There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Two times happening together
Next: NOW ????????????
From: mpc755 on 25 Mar 2010 09:18 On Mar 25, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 8:01 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Seto is correct. > > No, he's not. Physics has involved more than the material for a few > centuries now. Do catch up. > Fields are used when what is physically occurring in physical space is not understood. 'Virtual' particles are invented when what is physically occurring in physical space is not understood. C-60 molecules are able to create interference patterns in and of themselves when what is physically occurring in physical space is not understood. Not being able to describe how physical space becomes 'unflat' and not move is what occurs when what is physically occurring in physical space is not understood. If Seto was not correct, you could physically describe the following: - The future determining the past - Virtual particles which exist out of nothing - Conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair - A C-60 molecule can enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum. - Matter causes physical space to be 'unflat' but not move The above are physically answered: - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - Pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter forces the plates together - Conservation of momentum does apply to a downgraded photon pair. When a photon is detected its wave collapses which determines its spin. In order for the original photons momentum to be conserved, the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - Physical space is displaced by matter. Aether is displaced by matter.
From: PD on 25 Mar 2010 09:30 On Mar 25, 8:18 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 25, 8:01 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Seto is correct. > > > No, he's not. Physics has involved more than the material for a few > > centuries now. Do catch up. > > Fields are used when what is physically occurring in physical space is > not understood. 'Virtual' particles are invented when what is > physically occurring in physical space is not understood. C-60 > molecules are able to create interference patterns in and of > themselves when what is physically occurring in physical space is not > understood. Not being able to describe how physical space becomes > 'unflat' and not move is what occurs when what is physically occurring > in physical space is not understood. > > If Seto was not correct, you could physically describe the following: > That's not right. Correctness in physics is NOT determined by being to physically describe things in a way that you find believable. It is simply is not required. All attempts by you to demand such will be ignored. Correctness in physics is determined SOLELY be a model's ability to quantitatively predict numerical measurements made in experiment. You believe that physics owes you a physical description of what is going on in a way that you believe. You are wrong. Physics owes you nothing of the kind. You may not like this, but it is what it is.
From: mpc755 on 25 Mar 2010 09:48 On Mar 25, 9:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 8:18 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 25, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 25, 8:01 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Seto is correct. > > > > No, he's not. Physics has involved more than the material for a few > > > centuries now. Do catch up. > > > Fields are used when what is physically occurring in physical space is > > not understood. 'Virtual' particles are invented when what is > > physically occurring in physical space is not understood. C-60 > > molecules are able to create interference patterns in and of > > themselves when what is physically occurring in physical space is not > > understood. Not being able to describe how physical space becomes > > 'unflat' and not move is what occurs when what is physically occurring > > in physical space is not understood. > > > If Seto was not correct, you could physically describe the following: > > That's not right. Correctness in physics is NOT determined by being to > physically describe things in a way that you find believable. It is > simply is not required. All attempts by you to demand such will be > ignored. > > Correctness in physics is determined SOLELY be a model's ability to > quantitatively predict numerical measurements made in experiment. > > You believe that physics owes you a physical description of what is > going on in a way that you believe. You are wrong. Physics owes you > nothing of the kind. > > You may not like this, but it is what it is. Your inability to answer the following questions is evidence the future does not determine the past and 'virtual' particle, obviously, do not exist out of nothing. It is not a matter of what is, or is not, believable, it is a matter of what is physically possible in nature. Provide physical explanations for the following. If you can not then what you choose to believe is not the physics of nature. If you choose to believe in the following without being able to provide physical explanations for them then that is your choice, but it is not physics. - The future determining the past - Virtual particles which exist out of nothing - Conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair - A C-60 molecule can enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum. - Matter causes physical space to be 'unflat' but not move The above are physically answered: - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - Pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter forces the plates together - Conservation of momentum does apply to a downgraded photon pair. When a photon is detected its wave collapses which determines its spin. In order for the original photons momentum to be conserved, the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - Physical space is displaced by matter. Aether is displaced by matter.
