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 4 May 2010 20:00 On May 3, 3:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 3, 11:53 am, Ralph Garbage <ralph.rabbi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 3, 8:02 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 1, 9:01 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 27, 10:16 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Several times before you have referenced > > > > Newton's ERRANT F = ma. > > > > Ah, excellent, just so it's clear. You're problem then isn't with > > > Einstein and the physics of the 20th century. It's with all of physics > > > since the 1600's. Basically, it's just ALL plain wrong, everything > > > that is taught to schoolchildren from the 3rd grade on. And you, in > > > your infinite genius, have discovered this by the power of reason. > > > > > Most equations that contain a "mass" can be > > > > changed to be a UNIT mass of one pound (or whatever). The "textbook" > > > > definition of MOMENTUM is F = mv. > > > > I'm sorry, but that equation appears in no textbook anywhere. > > > If you disagree, cite the textbook and the page number. > > > > > The latter mass can also be changed > > > > to be a unit mass of one pound (or whatever). SO... Since both > > > > equations are forces, > > > > First of all, you just said it was an equation for momentum (though > > > you got it wrong), not a force. > > > > Good heavens, John, you've gotten confused two equations for two > > > different quantities, you can't even get one written down right and > > > you call the other one wrong. > > > > You're a mental case, John. > > > He's just extremely stupid. > > This is clearly true. But it takes an added personality quirk to > insist that if he says something that 3rd grade teachers would scoff > at, then by golly everything that 3rd grade teachers know is wrong > too. There was a fella dubbed Spaceman here a while back who insisted > that the product of two negative numbers was a negative number, and > that if 3rd grade math teachers taught differently, then it was > because they were brainwashed by physicists. Then again, Spaceman was > an assistant in his father's garage who only posted when he ran into > too much time on his hands.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear PD: Teachers are employed to get them off of the streets. They aren't expected to be 'gods' of science truths! NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 4 May 2010 20:02 On May 3, 6:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD: Only mathaholics care one wit about those quirks. You only mention it to... seem to have 1.5 neurons in your brain. Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein > > On May 1, 9:01 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Apr 27, 10:16 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Several times before you have referenced > > Newton's ERRANT F = ma. Most equations that contain a "mass" can be > > changed to be a UNIT mass of one pound (or whatever). The "textbook" > > definition of MOMENTUM is F = mv. The latter mass can also be changed > > to be a unit mass of one pound (or whatever). SO... Since both > > equations are forces, set the right half of the two equations to be > > EQUAL, or: ma = mv. Since the masses are both one pound unit masses, > > then, the resulting equation says: ACCELERATION = VELOCITY! Even an > > imbecile like you, PD, should realize that velocity, (or say) feet/ > > sec, isn't the same as feet/second EACH second! > > > Ironically, I was studying for college physics when I realized the > > conflict between those two equations. > > I imagine you also had a difficult time when you were studying for > college algebra when you saw the equation for the volume of a sphere A > = (4/3)pi*r^3, and the equation for the area of a sphere A = 4pi*r^2, > from which any dunce would see that this implies that > 4pi*r^2 = (4/3)pi*r^3. > And from here, the 4's and the pi's cancel, leaving only > r = 3. > So these two equations that are commonly taught in high school algebra > classes and which are claimed to be general rules in fact only apply > to spheres of radius 3! > If any algebra teacher had the momentary inclination to do free > thinking on the matter, they would realize instantly that everything > they were teaching about their subject was wrong! > Only then would folks realize that there is no point to organized > schooling and that everything should be thought out purely in the > head, from the ground up! Ha, ha, HA! > > > > > That same week, I concluded > > that the entire chapter on mechanics was screwed up. Newton' "Law", > > in words, says: For every uniform force, there is one and only one > > associated acceleration. The correct equation for that should have > > been F = a, provided, of course, that the relationships between those > > two variables are stipulated, or are included in a less generalized > > equation. > > > The equation for MOMENTUM, F = mv, is correct! For objects in free > > fall, or objects that are accelerating, the correct kinetic energy > > formula is my own: KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m). The latter replaces > > both KE = 1/2mv^2 and E = mc^2 / beta. What contributions have > > YOU made to science, PD? Ha. ha, HA! NoEinstein > > > > On Apr 26, 9:42 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 26, 1:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Your denseness makes you incapable of > > > > understanding that NO force is required to cause an object to COAST.. > > > > I