through a void. > > > Yes, indeed. This has been understood for hundreds of years, and it is > > covered in freshman physics books. There is no such thing as magic. > > There is only stuff that happens when you don't understand how it > > happened. > > > > I realize you will never understand this because you are conceptually > > > deficient but one of your previous posts discussed gravity as not > > > consisting of the absurd nonsense of graviton but of quanta. > > > LOL. Do you know what "graviton" and "quanta" mean? > > > > This quanta is the aether. > > > > Try and rationalize your delusional denial of gravity consisting of > > > quanta while non-material light propagates through a void. You can't. > > > One of your concepts is complete nonsense, and its not the aether as > > > quanta. It is a non-material light propagates through a void. > > > > I doubt this will ever occur for you, but your head would not hurt if > > > you were able to realize the concept of the aether as quanta. With > > > this concept you get the pressure associated with the quanta displaced > > > by matter is gravity. You get the pressure associated with the quanta > > > determines the rate at which atomic clocks tick. You get the medium in > > > which light waves propagate. > > > > Your so close to understanding nature you don't even realize it but it > > > is more important for you to not abandon your incorrect beliefs than > > > it is to be correct. > > > It has nothing to do with beliefs. Immaterial fields are *measurable*. > > > > Your quanta even gets you the wave the moving C-60 molecule creates in > > > a double slit experiment. No need for the future to determine the > > > past. > > > > It is time for you to decide to choose quanta or void. > > > LOL. You don't even know what the words mean, I guess. > > You don't even realize there is a difference between quanta and void. > Your state of delusional denial is worse than I thought. You mean the delusional denial about being able to measure fields and the energy and momentum carried by them? You mean the delusional denial of the stuff that is in high school physics books? You mean the delusional denial about how much of an idiot you come across as? Howzat workin' fer ya? PD
From: PD on 16 Mar 2010 15:00
On Mar 16, 1:48 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! You noticed that, too, eh? |