There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Two times happening together
Next: NOW ????????????
From: spudnik on 19 Mar 2010 16:52 all three of you bring to mind two particles, associated with the "standard model" of transmitting either a) elecctromagnetism or b) the omplied force of gravity. so, what if they are considered dually, to be waves; do they transverally oscillate through what medium? if you're going to rely on the standard model of saying that, somehow, these waves are their own media -- if there were stationary particles, called photons, they could transmit some thing, like H2Os -- well ... you've already got your package shrink-wrapped! <clip clippings for supermarket> > > > Obviously. We are discussing light and gravity. That doesn't mean the > > > quanta are different. For example, light quanta propagates at 'c' > > > while gravity quanta state is determined by its connections with the > > > matter and the state of the neighboring quanta. > > If a photon is a quantum of aether then space is filled with photons > > in different states. > > A photon propagating at 'c' with respect to the neighboring photons > > (quanta) is light. > The 'angular momentum' associated with quanta is determined by its > connections with the matter.- Hide quoted text - thus: Young proved, a humdred years after Newton espoused his "theory" of corpuscles, that light is simply waves (in the air, if you will, viz permeability & permitivity); among his proofs was the "two pin-hole experiment" -- 2PHX? -- which gave a loveley moire' pattern on the photographic (silver oxide?) emulsion. (his source of light was another pinhole in the far wall, admitting sunlight, quite coherently !-) --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus! http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/
From: BURT on 19 Mar 2010 16:57 On Mar 19, 1:52 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > all three of you bring to mind two particles, > associated with the "standard model" > of transmitting either a) > elecctromagnetism or b) > the omplied force of gravity. so, > what if they are considered dually, > to be waves; do they transverally oscillate > through what medium? > > if you're going to rely on the standard model > of saying that, somehow, these waves are their own media > -- if there were stationary particles, called photons, > they could transmit some thing, like H2Os -- > well ... you've already got your package shrink-wrapped! > > <clip clippings for supermarket> > > > > > Obviously. We are discussing light and gravity. That doesn't mean the > > > > quanta are different. For example, light quanta propagates at 'c' > > > > while gravity quanta state is determined by its connections with the > > > > matter and the state of the neighboring quanta. > > > If a photon is a quantum of aether then space is filled with photons > > > in different states. > > > A photon propagating at 'c' with respect to the neighboring photons > > > (quanta) is light. > > The 'angular momentum' associated with quanta is determined by its > > connections with the matter.- Hide quoted text - > > thus: > Young proved, a humdred years after Newton espoused > his "theory" of corpuscles, that light is simply waves > (in the air, if you will, viz permeability & permitivity); > among his proofs was the "two pin-hole experiment" -- > 2PHX? -- which gave a loveley moire' pattern > on the photographic (silver oxide?) emulsion. (his source > of light was another pinhole in the far wall, > admitting sunlight, quite coherently !-) > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com > > --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/ Gravity quanta get in the way. Mitch Raemsch
From: NoEinstein on 19 Mar 2010 17:00 On Mar 17, 4:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: My "experimental evidence" for ether flow through airliners is the physical feeling of walking up hill going to the 'little room' behind the first class seats; and the sensation of walking down hill going back to the seat. The captain has already announced that the plane will be cruising (level) at, say, 30,000 feet. In order for there to be 'time dilation' that affects clocks, there needs to be a total pressure on the innards of the clock (atomic, electrical, or mechanical) that exceeds the pressure on the same clock on Earth. The greater the velocity, the greater the time dilation. And the latter has nothing to do with Einstein's moronic notions about space-time. I've adequately explained that quantifying the forces caused by flowing etherunder most or all conditionswill be the research areas for myself and others during the next few decades. If you demand that I already have completed that work, I'm sorry to disappoint you. You have yet to make a single contribution to advancing the causes of TRUE science. If you ever take a position on any issue of science, why don't you make a "+new post" and entertain the readers with your stupidity! NoEinstein > > On Mar 17, 3:52 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Mar 17, 10:15 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 16, 5:51 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 9, 7:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 9, 4:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 1:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Wind resistance is proportional to the > > > > > > frontal area of the hair. Ether flow is independent of the frontal > > > > > > area and is in proportion to the average density of the hair. The > > > > > > ventilation system inside planes causes more hair motion than the > > > > > > flowing ether. > > > > > > Really? The plane is traveling at 550 mph through the aether, so your > > > > > hair is traveling at 550 mph relative to the aether. The ventilation > > > > > system pumps air at 2 mph relative to the aether. And the hair doesn't > > > > > move? > > > > > > > Budding scientists who read this should perform a > > > > > > hanging plumb bob test with the plane, in level flight, and at a > > > > > > steady cruising speed. There will be a leaning of the plumb bob > > > > > > toward the back of the plane. > > > > > > Are you sure? I think you'll be surprised if you actually do this.. > > > > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 2:27 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 5, 10:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 5, 4:27 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 3, 11:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth..net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 26, 8:31 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 26, 12:15 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matter has ether flowing within it. Ether is the mother > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of creation, not matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no ether other than matter itself. In harmony with my > > > > > > > > > > > > > belief that important words should be defiend the first time they are > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in written form, I defined ether as being the continuity aspect > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a material field, whether or not particles are part of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because matter cannot be created or destroyed, it always existed and > > > > > > > > > > > > > so did the five other basic items of which everything in the universe > > > > > > > > > > > > > is composed. As to 'creation", I long ago realized that Evolution is > > > > > > > > > > > > > God's method of creating what now exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glird > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear glird: Every time you ride on a jet airliner you get pushed back > > > > > > > > > > > > in your seat by the ether that is flowing through the plane, front to > > > > > > > > > > > > back. > > > > > > > > > > > > Really? Then why do people sleep on airplanes, without their hair > > > > > > > > > > > streaming backwards as though they were in a breeze? > > > > > > > > > > > > > That same flowing ether will slow down all mechanical, atomic, > > > > > > > > > > > > and biological processes. Instead of making up your own ideas about > > > > > > > > > > > > physics, realize that in nearly four years that I have been using > > > > > > > > > > > > sci.physics, not a SINGLE person has shown that my NEW science is in > > > > > > > > > > > > any way wrong. You've got a very long way to go before you can match > > > > > > > > > > > > what I have accomplished. NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Ether flow is by degrees. And it isn't > > > > > > > > > > something going around the body, but through the body and the hair. > > > > > > > > > > Both the body and the hair get pushed proportionately. NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > > Right, same with wind. Wind pushes the body and the hair. But the hair > > > > > > > > > is lighter so it responds to the wind more easily. So tell me again > > > > > > > > > why the hair does not blow backwards in the aether breeze you say is > > > > > > > > > there?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > Wrong, PD! Lightweight hair responds to moving AIR more easily. > > > > > > > > Ether flows through the air and through the hair in proportion to the > > > > > > > > masses of each. > > > > > > > > So lightweight hair does not respond to aether more easily too? Why > > > > > > > not? > > > > > > > > > Take a lead plumb bob and such will not hang > > > > > > > > vertically in a level-flight jetliner at a uniform cruising speed. > > > > > > > > Are you sure about that? Have you done measurements? And while we're > > > > > > > on the subject, how do you know that the fuselage is completely > > > > > > > horizontal in level flight? How would you test that? Have you tried > > > > > > > taking a water glass and laying it in the aisle to see if it rolls > > > > > > > backwards to the rear of the plane? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Dear PD: Studying the 'dynamics' of ether flow under various scenarios > > > > is what real science will be about for the next few decades. > > > > Then I invite you to do that for the next few decades. > > > > > You show > > > > your shallowness by referring to "with respect to the ether", as > > > > though ether is some fixed 3D grid system for making measurements. It > > > > is probable that the metal skin of airplanes will divert (but not > > > > totally stop) the ether flowing through the airplanes. > > > > Let's examine that statement for a minute. Since gravity is due to the > > > downward flow of aether, according to you, this must mean that if a > > > plane or a train or a car can slow down the flow of aether, then > > > objects inside it should become lighter, with less gravitational pull > > > on them. Do you have any experimental evidence of this happening? > > Well, do you? > > > > > > > > > > > The closest > > > > you manage to come to actually discussing science is to find some > > > > obscure aspect of my New Science > > > > Well, your New Science should hold together, right? It should be more > > > impervious to criticism than relativity, right? > > > > > and to question that, alone, while > > > > continuing to be BLIND to the totality of my disproofs of SR and GR.. > > > > Unless and until you can show the readers even a single '+new post' by > > > > you, > > > > I've done plenty of these, thanks. Can't help it if you can't find > > > them. No one else seems to have that problem. > > > > > then you continue to be just a Parasite Dunce and a DRAG of > > > > progress in science. NE - Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: If DRAGS to science progress, like you, > > would self-destruct, > > No, sorry, you don't have that option. You can continue to simper and > whine, if you like. How's that working for you? > > > then I fully intend to be involved in > > understanding all about ether, its flow, density, and modes of > > concentration (matter). NoEinstein > > Start with the experimental evidence on the question I asked above.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 19 Mar 2010 17:07 On Mar 19, 4:00 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 17, 4:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: My "experimental evidence" for ether > flow through airliners is the physical feeling of walking up hill > going to the 'little room' behind the first class seats; and the > sensation of walking down hill going back to the seat. Physical feelings can be very deceptive. Very often someone will stomp on the brakes at a stoplight if the car next to them creeps backwards, because he gets the feeling he is creeping forward. Physical feelings need to be tested using objective and reproducible measuring devices. Do you have any reproducible measurements that a plumb bob on an airplane inclines backward? > The captain > has already announced that the plane will be cruising (level) at, say, > 30,000 feet. In order for there to be 'time dilation' that affects > clocks, there needs to be a total pressure on the innards of the clock > (atomic, electrical, or mechanical) that exceeds the pressure on the > same clock on Earth. The greater the velocity, the greater the time > dilation. And the latter has nothing to do with Einstein's moronic > notions about space-time. > > I've adequately explained that quantifying the forces caused by > flowing etherunder most or all conditionswill be the research areas > for myself and others during the next few decades. Yourself, I can see. Others, that depends on how well you can make your ideas credible to others, so that they will be convinced to work on it with you. How's that working for you? As for you, are you sure you have a few more decades left to work on it? > If you demand that > I already have completed that work, I'm sorry to disappoint you. Oh, I was just more interested in whether you had anything substantive in your work at all, other than grand promises and overstated and grandiose claims that are made by any average egomaniacal psychotic. > You > have yet to make a single contribution to advancing the causes of TRUE > science. If you ever take a position on any issue of science, why > don't you make a "+new post" and entertain the readers with your > stupidity! NoEinstein I do make new posts. Why? Can't you find them? I didn't think so. > > > > > On Mar 17, 3:52 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Mar 17, 10:15 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 16, 5:51 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 9, 7:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 9, 4:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 1:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Wind resistance is proportional to the > > > > > > > frontal area of the hair. Ether flow is independent of the frontal > > > > > > > area and is in proportion to the average density of the hair. The > > > > > > > ventilation system inside planes causes more hair motion than the > > > > > > > flowing ether. > > > > > > > Really? The plane is traveling at 550 mph through the aether, so your > > > > > > hair is traveling at 550 mph relative to the aether. The ventilation > > > > > > system pumps air at 2 mph relative to the aether. And the hair doesn't > > > > > > move? > > > > > > > > Budding scientists who read this should perform a > > > > > > > hanging plumb bob test with the plane, in level flight, and at a > > > > > > > steady cruising speed. There will be a leaning of the plumb bob > > > > > > > toward the back of the plane. > > > > > > > Are you sure? I think you'll be surprised if you actually do this. > > > > > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 2:27 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 5, 10:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 5, 4:27 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 3, 11:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 26, 8:31 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 26, 12:15 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matter has ether flowing within it. Ether is the mother > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of creation, not matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no ether other than matter itself. In harmony with my > > > > > > > > > > > > > > belief that important words should be defiend the first time they are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in written form, I defined ether as being the continuity aspect > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a material field, whether or not particles are part of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because matter cannot be created or destroyed, it always existed and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so did the five other basic items of which everything in the universe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is composed. As to 'creation", I long ago realized that Evolution is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > God's method of creating what now exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glird > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear glird: Every time you ride on a jet airliner you get pushed back > > > > > > > > > > > > > in your seat by the ether that is flowing through the plane, front to > > > > > > > > > > > > > back. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really? Then why do people sleep on airplanes, without their hair > > > > > > > > > > > > streaming backwards as though they were in a breeze? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That same flowing ether will slow down all mechanical, atomic, > > > > > > > > > > > > > and biological processes. Instead of making up your own ideas about > > > > > > > > > > > > > physics, realize that in nearly four years that I have been using > > > > > > > > > > > > > sci.physics, not a SINGLE person has shown that my NEW science is in > > > > > > > > > > > > > any way wrong. You've got a very long way to go before you can match > > > > > > > > > > > > > what I have accomplished. NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Ether flow is by degrees.. And it isn't > > > > > > > > > > > something going around the body, but through the body and the hair. > > > > > > > > > > > Both the body and the hair get pushed proportionately.. NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > > > Right, same with wind. Wind pushes the body and the hair. But the hair > > > > > > > > > > is lighter so it responds to the wind more easily. So tell me again > > > > > > > > > > why the hair does not blow backwards in the aether breeze you say is > > > > > > > > > > there?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > Wrong, PD! Lightweight hair responds to moving AIR more easily. > > > > > > > > > Ether flows through the air and through the hair in proportion to the > > > > > > > > > masses of each. > > > > > > > > > So lightweight hair does not respond to aether more easily too? Why > > > > > > > > not? > > > > > > > > > > Take a lead plumb bob and such will not hang > > > > > > > > > vertically in a level-flight jetliner at a uniform cruising speed. > > > > > > > > > Are you sure about that? Have you done measurements? And while we're > > > > > > > > on the subject, how do you know that the fuselage is completely > > > > > > > > horizontal in level flight? How would you test that? Have you tried > > > > > > > > taking a water glass and laying it in the aisle to see if it rolls > > > > > > > > backwards to the rear of the plane? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Dear PD: Studying the 'dynamics' of ether flow under various scenarios > > > > > is what real science will be about for the next few decades. > > > > > Then I invite you to do that for the next few decades. > > > > > > You show > > > > > your shallowness by referring to "with respect to the ether", as > > > > > though ether is some fixed 3D grid system for making measurements.. It > > > > > is probable that the metal skin of airplanes will divert (but not > > > > > totally stop) the ether flowing through the airplanes. > > > > > Let's examine that statement for a minute. Since gravity is due to the > > > > downward flow of aether, according to you, this must mean that if a > > > > plane or a train or a car can slow down the flow of aether, then > > > > objects inside it should become lighter, with less gravitational pull > > > > on them. Do you have any experimental evidence of this happening? > > > Well, do you? > > > > > > The closest > > > > > you manage to come to actually discussing science is to find some > > > > > obscure aspect of my New Science > > > > > Well, your New Science should hold together, right? It should be more > > > > impervious to criticism than relativity, right? > > > > > > and to question that, alone, while > > > > > continuing to be BLIND to the totality of my disproofs of SR and GR. > > > > > Unless and until you can show the readers even a single '+new post' by > > > > > you, > > > > > I've done plenty of these, thanks. Can't help it if you can't find > > > > them. No one else seems to have that problem. > > > > > > then you continue to be just a Parasite Dunce and a DRAG of > > > > > progress in science. NE - Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: If DRAGS to science progress, like you, > > > would self-destruct, > > > No, sorry, you don't have that option. You can continue to simper and > > whine, if you like. How's that working for you? > > > > then I fully intend to be involved in > > > understanding all about ether, its flow, density, and modes of > > > concentration (matter). NoEinstein > > > Start with the experimental evidence on the question I asked above.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: spudnik on 19 Mar 2010 17:10
now, give either a wave or a particle analysis of both phenomenon -- not both at the same time! > And this marks a significant difference between light quanta and > gravitational quanta. Thank you. thus: don't pull any of that "remote viewing" crappage on me, dood! > Does light as a wave appear all at once? > What size does it start at when created? thus: all three of you bring to mind two particles, associated with the "standard model" of transmitting either a) elecctromagnetism or b) the implied force of gravity. so, what if they are considered dually, to be waves; do they transverally oscillate through what medium? if you're going to rely on the standard model of saying that, somehow, these waves are their own media -- if there were stationary particles, called photons, they could transmit some thing, like H2Os -- well ... you've already got your package shrink-wrapped! thus: Young proved, a humdred years after Newton espoused his "theory" of corpuscles, that light is simply waves (in the air, if you will, viz permeability & permitivity); among his proofs was the "two pin-hole experiment" -- 2PHX? -- which gave a loveley moire' pattern on the photographic (silver oxide?) emulsion. (his source of light was another pinhole in the far wall, admitting sunlight, quite coherently !-) --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus! http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/ --Cheeny, Rice, Pendergast the ICC and Waxman's (sik) Third British invasion -- their brain, our bronze -- of Sudan! |