There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Two times happening together
Next: NOW ????????????
From: spudnik on 10 Mar 2010 00:05 why don't you just look it up, the practice of commercial pilots? > GET lost! NE - thus: science is about refining a hypothesis, which doesn't have to be one's own. most of "global" warming is, strictly, computerized simulacra & very selective reporting: the "hole" in the ozone is really, "the sky is glowing!" > Science is not about showing that somebody was wrong; it's about showing > what is right. Do your own work, using your own data, and derive an > analysis of your own. Then publish your result. THAT is science. --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus! http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/sample.html --Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman, ICC's 3rd British invasion of Sudan! http://laroucehpub.com
From: bert on 10 Mar 2010 08:33 On Mar 10, 12:05 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > why don't you just look it up, > the practice of commercial pilots? > > > GET lost! NE - > > thus: > science is about refining a hypothesis, > which doesn't have to be one's own. most of "global" warming is, > strictly, computerized simulacra & very selective reporting: > the "hole" in the ozone is really, "the sky is glowing!" > > > Science is not about showing that somebody was wrong; it's about showing > > what is right. Do your own work, using your own data, and derive an > > analysis of your own. Then publish your result. THAT is science. > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com > > --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/sample.html > > --Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman, ICC's 3rd British invasion of Sudan!http://laroucehpub.com To Ya All Gravity as a push force has been kicked arounjd for 250years It creates more problems than it solves.. TreBert
From: mpc755 on 10 Mar 2010 09:53 On Mar 10, 8:33 am, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > On Mar 10, 12:05 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > why don't you just look it up, > > the practice of commercial pilots? > > > > GET lost! NE - > > > thus: > > science is about refining a hypothesis, > > which doesn't have to be one's own. most of "global" warming is, > > strictly, computerized simulacra & very selective reporting: > > the "hole" in the ozone is really, "the sky is glowing!" > > > > Science is not about showing that somebody was wrong; it's about showing > > > what is right. Do your own work, using your own data, and derive an > > > analysis of your own. Then publish your result. THAT is science. > > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com > > > --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/sample.html > > > --Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman, ICC's 3rd British invasion of Sudan!http://laroucehpub.com > > To Ya All Gravity as a push force has been kicked arounjd for > 250years It creates more problems than it solves.. TreBert AFAIK, Newton rejected the aether as the reason for gravity because he felt it would restrict the motion of the planets. Newton was unable to comprehend the notion of frictionless supersolids and frictionless superfluids. Newton was unable comprehend the notion of bodies interaction with the aether as frictionless. Newton did not realize it is the pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects which is gravity.
From: spudnik on 10 Mar 2010 17:29 well, the speed of sound is not any kind of limit, other than for waves of sound. but, what can your aetheric wanderings say about the speed of light, or any other phenomenon? (yeah, I see that you think that you have created a theory of gravity; yeeha .-) > Spudnik: Compressed air released from a cannon can easily exceed the > speed of sound. But tell me: What does sound have to do with my > present post on ether flow and gravity? Please take your... thus: in his little essay, Fitz confuzed "bending of red" (spherical abberation?) with the "doppler" redshift (if it is due to velocity-away-from-us, or to *acceleration* away from us -- cancel the programme du space ?!?) thus quoth: I came upon the Alpher, Bethe, Gamow piece in the course of pursuing the trail of the nuclear hypothesis developed by my dear friend and former collaborator, University of Chicago physical chemist and physicist Dr. Robert J. Moon. Moon was the brilliant student of that same Harkins who, for several decades, beginning about the time of World War I, took the point against the reductionist school of atomic and nuclear physics led by Rutherford and Bohr. We shall return to that healthy tradition shortly. We first briefly review the story of the overpriced letter. caption: Harkins noted that three elementsOxygen (O), Silicon (Si), and Iron (Fe)make up more than 80 percent of the atomic composition of meteorites. Ten elements of even number make up 97.59 perent of the meteorites. The extraordinary abundance of just a few of the 92 elements must be a clue to the stability of their nuclear structure. The data are given for 350 stone and 10 iron meteorites. Source: Harkins The Building of Atoms and the New Periodic System, Science, Dec. 26, 1919, p. 581 In early 1948, George Gamow, the well-known physicist and writer then at George Washington University, and R.A. Alpher launched their attack on Harkins, et al., in the form of a new theory of the origin of the chemical elements. Gamow, ever the merry prankster, asked Hans Bethe to join in endorsing the effort, which was published as a letter to The Physical Review in April 1948.1 Bethe (who as recently as 1990, told 21st Century Associate Editor Charles B. Stevens that the only thing worse than cold fusion is Harkins) was glad to join in, giving the papers authorship its alphabeticality. We shall thus, henceforth, refer to it as ABC Humbug. http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/fall%202003/Humbuggery.html > >>http://www.amperefitz.com/einsteins.blunder.htm > --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ > BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/ca...