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: Timo Nieminen on 1 May 2010 22:06 On May 2, 11:33 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > Nice "try" PD: Like I've told you a hundred times, PARAPHRASE, or > copy, what you want me to read. You, an imbecile, don't qualify to > tell me (who's off the top of the I. Q. chart) what I should do. You > can only dream that I would care to follow your instructions, in any > regard. NoEinstein Ah, now we see! You will recall that you've repeatedly claimed that hot objects produce a stronger gravitational force (you say hot objects give off more photons and therefore have a stronger incoming ether flow). You made a real prediction, something that can potentially be measured to give real concrete and convincing support for your theory, if you can provide a quantitative prediction. You've been asked for this, and it suprised me that instead of giving such a quantitative prediction - which could easily convince the world of the truth of your proposed theories if confirmed by experiment - you merely blustered rudely and uselessly. Since you're clearly the King of the Hill of science, off the top of the IQ chart, making more contributions to science than any 10 PhDs, smart where Newton was a dunce, et cetera, surely it would be such a trivial task for you to provide such a quantitative prediction. But now you've explained and we see the light! The reason you don't answer such questions about science - your science - isn't because you don't know the answers, that you can't answer such questions, but it's because _we're_ such imbeciles that you don't _care_ to answer. Thank you for your clear and simple explanation, and clear demonstration of the value of attempting to discuss science with you!
From: spudnik on 1 May 2010 22:21 on the wayside, it is usually given as "p=mv," for historical reasons of "minding your Ps and Qs" (and, I don't think, it's the same "units" as a force). > Thank you for your clear and simple explanation, and clear > demonstration of the value of attempting to discuss science with you! thus: one should read the acolyte of Hubbard at Shell; his two books on Peak Oil, really give a good precis of the whole business -- although they were published way too late, for him to say, I tol'y'so, as he did. the best theory of Earth processes is by a mechanical engineer, who worked at an America oil co. BP's mini-dysaster in the Gulf is certainly suspicisous, but keep in mind the quantification viz-a-vu the Exxxon spill by Puget Sound; the organic seeps in the Gulf are about one Valdez per annum -- with massive pumping. > Think Big -- Local Waste Treatment plants could turn sewage > into potable drinking water and potting soil. like, Bogart that poultice! thus: the original "KE" equation is known as Leibniz' *vis viva*; whereas others had thought it was just the first power of speed (Galileo i.e., I think). > Experimentally, this is shown to apply to all forms of energy. thus: well, you made an assumption about the general tetrahedron, early in your proof, that only applies to a small class of them. thus: now that you've read some of it; so? > Nice site, lyndon larouche & 21stcenturysciencetech.googolplexth.com. thus: he seems to be unaware of the neccesity in a"proof," of "neccesity AND sufficiency," as first stated by Leibniz (although having one or the other is, still, very good -- if actually so .-) > state of the aether, as determined by our inability to detect it. thus: so, you applied Coriolis' Force to General Relativity, and **** happened? > read more » thus: with only the "trivial" solutions on the curves o'Fermatttt, it sounds like a "necessary but insufficient" proof; PdF certainly could have done it. > I have been interested in the odd and even aspect of FLT , and > when Cn = 1. May I have your reference? DRMARJOHN thus: so, your coinage of pi(a,b) is the same as pi(b) - pi(a); now, can you say thr proof as a wordprolemmum? --Light: A History! http://wlym.takeTHEgoogolOUT.com
From: spudnik on 1 May 2010 22:36 "p = mv," for no other reason than numerical practice; check your units -- is it really a force? thus: ah, the flow of q-foam patterns in space, which he said are *not the same as* aether flow, but it's easy to see how anyone could interpret it, to be just such a thing ... if one believes in reifying the Copenhagen school, and Schroedinger's joke-cat <MEOW, I'm not/dying!> thus: there is either curvature or there isn't; this is the essence of Cusa's proof, that the circle cannot be "skwared" or rectilineated (that provides both neccesity & sufficiency). > Why would there necessarily be anything special happening to the > curvature at the Planck length, other than the notion that smaller and > smaller pieces of a spherical surface approximate a plane? thus: on the wayside, it is usually given as "p=mv," for historical reasons of "minding your Ps and Qs" (and, I don't think, it's the same "units" as a force). thus: one should read the acolyte of Hubbard at Shell; his two books on Peak Oil, really give a good precis of the whole business -- although they were published way too late, for him to say, I tol'y'so, as he did. the best theory of Earth processes is by a mechanical engineer, who worked at an America oil co. BP's mini-dysaster in the Gulf is certainly suspicsous, but keep in mind the quantification viz-a-vu the Exxxon spill by Puget Sound; the organic seeps in the Gulf are about one Valdez per annum -- with massive pumping. > Think Big -- Local Waste Treatment plants could turn sewage > into potable drinking water and potting soil. like, Bogart that poultice! thus: the original "KE" equation is known as Leibniz' *vis viva*; whereas others had thought it was just the first power of speed (i.e. Galileo, I think). > Experimentally, this is shown to apply to all forms of energy. thus: well, you made an assumption about the general tetrahedron, early in your proof, that only applies to a small class of them (the "orthocentric" ones .-) thus: now that you've read some of it; so? > Nice site, lyndon larouche & 21stcenturysciencetech.googolplexth.com. thus: he seems to be unaware of the neccesity in a"proof," of "neccesity AND sufficiency," as first stated by Leibniz (although having one or the other is, still, very good -- if actually so .-) > state of the aether, as determined by our inability to detect it. thus: so, you applied Coriolis' Force to General Relativity, and **** happened? > read more » thus: with only the "trivial" solutions on the curves o'Fermatttt, it sounds like a "necessary but insufficient" proof; PdF certainly could have done it. > I have been interested in the odd and even aspect of FLT , and > when Cn = 1. May I have your reference? thus: so, your coinage of pi(a,b) is the same as pi(b) - pi(a); now, can you say thr proof as a wordprolemmum? --Light: A History! http://wlym.takeTHEgoogolOUT.com
From: NoEinstein on 2 May 2010 15:34 On May 1, 10:06 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Timo: You are right in you assessments. I'm a science generalist, more than a "lost-in-the-details" person. Since I'm the FIRST person to say that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation ISN'T universal, I really don't need to have a specific 'number' or correction for Newton's errant law. If you expect me to get... bogged down with numbers, then I won't be a generalist any more. Once I get my New Science recognized, it's possible that I might hire (uncorrupted) physicists to actually perform experiments, which I've already conceived, but can neither afford, nor have the necessary time to construct and test. I can assure you that my "bluster" is simply to get you and others to understand that the paradigm shift in science which I expect to be causing, isn't some "my numbers" vs. "your numbers" debate. *** Mathematics will have little if anything to do with it.*** If you, or any "grad student" at any (humble, Ha!) university would like a project, I recommend a variation of Henry Cavendish's torsion wire experiment using reflected light as the pointer. Make one or both of the metal balls very hot and measure the... gravity. Then, do the identical test without heating the balls. If the "gravity" is less in the second case, then, my "theory" will have been verified. That isn't too much to ask, I don't think. Universities are still getting billions of dollars to test anything and everything to do with Einstein's errant SR and GR. What a waste... NoEinstein > > On May 2, 11:33 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > Nice "try" PD: Like I've told you a hundred times, PARAPHRASE, or > > copy, what you want me to read. You, an imbecile, don't qualify to > > tell me (who's off the top of the I. Q. chart) what I should do. You > > can only dream that I would care to follow your instructions, in any > > regard. NoEinstein > > Ah, now we see! > > You will recall that you've repeatedly claimed that hot objects > produce a stronger gravitational force (you say hot objects give off > more photons and therefore have a stronger incoming ether flow). You > made a real prediction, something that can potentially be measured to > give real concrete and convincing support for your theory, if you can > provide a quantitative prediction. You've been asked for this, and it > suprised me that instead of giving such a quantitative prediction - > which could easily convince the world of the truth of your proposed > theories if confirmed by experiment - you merely blustered rudely and > uselessly. Since you're clearly the King of the Hill of science, off > the top of the IQ chart, making more contributions to science than any > 10 PhDs, smart where Newton was a dunce, et cetera, surely it would be > such a trivial task for you to provide such a quantitative prediction. > > But now you've explained and we see the light! The reason you don't > answer such questions about science - your science - isn't because you > don't know the answers, that you can't answer such questions, but it's > because _we're_ such imbeciles that you don't _care_ to answer. > > Thank you for your clear and simple explanation, and clear > demonstration of the value of attempting to discuss science with you!
From: NoEinstein on 2 May 2010 15:36
On May 1, 10:21 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear spudnik: To whom are you replying? NE > > on the wayside, > it is usually given as "p=mv," > for historical reasons of "minding your Ps and Qs" (and, > I don't think, it's the same "units" as a force). > > > Thank you for your clear and simple explanation, and clear > > demonstration of the value of attempting to discuss science with you! > > thus: > one should read the acolyte of Hubbard at Shell; > his two books on Peak Oil, really give a good precis > of the whole business -- although > they were published way too late, for him to say, > I tol'y'so, as he did. > > the best theory of Earth processes is by a mechanical engineer, > who worked at an America oil co. > > BP's mini-dysaster in the Gulf is certainly suspicisous, but > keep in mind the quantification viz-a-vu the Exxxon spill > by Puget Sound; the organic seeps in the Gulf are > about one Valdez per annum -- with massive pumping. > > > Think Big -- Local Waste Treatment plants could turn sewage > > into potable drinking water and potting soil. > > like, Bogart that poultice! > > thus: > the original "KE" equation is known > as Leibniz' *vis viva*; whereas others had thought > it was just the first power of speed (Galileo i.e., > I think). > > > Experimentally, this is shown to apply to all forms of energy. > > thus: > well, you made an assumption about the general tetrahedron, > early in your proof, that only applies > to a small class of them. > > thus: > now that you've read some of it; so? > > > Nice site, lyndon larouche & 21stcenturysciencetech.googolplexth.com. > > thus: > he seems to be unaware of the neccesity in a"proof," > of "neccesity AND sufficiency," as first stated > by Leibniz (although having one or the other is, > still, very good -- if actually so .-) > > > state of the aether, as determined by our inability to detect it. > > thus: > so, you applied Coriolis' Force to General Relativity, and > **** happened? > read more » > > thus: > with only the "trivial" solutions on the curves o'Fermatttt, > it sounds like a "necessary but insufficient" proof; > PdF certainly could have done it. > > > I have been interested in the odd and even aspect of FLT , and > > when Cn = 1. May I have your reference? DRMARJOHN > > thus: > so, your coinage of pi(a,b) is the same as pi(b) - pi(a); now, > can you say thr proof as a wordprolemmum? > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.takeTHEgoogolOUT.com |