From: PD on 25 Mar 2010 10:30 On Mar 25, 8:48 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 9:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 25, 8:18 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 25, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 25, 8:01 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Seto is correct. > > > > > No, he's not. Physics has involved more than the material for a few > > > > centuries now. Do catch up. > > > > Fields are used when what is physically occurring in physical space is > > > not understood. 'Virtual' particles are invented when what is > > > physically occurring in physical space is not understood. C-60 > > > molecules are able to create interference patterns in and of > > > themselves when what is physically occurring in physical space is not > > > understood. Not being able to describe how physical space becomes > > > 'unflat' and not move is what occurs when what is physically occurring > > > in physical space is not understood. > > > > If Seto was not correct, you could physically describe the following: > > > That's not right. Correctness in physics is NOT determined by being to > > physically describe things in a way that you find believable. It is > > simply is not required. All attempts by you to demand such will be > > ignored. > > > Correctness in physics is determined SOLELY be a model's ability to > > quantitatively predict numerical measurements made in experiment. > > > You believe that physics owes you a physical description of what is > > going on in a way that you believe. You are wrong. Physics owes you > > nothing of the kind. > > > You may not like this, but it is what it is. > > Your inability to answer the following questions is evidence the > future does not determine the past and 'virtual' particle, obviously, > do not exist out of nothing. It is not a matter of what is, or is not, > believable, it is a matter of what is physically possible in nature. No sir. What is physically possible is NOT determined by deciding ahead of time what is absurd nonsense and what is not. Making that call ahead of time, based on your intuition (or worse, your flat declaration) is a horrible idea. What is physically possible is determined by whether the model that says it is possible demonstrates accurate quantitative predictions of experimental measurement. If a model is successful that way, and it says that something is physically possible in nature (whether you think so or not), then it IS physically possible in nature. This comparison with experiment is THE WAY we determine what is physically possible and what is not. There is no other way to make that determination. You say that it is not physically possible in nature for the future to determine the past. You make this flat declaration as though it MUST be true. But science does not do it that way. It asks the question, is it possible for the future to determine the past? So it builds different models. One model will say it's impossible. Another model will say it is possible. Then the predictions of both those models is compared to experimental measurements, quantitatively. If the model that says it's possible is the one that agrees, then it IS possible in nature for the future to determine the past. This is how science figures out what is possible in nature and what is not. You want to decide what is possible and what is not possible ahead of time. That is a stupid way of studying nature, and it is not scientific. > > Provide physical explanations for the following. If you can not then > what you choose to believe is not the physics of nature. BS. You don't get to decide that unless you get a satisfying explanation, then it must not be true of nature. You are not the judge and arbiter of what is possible in nature. If you don't accept it or understand it, that's your problem, not nature's problem, not science's problem. Get over yourself. > If you choose > to believe in the following without being able to provide physical > explanations for them then that is your choice, but it is not physics. >
From: mpc755 on 25 Mar 2010 10:38
On Mar 25, 10:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 8:48 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 25, 9:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 25, 8:18 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 25, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 25, 8:01 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Seto is correct. > > > > > > No, he's not. Physics has involved more than the material for a few > > > > > centuries now. Do catch up. > > > > > Fields are used when what is physically occurring in physical space is > > > > not understood. 'Virtual' particles are invented when what is > > > > physically occurring in physical space is not understood. C-60 > > > > molecules are able to create interference patterns in and of > > > > themselves when what is physically occurring in physical space is not > > > > understood. Not being able to describe how physical space becomes > > > > 'unflat' and not move is what occurs when what is physically occurring > > > > in physical space is not understood. > > > > > If Seto was not correct, you could physically describe the following: > > > > That's not right. Correctness in physics is NOT determined by being to > > > physically describe things in a way that you find believable. It is > > > simply is not required. All attempts by you to demand such will be > > > ignored. > > > > Correctness in physics is determined SOLELY be a model's ability to > > > quantitatively predict numerical measurements made in experiment. > > > > You believe that physics owes you a physical description of what is > > > going on in a way that you believe. You are wrong. Physics owes you > > > nothing of the kind. > > > > You may not like this, but it is what it is. > > > Your inability to answer the following questions is evidence the > > future does not determine the past and 'virtual' particle, obviously, > > do not exist out of nothing. It is not a matter of what is, or is not, > > believable, it is a matter of what is physically possible in nature. > > No sir. What is physically possible is NOT determined by deciding > ahead of time what is absurd nonsense and what is not. Making that > call ahead of time, based on your intuition (or worse, your flat > declaration) is a horrible idea. What is physically possible is > determined by whether the model that says it is possible demonstrates > accurate quantitative predictions of experimental measurement. If a > model is successful that way, and it says that something is physically > possible in nature (whether you think so or not), then it IS > physically possible in nature. This comparison with experiment is THE > WAY we determine what is physically possible and what is not. There is > no other way to make that determination. > > You say that it is not physically possible in nature for the future to > determine the past. You make this flat declaration as though it MUST > be true. > > But science does not do it that way. It asks the question, is it > possible for the future to determine the past? So it builds different > models. One model will say it's impossible. Another model will say it > is possible. Then the predictions of both those models is compared to > experimental measurements, quantitatively. If the model that says it's > possible is the one that agrees, then it IS possible in nature for the > future to determine the past. This is how science figures out what is > possible in nature and what is not. > > You want to decide what is possible and what is not possible ahead of > time. That is a stupid way of studying nature, and it is not > scientific. > > > > > Provide physical explanations for the following. If you can not then > > what you choose to believe is not the physics of nature. > > BS. You don't get to decide that unless you get a satisfying > explanation, then it must not be true of nature. You are not the judge > and arbiter of what is possible in nature. If you don't accept it or > understand it, that's your problem, not nature's problem, not > science's problem. > > Get over yourself. > > > If you choose > > to believe in the following without being able to provide physical > > explanations for them then that is your choice, but it is not physics. > > By not being able to provide physical explanations for the following you are stating, "Because I said so". There are quantitative predictions being made. However, those quantitative predictions are not backed by physical explanations. If you are not stating, "Because I said so", then provide physical explanations for the following: - The future determining the past - Virtual particles which exist out of nothing - Conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair - A C-60 molecule can enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum. - Matter causes physical space to be 'unflat' but not move The above are physically answered: - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - Pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter forces the plates together - Conservation of momentum does apply to a downgraded photon pair. When a photon is detected its wave collapses which determines its spin. In order for the original photons momentum to be conserved, the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - Physical space is displaced by matter. Aether is displaced by matter. |