There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
Next: Question about energy eigenvalues of a Hamiltonian, in general
From: spudnik on 8 Apr 2010 19:45 your aether does not appear to have any relation to what de Broglie wrote -- his bare inkling of an initial realization in playing with some math; dyscuss! thus: hey -- don't top-post! > read more »- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - thus quoth: the 200-pound space suit was added to the weight of the astronaut, the gravitational load on the skeletal system could prevent serious bone loss. But for those who were not outside the spacecraft, some reconditioning was necessary, after long stays on http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/ > The 'particle' occupies a very small region of the aether wave. thus: there is no fourth axis that is orthogonal to the three orthogonal axes of space (at least, not at the same origin, and probably not at all isometric). > The best model uses the minimum number of orthogonals thus: cartesianism can be problematic, but that does not make the L-transformation into its antimatter ... unless you throw Schroedinger's joke-cat from the train -- y'know, the Doppler effect? you *can* "do" special & general relativity in trilinear coordinates, but you don't have to!... like, that is what Minkowski's phase-space is, essentially; esp. with quaternions. thus: also, apply the formularium to an actual glass house, say, at a particular lattitude (south of the equator, you won;t always be able to use Polaris .-) thus: c^2 is a great constant to work with; how do you feel about C^2 seconds-per-meter^2 ?? actually c times the second-root of two has already been used as a factor, by Weber & in a very elementary exposition (or, it is supposed to be, in German). thnks for the prima donna soto voce; that really means a lot to me ... zzzz. now, I say, "second root" and second-power, because it has nothing in oarticular to do with The Tetragon. (well, may haps, the *skew* tetragon .-) thus: detrend this; all gasses are glass house gasses, but not at the same window of opening or closing. if you're going to use the Farmer's Almanac for a one-year futures, that's fine with me but I don't care!... I, myself etc. can't do the math, except in tripolars ... when I can configure them! --Light: A History! http://wlym.com http://21stcenturysciencetech.com http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com
From: mpc755 on 8 Apr 2010 21:57 On Apr 8, 7:43 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > hey -- don't top-post! > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > thus: > hey, we are wasting time with mister Burt-on. > > thus quoth: > the 200-pound space suit was added to the weight of the > astronaut, the gravitational load on the skeletal system > could prevent serious bone loss. > But for those who were not outside the spacecraft, > some reconditioning was necessary, after long stays onhttp://21stcenturysciencetech.com/ > > > The 'particle' occupies a very small region of the aether wave. > > thus: > there is no fourth axis that is orthogonal > to the three orthogonal axes of space (at least, > not at the same origin, and probably not at all isometric). > > > The best model uses the minimum number of orthogonals > 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.
From: Timo Nieminen on 8 Apr 2010 23:09 On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, NoEinstein wrote: > On Apr 7, 6:52 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > Copied, below, is my original post on the present topic. I would love > to have you and Ken discuss the mechanism of gravity. Think you two > can do that? I don't think there's much for us to say about it, at least not in a discussion about it. My comments are below, and Ken can add if he sees fit. > An astronomer friend > had observed that the moons of Jupiter were reappearing from behind > the back side of Jupiter sooner than their orbital periods predicted. > Einstein, or more likely, that same astronomer, supposed that some > anomaly beyond Newtons Law of Universal (sic) Gravitation was > responsible for the bending of the light. This looks like a garbled version of Roemer's observations that showed light travelled at a finite speed. Roemer is often given credit for measuring the speed of light, but he didn't do that part. Modern values for the needed parameters (such as the a.u.) give 3e8 m/s. Note that Roemer published his results in 1676, and was dead long before Einstein was born. Thus, the claim that the astronomer responsible for such observations was a friend of Einstein is quite incredible. The account you give of the development of general relativity is grossly incorrect. As such, all it does is undermine your presentation of your theory. If the reader notices that you are wrong at step 1, why would they assume you are any more correct in later steps? [moved] > A lady who was one of the > supposed experts on that Moon TV show said that the increasing > orbital distance was due to the influence of the spin of the Earth. > But she gave no hint that she knew what the mechanism of that > influence might be. In all probability, she had blindly accepted > Einsteins warped space-time explanation for gravity. No, the slowing of the spin of the Earth, and recession of the Moon is a Newtonian prediction. You need to look into it, since you claim that your theory explains this. Does your explanation replace the standard explanation, or add to it? > The Earth and the Moon are being PUSHED together more greatly by the > downward flowing ether on their opposing sides, than on their facing > sides. ... > This paragraph is my very own CORRECT description of the mechanism of > gravity! So far, it's just a story. It isn't science yet, only a story. Try turning into a science, and if you're right, you'll find where the possible experiements are that will distinguish between your theory and other theories. For example, you claim: > That greater gravity was temperature dependentan effect that Newton > never considered when he wrote his supposed Law of Universal (sic) > Gravitation. which is a clear difference between your "theory" of gravitation and Newtonian gravitation. What is the dependence on temperature? Stefan-Boltzmann suggests it might be T^4, and very accessible to laboratory testing. So, turn your "theory" from a story into real science, and test. There isn't any point in just repeating it over and over; repetition won't convince. Meanwhile, consider Newton's General Scholium in his Principia. The most important and relevant part is (from the Motte/Cajori translation): "Hitherto we have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our sea by the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of this power. This is certain, that it must proceed from a cause that penetrates to the very centres of the sun and planets, without suffering the least diminution of its force; that operates not according to the quantity of the surfaces of the particles upon which it acts (as mechanical causes used to do), but according to the quantity of the solid matter which they contain, and propagates its virtue on all sides to immense distances, decreasing always as the inverse square of the distances. Gravitation towards the sun is made up out of the gravitations towards the several particles of which the body of the sun is composed; and in receding from the sun decreases accurately as the inverse square of the distances as far as the orbit of Saturn, as evidently appears from the quiescence of the aphelion of the planets; nay, and even to the remotest aphelion of the comets, if those aphelions are also quiescent. But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus it was that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered. And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist; and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our Sea."
From: Ken S. Tucker on 9 Apr 2010 11:25 On Apr 8, 8:09 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, NoEinstein wrote: > > On Apr 7, 6:52 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > Copied, below, is my original post on the present topic. I would love > > to have you and Ken discuss the mechanism of gravity. Think you two > > can do that? > > I don't think there's much for us to say about it, at least not in a > discussion about it. My comments are below, and Ken can add if he sees > fit. > > > An astronomer friend > > had observed that the moons of Jupiter were reappearing from behind > > the back side of Jupiter sooner than their orbital periods predicted. > > Einstein, or more likely, that same astronomer, supposed that some > > anomaly beyond Newtons Law of Universal (sic) Gravitation was > > responsible for the bending of the light. > > This looks like a garbled version of Roemer's observations that showed > light travelled at a finite speed. Roemer is often given credit for > measuring the speed of light, but he didn't do that part. Modern values > for the needed parameters (such as the a.u.) give 3e8 m/s. > > Note that Roemer published his results in 1676, and was dead long before > Einstein was born. Thus, the claim that the astronomer responsible for > such observations was a friend of Einstein is quite incredible. > > The account you give of the development of general relativity is grossly > incorrect. As such, all it does is undermine your presentation of your > theory. If the reader notices that you are wrong at step 1, why would they > assume you are any more correct in later steps? > > [moved] > > > A lady who was one of the > > supposed experts on that Moon TV show said that the increasing > > orbital distance was due to the influence of the spin of the Earth. > > But she gave no hint that she knew what the mechanism of that > > influence might be. In all probability, she had blindly accepted > > Einsteins warped space-time explanation for gravity. > > No, the slowing of the spin of the Earth, and recession of the Moon is > a Newtonian prediction. You need to look into it, since you claim that > your theory explains this. Does your explanation replace the standard > explanation, or add to it? > > > > > The Earth and the Moon are being PUSHED together more greatly by the > > downward flowing ether on their opposing sides, than on their facing > > sides. > ... > > This paragraph is my very own CORRECT description of the mechanism of > > gravity! > > So far, it's just a story. It isn't science yet, only a story. Try turning > into a science, and if you're right, you'll find where the possible > experiements are that will distinguish between your theory and other > theories. For example, you claim: > > > That greater gravity was temperature dependentan effect that Newton > > never considered when he wrote his supposed Law of Universal (sic) > > Gravitation. > > which is a clear difference between your "theory" of gravitation and > Newtonian gravitation. What is the dependence on temperature? > Stefan-Boltzmann