There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Two times happening together
Next: NOW ????????????
From: PD on 20 Mar 2010 10:58 On Mar 20, 1:52 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 19, 10:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear mpc755: Light 'quanta' (photons) definitely interact with > matter! Some matter yes. Just not all matter. > Even though those quanta are tangles of IOTAs (the stuff of > the ether), the light interacts, primarily, with the surface of the > matter hit. Even so, there is always an associated elevation of the > objects' temperatures. 1/2 a phase after being hit by a photon, a > photon from the object will be emitted at very close to the same time > interval (but slightly redder due to the Friction of Reflectionmy own > term, explained in a technical article. Gravity 'quanta' is simply > flowing ether. Because that type ether isn't clumped to bigger sizes, > it will flow through matter and interact with every obstruction > (atomic nuclei), much like a metal pin ball striking a pin, then > bouncing down to strike another pin. The total FORCE imparted by > those many strikes is what gives an object a fixed mass, on or near > the Earth. NoEinstein > > > > > On Mar 19, 6:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 19, 5:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 19, 4:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 18, 8:35 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. > > > > > > This is very important. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > That is counter to experiment. Light does not interact with all > > > > > matter, observationally. > > > > > And what do you mean by it does not interact with? That it is not > > > > detected? > > > > No, I do not mean that. I mean that an interaction changes the state > > > of the matter, by imparting for example momentum or kinetic energy or > > > charge or changing its temperature or entropy. > > > > We know that there is matter that light does not interact with. > > > You do not know that the light does not interact with the matter. What > > you do know is there is no change in the light quanta. > > > This does not mean gravity quanta is different then light quanta. Just > > that the state of the quanta interacts with matter differently.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 20 Mar 2010 10:59 On Mar 20, 1:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 19, 6:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All matter must interact with light, > because matter doesn't exist which didn't at some point both give off > and receive photon energy. And that's just nonsense. There are plenty of examples of matter which has been measured and documented and which has never radiated or absorbed a photon. You do need to catch up. > Black holes are energy that is so > concentrated that photons are unable to find a route out of the mix. > Nor is there a way for flowing ether to find a way IN. That's why > Black Holes have zero gravity! Nothing in means nothing out (for > long)! NoEinstein > > > > > On Mar 19, 5:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 19, 4:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 8:35 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. > > > > > This is very important. > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > That is counter to experiment. Light does not interact with all > > > > matter, observationally. > > > > And what do you mean by it does not interact with? That it is not > > > detected? > > > No, I do not mean that. I mean that an interaction changes the state > > of the matter, by imparting for example momentum or kinetic energy or > > charge or changing its temperature or entropy. > > > We know that there is matter that light does not interact with. > > > > > You can claim all you want that things happen that are inconsistent > > > > with observation, and claim that the observation is wrong, but then > > > > you are being religious, not scientific. > > > > > > > The angular momentum of light quanta is 1xPlanck's constant, and that > > > > > > of the gravitational quanta is 2xPlanck's constant. > > > > > This is also important. > > > > > > > The detection methodology for light quanta and gravitational quanta is > > > > > > fundamentally different, observationally. > > > > > > Obviously. > > > > > And this marks a significant difference between light quanta and > > > > gravitational quanta. Thank you. > > > > Yes, because light quanta propagates at 'c'. > > > No, the detection scheme doesn't care what speed it propagates at. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 20 Mar 2010 11:00 On Mar 19, 5:13 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 19, 4:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 18, 8:35 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. > > > This is very important. > > > > > 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. > > > That is counter to experiment. Light does not interact with all > > matter, observationally. > > You can claim all you want that things happen that are inconsistent > > with observation, and claim that the observation is wrong, but then > > you are being religious, not scientific. > > > > > The angular momentum of light quanta is 1xPlanck's constant, and that > > > > of the gravitational quanta is 2xPlanck's constant. > > > This is also important. > > > > > The detection methodology for light quanta and gravitational quanta is > > > > fundamentally different, observationally. > > > > Obviously. > > > And this marks a significant difference between light quanta and > > gravitational quanta. Thank you. > > Light is high speed ether packets: gravity is slow speed 'rain'. NE Well, except that gravity appears to propagate at c. > > > > > > > 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. > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 20 Mar 2010 11:02 On Mar 20, 1:23 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > I determined > these things by clear thinking and deductive reasoning. Making up > stuff involves neither of those two. NE On the contrary. Fiction writers use clear thinking and deductive reasoning when they compose fiction, just as you've done.
From: PD on 20 Mar 2010 11:03
On Mar 20, 1:12 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 19, 6:42 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 19, 4:57 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> 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. > > > > > > 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 - > > > > One of PD's better replies. I wonder if he copied it from someplace? > > > Probably. NoEinstein > > > Nope.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Then, you must have been off the sauce when you wrote that. NE The only sauce I've ever been on when writing is BBQ. |