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: NoEinstein on 26 Apr 2010 22:49 On Apr 26, 1:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear mpc755: The discussions about the existence of an ether started because there was wrongly assumed to be some... 'medium' needed for light 'waves' (sic) to travel through. Any theory about matter dragging ether are your own concoction, having little if anything to do with the price-of-eggs-in-China. NE > > On Apr 26, 12:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Apr 24, 2:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear mpc755: Ether has zero drag on LIGHT, but a mass-proportional > > drag on matter. You should understand that difference. NE > > Yes, I understand the difference you are referring to, however, aether > drag is the theory aether is dragged due to its proximity to matter. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis > > "According to the aether drag hypothesis light propagates in a special > medium, the aether, that remains attached to things as they move. If > this is the case then, no matter how fast the earth moves around the > sun or rotates on its axis, light on the surface of the earth would > travel at a constant velocity relative to the surface of the earth." > > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 12:54 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 24, 9:28 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear mpc755: If your agreeing with the science notions of A. A. > > > > Michelson makes you happy, BE happy. But you must realize that he was > > > > only speculating about how science MIGHT be, not saying how science > > > > IS. Like I explained, Michelson was a top technician of science, but > > > > NOT a top analyzer of the mechanisms of science. To his credit, > > > > Michelson, until his death, never accepted Lorentz's 'rubber ruler' > > > > velocity-transformation of all matter. Michelson had built enough > > > > things with his own two hands to KNOW that materials don't change > > > > lengths due to being exposed to various velocities. That said, > > > > Michelson was clueless to explain why his M-M experiment, and his mile- > > > > long Chicago interferometer experiment, got nil results. The REASON > > > > for the latter: Ether drag on light never occurs anywhere in the > > > > Universe! NoEinstein > > > > There does not seem to be much difference between aether drag and > > > aether 'slowing down' due to its interaction with matter. > > > > Either way, it doesn't make any difference until you are able to > > > describe what occurs physically in nature in order to cause the aether > > > to 'slow down'. > > > > Aether is 'localized' with respect to the matter because it is > > > displaced by the matter. The aether 'displaces back'. The 'displacing > > > back' is the pressure the aether exerts towards the matter. The > > > pressure the aether exerts towards the matter is gravity. This > > > pressure causes the aether to be 'localized' with respect to the > > > matter. > > > > 'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum > > > medium and the inertial motion of particles'http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0701/0701155.pdf > > > > "Abstract: The similarity between the energy spectra of relativistic > > > particles and that of quasi-particles in super-conductivity BCS theory > > > makes us conjecture that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as > > > the ground state of the background field is a super fluid medium, and > > > the rest mass of a relativistic particle is like the energy gap of a > > > quasi-particle. This conjecture is strongly supported by the results > > > of our following investigation: a particle moving through the vacuum > > > medium at a speed less than the speed of light in vacuum, though > > > interacting with the vacuum medium, never feels friction force and > > > thus undergoes a frictionless and inertial motion." > > > > A particle in the super fluid medium displaces the super fluid medium, > > > whether the particle is at rest with respect to the super fluid > > > medium, or not. > > > > > > On Apr 24, 1:08 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 1:24 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear mpc755: Michelson was a very nice, detail-oriented man. But he > > > > > > lacked some critical analytical abilities. In Berlin, at Maxwell's > > > > > > urging, he 'tested' a low-cost version of his new interferometer > > > > > > design. Apparently, he lived next to a train station, so the > > > > > > interference fringes got obliterated by the vibrations, frequently. > > > > > > Michelson showed his general lack of analytical abilities by not > > > > > > realizing