do understand that. I've told you that. > > > > > The velocity of a falling object at the end of second one COASTS all > > > > the way through till the object strikes the ground. The velocity at > > > > the end of second two does the same thing, and etc. The INCREASE in > > > > velocity per second is uniform (as you agreed two replies back). It > > > > is the COASTING carry-over velocity which causes the shape of the free- > > > > drop curve (distance vs. time) to be a parabola. > > > > Nevertheless, the work is the increase in energy each second. > > > The work is the product of the force times the displacement. The force > > > remains constant throughout the drop. The displacement in the second > > > second is three times that what it is in the first second. Therefore > > > the work increases each second, which means that the *increment* of > > > energy in each second is not uniform but steadily increasing. You'll > > > note that even if you remove the coasting component, this persists. I > > > don't know why this is hard for you. > > > > > In spite of what you suppose some G. D. formula says, there can be NO > > > > work performed unless there is a resisting force! > > > > That is incorrect, John, and I don't know where you ever got that > > > impression. > > > Newton's second law tells you this. F=ma. You perhaps have seen it > > > before. > > > If there is an impressed force on an object, and an equal and opposite > > > resisting force, then there is no net force on the object. This means > > > the F in F=ma is zero. Then the acceleration a must be zero. This is > > > Newton's 2nd law, to remind you. > > > > This is clearly not the case with a falling object, where the > > > acceleration is not zero, and so there is a net force. This net force > > > does work. > > > > > And since you > > > > suppose that the work done is increasing semi-parabolically (as would > > > > match KE = 1/2mv^2), then, the resisting FORCE must be increasing semi- > > > > parabolically, too. However, the only force countering the force of > > > > gravity is the INERTIA of the object dropped, and that never changes! > > > > The CORRECT formula for the kinetic energy of dropped objects is: KE = > > > > a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m). And that formula increases LINEARLY, not > > > > parabolically. Both Coriolis and Einstein were wrong to think that a > > > > linear input of energy (velocity) will produce an exponential increase > > > > in KE. Doing so violated the Law of the Conservation of Energy. > > > > > So, the readers will know: PD, the Parasite Dunce has never made a > > > > +new post in the three plus years that I have been visiting > > > > sci.physics. > > > > That's a lie, John. You're just incapable of using usenet properly to > > > find them. Your incapacity is not my problem, and it doesn't give you > > > license to lie from your ignorance. > > > > > I copy some of my expertly explained posts, below. > > > > NoEinstein P. S.: In particular, see the two posts with the > > > > *** ... ***. > > > > > Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e... > > > > Last Nails in Einstein's Coffinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre... > > > > *** Pop Quiz for Science Buffs! ***http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... > > > > An Einstein Disproof for Dummieshttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63... > > > > Another look at Einsteinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721... > > > > Three Problems for Math and Sciencehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f... > > > > Matter from Thin Airhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe... > > > > Curing Einsteins Diseasehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e... > > > > Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f98526... > > > > Cleaning Away Einsteins Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847... > > > > *** Dropping Einstein Like a Stone ***http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1... > > > > Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is > > > > Copyrighted.)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8... > > > > Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe... > > > > The Gravity of Masses Doesnt Bend Light.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99... > > > > KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85... > > > > Light rays dont travel on ballistic curves.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a... > > > > A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a1702... > > > > SR Ignored the Significance of the = Signhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/56247... > > > > Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf3... > > > > NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12... > > > > NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einsteinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/81046... > > > > There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26... > > > > > > On Apr 26, 11:05 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 2:29 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear BLOCKHEAD PD, the Parasite Dunce: You have only a one neuron > > > > > > brain (encased in concrete). So, to you 'experimental evidence' > > > > > > matters even when the conclusions of such are WRONG. > > > > > > I'm sorry, John, but if you think that experimental results make no > > > > > sense because it conflicts with your common sense, then your common > > > > > sense is what's wrong. > > > > > > > IF as you say > > > > > > (sic) the KE of falling objects accrues non-linearly (sic), then the > > > > > > INPUT energyfrom the force of gravitymust be non linear, too > > > > > > (sic). > > > > > > The input of energy comes from work. There is more to work than just > > > > > the force. Recall the work is the *product* of force and displacement. > > > > > So it is entirely possible for the force to be linear and the work to > > > > > be nonlinear, or the force to be constant and the work to be non- > > > > > constant. This is really not complicated, John, and 7th graders have > > > > > no difficulty with it, so I don't know why you have such a problem > > > > > with it. > > > > > > > NOTE: You must agree to that statement if you accept that the > > > > > > Law of the Conservation of Energy is correct. Agreed? Then, tell me, > > > > > > PD, what about the UNIFORM force of gravity is non linear? You've > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: spudnik on 4 May 2010 20:03 it's probably just his grasp of English; don't you think? as for "Newton's law," its universality is actually due to Kepler; Hooke merely algebraized Kepler's orbital constraints (then, newton stole the inverse second-power thing from Hooke .-) thus: nor are most glaciers actually receding, although this fact is mainly unnoticed, because of a massive lack of historical data on virtually all glaciers. satellite telemetry has shown almost no change of Antarctic icesheets, but what else would one expect, considering that there is as much ice as can be accomodated, because "ice bergs do calve, period." > OK, NSIDC and NERSC don't agree. NERSC, who shows the years 2007, 2008, > 2009 and 2010, still shows 2010 with much more ice than 2007 and 2008. thus: I'm allowed to agree with Al Gore about one thing; am I not?... even though Mauna Loa is a weird place to measure CO2, it's still just one place, with a record since the '60s (I think). now, most of the effect of humans may not be the burning of Fossilized Fuels (tm), but the burning-up of soil biota & forests. (after all, oil comes out of the ground, by itself, under pressure -- even when we're pumping like crazy in the Gulf of Mexico and the Redondo Seep e.g.) thus: 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, and some thing about Coriolis' force, 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 --Light: A History! http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com
From: NoEinstein on 4 May 2010 20:07 On May 3, 11:35 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Timo: Wonderful! So, you are at liberty to show your shallow pedantry elsewhere! NE >: > On Mon, 3 May 2010, NoEinstein wrote: > > Instead of trying, > > vainly, to run me down for not jumping at your suggestion that I do > > costly experiments, realize that there are only 24 hours in a day. > > Can you read? I didn't suggest that you do any experiments. > > > You, and any others, are at liberty to perform Henry Cavendish or > > other type experiments in support of my New Science! > > Yes. This is what I said. What I asked is how large is the effect that > needs to be measured. > > If you don't care to say, then I won't do the measurement. Not my problem > if your theory doesn't get supported. > > You don't care to discuss science at all, or even discuss your theory. All > you want to do is post long essays to distract from having your numerical > errors pointed out, and post abuse and rudeness. So, do your own > experiments if you want them done; it clearly isn't worth expending any > effort to try to help you.
From: NoEinstein on 4 May 2010 20:12
On May 3, 11:54 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear mpc755: Like... the chicken or the egg, ETHER came before there was matter. The ether started spiraling as soon as the first star emitted light. That's how ether flows (like water down a drain)! So the ether was in close sync with the motions of the masses, not because the masses moved the ether, but because they were partners in a common DANCE! NoEinstein > > On May 3, 9:29 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 2, 9:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> 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. > > > Dear mpc755: It is 'generally accepted' that no one (until yours > > truly) has found the one, simple energy-force mechanism that will > > explain everything in the Universe. So, if anything is... "generally > > accepted" that would be a near certain PROOF that such is WRONG! > > "Varying ether flow and density" accounts for: light; gravity; the EM > > force; mass; inertia; weight; all chemical reactions; all biological > > constructs; and every object(s) or effect(s) ever observed. > > Understand the ether, and its 'tangles' and 'untangles', and you will > > know the Universe! NoEinstein > > I am not debating the correctness of 'aether drag'. I am simply > pointing out that your definition of 'aether drag' is different than > how it is defined by everyone else. > > The definition everyone, besides yourself, accepts for 'aether drag' > is the aether is dragged by matter due to its connections with the > matter. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis > > "According to the aether drag hypothesis light propagates in a special > medium, the aether, that remains attached to things as they move." > > The pressure exerted by the aether in nearby regions towards the > matter doing the displacing is described, inadequately, 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |