Prev: Proof that consciousness is NOT in the brain
Next: When does Al's ignorance become stupidity? (was Re: Salt on Venus)
From: Me, ...again! on 7 Jun 2010 07:25

See below....

On Sun, 6 Jun 2010, Sue... wrote:

> On Jun 6, 10:37 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>>
>> No, only hedging my "position" to account for the two schools of thought.
>
> Why not look at a third school of thought?
> Molecular dynamics has more than 32 screws
> you can turn and the folks that know how to turn
> them make a lot more money than USNO staffers.
>
> Emergent gravity
> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25.html#x34-720006.3
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
>
> Sue...

I actually had a quick look. Wow. Third school of thought? I saw a lot
more theories there than three. I seem to have run across some of those
names, but not as many in one place as that entry.

Making more money than USNO? I can relate to that.

Emergent gravity? Is that supposed to mean its constantly
changing/growing? Or, is there some science-fiction mixed in there?

I'm affraid I'll have to concede defeat if I have to learn all that other
stuff. And, its bad enough to cope with dozens of books that question E/R
but to think I could spend time on it and think I'm understanding any of
it might be self-delusion.

Have you looked at any of that stuff?

How much of it do YOU understand?
From: Me, ...again! on 7 Jun 2010 07:36


On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote:

> __________________________________
>>> Yes, so? Are you claiming that the thousands of experiments that confirm
>>> SR all have flaws? How do you explain how particle accelerators that are
>>> built using SR work if SR is false?
>>
>> No, only hedging my "position" to account for the two schools of thought.
>>
>
> I am aware of only one "school of thought".

Well, "Sue"....whomever she is.... brought out just a while ago this
wikipedia entry about "emergent gravity". I can't tell if its a giant
April Fools joke, a science fiction story, or what...but I've heard of
some of those names before.

> I have heard zero - lets repeat that, zero - alternative theories to SR. What
> exist by the crank-case full are theories which claim to be different to SR,
> but are in fact mathematically identical in their predictions and so are the
> same theory dressed up in different verbiage.

They sure sound different to me, but then I'm not claiming to be an
expert.

> For you to demonstrate a second "school of thought", you have to produce an
> alternative theory which has more than one or two nutcases proposing it

Well, the two dozen books I listed means at least two dozen nutcases.

- a
> "school" as it were, and it has to be different to SR in that it makes
> testably different predictions, and it has to explain the huge body of
> experimental evidence.
>
> This does not exist.
>
> There is no "second school of thought" with respect to the predictions of
> Special Relativity, and there is no point on hedging yourself against SR
> being wrong.

Once upon a time, everyone thought the Earth was the center of the
universe and nutcases that disagreed were burned at the stake.

>
>
From: Sue... on 7 Jun 2010 09:16
On Jun 7, 7:25 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
> See below....
>
>
>
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010, Sue... wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 10:37 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> >> No, only hedging my "position" to account for the two schools of thought.
>
> > Why not look at a third school of thought?
> > Molecular dynamics has more than 32 screws
> > you can turn and the folks that know how to turn
> > them make a lot more money than USNO staffers.
>
> > Emergent gravity
> >
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25.html#x34-720006.3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
>
> > Sue...
>
> I actually had a quick look. Wow. Third school of thought? I saw a lot
> more theories there than three. I seem to have run across some of those
> names, but not as many in one place as that entry.

Which of the others are:

-Higgless
-Unified with EM
-Quantitatively similar to GR

>
> Making more money than USNO? I can relate to that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_dynamics#Examples_of_applications

>
> Emergent gravity? Is that supposed to mean its constantly
> changing/growing? Or, is there some science-fiction mixed in there?

I prefer the name Induction Gravity. There
is no reason to allude to "creation" theories
except, as already mentioned, it might improve
book sales. The term does not appear in
Wolfram's index. Anyway, BB needs a
gravity mechanism a lot more than
any gravity mechanism needs BB so I
don't fret over it.


>
> I'm affraid I'll have to concede defeat if I have to learn all that other
> stuff. And, its bad enough to cope with dozens of books that question E/R
> but to think I could spend time on it and think I'm understanding any of
> it might be self-delusion.

Suspend a pair of amber rods in your kitchen.
Even your squirrel can follow the first diagram to
charge them with his tail and demonstrate induced
dipole attraction.

The Origin of Gravity
Authors: C. P. Kouropoulos
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015

>
> Have you looked at any of that stuff?

I have been looking at it for about 10 years.

But W.Weber was probably the first.

>
> How much of it do YOU understand?

I understand it fills a huge void
so I have a huge understanding. :-))

<< Einstein published his theory of gravitation, or
general theory of relativity, in 1916. And so a new
paradigm, or set of beliefs, was established. It was
not until 1930 that Fritz London explained the weak,
attractive dipolar electric bonding force (known as
Van der Waals’ dispersion force or the “London force”)
that causes gas molecules to condense and form liquids
and solids. Like gravity, the London force is always
attractive and operates between electrically neutral
molecules.And that precise property has been the most
puzzling distinction between gravity and the powerful
electromagnetic forces, which may repel as well as
attract. >>
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=r4k29syp

Of course, if you have a link to LHC that
demonstrates a better mechanism, it may not
be so important. ;-)

Sue...





From: john on 7 Jun 2010 09:42
On Jun 7, 7:16 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 7:25 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > See below....
>
> > On Sun, 6 Jun 2010, Sue... wrote:
> > > On Jun 6, 10:37 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
>
> > > [...]
>
> > >> No, only hedging my "position" to account for the two schools of thought.
>
> > > Why not look at a third school of thought?
> > > Molecular dynamics has more than 32 screws
> > > you can turn and the folks that know how to turn
> > > them make a lot more money than USNO staffers.
>
> > > Emergent gravity
>
> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25....
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
>
>
>
> > > Sue...
>
> > I actually had a quick look. Wow. Third school of thought? I saw a lot
> > more theories there than three. I seem to have run across some of those
> > names, but not as many in one place as that entry.
>
> Which of the others are:
>
> -Higgless
> -Unified with EM
> -Quantitatively similar to GR
>
>
>
> > Making more money than USNO? I can relate to that.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_dynamics#Examples_of_applications
>
>
>
> > Emergent gravity? Is that supposed to mean its constantly
> > changing/growing? Or, is there some science-fiction mixed in there?
>
> I prefer the name Induction Gravity. There
> is no reason to allude to "creation" theories
> except, as already mentioned, it might improve
> book sales. The term does not appear in
> Wolfram's index.  Anyway, BB needs a
> gravity mechanism a lot more than
> any gravity mechanism needs BB so I
> don't fret over it.
>
>
>
> > I'm affraid I'll have to concede defeat if I have to learn all that other
> > stuff. And, its bad enough to cope with dozens of books that question E/R
> > but to think I could spend time on it and think I'm understanding any of
> > it might be self-delusion.
>
> Suspend a pair of amber rods in your kitchen.
> Even your squirrel can follow the first diagram to
> charge them with his tail and demonstrate induced
> dipole attraction.
>
> The Origin of Gravity
> Authors: C. P. Kouropouloshttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
>
>
>
> > Have you looked at any of that stuff?
>
> I have been looking at it for about 10 years.
>
> But W.Weber was probably the first.
>
>
>
> > How much of it do YOU understand?
>
> I understand it fills a huge void
> so I have a huge understanding. :-))
>
> << Einstein published his theory of gravitation, or
> general theory of relativity, in 1916. And so a new
> paradigm, or set of beliefs, was established. It was
> not until 1930 that Fritz London explained the weak,
> attractive dipolar electric bonding force (known as
> Van der Waals’ dispersion force or the “London force”)
> that causes gas molecules to condense and form liquids
> and solids. Like gravity, the London force is always
> attractive and operates between electrically neutral
> molecules.And that precise property has been the most
> puzzling distinction between gravity and the powerful
> electromagnetic forces, which may repel as well as
> attract. >>http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=r4k29syp
>
> Of course, if you have a link to LHC that
> demonstrates a better mechanism, it may not
> be so important.  ;-)
>
> Sue...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There is a fusion process going
on within the electron identical to that
going on within the sun.
The neutrinos produced by the sun
impact on galactic centers and provide
for a repulsive force for galaxies.
The identical but smaller emanations
from electrons impact on protons and
provide for a repulsive force between
atoms (and a weak shadowing
between neutral molecules).
And our gravity.

Call it the 'Galaxy Model Gravity Theory'

john
galaxy model for the atom
From: mpc755 on 7 Jun 2010 09:42
On Jun 7, 7:25 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
> See below....
>
>
>
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010, Sue... wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 10:37 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> >> No, only hedging my "position" to account for the two schools of thought.
>
> > Why not look at a third school of thought?
> > Molecular dynamics has more than 32 screws
> > you can turn and the folks that know how to turn
> > them make a lot more money than USNO staffers.
>
> > Emergent gravity
> >http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25....
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
>
> > Sue...
>
> I actually had a quick look. Wow. Third school of thought? I saw a lot
> more theories there than three. I seem to have run across some of those
> names, but not as many in one place as that entry.
>
> Making more money than USNO? I can relate to that.
>
> Emergent gravity? Is that supposed to mean its constantly
> changing/growing? Or, is there some science-fiction mixed in there?
>
> I'm affraid I'll have to concede defeat if I have to learn all that other
> stuff. And, its bad enough to cope with dozens of books that question E/R
> but to think I could spend time on it and think I'm understanding any of
> it might be self-delusion.
>
> Have you looked at any of that stuff?
>
> How much of it do YOU understand?

'Vacuum Quantum Fluctuations in Curved Space
and the Theory of Gravitation
Academician A. D. Sakharov'
http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~akempf/sakharov.pdf

"In Einstein’s theory of gravitation one postulates that the action of
spacetime depends on the curvature (R is the invariant of the Ricci
tensor):

S(R) = − 1/16πG (dx)√−gR.

The presence of the action leads to a “metrical elasticity” of space,
i.e., to generalized forces which oppose the curving of space. Here we
consider the hypothesis which identifies the action with the change in
the action of quantum fluctuations of the vacuum if space is curved.
Thus, we consider the metrical elasticity of space as a sort of level
displacement effect."

What Sakharov is referring to is Aether Displacement.

'Emergent Gravity' is Aether Displacement.

Aether is an elastic medium. The aether 'opposes' the curving of
space. The aether 'opposes' its displacement. This is the pressure
exerted by the displaced aether towards the matter.

The 'displacement effect' is the displacement of the aether by matter.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

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.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Prev: Proof that consciousness is NOT in the brain
Next: When does Al's ignorance become stupidity? (was Re: Salt on Venus)