There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Two times happening together
Next: NOW ????????????
From: NoEinstein on 26 Feb 2010 12:18 On Feb 25, 8:28 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 25, 4:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 25, 3:26 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 25, 12:03 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 24, 11:35 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > NoEinstein: ><< Neither gravity nor electromotive forces will have > > > "influence" over universal distances, except for the meniscuses > > > bounding the ["unbounded"] ether (also the Swiss Cheese void between > > > galaxies). > > > > > glird: >< No, NoE; there is no void-is-an-empty-space either in Swiss > > > Cheese or between galaxies or stars or planets and moons or molecules > > > or atoms or smaller bits and pieces now called "subatomic particles". > > > Indeed, the idea that there IS stems from the false premise at the > > > start and heart of Physics. It was the secret answer "NO" to the > > > unasked question, "Is matter compressible", that led the ancient Geek > > > philosophers to decide that there have to be void spaces between bits > > > of matter in order for things to change in any way at all. THAT'S why > > > they invented what is now called "the kinetic atomic theory", that > > > matter is made of atoms surrounded by empty spaces into which they > > > easily move. Once people learn that "Matter is Compressible" the need > > > for empty spaces will disappear and so will the kinetic atomic theory.. > > > Matter isn't made of atoms. Atoms are made of MATTER. And between > > > those atoms there is more of the very same resistively compressible > > > material that conducts light and other forms of radiation throughout > > > the infinite and unbounded universe.> > > > > > How about: Matter and aether are different states of the > > > > same material. > > > > Sorry, MPC, but I disagree for several reasons, one being hat the > > > aether isn't a different state of matter; it is just a word for the > > > matter outside of local atoms. > > > > >< I understand your concept of matter is that it is the 'stuff of space' but for everyone else matter is nuclei and the stuff combinations of nuclei create. > > > > > I never said nor do I believe that "matter is the stuff of space"! > > > (John Duffield not only believes it, he constructed an elaborate > > > general theory based on his assumption that matter is a kink in the > > > fabric of empty space.) > > > What I meant by matter is the 'stuff of space' is in your definition > > it is all of the stuff in space. Including 'the-continuous-form-of-the- > > material-outside-of-and-surrounding-atomic-nuclei IS matter-is-the- > > compressible-substance-that-fills-space' > > > Matter = nuclei > > Aether = the-continuous-form-of-the-material-outside-of-and- > > surrounding-atomic-nuclei IS matter-is-the-compressible-substance-that- > > fills-space > > > Matter and aether are different states of mather. > > > > > To try and re-label aether as matter is not going to > > > > work. > > > > Although I did try to define "aether" in a way that would fit YOUR > > > use of the word -- which I long ago replaced with "ether" -- I didn't > > > intend to re-label aether as matter even though the aether-is-the- > > > continuous-form-of-the-material-outside-of-and-surrounding-atomic- > > > nuclei IS matter-is-the-compressible-substance-that-fills-space. > > > > > You'd be better off inventing a new name like 'mather'. > > > > Matter and aether are different states of mather. > > > > I'd rather say it like it is. > > > If my definition of your "aether" isn't going to work, I suggest that > > > we eliminate it entirely; as I long ago did in my books. > > > > glird- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Atomic shells should be included as part of the structure of matter > mpc. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Burt: Valance shells are an atomic fact. There is no... "should be" about it! NE
From: mpc755 on 26 Feb 2010 12:23 On Feb 26, 12:15 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Feb 25, 7:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 25, 3:26 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 25, 12:03 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 24, 11:35 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > NoEinstein: ><< Neither gravity nor electromotive forces will have > > > "influence" over universal distances, except for the meniscuses > > > bounding the ["unbounded"] ether (also the Swiss Cheese void between > > > galaxies). > > > > > glird: >< No, NoE; there is no void-is-an-empty-space either in Swiss > > > Cheese or between galaxies or stars or planets and moons or molecules > > > or atoms or smaller bits and pieces now called "subatomic particles". > > > Indeed, the idea that there IS stems from the false premise at the > > > start and heart of Physics. It was the secret answer "NO" to the > > > unasked question, "Is matter compressible", that led the ancient Geek > > > philosophers to decide that there have to be void spaces between bits > > > of matter in order for things to change in any way at all. THAT'S why > > > they invented what is now called "the kinetic atomic theory", that > > > matter is made of atoms surrounded by empty spaces into which they > > > easily move. Once people learn that "Matter is Compressible" the need > > > for empty spaces will disappear and so will the kinetic atomic theory.. > > > Matter isn't made of atoms. Atoms are made of MATTER. And between > > > those atoms there is more of the very same resistively compressible > > > material that conducts light and other forms of radiation throughout > > > the infinite and unbounded universe.> > > > > > How about: Matter and aether are different states of the > > > > same material. > > > > Sorry, MPC, but I disagree for several reasons, one being hat the > > > aether isn't a different state of matter; it is just a word for the > > > matter outside of local atoms. > > > > >< I understand your concept of matter is that it is the 'stuff of space' but for everyone else matter is nuclei and the stuff combinations of nuclei create. > > > > > I never said nor do I believe that "matter is the stuff of space"! > > > (John Duffield not only believes it, he constructed an elaborate > > > general theory based on his assumption that matter is a kink in the > > > fabric of empty space.) > > > What I meant by matter is the 'stuff of space' is in your definition > > it is all of the stuff in space. Including 'the-continuous-form-of-the- > > material-outside-of-and-surrounding-atomic-nuclei IS matter-is-the- > > compressible-substance-that-fills-space' > > > Matter = nuclei > > Aether = the-continuous-form-of-the-material-outside-of-and- > > surrounding-atomic-nuclei IS matter-is-the-compressible-substance-that- > > fills-space > > > Matter and aether are different states of mather. > > > > > To try and re-label aether as matter is not going to > > > > work. > > > > Although I did try to define "aether" in a way that would fit YOUR > > > use of the word -- which I long ago replaced with "ether" -- I didn't > > > intend to re-label aether as matter even though the aether-is-the- > > > continuous-form-of-the-material-outside-of-and-surrounding-atomic- > > > nuclei IS matter-is-the-compressible-substance-that-fills-space. > > > > > You'd be better off inventing a new name like 'mather'. > > > > Matter and aether are different states of mather. > > > > I'd rather say it like it is. > > > If my definition of your "aether" isn't going to work, I suggest that > > > we eliminate it entirely; as I long ago did in my books. > > > > glird- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Matter has ether flowing within it. Ether is the mother of creation, > not matter. NE Matter and aether are different states of mather. At this time, it is more correct to say matter consists of compressed mather and aether is uncompressed mather.
From: glird on 26 Feb 2010 20:31 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
From: clivevrob on 28 Feb 2010 18:15 On Feb 27, 1:31 am, 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 Have you realized you're a complete idiot yet?
From: glird on 1 Mar 2010 14:22
On Feb 28, 6:15 pm, clivevrob <clivevrobin...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 27, 1:31 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > As to 'creation", I long ago realized that Evolution is > > God's method of creating what now exists. > > Have you realized you're a complete idiot yet? Still talking to the picture in your mirror, eh, Dono! |