There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Two times happening together
Next: NOW ????????????
From: NoEinstein on 27 Mar 2010 13:47 On Mar 26, 9:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 10:48 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 5:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 24, 8:38 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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... > > > > > > Be specific. What fundamental elements do you think MUST be present in > > > > > a physical explanation, and which of those fundamental elements was > > > > > missing in what I gave? > > > > > Oh, let's start with the basics, > > > > > What the heck 'specifically' isn't 'flat'? > > > > How can you curve the path of a mass and violate Newton's third law? > > > > How can mass or energy curve paths thru a void? > > > > I'd be happy to answer your questions (because I can), but first I > > > want you to answer mine. There are some fundamental elements that you > > > think MUST be present in a physical explanation, and there are apparently > > > some of those fundamental elements that you believe are missing from the > > > explanation I gave. > > > Do you have a problem with your long term memory??? I've snswered > > that question at least four times now! I'm tired of repeating myself > > and things haven't changed...! It is V-E-R-Y well known that GR does > > not, and can not provide an explanation for the mechanism the actually > > causes gravity. Examples, > > >http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070810_gm_gravity.htmlhttp://w... > > > I am soooo sick and tired of repeating things to you... > > You have STILL not answered my question. > You have just generated more open questions about general relativity, > as though if a theory has open questions, it is not a physical > explanation. > > I am asking you a very specific question. > In order for a theory -- any theory -- to be classed as a physical > explanation, there would be certain elements in that theory that would > warrant it being called a physical explanation. What are those > elements? And specifically which of those elements are missing in the > description that I gave above? > > If you cannot LIST the fundamental elements that ANY theory must have > for you to consider it a physical explanation, then I guess it's > obvious that YOU don't know what you mean by the term "physical > explanation". > > > > > > By fundamental elements, I expect you to answer with adjectives and > > > nouns, not questions. Having open questions is one thing, but having > > > open questions would not make my explanation not a physical > > > explanation. A physical explanation won't answer all possible open > > > questions. Since you claim my explanation is not a physical one, then > > > you owe me some clear accounting of what you think a physical > > > explanation MUST have. > > > Fundamental means just what the 'word' is defined to mean, do you > > understand English? Especially, given you nationality Peter... > > Peter? Who's Peter? And I think we agree on what "fundamental" means. > What are the fundamental elements of a physical theory, Paul? > > > > > > > > > > > > > All you described was a mapping > > > > > > process, one that most public school kid would NOT! understand. > > > > > > I disagree. Shall we ask some public school kids? > > > > > Well my wife works at a elementary school, want to bet the 5th graders > > > > will understand those passages above? > > > > Sure. > > > LOL > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Oh, come on. You may have a terminology issue. Numerical constant does > > > > > not mean "dimensionless constant" or "unitless constant". This is > > > > > simply an error on your part. > > > > > Yes, you do have a terminology issue, 'numerical' commonly means > > > > relating to a 'number' not a physical entity. See: > > > > >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/numerical > > > > Oh, come, come. We run into this problem all the time, when an amateur > > > looks at a term that is used in physics and argues with the meaning of > > > the term AS USED IN PHYSICS by referring to a dictionary of common > > > usage. This is how Seto confuses "physical" and "material", thinking > > > that if it ain't material, it ain't physical. > > > And I'm tired of the childish game of play secret handshake, code word > > bullshit! If you have to reinvent meaning to common words the problem > > is not with the dictionary... > > That's not right, Paul. Every discipline has jargon where the words > mean something other than common usage as listed in the dictionary. > That's why the terms are so carefully defined in textbooks, sometimes > repeatedly with refinements at successive iterations. This is in true > in music and law as well as physics. It's just a reality. Not a basis > for complaint. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those units remain no > > > > > > matter what system of measure one chooses. > > > > > > This is also wrong. The UNITS are highly dependent on which coordinate > > > > > system you choose. You may have been thinking of the term > > > > > "dimensions", rather than units, which is what is used in classical > > > > > physics and chemistry when one talks about dimensional analysis. > > > > > Bullshit! Units of length, mass, time does not depend on the systems > > > > an inch is still an inch long in milimeters... > > > > > > However, even in this case one finds that something that has > > > > > dimensions in one system of units is dimensionless in another system > > > > > of units. For example, in the SI system of units, the speed of light > > > > > has dimensions [L]/[T]. However, in "natural units", the speed of > > > > > light is both unitless and dimensionless. > > > > > Silly... > > > > No, it's a simple fact. You can look up natural units if you like. > > > I know that so-called natural units 'scale' c to be defined as 1 > > bullshit length per 1 bullshit time unit thus like furlongs per > > forthnight it just another invented system to play a shell game! > > Speed is still speed and length is still length, time still time the > > don't magically dissapear! E does not magically equal m no matter how > > much you click you heels together. > > So you don't buy "natural units" either, because you just say so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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... > > > > > > And you believe his position is what, exactly? Please be absolutely > > > > > specific. > > > > > If you can't be specific, perhaps it has not occurred to you that even > > > > > YOU don't know what you're looking for? > > > > > That you cannot provide a physical theory with only a mathematical > > > > correlational expression, thus his famous quote "Hypothesis Non- > > > > Fingo"! It's plain stupid to think otherwise. > > > > And what are the indispensable elements of a PHYSICAL theory that this > > > lacks? You STILL haven't found a way to answer this question. > > > Something I think you'll never understand, true understanding, Pun > > intended, sadly... > > Since you cannot answer the question, Paul, it would be reasonable for > any reader to conclude that you don't know the answer to it, either.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No one, like PD, with a one neuron brain should ever be engaged in a conversation. All you get is the knee-jerks of a JERK! NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 27 Mar 2010 13:55 On Mar 26, 11:58 am, Vern <vthod...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Vern: The mechanism of gravity is downward flowing ether caused by photon exchange (to keep the ether flowing). NoEinstein > > On Mar 26, 9:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 25, 10:48 pm,PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > I'd be happy to answer your questions (because I can), but first I > > > > want you to answer mine. There are some fundamental elements that you > > > > think MUST be present in a physical explanation, and there are apparently > > > > some of those fundamental elements that you believe are missing from the > > > > explanation I gave. > > > > Do you have a problem with your long term memory??? I've snswered > > > that question at least four times now! I'm tired of repeating myself > > > and things haven't changed...! It is V-E-R-Y well known that GR does > > > not, and can not provide an explanation for the mechanism the actually > > > causes gravity. Examples, > > > >http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070810_gm_gravity.htmlhttp://w.... > > <snip> > > > > > And what are the indispensable elements of a PHYSICAL theory that this > > > > lacks? You STILL haven't found a way to answer this question. > > > > Something I think you'll never understand, true understanding, Pun > > > intended, sadly... > > > Since you cannot answer the question,Paul, it would be reasonable for > > any reader to conclude that you don't know the answer to it, either. > > Paul provided two links which clearly confirm that modern physics does > not offer an explanation for what causes gravity. Your beliefs about > what are or aren't indispensable elements of a physical theory are > immaterial to the issue. When your peers are saying that modern > physics does not offer an explanation for what causes gravity, you are > disagreeing with modern physcists when you assert otherwise. It's > time for you to admit that are wrong. > > Vern
From: Paul Stowe on 27 Mar 2010 14:24 On Mar 26, 8:31 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Mar 26, 7:16 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 26, 6:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 25, 10:48 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > "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... > > > > > > > > Be specific. What fundamental elements do you think MUST be present in > > > > > > > a physical explanation, and which of those fundamental elements was > > > > > > > missing in what I gave? > > > > > > > Oh, let's start with the basics, > > > > > > > What the heck 'specifically' isn't 'flat'? > > > > > > How can you curve the path of a mass and violate Newton's third law? > > > > > > How can mass or energy curve paths thru a void? > > > > > > I'd be happy to answer your questions (because I can), but first I > > > > > want you to answer mine. There are some fundamental elements that you > > > > > think MUST be present in a physical explanation, and there are apparently > > > > > some of those fundamental elements that you believe are missing from the > > > > > explanation I gave. > > > > > Do you have a problem with your long term memory??? I've snswered > > > > that question at least four times now! I'm tired of repeating myself > > > > and things haven't changed...! It is V-E-R-Y well known that GR does > > > > not, and can not provide an explanation for the mechanism the actually > > > > causes gravity. Examples, > > > > >http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070810_gm_gravity.htmlhttp://w... > > > > > I am soooo sick and tired of repeating things to you... > > > > You have STILL not answered my question. > > > You have just generated more open questions about general relativity, > > > as though if a theory has open questions, it is not a physical > > > explanation. > > > It has not explanation, thus the T-E-R-M! mathematical correlation. > > Newton's gravitational equation is also in that same category. The > > very same category Ptolemy's method was in. Maxwell's equations, > > devoid of Maxwell's model is also just a correlation. Much of modern > > physics lacks any actual phsical foundations. Pay attention, this is > > the very last time I will answer you in this area, a physical theory > > must be derivable from primitive elements that LEADS to the > > equations. A good example of such model is Maxwell's and LeSage's. > > Both leads to the final equations FROM! first principle primitive > > elements. > > > > I am asking you a very specific question. > > > In order for a theory -- any theory -- to be classed as a physical > > > explanation, there would be certain elements in that theory that would > > > warrant it being called a physical explanation. What are those > > > elements? And specifically which of those elements are missing in the > > > description that I gave above? > > > Yeah, one should be able to eplain the process WITHOUT the need for > > mathematics. The mathematics quantifies and fills in the specific > > details. > > > > If you cannot LIST the fundamental elements that ANY theory must have > > > for you to consider it a physical explanation, then I guess it's > > > obvious that YOU don't know what you mean by the term "physical > > > explanation". > > > I cannot help you poor memory Peter, maybe you need to be tested for > > dementia... > > > > > > By fundamental elements, I expect you to answer with adjectives and > > > > > nouns, not questions. Having open questions is one thing, but having > > > > > open questions would not make my explanation not a physical > > > > > explanation. A physical explanation won't answer all possible open > > > > > questions. Since you claim my explanation is not a physical one, then > > > > > you owe me some clear accounting of what you think a physical > > > > > explanation MUST have. > > > > > Fundamental means just what the 'word' is defined to mean, do you > > > > understand English? Especially, given you nationality Peter... > > > > Peter? Who's Peter? And I think we agree on what "fundamental" means. > > > What are the fundamental elements of a physical theory, Paul? > > > You, Peter Draper of the Draper Family... > > > > > > > > Oh, come on. You may have a terminology issue. Numerical constant does > > > > > > > not mean "dimensionless constant" or "unitless constant". This is > > > > > > > simply an error on your part. > > > > > > > Yes, you do have a terminology issue, 'numerical' commonly means > > > > > > relating to a 'number' not a physical entity. See: > > > > > > >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/numerical > > > > > > Oh, come, come. We run into this problem all the time, when an amateur > > > > > looks at a term that is used in physics and argues with the meaning of > > > > > the term AS USED IN PHYSICS by referring to a dictionary of common > > > > > usage. This is how Seto confuses "physical" and "material", thinking > > > > > that if it ain't material, it ain't physical. > > > > > And I'm tired of the childish game of play secret handshake, code word > > > > bullshit! If you have to reinvent meanings to common words the problem > > > > is not with the dictionary... > > > > That's not right, Paul. Every discipline has jargon where the words > > > mean something other than common usage as listed in the dictionary. > > > That's why the terms are so carefully defined in textbooks, sometimes > > > repeatedly with refinements at successive iterations. This is in true > > > in music and law as well as physics. It's just a reality. Not a basis > > > for complaint. > > > Good, give us an example for Law... > > > > > > > > However, even in this case one finds that something that has > > > > > > > dimensions in one system of units is dimensionless in another system > > > > > > > of units. For example, in the SI system of units, the speed of light > > > > > > > has dimensions [L]/[T]. However, in "natural units", the speed of > > > > > > > light is both unitless and dimensionless. > > > > > > > Silly... > > > > > > No, it's a simple fact. You can look up natural units if you like.. > > > > > I know that so-called natural units 'scale' c to be defined as 1 > > > > bullshit length per 1 bullshit time unit thus like furlongs per > > > > forthnight it just another invented system to play a shell game! > > > > Speed is still speed and length is still length, time still time they > > > > don't magically dissapear! E does not magically equal m no matter how > > > > much you click you heels together. > > > > So you don't buy "natural units" either, because you just say so. > > > No, nature says so... > > > > > > > > > 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... > > > > > > > > And you believe his position is what, exactly? Please be absolutely > > > > > > > specific. > > > > > > > If you can't be specific, perhaps it has not occurred to you that even > > > > > > > YOU don't know what you're looking for? > > > > > > > That you cannot provide a physical theory with only a mathematical > > > > > > correlational expression, thus his famous quote "Hypothesis Non- > > > > > > Fingo"! It's plain stupid to think otherwise. > > > > > > And what are the indispensable elements of a PHYSICAL theory that this > > > > > lacks? You STILL haven't found a way to answer this question. > > > > > Something I think you'll never understand, true understanding, Pun > > > > intended, sadly... > > > > Since you cannot answer the question, Paul, it would be reasonable for > > > any reader to conclude that you don't know the answer to it, either. > > > Well at least I've derived several new physical relationships from the > > modeling I've done. Like the LeSage drag equation, the terms of G, > > Boltzman's constant, ... etc. > > In your model, Paul, what are you using for your ultra-mundane > particles? > My galaxy model is indicating a flow of miniature photons and > neutrinos > coming from all electrons that are 10^27 smaller and travel at 30c. > With this fractal model there has to be another flow of yet > smaller energy another 10^27 smaller and travelling at 900c. > > Such flows must come from all electrons all > over the universe- wherever there is matter. > > john Hi John, The calculated (from the LeSage process model) linear attenuation coefficient is of the proper order for a neutrino. However, there is no actual evidence to rule it in or out YET! It is more likely that, what we call the neutrino is just specific examples of a more general class which could be called the graviton... Regards, Paul Stowe
From: mpc755 on 27 Mar 2010 14:37 On Mar 27, 2:24 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 26, 8:31 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 26, 7:16 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 26, 6:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 25, 10:48 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "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... > > > > > > > > > Be specific. What fundamental elements do you think MUST be present in > > > > > > > > a physical explanation, and which of those fundamental elements was > > > > > > > > missing in what I gave? > > > > > > > > Oh, let's start with the basics, > > > > > > > > What the heck 'specifically' isn't 'flat'? > > > > > > > How can you curve the path of a mass and violate Newton's third law? > > > > > > > How can mass or energy curve paths thru a void? > > > > > > > I'd be happy to answer your questions (because I can), but first I > > > > > > want you to answer mine. There are some fundamental elements that you > > > > > > think MUST be present in a physical explanation, and there are apparently > > > > > > some of those fundamental elements that you believe are missing from the > > > > > > explanation I gave. > > > > > > Do you have a problem with your long term memory??? I've snswered > > > > > that question at least four times now! I'm tired of repeating myself > > > > > and things haven't changed...! It is V-E-R-Y well known that GR does > > > > > not, and can not provide an explanation for the mechanism the actually > > > > > causes gravity. Examples, > > > > > >http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070810_gm_gravity.htmlhttp://w... > > > > > > I am soooo sick and tired of repeating things to you... > > > > > You have STILL not answered my question. > > > > You have just generated more open questions about general relativity, > > > > as though if a theory has open questions, it is not a physical > > > > explanation. > > > > It has not explanation, thus the T-E-R-M! mathematical correlation. > > > Newton's gravitational equation is also in that same category. The > > > very same category Ptolemy's method was in. Maxwell's equations, > > > devoid of Maxwell's model is also just a correlation. Much of modern > > > physics lacks any actual phsical foundations. Pay attention, this is > > > the very last time I will answer you in this area, a physical theory > > > must be derivable from primitive elements that LEADS to the > > > equations. A good example of such model is Maxwell's and LeSage's. > > > Both leads to the final equations FROM! first principle primitive > > > elements. > > > > > I am asking you a very specific question. > > > > In order for a theory -- any theory -- to be classed as a physical > > > > explanation, there would be certain elements in that theory that would > > > > warrant it being called a physical explanation. What are those > > > > elements? And specifically which of those elements are missing in the > > > > description that I gave above? > > > > Yeah, one should be able to eplain the process WITHOUT the need for > > > mathematics. The mathematics quantifies and fills in the specific > > > details. > > > > > If you cannot LIST the fundamental elements that ANY theory must have > > > > for you to consider it a physical explanation, then I guess it's > > > > obvious that YOU don't know what you mean by the term "physical > > > > explanation". > > > > I cannot help you poor memory Peter, maybe you need to be tested for > > > dementia... > > > > > > > By fundamental elements, I expect you to answer with adjectives and > > > > > > nouns, not questions. Having open questions is one thing, but having > > > > > > open questions would not make my explanation not a physical > > > > > > explanation. A physical explanation won't answer all possible open > > > > > > questions. Since you claim my explanation is not a physical one, then > > > > > > you owe me some clear accounting of what you think a physical > > > > > > explanation MUST have. > > > > > > Fundamental means just what the 'word' is defined to mean, do you > > > > > understand English? Especially, given you nationality Peter... > > > > > Peter? Who's Peter? And I think we agree on what "fundamental" means. > > > > What are the fundamental elements of a physical theory, Paul? > > > > You, Peter Draper of the Draper Family... > > > > > > > > > Oh, come on. You may have a terminology issue. Numerical constant does > > > > > > > > not mean "dimensionless constant" or "unitless constant". This is > > > > > > > > simply an error on your part. > > > > > > > > Yes, you do have a terminology issue, 'numerical' commonly means > > > > > > > relating to a 'number' not a physical entity. See: > > > > > > > >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/numerical > > > > > > > Oh, come, come. We run into this problem all the time, when an amateur > > > > > > looks at a term that is used in physics and argues with the meaning of > > > > > > the term AS USED IN PHYSICS by referring to a dictionary of common > > > > > > usage. This is how Seto confuses "physical" and "material", thinking > > > > > > that if it ain't material, it ain't physical. > > > > > > And I'm tired of the childish game of play secret handshake, code word > > > > > bullshit! If you have to reinvent meanings to common words the problem > > > > > is not with the dictionary... > > > > > That's not right, Paul. Every discipline has jargon where the words > > > > mean something other than common usage as listed in the dictionary. > > > > That's why the terms are so carefully defined in textbooks, sometimes > > > > repeatedly with refinements at successive iterations. This is in true > > > > in music and law as well as physics. It's just a reality. Not a basis > > > > for complaint. > > > > Good, give us an example for Law... > > > > > > > > > However, even in this case one finds that something that has > > > > > > > > dimensions in one system of units is dimensionless in another system > > > > > > > > of units. For example, in the SI system of units, the speed of light > > > > > > > > has dimensions [L]/[T]. However, in "natural units", the speed of > > > > > > > > light is both unitless and dimensionless. > > > > > > > > Silly... > > > > > > > No, it's a simple fact. You can look up natural units if you like. > > > > > > I know that so-called natural units 'scale' c to be defined as 1 > > > > > bullshit length per 1 bullshit time unit thus like furlongs per > > > > > forthnight it just another invented system to play a shell game! > > > > > Speed is still speed and length is still length, time still time they > > > > > don't magically dissapear! E does not magically equal m no matter how > > > > > much you click you heels together. > > > > > So you don't buy "natural units" either, because you just say so. > > > > No, nature says so... > > > > > > > > > > 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... > > > > > > > > > And you believe his position is what, exactly? Please be absolutely > > > > > > > > specific. > > > > > > > > If you can't be specific, perhaps it has not occurred to you that even > > > > > > > > YOU don't know what you're looking for? > > > > > > > > That you cannot provide a physical theory with only a mathematical > > > > > > > correlational expression, thus his famous quote "Hypothesis Non- > > > > > > > Fingo"! It's plain stupid to think otherwise. > > > > > > > And what are the indispensable elements of a PHYSICAL theory that this > > > > > > lacks? You STILL haven't found a way to answer this question. > > > > > > Something I think you'll never understand, true understanding, Pun > > > > > intended, sadly... > > > > > Since you cannot answer the question, Paul, it would be reasonable for > > > > any reader to conclude that you don't know the answer to it, either.. > > > > Well at least I've derived several new physical relationships from the > > > modeling I've done. Like the LeSage drag equation, the terms of G, > > > Boltzman's constant, ... etc. > > > In your model, Paul, what are you using for your ultra-mundane > > particles? > > My galaxy model is indicating a flow of miniature photons and > > neutrinos > > coming from all electrons that are 10^27 smaller and travel at 30c. > > With this fractal model there has to be another flow of yet > > smaller energy another 10^27 smaller and travelling at 900c. > > > Such flows must come from all electrons all > > over the universe- wherever there is matter. > > > john > > Hi John, > > The calculated (from the LeSage process model) linear attenuation > coefficient is of the proper order for a neutrino. However, there is > no actual evidence to rule it in or out YET! It is more likely that, > what we call the neutrino is just specific examples of a more general > class which could be called the graviton... > > Regards, > > Paul Stowe A particle is not responsible for gravity. The aether as a one something is responsible for gravity. The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
From: Paul Stowe on 27 Mar 2010 15:34
On Mar 27, 11:37 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 27, 2:24 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 26, 8:31 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > On Mar 26, 7:16 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 26, 6:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 25, 10:48 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "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... > > > > > > > > > > Be specific. What fundamental elements do you think MUST be present in > > > > > > > > > a physical explanation, and which of those fundamental elements was > > > > > > > > > missing in what I gave? > > > > > > > > > Oh, let's start with the basics, > > > > > > > > > What the heck 'specifically' isn't 'flat'? > > > > > > > > How can you curve the path of a mass and violate Newton's third law? > > > > > > > > How can mass or energy curve paths thru a void? > > > > > > > > I'd be happy to answer your questions (because I can), but first I > > > > > > > want you to answer mine. There are some fundamental elements that you > > > > > > > think MUST be present in a physical explanation, and there are apparently > > > > > > > some of those fundamental elements that you believe are missing from the > > > > > > > explanation I gave. > > > > > > > Do you have a problem with your long term memory??? I've snswered > > > > > > that question at least four times now! I'm tired of repeating myself > > > > > > and things haven't changed...! It is V-E-R-Y well known that GR does > > > > > > not, and can not provide an explanation for the mechanism the actually > > > > > > causes gravity. Examples, > > > > > > >http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070810_gm_gravity.htmlhttp://w... > > > > > > > I am soooo sick and tired of repeating things to you... > > > > > > You have STILL not answered my question. > > > > > You have just generated more open questions about general relativity, > > > > > as though if a theory has open questions, it is not a physical > > > > > explanation. > > > > > It has not explanation, thus the T-E-R-M! mathematical correlation. > > > > Newton's gravitational equation is also in that same category. The > > > > very same category Ptolemy's method was in. Maxwell's equations, > > > > devoid of Maxwell's model is also just a correlation. Much of modern > > > > physics lacks any actual phsical foundations. Pay attention, this is > > > > the very last time I will answer you in this area, a physical theory > > > > must be derivable from primitive elements that LEADS to the > > > > equations. A good example of such model is Maxwell's and LeSage's. > > > > Both leads to the final equations FROM! first principle primitive > > > > elements. > > > > > > I am asking you a very specific question. > > > > > In order for a theory -- any theory -- to be classed as a physical > > > > > explanation, there would be certain elements in that theory that would > > > > > warrant it being called a physical explanation. What are those > > > > > elements? And specifically which of those elements are missing in the > > > > > description that I gave above? > > > > > Yeah, one should be able to eplain the process WITHOUT the need for > > > > mathematics. The mathematics quantifies and fills in the specific > > > > details. > > > > > > If you cannot LIST the fundamental elements that ANY theory must have > > > > > for you to consider it a physical explanation, then I guess it's > > > > > obvious that YOU don't know what you mean by the term "physical > > > > > explanation". > > > > > I cannot help you poor memory Peter, maybe you need to be tested for > > > > dementia... > > > > > > > > By fundamental elements, I expect you to answer with adjectives and > > > > > > > nouns, not questions. Having open questions is one thing, but having > > > > > > > open questions would not make my explanation not a physical > > > > > > > explanation. A physical explanation won't answer all possible open > > > > > > > questions. Since you claim my explanation is not a physical one, then > > > > > > > you owe me some clear accounting of what you think a physical > > > > > > > explanation MUST have. > > > > > > > Fundamental means just what the 'word' is defined to mean, do you > > > > > > understand English? Especially, given you nationality Peter.... > > > > > > Peter? Who's Peter? And I think we agree on what "fundamental" means. > > > > > What are the fundamental elements of a physical theory, Paul? > > > > > You, Peter Draper of the Draper Family... > > > > > > > > > > Oh, come on. You may have a terminology issue. Numerical constant does > > > > > > > > > not mean "dimensionless constant" or "unitless constant". This is > > > > > > > > > simply an error on your part. > > > > > > > > > Yes, you do have a terminology issue, 'numerical' commonly means > > > > > > > > relating to a 'number' not a physical entity. See: > > > > > > > > >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/numerical > > > > > > > > Oh, come, come. We run into this problem all the time, when an amateur > > > > > > > looks at a term that is used in physics and argues with the meaning of > > > > > > > the term AS USED IN PHYSICS by referring to a dictionary of common > > > > > > > usage. This is how Seto confuses "physical" and "material", thinking > > > > > > > that if it ain't material, it ain't physical. > > > > > > > And I'm tired of the childish game of play secret handshake, code word > > > > > > bullshit! If you have to reinvent meanings to common words the problem > > > > > > is not with the dictionary... > > > > > > That's not right, Paul. Every discipline has jargon where the words > > > > > mean something other than common usage as listed in the dictionary. > > > > > That's why the terms are so carefully defined in textbooks, sometimes > > > > > repeatedly with refinements at successive iterations. This is in true > > > > > in music and law as well as physics. It's just a reality. Not a basis > > > > > for complaint. > > > > > Good, give us an example for Law... > > > > > > > > > > However, even in this case one finds that something that has > > > > > > > > > dimensions in one system of units is dimensionless in another system > > > > > > > > > of units. For example, in the SI system of units, the speed of light > > > > > > > > > has dimensions [L]/[T]. However, in "natural units", the speed of > > > > > > > > > light is both unitless and dimensionless. > > > > > > > > > Silly... > > > > > > > > No, it's a simple fact. You can look up natural units if you like. > > > > > > > I know that so-called natural units 'scale' c to be defined as 1 > > > > > > bullshit length per 1 bullshit time unit thus like furlongs per > > > > > > forthnight it just another invented system to play a shell game! > > > > > > Speed is still speed and length is still length, time still time they > > > > > > don't magically dissapear! E does not magically equal m no matter how > > > > > > much you click you heels together. > > > > > > So you don't buy "natural units" either, because you just say so. > > > > > No, nature says so... > > > > > > > > > > > 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... > > > > > > > > > > And you believe his position is what, exactly? Please be absolutely > > > > > > > > > specific. > > > > > > > > > If you can't be specific, perhaps it has not occurred to you that even > > > > > > > > > YOU don't know what you're looking for? > > > > > > > > > That you cannot provide a physical theory with only a mathematical > > > > > > > > correlational expression, thus his famous quote "Hypothesis Non- > > > > > > > > Fingo"! It's plain stupid to think otherwise. > > > > > > > > And what are the indispensable elements of a PHYSICAL theory that this > > > > > > > lacks? You STILL haven't found a way to answer this question. > > > > > > > Something I think you'll never understand, true understanding, Pun > > > > > > intended, sadly... > > > > > > Since you cannot answer the question, Paul, it would be reasonable for > > > > > any reader to conclude that you don't know the answer to it, either. > > > > > Well at least I've derived several new physical relationships from the > > > > modeling I've done. Like the LeSage drag equation, the terms of G, > > > > Boltzman's constant, ... etc. > > > > In your model, Paul, what are you using for your ultra-mundane > > > particles? > > > My galaxy model is indicating a flow of miniature photons and > > > neutrinos > > > coming from all electrons that are 10^27 smaller and travel at 30c. > > > With this fractal model there has to be another flow of yet > > > smaller energy another 10^27 smaller and travelling at 900c. > > > > Such flows must come from all electrons all > > > over the universe- wherever there is matter. > > > > john > > > Hi John, > > > The calculated (from the LeSage process model) linear attenuation > > coefficient is of the proper order for a neutrino. However, there is > > no actual evidence to rule it in or out YET! It is more likely that, > > what we call the neutrino is just specific examples of a more general > > class which could be called the graviton... > > > Regards, > > > PaulStowe > > A particle is not responsible for gravity. The aether as a one > something is responsible for gravity. > > The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter is gravity. Look, I usually don't respond to your posts since you are as closed minded as most. You're trying to 'preach' your version of scientific religion and ignore all else. I am an aetherist (modern type) but ask yourself a question, in all known cases, how does pressure come about? Further, you keep saying matter displaces aether, thus, by that logic this would seem to indicate that you think matter is something else. I disagree, matter is just standing patterns of the very same thing, thus it cannot displace aether. But, on the other hand, those patterns can, and do, affect the properties of the medium due to their presence... Paul Stowe |