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: spudnik on 5 May 2010 17:15 hey; what about the Coriolis force !?! may be this just goes to show, that being (say) Hungarian and trying to learn English (as a second or Nth language), does not always turn one into a genius. whether or not von Neumann (e.g) tried to read Shakespeare, he did at least write his own books in English ... which takes time! of course, these two guys (Neinstein and MPC#) could be perfectly competent at some other things. > 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 thus: you can get rid of phase-space ("spacetime") with "movies" (or flip-books), becuase it is totally useless in a non-mathematical-formalist sense, "visualization" e.g. -- death to the lightcones!... and, it gives you an extra spatial dimension to play with. as for the idea of using two quaternions for "in & out," I don't really see, why it'd help, since you can use the same quaternion coordination for both, unless there's some dimensional analysis that needs a pair of them. (see Lanczos' _Variational Mechanics_, Dover Publ., for his treatment of SR -- good luck .-) thus: the second root of one half is just the reciprocal of the second root of two -- often obfuscated as the second root of two, divided by two -- but the rest is indeed totally obscure or ridiculous. since Fermat made no mistakes, at all, including in withdrawing his assertion about the Fermat primes (letter to Frenicle), all -- as I've popsted in this item, plenty -- of the evidence suggests that the "miracle" was just a key to his ne'er-revealed method, and one of his very first proofs. (I wonder, if Gauss was attracted to the problem of constructbility, after reading of the primes.) thus: so, you applied Coriolis' Force to General Relativity, and **** happened? > read more » --Light: A History! http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com
From: spudnik on 6 May 2010 01:26 yeah, of course; you tell us that you're not biased, and we must believe that it is true, becuase you *really* believe it. almost as simple as two and two make pi, more or less.
From: NoEinstein on 6 May 2010 21:34 On May 5, 5:22 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Timo: Since physicists have been looking for the "missing mass" in the Universe for decadesand not found itits occurred to me that it was the estimates of the masses of the stars and galaxies that was wrong. The observed red/blue shifts imply the rotational speed of the arms of galaxies. Since physicists can calculate the centrifugal force that must be countered by the "central" gravity source, over- estimating the mass of stars would exaggerate the centripetal force needed to keep the stars from flying away. I also realized that it isn't 'just' the central gravity holding the galaxies together, it also includes the EFFECTIVE central gravity of all of the stars, combined. Think of that as being similar to having two equal size and mass binary stars rotating about their common centerhalfway between the two stars. Though there is no "mass" at the center, the two stars orbit as though there is a mass there. Since gravity is "distance proportional" (actually inverse proportional) stars that aren't on a 'diameter' line, can still help to keep the whole thing from flying outward. That would be like having lots of people hold hands to form a circle. If there is a 'flying out' force, the tension (gravity) in their arms will keep the circle together. NOTE: I strongly suspect that 'physicists', who aren't structural engineers (like was my training), neglected to consider the CIRCULAR routes of gravity, which could be 50 plus percent of what is holding the galaxies together! Timo, a good way to 'estimate' the gravity sensitivity needed, is to search for the accepted missing mass in the Universe (99%?); divide that in half (due to the circular paths of gravity), yields 44.5% that is unaccounted for. Since both the mass and the gravity force are about equal in the fly out predicted by Newtons errant equation, there would only need to be a 22.25% under-estimate of the gravity of the stars, and a corresponding 22.25% over-estimate in the mass of the stars. The gravity of a star is proportional to the surface area (not the mass) and the surface temperature. It isnt proportional to the internal temperatures, at all. Not counting solar flare temperatures, determine the surface temperatures of different size and color stars. Of course, that will be a plasma which you certainly cant do a Cavendish on. The change in gravity that you seek is probably linearly proportional to temperature. Assume the Earth to be zero temperature. Find what percentage of the stars surface temperature that you can achieve without melting the balls. My guess is you can get about 10% of the typical surface temperature. 10% of 22.25% means that you are hoping to detect a 2.225% increase in the gravity of the balls. If you only heat the larger ball, increase its contributing gravity by 2.225%, and leave the other ball(s) as they were. The sensitivity of a well-designed Cavendish can probably verify the gravity within .5% So, if you can run the experiment at all, the results sought should be within the sensitivity! *** However, this just occurred to me: The gravity of every possible star attractionnot just the circular and the cross-diameterwill be helping to hold the galaxies together! As proved by the Andromeda Galaxy (that has a zone without stars next to the center), Black Holes have zero gravity. So, the multi-paths of gravity, taken together, must be capable of holding, say, the Milky Way together without needing a super-massive black hole (sic) at all! My theory, counter to Newtons Law of Universal (sic) Gravity, states that the gravity of a star is directly proportional to the temperature-determined, photon emissions over the entire surface area of the star (without needing to consider the mass). But the centrifugal force of stars orbiting the galaxy is directly proportional to the MASSES of the stars. Timo, because of what Ive just reasoned your Cavendish may not be sensitive enough. Until someone does an every star gravity weave calculation for, say, the Milky Way, I dont know if there is a 22.25% underestimate of star gravity, or a 5%. Consider this: If you can heat one ball white hot, and you DO detect a greater gravity, youve confirmed my theory. I suppose that a temperature-corrected Law of Universal Gravitation could take decades to validate. But that isnt all bad! Simply by understanding that temperature affects gravity, can begin being used to design, say, gravity drive spacecrafts. And Ive got THOSE on my to-do list! NoEinstein > > On May 5, 6:27 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 4, 7:59 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > Dear Timo: Obviously, you want an 'out'. You were so insistent that > > the numbers be right, and the math be done before performing > > experiments, that I assumed you were wanting ME to do all of those > > things. > > There is very little point in doing the experiment without knowing how > big the effect is supposed to be. If I know in advance that our > Cavendish apparatus isn't sensitive enough, there isn't any point in > trying the measurement using it. But this is simply a very elementary > idea in experimental physics, so you will already be thoroughly > familiar with it. > > Which is why your continued reluctance to actually say how large the > expected effect should be is truly baffling. Why, even a typical > physicist - an imbecile by your exalted standards - would be able to > do the quantitative prediction without too much trouble, perhaps with > a few hours of work. A genius of your level should have no trouble at > all, and certainly shouldn't take more than a few hours. Why would it > even take that long? Likely some tens of minutes at the most would > suffice. > > But once again, you refused to answer the question. Obviously, the > hotter the balls, the larger the effect, but _how much_ larger? Don't > you know? Can't you be bothered doing a calculation which should take > well under an hour for somebody of your claimed ability when it would > lend tremendous and convincing support to your theory? > > > But if you are wishing to do the experiment, yourself, why > > didn't you say just that? > > I did say just that. But it seems Mr Genius can't understand plain > English, or simply can't be bothered reading, because he's too busy > writing irrelevant essays to distract attention from having had an > error of billions of dollars per year pointed out. > > But because you showed so abundantly that you're a rude and abusive > arsehole, it clearly isn't worthwhile donating one's time, effort, and > equipment to you. > > Besides, you can't be bothered providing information - trivial for one > of your intellect to provide - that's necessary for experiment to be > useful, so again, it isn't worthwhile doing it. > > Getting concrete experimental support for your theory would be vastly > more convincing than endlessly repeating waffle, but you seem to > prefer the waffle. Enjoy!
From: NoEinstein on 6 May 2010 21:39 On May 5, 7:55 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear mpc755: The 'red' shifts at greater distances are due to the WEDGING effects of light rays crossing the paths of other light rays. The greater the distances, the longer the wedging processes have been going on. That's why the Universe isn't expanding! NoEinstein list! NoEinstein > > On May 5, 4:50 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 4, 9:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On May 4, 8:12 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > What is thought to be a 'Big Bang' is more of a 'Big Ongoing'. > > > IT NEVER HAPPENED AT ALL! NE > > It is more correct to say it is continually occurring. > > What is thought to be a 'Big Bang' is more of a 'Big Ongoing'. > > What we see in our telescopes is matter moving away from us. That does > not mean the universe itself is expanding. > > The following can be considered to be an image of an ongoing process: > > http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html > > The following can be considered to be an image of the universe, or the > local universe: > > http://www.feandft.com/BlackHole.jpg > > The top of the 'Black Hole' where the jet stream begins is analogous > to the 'Quantum Fluctuations' in the previous image. > > What is presently considered to be the 'Big Bang' is an ongoing > process. Material is continually emitted into the universal jet stream > at the ejection point which is the 'Quantum Fluctuations' point in the > previous image. This material is aether. At the '1st Stars' point of > the previous image is where the pressure is great enough to compress > aether into matter. As the matter continually moves away from the > emission point it enters the 'Development of Galaxies, Planets, etc.' > stage. This is where the matter expands in already existing three > dimensional space. This is what we mistake for an expanding universe. > This process continues until the material 'falls over the waterfall' > and winds up at the Rindler Horizon (the blue disk in the latter > image). The material is eventually re-emitted into the jet stream. > This is a continual process associated with the universe, or the local > universe.
From: NoEinstein on 6 May 2010 21:42
On May 5, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: If you have "other" supporting evidence for Lorentz (ha!), paraphrase it! You are all bluster and no substance! NoEinstein > > On May 4, 7:22 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > 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 > > Of course there are supporting experiments, John. You seem to be under > the impression that the MMX was the only experiment ever done to test > relativity and that the whole of relativity rests on this one > experiment, so that if you somehow fault the MMX, then all of > relativity falls. > > Nothing could be further from the truth, John. Relativity has been > tested in scores of experiments, all independent of each other. > > > > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |