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 20:13 On May 3, 11:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > MASSES DON"T DISPLACE ETHER, mpc755! NE > > On May 3, 9:42 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 3, 12:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On May 3, 12:43 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 2, 9:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear mpc755: Space is like an any module x, y, and z grid system.. > > > > Those don't... FLOW. But of course you can set the origin at any > > > > place in the grid that you choose. NE > > > > Gravitation, the 'Dark Matter' Effect and the Fine Structure Constanthttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0401047 > > > Dear mpc755: Substitute 'this' for the garbage, above, that you > > linked to: "Gravity is the (downward) force of flowing etherwhich > > upon impinging on the nuclei of atomsis proportional to the mass of > > the objects. The (downward) flowing ether gets replinished by the > > outward emissions of photons or charged particles which carry out some > > of the adjacent ether caught in the flow." NoEinstein > > Aether is displaced based on mass per volume. The more massive a > nuclei is the more aether it displaces. Aether is not at rest when > displaced and 'displaces back'. The 'displacing back' is the pressure > the aether exerts towards the matter. > > 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 -
From: NoEinstein on 4 May 2010 20:14 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/- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - WHAT?? NE
From: NoEinstein on 4 May 2010 20:17 On May 4, 11:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 3, 8:29 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! > > It's generally accepted that 5+17=22, NoEinstein. > Since you have been claiming that other things that are taught to > elementary school kids is wrong, like Newton's 2nd law, perhaps you'd > be willing to claim that this is nearly certainly wrong, too. If > 5+17=22 is nearly certainly wrong, what then is the correct answer? > > > > > "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 > > > >'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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: spudnik on 4 May 2010 20:19 so, if the aether was before the matter, how could a star emit light? why are we arguing with such a so-called theory, as this? because, we're Net-DANCE-addicts ?!? > 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 thus: it's just a "paradox" of assuming that it is a photon, when it is merely a wave; obviously, a thing with p=mv not equal to zero, can't have one of the terms being zero; so, it is not a particle or Newtonian corpuscle -- and did they *have* to give Einstein a Nobel, just to reify that foolishness of his? > There is no mass in the momentum of the photon. thus: 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, using some work of Huyghens (then, Knewton stole the inverse second-power thing from Hooke, and destroyed Hooke's portraits .-) 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 --Light: A History! http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com
From: NoEinstein on 4 May 2010 20:22
On May 4, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Whatever the truth is, PD contorts it. "Rubber Rulers" has no supporting experiment! Lorentz, the imbecile, used RR to 'explain' the nil results of M-M. Then, supposed scientists say that M-M SUPPORTS Lorentz! Where are the brains, and WHERE is the scientific method! NE > > On May 3, 9:43 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 3, 11:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> 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. > > > Dear PD: WHERE was the "scientific method" when Lorentz proposed his > > ANTI-ENGINEERING, "rubber ruler" explanation for the nil results of M- > > M? > > Lorentz's proposal was subject to experimental test, NoEinstein. > That's how science works. > And what on earth makes you think that this stuff is "anti- > engineering"? > Perhaps you don't know that engineers make use of relativity in their > designs whenever it is needed? If it's anti-engineering, why are > engineers happy to use it as needed? > > > And where was the scientific method when both Coriolis and > > Einstein wrote energy equations that were exponential, and thus in > > violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy? > > Those energy equations have also been thoroughly tested in experiment, > John, exactly as I was stating. You on the other hand are trying to > rule them out with your bandy-legged logic, rather than considering > independently verified experimental tests. > > > When the truth be > > known, PD, is this low I. Q. flunky who compensates by constantly > > faulting his superiors. He has never stated a single contribution > > that he has made to science. For one who devotes so much time to... > > 'science' shouldn't PD have... "something" to show for it? > > NoEinstein > > What do you think I should have to show for it, John? > > PD |