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: victoria Bippart on 15 Apr 2010 16:08 thank you, photon-freaking Newtonian Churchgoer! thus: there is no fundamental difference between biodiesel and ordinary "fossilized" diesel, as I learned from teh movie, Fuel!... and that was about where the movie went kinda nuts, after the kiddies made their "smell comparison." it turns-out that there *is* a way to make clean-coal: you burn it as efficiently as possible (fluidized bed; ultimately, perhaps, fuel cells) and use the CO2 over methane to create methyl alcohol (and a further refinement, I forget; both are being done commercially). however, coal is such an oncredibly useful feedstock, it should ne'er be burned, at all. thus: you are simply ignoring what a wave actually is, three-dimensionally, just like Broglie, Dirac et al (math, good; interpretation, less good). there is simply no need for the particle, at all, as proven abundantly by Young, Fresnel etc. etc. -- nevermind what the 2nd Church of England says about Einstein and Newton! the real question is not, How can C-60 do this without aethe?, but How does it do it within the confines of the experimental apparatus? > The 'particle' occupies a very small region of the aether wave. thus: I always top-post my replies; the rest is simply misc.addendum.what.I.writ.today. it's funny, because you glom onto Newton's/Einstein's photon, but that is exactly the interpretation of the (merely instrumental) photo- electrical effect that supposedly alleviated any need for an aether; did they give E. the Nobel, just to validate N.?... well, whether there was any conspiracy (other than being at the Swedish Royal Palace, together), it certainly has made Newton's day -- and the Second (Secular) Church of England! thus: 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 capability for industry & infrastructure.) thus: I don't get his notation, either, but he must be trying to insert his "internal momentum" **** into some sort of mathematical form. so, when he patents his warp drive, he'll just have to be careful about travel "in" time -- and messing with his mama, before he was conceived! thus: the clocks are distorted by the curvature that was demonstrated by Aristarchus, and surveyed o'er Alsace-Lorraine by Gauss (with his theodolite .-) yes, time is not a dimension, or it is the only dimension, whereby we observe the others (Bucky's formulation). not only was Newton's law actually found by Hooke, but it was derived directly from Kepler's orbital constraints (and, Kepler thought that Sun was perhaps magnetic on planets, which may-well turn out to be more accurate than "gravitons" -- as long as you get rid of Newton's silly corpuscles, "photons" -- and his platonic ordering of the planets has alos proved to be more-or-less correct (if I could find that article, that gave a formula that was effective for all moons, as well). BTW, use quaternions for special rel., which shows the uniqueness of the "real, scalar, inner product" time/ dimension of Hamilton. --Light: A History! http://21stcenturysciencetech.com --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: spudnik on 15 Apr 2010 18:19 as I have said, the curvature of space was shown by Aristarchus, and surveyed in Alsace-Lorainne by Gauss (working for France); what could be simpler than that? of course, the confounding metaphor of a rubber-sheet with a bowling ball doesn't really help to see that, when it is combined with Minkowski's phase-space slogan -- and then, he died!'' yes, time is intrinsically curved by birth & death if you want to put it onto a piece of paper (phase-spatially, a la hamiltonians & lagrangians); like, log-log or log-linear. thus: glaciation (the movement of vast quantities of water from the tropical oceans to the poles) does not require "cold;" just the opposite. thus: if energy is somehow composing/interconvertible to matter, why should matter not show effects of being accelerated toward the maximum "internal speed" of itself?... note that electricty in the wire approaches the speed of light (at least, the impulse of switching does; is that, so?) thus: what dulls the mind is not "the vacuum" or "the aether" or "the photon," mere comcepts, but the simple avoidance of the anomalies that cannot be explained by such bland theories (and their hare-brained protagonists -- tehy make far-fewer predictions or explanations, than stringtheory !-) > There is no need for an aether, and Miller's results are not http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/highlights/hilt08.html http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/Vernadsky_W00-01.pdf
From: NoEinstein on 16 Apr 2010 02:58 On Apr 15, 3:50 pm, victoria Bippart <vickybipp...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Victoria: To whom are you replying? NoEinstein > > I always top-post my replies; > the rest is simply misc.addendum.what.I.writ.today. > > it's funny, because you glom onto Newton's/Einstien's photon, but > that is exactly the interpretation of the (merely instrumental) photo- > electrical effect that supposedly alleviated any need > for an aether; did they give E. the Nobel, just to validate N.?... > well, > whether there was any conspiracy (other than being at the Swedish > Royal Palace, together), it certainly has made Newton's day -- and > the Second (Secular) Church of England! > > thus: > 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 capability > for industry & infrastructure.) > > thus: > I don't get his notation, either, but > he must be trying to insert his "internal momentum" **** > into some sort of mathematical form. > > so, when he patents his warp drive, > he'll just have to be careful about travel "in" time -- > and messing with his mama, before he was conceived! > > thus: > is ten to the 500th power, like, > longer than the volume of Known Universe Total Quanta? > > thus: > the clocks are distorted by the curvature that was demonstrated > by Aristarchus, and surveyed o'er Alsace-Lorraine by Gauss > (with his theodolite .-) yes, time is not a dimension, or > it is the only dimension, whereby we observe the others (Bucky's > formulation). > > not only was Newton's law actually found by Hooke, but > it was derived directly from Kepler's orbital constraints (and, > Kepler thought that Sun was perhaps magnetic on planets, > which may-well turn out to be more accurate than "gravitons" -- > as long as you get rid of Newton's silly corpuscles, "photons" -- > and his platonic ordering of the planets has alos proved > to be more-or-less correct (if I could find that article, > that gave a formula that was effective for all moons, as well). > > BTW, use quaternions for special rel., > which shows the uniqueness of the "real, scalar, inner product" time/ > dimension of Hamilton. > > --Light: A History!http://21stcenturysciencetech.com > > --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 16 Apr 2010 03:04 On Apr 15, 6:19 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear Spudnik: "It's better to remain silent and have people think that you are stupid, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt!" Be it known: I have disproved both SR and GR. There is no such thing as... warped space-time! NoEinstein > > as I have said, > the curvature of space was shown by Aristarchus, and > surveyed in Alsace-Lorainne by Gauss (working > for France); what could be simpler than that? > > of course, the confounding metaphor of a rubber-sheet > with a bowling ball doesn't really help to see that, > when it is combined with Minkowski's phase-space slogan > -- and then, he died!'' > > yes, time is intrinsically curved by birth & death if > you want to put it onto a piece of paper (phase-spatially, > a la hamiltonians & lagrangians); like, log-log or log-linear. > > thus: > glaciation (the movement of vast quantities of water > from the tropical oceans to the poles) does not require "cold;" > just the opposite. > > thus: > if energy is somehow composing/interconvertible > to matter, why should matter not show effects > of being accelerated toward the maximum "internal speed" > of itself?... note that > electricty in the wire approaches the speed of light (at least, > the impulse of switching does; is that, so?) > > thus: > what dulls the mind is not "the vacuum" or > "the aether" or "the photon," mere comcepts, but > the simple avoidance of the anomalies that cannot > be explained by such bland theories (and > their hare-brained protagonists -- > tehy make far-fewer predictions or explanations, > than stringtheory !-) > > > There is no need for an aether, and Miller's results are not > > http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/highlights/hilt08.htmlhttp://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/Vernadsky_W00-0...
From: spudnik on 18 Apr 2010 00:04
I was replying to the guy who tries to "mash-up" "the photon" & "the aether," the former of which was supposed to get rid of the need for the latter ... except that it is an utter absurdity ... well, could be an energetic infinetessimal in a "nonstandard theory," I guess. I didn't steal her ID; it just happened to have been on the terminal I was using, and didn't notice. > To whom are you replying? thus: a) there is no vacuum "a la monsieur Pascal;" b) there are no photons. but, in any case, don't try to use the "math" of waves and the math of particles, at the same time, like Dirac et al *in their mere interpretations* of their own math. thereis even a recent historical treatment that covers this "controversy," between Schroedinger and the Matrix Guy, which looks as if it would be quite an entertainment (some things like, _The Ten of QM_ .-) > its seems like ether drag ... thus: drag, as in "ain't no absolute vacuum?" thus: some of the problem is just math; like, when one uses ray-tracing or "geometric optics" a la Newton, and then assumes that the wave is akin to a mere "ray" of light (which is really just a sort of dual method to Huyghens wavelets -- just because the "line of sight" is more or less, y'know, linear). > > What and how does a Michelson interferometer measure? --Light: A History! http://wlym.com |