There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Two times happening together
Next: NOW ????????????
From: NoEinstein on 2 Mar 2010 17:06 On Feb 26, 12:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> > Dear mpc755: When you touch an index finger to the back of the opposite hand, at atomic scales, the IOTAs (smallest energy units of the ether), which are polar, oppose the polar IOTAs of the opposite hand. Thought of that way, there is no "matter" in the Universe, only tangles of IOTAs and free-flowing ether in the spaces between. So, it would be more proper to say that "matter" (the energy tangles) is a state of the ether, not the other way around. NoEinstein > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 2 Mar 2010 17:58 On Feb 26, 8:31 pm, 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 Dear glird: Every time you ride on a jet airliner you get pushed back in your seat by the ether that is flowing through the plane, front to back. That same flowing ether will slow down all mechanical, atomic, and biological processes. Instead of making up your own ideas about physics, realize that in nearly four years that I have been using sci.physics, not a SINGLE person has shown that my NEW science is in any way wrong. You've got a very long way to go before you can match what I have accomplished. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 2 Mar 2010 18:00 On Feb 28, 6:15 pm, clivevrob <clivevrobin...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear clivevrob: Please identify yourself! Are you an ally? NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 2 Mar 2010 18:02 On Mar 1, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > 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! Dear glird: 'Mirror' put-downs apply to you, too. NE
From: mpc755 on 2 Mar 2010 18:03
On Mar 2, 5:06 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Feb 26, 12:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> > > Dear mpc755: When you touch an index finger to the back of the > opposite hand, at atomic scales, the IOTAs (smallest energy units of > the ether), which are polar, oppose the polar IOTAs of the opposite > hand. Thought of that way, there is no "matter" in the Universe, only > tangles of IOTAs and free-flowing ether in the spaces between. So, it > would be more proper to say that "matter" (the energy tangles) is a > state of the ether, not the other way around. NoEinstein > > This is the opposite definition glird proposes. glird definition of aether is "aether-is-the- continuous-form-of-the-material-outside-of-and-surrounding-atomic- nuclei IS matter-is-the-compressible-substance-that-fills-space". This is why I am naming the material which both the aether and matter consist of mather. This avoids redefining already existing and conceptualized terms. I think 'we' all have the same basic concept of what aether is. I think 'we' all have the same basic concept of what matter is. Instead of trying to modify the concept of aether to be a state of matter or for matter to be a state of aether it is better if we define matter and aether to both be states of mather. We can then agree mather has mass. Meaning both matter and aether have mass. Meaning the aether is displaced by matter. Meaning the aether applies pressure towards the matter doing the displacing. Meaning the pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity. |