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: mpc755 on 4 May 2010 16:26 On May 4, 3:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 4, 5:38 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 4, 6:36 am, "H.Y. ADDANDSTUFF" <marty.musa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 3, 9:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 3, 9:54 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On May 3, 1:06 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear mpc755: As Ronald Reagan liked to say: "There you go again!" You > > > > > said: "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." > > > > > > Fellow, my correct explanation for the mechanism of gravitywell- > > > > > explained at the beginning of this post, and throughoutisn't an > > > > > invitation for you, or others, to keep proposing your science > > > > > nonsense. Since so much of the latter has been written, it's not hard > > > > > to find someone to agree with you (ha!). In true science, the only > > > > > person who has to agree with you is MEand I DON'T agree! So, stop > > > > > repeating stuff that is wrong! NoEinstein > > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > > > > I named this material mæther. > > > > Aether is displaced by matter. > > > > Displacement creates pressure. > > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by æther displaced by matter. > > > > > The pressure exerted by the æther in nearby regions towards the > > > > matter doing the displacing is described, inadequately, as "[æther] > > > > effectively flows towards 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > If - this statement is used to open an exact proof p = np, if this is > > > true or false, do this. > > > = is equals, != equals not > > > { is open function, } is close function > > > //comments here and more there > > > <!---// starts the script, //---> closes it.http://meami.org/ > > > No ifs. Just the most correct unified theory to date. > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > > I named this material mæther. > > Aether is displaced by matter. > > Displacement creates pressure. > > Gravity is pressure exerted by æther 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" > > > The pressure exerted by the æther in nearby regions towards the > > matter doing the displacing is described, inadequately, as "[æther] > > effectively flows towards matter". > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I challenge that your theory is correct. It means nothing to claim > most correct. It is wrong in some way and of course that is the > problem. Most correct does not cut it. And you can't prove that is > true either. You are just making a claim. > > Mitch Raemsch One of the problems with physics today is everyone is right or wrong. That is a completely incorrect way of looking at physics. Look at the problem trying to understand and answer the simple thought experiment I propose: While a C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits to the slits. The C-60 molecule is detected exiting a single slit. While a C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits. The C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern. No one has been able to answer what occurs physically in nature in the above because the C-60 molecule, as conventional 'wisdom' has it, creates the interference pattern in and of itself. As you understand, the moving particle has an associated aether wave. The moving C-60 molecule having an associated aether displacement wave is the most correct explanation for the observed behaviors to date. I use 'most correct' and 'to date' to leave the door open for the next person who figures out a more correct explanation. That doesn't mean there will be or won't be a more correct explanation put forth in the future, just that we should be cognizant of it and allow the next more correct explanation a chance to be heard and to succeed on its own merits, not just refuted simply for the fact that it is different. Experiments which will provide evidence of Aether Displacement: Experiment #1: Instead of having a single beam splitter BSc have two beam splitters BSca and BScb. Have the photons reflected by mirror Ma interact with BSca and have the photons reflected by mirror Mb interact with BScb. Do not combine the red and blue paths. Have additional detectors D1a, D2a, D1b, and D2b. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BSca be detected at D1a and D2a. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BScb be detected at D1b and D2b. If you compare the photons detected at D1a and D1b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. If you compare the photons detected at D2a and D2b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. What is occurring is all 'up' photons are being detected at one pair of detectors, for example D1a and D1b, and all 'down' photons are being detected at the other pair of detectors, for example D2a and D2b. Interference patterns do not even need to be created in order to 'go back' and determine the interference patterns created at D0. Experiment #2: Alter the experiment. When the downgraded photon pair are created, have each photon interact with its own double slit apparatus. Have detectors at one of the exits for each double slit apparatus. When a photon is detected at one of the exits, in AD, the photon's aether wave still exists and is propagating along the path exiting the other slit. When a photon is not detected at one of the exits, the photon 'particle' along with its associated aether wave exits the other slit. Combine the path the aether wave the detected photon is propagating along with the path of the other photon and its associated aether wave. An interference pattern will still be created. This shows the aether wave of a detected photon still exists and is able to create interference with the aether wave of another photon, altering the direction the photon 'particle' travels. SR, GR and LET are all correct. AD is more correct. Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory to date.
From: mpc755 on 4 May 2010 19:19 On May 4, 3:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 4, 5:38 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 4, 6:36 am, "H.Y. ADDANDSTUFF" <marty.musa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 3, 9:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 3, 9:54 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On May 3, 1:06 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear mpc755: As Ronald Reagan liked to say: "There you go again!" You > > > > > said: "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." > > > > > > Fellow, my correct explanation for the mechanism of gravitywell- > > > > > explained at the beginning of this post, and throughoutisn't an > > > > > invitation for you, or others, to keep proposing your science > > > > > nonsense. Since so much of the latter has been written, it's not hard > > > > > to find someone to agree with you (ha!). In true science, the only > > > > > person who has to agree with you is MEand I DON'T agree! So, stop > > > > > repeating stuff that is wrong! NoEinstein > > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > > > > I named this material mæther. > > > > Aether is displaced by matter. > > > > Displacement creates pressure. > > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by æther displaced by matter. > > > > > The pressure exerted by the æther in nearby regions towards the > > > > matter doing the displacing is described, inadequately, as "[æther] > > > > effectively flows towards 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > If - this statement is used to open an exact proof p = np, if this is > > > true or false, do this. > > > = is equals, != equals not > > > { is open function, } is close function > > > //comments here and more there > > > <!---// starts the script, //---> closes it.http://meami.org/ > > > No ifs. Just the most correct unified theory to date. > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > > I named this material mæther. > > Aether is displaced by matter. > > Displacement creates pressure. > > Gravity is pressure exerted by æther 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" > > > The pressure exerted by the æther in nearby regions towards the > > matter doing the displacing is described, inadequately, as "[æther] > > effectively flows towards matter". > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I challenge that your theory is correct. It means nothing to claim > most correct. It is wrong in some way and of course that is the > problem. Most correct does not cut it. And you can't prove that is > true either. You are just making a claim. > > Mitch Raemsch One of the problems with physics today is everyone is right or wrong. That is a completely incorrect way of looking at physics. Look at the problem everyone has trying to answer the simple thought experiment I propose: While a C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits to the slits. The C-60 molecule is detected exiting a single slit. While a C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits. The C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern. No one has been able to answer what occurs physically in nature in the above because the C-60 molecule, as conventional 'wisdom' has it, creates the interference pattern in and of itself. As you understand, the moving particle has an associated aether wave. The moving C-60 molecule having an associated aether displacement wave is the most correct explanation for the observed behaviors to date. I use 'most correct' and 'to date' to leave the door open for the next person who figures out a more correct explanation. That doesn't mean there will be or won't be a more correct explanation put forth in the future, just that we should be cognizant of it and allow the next more correct explanation a chance to be heard and to succeed on its own merits, not just refuted simply for the fact that it is different. The following is an explanation of what occurs in nature in a 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiment. Following the explanation are two experiments which will provide evidence of Aether Displacement. In the image on the right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment When the downgraded photon pair are created, in order for there to be conservation of momentum, the original photons momentum is maintained. This means the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. We will describe one of the photons as being the 'up' photon and the other photon as being the 'down' photon. One of the downgraded photons travels either the red or blue path towards D0 and the other photon travels either the red or blue path towards the prism. There are physical waves in the aether propagating both the red and blue paths. The aether waves propagating towards D0 interact with the lens and create interference prior to reaching D0. The aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels prior to reaching D0. There are actually two interference patterns being created at D0. One associated with the 'up' photons when they arrive at D0 and the other interference pattern associated with the 'down' photons when they arrive at D0. Both 'up' and 'down' photons are reflected by BSa and arrive at D3. Since there is a single path towards D3 there is nothing for the wave in the aether to interfere with and there is no interference pattern and since it is not determined if it is an 'up' or 'down' photon being detected at D3 there is no way to distinguish between the photons arriving at D0 which interference pattern each photon belongs to. The same for photons reflected by BSb and arrive at D4. Photons which pass through BSa and are reflected by BSc and arrive at D1 are either 'up' or 'down' photons but not both. If 'up' photons arrive at D1 then 'down' photons arrive at D2. The opposite occurs for photons which pass through BSb. Photons which pass through BSa and pass through BSb and arrive at D1 are all either 'up' or 'down' photons. If all 'up' photons arrive at D1 then all 'down' photons arrive at D2. Since the physical waves in the aether traveling both the red and blue paths are combined prior to D1 and D2 the aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels. Since all 'up' photons arrive at one of the detectors and all 'down' photons arrive at the other an interference pattern is created which reflects back to the interference both sets of photons are creating at D0. Figures 3 and 4 here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9903/9903047v1.pdf Show the interference pattern of the 'up' and 'down' photons. If you were to combine the two images and add the peaks together and add the valleys together you would have the interference pattern of the original photon. This is evidence the downgraded photon pair maintain the original photons momentum and have opposite angular momentums. Nothing is erased. There is no delayed choice. Physical waves in the aether are traveling both the red and blue paths and when the paths are combined the waves create interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels. Experiments which will provide evidence of Aether Displacement: Experiment #1: Instead of having a single beam splitter BSc have two beam splitters BSca and BScb. Have the photons reflected by mirror Ma interact with BSca and have the photons reflected by mirror Mb interact with BScb. Do not combine the red and blue paths. Have additional detectors D1a, D2a, D1b, and D2b. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BSca be detected at D1a and D2a. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BScb be detected at D1b and D2b. If you compare the photons detected at D1a and D1b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. If you compare the photons detected at D2a and D2b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. What is occurring is all 'up' photons are being detected at one pair of detectors, for example D1a and D1b, and all 'down' photons are being detected at the other pair of detectors, for example D2a and D2b. Interference patterns do not even need to be created in order to 'go back' and determine the interference patterns created at D0. Experiment #2: Alter the experiment. When the downgraded photon pair are created, have each photon interact with its own double slit apparatus. Have detectors at one of the exits for each double slit apparatus. When a photon is detected at one of the exits, in AD, the photon's aether wave still exists and is propagating along the path exiting the other slit. When a photon is not detected at one of the exits, the photon 'particle' along with its associated aether wave exits the other slit. Combine the path the aether wave the detected photon is propagating along with the path of the other photon and its associated aether wave. An interference pattern will still be created. This shows the aether wave of a detected photon still exists and is able to create interference with the aether wave of another photon, altering the direction the photon 'particle' travels. SR, GR and LET are all correct. AD is more correct. Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory to date.
