Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 31 Mar 2010 10:53 On Mar 31, 10:30 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > Sorry to be so slow responding. I have work and even other hobbies to > blame, but to be honest I also start to get frustrated and dizzy as I > feel as if I'm trying to nail jello in a 'merry go round'. > > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > On Mar 24, 7:59 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > >> mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> > On Mar 21, 7:33 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> > >> > wrote: > >> >> mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> >> > On Mar 20, 10:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mar 20, 9:58 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> > On Mar 20, 9:16 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > On Mar 20, 12:17 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > On Mar 19, 8:14 pm, Esa Riihonen > >> >> >> > > > <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> >> >> > > > > >> If you choose not understand what causes your battery > >> >> >> > > > > >> operated clock to tick slower then has time change? > > >> >> >> > > > > Nope. And I can even measure that this is not a case. I > >> >> >> > > > > could for example compare how often I have to shave my > >> >> >> > > > > beard and myriad other things to the clock progression. > > >> >> NOTE: > >> >> You have apparently choosed to split this discussion in to separate > >> >> threads. There might be a good reason for it, but I have two > >> >> comments: 1) When splitting the answer in to separate threads it is > >> >> a bit puzzling that you have apparently totally ignored the clearly > >> >> indicated main question stated in my previous message - actually you > >> >> have not answered any of my questions, why is that? 2) You have made > >> >> several follow-ups to your own messages - this is a bit confusing - > >> >> at what point should I start replying. Would it be too much for you > >> >> to give yourself a bit more time, so that you could put everything > >> >> in just one message. > > >> >> >> > > > Instead of shaving your beard you are in a space ship and > >> >> >> > > > you measure where you are relative to the distant stars. > > >> >> >> > > > You are in a space ship orbiting the Earth. The associated > >> >> >> > > > aether pressure on the atomic clock in the space ship is > >> >> >> > > > less than a comparable clock on the Earth and the atomic > >> >> >> > > > clock in the space ship ticks faster than the comparable > >> >> >> > > > clock on the Earth. > > >> >> >> > > > Your space ship is in a geo-synchronous orbit and orbits at > >> >> >> > > > the same rate at which the Earth spins. > > >> >> >> > > > You stay in the space ship for one complete orbit around > >> >> >> > > > the Sun. You are in as close to the exact same position > >> >> >> > > > with respect to the distant stars as you were when the > >> >> >> > > > experiment began. > > >> >> >> > > > From your view of the surrounding distant stars, the Earth > >> >> >> > > > and the Sun you determine 365 and 1/4 days have passed. > >> >> >> > > > This is in exact agreement with the atomic clock on the > >> >> >> > > > Earth. > > >> >> >> > > > You started the experiment on January 1st 2009. > > >> >> >> > > > You have two atomic clocks on the space ship. One was > >> >> >> > > > altered to remain in sync with the atomic clock on the > >> >> >> > > > Earth. The other atomic clock was not altered. The altered > >> >> >> > > > atomic clock says 365 and 1/4 days have passed since the > >> >> >> > > > beginning of the experiment. The unaltered atomic clock on > >> >> >> > > > the space ship says 370 days have passed since the > >> >> >> > > > beginning of the experiment. > > >> >> >> > > > What day is it and how much time has passed since the > >> >> >> > > > beginning of the experiment? > > >> >> >> > > > It is January 1st 2010 and one year has passed since the > >> >> >> > > > beginning of the experiment. The unaltered atomic clock was > >> >> >> > > > not modified to tick according to the aether pressure it > >> >> >> > > > exists in. > > >> >> >> > > > Do you insist it is January 6th 2010 because that is what > >> >> >> > > > the unaltered atomic clock states the time to be? If so, > >> >> >> > > > how do you account for the fact that you have not yet > >> >> >> > > > passed the point in orbit around the Sun where you were on > >> >> >> > > > January 1st 2009 and in fact you are as close to the exact > >> >> >> > > > same point in orbit relative to the Sun based on your > >> >> >> > > > measurements against the distant stars as you were on > >> >> >> > > > January 1st 2009 as you are going to be? How is it not > >> >> >> > > > January 1st 2010? > > >> >> >> > > One complete orbit of the Sun by the Earth is one year, > >> >> >> > > regardless of the rate at which an atomic clock ticks. > > >> >> >> > Why is the rate at which an atomic clock ticks more accurate at > >> >> >> > determining how much time has passed than the Earth's orbit > >> >> >> > around the Sun? It isn't. > > >> >> >> > If there is a second astronaut on the space ship who does not > >> >> >> > have access to any of the atomic clocks on the space ship and > >> >> >> > that astronaut determines one year has passed because of > >> >> >> > measurements based upon the stars then that astronaut is > >> >> >> > correct. > > >> >> >> You have a clock with a paddle for the second hand. You drop the > >> >> >> clock off the side of a boat. The further and further the clock > >> >> >> drops into the ocean the slower it 'ticks', as determined by a > >> >> >> clock on the boat. The clock 'ticks' slower because of the > >> >> >> increase in the hydrostatic pressure on the paddle. > > >> >> >> If you refuse to believe in the existence of water then does time > >> >> >> change? > > >> >> >> You have an atomic clock on the space station. You 'drop' the > >> >> >> clock off the 'side' of the space station. The further and > >> >> >> further the clock 'drops' towards the Earth the slower it > >> >> >> 'ticks', as determined by a clock on the space station. The clock > >> >> >> 'ticks' slower because of the increase in the aether pressure on > >> >> >> the clock. > > >> >> >> If you refuse to believe in the existence of aether then does > >> >> >> time change? > > >> >> > That same increase in aether pressure which is causing the rate at > >> >> > which the atomic clock ticks to slow, is also gravity. > > >> >> Cheesh - are you done yet? ... ok - here we go: > > >> >> According to my (GR) view (the time difference of 6 days is of > >> >> course too big for one year on GeoStat, but never mind) the > >> >> situation is actually very simple. If I decide to use the clocks on > >> >> Earth (or the altered atomic clock on board) my shag will be too > >> >> long every time I shave > > >> > You do not know this. There is no evidence of it. The rate at which > >> > your beard grows at zero Gs is probably not tied to the rate at which > >> > an atomic clock ticks. > > >> You are right - I don't _know_ that, we have not yet been able to > >> compare beard growth rates at different depths in gravity wells with > >> enough accuracy. But as I said this is the result predicted by GR. > > >> I asked you before - how do you know it _probably_ not tied to it? How > >> does your aether pressure model allow you to make that conclusion? > > > Because time is a concept. The most accurate clock for the astronaut on > > the space ship is the Earth's orbit of the Sun, not the rate at which an > > atomic clock ticks. > > Seems that you don't know what time is - 'time is a concept' is an empty > statement. It doesn't matter much though, as no one else 'knows' either. > But in order to give some credibility to a single statement about the > reality like 'the rate of beard growth is not tied to the rate of atomic > clock', you should have something more than just a jumbled set of > statements which amount at most to 'it is so because it is so'. > Just the opposite is required. There are two twins. One on a space ship and one on the Earth. They both eat a sandwich. Explain how the process the sandwich goes through while in each twins body is determined by the rate at which the associated atomic clock ticks. > GR on the other hand is a full blown (mathematical) theory that tells us > that the astronaut should use the on-board clocks to time any (local) > events on-orbit. For atomic clocks (and many other phenomena) it's > predictions have been fulfilled and there is no reason to think that this > is just a coincidence. Thus I'm very confident that it's predictions for > other relativistic effects will be confirmed if and when the amount of > the predicted effect will exceed the accuracy of the measurement. > > So for all practical purposes the definition 'time is what a good (local) > clock shows' is the only usable one. That is because it defines usable > numerical values that we can use with our equations - and get consistent > results from the mathematical operations. > > >> > You fail to understand the rate at which an atomic clock ticks has > >> > nothing to do with time. > > >> Totally agree - I certainly fail at it. I assumed we have dropped this > >> esoteric time concept that has nothing to do with clocks already - why > >> bring this _useless_ concept back here? When discussing physics we > >> should keep using 'time' as a concept that can be measured (by clocks).. > >> I questioned you below (you didn't answer of course) what is this > >> symbol 't' appearing in all these physical equations standing for? It > >> must be measurable somehow (this is physics after all) - how to measure > >> it? > > > 't' represents the rate at which an atomic clock ticks. Not time. 't' > > represents the rate at which an atomic clock 'ticks' based upon the > > aether pressure in which the clock exists. > > Now there is lots of physics involving 't' (time) usually expressed using > equations. GR tells us that (if expressed in covariant form) these same > equations should work (locally) no matter where we are in the universe or > how fast we are moving relative to e.g., Earth. One consequence of this > is that if we decide to use the t-values from the earth-clock (instead of > from the local on-board clock) the equations won't match the reality > around us anymore - and so this brakes GR. This is in principle OK - GR > might not describe the reality, but you have yourself stated that your > model doesn't break GR predictions. GR predicts the observed behavior of > the atomic clocks on orbit - you say it is only due to 'aether pressure', > GR predicts that egg boiling and growing of beard will behave similarly - > you say they won't. Both of these statements go against GR - your 'model' > most definitely breaks GR, no matter what you say. > Here is the best article I have found which show's Einstein to be incorrect in terms of the twin's paradox: 'On Einsteins resolution of the twin clock paradox' http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf Einstein was correct when he stated: "Space and time are not conditions in which we live; they are simply modes in which we think." http://lazyway.blogs.com/lazy_way/2005/09/einstein_quote_.html > And please describe how an atomic clock works and how does the aether > pressure affect the readings. > > >> >> and my > >> >> boiled eggs are hard but have turned greenish - plus if I synch my > >> >> LP- player rotation (33 rpm) with an Earth clock the pitch is too > >> >> low. > > >> > You do not know this. > > >> You are right - no accurate measurements yet to be sure, but the point > >> was that this is nevertheless the result that GR tells us. > > >> >> Same > >> >> with every _local_ phenomena involving time. > > >> >> If and when the 'year' is defined as one Earth revolution around the > >> >> Sun, then of course it is just that - time of one revolution. > >> >> However, how many seconds it will take is a different matter. Let me > >> >> explain, we usually speak of time in calendar/clock terms: years, > >> >> months, days, hours, minutes, seconds and parts of seconds. That is > >> >> a natural way when living on a surface of a revolving and turning > >> >> planet. > > >> >> In physics it is better to just think of seconds (with decimal > >> >> parts) and consider the calendar/clock times just labels for any > >> >> instance (measured in seconds). The labels conveniently tell whether > >> >> it is day or night, should I consider digging seeds in ground or > >> >> harvesting the crops and thus they should be kept in synch with the > >> >> physical world, so we use leap days to keep dates drifting in > >> >> relation to the Earths actual position and leap seconds to keep noon > >> >> close to the actual time Sun is above. Note that no days are > >> >> actually added nor seconds added (or removed) we just shift our > >> >> labeling system a bit by adding special labels (or not using one) > >> >> every now and then. > > >> >> The year (once around the Sun) as observed from orbit just takes > >> >> these 6*24*60*60 seconds longer - no problem. And I will continue to > >> >> use my unaltered atomic clock, thank you. The earth clock is of no > >> >> use for me because I don't want to relearn that boiling a hard egg > >> >> takes 9 minutes instead of 10 and proper LP revolution speed is 37 > >> >> rpm instead of 33. I will probably even keep labeling my (proper) > >> >> time events using the classical formula, because I'm used to 24 hour > >> >> days etc, and in that sense I will start new 'year' about 6 days > >> >> earlier than you will do on ground, but I will understand that my > >> >> labeling doesn't synch with the earth rotation anymore - so I will > >> >> not get confused. > > >> > You may not get confused, but you will be incorrect. What is > >> > considered a second should be modified as follows: > > >> >http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/second.html > > >> > At its 1997 meeting the CIPM affirmed that: > > >> > This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a > >> > temperature of 0 K at sea level. > > >> This is the current definition of the second. Clocks should be > >> calibrated against this definition - so what? > > > That is not the current definition of a second. Yes, clocks should be > > calibrated against the definition which includes 'at sea level'. > > 'That is not the current definition of a second' - what is it then? > > > This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a > > temperature of 0 K [AT SEA LEVEL]. > > I know where this leads: on-orbit the astronaut should use the on-ground > (sea level) clock :) However this is not the meaning of the standard - I > can assure you that the people behind the definition are too smart for > that, they have heard about GR. But I can see why you are confused: if it > is allowed for the second to be 'different length' at different > gravitational potentials why then mention the sea level at all? I'm not > actually sure and don't bother to find out. But what is certain is that > the definition of second does not overthrow GR, and there is no > indication that e.g., astronauts on orbit should use an earth clock for > timing their procedures and experiments. > I added 'at sea level'. The astronauts need to reset their atomic clock if they want it to 'tick' at the correct rate for a second. > >> >> Your clock with the paddle-hand. How does the increase of > >> >> hydrostatic pressure slow down the hand rotation? And in any case > >> >> what has this rotating handle to do with the operation of an atomic > >> >> clock? Does the atomic clock have some rotating paddle that > >> >> interacts with aether - if so where? I already asked you before to > >> >> clarify how does the aether pressure on the nucleus affect the > >> >> reading of an atomic clock - this can be considered as the same > >> >> question - please answer. > > >> > This is the definition of a second: > > >> >http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/second.html > > >> > "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation > >> > corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of > >> > the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." > > >> > The rate at which the caesium 133 atom transitions between the two > >> > hyperfine levels is dependent upon the aether pressure in which it > >> > exists. The greater the pressure associated with the aether, the > >> > longer it takes for the caesium atom to transition between the two > >> > hyperfine levels. > > >> This doesn't make much sense. You quite clearly don't know how an > >> atomic clock works. Otherwise you wouldn't have written 'the longer it > >> takes for the caesium atom to transition between the two hyperfine > >> levels' - this is just pathetic. > > >> General vague statements 'aether pressure affects the atomic clock > >> somehow' are just not enough - no matter how many time you repeat them.. > >> Please explain your model, by which mechanism the aether pressure does > >> affect the operation of atomic clocks - and with such detail that we > >> can actually calculate the quantitative results. Otherwise your > >> 'theory' is useless. > > > When the astronaut on the space ship calculates how much time is passes > > by using the distant stars and the Earth's orbit of the Sun the > > astronaut concludes one year has passed. The atomic clock states 360 > > days have passed. The atomic clock is incorrect. > > You have made also this statement already thank you, it's truth value > doesn't change no matter how often you repeat it. I asked what is the > mechanism and a way to get quantitative (that is numerical in this case) > predictions. > > And please describe how an atomic clock works and how does the aether > pressure affect the readings. > > >> And I'm still waiting you to explain how increasing hydrostatic > >> pressure would slow down the movement of the 'paddle hand' in water? > > >> >> And as an extra gift, I copy here my major question (with corollary) > >> >> from the previous message that you forgot to answer. I will add to > >> >> the question to make it a bit more concrete. > > >> >> Now that I have answered all your questions (once again) I assume > >> >> you will return the courtesy before we will proceed further. > > >> >> Here is my main question: > >> >> a) You have said that the GPS atomic clock time follow the GR > >> >> equations (somehow because of the aether pressure on nuclei) b) You > >> >> have said that biological/chemical processes (aging) won't follow > >> >> the GR equations (but they can't be used as a clock either, > >> >> something to do with the 'time being a concept' or something) > > >> >> Question: how did you come up with the insight expressed in > >> >> statement b? Addition: how do you know that this aether pressure > >> >> that affects atomic clock operations doesn't affect the chemical > >> >> reactions (aging, boiling of eggs) similarly? > > >> >> This of course breaks down GR theory > > >> > It does not break down GR theory. It is simply pointing out that the > >> > rate at which an atomic clock ticks is based upon the aether pressure > >> > in which it exists. > > >> This must be your most stupid statement thus far (quite an achievement > >> actually). Earlier you stated that e.g., record player (a device > >> combining electromagnetic and mechanical aspects of the universe) > >> rotation speed would not follow GR prediction, and now you say that > >> this doesn't break GR - too stupid to be even hilarious. > > No comment here? > It does not break GR as a mathematical theory. Aether Displacement breaks relativity. Everything is with respect to the aether. > >> > The aether pressure on and through the human body will also affect > >> > the human body but to think everything associated with the human body > >> > will simply slow down, for example the digestion of food, at a rate > >> > associated with the rate at which an atomic clock ticks is unfounded.. > > >> It is founded on the what GR predicts. GR is the other most successful > >> theory in physics thus far. Please note that among other facts to > >> support the theory we have flown several types of atomic clocks on > >> orbits (different orbits, different nuclei, different energy > >> transitions) and all have behaved according to the GR prediction. What > >> you are saying is that this is just a _coincidence_ and an effect due > >> to an _undefined_ interaction with aether pressure. > > > The clocks are traveling with respect to the aether. > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter > > and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state > > of displacement. > > You just wanted to write something/anything? Be my guest, but this > doesn't address the issue at hand here (I'm beginning to get accustomed > to this - actually I'm beginning to get fed up with this). Perhaps it > escaped you, but you didn't define the interaction. Your new buzzword > seems to be the 'state of the aether' (perhaps you are beginning > subconsciously to be aware about the problems pertaining to the earlier > love affair with the 'aether pressure'). In physics if you have 'state of > the aether' one would assume that you also have the equations describing > this state, so we could actually know what the heck you are talking about > and start checking whether this system is logically consistent at first > place and if it has anything to do with the measurable empirical reality > in the second. > Why don't you figure out how a particle moves through a frictionless superfluid by displacing the frictionless superfluid without applying pressure to the frictionless superfluid before you start to discuss 'aether pressure'. > >> I don't believe in that kind of > >> coincidences before you give me a very good reason to do so. No one > >> will take you seriously before you can show how to model your aether > >> and how to actually calculate the associated pressure effects. > > The above statement still holds. > > [snip - some old stuff] > > Cheers, > > Esa(R) > > -- > Space is what is needed to keep everything from being in one place, > time is what is needed to keep everything from happening at once, > - and for everything else, there's duct tape.
From: mpc755 on 31 Mar 2010 11:06 On Mar 31, 9:45 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > Sorry to be so slow responding. I have work and even other hobbies to > blame, but to be honest I also start to get frustrated and dizzy as I > feel as if I'm trying to nail jello in a 'merry go round'. > Before we continue, let's see if there is any reason to. 'Frictionless supersolid a step closer' http://www.physorg.com/news185201084.html "Superfluidity and superconductivity cause particles to move without friction. Koos Gubbels investigated under what conditions such particles keep moving endlessly without losing energy, like a swimmer who takes one mighty stroke and then keeps gliding forever along the swimming pool." I take it you understand the moving swimmer displaces the water, correct? How does the swimmer displace the water without applying pressure to the water? I take it you understand the water fills-in where the moving swimmer was, correct? How does the water fill-in where the swimmer was without applying pressure towards the swimmer? I take it you understand a moving particle displaces a frictionless superfluid, correct? How does the particle displace the frictionless superfluid without appying pressure to the frictionless superfluid? I take it you understand the frictionless superfluid fills-in where the moving particle was, correct? How does the frictionless superfluid fill-in where the moving particle was without apply pressure towards the particle? 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. Explain how this is possible without aether. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie "This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any moving particle or object had an associated wave." 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle." "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is located." de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of the wave. In AD, the external field is the aether. In a double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits the available slits. 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.
From: BURT on 31 Mar 2010 16:58 On Mar 23, 12:43 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 22, 7:24 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 7:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 22, 9:53 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 22, 6:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 22, 9:13 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 6:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 8:59 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 8:57 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 5:52 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 8:32 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 8:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 7:44 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 7:12 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 7:06 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 6:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > x x targets > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > O |) |) Planet, 2 sight lines and 2 trajectories. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ^ ^ 2 equal guns (joule, gram) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > elevations: sea level and 20,000 km > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Which parabolic trajectory is more > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like a straight line? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Which bullet spends more time flying? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Excluding air pressure, the trajectories will be the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You need a new avocation and for your own > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > safety may I suggest one that doesn't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > involve anything heavy, fast or more > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than 20 cm off the ground. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sue... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why don't you just explain what the point it is you are trying to make > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and how this has to do with the state of the aether as determined by > > > > > > > > > > > > > > its connections with the matter is the aether's state of displacement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have made the point better than I can. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your physical theory is no better than a spear thrower > > > > > > > > > > > > > and worse than a Roman artillery soldier would use. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chimpanzees occasionally throw objects so if you can > > > > > > > > > > > > > communicate with one it might explain your own > > > > > > > > > > > > > theory to you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sue... > > > > > > > > > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The > > > > > > > > > > > > C-60 molecule occupies a very small region of the wave. The C-60 > > > > > > > > > > > > molecule enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment > > > > > > > > > > > > and the associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the > > > > > > > > > > > > available slits. The aether 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Atomic clocks tick based upon the aether pressure in which they exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object > > > > > > > > > > > > is gravity. > > > > > > > > > > > > ================== > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aether Displacement is a unified theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest you call it the low-cal diet theory. > > > > > > > > > > > It users will have no meat on the table. :-)) > > > > > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_trajectoryhttp://en.wikipedia.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Sue... > > > > > > > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The > > > > > > > > > > C-60 molecule occupies a very small region of the wave. The C-60 > > > > > > > > > > molecule enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment > > > > > > > > > > and the associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the > > > > > > > > > > available slits. The aether 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. > > > > > > > > > > > Atomic clocks tick based upon the aether pressure in which they exist. > > > > > > > > > > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object > > > > > > > > > > is gravity. > > > > > > > > > > > Aether Displacement is a unified theory.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > There is fastest time corresponding to light's clock. Matter's clock > > > > > > > > > or one rate of time for its increasing flowing energy goes slower. > > > > > > > > > Your batteries don't count mpc. > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The > > > > > > > > C-60 molecule occupies a very small region of the wave. The C-60 > > > > > > > > molecule enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment > > > > > > > > and the associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the > > > > > > > > available slits. The aether 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. > > > > > > > > > Atomic clocks tick based upon the aether pressure in which they exist. > > > > > > > > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object > > > > > > > > is gravity. > > > > > > > > > Aether Displacement is a unified theory. > > > > > > > > The rate at which an atomic clock 'ticks' is based upon the aether > > > > > > > pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS > > > > > > > satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether > > > > > > > and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS > > > > > > > satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest > > > > > > > with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to > > > > > > > "result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated > > > > > > > with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS > > > > > > > satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth "causing the GPS > > > > > > > clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day". The aether pressure > > > > > > > associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with > > > > > > > respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the > > > > > > > aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS satellites > > > > > > > [to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground." > > > > > > > (quoted text fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).-Hidequote... > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > Space flow of gravity slows time. Energy increasing in flow through > > > > > > space reduces time just the same. > > > > > > There are two times. There are two rates in the universe one for > > > > > > gravity strength the other for speed. This is GR and SR. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object > > > > > is gravity.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Round space aether is the unified field of God and man's gravity. > > > > Energy flows through the gravity continuum. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > Gravity is the force of aether displaced by a massive object.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > What God is doing in physics is the first cause. God is creating space > > flow gravity. Aether helps deliver gravity from the center opf energy > > form to make it even across the entire form. Time forms are particle > > and light with equal times accross their fields originating from their > > center and programed by aether across them. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Space aether programs space flow gamma for time and gravity strength > from the matter wave center accross the entire energy form. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Space flow at center of quantum aether wave programm gravity strength across the wave delivered by q waves flow outward and inward. Falling from center the of aether wave energy particle form means equal push. Mitch Raemsch Mitch Raemsch
From: franklinhu on 5 Apr 2010 01:15 On Mar 14, 11:42 pm, MicroTech <henry.ko.nor...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Can someone in this forum please help me sort out a confusing issue? > > Many scientists (including Einstein) claim that gravity is not a > force, but the effect of mass on the "fabric of spacetime". Many other > scientists refer to gravity as one of the four fundamental > interactions (three, if one considers the unification of the weak and > electromagnetic interactions, the "electroweak" force). > > Adding to the confusion, some scientists use both concepts with no > apparent difficulty: > Stephen Hawking (in his "A Brief History Of Time") first says that > gravity is not a force, but "simply" the effect of mass on the > "spacetime fabric" (making it "curve"). However, later in the book, he > refers to gravity as a fundamental force, carried by the graviton. > > So what is gravity, "really"? Does anybody really know? Or do we just > know its effects? > > Is it an attractive force "mutually pulling" the Earth towards the Sun > (and vice versa), "causing" the Earth to "fall" towards the Sun? And > due to the "forward motion" of the Earth, exactly matching the > "gravitational pull", it stays in orbit (just like any other > satellite, man-made or not); OR > > Is it the mass of the Sun that "curves spacetime", so no force is > interacting with the Earth, it is just moving in a "straight line" > along a "curved spacetime" geodesic? > > At my current level of understanding, gravity should be one or the > other, and not both... > > If Einstein's concept of "curved spacetime" is "correct," where does > the (hypothetical?) "graviton" (and/or "gravitino") enter the picture? > > References to published papers (accessible online) would be much > appreciated! > > Henry Norman I would say that your confusion stems from the fact that current theories simply don't make any sense and are obviously self contraditory. Therefore, there is nothing you can reference that can ever make these issues clear. It is like saying, 1+1=3 and 1+1=2, how can that be true. In simple fact, it cannot be true and no explanation will make it true. My claim is that this stuff isn't difficult because it contains hard to understand concepts, it is hard to understand because it contains blatant nonsense as you have pointed out in your post. Therefore, in order to understand gravity, you must not try to understand current theory as it has gotten us absolutely nowhere in the past 100 years. That would be like trying to understand a flat Earth theory. If you don't believe me, then just ask any real scientist and the answer will still come back "we really don't understand gravity" if they are honest. For myself, I have attempted to come up with theories of gravity which do make intuitive sense and do not require you to believe in weird undefined concepts like spacetime. Rather, I believe, gravity is nothing more than an electrostatic effect. The same thing that makes your socks stick together in the dryer is making your feet stick to the ground. Now I know that sounds too terribly simple, but would you rather believe in "spacetime", "strings", "alternate dimensions", "gravitons", etc. etc? For more information on how gravity is nothing more than an electrostatic effect, see: http://franklinhu.com/whatisgravity.html So gravity is an electrostatic attractive force. Simple - no spacetime geodesics or anything. Even if you don't like my theory, what I said about current theory remains true - do not try to understand the un-understandable. Seek a new theory. fhugravity
From: mpc755 on 5 Apr 2010 01:40
On Apr 5, 1:15 am, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 14, 11:42 pm, MicroTech <henry.ko.nor...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Can someone in this forum please help me sort out a confusing issue? > > > Many scientists (including Einstein) claim that gravity is not a > > force, but the effect of mass on the "fabric of spacetime". Many other > > scientists refer to gravity as one of the four fundamental > > interactions (three, if one considers the unification of the weak and > > electromagnetic interactions, the "electroweak" force). > > > Adding to the confusion, some scientists use both concepts with no > > apparent difficulty: > > Stephen Hawking (in his "A Brief History Of Time") first says that > > gravity is not a force, but "simply" the effect of mass on the > > "spacetime fabric" (making it "curve"). However, later in the book, he > > refers to gravity as a fundamental force, carried by the graviton. > > > So what is gravity, "really"? Does anybody really know? Or do we just > > know its effects? > > > Is it an attractive force "mutually pulling" the Earth towards the Sun > > (and vice versa), "causing" the Earth to "fall" towards the Sun? And > > due to the "forward motion" of the Earth, exactly matching the > > "gravitational pull", it stays in orbit (just like any other > > satellite, man-made or not); OR > > > Is it the mass of the Sun that "curves spacetime", so no force is > > interacting with the Earth, it is just moving in a "straight line" > > along a "curved spacetime" geodesic? > > > At my current level of understanding, gravity should be one or the > > other, and not both... > > > If Einstein's concept of "curved spacetime" is "correct," where does > > the (hypothetical?) "graviton" (and/or "gravitino") enter the picture? > > > References to published papers (accessible online) would be much > > appreciated! > > > Henry Norman > > I would say that your confusion stems from the fact that current > theories simply don't make any sense and are obviously self > contraditory. Therefore, there is nothing you can reference that can > ever make these issues clear. It is like saying, 1+1=3 and 1+1=2, how > can that be true. In simple fact, it cannot be true and no explanation > will make it true. My claim is that this stuff isn't difficult because > it contains hard to understand concepts, it is hard to understand > because it contains blatant nonsense as you have pointed out in your > post. > > Therefore, in order to understand gravity, you must not try to > understand current theory as it has gotten us absolutely nowhere in > the past 100 years. That would be like trying to understand a flat > Earth theory. If you don't believe me, then just ask any real > scientist and the answer will still come back "we really don't > understand gravity" if they are honest. > > For myself, I have attempted to come up with theories of gravity which > do make intuitive sense and do not require you to believe in weird > undefined concepts like spacetime. Rather, I believe, gravity is > nothing more than an electrostatic effect. The same thing that makes > your socks stick together in the dryer is making your feet stick to > the ground. Now I know that sounds too terribly simple, but would you > rather believe in "spacetime", "strings", "alternate dimensions", > "gravitons", etc. etc? > > For more information on how gravity is nothing more than an > electrostatic effect, see: > > http://franklinhu.com/whatisgravity.html > > So gravity is an electrostatic attractive force. Simple - no spacetime > geodesics or anything. > > Even if you don't like my theory, what I said about current theory > remains true - do not try to understand the un-understandable. Seek a > new theory. > > fhugravity Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. |