There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Two times happening together
Next: NOW ????????????
From: PD on 23 Mar 2010 18:13 On Mar 23, 5:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 6:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 23, 4:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You enter the class room and begin to discuss how the future > > > determines the past > > > Yup, and then I show the experimental evidence, so they can judge for > > themselves. Very few of them choose to disbelieve the evidence. > > Any experiment you provide as evidence can be explained as waves > propagating available paths and particles traveling a single path. Explanations in physics involve calculations and comparison with quantitative measurements. Demonstrate that this explanation exists. > > This will also show your state of delusional denial. > > > > and how wave function probabilities are physical > > > Wave functions are physical. Probabilities are numerical results you > > get from calculating the behavior of wave functions. I can't help it > > if you have trouble with the words. > > > > and how space is 'unflat' but does not move > > > Yes. > > Then that will be the first time. First time for who? > > > > and how you do not > > > understand what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity. > > > Yes. > > This will also be the first time you explained it. First time I explained what? > > > > Do you > > > still insist on the existence of gravitons or have you moved past that > > > one and now insist on the existence of gravity quanta? > > > I've never insisted on the existence of gravitons, which is the term > > for gravity quanta. As I told you, they are considered likely, but we > > don't have experimental evidence for them yet. > > Because gravity is the pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter.
From: mpc755 on 23 Mar 2010 18:15 On Mar 23, 6:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 5:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 23, 6:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 23, 4:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > You enter the class room and begin to discuss how the future > > > > determines the past > > > > Yup, and then I show the experimental evidence, so they can judge for > > > themselves. Very few of them choose to disbelieve the evidence. > > > Any experiment you provide as evidence can be explained as waves > > propagating available paths and particles traveling a single path. > > Explanations in physics involve calculations and comparison with > quantitative measurements. > Demonstrate that this explanation exists. > > > > > This will also show your state of delusional denial. > > > > > and how wave function probabilities are physical > > > > Wave functions are physical. Probabilities are numerical results you > > > get from calculating the behavior of wave functions. I can't help it > > > if you have trouble with the words. > > > > > and how space is 'unflat' but does not move > > > > Yes. > > > Then that will be the first time. > > First time for who? > It woudld be the first time you explained what occurs physically in nature for space to be 'unflat'. > > > > > > and how you do not > > > > understand what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity. > > > > Yes. > > > This will also be the first time you explained it. > > First time I explained what? > It woudld be the first time you explained what occurs physically in nature for space to be 'unflat'. > > > > > > Do you > > > > still insist on the existence of gravitons or have you moved past that > > > > one and now insist on the existence of gravity quanta? > > > > I've never insisted on the existence of gravitons, which is the term > > > for gravity quanta. As I told you, they are considered likely, but we > > > don't have experimental evidence for them yet. > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter.
From: PD on 23 Mar 2010 18:19 On Mar 23, 5:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 6:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 5:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 23, 6:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 23, 4:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > You enter the class room and begin to discuss how the future > > > > > determines the past > > > > > Yup, and then I show the experimental evidence, so they can judge for > > > > themselves. Very few of them choose to disbelieve the evidence. > > > > Any experiment you provide as evidence can be explained as waves > > > propagating available paths and particles traveling a single path. > > > Explanations in physics involve calculations and comparison with > > quantitative measurements. > > Demonstrate that this explanation exists. > > > > This will also show your state of delusional denial. > > > > > > and how wave function probabilities are physical > > > > > Wave functions are physical. Probabilities are numerical results you > > > > get from calculating the behavior of wave functions. I can't help it > > > > if you have trouble with the words. > > > > > > and how space is 'unflat' but does not move > > > > > Yes. > > > > Then that will be the first time. > > > First time for who? > > It woudld be the first time you explained what occurs physically in > nature for space to be 'unflat'. > > > > > > > > and how you do not > > > > > understand what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity. > > > > > Yes. > > > > This will also be the first time you explained it. > > > First time I explained what? > > It woudld be the first time you explained what occurs physically in > nature for space to be 'unflat'. > > > > > > > > Do you > > > > > still insist on the existence of gravitons or have you moved past that > > > > > one and now insist on the existence of gravity quanta? > > > > > I've never insisted on the existence of gravitons, which is the term > > > > for gravity quanta. As I told you, they are considered likely, but we > > > > don't have experimental evidence for them yet. > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You're funny. You have this idea that what you say is correct until somebody can explain it otherwise in a way that you believe. PD
From: mpc755 on 23 Mar 2010 19:23 On Mar 23, 6:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 5:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 23, 6:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 23, 5:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 23, 6:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 23, 4:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > You enter the class room and begin to discuss how the future > > > > > > determines the past > > > > > > Yup, and then I show the experimental evidence, so they can judge for > > > > > themselves. Very few of them choose to disbelieve the evidence. > > > > > Any experiment you provide as evidence can be explained as waves > > > > propagating available paths and particles traveling a single path. > > > > Explanations in physics involve calculations and comparison with > > > quantitative measurements. > > > Demonstrate that this explanation exists. > > > > > This will also show your state of delusional denial. > > > > > > > and how wave function probabilities are physical > > > > > > Wave functions are physical. Probabilities are numerical results you > > > > > get from calculating the behavior of wave functions. I can't help it > > > > > if you have trouble with the words. > > > > > > > and how space is 'unflat' but does not move > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > Then that will be the first time. > > > > First time for who? > > > It woudld be the first time you explained what occurs physically in > > nature for space to be 'unflat'. > > > > > > > and how you do not > > > > > > understand what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity. > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > This will also be the first time you explained it. > > > > First time I explained what? > > > It woudld be the first time you explained what occurs physically in > > nature for space to be 'unflat'. > > > > > > > Do you > > > > > > still insist on the existence of gravitons or have you moved past that > > > > > > one and now insist on the existence of gravity quanta? > > > > > > I've never insisted on the existence of gravitons, which is the term > > > > > for gravity quanta. As I told you, they are considered likely, but we > > > > > don't have experimental evidence for them yet. > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > You're funny. You have this idea that what you say is correct until > somebody can explain it otherwise in a way that you believe. > > PD Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory, to date.
From: Paul Stowe on 23 Mar 2010 23:34
On Mar 23, 6:33 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? The question was, "Explain how you think gravity works, PD. Make it short and simple so a public school kid could understand it." As for what's missing, everything... All you described was a mapping process, one that most public school kid would NOT! understand. > > 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)? It certainly not a 'numerical constant' at the very least, its a physical constant because it is NOT! unitless. Those units remain no matter what system of measure one chooses. But, like I said you cannot say 'what' it is, how those units came to be or even where it comes from. You can only say it 'appears' and is needed in the equations. > > Waving one's hand on 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"? I happen to agree with Newton on that one... Paul Stowe |