suggests it might be T^4, and very accessible to > laboratory testing. > > So, turn your "theory" from a story into real science, and test. There > isn't any point in just repeating it over and over; repetition won't > convince. > > Meanwhile, consider Newton's General Scholium in his Principia. The > most important and relevant part is (from the Motte/Cajori > translation): > > "Hitherto we have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our sea by > the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of this power. > This is certain, that it must proceed from a cause that penetrates to the > very centres of the sun and planets, without suffering the least > diminution of its force; that operates not according to the quantity of > the surfaces of the particles upon which it acts (as mechanical causes > used to do), but according to the quantity of the solid matter which they > contain, and propagates its virtue on all sides to immense distances, > decreasing always as the inverse square of the distances. Gravitation > towards the sun is made up out of the gravitations towards the several > particles of which the body of the sun is composed; and in receding from > the sun decreases accurately as the inverse square of the distances as > far as the orbit of Saturn, as evidently appears from the quiescence of > the aphelion of the planets; nay, and even to the remotest aphelion of > the comets, if those aphelions are also quiescent. But hitherto I have > not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from > phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from > the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether > metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have > no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular > propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered > general by induction. Thus it was that the impenetrability, the mobility, > and the impulsive force of bodies, and the laws of motion and of > gravitation, were discovered. And to us it is enough that gravity does > really exist; and act according to the laws which we have explained, and > abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, > and of our Sea." Where I'm concerned, I've known Timo for quite a few years, and he uses a real name as I do. Some ding-bat using the name "noeinstein" calling relativity 'moronic', I disrespect. I owe Timo cuz he's answered a few questions I've seen. I could happily explain why the the Earth's day is increasing and the Moon is receeding, using conservation of angular momentum and energy, but ding-bats don't appreciate the effort. Regards Ken
From: NoEinstein on 9 Apr 2010 12:36
On Apr 8, 11:09 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Timo: About ten years ago, when I had had my full of the nonsense being touted on shows like NOVA as science, I realized that most of that nonsense started soon after the 1887 M-M experiment. I saw a TV show that had Stephen Hawking talking (while he still had his own voice) about Cosmology. Einsteins SR was a result of Lorentzs rubber ruler explanation for the nil results of that experiment. No one before yours truly had the smarts to figure-out that M-M was the wrong DESIGN to be able to obtain the information being sought: The drag on the velocity of light, supposedly, caused by the lumeniferous ether. To wit: All of the optics were mounted on a single plane surface. Thus, both light coursesfrom the central beam splitterhad identical velocity changes such that their transit TIMES to the target never changed. No change in the times of travel is the reason there were no observed fringe shifts. I spent several hours (thats all) in my public library scanning a few books on Einstein. One of those was a biography which mentioned that Einstein was the friend of an astronomer who made the observations about the moons of Jupiter. [Note: That was what I read. Dont ever imply that anything I say is a lie. Your doing so is consistent with your being a liar. And it tends to show that you arent a gentleman and probably lack integrity.] I gleaned that Einstein was a science groupie who tried to associate with anyone who might have half a brain. Some of those lonely scientists, like Lorentz, were flattered to be asked about what they were doing. Thats probably how Einstein got much of his science nonsense that shows up in his books as hugely varying writing styles and proficiency. In short Einstein plagiarized the majority of what he wrote and said. At no point are my analyses of True Science the result of my reading about the work of any other person! Since science, especially physics, is so screwed up, I knew that the only way to make sense of nature would be to thirst for the OBSERVATIONS and to disregard all of the explanations, such as space-time. I am a generalist who looks at the Big Picture. Most scientists (ha!) are specialists who lookas though through a microscopeand try to figure out the Universe from that alone. Locking-in any theory about science, rather than re examining everything every day, is why physics is so screwed up. Timo, apparently you feel threatened by my clear thinking and top- notch analytical abilities. Instead of taking issue with any point of my science, you attack me by claiming that I have the history of the development wrong. Those who can only talk history probable got their supposed knowledge about science from the many books on the subject that are about 1/3rd wrong. The ego component of science is so high that few in academia will venture to weed our the garbage. If you will keep your comments BRIEF, top posts preferred, I will reply aptly. But if you ever attack my honesty and integrity, again, Ill declare you a persona non grata! NoEinstein > > On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, NoEinstein wrote: > > On Apr 7, 6:52 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > Copied, below, is my original post on the present topic. I would love > > to have you and Ken discuss the mechanism of gravity. Think you two > > can do that? > > I don't think there's much for us to say about it, at least not in a > discussion about it. My comments are below, and Ken can add if he sees > fit. > > > An astronomer friend > > had observed that the moons of Jupiter were reappearing from behind > > the back side of Jupiter sooner than their orbital periods predicted. > > Einstein, or more likely, that same astronomer, supposed that some > > anomaly beyond Newtons Law of Universal (sic) Gravitation was > > responsible for the bending of the light. > > This looks like a garbled version of Roemer's observations that showed > light travelled at a finite speed. Roemer is often given credit for > measuring the speed of light, but he didn't do that part. Modern values > for the needed parameters (such as the a.u.) give 3e8 m/s. > > Note that Roemer published his results in 1676, and was dead long before > Einstein was born. Thus, the claim that the astronomer responsible for > such observations was a friend of Einstein is quite incredible. > > The account you give of the development of general relativity is grossly > incorrect. As such, all it does is undermine your presentation of your > theory. If the reader notices that you are wrong at step 1, why would they > assume you are any more correct in later steps? > > [moved] > > > A lady who was one of the > > supposed experts on that Moon TV show said that the increasing > > orbital distance was due to the influence of the spin of the Earth. > > But she gave no hint that she knew what the mechanism of that > > influence might be. In all probability, she had blindly accepted > > Einsteins warped space-time explanation for gravity. > > No, the slowing of the spin of the Earth, and recession of the Moon is > a Newtonian prediction. You need to look into it, since you claim that > your theory explains this. Does your explanation replace the standard > explanation, or add to it? > > > > > The Earth and the Moon are being PUSHED together more greatly by the > > downward flowing ether on their opposing sides, than on their facing > > sides. > ... > > This paragraph is my very own CORRECT description of the mechanism of > > gravity! > > So far, it's just a story. It isn't science yet, only a story. Try turning > into a science, and if you're right, you'll find where the possible > experiements are that will distinguish between your theory and other > theories. For example, you claim: > > > That greater gravity was temperature dependentan effect that Newton > > never considered when he wrote his supposed Law of Universal (sic) > > Gravitation. > > which is a clear difference between your "theory" of gravitation and > Newtonian gravitation. What is the dependence on temperature? > Stefan-Boltzmann suggests it might be T^4, and very accessible to > laboratory testing. > > So, turn your "theory" from a story into real science, and test. There > isn't any point in just repeating it over and over; repetition won't > convince. > > Meanwhile, consider Newton's General Scholium in his Principia. The > most important and relevant part is (from the Motte/Cajori > translation): > > "Hitherto we have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our sea by > the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of this power. > This is certain, that it must proceed from a cause that penetrates to the > very centres of the sun and planets, without suffering the least > diminution of its force; that operates not according to the quantity of > the surfaces of the particles upon which it acts (as mechanical causes > used to do), but according to the quantity of the solid matter which they > contain, and propagates its virtue on all sides to immense distances, > decreasing always as the inverse square of the distances. Gravitation > towards the sun is made up out of the gravitations towards the several > particles of which the body of the sun is composed; and in receding from > the sun decreases accurately as the inverse square of the distances as > far as the orbit of Saturn, as evidently appears from the quiescence of > the aphelion of the planets; nay, and even to the remotest aphelion of > the comets, if those aphelions are also quiescent. But hitherto I have > not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from > phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from > the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether > metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have > no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular > propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered > general by induction. Thus it was that the impenetrability, the mobility, > and the impulsive force of bodies, and the laws of motion and of > gravitation, were discovered. And to us it is enough that gravity does > really exist; and act according to the laws which we have explained, and > abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, > and of our Sea." |