There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether! [Relativity]

Prev: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
Next: Question about energy eigenvalues of a Hamiltonian, in general

From: NoEinstein on 7 Apr 2010 08:52

On Apr 5, 8:52 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear mpc755: I gave you a very big hint to take you G. D. discussions
of C-60 crystals (NOT molecules) to your own post. Not only do you
know nothing about interference, you have no ability to realize when
an experiment, like you keep harping about, was simply screwed up.
You are one of those stone-heads who like to argue: "How man fairies
can dance on the head of a pin?" Give up that argument, unless you
are one of those dancing on the head of the pin. NoEinstein
>
> On Apr 5, 7:46 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > on the wayside, if
> > you are really going to set so much store in a two-hole procedure
> > for fullerenes, maybe you shouold read the original article, and
> > try to question its purpose. as it is, I'd guess that
> > English is not your mother-tongue,
> > which can sometimes prove difficult in *using* it; so,
> > that's why I always suggest Shakespeare, becuase
> > *no* one can *begin* to comprehend English,
> > til he *tries* to read the bard. (he also had a hand
> > in translating the KJV of the Bible .-)
>
> > > The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the
>
> > thus:
> > NB, quaternions are not "quadrays" (for an amateur attempt
> > at homogenous co-ordination), but you can "do" special rel.
> > with them (according to Lanczos .-)
>
> A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). While the C-60 molecule is in the
> slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits to the slits. When there are
> detectors at the exits to the slits the C-60 molecule is always
> detected exiting a single slit. If the detectors are placed and
> removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the
> slit(s) the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern.
>
> Explain how this is possible without aether.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
>
> "This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that
> any moving particle or object had an associated wave."
>
> 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics
> by the double solution theory
> Louis de BROGLIE'http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
>
> "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the
> wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case
> of an external field acting on the particle."
>
> "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
> theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
> where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
> natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
> be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
> located."
>
> de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave
> and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of
> the wave.
>
> In AD, the external field is the aether. In a double slit experiment
> the particle occupies a very small region of the wave and enters and
> exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits the available slits.
>
> In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
> The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the
> associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available
> slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the
> slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting
> the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether
> displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no
> interference.
>
> Experiments which will provide evidence of Aether Displacement:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experi...
>
> Experiment #1:
>
> Instead of having a single beam splitter BSc have two beam splitters
> BSca and BScb. Have the photons reflected by mirror Ma interact with
> BSca and have the photons reflected by mirror Mb interact with BScb.
> Do not combine the red and blue paths. Have additional detectors D1a,
> D2a, D1b, and D2b. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through
> BSca be detected at D1a and D2a. Have the photons reflected by and
> propagate through BScb be detected at D1b and D2b. If you compare the
> photons detected at D1a and D1b with the photons detected at D0, the
> corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference
> pattern. If you compare the photons detected at D2a and D2b with the
> photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will
> form an interference pattern. What is occurring is all 'up' photons
> are being detected at one pair of detectors, for example D1a and D1b,
> and all 'down' photons are being detected at the other pair of
> detectors, for example D2a and D2b. Interference patterns do not even
> need to be created in order to 'go back' and determine the
> interference patterns created at D0.
>
> Experiment #2:
>
> Alter the experiment. When the downgraded photon pair are created,
> have each photon interact with its own double slit apparatus. Have
> detectors at one of the exits for each double slit apparatus. When a
> photon is detected at one of the exits, in AD, the photon's aether
> wave still exists and is propagating along the path exiting the other
> slit. When a photon is not detected at one of the exits, the photon
> 'particle' along with its associated aether wave exits the other slit.
> Combine the path the aether wave the detected photon is propagating
> along with the path of the other photon and its associated aether
> wave. An interference pattern will still be created. This shows the
> aether wave of a detected photon still exists and is able to create
> interference with the aether wave of another photon, altering the
> direction the photon 'particle' travels.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: NoEinstein on 7 Apr 2010 08:58

From: NoEinstein on 7 Apr 2010 09:09

On Apr 5, 9:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear mpc755: You are a FLAKE in the same league with those who believe
in... string theory. For your information (and you need a lot of it,
since 99% of your science is wrong), no ether has ever formed an
interference pattern. Only light RAYS can do so. And there is no
method on Earth for emitting single photons at a time. If one could
do so, no single photon would interfere. You don't have the brain to
justify my trying to edify you about how science actually works. I
will be registering your long repeat copies about the C-60 garbage as
SPAM. Take your SPAM elsewhere, or SHOVE IT! NE
>
> In article <86554c54-24a1-49ed-98b2-6d2980514469@
> 8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, Space...(a)hotmail.com says...
>
> > nah; we should blame Pascal for discovering,
> > experimentally, his "plenum," which he thought was perfect. I mean,
> > it's always good to have a French v. English dichotomy,
> > with a German thrown-in for "triality."
>
> > > of Newton's "action at a distance" of gravity,
> > > via the re-adumbration of his dead-as-
> > > a-doornail-or-Schroedinger's-cat corpuscle,
> > > "the photon." well, and/or "the aether,"
> > > necessitated by "the vacuum."
>
> > --Light: A History!
> >http://21stcenturysciencetech.com
>
> > --NASCAR rules on rotary engines!
> >http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com
>
> > thus:
> > Death to the lightcone --
> > long-live Minkowski!... yeah; and,
> > the photon is *still* dead,
> > no matter what herr Albert said about it!
>
> > > > <<pseudoscientists rarely revise. The first edition of
> > > > Principia Mathematica, a product of a committee,
> > > > the Royal Society, after "the MS burnt in an alchemical
> > > > process that set the trunk in which it was resting, afire,"
> > > > has had several editions, the latter of which take pains
> > > > to omit mention of Robert Hooke. The sole calculus is
> > > > is a rectangle, dxdy, in Book 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2.>>
>
> > thus:
> > as a student of Bucky Fuller -- an army of one, I say -- you've bit-
> > off
> > more than you should want to chew, with the n-hole spin on fullerenes;
> > and that is my clue, because a fullerene should have a very large
> > manifestation of polarization, not unlike in a game of futbol. I
> > mean,
> > just becaus the ball went through only one slit, why wouldn't it be
> > affected by the total symmetry of the instrumentation?...
> > all of it, down to teh electronics etc.
>
> > my main thing was, though, that you should at least *try*
> > to consider the theory of light using only waves,
> > which can still be pieced-together from almost any "undergrad"
> > textbook, post-Copenhagen, especially older ones.
>
> > or, just stick with Einstein's refurbishment of Newton's crappy
> > "theory,"
> > nothing of which is needed for relativity & so on. anyway,
> > one simply does not need to analyze a phenomenon
> > by *both* its wavey & bullety aspects -- at the same time;
> > once you have proven a theorem in projective geometry e.g.,
> > you do not have to give the "2nd column proof," unless
> > you're just learning it, for the first time!
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
> > > any moving particle or object had an associated wave."
>
> > thus:
> > a-ha, I was correct:
> > say "half," with respect to the beamsplitters, please (as
> > I comprehend, they generally split the "photon"
> > into "two photons" of half the energy, I think
> > of a different frequency, not amplitude -- although
> > the "photon" is really more akin to a phonon,
> > such as the audible "click" of the geiger-counter. the *proviso*
> > with these experiments is that the waves are highly modified
> > in the LASER apparatus, so that some folks more easily think
> > of them as "rocks o'light."
>
> Incorrect. Beam splitters do not cause a photon to 'split' into 'two
> photons' of half the energy. What you are mistaking for two photons is
> the associated aether wave propagating the available paths while the
> photon 'particle' travels a single path.
>
> If you actually read the experiment associated with the experiment which
> will provide evidence of Aether Displacement you would know this.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
> \#The_experiment
>
> "a beta barium borate crystal (labeled as BBO) causes spontaneous
> parametric down conversion (SPDC), converting the photon (from either
> slit) into two identical entangled photons with 1/2 the frequency of the
> original photon."
>
> And:
>
> "beam splitters (green blocks) are encountered that each have a 50%
> chance of allowing the idler to pass through and a 50% chance of causing
> it to be reflected."
>
> A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). While the C-60 molecule is in the
> slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits to the slits. When there are
> detectors at the exits to the slits the C-60 molecule is always
> detected exiting a single slit. If the detectors are placed and
> removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the
> slit(s) the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern.
>
> Explain how this is possible without aether.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
>
> "This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that
> any moving particle or object had an associated wave."
>
> 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics
> by the double solution theory
> Louis de BROGLIE'http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
>
> "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the
> wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case
> of an external field acting on the particle."
>
> "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
> theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
> where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
> natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
> be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
> located."
>
> de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave
> and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of
> the wave.
>
> In AD, the external field is the aether. In a double slit experiment
> the particle occupies a very small region of the wave and enters and
> exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits the available slits.
>
> In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
> The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the
> associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available
> slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the
> slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting
> the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether
> displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no
> interference.
>
> Experiments which will provide evidence of Aether Displacement
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
> \#The_experiment
>
> Experiment #1:
>
> Instead of having a single beam splitter BSc have two beam splitters
> BSca and BScb. Have the photons reflected by mirror Ma interact with
> BSca and have the photons reflected by mirror Mb interact with BScb.
> Do not combine the red and blue paths. Have additional detectors D1a,
> D2a, D1b, and D2b. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through
> BSca be detected at D1a and D2a. Have the photons reflected by and
> propagate through BScb be detected at D1b and D2b. If you compare the
> photons detected at D1a and D1b with the photons detected at D0, the
> corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference
> pattern. If you compare the photons detected at D2a and D2b with the
> photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will
> form an interference pattern. What is occurring is all 'up' photons
> are being detected at one pair of detectors, for example D1a and D1b,
> and all 'down' photons are being detected at the other pair of
> detectors, for example D2a and D2b. Interference patterns do not even
> need to be created in order to 'go back' and determine the
> interference patterns created at D0.
>
> Experiment #2:
>
> Alter the experiment. When the downgraded photon pair are created,
> have each photon interact with its own double slit apparatus. Have
> detectors at one of the exits for each double slit apparatus. When a
> photon is detected at one of the exits, in AD, the photon's aether
> wave still exists and is propagating along the path exiting the other
> slit. When a photon is not detected at one of the exits, the photon
> 'particle' along with its associated aether wave exits the other slit.
> Combine the path the aether wave the detected photon is propagating
> along with the path of the other photon and its associated aether
> wave. An interference pattern will still be created. This shows the
> aether wave of a detected photon still exists and is able to create
> interference with the aether wave of another photon, altering the
> direction the photon 'particle' travels.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: NoEinstein on 7 Apr 2010 09:18

On Apr 5, 9:08 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear Spudnik: Your replies to mpc755 are the primary reason that he
keeps repeating his garbage. I have reported his repeat copies of
science nonsense as SPAM. If you insist on carrying on arguments with
that NUT, please make your own '+new post' so you and he can go-at-it,
there. Nothing you are wasting you time on with mpc755 relates to the
mechanism of gravitythe subject of my original post. Thanks.
NoEinstein
>
> if you can't take the heat, get out of the frying-pan, dood!
>
> ah, fullerenes are cool;
> not so, the "particulate" photon ... but, at least,
> they are much easier to deal with, since their sole properties
> are the ones that waves have (freq., polarity).
>
> poor MPC#x, has to try to read Shakespeare *out loud*, or
> he will never find that massive clue-space, eef eets een eengleesh!.
>
> > direction the photon 'particle' travels.
>
> thus:
> SR is so simple,
> without the God-am lightcone-headage!
>
> --Light: A History!http://21stcenturysciencetech.com
>
> --NASCAR rules on rotary engines!http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com
>
> thus:
> Death to the lightcone --
> long-live Minkowski!... yeah; and,
> the photon is *still* dead,
> no matter what herr Albert said about it!
>
> thus:
> if you let go of the empty notion of "photon,"
> there isn't any difficulty, at all, with a geometrical picture.
> Death to the lightcone -- long-live the lightcone-heads (because,
> Minkowski was only one of them, by haphazard default/death).
> yes, I know, that *photonics* is a whole field of engineering;
> thank you, herr doktor-professor E.,
> for unburying Newton's bogus corpuscle and attendant "theory,"
> that Young had successfully popped!
>
> thus:
> on the wayside, if
> you are really going to set so much store in a two-hole procedure
> for fullerenes, maybe you shouold read the original article, and
> try to question its purpose. as it is, I'd guess that
> English is not your mother-tongue,
> which can sometimes prove difficult in *using* it; so,
> that's why I always suggest Shakespeare, becuase
> *no* one can *begin* to comprehend English,
> til he *tries* to read the bard. (he also had a hand
> in translating the KJV of the Bible .-)
>
> thus:
> NB, quaternions are not "quadrays" (for an amateur attempt
> at homogenous co-ordination), but you can "do" special rel.
> with them (according to Lanczos .-)
>
> thus:
> The "cap & trade" omnibus bill -- what Waxman-Markey should
> be known as, being so fundamental to the Stupid, economy -- is
> at least as old as Waxman's '91 bill to ameliorate acid rain. One
> must really stop and consider, just who really opposes this "last
> hurrah" for Wall Street (like-wise, the healthcare bill, also
> under Waxman's House committee, and which,
> after all, is geared toward funding a smaller aspect of the S--
> the economy, already tremendously leveraged by the "voluntary"
> cap & trade, which the bill would essentially mandate,
> a la the much-larger, market-making EU scheme).
>
> Not so long ago, there was a guest-editorial in the WSJ,
> which mentioned that a carbon tax would achieve the same thing,
> more or less, as the total "free" trade approach of cap & trade; oh,
> but, there're certain, so-called Republicans, who refer to the bill
> as "cap & tax!"
>
> Well, before any "reform" of the financial system, why
> would one put all of one's eggs into such a casino -- especially
> considering that the oil companies have not bothered
> to release the carbon-dating "fingerprints" that they use,
> to determine whether two wells are connected, underground; so,
> guys & gals, how old is the stuff, on average, anyway?
>
> Surely, the green-niks who lobby for "renewable" energy, do not think
> that oil comes only from dinosaurs, and their associated flora --
> all, from before the asteroid supposedly offed them (I refer them
> to the recent issue of Nature -- several articles that may be
> related!)
>
> Finally, note that, in a sense, the whole world is going a)
> nuclear, and b) into space, while we are essentially frozen
> into '50s and '60s techniques in these crucial frontiers. (While some
> folks dither about Iran's nuke-weapons policy, they are rapidly
> achieving a full-scale nuke-e and process-heat capbility
> for industry & infrastructure.)
>
> --yr humble servant, the Voting Rights Act o'65
> (deadletter since March 27, 2000,
> when Supreme Court refuzed appeal in LaRouche v. Fowler ('96))

From: NoEinstein on 7 Apr 2010 09:20

On Apr 5, 9:56 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear Spudnik: Your replies to mpc755 are the primary reason that he
keeps repeating his garbage. I have reported his repeat copies of
science nonsense as SPAM. If you insist on carrying on arguments with
that NUT, please make your own '+new post' so you and he can go-at-it,
there. Nothing you are wasting you time on with mpc755 relates to the
mechanism of gravitythe subject of my original post. Thanks.
NoEinstein
>
> see; you didn't even read your own, massively "quoted" ****,
> at the very front of your epistle. there are classes, for free,
> at your local community college, called ESL, dood.
>
> but, like I said, below,
> you also get the last word, here --
> try not to make another turd -- unless you've got a special sauce.
> (I mean, what if I have other things to do,
> than spend time with other, latter-day Einsteins?)
>
> > Incorrect. Beam splitters do not cause a photon to 'split' into 'two
> > photons' of half the energy. What you are mistaking for two photons is
> > the associated aether wave propagating the available paths while the
> > photon 'particle' travels a single path.
>
> > If you actually read the experiment associated with the experiment which
> > will provide evidence of Aether Displacement you would know this.
> > "a beta barium borate crystal (labeled as BBO) causes spontaneous
> > parametric down conversion (SPDC), converting the photon (from either
> > slit) into two identical entangled photons with 1/2 the frequency of the
> > original photon."
>
> thus:
> please, stop abusing fulerenes....
> excusez-moi; *what* is incorrect -- you mean,
> "incorrect in the interpretation of my [language-
> challenged] theory?..." your theory,
> that adds not one thing to any observation, except
> perhaps spme sort of "metaphysical" say-so?
>
> get with it, dood; read some elementary, old textbooks
> on wave-theory/electromagnetism, in your mother tongue, if
> you can't find the original discoverers write-ups.... ah:
> the brachistochrone of Leibniz and Bernoulli (in French) !!
>
> it's bad enough, that people habitually refer to photons,
> when all they manifestly are is waves!... now, if
> you want to retool teh wave-theory into a theory of aether,
> it's going to take a Hell of a lot more than mere, illinguistic
> assertions.
>
> and, please, stop quoting that poor, old man, Einstien;
> he was probably very far from perfect, at any time,
> in almost any writing (possible exception:
> the paper on the photo-electrical effect, which is after all
> what they gave him a Nobel, for; or, the paper on Brownian motion; or,
> the patent with Dr. Strangelove for an acoustic refrigerator .-)
>
> [I mean, what if it was really a political thing,
> strictly to unbury Newton's corpuscles?]
>
> > Incorrect. Beam splitters do not cause a photon to 'split' into 'two
> > photons' of half the energy. What you are mistaking for two photons is
> > the associated aether wave propagating the available paths while the
> > photon 'particle' travels a single path.
> > is everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity
> > is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute
> > constants for the functions of space which describe the former,
> > disregarding the causes which condition its state."http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
>
> --Light: A History!http://21stcenturysciencetech.com
>
> --NASCAR rules on rotary engines!http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com
>
> thus:
> that's why I always suggest Shakespeare, becuase
> *no* one can *begin* to comprehend English,
> til he *tries* to read the bard. (he also had a hand
> in translating the KJV of the Bible .-)
>
> dear editor;
> The "cap & trade" omnibus bill -- what Waxman-Markey should
> be known as, being so fundamental to the Stupid, economy -- is
> at least as old as Waxman's '91 bill to ameliorate acid rain. One
> must really stop and consider, just who really opposes this "last
> hurrah" for Wall Street (like-wise, the healthcare bill, also
> under Waxman's House committee, and which,
> after all, is geared toward funding a smaller aspect of the S--
> the economy, already tremendously leveraged by the "voluntary"
> cap & trade, which the bill would essentially mandate,
> a la the much-larger, market-making EU scheme).
>
> Not so long ago, there was a guest-editorial in the WSJ,
> which mentioned that a carbon tax would achieve the same thing,
> more or less, as the total "free" trade approach of cap & trade; oh,
> but, there're certain, so-called Republicans, who refer to the bill
> as "cap & tax!"
>
> Well, before any "reform" of the financial system, why
> would one put all of one's eggs into such a casino -- especially
> considering that the oil companies have not bothered
> to release the carbon-dating "fingerprints" that they use,
> to determine whether two wells are connected, underground; so,
> guys & gals, how old is the stuff, on average, anyway?
>
> Surely, the green-niks who lobby for "renewable" energy, do not think
> that oil comes only from dinosaurs, and their associated flora --
> all, from before the asteroid supposedly offed them (I refer them
> to the recent issue of Nature -- several articles that may be
> related!)
>
> Finally, note that, in a sense, the whole world is going a)
> nuclear, and b) into space, while we are essentially frozen
> into '50s and '60s techniques in these crucial frontiers. (While some
> folks dither about Iran's nuke-weapons policy, they are rapidly
> achieving a full-scale nuke-e and process-heat capbility
> for industry & infrastructure.)
>
> --yr humble servant, the Voting Rights Act o'65
> (deadletter since March 27, 2000,
> when Supreme Court refuzed appeal in LaRouche v. Fowler ('96))

First | Prev | Next | Last
Pages: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Prev: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
Next: Question about energy eigenvalues of a Hamiltonian, in general