There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Two times happening together
Next: NOW ????????????
From: mpc755 on 23 Mar 2010 10:51 On Mar 23, 9:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 22, 8:02 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 22, 1:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 22, 2:20 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. > > > > Sure. Space is not flat. Straight lines that start out parallel are > > > not parallel for very long in our universe. They are only parallel on > > > very short scales, such as the very short scales for bridges and > > > buildings, but not at all on the scales between planets. If we > > > actually build a triangle out of straight beams on that time scale, we > > > will find that the angles of the triangle do not add up to 180 > > > degrees, although they get very, very close to that on the scale of > > > bridges and buildings. Euclidean geometry says it's exact, but > > > Euclidean geometry does not give the answers we see in the real > > > universe. If your public school teacher tells you that the angles of a > > > triangle add up to 180 degrees in our universe, the teacher has told > > > you a *lie*. > > > > This means that even things that are traveling in straight lines and > > > initially parallel to each other, with no external forces on them, > > > will soon diverge or converge. We can trace such straight lines with, > > > for example, light beams, which always travel in straight lines. And > > > we can see parallel light rays from distant galaxies bend toward each > > > other and cross, because it leaves a distinctive image just like a > > > lens would, even though there's no material lens between here and > > > there. > > > > What makes space not flat is matter and energy. Where there is a lot > > > of matter and energy, there the space is less flat. Further away from > > > mass and energy, the space is flatter, but it never gets completely > > > flat before it starts to get close to another clump of matter and > > > energy and starts to get more unflat again. > > > > We can calculate how unflat space is, if we know all the matter and > > > energy in the region. To do this we use the same G that Newton put in > > > his equations, but we use a different equation instead. And if we know > > > how unflat space is, then we can calculate how fast parallel lines > > > will converge in that space, and therefore we can tell how fast > > > parallel light rays will converge or diverge in that region of space. > > > And if we actually do that calculation, we find that it agrees > > > spectacularly well with how convergent or divergent the light rays > > > actually are. This tell us that our calculation is right, and that the > > > connection between mass and energy and the unflatness of space is > > > right. > > > > We can do this for all sorts of things other than light, too. It gets > > > the right answer for everything we've tried where we have a real clear > > > knowledge of the mass and energy in the area. > > > > Now, a public school kid can certainly understand the above. In order > > > to *believe* what he understands, the kid will have to look up some of > > > the experimental measurements, so that he will say, "Sonofagun, it > > > really works that way." There will be some idiots, though, who will > > > understand the above but say "Bullshit. I don't believe it, and you > > > can't make me look at the measurements, so to hell with you." There > > > will be other poor fools who can't even read and understand the above > > > paragraphs that are understandable by a public school student -- > > > there's not much one can do about those poor fools. > > > All of that and you did not answer his question. > > Of course I did. What were you expecting in terms of an explanation? > What fundamental element do you think MUST be present in a physical > explanation that was missing from what I gave? > > > Hell, you can't even > > say what G is... > > G is a numerical conversion factor, empirically determined, whose > value is determined by the choice of units being used. It basically is > a coupling strength, which means given the value of the amount of a > source (mass and energy), what is the amount of the influence (force > in Newton's version of the explanation, curvature in the more modern > version)? > > > Waving one's hand one paths says NOTHING! about how > > that occurs... > > That depends on what you think MUST always be involved in "how that > happens". What do you think has to be there for you to recognize it as > a "how that occurs"? > > > > > Paul Stowe > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by a massive object.
From: PD on 23 Mar 2010 11:11 On Mar 23, 9:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 9:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 22, 8:02 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 22, 1:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 22, 2:20 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. > > > > > Sure. Space is not flat. Straight lines that start out parallel are > > > > not parallel for very long in our universe. They are only parallel on > > > > very short scales, such as the very short scales for bridges and > > > > buildings, but not at all on the scales between planets. If we > > > > actually build a triangle out of straight beams on that time scale, we > > > > will find that the angles of the triangle do not add up to 180 > > > > degrees, although they get very, very close to that on the scale of > > > > bridges and buildings. Euclidean geometry says it's exact, but > > > > Euclidean geometry does not give the answers we see in the real > > > > universe. If your public school teacher tells you that the angles of a > > > > triangle add up to 180 degrees in our universe, the teacher has told > > > > you a *lie*. > > > > > This means that even things that are traveling in straight lines and > > > > initially parallel to each other, with no external forces on them, > > > > will soon diverge or converge. We can trace such straight lines with, > > > > for example, light beams, which always travel in straight lines. And > > > > we can see parallel light rays from distant galaxies bend toward each > > > > other and cross, because it leaves a distinctive image just like a > > > > lens would, even though there's no material lens between here and > > > > there. > > > > > What makes space not flat is matter and energy. Where there is a lot > > > > of matter and energy, there the space is less flat. Further away from > > > > mass and energy, the space is flatter, but it never gets completely > > > > flat before it starts to get close to another clump of matter and > > > > energy and starts to get more unflat again. > > > > > We can calculate how unflat space is, if we know all the matter and > > > > energy in the region. To do this we use the same G that Newton put in > > > > his equations, but we use a different equation instead. And if we know > > > > how unflat space is, then we can calculate how fast parallel lines > > > > will converge in that space, and therefore we can tell how fast > > > > parallel light rays will converge or diverge in that region of space. > > > > And if we actually do that calculation, we find that it agrees > > > > spectacularly well with how convergent or divergent the light rays > > > > actually are. This tell us that our calculation is right, and that the > > > > connection between mass and energy and the unflatness of space is > > > > right. > > > > > We can do this for all sorts of things other than light, too. It gets > > > > the right answer for everything we've tried where we have a real clear > > > > knowledge of the mass and energy in the area. > > > > > Now, a public school kid can certainly understand the above. In order > > > > to *believe* what he understands, the kid will have to look up some of > > > > the experimental measurements, so that he will say, "Sonofagun, it > > > > really works that way." There will be some idiots, though, who will > > > > understand the above but say "Bullshit. I don't believe it, and you > > > > can't make me look at the measurements, so to hell with you." There > > > > will be other poor fools who can't even read and understand the above > > > > paragraphs that are understandable by a public school student -- > > > > there's not much one can do about those poor fools. > > > > All of that and you did not answer his question. > > > Of course I did. What were you expecting in terms of an explanation? > > What fundamental element do you think MUST be present in a physical > > explanation that was missing from what I gave? > > > > Hell, you can't even > > > say what G is... > > > G is a numerical conversion factor, empirically determined, whose > > value is determined by the choice of units being used. It basically is > > a coupling strength, which means given the value of the amount of a > > source (mass and energy), what is the amount of the influence (force > > in Newton's version of the explanation, curvature in the more modern > > version)? > > > > Waving one's hand one paths says NOTHING! about how > > > that occurs... > > > That depends on what you think MUST always be involved in "how that > > happens". What do you think has to be there for you to recognize it as > > a "how that occurs"? > > > > Paul Stowe > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by a massive object. I can back up my grade-schooler description with calculations and agreement with quantitative data. Let me know when you can do the same with your grade-schooler description.
From: mpc755 on 23 Mar 2010 11:13 On Mar 23, 11:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 9:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 23, 9:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 22, 8:02 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 22, 1:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 22, 2:20 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. > > > > > > Sure. Space is not flat. Straight lines that start out parallel are > > > > > not parallel for very long in our universe. They are only parallel on > > > > > very short scales, such as the very short scales for bridges and > > > > > buildings, but not at all on the scales between planets. If we > > > > > actually build a triangle out of straight beams on that time scale, we > > > > > will find that the angles of the triangle do not add up to 180 > > > > > degrees, although they get very, very close to that on the scale of > > > > > bridges and buildings. Euclidean geometry says it's exact, but > > > > > Euclidean geometry does not give the answers we see in the real > > > > > universe. If your public school teacher tells you that the angles of a > > > > > triangle add up to 180 degrees in our universe, the teacher has told > > > > > you a *lie*. > > > > > > This means that even things that are traveling in straight lines and > > > > > initially parallel to each other, with no external forces on them, > > > > > will soon diverge or converge. We can trace such straight lines with, > > > > > for example, light beams, which always travel in straight lines. And > > > > > we can see parallel light rays from distant galaxies bend toward each > > > > > other and cross, because it leaves a distinctive image just like a > > > > > lens would, even though there's no material lens between here and > > > > > there. > > > > > > What makes space not flat is matter and energy. Where there is a lot > > > > > of matter and energy, there the space is less flat. Further away from > > > > > mass and energy, the space is flatter, but it never gets completely > > > > > flat before it starts to get close to another clump of matter and > > > > > energy and starts to get more unflat again. > > > > > > We can calculate how unflat space is, if we know all the matter and > > > > > energy in the region. To do this we use the same G that Newton put in > > > > > his equations, but we use a different equation instead. And if we know > > > > > how unflat space is, then we can calculate how fast parallel lines > > > > > will converge in that space, and therefore we can tell how fast > > > > > parallel light rays will converge or diverge in that region of space. > > > > > And if we actually do that calculation, we find that it agrees > > > > > spectacularly well with how convergent or divergent the light rays > > > > > actually are. This tell us that our calculation is right, and that the > > > > > connection between mass and energy and the unflatness of space is > > > > > right. > > > > > > We can do this for all sorts of things other than light, too. It gets > > > > > the right answer for everything we've tried where we have a real clear > > > > > knowledge of the mass and energy in the area. > > > > > > Now, a public school kid can certainly understand the above. In order > > > > > to *believe* what he understands, the kid will have to look up some of > > > > > the experimental measurements, so that he will say, "Sonofagun, it > > > > > really works that way." There will be some idiots, though, who will > > > > > understand the above but say "Bullshit. I don't believe it, and you > > > > > can't make me look at the measurements, so to hell with you." There > > > > > will be other poor fools who can't even read and understand the above > > > > > paragraphs that are understandable by a public school student -- > > > > > there's not much one can do about those poor fools. > > > > > All of that and you did not answer his question. > > > > Of course I did. What were you expecting in terms of an explanation? > > > What fundamental element do you think MUST be present in a physical > > > explanation that was missing from what I gave? > > > > > Hell, you can't even > > > > say what G is... > > > > G is a numerical conversion factor, empirically determined, whose > > > value is determined by the choice of units being used. It basically is > > > a coupling strength, which means given the value of the amount of a > > > source (mass and energy), what is the amount of the influence (force > > > in Newton's version of the explanation, curvature in the more modern > > > version)? > > > > > Waving one's hand one paths says NOTHING! about how > > > > that occurs... > > > > That depends on what you think MUST always be involved in "how that > > > happens". What do you think has to be there for you to recognize it as > > > a "how that occurs"? > > > > > Paul Stowe > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by a massive object. > > I can back up my grade-schooler description with calculations and > agreement with quantitative data. > > Let me know when you can do the same with your grade-schooler > description. Let me know when you can start a sentence with "Gravity is". Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by a massive object.
From: john on 23 Mar 2010 11:17 On Mar 23, 7:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 22, 8:02 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 1:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 22, 2:20 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. > > > > Sure. Space is not flat. Straight lines that start out parallel are > > > not parallel for very long in our universe. They are only parallel on > > > very short scales, such as the very short scales for bridges and > > > buildings, but not at all on the scales between planets. If we > > > actually build a triangle out of straight beams on that time scale, we > > > will find that the angles of the triangle do not add up to 180 > > > degrees, although they get very, very close to that on the scale of > > > bridges and buildings. Euclidean geometry says it's exact, but > > > Euclidean geometry does not give the answers we see in the real > > > universe. If your public school teacher tells you that the angles of a > > > triangle add up to 180 degrees in our universe, the teacher has told > > > you a *lie*. > > > > This means that even things that are traveling in straight lines and > > > initially parallel to each other, with no external forces on them, > > > will soon diverge or converge. We can trace such straight lines with, > > > for example, light beams, which always travel in straight lines. And > > > we can see parallel light rays from distant galaxies bend toward each > > > other and cross, because it leaves a distinctive image just like a > > > lens would, even though there's no material lens between here and > > > there. > > > > What makes space not flat is matter and energy. Where there is a lot > > > of matter and energy, there the space is less flat. Further away from > > > mass and energy, the space is flatter, but it never gets completely > > > flat before it starts to get close to another clump of matter and > > > energy and starts to get more unflat again. > > > > We can calculate how unflat space is, if we know all the matter and > > > energy in the region. To do this we use the same G that Newton put in > > > his equations, but we use a different equation instead. And if we know > > > how unflat space is, then we can calculate how fast parallel lines > > > will converge in that space, and therefore we can tell how fast > > > parallel light rays will converge or diverge in that region of space. > > > And if we actually do that calculation, we find that it agrees > > > spectacularly well with how convergent or divergent the light rays > > > actually are. This tell us that our calculation is right, and that the > > > connection between mass and energy and the unflatness of space is > > > right. > > > > We can do this for all sorts of things other than light, too. It gets > > > the right answer for everything we've tried where we have a real clear > > > knowledge of the mass and energy in the area. > > > > Now, a public school kid can certainly understand the above. In order > > > to *believe* what he understands, the kid will have to look up some of > > > the experimental measurements, so that he will say, "Sonofagun, it > > > really works that way." There will be some idiots, though, who will > > > understand the above but say "Bullshit. I don't believe it, and you > > > can't make me look at the measurements, so to hell with you." There > > > will be other poor fools who can't even read and understand the above > > > paragraphs that are understandable by a public school student -- > > > there's not much one can do about those poor fools. > > > All of that and you did not answer his question. > > Of course I did. What were you expecting in terms of an explanation? > What fundamental element do you think MUST be present in a physical > explanation that was missing from what I gave? > > > Hell, you can't even > > say what G is... > > G is a numerical conversion factor, empirically determined, whose > value is determined by the choice of units being used. It basically is > a coupling strength, which means given the value of the amount of a > source (mass and energy), what is the amount of the influence (force > in Newton's version of the explanation, curvature in the more modern > version)? > > > Waving one's hand one paths says NOTHING! about how > > that occurs... > > That depends on what you think MUST always be involved in "how that > happens". What do you think has to be there for you to recognize it as > a "how that occurs"? > > > > > > > Paul Stowe- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If light rays didn't remain perfectly parallel for 13 billion light years we wouldn't be able to bring galaxies into focus at that range. In all directions. Space is perfectly flat everywhere. john
From: PD on 23 Mar 2010 11:58
On Mar 23, 10:13 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 11:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 23, 9:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 23, 9:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 22, 8:02 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 22, 1:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 2:20 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. > > > > > > > Sure. Space is not flat. Straight lines that start out parallel are > > > > > > not parallel for very long in our universe. They are only parallel on > > > > > > very short scales, such as the very short scales for bridges and > > > > > > buildings, but not at all on the scales between planets. If we > > > > > > actually build a triangle out of straight beams on that time scale, we > > > > > > will find that the angles of the triangle do not add up to 180 > > > > > > degrees, although they get very, very close to that on the scale of > > > > > > bridges and buildings. Euclidean geometry says it's exact, but > > > > > > Euclidean geometry does not give the answers we see in the real > > > > > > universe. If your public school teacher tells you that the angles of a > > > > > > triangle add up to 180 degrees in our universe, the teacher has told > > > > > > you a *lie*. > > > > > > > This means that even things that are traveling in straight lines and > > > > > > initially parallel to each other, with no external forces on them, > > > > > > will soon diverge or converge. We can trace such straight lines with, > > > > > > for example, light beams, which always travel in straight lines.. And > > > > > > we can see parallel light rays from distant galaxies bend toward each > > > > > > other and cross, because it leaves a distinctive image just like a > > > > > > lens would, even though there's no material lens between here and > > > > > > there. > > > > > > > What makes space not flat is matter and energy. Where there is a lot > > > > > > of matter and energy, there the space is less flat. Further away from > > > > > > mass and energy, the space is flatter, but it never gets completely > > > > > > flat before it starts to get close to another clump of matter and > > > > > > energy and starts to get more unflat again. > > > > > > > We can calculate how unflat space is, if we know all the matter and > > > > > > energy in the region. To do this we use the same G that Newton put in > > > > > > his equations, but we use a different equation instead. And if we know > > > > > > how unflat space is, then we can calculate how fast parallel lines > > > > > > will converge in that space, and therefore we can tell how fast > > > > > > parallel light rays will converge or diverge in that region of space. > > > > > > And if we actually do that calculation, we find that it agrees > > > > > > spectacularly well with how convergent or divergent the light rays > > > > > > actually are. This tell us that our calculation is right, and that the > > > > > > connection between mass and energy and the unflatness of space is > > > > > > right. > > > > > > > We can do this for all sorts of things other than light, too. It gets > > > > > > the right answer for everything we've tried where we have a real clear > > > > > > knowledge of the mass and energy in the area. > > > > > > > Now, a public school kid can certainly understand the above. In order > > > > > > to *believe* what he understands, the kid will have to look up some of > > > > > > the experimental measurements, so that he will say, "Sonofagun, it > > > > > > really works that way." There will be some idiots, though, who will > > > > > > understand the above but say "Bullshit. I don't believe it, and you > > > > > > can't make me look at the measurements, so to hell with you." There > > > > > > will be other poor fools who can't even read and understand the above > > > > > > paragraphs that are understandable by a public school student -- > > > > > > there's not much one can do about those poor fools. > > > > > > All of that and you did not answer his question. > > > > > Of course I did. What were you expecting in terms of an explanation? > > > > What fundamental element do you think MUST be present in a physical > > > > explanation that was missing from what I gave? > > > > > > Hell, you can't even > > > > > say what G is... > > > > > G is a numerical conversion factor, empirically determined, whose > > > > value is determined by the choice of units being used. It basically is > > > > a coupling strength, which means given the value of the amount of a > > > > source (mass and energy), what is the amount of the influence (force > > > > in Newton's version of the explanation, curvature in the more modern > > > > version)? > > > > > > Waving one's hand one paths says NOTHING! about how > > > > > that occurs... > > > > > That depends on what you think MUST always be involved in "how that > > > > happens". What do you think has to be there for you to recognize it as > > > > a "how that occurs"? > > > > > > Paul Stowe > > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by a massive object. > > > I can back up my grade-schooler description with calculations and > > agreement with quantitative data. > > > Let me know when you can do the same with your grade-schooler > > description. > > Let me know when you can start a sentence with "Gravity is". Fine. Gravity is unflat space. There. If simple sentences that are understandable by third graders are important to you, there's one with four words and seven syllables. > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by a massive object. |