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 11:05 On Mar 20, 1:04 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > You obviously don't read much else other than threads you are > > participating in. > > I get the impression you don't read much of anything anyway.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Dear PD: You are exactly right! Someone with my analytical ability > can figure things out without having to research anything. You just keep telling yourself that. Recall the Music Man where the flim-flam band-uniform salesman convinced kids they could learn to play music by the Think System. > That > doesn't mean that I'm not still exposed to what is going on in > science, because I simply read the news and watch usually dumb shows > like NOVA talking about Einstein and the Big Bang, etc. When I was a > kid, I read a lot and disagreed a lot. When I found in college that > mechanics, in particular, was without reason, I vowed to correct the > many errors once my time would allow. The great mysteries to me > were: What is light? And what is gravity? I, better than anyone > else on Earth, know the answer to both of those questions! Oh my. I suggest you keep an eye out in the news or on NOVA for "Messiah complex". > > NoEinstein
From: mpc755 on 20 Mar 2010 11:20 On Mar 20, 10:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 19, 9:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > No, we know there is no change in the matter, too. So if there is no > change in the matter, and no change in the light quanta, then the two > don't interact, by definition of "interact". > Aether and matter interact without changing the matters momentum. > > This does not mean gravity quanta is different then light quanta. Just > > that the state of the quanta interacts with matter differently. > > And how are "different states of quanta" distinguished from "different > quanta"? Exactly.
From: mpc755 on 20 Mar 2010 11:25 On Mar 20, 10:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 19, 9:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > No, we know there is no change in the matter, too. So if there is no > change in the matter, and no change in the light quanta, then the two > don't interact, by definition of "interact". > 'Frictionless supersolid a step closer' http://www.physorg.com/news185201084.html "Superfluidity and superconductivity cause particles to move without friction. Koos Gubbels investigated under what conditions such particles keep moving endlessly without losing energy, like a swimmer who takes one mighty stroke and then keeps gliding forever along the swimming pool." The 'swimmer' interacts with the 'water' and does not have a change in momentum. The 'swimmer' interacts with the 'water' and does not have a change in state. 'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum medium and the inertial motion of particles' http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0701/0701155.pdf "Abstract: The similarity between the energy spectra of relativistic particles and that of quasi-particles in super-conductivity BCS theory makes us conjecture that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as the ground state of the background field is a super fluid medium, and the rest mass of a relativistic particle is like the energy gap of a quasi-particle. This conjecture is strongly supported by the results of our following investigation: a particle moving through the vacuum medium at a speed less than the speed of light in vacuum, though interacting with the vacuum medium, never feels friction force and thus undergoes a frictionless and inertial motion." The particle interacts with the super fluid medium (i.e. aether) and does not have a change in momentum. The particle interacts with the aether and does not have a change in state. > > This does not mean gravity quanta is different then light quanta. Just > > that the state of the quanta interacts with matter differently. > > And how are "different states of quanta" distinguished from "different > quanta"? Exactly.
From: spudnik on 20 Mar 2010 15:27 you mean, just like ordinary matter (ionized hydrogen and dihydrogen e.g., predominantly between stars and between galaxies; much more of the latter, which is a recent finding). > You can not account for gravity if the aether were at rest with > respect to a massive object. > Aether Displacement does not requiring a flowing aether. thus: use L'Hopital's calculus (by Bernoulli) to prove that some divergent sequence has a rational limit. thus: I didn't quite grok the whole generating process, but it needs a twee more meta-analysis! > > Example. Be N =5000. Using de integers from 5 to 5000 as seeds, > > we obtain 7183 different numbers < 10000. Then R = 7173 / 10000 = > > 0.7183. thus: "120 New Glaciers Dyscovered on Continental Divide" (October 2001, Sunday LATimes, near the back of the A section, just the top 1/5 of the page). well, yes, to some extent, you do have to question the authority bumperstickers; that is to say, the official interpretation of what ever dataset. then, you have to question the data, two, to some degree. that's what i like about the Truthers; they find so many anomalies that have not been explained by the Commission e.g. But, on the other hand, neither have they (what melted the cars in the street, and how in Hell was there molten metal underneath the rubble, three *weeks* later?... e.g.). and for _o_'s sake, please, get rid of the chemtrail jokers (in the '70s and '80s, they may have been looking *down* at funny white trails, on the table-top !-) thus quoth: Should 9-11 truth Use Official Information Without Question? thus: look at Cahill's graph of these "zero" results, or continue to insist on Einsteinmania *Xor* aether. (I do not say any thing of such, or assume that it is implied by the results!) thus: "sound particles" are known as "phonons," but this is clearly a "quantization" of sound that is not striclty analagous to the usual one that is applied to the photoelectrical dffect -- the only aspect of light that might seem corpuscular -- and it does not have to, thus: what a crock; there is *nothing* about light (or, one simple thing) that is pertinent to a corpuscular theory; Young et al completely rid us of that theory, which also had that denser media had faster light). maybe it is an unconsidered acceptance that "quantum" means "particle," your other Einstein's rock from the train; gah! come on: there are no photons, there are no Rocks of Light. --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: NoEinstein on 21 Mar 2010 00:41
On Mar 20, 8:46 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 20, 1:45 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Mar 19, 6:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear mpc755: NEVER have I said, nor implied, that ether is at rest! > > And I am saying that is a problem with your theory. > > You can not account for gravity if the aether were at rest with > respect to a massive object. > > Aether Displacement does not requiring a flowing aether. > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object > is gravity. Dear mpc755: And you, Sir, continue to push your own errant notions rather than accept my clearly-expressed explanation that's at the start of the present post. Rather than continuing to run-down my New Science, I recommend that you make a '+new post' that outlines your reasoning regarding the mechanism of gravity; your ether displacement notions; and your... "mather"none of which hold water. You might be enlightened to learn how quickly your post ceases to get any readers. NoEinstein |