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: PD on 5 May 2010 12:15 On May 4, 10:48 pm, af...(a)FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Park) wrote: > PD (thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com) writes: > > On May 4, 1:07=A0pm, af...(a)FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Park) wrote: > >> PD (thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com) writes: > >> > On May 3, 10:07=3DA0pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >> >> Dear PD: =3DA0A thin "College Outline Series" book (that fits into the > >> >> bookcase behind my computer chair) entitled "Physics", by Clarence E > >> >> Bennett, states on page 19: "G. =3DA0Momentum and Impulse. =3DA0(1.) = > > =3DA0Momen=3D > >> > tum > >> >> is defined as the product of the mass times velocity (mv)..." =3DA0The > >> >> letter F is used for momentum, because the equation defines forces. = > > =3DA0=3D > >> > =3D97 > >> >> NoEinstein =3D97 > > >> > Oh, good grief. John, what is the ISBN on this book? I'd like to > >> > secure it to look at it. > >> > From what it is you just told me is in it, if I can verify that you > >> > can indeed read it correctly, it is a horrible, horrible booklet and > >> > should be burned as worthless. > > >> To quote the Spartans on a quite different occasion: If. > > >> I can't help noticing that the actual quoted passage is reasonable and > >> the inference about forces is purely in NE's words. > > > Exactly. > > > For what it's worth, momentum's *definition* is not mv, either. > > Electromagnetic fields have momentum, but this expression certainly > > does not work for them. The formula works for a certain class of > > matter-based objects traveling at low speed, and that's it. > > I know this, but at what level does it enter a college syllabus? (It's > a long time since I had any contact with undergraduate--or graduate--physics, > and I can't remember where it was first spelled out to me.) > > --John Park It's actually the second semester of the freshman year, usually. The modern physics survey chapters are at the back of the course, and that is where apologies are made for having made what appears to be blanket statements earlier in the course.
From: PD on 5 May 2010 12:18 On May 4, 7:17 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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? You attempted to say something here, John, but fell short. Is it your contention that the generally accepted statement that 5+17=22 is correct or nearly certainly 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 > > > > >'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: PD on 5 May 2010 12:23 On May 5, 2:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 4, 11:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD: And the point of your 'addition' extrapolation is? Your science > notions are shallow enough without implying that I have disavowed > common math. If Einstein had known how to do simple mathnowhere in > evidence in his (mindless) equation physicsperhaps the dark ages of > Einstein wouldn't have lasted so long. NoEinstein > You made a general statement that if something is generally accepted, then that is a sign that it is nearly certainly WRONG. Now you don't seem so sure. You don't want to disavow common math, but you are certainly willing to disavow common, grade school mechanics like Newton's 2nd law. And I want to point out again that this has nothing to do with the "dark ages of Einstein", since Newton's 2nd law has been around for 323 years! You've decided that all of physics since Galileo and Newton are the dark ages! Einstein has nothing to do with your complaint. PD
From: PD on 5 May 2010 12:34 On May 5, 2:48 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 4, 11:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 3, 10:07 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 3, 12:02 pm, 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. > > > > > > 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. 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 - Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Dear PD: A thin "College Outline Series" book (that fits into the > > > bookcase behind my computer chair) entitled "Physics", by Clarence E > > > Bennett, states on page 19: "G. Momentum and Impulse. (1.) Momentum > > > is defined as the product of the mass times velocity (mv)..." The > > > letter F is used for momentum, because the equation defines forces. > > > NoEinstein > > > Oh, good grief. John, what is the ISBN on this book? I'd like to > > secure it to look at it. > > From what it is you just told me is in it, if I can verify that you > > can indeed read it correctly, it is a horrible, horrible booklet and > > should be burned as worthless. > > > If this is what you learned physics from in your architectural > > studies, then I have absolutely no doubt that you and your firm are on > > thin legal ground. > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > The AUTHOR and the Title are all you need. NE Then let me make sure we're talking about the same title, because Clarence E. Bennett has written the following: Physics Problems and How to Solve Them (1958, 1959, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1985) College Physics (College Outline Series) (1962, 1972) Physics Without Mathematics (College Outline Series) (1949, 1953, 1960, 1970) New Outline of First Year College Physics (1944, 1946, 1948) An Outline of First Year College Physics (College Outline Series) (1937, 1943) Physics (1952, 1954) First Year College Physics (1954) Descriptive Physics (1945) As you can see, it's important that I know more about the particular title you own. The ISBN is either in the frontmatter or is printed on the back of the paperback. It's a 10-digit number right next to the letters I-S-B-N. Can you do that, John? PD
From: PD on 5 May 2010 12:36
On May 5, 2:56 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 4, 2:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD loves to extrapolate things into unworkability, so he can claim > everything was invalid. MOMENTUM is: F = mv, expressed in pounds. > He'll find that same equation (but not the correct units, pounds) in > most textbooks. NE No, I won't, John. That equation F=mv is not listed in most textbooks. When you can clearly identify which title you think DOES have that listed, then I can look for myself. As it is, since you obviously have problems reading an understanding a single sentence from beginning to end, I have my doubts. > > > > > On May 4, 1:07 pm, af...(a)FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Park) wrote: > > > > PD (thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com) writes: > > > > On May 3, 10:07=A0pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > >> Dear PD: =A0A thin "College Outline Series" book (that fits into the > > > >> bookcase behind my computer chair) entitled "Physics", by Clarence E > > > >> Bennett, states on page 19: "G. =A0Momentum and Impulse. =A0(1..) =A0Momen= > > > > tum > > > >> is defined as the product of the mass times velocity (mv)..." =A0The > > > >> letter F is used for momentum, because the equation defines forces.. =A0= > > > > =97 > > > >> NoEinstein =97 > > > > > Oh, good grief. John, what is the ISBN on this book? I'd like to > > > > secure it to look at it. > > > > From what it is you just told me is in it, if I can verify that you > > > > can indeed read it correctly, it is a horrible, horrible booklet and > > > > should be burned as worthless. > > > > To quote the Spartans on a quite different occasion: If. > > > > I can't help noticing that the actual quoted passage is reasonable and > > > the inference about forces is purely in NE's words. > > > Exactly. > > > For what it's worth, momentum's *definition* is not mv, either. > > Electromagnetic fields have momentum, but this expression certainly > > does not work for them. The formula works for a certain class of > > matter-based objects traveling at low speed, and that's it. > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > |