There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Two times happening together
Next: NOW ????????????
From: NoEinstein on 31 Mar 2010 08:28 On Mar 30, 8:13 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 30, 6:56 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Mar 29, 9:56 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear Paul: Maxwell is a 'nice' name to... drop. But he was too naive > > to realizewhen he proposed to A. A. Michelson that Michelson use his > > new interferometer to detect the drag of the ether on lightthat if > > ether ever could 'drag' light, that the light from the Sun and from > > the stars would never get here, and we would all be dead! Maxwell, > > wasn't a very deep thinker, now, was he. NoEinstein > > We are all naive if totally ignorant of relevant and necessary > information. For what was known and available to him Maxwell was a > much greater thinker than Einstein. I do not fault him for not > figuring everything out. He died quite young and had he survived to > the early 20th century he might have done wonders. Dear Paul: As long as you don't think Maxwell was a science... God, like Einstein believed himself to be, you are showing admirable objectivity. NoEinstein
From: john on 31 Mar 2010 10:32 On Mar 31, 6:28 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 30, 8:13 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 6:56 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Mar 29, 9:56 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear Paul: Maxwell is a 'nice' name to... drop. But he was too naive > > > to realizewhen he proposed to A. A. Michelson that Michelson use his > > > new interferometer to detect the drag of the ether on lightthat if > > > ether ever could 'drag' light, that the light from the Sun and from > > > the stars would never get here, and we would all be dead! Maxwell, > > > wasn't a very deep thinker, now, was he. NoEinstein > > > We are all naive if totally ignorant of relevant and necessary > > information. For what was known and available to him Maxwell was a > > much greater thinker than Einstein. I do not fault him for not > > figuring everything out. He died quite young and had he survived to > > the early 20th century he might have done wonders. > > Dear Paul: As long as you don't think Maxwell was a science... God, > like Einstein believed himself to be, you are showing admirable > objectivity. NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - We know there is matter. We know there is radiation. That's all we know. DM is speculation. Aether is speculation. Let's go with what we know. Matter radiates. All matter radiates in all directions and pushes on other matter. All matter is shielding some of that radiation by absorbing it and so creates a gravity sink. End of story. john
From: NoEinstein on 31 Mar 2010 11:50 On Mar 31, 8:14 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 30, 6:00 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > just say, Duh!... so, Why, > > is the absorption of the energy of a quantum of wave-energy, > > to be considered to be the manifestation of a particle?... see, > > even though it "is not a classical wave," it is still a wave, > > as completely proven by Young, without any recourse > > (I guess) to Newton's alleged "theory." > > > > The portion of the photon wave which is absorbed or 'collapses' > > > occupies a very small region of the photon wave and travels a single > > > path. This is what is considered the 'particle'. > > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com > > Dear Spudnik: In a double-slit experiment, light will be bent to form > interference patterns on a paper target, some of which are out of the > "line of sight" to the light source. Sound waves and waves in water > are known to travel 'around corners' and out of the line of sight of > the source. So, when interference patterns of light were also showing > up out of the line of sight, it was (WRONGLY) assumed that light must > be traveling in some medium. That medium was caused aether, or > ether. And since light can travel from across the Universe, ether was > (WRONGLY) assumed to be located everywhere, equally. > > When one says 'vacuum' that means space that is devoid of matter. > Since ether is polar energy rather than matter, the ether can travel > through the walls of any vacuum chamber and obstruct the flow of > charged particles. That is why no electrons can be made to travel at > velocity 'c' inside a vacuum chamber. The polar IOTAs of the ether > clump like bugs to the front of a fast moving car. That clump gets > larger the faster the car tries to go... until a top speed is > reached. That is like trying to push a rubber peg into a tight hole: > The harder you push, the more resistant the rubber is to going into > the hole. > > I know that light is photon emissions, only, because there are huge > VOIDS between the galaxies from which the energy was scavenged for > creating the galaxies. Because ether must be able to flow due to > pressure differentials, I realized that the energy of the (finite) > Universe would keep flowing outward unless there was a meniscus, like > on a soap bubble. It was then that I realized those same meniscuses > must be bounding the Swiss Cheese voids. If the meniscuses can hold > in the ether, then, they must be capable of forming lines of magnetic > flux that encircle the entire Universe like string wound on the > outside of a ball. Since the Earth's magnetic protective envelope can > be disrupted by sunspot activity, I reasoned that magnetic lines of > flux must be vulnerable to being broken by intense photon or charged > particle emission. The latter rationalization is consistent with > those Swiss Cheese voids being located away from the major sources of > protons and charged particles. Because light can travel perfectly > well through the Swiss Cheese Voids, I knew for certain that light can > only be photons, NEVER a wave of any kind. The reason the > interference pattern of the double slit experiments is out of the line > of sight is because the POLAR photons get attracted by the edges of > the slits and will deviate from the line of sight depending upon how > close to the edges of the slits the photons come. I hope this > explains why vacuums can be either with ether, or without ether. > NoEinstein Correction: "That medium was 'CALLED' (not caused) ether..." My spell checker sometimes has a mind of its own! NE
From: NoEinstein on 31 Mar 2010 12:05 On Mar 31, 10:32 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > Dear John: Matter, indeed, does radiate! Matter can only have... GRAVITY if there is an exchange of photons, or any other particle(s). Einstein said (i. e., probably plagiarized) that matter can be converted to energy, and energy to matter. Because we understand the energy progression necessary to form the heavy elements (inside stars) we know that ENERGY is the building block of matter. And that energy is the ETHER that is wherever matter is. Don't lament our lack of knowledge Instead, rejoice that I have discovered the great unifying aspects for gravity, light, EMF, all quantum effects, all materials, and all biological and chemical processes! To wit: Varying ether flow and density. Ether is the Mother of all creation! NoEinstein > > On Mar 31, 6:28 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Mar 30, 8:13 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 30, 6:56 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 29, 9:56 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear Paul: Maxwell is a 'nice' name to... drop. But he was too naive > > > > to realizewhen he proposed to A. A. Michelson that Michelson use his > > > > new interferometer to detect the drag of the ether on lightthat if > > > > ether ever could 'drag' light, that the light from the Sun and from > > > > the stars would never get here, and we would all be dead! Maxwell, > > > > wasn't a very deep thinker, now, was he. NoEinstein > > > > We are all naive if totally ignorant of relevant and necessary > > > information. For what was known and available to him Maxwell was a > > > much greater thinker than Einstein. I do not fault him for not > > > figuring everything out. He died quite young and had he survived to > > > the early 20th century he might have done wonders. > > > Dear Paul: As long as you don't think Maxwell was a science... God, > > like Einstein believed himself to be, you are showing admirable > > objectivity. NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > We know there is matter. > We know there is radiation. > > That's all we know. > > DM is speculation. > Aether is speculation. > > Let's go with what we know. > > Matter radiates. > All matter radiates in all directions and > pushes on other matter. All matter is shielding > some of that radiation by absorbing it and > so creates a gravity sink. > > End of story. > > john- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: spudnik on 1 Apr 2010 17:44
how can you possibly demostrate (or believe in) a "vacuum that is devoid of matter" -- de void; how in Hell do you know that? > > be traveling in some medium. That medium was called aether. > > And since light can travel from across the Universe, ether was > > (WRONGLY) assumed to be located everywhere, equally. > > > When one says 'vacuum' that means space that is devoid of matter. > > Since ether is polar energy rather than matter, the ether can travel > > through the walls of any vacuum chamber and obstruct the flow of > > charged particles. That is why no electrons can be made to travel at > > velocity 'c' inside a vacuum chamber. The polar IOTAs of the ether > > clump like bugs to the front of a fast moving car. That clump gets > > larger the faster the car tries to go... until a top speed is > > reached. That is like trying to push a rubber peg into a tight hole: > > The harder you push, the more resistant the rubber is to going into > > the hole. > > > I know that light is photon emissions, only, because there are huge > > VOIDS between the galaxies from which the energy was scavenged for > > creating the galaxies. Because ether must be able to flow due to > > pressure differentials, I realized that the energy of the (finite) > > Universe would keep flowing outward unless there was a meniscus, like > > on a soap bubble. It was then that I realized those same meniscuses > > must be bounding the Swiss Cheese voids. If the meniscuses can hold > > in the ether, then, they must be capable of forming lines of magnetic > > flux that encircle the entire Universe like string wound on the > > outside of a ball. Since the Earth's magnetic protective envelope can > > be disrupted by sunspot activity, I reasoned that magnetic lines of > > flux must be vulnerable to being broken by intense photon or charged > > particle emission. The latter rationalization is consistent with > > those Swiss Cheese voids being located away from the major sources of > > protons and charged particles. Because light can travel perfectly > > well through the Swiss Cheese Voids, I knew for certain that light can > > only be photons, NEVER a wave of any kind. The reason the > > interference pattern of the double slit experiments is out of the line > > of sight is because the POLAR photons get attracted by the edges of > > the slits and will deviate from the line of sight depending upon how > > close to the edges of the slits the photons come. I hope this > > explains why vacuums can be either with ether, or without ether. thus: may be, you did not read the fullerene experiment too much; or, you'd be able to state a difference that waves of fullerenes make in their intereferences, compared to "that which can only *be* a wave-form," light. why cannot we finally bury Newton and his phoney corpuscular theory? if you do not wish to remain a part of the Second (secular) Church of England, look at *21st C. Science & Tech.* website. --NASCAR rules on rotary engines! http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com |