- Hide quoted text - thus: no; n=4 is a very, very special case, that required only "infinite descent," and he did not follow that, one of hsi very few explicit proofs, with a proviso about the general case. anyway, the "theorem" seems to have been one of his earliest insights into numbertheory; might it not? > There is good circumstantial evidence that he did not; specifically, > the fact that he produced a proof specific for n=4 at a later date but > never mentioned the more general conjecture. thus: don't top-post, you God-am trollamatic! > yep, JSH is pure Troll.- Hide quoted text - --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus! http://21stcenturysciencetech.com --Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman and ICC's 3rd British invasion of Sudan! http://laroucehpub.com
From: spudnik on 10 Mar 2010 17:37
in other words, frictionless supersolids are like the "currents in the solid mantle," and frictionless superfluids are like "aether" -- no thing. there just is no vacuum, dood, as we know by Pascal's 1654 experiment -- PX? what sort of verifiable experiment do *you* have, for your so-called theory? > AFAIK, Newton rejected the aether as the reason for gravity because he > felt it would restrict the motion of the planets. Newton was unable to > comprehend the notion of frictionless supersolids and frictionless > superfluids. Newton was unable comprehend the notion of bodies > interaction with the aether as frictionless. Newton did not realize it > is the pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive > objects which is gravity. thus: well, the speed of sound is not any kind of limit, other than for waves of sound. but, what can your aetheric wanderings say about the speed of light, or any other phenomenon? (yeah, I see that you think that you have created a theory of gravity; yeeha .-) thus: in his little essay, Fitz confuzed "bending of red" (wavelength-dependent refraction) with the "doppler" redshift (if it is due to velocity-away-from-us, or to *acceleration* away from us -- cancel the programme du space ?!?) thus quoth: I came upon the Alpher, Bethe, Gamow piece in the course of pursuing the trail of the nuclear hypothesis developed by my dear friend and former collaborator, University of Chicago physical chemist and physicist Dr. Robert J. Moon. Moon was the brilliant student of that same Harkins who, for several decades, beginning about the time of World War I, took the point against the reductionist school of atomic and nuclear physics led by Rutherford and Bohr. We shall return to that healthy tradition shortly. We first briefly review the story of the overpriced letter. caption: Harkins noted that three elementsOxygen (O), Silicon (Si), and Iron (Fe)make up more than 80 percent of the atomic composition of meteorites. Ten elements of even number make up 97.59 perent of the meteorites. The extraordinary abundance of just a few of the 92 elements must be a clue to the stability of their nuclear structure. The data are given for 350 stone and 10 iron meteorites. Source: Harkins The Building of Atoms and the New Periodic System, Science, Dec. 26, 1919, p. 581 In early 1948, George Gamow, the well-known physicist and writer then at George Washington University, and R.A. Alpher launched their attack on Harkins, et al., in the form of a new theory of the origin of the chemical elements. Gamow, ever the merry prankster, asked Hans Bethe to join in endorsing the effort, which was published as a letter to The Physical Review in April 1948.1 Bethe (who as recently as 1990, told 21st Century Associate Editor Charles B. Stevens that the only thing worse than cold fusion is Harkins) was glad to join in, giving the papers authorship its alphabeticality. We shall thus, henceforth, refer to it as ABC Humbug. http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/fall%202003/Humbuggery.html > >>http://www.amperefitz.com/einsteins.blunder.htm > --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ > BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/ca...- Hide quoted text - thus: no; n=4 is a very, very special case, that required only "infinite descent," and he did not follow that, one of hsi very few explicit proofs, with a proviso about the general case. anyway, the "theorem" seems to have been one of his earliest insights into numbertheory; might it not? > There is good circumstantial evidence that he did not; specifically, > the fact that he produced a proof specific for n=4 at a later date but > never mentioned the more general conjecture. thus: don't top-post, you God-am trollamatic! > yep, JSH is pure Troll.- Hide quoted text - --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus! http://21stcenturysciencetech.com --Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman and ICC's 3rd British invasion of Sudan! http://laroucehpub.com |