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 3 May 2010 01:01 On May 2, 9:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear mpc755: Saying the same things over and over won't make them correct. Wrong is wrong the first time and the hundredth! NE > > On May 2, 4:24 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Apr 26, 10:54 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear mpc755: "Wrong is WRONG, no matter who said it!" NoEinstein > > You have your own definition of 'aether drag' which is different than > what is generally accepted. 'Aether drag' is in reference to the > interaction of aether and matter. The subsequent effect is the effect > 'aether drag' has on light. > > The pressure exerted by the aether in nearby regions towards the > matter doing the displacing is described, weakly, as "space > effectively flows towards matter". > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > Aether is displaced by matter. > Displacement creates pressure. > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. > > Gravitation, the 'Dark Matter' Effect and the Fine Structure Constanthttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0401047 > > "There we see the first arguments that indicate the logical necessity > for quantum behaviour, at both the spatial level and at the matter > level. There space is, at one of the lowest levels, a quantumfoam > system undergoing ongoing classicalisation. That model suggest that > gravity is caused by matter changing the processing rate of the > informational system that manifests as space, and as a consequence > space effectively flows towards matter. 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 described as "space effectively flows towards matter" is the > pressure exerted by the aether towards the matter. > > "Then the flow in one region is relative only to the patterns in > nearby regions" is the pressure exerted by the aether in nearby > regions displaced by the matter.
From: mpc755 on 3 May 2010 01:06 On May 3, 12:58 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 2, 9:19 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 2, 4:19 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Apr 26, 1:48 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear mpc755: The velocity of the ether is pressure determined. The > > > ether density is greatest right next to massive objects, and less > > > further away. The "conveyor belt" of photon emission from massive > > > objects carries out the most ether in the early part of its travel. > > > That helps to maintain the ether density greatest closer to the mass. > > > Eventually, all light will loose its 'hitch-hiking' ether and keep > > > right on going. Photons can travel perfectly well through the ether- > > > less regions between galaxies. Much of my New Science has resulted > > > from my near total understanding of the mechanisms of both light and > > > gravity. NoEinstein > > > The faster an object moves with respect to the aether the greater the > > pressure exerted by the aether towards and throughout the object. > > Flying a spaceship into the ether has the same drag effect as if the > spaceship was standing still and the ether was flowing front to back. > Double the ether flow and you double the WEIGHT of the spaceship. > > > The pressure exerted by the aether in nearby regions towards the > > matter doing the displacing is described, weakly, as "space > > effectively flows towards matter". > > Early on, the ether was mistakenly used as a fixed reference 'frame' > for moving light and celestial objects. But the ether is > discontinuous away from the masses. It FLOWS from pressure > differentials much like weather systems on Earth. That flow of ether > is toward the masses as gravity, and away from the masses as photon or > charged particle emissions. > > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > > Aether is displaced by matter. > > Displacement creates pressure. > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. > > > Gravitation, the 'Dark Matter' Effect and the Fine Structure Constanthttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0401047 > > > "There we see the first arguments that indicate the logical necessity > > for quantum behaviour, at both the spatial level and at the matter > > level. There space is, at one of the lowest levels, a quantumfoam > > system undergoing ongoing classicalisation. That model suggest that > > gravity is caused by matter changing the processing rate of the > > informational system that manifests as space, and as a consequence > > space effectively flows towards matter. 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 described as "space effectively flows towards matter" is the > > pressure exerted by the aether towards the matter. > > Then why not say just the latter? > Because "this is not a flow of some form of matter through space, as previously considered in the aether models". The aether does not 'flow' towards matter to cause gravity. The author was unable to figure out that what he was best able to describe as a 'flow' is the pressure exerted by the displaced aether in nearby regions towards the matter. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. Aether is displaced by matter. Displacement creates pressure. Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. Gravitation, the 'Dark Matter' Effect and the Fine Structure Constant http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0401047 "There we see the first arguments that indicate the logical necessity for quantum behaviour, at both the spatial level and at the matter level. There space is, at one of the lowest levels, a quantumfoam system undergoing ongoing classicalisation. That model suggest that gravity is caused by matter changing the processing rate of the informational system that manifests as space, and as a consequence space effectively flows towards matter. 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 described as "space effectively flows towards matter" is the pressure exerted by the aether towards the matter. "Then the flow in one region is relative only to the patterns in nearby regions" is the pressure exerted by the aether in nearby regions displaced by the matter.
From: Timo Nieminen on 3 May 2010 04:36 On May 3, 2:40 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > Dear Timo: You ask the right sort of questions to be a 'specialist' > or a 'technician'. I'm a generalist. Those can tell the two former > types what needs being done. In short, I get the "whole picture". I > wouldn't seek NSF funding for any projects, because I know that such > organization, and the NSB are corrupt. It was just a simple correction of your numerical error, and whether or not you want a slice of the funding pie is irrelevant. Look up the numbers youself if you want, or don't, but either way you can avoid repeating the error. But it doesn't need an essay in response. > While you, apparently, were > caught up in statistics, numbers, and funding trivia, I was actually > figuring out how the various pieces of the universe work in unison. > So, don't fault me for my processes. If you were a pragmatist, you > wouldn't dare. NoEinstein Sometimes, it's useful to get the numbers right. Ask a quantity surveyor or an accountant.
From: Timo Nieminen on 3 May 2010 05:10 On May 3, 2:25 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > Dear Timo: There is a black-hole-like power in "playing" stupid. I > explain things, expertly. But the stupid (perhaps including... you) > can keep playing dumb and yanking my chain. They let their limited > knowledge and reasoning ability be a measuring stick for my lifetime > of thought and discoveries. Since it always takes two to communicate, > if you don't... "get it", then maybe that's your problem. Or, since it takes two to communicate, maybe it's your problem. It's your theory, and judging by the time and wordage you devote to it, you perhaps care at least an iota about communicating it. > My New > Science explains the Universe. I won't even try to develop the math > of any one part of that just to satisfy your (likely) sense of > inferior "superiority". Why would you developing the maths of any one part (or the specific part mentioned), which you can, given your great intellect and talent, do with such clarity, ease, and swiftness that it should properly inspire humility in lesser mortals satisfy anybody's "(likely) sense of inferior "superiority"."? You don't think anybody here might actually be _interested_ in your theory and its consequences? I'm interested in seeing if your prediction agrees with what has been measured for the effect of temperature on gravity (Count Rumford for starters, Poyting and Phillips, and others). If so, it might well be worthwhile firing up (perhaps literally) our Cavendish. While I fully anticipate that your theory will give most excellent agreement with experiment, it is scientifically useful to actually check, rather than assuming it is so. Alas, in the absence of any quantitative version of your theory, it's hard for me to check. But if you don't care enough about the agreement of your theory with experment to provide such, despite your overpoweringly superior intellect, why should anybody else care? Why should others bet their time, effort, and equipment on testing something you don't care enough about to spend a few hours on (at the very most, surely, given your manifest ability)? > Tell us, Timo; What have YOU ever done for > science? NoEinstein You can find some of my papers on arxiv, mostly applied physics. Here is some non-physics: http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/cho02101.htm But what _I've_ done is not at all relevant to discussion of _your_ theory, or what you've done (or haven't done).
From: PD on 3 May 2010 11:51
On May 1, 8:25 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 1, 11:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: You just said that "physics isn't > determined by logic". Of course, you would think that! That's > because you don't know HOW to reason! Well, it's because physics is a science, which means that it invokes the scientific method, and it determines truth by experimental test, not by logic. That is taught to 4th graders. Were you absent that day, or did you determine in the 4th grade that your science teachers didn't know what they were talking about and you realized then that all of scientific truths could be determined by logic? > Einstein got physicists > believing that ILLOGIC is where the most... I.Q. is. Since you > understood nothing taught to you in physics (the right stuff nor the > WRONG), you figured your strength was to fight anything and everything > that wasnt COOKBOOKED from some out-of-date, McGraw-Hill, Jewish > publication. > > Tell me, PD, WHO on this EARTH is a qualification to confirm YOUR > ideas about science? Anyone who understands math, and knows what the > Law of the Conservation of Energy requires, will immediately confirm > that Coriolis and Einstein had no earthly idea that KE and 'E' must > not be exponential equations, but LINEAR equations (or additive). I'm sorry, John, but just about everyone except for you knows that the Law of Conservation of Energy is completely consistent with the expressions for kinetic energy and total energy. It seems to be only you with the problem. Shouldn't that be a flag to you? If everyone in the world points to the same animal and calls it a zebra, and you call it a penguin, does that make you a world-class genius or a world-class fool? > > Since you don't think COASTING increases an object's distance of > travel, it is YOU, not me, needing others to confirm your stupidity! > Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein > > > > > On Apr 30, 10:05 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Apr 30, 3:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: "We" (you and I) aren't having a > > > discussion about science. You simply take the anti-thesis of any > > > science truth, knowing that there are some naive readers who won't > > > know the difference. It may sound 'high-and-mighty' for you to keep > > > referring to... the experimental evidence, and the 'textbook' > > > definitions, but you NEVER paraphrase a possible counterargument. You > > > only claim that there is 'something', somewhere that disagrees with > > > me. And you expect me to go look that up. > > > Yes, indeed, because physics is not something that is settled by > > puffed-up posturing and debate. > > It is not something that is determined by force of logic. > > You may be confusing physics with philosophy. > > > Ultimately, the truth in physics is determined by careful and > > independently confirmed experimental measurement. > > That body of experimental evidence is documented and available to you. > > It is referred to in textbooks, and references to it have been made > > here to you. > > > So yes, you are expected to look it up. > > > ANYBODY doing physics is expected to look it up. > > > > Folks, PD is the deep thinker (sic) who said that atomic decay is a > > > "chemical reaction". And just today, he said that a car which is > > > COASTING isn't increasing its "displacement". He has just proposed > > > that... "displacement" is only apt to calculating, or measuring, an > > > object's unit velocity. And since the unit velocity of the car > > > doesn't change, he claims that coasting isn't increasing the distance > > > of travel of the car. Can't most of you see how little PD cares about > > > truth and logic? Does he think everyone but him is a fool? > > > > *** Tell us this, PD: How many science experiments, of any kind, have > > > YOU designed, built, and successfully tested? > > > Are you sure you want to ask this question? My professional history is > > as an experimental physicist, and my record is public. > > Please don't puff yourself up as a songwriter when talking to a > > professional musician. > > It's not smart to put on airs as an expert on law when talking to a > > judge. > > > > I've made two most > > > definitive tests which support the LOGIC that Coriolis's KE equation > > > is not only WRONG, its so obviously in violation of the Law of the > > > Conservation of Energy, that no experiments are needed, at all, to > > > disprove: KE = 1/2mv^2; nor to similarly disprove E = mc^2 / beta.. > > > For you, a proof is only valid if it involves experiments which you > > > have never cited, nor paraphrased, and definitions that you claim are > > > in textbooks, but which you never quote. > > > Two comments: > > 1. Your experimental results will be worth something when confirmed by > > an independent investigator. That is how it is done in science. Until > > then, you are a self-feeding loop. > > 2. Yes, I expect you to look up textbooks, as they are easy to find > > even in your local library. I'm assuming that you are not under house > > arrest, you aren't bedridden, that you have bus fare to get you > > downtown, and that you are capable of reading when you get there. I'm > > also assuming that you are not so pathologically lazy that you refuse > > to budge your butt from your chair. > > > > I recently told you that I had suspected that the readers agreed with > > > my correctness our yours by two to one. But in light of your recent > > > statements of utter stupidity, that number is probably closer to ten > > > to one! > > > This is just like you, to suspect something is true without a single > > shred of tangible evidence. It's your style. > > > > *** No scientist on Earth has more credibility than yours > > > truly. *** If any think that they do, I would love for them to go > > > head-to-head with me, so that I can kick their asses into solar > > > orbit. Like those purported scientists, you, PD, dont have a leg, > > > nor a stump to stand on. NoEinstein > > > > > On Apr 30, 2:18 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 30, 10:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear PD: Some readers, who don't know either of us from Adam, may > > > > > think that your sidestepping of science is credible. An attack on... > > > > > the messenger (me) is a quick put-down that you had to have learned > > > > > (tongue-in-cheekha!) very early won't work on me. If the regular > > > > > readers of my posts and replies got to vote, they'd probably say that > > > > > I'm beating you in the "one-up-manship" by a two to one margin. But > > > > > you're still around because you won't stay on any discussion long > > > > > enough to get the life squished out of your... 'science'. I enjoy > > > > > knowing that you haven't won; can't; and won't win, PD. That > > > > > qualifies you as a looser; doesn't it? NoEinstein > > > > > I'm fascinated by this idea you have of winning or losing. > > > > > We're having a discussion about physics. I'm explaining to you what we > > > > know matches experiment, and what the definitions of the words are > > > > that are used in physics, what the equations mean, and how that is > > > > exemplified in measurements, and the fact that none of what we're > > > > talking about is beyond 7th grade science level. > > > > > You on the other hand seem to be more worried about winning some kind > > > > of battle or contest, and to you winning means: > > > > - that you talk longer than anyone else, ensuring that you always have > > > > the last word > > > > - that no one can *force* you to believe what 7th graders have no > > > > difficulty understanding > > > > - that no one can *force* to you stop talking > > > > - that you stick by your guns, no matter what, regardless of how > > > > stupid it starts to sound even to you > > > > - disparaging your respondents by calling them negativists and other > > > > assorted names > > > > - that you have offered a retort to every single response to your > > > > posts. > > > > > By that metric, someone who firmly believes that 17+4=32, and who > > > > insists on this long after the last person has walked away, and who > > > > insists that 2nd grade math teachers are obviously wrong, and who is > > > > proud that no one has been able to get him to stop saying 17+4=32, and > > > > who calls people who believe otherwise to be ninnies and brainwashed > > > > -- well, by golly, in your eyes that person has won something. > > > > > Of course, 17+4 is not 32, but the IMPORTANT thing, you see, is > > > > winning, not being right. Isn't that so? > > > > > As for attacking you, you'll pardon me if I'd decline to hire you to > > > > be the architect for a doghouse. I'm sure you understand my reasons > > > > why.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > |