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 27 Apr 2010 08:34 On Apr 26, 11:19 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hey fellow: Please hawk your stupidity on your own post(s). You are no longer welcome, here! NoEinstein > > 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-Hidequoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 27 Apr 2010 08:41 On Apr 27, 8:33 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Apr 26, 11:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey fellow: Please hawk your stupidity on your own post(s). You are > no longer welcome, here! NoEinstein > The aether does not 'flow' towards matter. Gravitation, the 'Dark Matter' Effect and the Fine Structure Constant http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0401047 "However this is not a flow of some form of matter through space, as previously considered in the aether models or in the random particulate Le Sage kinetic theory of gravity, rather the flow is an ongoing rearrangement of the quantum-foam patterns that form space, and indeed only have a geometrical description at a coarse-grained level. Then the flow in one region is relative only to the patterns in nearby regions, and not relative to some a priori background geometrical space" What is mistaken as 'flow' is the pressure the aether exerts towards the matter. The the aether displaced by the matter is the "ongoing rearrangement of the quantum-foam patterns that form space". "Then the flow in one region is relative only to the patterns in nearby regions" is the pressure exerted by the aether towards the matter where the state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state of displacement.
From: mpc755 on 27 Apr 2010 08:42 On Apr 27, 8:33 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Apr 26, 11:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey fellow: Please hawk your stupidity on your own post(s). You are > no longer welcome, here! NoEinstein > Water slows down when interacting with a fishing net due to resistance and friction. Therefore, in your theory, due to friction, there is no momentum. '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.
From: PD on 27 Apr 2010 10:16 On Apr 26, 9:42 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Apr 26, 1:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Your denseness makes you incapable of > understanding that NO force is required to cause an object to COAST. I do understand that. I've told you that. > The velocity of a falling object at the end of second one COASTS all > the way through till the object strikes the ground. The velocity at > the end of second two does the same thing, and etc. The INCREASE in > velocity per second is uniform (as you agreed two replies back). It > is the COASTING carry-over velocity which causes the shape of the free- > drop curve (distance vs. time) to be a parabola. Nevertheless, the work is the increase in energy each second. The work is the product of the force times the displacement. The force remains constant throughout the drop. The displacement in the second second is three times that what it is in the first second. Therefore the work increases each second, which means that the *increment* of energy in each second is not uniform but steadily increasing. You'll note that even if you remove the coasting component, this persists. I don't know why this is hard for you. > > In spite of what you suppose some G. D. formula says, there can be NO > work performed unless there is a resisting force! That is incorrect, John, and I don't know where you ever got that impression. Newton's second law tells you this. F=ma. You perhaps have seen it before. If there is an impressed force on an object, and an equal and opposite resisting force, then there is no net force on the object. This means the F in F=ma is zero. Then the acceleration a must be zero. This is Newton's 2nd law, to remind you. This is clearly not the case with a falling object, where the acceleration is not zero, and so there is a net force. This net force does work. > And since you > suppose that the work done is increasing semi-parabolically (as would > match KE = 1/2mv^2), then, the resisting FORCE must be increasing semi- > parabolically, too. However, the only force countering the force of > gravity is the INERTIA of the object dropped, and that never changes! > The CORRECT formula for the kinetic energy of dropped objects is: KE = > a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m). And that formula increases LINEARLY, not > parabolically. Both Coriolis and Einstein were wrong to think that a > linear input of energy (velocity) will produce an exponential increase > in KE. Doing so violated the Law of the Conservation of Energy. > > So, the readers will know: PD, the Parasite Dunce has never made a > +new post in the three plus years that I have been visiting > sci.physics. That's a lie, John. You're just incapable of using usenet properly to find them. Your incapacity is not my problem, and it doesn't give you license to lie from your ignorance. > I copy some of my expertly explained posts, below. > NoEinstein P. S.: In particular, see the two posts with the > *** ... ***. > > Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e... > Last Nails in Einstein's Coffinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics..relativity/browse_frm/thre... > *** Pop Quiz for Science Buffs! ***http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... > An Einstein Disproof for Dummieshttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63... > Another look at Einsteinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721... > Three Problems for Math and Sciencehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f... > Matter from Thin Airhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe... > Curing Einsteins Diseasehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e... > Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f98526... > Cleaning Away Einsteins Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847... > *** Dropping Einstein Like a Stone ***http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1... > Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is > Copyrighted.)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8... > Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe... > The Gravity of Masses Doesnt Bend Light.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99... > KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85... > Light rays dont travel on ballistic curves.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a... > A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a1702... > SR Ignored the Significance of the = Signhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/56247... > Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf3... > NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12... > NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einsteinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/81046... > There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26... > > > > > On Apr 26, 11:05 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Apr 24, 2:29 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear BLOCKHEAD PD, the Parasite Dunce: You have only a one neuron > > > brain (encased in concrete). So, to you 'experimental evidence' > > > matters even when the conclusions of such are WRONG. > > > I'm sorry, John, but if you think that experimental results make no > > sense because it conflicts with your common sense, then your common > > sense is what's wrong. > > > > IF as you say > > > (sic) the KE of falling objects accrues non-linearly (sic), then the > > > INPUT energyfrom the force of gravitymust be non linear, too > > > (sic). > > > The input of energy comes from work. There is more to work than just > > the force. Recall the work is the *product* of force and displacement. > > So it is entirely possible for the force to be linear and the work to > > be nonlinear, or the force to be constant and the work to be non- > > constant. This is really not complicated, John, and 7th graders have > > no difficulty with it, so I don't know why you have such a problem > > with it. > > > > NOTE: You must agree to that statement if you accept that the > > > Law of the Conservation of Energy is correct. Agreed? Then, tell me, > > > PD, what about the UNIFORM force of gravity is non linear? You've > > > already agreed that the VELOCITY of falling objects is increasing > > > uniformly in simple accelerations. Newton's Laws of Motion state that > > > a uniform force will cause one and only one associated acceleration. > > > If the acceleration is... 'g', then the uniform FORCE causing the > > > acceleration is the unchanging static WEIGHT of the falling object. > > > Yes, indeed. But the work is not the force alone. The work is the > > *product* of the force times the displacement. > > In the first second, a gravitational force of 2 lbs will cause a rock > > to cover 16 ft, if it starts from rest. In the next second, the same > > gravitational force of 2 lbs on the same rock will cause the rock to > > cover an additional 48 ft. > > So you see, the work done on the rock, which is the amount of energy > > that gravity supplies to the rock, is three times higher in the second > > interval compared to the first interval, even though the force stays a > > constant 2 lbs. > > > > You typically escape from the above statements of truth by digging > > > into your dusty textbooks. > > > Nope. Real experiments, done in freshman labs. > > > > You then SHOEHORN the errant mechanical > > > definition of 'work' into the dropped object results. The latter are > > > errant simply because the equation doesn't clarify that the 'distance > > > of travel' is indicative of... 'work done' ONLY if there is a FORCE > > > being applied against a RESISTANCE which is equal and opposite. > > > That simply isn't correct, John. If there were a resistance force that > > were equal and opposite, then the net force on the object would be > > zero. Newton advised us in the late 1600's that the net force is the > > product of mass and acceleration (F=ma, surely you've heard of it), so > > that if the net force is zero, then the acceleration is zero. So a > > dropped rock that is accelerating cannot possibly have zero net force > > on it. In fact, NOTHING that is accelerating can have a net force of > > zero acting on it. > > > > That > > > means that when the force increases, the RESISTANCE increases by the > > > same amount. > > > > For dropped objects, the only force causing the one rate of > > > acceleration is the object's static weight. And the only RESISTANCE > > > is the object's INERTICthat exactly matches the static weight, > > > applied FORCE. Since the distance of fall with respect to time isn't > > > LINEAR, but parabolic, then, the ENTIRE non linear component of the > > > distance of fall has to be due to COASTINGbecause there isnt an > > > associated increase in either the applied force, OR the resistance. > > > > Folks, PD majored in high energy particle physics. I majored in > > > architecture and STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING. Of those majors, which one > > > would likely be the most proficient in understanding... the > > > applications of FORCES? > > > Well, John, since the introductory courses that structural engineers > > and architects have to take are taught in physics departments, I'm > > sure it would be physicists that are more proficient. And since you > > seem have trouble with F=ma, let alone work, which are 7th grade > > concepts that are needed for a HIGH SCHOOL diploma, let alone > > structural engineer certification, I'm a little surprised you fooled > > your instructors enough to be admitted to college at all. > > > > Im sure PD will invent ways to sidestep even > > > the clearest statements of truths. But as long as you readers out > > > there understand what I've explained, then PD can go jump-in-a-lake! > > > NoEinst > > > > > On Apr 24, 12:06 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 24, 9:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: The big difference between us is that I > > > > > acknowledge TRUTHS where those be > > ... > > read more »
From: spudnik on 27 Apr 2010 12:01
his problem is not "research on the net;" it appears taht English is not his primary language, so that we really can't say, what he is trying to say. if you have ever tried to "deal" with AP, you know of what I type. the only possible cure -- other than cruising on fora in his mother tongue, but of which (like AP) he may not be literate -- is to *try* to read Shakespeare (and this applies to everyone, who thinks he is or ought to be literate in the "King's English," as proven in the KJV .-) thus: I missed that on the initial scan; it is to laugh!... but I was interested to read of Soros' funding -- what a creep "philanthropist," he is (you can check this on the LaRouchiac site .-) so, basically, all Hindu gods should be toasted, if y'know what I mean (althoug, of course, each is very useful in its own domain, I'm sure, other than "what is the speed of the propogation of light?") Light: A History! http://wlym.com |