There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Two times happening together
Next: NOW ????????????
From: NoEinstein on 19 Mar 2010 18:05 On Mar 18, 4:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 2:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 10:43 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 18, 11:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 10:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 18, 11:13 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 9:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 5:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Just the opposite is more correct. Instead of a boat let's use a > > > > > > > > > submarine. Even if the submarine consists of millions of > > > > > > > > > interconnected particles where the water is able to flow through the > > > > > > > > > submarine the matter which is the submarine will still displace the > > > > > > > > > water and the water will still apply pressure towards the matter which > > > > > > > > > is the submarine. > > > > > > > > > This is an interesting remark. Even though the water would flow right > > > > > > > > through the submarine, the water would be displaced? What do you think > > > > > > > > "displaced" means? > > > > > > > > The water would not flow 'right' through the submarine. The more > > > > > > > massive the submarine is the less the water flows through the > > > > > > > submarine but if the submarine consists of millions of individual > > > > > > > particles separated by a short distance it does not matter how massive > > > > > > > the submarine is the water will exert a pressure on and throughout the > > > > > > > millions if individual particles. > > > > > > > > The matter which is the millions of individual particles still > > > > > > > displaces the water which would otherwise exist where the millions of > > > > > > > individual particles do. > > > > > > > It's worth noting that in the case of two atoms that are close > > > > > > together, the atoms are about a tenth of a nanometer across, and the > > > > > > electrons in the atoms are a hundred million times smaller than than. > > > > > > Thus electrons are in fact very small compared to the size of atoms, > > > > > > and could in principle slip right through atoms, because atoms are > > > > > > mostly empty space. > > > > > > > And yet electrons in atoms in molecules don't do that, and there is a > > > > > > specific interatomic spacing in a molecule. Since atoms are mostly > > > > > > empty space, you'd think they'd be able to pass right through each > > > > > > other like two sparse flocks of birds. But they don't. Now you should > > > > > > ask yourself why they do not, since there is obviously lots of empty > > > > > > space available. It's obviously not just a matter of having lots of > > > > > > room. So why do you think electrons don't penetrate other atoms really > > > > > > easily? Hint: electrons in atoms *do* exert pressure on neighboring > > > > > > atoms, and how it exerts this pressure is also pertinent to why they > > > > > > do not penetrate. > > > > > > > When you answer that question, then you'll be able to address how the > > > > > > aether would have to work. Remember, it's not just having the room > > > > > > available that matters. Keep in mind that you want your aether to also > > > > > > exert pressure on the atoms of matter, so whatever it does that > > > > > > enables that, electrons also do, and what electrons do prevents them > > > > > > from penetrating neighboring atoms. > > > > > > > Chew on that a while. > > > > > > My guess is electrons are not particles but more like photons. > > > > > What I told you about the size of electrons vs atoms is a *measured* > > > > result. > > > > Yes, when you measure the electron it collapses and is detected as a > > > quantum of mather. > > > Fascinating. And what do you think is involved in the measurement? And > > how does the electron know whether it is interacting (for which it > > needs to be big) or being measured (for which it needs to be small)? > > And what physically happens when the electron collapses? > > > Feel free to make stuff up. > > > > > Let me also tell me that, despite your guess, why electrons don't > > > > penetrate is in fact well understood. You just don't know yet what the > > > > explanation is. (And so you try to invent something yourself.) Hint: > > > > it has nothing to do with how much room there is. > > > > I did not say it has anything to do with room. > > > > > And whatever the electron is doing that prevents it from penetrating > > > > atoms, will also have to be true for aether. > > > > The nuclei is a self contained entity. It displaces the aether which > > > the electron, which is likely a directed/pointed wave, exists in. > > > Fascinating. And what in your mind are the differences between protons > > and neutrons and electrons that they behave so differently? And how > > would you test this hypothesis outside the atom to be sure it's right? > > > Feel free to make stuff up. > > How do you know a gravity quanta and a light quanta are not the same? > > Feel free to make stuff up like the future determines the past. > > > > > > > > > > Electrons are directed/pointed waves which collapse when detected as a > > > > > quantum of mather. > > > > > > So, an electron is actually a disturbance which surrounds the nuclei. > > > > > The pressure associated with a nuclei is due to the aether displaced > > > > > by the nuclei and the aether displaced by the neighboring nuclei, not > > > > > the electron. > > > > > > > > displace: > > > > > > > 1 a : to remove from the usual or proper place > > > > > > > 2 a : to move physically out of position <a floating object displaces > > > > > > > water> > > > > > > > (m-w.com)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Gravity is slow-flowing ether; light is very fast bullets (photons) of ether clumps. The clumps get smaller over time, reseeding the ether density near massive objects so the processes of gravity can continue. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 19 Mar 2010 18:07 On Mar 18, 8:36 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > yes, but if we can take the elaborations & more correct formulations > of "energy is the mass times the second power of the rate of light," > then where do "gravitons" come into it?... anyway, > no need to bring "photons" into it, what so ever. > Except that photon exchange which causes ether flow is the mechanism of gravity! NoEinstein > > > > > How do you know a gravity quanta and a light quanta are not the same? > > > > Lots of reasons. > > > Fundamental strength of interaction is orders of magnitude different, > > > experimentally. > > > The two kinds of quanta interact with different classes of matter -- > > > there is some matter that interacts via gravity quanta but not with > > > light quanta, for example, and this is experimentally confirmed. > > > The angular momentum of light quanta is 1xPlanck's constant, and that > > > of the gravitational quanta is 2xPlanck's constant. > > > The detection methodology for light quanta and gravitational quanta is > > > fundamentally different, observationally. > > > Light quanta become unified with weak quanta at the 1 TeV scale, and > > > gravitational quanta do not, experimentally. > > thus: > every student of relativity knows that > the the last 3/4 is much more difficult > than the first 3/4; perhaps, > because all of matter is "going" at lightspeed, > internally, already. > > not only is there no vacuum, > there is therefore no need of an aether; > Pascal is dead -- long-live Pascal! > > > <ttp://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf> > > thus: > simply reject the picture of "quantum" as a "photon," and > go with Young's original essay -- or what ever he called it -- > about the noncorpuscularity of lightwaves. > second step, pretend that there is no aether; > what's left? > > thus: > I don't have audio at this terminal; > what is the jist of this "economists's" theory? > LaRouche is an ecomist, two, and that doesn't mean > that he is correct about "controlled demo/ > Cheeny scrounging in the basement." > > >http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18188 > > 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: mpc755 on 19 Mar 2010 18:09 On Mar 19, 5:44 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 18, 10:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 9:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 17, 5:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Just the opposite is more correct. Instead of a boat let's use a > > > > submarine. Even if the submarine consists of millions of > > > > interconnected particles where the water is able to flow through the > > > > submarine the matter which is the submarine will still displace the > > > > water and the water will still apply pressure towards the matter which > > > > is the submarine. > > > > This is an interesting remark. Even though the water would flow right > > > through the submarine, the water would be displaced? What do you think > > > "displaced" means? > > > The water would not flow 'right' through the submarine. The more > > massive the submarine is the less the water flows through the > > submarine but if the submarine consists of millions of individual > > particles separated by a short distance it does not matter how massive > > the submarine is the water will exert a pressure on and throughout the > > millions if individual particles. > > > The matter which is the millions of individual particles still > > displaces the water which would otherwise exist where the millions of > > individual particles do. > > > displace: > > 1 a : to remove from the usual or proper place > > 2 a : to move physically out of position <a floating object displaces > > water> > > (m-w.com) > > Dear mpc755: All objects displace their weight in water. The 'air' > inside boats creates a new virtual weight; and in the case of > submarines, the virtual weight is variable (so the sub can submerge > and then rise). The issue with your 'displacement notion' is that no > ether can go inside the massive parts of the boat or sub, such as > inside the steel hull. But that can't be the true as explained in my > reply to you, above. NoEinstein Aether surrounds each and every nuclei with is the matter which is the object. Aether is displaced by the matter which is the nuclei. Aether permeates matter but it is also displaced by the nuclei which is the matter. Aether exists where the nuclei do not.
From: NoEinstein on 19 Mar 2010 18:10 On Mar 18, 9:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 8:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 3:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 18, 2:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 10:43 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 18, 11:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 10:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 11:13 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 9:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 5:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Just the opposite is more correct. Instead of a boat let's use a > > > > > > > > > > > submarine. Even if the submarine consists of millions of > > > > > > > > > > > interconnected particles where the water is able to flow through the > > > > > > > > > > > submarine the matter which is the submarine will still displace the > > > > > > > > > > > water and the water will still apply pressure towards the matter which > > > > > > > > > > > is the submarine. > > > > > > > > > > > This is an interesting remark. Even though the water would flow right > > > > > > > > > > through the submarine, the water would be displaced? What do you think > > > > > > > > > > "displaced" means? > > > > > > > > > > The water would not flow 'right' through the submarine. The more > > > > > > > > > massive the submarine is the less the water flows through the > > > > > > > > > submarine but if the submarine consists of millions of individual > > > > > > > > > particles separated by a short distance it does not matter how massive > > > > > > > > > the submarine is the water will exert a pressure on and throughout the > > > > > > > > > millions if individual particles. > > > > > > > > > > The matter which is the millions of individual particles still > > > > > > > > > displaces the water which would otherwise exist where the millions of > > > > > > > > > individual particles do. > > > > > > > > > It's worth noting that in the case of two atoms that are close > > > > > > > > together, the atoms are about a tenth of a nanometer across, and the > > > > > > > > electrons in the atoms are a hundred million times smaller than than. > > > > > > > > Thus electrons are in fact very small compared to the size of atoms, > > > > > > > > and could in principle slip right through atoms, because atoms are > > > > > > > > mostly empty space. > > > > > > > > > And yet electrons in atoms in molecules don't do that, and there is a > > > > > > > > specific interatomic spacing in a molecule. Since atoms are mostly > > > > > > > > empty space, you'd think they'd be able to pass right through each > > > > > > > > other like two sparse flocks of birds. But they don't. Now you should > > > > > > > > ask yourself why they do not, since there is obviously lots of empty > > > > > > > > space available. It's obviously not just a matter of having lots of > > > > > > > > room. So why do you think electrons don't penetrate other atoms really > > > > > > > > easily? Hint: electrons in atoms *do* exert pressure on neighboring > > > > > > > > atoms, and how it exerts this pressure is also pertinent to why they > > > > > > > > do not penetrate. > > > > > > > > > When you answer that question, then you'll be able to address how the > > > > > > > > aether would have to work. Remember, it's not just having the room > > > > > > > > available that matters. Keep in mind that you want your aether to also > > > > > > > > exert pressure on the atoms of matter, so whatever it does that > > > > > > > > enables that, electrons also do, and what electrons do prevents them > > > > > > > > from penetrating neighboring atoms. > > > > > > > > > Chew on that a while. > > > > > > > > My guess is electrons are not particles but more like photons.. > > > > > > > What I told you about the size of electrons vs atoms is a *measured* > > > > > > result. > > > > > > Yes, when you measure the electron it collapses and is detected as a > > > > > quantum of mather. > > > > > Fascinating. And what do you think is involved in the measurement? And > > > > how does the electron know whether it is interacting (for which it > > > > needs to be big) or being measured (for which it needs to be small)? > > > > And what physically happens when the electron collapses? > > > > > Feel free to make stuff up. > > > > > > > Let me also tell me that, despite your guess, why electrons don't > > > > > > penetrate is in fact well understood. You just don't know yet what the > > > > > > explanation is. (And so you try to invent something yourself.) Hint: > > > > > > it has nothing to do with how much room there is. > > > > > > I did not say it has anything to do with room. > > > > > > > And whatever the electron is doing that prevents it from penetrating > > > > > > atoms, will also have to be true for aether. > > > > > > The nuclei is a self contained entity. It displaces the aether which > > > > > the electron, which is likely a directed/pointed wave, exists in. > > > > > Fascinating. And what in your mind are the differences between protons > > > > and neutrons and electrons that they behave so differently? And how > > > > would you test this hypothesis outside the atom to be sure it's right? > > > > > Feel free to make stuff up. > > > > How do you know a gravity quanta and a light quanta are not the same? > > > Lots of reasons. > > Fundamental strength of interaction is orders of magnitude different, > > experimentally. > > The two kinds of quanta interact with different classes of matter -- > > Quanta, as gravity quanta, interacts with all matter. > > > there is some matter that interacts via gravity quanta but not with > > light quanta, for example, and this is experimentally confirmed. > > Quanta, as light quanta interacts with all matter. It is a matter of > detection of the light quanta. > > > The angular momentum of light quanta is 1xPlanck's constant, and that > > of the gravitational quanta is 2xPlanck's constant. > > The detection methodology for light quanta and gravitational quanta is > > fundamentally different, observationally. > > 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. > Flowing ether only "cares" about the mass or effective mass of the objects through which such flows. NE > > Quanta state as determined by its connections with the matter is its > state of displacement. The pressure associated with the quanta > displaced by a massive object is gravity.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 19 Mar 2010 18:11
On Mar 19, 6:07 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 18, 8:36 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:> yes, but if we can take the elaborations & more correct formulations > > of "energy is the mass times the second power of the rate of light," > > then where do "gravitons" come into it?... anyway, > > no need to bring "photons" into it, what so ever. > > Except that photon exchange which causes ether flow is the mechanism > of gravity! NoEinstein > If the aether is at rest with respect to the massive object, is there still gravity? Not by your theory. By Aether Displacement, aether is displaced by mass. So the more massive an object is per volume the more aether is displaced whether the object is at rest with respect to the aether or not. > > > > > > > How do you know a gravity quanta and a light quanta are not the same? > > > > > Lots of reasons. > > > > Fundamental strength of interaction is orders of magnitude different, > > > > experimentally. > > > > The two kinds of quanta interact with different classes of matter -- > > > > there is some matter that interacts via gravity quanta but not with > > > > light quanta, for example, and this is experimentally confirmed. > > > > The angular momentum of light quanta is 1xPlanck's constant, and that > > > > of the gravitational quanta is 2xPlanck's constant. > > > > The detection methodology for light quanta and gravitational quanta is > > > > fundamentally different, observationally. > > > > Light quanta become unified with weak quanta at the 1 TeV scale, and > > > > gravitational quanta do not, experimentally. > > > thus: > > every student of relativity knows that > > the the last 3/4 is much more difficult > > than the first 3/4; perhaps, > > because all of matter is "going" at lightspeed, > > internally, already. > > > not only is there no vacuum, > > there is therefore no need of an aether; > > Pascal is dead -- long-live Pascal! > > > > <ttp://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf> > > > thus: > > simply reject the picture of "quantum" as a "photon," and > > go with Young's original essay -- or what ever he called it -- > > about the noncorpuscularity of lightwaves. > > second step, pretend that there is no aether; > > what's left? > > > thus: > > I don't have audio at this terminal; > > what is the jist of this "economists's" theory? > > LaRouche is an ecomist, two, and that doesn't mean > > that he is correct about "controlled demo/ > > Cheeny scrounging in the basement." > > > >http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18188 > > > 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/ > > |