that the few seconds, to maybe a minute, in which he could > > > > > > see the interference rings (or bands) he should have been able to > > > > > > generalize that his design wasn't working as a detector of velocity. > > > > > > Instead, he figured that his instrument wasn't precise enough, or > > > > > > vibration free enough, to detect the supposed (sic) drag of the ether > > > > > > on the velocity of light. > > > > > > > That same book has an illustration in back that shows a professional > > > > > > quality pen-and-ink perspective drawing of the M-M apparatus, that is > > > > > > located in a basement of what is now Case Western Reserve University. > > > > > > Of course, the precise version of the interferometer didn't work to > > > > > > detect velocity changes in light, either. Michelsonbeing a basically > > > > > > naive mentalitydecided to construct a 'mile long' interferometer near > > > > > > the University of Chicago. That instrument, too, failed to detect > > > > > > velocity changes in the light. Michelson showed both his humor, and > > > > > > his deceptiveness, by taking advantage of the optics alignment issues > > > > > > with the mile-long, to create the illusion that he had... detected the > > > > > > 'sine curve' he hoped to see. The reason he could do so, was because > > > > > > the mile-long was at a fixed location that couldn't be rotated. He > > > > > > realized that by selecting the right times of the day or night to plot > > > > > > the oscillations of the fringe pattern about the optical center of the > > > > > > instrument, he could cause the plotted points to approximate a sine > > > > > > curve. Someone with my analytical ability easily realized that he had > > > > > > selected the times of day to FAKE getting positive results. But I'm > > > > > > not laughing that he was a deeply honest man, nor very smart.. I do > > > > > > applaud him for designing the Mt. Wilson interferometer to determine > > > > > > THE most accurate out-and-back measurement of the velocity of light > > > > > > (in air); and his most accurate measurement, in terms of the > > > > > > wavelength of light, of the length of the official METER stick in > > > > > > England. He would have been a great partner for constructing my own > > > > > > interferometer designs that DO detect Earth velocity in the cosmos. > > > > > > But not because of ether... drag on light. There is no such drag! > > > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > > Nothing you state above has anything to do with the quote where > > > > > Michelson discusses "aether displacement to the electric current".. > > > > > This is conceptually the same as Maxwell's displacement current. > > > > > > If aether is 'slowed down' when it interacts with a nucleus then that > > > > > is due to its being displaced by the nuclei. > > > > > > A better term for the interaction of aether and matter is to describe > > > > > the aether as 'localized' by the matter. > > > > > > If a single nucleus is moving with constant momentum then the aether > > > > > is exerting equal pressure to each and every part of the nuclei. This > > > > > equal pressure is due to the nuclei displacing the aether. This equal > > > > > pressure is due to the aether 'displacing back'. The 'displacing back' > > > > > is the pressure the aether exerts towards the nuclei. > > > > > > The greater the constant momentum the more aether is displaced by the > > > > > nuclei the greater the aether 'displaces back'. This is what causes > > > > > the pressure to vary depending upon momentum. > > > > > > What your 'theory' is incapable of doing is describing what occurs > > > > > physically in order for the aether to 'slow down'. It can't be > > > > > friction or there would be no momentum. It is pressure. How does the > > > > > aether exert pressure towards the nucleus? Because the aether is > > > > > displaced by the nucleus and the aether 'displaces back'. > > > > > > The analogy is a particle moving through a frictionless super fluid/ > > > > > solid. > > > > > > 'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum > > > > > medium and the inertial motion of particles'http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0701/0701155.pdf > > > > > > "Abstract: The similarity between the energy spectra of relativistic > > > > > particles and that of quasi-particles in super-conductivity BCS theory > > > > > makes us conjecture that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as > > > > > the ground state of the background field is a super fluid medium, and > > > > > the rest mass of a relativistic particle is like the energy gap of a > > > > > quasi-particle. This conjecture is strongly supported by the results > > > > > of our following investigation: a particle moving through the vacuum > > > > > medium at a speed less than the speed of light in vacuum, though > > > > > interacting with the vacuum medium, never feels friction force and > > > > > thus undergoes a frictionless and inertial motion." > > > > > > A particle in the super fluid medium displaces the super fluid medium, > > > > > whether the particle is at rest with respect to the super fluid > > > > > medium, or not. A moving particle creates a displacement wave in the > > > > > super fluid medium. > > > > > > A particle in the aether displaces the aether, whether the particle is > > > > > at rest with respect to the aether, or not. The particle could be an > > > > > individual nucleus. A moving particle creates a displacement wave in > > > > > the aether. > > > > > > Aether is displaced by an individual nucleus. When discussing gravity > > > > > as the pressure associated with the aether displaced by matter, what > > > > > is being discussed is the aether being displaced by each and every > > > > > nucleus which is the matter which is the object. > > > > > > Once you add the concept of displacement to your theory you will then > > > > > understand what is > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 26 Apr 2010 22:54 On Apr 26, 10:49 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Apr 26, 1:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear mpc755: The discussions about the existence of an ether started > because there was wrongly assumed to be some... 'medium' needed for > light 'waves' (sic) to travel through. Any theory about matter > dragging ether are your own concoction, having little if anything to > do with the price-of-eggs-in-China. NE > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis "According to the aether drag hypothesis light propagates in a special medium, the aether, that remains attached to things as they move." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_luminiferous_aether " 1830 - Fresnel develops a formula for predicting and measuring aether dragging by massive objects, based on a coupling constant. Such dragging seems to be at odds with aberration however, which would require the Earth not to drag the aether in order to be visible. George Gabriel Stokes becomes a champion of the dragging theory."
From: NoEinstein on 26 Apr 2010 23:14 On Apr 26, 2:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear mpc755: You've just described your own nonsense, exactly! NE > > On Apr 26, 2:02 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > waht is wrong with "matter is dysplaced > > by matter" et cetera?... of course, > > there are no virtual photons, since > > there are no photons, at al. (see Young > > and his two-hole write-up ... or, pretend that > > the Nobel, for the photo-electrical "effect," > > unburies Newton's corpuscle.) > > > > Aether is displaced by matter. > > > Displacement creates pressure. > > > thus: > > now, not only can we easily aver that "that Shakespeare > > wrote that Shakespeare," but we can also wonder > > about his death at fifty-three, after dining > > with a convicted killer, Ben Johnson. anyway, if > > you really want to get into WS's politics, > > find the cover-article *Campaigner* magazine, > > "Why the British Hate Shakespeare" -- if you can, > > athttp://www.wlym.com/drupal/campaigners. > > > thus: > > the whole *problem* is the diagramming, > > which is just a 2D phase-space, and cartooned > > into a "2+1" phase-space with "pants," sketched > > on paper. you simply do not need the pants, > > the lightcones they're made with, and > > the paradoxes of "looping in time" because > > of a silly diagram, wherein "time becomes comensurate > > with space" saith-Minkowski-then-he-died. > > > quaternions are noncommutative, not nonassociative, > > per rotations, as is easily demonstrated with a globe; if > > biquaternions are like octonions (a la "Cayley- > > Dickerson construction"), they're (tri-wise?) nonassociative. > > > as for capNtrade, if Waxman's bill passes, > > you won't be able to do *any* physics, > > that isn't "junkyard physics." > > > > > --No Cap and Trade Bailout for Wall Street and The City! > > > This is leaving the subject of physics a bit too much.. > > > thus: > > so, if aether has mass, then it must > > be detectable. but, why on Earth do you insist > > that energy cannot flow through matter, > > as light waves through air? > > > in your alleged model, > > how does light travel through air > > vis-a-vu the aether (that is, supposedly, > > created whem "mass is converted-or-not > > to energy") ?? > > > it seems that you are arguing > > in increasingly smaller circles. > > > > The products retain the original mass > > > because the product is aether. > > > Light waves propagate through the aether. > > > thus: > > you are assuming that "gravitons" "go faster" > > than "photons," which is three things that have > > never been seen. > > As I just replied, there is no such thing as gravitons. I will stop > responding to your posts, which are difficult, if not impossible to > decipher, as long as you 'assume' something that is completely > inaccurate. > > > > > Young proved that all properties > > of light is wave-ish, save for the yet-to-fbe-ound photo- > > electrical effect, the instrumental artifact that save Newton's balls > > o'light for British academe. well, even if > > any large thing could be accelerated to so close > > to teh speed of light-propagation (which used to be known > > as "retarded," since being found not instantaneous) is "space" > > -- which is no-where "a" vacuum -- > > it'd create a shockwave of any light that it was emmitting, > > per Gauss's hydrodynamic shockwaves (and, after all, > > this is all in the field of "magnetohydrodynamics," > > not "vacuum energy dynamics"). > > > > Even if Andromeda were to be closing at 99.9999% c, > > > thus: > > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > > his real "proof" is _1599_; > > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.... > > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 26 Apr 2010 23:19 On Apr 26, 11:14 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Apr 26, 2:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear mpc755: You've just described your own nonsense, exactly! NE > All I said in the post you are responding to is there is no such thing as gravitons. > > > > > On Apr 26, 2:02 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > waht is wrong with "matter is dysplaced > > > by matter" et cetera?... of course, > > > there are no virtual photons, since > > > there are no photons, at al. (see Young > > > and his two-hole write-up ... or, pretend that > > > the Nobel, for the photo-electrical "effect," > > > unburies Newton's corpuscle.) > > > > > Aether is displaced by matter. > > > > Displacement creates pressure. > > > > thus: > > > now, not only can we easily aver that "that Shakespeare > > > wrote that Shakespeare," but we can also wonder > > > about his death at fifty-three, after dining > > > with a convicted killer, Ben Johnson. anyway, if > > > you really want to get into WS's politics, > > > find the cover-article *Campaigner* magazine, > > > "Why the British Hate Shakespeare" -- if you can, > > > athttp://www.wlym.com/drupal/campaigners. > > > > thus: > > > the whole *problem* is the diagramming, > > > which is just a 2D phase-space, and cartooned > > > into a "2+1" phase-space with "pants," sketched > > > on paper. you simply do not need the pants, > > > the lightcones they're made with, and > > > the paradoxes of "looping in time" because > > > of a silly diagram, wherein "time becomes comensurate > > > with space" saith-Minkowski-then-he-died. > > > > quaternions are noncommutative, not nonassociative, > > > per rotations, as is easily demonstrated with a globe; if > > > biquaternions are like octonions (a la "Cayley- > > > Dickerson construction"), they're (tri-wise?) nonassociative. > > > > as for capNtrade, if Waxman's bill passes, > > > you won't be able to do *any* physics, > > > that isn't "junkyard physics." > > > > > > --No Cap and Trade Bailout for Wall Street and The City! > > > > This is leaving the subject of physics a bit too much.. > > > > thus: > > > so, if aether has mass, then it must > > > be detectable. but, why on Earth do you insist > > > that energy cannot flow through matter, > > > as light waves through air? > > > > in your alleged model, > > > how does light travel through air > > > vis-a-vu the aether (that is, supposedly, > > > created whem "mass is converted-or-not > > > to energy") ?? > > > > it seems that you are arguing > > > in increasingly smaller circles. > > > > > The products retain the original mass > > > > because the product is aether. > > > > Light waves propagate through the aether. > > > > thus: > > > you are assuming that "gravitons" "go faster" > > > than "photons," which is three things that have > > > never been seen. > > > As I just replied, there is no such thing as gravitons. I will stop > > responding to your posts, which are difficult, if not impossible to > > decipher, as long as you 'assume' something that is completely > > inaccurate. > > > > Young proved that all properties > > > of light is wave-ish, save for the yet-to-fbe-ound photo- > > > electrical effect, the instrumental artifact that save Newton's balls > > > o'light for British academe. well, even if > > > any large thing could be accelerated to so close > > > to teh speed of light-propagation (which used to be known > > > as "retarded," since being found not instantaneous) is "space" > > > -- which is no-where "a" vacuum -- > > > it'd create a shockwave of any light that it was emmitting, > > > per Gauss's hydrodynamic shockwaves (and, after all, > > > this is all in the field of "magnetohydrodynamics," > > > not "vacuum energy dynamics"). > > > > > Even if Andromeda were to be closing at 99.9999% c, > > > > thus: > > > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > > > his real "proof" is _1599_; > > > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > > > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.... > > > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com-Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: NoEinstein on 26 Apr 2010 23:19
On Apr 26, 2:52 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear spudnik: Please don't make such long replies. And please don't copy and paste what you've already said a dozen times. Google's storage space should be appreciated. I'd much rather read something concise that you wrote just for that specific reply. Give it a try! NE > > well, make my day. > > > As I just replied, there is no such thing as gravitons. I will stop > > responding to your posts, which are difficult, if not impossible to > > decipher, as long as you 'assume' something that is completely > > inaccurate. > > > Young proved that all properties > > > of light is wave-ish, save for the yet-to-be-found photo- > > > electrical effect, the instrumental artifact > > > that save Newton's balls > > > o'light for British academe. > > thus: > waht is wrong with "matter is dysplaced > by matter" et cetera?... of course, > there are no virtual photons, since > there are no photons, at al. (see Young > and his two-hole write-up ... or, pretend that > the Nobel, for the photo-electrical "effect," > unburies Newton's corpuscle.) > > > Aether is displaced by matter. > > Displacement creates pressure. > > thus: > now, not only can we easily aver that "that Shakespeare > wrote that Shakespeare," but we can also wonder > about his death at fifty-three, after dining > with a convicted killer, Ben Johnson. anyway, if > you really want to get into WS's politics, > find the cover-article *Campaigner* magazine, > "Why the British Hate Shakespeare" -- if you can, > athttp://www.wlym.com/drupal/campaigners. > > thus: > the whole *problem* is the diagramming, > which is just a 2D phase-space, and cartooned > into a "2+1" phase-space with "pants," sketched > on paper. you simply do not need the pants, > the lightcones they're made with, and > the paradoxes of "looping in time" because > of a silly diagram, wherein "time becomes comensurate > with space" saith-Minkowski-then-he-died. > > quaternions are noncommutative, not nonassociative, > per rotations, as is easily demonstrated with a globe; if > biquaternions are like octonions (a la "Cayley- > Dickerson construction"), they're (tri-wise?) nonassociative. > > as for capNtrade, if Waxman's bill passes, > you won't be able to do *any* physics, > that isn't "junkyard physics." > > > > --No Cap and Trade Bailout for Wall Street and The City! > > This is leaving the subject of physics a bit too much.. > > thus: > so, if aether has mass, then it must > be detectable. but, why on Earth do you insist > that energy cannot flow through matter, > as light waves through air? > > in your alleged model, > how does light travel through air > vis-a-vu the aether (that is, supposedly, > created whem "mass is converted-or-not > to energy") ?? > > it seems that you are arguing > in increasingly smaller circles. > > > The products retain the original mass > > because the product is aether. > > Light waves propagate through the aether. > > thus: > you are assuming that "gravitons" "go faster" > than "photons," which is three things that have > never been seen. Young proved that all properties > of light is wave-ish, save for the yet-to-fbe-ound photo- > electrical effect, the instrumental artifact that save Newton's balls > o'light for British academe. well, even if > any large thing could be accelerated to so close > to teh speed of light-propagation (which used to be known > as "retarded," since being found not instantaneous) is "space" > -- which is no-where "a" vacuum -- > it'd create a shockwave of any light that it was emmitting, > per Gauss's hydrodynamic shockwaves (and, after all, > this is all in the field of "magnetohydrodynamics," > not "vacuum energy dynamics"). > > > Even if Andromeda were to be closing at 99.9999% c, > > thus: > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > his real "proof" is _1599_; > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.... > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com |