There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Two times happening together
Next: NOW ????????????
From: mpc755 on 22 Mar 2010 15:40 On Mar 22, 3:20 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Mar 22, 1:12 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Mar 21, 2:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Admit it, PD, you don't have the brain needed to explain anything. > > Your only 'talent' is in sidestepping the logical requests of others, > > and running-down those who do have a brain. Give your opposing > > 'theory' of what gravity is, or shut up. NoEinstein > > Hey, that sounds like an idea. > > Explain how you think gravity works, PD. > Make it short and simple so a public school > kid could understand it. > > Do it for both of us. > > john For example, use an analogy of a bowling ball and a tub of water. Explain to the students the bowling ball represents the Earth and the water represents the aether. Place the bowling ball into the tub of water. Remove the bowling ball. Note to the students that a void does not exist in the water. Explain how the water applies pressure towards the bowling ball. Explain if the bowling ball consisted of millions of individual particles separated by springs the water would apply pressure on and throughout the bowling ball. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth is gravity.
From: NoEinstein on 22 Mar 2010 15:43 On Mar 22, 3:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 22, 2:59 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 21, 1:14 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 21, 12:41 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > Mentioning water is an appropriate analogy. > > > > An object at rest with respect to water displaces the water. When you > > > take the object out of the water is there a void in the water where > > > the object was? No, the water was applying a pressure towards the > > > object. If the object consisted of individual particles separated by > > > water then the pressure of the water displaced by the object would be > > > exerted throughout the object. > > > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object > > > is gravity. > > > > Motion (with respect to the aether) and gravity (pressure associated > > > with the aether displaced by a massive object) determine the aether > > > pressure on and throughout an object. > > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" - > > > Albert Einstein > > > > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the > > > matter is the aether's state of displacement.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Dear mpc755: You, Sir, are like a broken record with the needle stuck > > in the groove. Saying the same thing over and over won't convince > > anyonecertainly not methat your INVENTED science is true. Please > > take your remarks elsewhere. NoEinstein > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object > is gravity. > > Aether Displacement is a unified theory.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - GET LOST, mpc755! Make your own '+new post' and stop pushing your NON SCIENCE, here! NE
From: NoEinstein on 22 Mar 2010 15:45 On Mar 22, 3:20 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Mar 22, 1:12 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Mar 21, 2:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Admit it, PD, you don't have the brain needed to explain anything. > > Your only 'talent' is in sidestepping the logical requests of others, > > and running-down those who do have a brain. Give your opposing > > 'theory' of what gravity is, or shut up. NoEinstein > > Hey, that sounds like an idea. > > Explain how you think gravity works, PD. > Make it short and simple so a public school > kid could understand it. > > Do it for both of us. > > john I'm CLAPPING for you, John! NoEinstein
From: PD on 22 Mar 2010 15:46 On Mar 22, 2:05 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 20, 10:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > (This is a repeat which I "top post" to show in the view.) Let's see. Just a few minutes ago you said the following to someone else: "Dear mpc755: You, Sir, are like a broken record with the needle stuck in the groove. Saying the same thing over and over won't convince anyonecertainly not methat your INVENTED science is true. Please take your remarks elsewhere. NoEinstein " And then you repeat your invented science over and over. Pathetic, useless, hypocrite. > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: There is no missing mass in the > Universe! Those neutrinos, Higgs, and etc. couldn't be part of the > missing "mass", because they don't give off photons (a requirement > for > a mass to be a mass). And because the ether is discontinuous > millions > or billions of times across the expanse of the Universe, there could > never be any gravity effects caused by any, as yet, unfound > particles. Without the flow of etherthat is continuous across the > Universethere can never be any gravity effects (including waves... > ha!) across the Universe. Note: The hugely expensive search for > gravity waves goes on the notion that space-time (sic) changes each > time a super nova kicks matter outward. We should rightly fear the > particles, but not the... waves. Unless a super nova is nearby, > there > will be near zero effect on gravity. NoEinstein > > > > > On Mar 20, 1:38 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Mar 19, 9:56 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 19, 4:45 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. > > > > > And that is? > > > > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »
From: PD on 22 Mar 2010 15:47
On Mar 22, 2:12 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 21, 2:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Admit it, PD, you don't have the brain needed to explain anything. > Your only 'talent' is in sidestepping the logical requests of others, > and running-down those who do have a brain. Give your opposing > 'theory' of what gravity is, or shut up. NoEinstein Sounds like a 3rd-grade "dare ya" to me. Have you regressed to the 3rd grade, John? > > > > > On Mar 21, 12:32 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Mar 20, 11:02 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: If you suppose that what I have reasoned > > > about gravity is wrong, why don't you explain what you suppose the > > > "right" (ha!) explanation is? NE > > > I'd be happy to, John, but you've already declared that you don't read > > people's response to you. > > Why would I waste my time jumping through a hoop you really don't want > > anyone to jump through? > > > If you want the "right explanation" about gravity but don't want > > people telling you about it here, would a decent book on the subject > > serve? > > > PD > > |