From: spudnik on 4 May 2010 19:31 most of these things, you mention, are just theoretical interpretations from the Schroedinger's cat school of Copenhagen, "reifying the math" of the probabilities; they don't actually have any bearing on the correctness of QM or GR or SR or any thing, nor on your so-called theory. but, why do you say that conversation of momentum supposedly doesn't apply to a split quantum of light in some standard theory? and poor Nein Ein Stein believes that p = mv is a force and that F = ma is not, merely from a didactic say-so of his (in some sort of pidgen English, which could be the whole problem). > - The future determines the past > - Virtual particles exist out of nothing > - Conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair > - A C-60 molecule can enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits > simultaneously without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having > a change in momentum. > - Matter causes physical space to be 'unflat' but not move > - Michelson's "aether displacement to the electric current" is > different than Maxwell's displacement current > - Mass is not conserved. > - An electromagnetic field to have momentum. --Light: A History! http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com
From: NoEinstein on 4 May 2010 19:32 On May 3, 5:10 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Timo: There was a jealous tone to your insistence that I stop whatever I'm doing and start doing experiments to define how best to correct Newton's errant Law of Universal (sic) Gravitation. No generalist can delve too deeply into any 'branch' of science. I've already done enough for 10 PhDs in physics! I've designed, built, and successfully tested my X, Y. and Z interferometer which DETECTS Earth's motion in the Cosmos; Designed, built, and successfully tested a two-mass impact test (metal studs hitting head-to-head, vertically, with the lighter stud being on top... which shows that the KE of the smaller stud will match the INERTIA of the larger stud when the former is dropped from the exact height predicted by my: KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m), vs. Coriolis's errant KE = 1/2 mv^2); and a simple $40.00 dropped object test which shows that the PENETRATION of a lighter ball dropped from a greater height into clay doesn't match the penetration into that same clay of a heavier ball dropped from a height which Coriolis's formula 'predicts' should cause identical penetrations. Those three should be enough... "specialization" invalidating SR, and proving experimentally, and mathematically, that Einstein's SR equation, and Coriolis's equation VIOLATE the Law of the Conservation of Energy! NoEinstein Where Angels Fear to Fall http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e... Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin http://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 Dummies http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63... Another look at Einstein http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721... Three Problems for Math and Science http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f30aab43c49c?hl=en Matter from Thin Air http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90 Curing Einsteins Disease http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603 Cleaning Away Einsteins Mishmash http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26 *** Dropping Einstein Like a Stone *** http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en# Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is Copyrighted.) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8a62f17f8274?hl=en# Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe8182fae7008/b93ba4268d0f33e0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b93ba4268d0f33e0 The Gravity of Masses Doesnt Bend Light. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99ab95e498420/cd29d832240f404d?hl=en#cd29d832240f404d *** KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test. *** http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q= Light rays dont travel on ballistic curves. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002 A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a170212ca4c36218?hl=en# SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/562477d4848ea45a/92bccf5550412817?hl=en#92bccf5550412817 Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf38e749bfd/0451e93207ee475a?hl=en#0451e93207ee475a NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12d4d732435f2/737ef57bf0ed3849?hl=en#737ef57bf0ed3849 NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einstein http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/81046d3d070cffe4/f1d7fbe994f569f7?hl=en#f1d7fbe994f569f7 There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26d2eb535ab8/efdbea7b0272072f?hl=en& > > 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: NoEinstein on 4 May 2010 19:39
On May 3, 11:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: IF, as you've just said, everyone knows that the KE equation (KE = 1/2mv^2) is inconsistent with the Law of the Conservation of energy, then you've just agreed that the former is WRONG! The physicists whom YOU know may not be concerned, but the Laws of Nature are very, very mad, indeed! NoEinstein > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |