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: PD on 28 Apr 2010 21:39 On Apr 28, 8:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Apr 27, 8:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey fellow: Please hawk your stupidity on your own post(s). You are > no longer welcome, here! NoEinstein It never ceases to amaze me that you believe that people contribute to your posts at your invitation and at your pleasure, or that you have any authority or influence to control anyone or anything. Perhaps you don't understand what a usenet newsgroup is for. > > > > > 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 Constanthttp://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 28 Apr 2010 21:49 On Apr 28, 9:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Apr 27, 8:41 am, 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 28 Apr 2010 21:49 On Apr 28, 9:32 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Apr 27, 8:42 am, 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: mpc755 on 28 Apr 2010 21:55 On Apr 28, 9:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Apr 27, 8:41 am, 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 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 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: NoEinstein on 28 Apr 2010 22:08
On Apr 27, 10:16 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Dear PD: Fine; remember that you just said there is no force to cause COASTING! > > > 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. "Work" is the product of the force x distance moved ONLY for objects that aren't: in free fall; in outer space; or which don't have a resisting force matching the applied force. The force on dropped objects is just their static weight acting continuously until the object hits the ground. The distance traveled times the force in a single second is a COMPLETE work computation for that one second. In second two, that same work would get done, again; and in all the remaining seconds. The thing you don't understand is: The velocity at the end of second one will COAST all the way to the ground if the force of gravity is "cut off" at that point in time. So, in say a four second fall, the KE will be 2W, or two weight units. At the end of seconds two, three, and four, there will still only be 2 weight units of force, KE or "work" done! But there will have been 16 times as much DISTANCE traveled. Since 15/16ths of the distance fallen has zero pounds of associated force, the latter distance is from COASTING, and thus has NO associated work! All well-written equations must explain what the variables are, and state the "limiting conditions" under which such equation is valid. Your... "work" equation does neither. The next time you accelerate your car, ease off the gas and let the car increase its... "displacement", as you say. If the car coasts for half a mile, the force, KE or work reached the maximum right when you eased off the gas. A car traveling 45 mph after traveling 1/2 mile has the SAME KE as a car traveling one mile, the last half mile while COASTING. NoEinstein > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |