There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Two times happening together
Next: NOW ????????????
From: NoEinstein on 24 Mar 2010 16:15 On Mar 22, 4:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear mpc755: Why don't you or PD make a '+new post'? Then, you could argue back-and-forth without bothering anyone. NE > > On Mar 22, 4:10 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. > > Because the state of the aether is determined by its connections with > the matter. > > > 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. > > Because the aether is displaced by the matter. > > > 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*. > > The teacher needs to qualify the statement by stating to the students > that it must be assumed the triangle is at rest with respect to the > aether. > > > 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. > > Because light waves propagate with respect to the aether. > > > What makes space not flat is matter and energy. > > Matter and aether. > > > Where there is a lot > > of matter > > The state of the aether is determined by its connections with the > matter. Where there is a lot of matter the state of the aether is less > at rest then when there is less 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. > > before it starts to get close to another clump of matter and [aether] > 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. > > matter and aether. > > > > > > > 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. > > The students will especially understand the above when it is mentioned > to the the aether is displaced by the matter.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 24 Mar 2010 16:25 On Mar 24, 3:05 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 22, 4:10 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. > > > > Do it for both of us. > > > > john- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > So, PD, you believe Einstein's warped space-time garbage. Why didn't > you just say that instead of writing the above? You said you wanted an explanation, so I gave it to you. John requested it be at the level of a public school student, so I did that. > SR violates the Law > of the Conservation of Energy. 1. The above is not SR. Gravity is not dealt with in SR. 2. SR does not violate the law of conservation of energy, as has been abundantly explained to you previously. Have you forgotten all that in such a short period of time? Do you remember what you wore yesterday? > I have invalidated the M-M experiment, > because such didn't have a CONTROL, or unchanging, light course. The validity of SR and GR is not contingent on the M-M experiment. They have been thoroughly tested by dozens of other experiments and would be just as valid today if Michelson or Morley had never been born. > The > space-time garbage resulted from the embicilic rubber ruler > explanation of Lorentz to "explain" the nil results of M-M. This is a historically inaccurate statement. The notion of spacetime came directly from classical electrodynamics and the principle of relativity, the latter known already to apply to classical Newtonian mechanics. > The > "logic" (sic) of space-time derived from those rubber rulers, This is not historically correct, either. See the above. > which > defy all known principles of engineering. That is also factually incorrect. The "all known principles of engineering" do not say what you think they say. If you think they do, then you need to state explicitly what you think those principles are, and to point to a link where those principles are stated. Otherwise it is a "known principle of engineering" that you have manufactured in your head. In fact, the "principles of engineering" all adhere to the standards of metrology laid out by NIST, and NIST standards are all completely consistent with relativity. > If Einstein is all you have > to counter my New Science that has gravity being downward flowing > ether, then you are just another looser. NoEinstein There is no need to "counter" your "New Science" on a newsgroup, John. The test of a theory in science is done with experimental data, not by arguing and posturing on a newsgroup. When you have developed your theory as you say you intend to do over the next few decades, and when you have data in hand that confirm your New Science and are counter to the predictions of relativity, then you will be onto something. Until then, this is all just posturing, like a letter to the editor in the newspaper.
From: NoEinstein on 24 Mar 2010 16:27 On Mar 22, 5:24 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 22, 12:40 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > The aether waves can collapse. Where then do they go? > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Burt: The notion that there are waves in the ether went back to the time dunces thought light needed a medium to travel in. The potential slowing of light while passing through even a very long interferometer is tiny. No experiment ever designed can detect a slowing (or speedup) due to ether drag. That's because ether NURTURES the passage of light, due to the fact that IOTAs (smallest enery units of the ether) have a tangential velocity of 'c'. My X, Y, and Z interferometer easily detects the speed-up or slow-down of light, because such measures the LATERAL movement of the light beam in traveling to a 45 degree mirror. The following link explains the principle. NoEinstein Where Angels Fear to Fall http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
From: PD on 24 Mar 2010 16:29 On Mar 24, 3:11 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 22, 4:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Each time you reply, you think you are > getting... the last word, but I have science TRUTH on my side. The last word has nothing to do with it, John. In science, it doesn't matter who has the last word in a discussion, although it seems to be keenly important to you (and to mpc775). And in science, TRUTH is not determined by the proposer, but by experimental measurement. When you are ready to put your ideas forward according to *that* test, then you will be doing science. > All > you have are attacks on the messenger and an occasional reference to > grammar school, status quo science. I do think it's telling that your New Science is not only in conflict with relativity, it is also in conflict with grammar school science. This says that your problem is not with Einstein at all, but with your third grade science teachers. It's rather interesting to me that you do not understand what is clearly understood by third graders. Doesn't it worry you at all that a third grade science teacher would look at what you've written and hand it back to you as unacceptable work? > That's about as close as you can > get to my advanced understanding of the Universe. NoEinstein > > > > > On Mar 22, 2:40 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Mar 21, 2:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: My disproving of SR and GR wasn't done > > > for my ego. Albert Einstein, in order to compensate for his > > > stupidity, chose the most obscure 'science' as his area of > > > "specialization", because he knew that few people would be able to > > > show him wrong. > > > I don't know why you think physics is obscure. Physics is the easiest > > of all the sciences, especially compared with molecular biology or > > organic chemistry. If you have a feeling of insecurity or an > > inferiority complex about physics, I assure you it is misplaced. > > > Technical physics is a required course for all medical doctors, > > architects, engineers, and scientists in any discipline. Any course > > that is that broadly taught is not esoteric or obscure. > > > > He looked studious (slow) and would bite-off-the-head > > > of anyone who disagreed with him. When, after nearly a decade, he > > > managed to write an empirical formula to describe the orbit of > > > Mercury, he kept the 'source' of his equations secret, and called the > > > equations GR. The light bending caused by the mass of Jupiter was > > > responsible for the earlier appearance of the moons than their periods > > > predicted. Einstein (or more likely, the astronomer) suspected that > > > the bending of the light was mass and distance-from-the-visual-center- > > > of-mass proportional. Using that probability, Einstein "predicted" > > > the angle of bending of stars' light caused by the Sun. With a poker > > > face, Einstein conveniently neglected to explain the actual (7th > > > grade) manner of making the prediction, and claimed that his knowledge > > > of relativity and space-time was the reason. Well, that was pure B.. > > > S.! > > > Making stuff up, John, and presenting it as fact is unbecoming and you > > should be ashamed of yourself. > > > > I have accomplished more for science than any 10 PhDs could accomplish > > > in their lifetimes. So, I don't need... ego, as a motive. But the > > > wounded egos of the brainless, like you, obviously, need to run-down > > > the accomplishments of others. At some point, its likely that > > > psychiatry will have a mental illness classification thats called "PD > > > Syndrome": Running down the accomplishments of others in order to > > > compensate for the extreme inferiority of the sufferer. I pity you, > > > PD. NoEinstein > > > A hint here, John: The man who assesses his own accomplishment has > > accomplished nothing. It is others who determine a man's > > accomplishments. You may not like this rule of life, but it is so, and > > you should have learned this as a teenager. > > > > > On Mar 21, 12:37 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 20, 11:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 - Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > PD: I taught myself to play the Cornet, excellently, without needing > > > > > a... "Music Man" (or woman). I can figure out science, too. > > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > You just keep telling yourself that. I'm sure it's better for your ego > > > > than reality has been.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: NoEinstein on 24 Mar 2010 16:29
On Mar 22, 5:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Alright, fool. Show me where I said anyone or anything looks out "windows" on GPS satellites? NE > > On Mar 22, 3:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 22, 4:10 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. > > > Because the state of the aether is determined by its connections with > > the matter. > > > > 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. > > > Because the aether is displaced by the matter. > > > > 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*. > > > The teacher needs to qualify the statement by stating to the students > > that it must be assumed the triangle is at rest with respect to the > > aether. > > > > 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. > > > Because light waves propagate with respect to the aether. > > > > What makes space not flat is matter and energy. > > > Matter and aether. > > > > Where there is a lot > > > of matter > > > The state of the aether is determined by its connections with the > > matter. Where there is a lot of matter the state of the aether is less > > at rest then when there is less 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. > > > before it starts to get close to another clump of matter and [aether] > > 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. > > > matter and aether. > > > > 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. > > > The students will especially understand the above when it is mentioned > > to the the aether is displaced by the matter. > > All this from the guy who was thinking that Observers look out the > windows of GPS satellites at the distant stars.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |