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: Timo Nieminen on 7 May 2010 02:21 On Thu, 6 May 2010, NoEinstein wrote: > 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). Measurements of the "mass" of stars in binary systems are really measurements of the gravitational force of stars in binary systems. If you're right, a plot bolometric luminosity versus measured "mass" of stars in binary systems should give a straight line (within experimental error). Since you're obviously smart enough to have realised this long ago, and are also obviously smart enough to have checked this yourself, what was the result? The "mass", as measured from binary orbits, is available for many stars (including nearby ones such as Alpha Centari A and B, Sirius A and B), and the relevant information is readily available online, so I suppose I could check this myself if you don't care enough to provide the result (or didn't care enough to bother checking something so trivial). If it isn't a directly proportional linear relationship, what would that mean? > 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%. So, you don't know? Why not apply your mighty intellect and provide the answer? > Consider this: If you can heat one ball white hot, > and you DO detect a greater gravity, youve confirmed my theory. It would _support_ your theory, not confirm it in any absolute sense. If one tries this and _doesn't_ detect a greater gravitational force, would that mean your theory is wrong and it's time to forget it and move on?
From: PD on 7 May 2010 09:08 On May 6, 8:42 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 John, as I said, there are SCORES of independent experiments that have all provided experimental evidence. You might as well be asking for a paraphrased summary of the support for Newton's laws of motion. If you want to understand the depth of the experimental support, then you're going to have to immerse yourself in the OVERWHELMINGLY MASSIVE documentation of that support. That's the only way to truly convince yourself. > > > > > 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 - > >
From: PD on 7 May 2010 09:10 On May 6, 8:50 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 5, 11:36 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD: When Maxwell urged Michelson to conduct the M-M experiment, > they were expecting a uniform, velocity-proportional, drag on light. And this was 20 years before relativity was ever introduced. My post to you was about what *relativity* says, not what was thought 20 years before relativity was discovered. > The major variant was the orientation of the instrument relative to > Earth's velocity vector. Since velocity alone has NO effect on the > length of any material (or ruler), then it's moot, indeed, to argue > whether the plot of the... contraction (sic) is a waterfall curve, or > linear. Neither contraction occurs! NoEinstein > > > > > On May 5, 2:40 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 4, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Dear PD: Show me any "test" proving that all materials shrink (or > > > expand) an identical percentage in response to velocity changes, and > > > the same amount regardless of the size and shape of the material. > > > First of all, it would help if you understood what relativity actually > > says. > > * It does not say that materials shrink "an identical percentage in > > response to velocity changes". The functional relationship between > > length and velocity is certainly not a proportional one. It involves > > the factor 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), which is nothing like a proportionality > > to v. > > * You seem to think that this shrinkage would be obvious to the naked > > eye if it were in effect. It would be worth it for you to sit with a > > calculator and actually figure out how much shorter something is if > > it's moving at 10 mph, 100 mph, 1000 mph. Take a paper clip, measure > > it, and then use the factor above to calculate how much shorter it > > would be at those speeds. Then tell me whether this is in fact > > something you should expect to notice with the naked eye. Numbers are > > important, John. > > * The shrinkage predicted by relativity only applies to reference > > frames in which the object is observed to be *moving*. The paper clip > > sitting on your desk is not moving in your reference frame, is it? (If > > you claim it is, then you claim you are as well, and in that case, I > > would ask you what you think your velocity is right this second. You > > don't even have to give me a number. Just tell me how you *would* > > calculate it. What is the reference point that you would mark your > > velocity with respect to?) > > > > If > > > such a contraction occurred, loose paperclips on your desk would > > > rotate like compass needles to be aligned perpendicular to the > > > compressive force (sic) of velocity. Additionally, all of the matter > > > in the Earth would be alternately squeezed and relaxed (due to the > > > ever-changing velocity component of the Earth), until either the Earth > > > became a molten BLOB, or until the Earth stopped rotating on its axis > > > and orbiting the Sun. > > > Again, you have a confusion about what relativity actually says. > > Relativistic length changes are NOT due to a physical compression like > > squeezing something in a vise or driving something through a wind. > > > > Of course, all of those would mean that none of > > > us are alive... So very sad... that you are so BRAINLESS! Ha, ha, > > > HA! 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? > > > You haven't answered this question, John. > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 7 May 2010 09:12 On May 6, 8:54 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 5, 11:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > OH? Then please explain, PD, how a UNIFORM force inputthe static > weight of the falling objectcan cause a semi-parabolic increase in > the KE. Haven't you heard?: Energy IN must = energy OUT! > NoEinstein > I have explained this to you dozens of times. I gather that you do not remember any of those posts, and you do not know how to use your newsreader or Google to go back and find any of those dozens of times when it has been explained to you. I surmise that you are slipping into dementia, where each day begins anew, with any lessons learned the previous day forgotten. I don't think it's a good use of my time to explain the same thing to you each day, only to have you retire at night and forget it by morning, do you? PD
From: PD on 7 May 2010 09:14
On May 6, 8:57 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 5, 12:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Tell me, PD: If I'm so "poorly suited" for scientific work, how is it > that I've made a greater contribution to physics than all of the > previous physicists put together? NoEinstein And if you're so poorly suited for architecture, how is it that you have designed the grandest performance halls and the tallest buildings in the world? What's the weather like today in NoEinsteinLand? > > > > > On May 5, 2:47 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 4, 11:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD: You are Mr. Negativity. You can only feel superior (sic) by > > > putting others down. I wish I had had you for my teacher. I'd have > > > made you the laughing-stock of the school! NE > > > Oh dear. So you DO think reality checks are just negative put-downs. > > Such a fragile ego you have, John. > > You are very poorly suited for scientific work. This is not the place > > for the thin-skinned. > > > > > > On May 3, 11:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I don't think this is talking down to the student, John, as I made > > > > clear. Would you think of this as an emotional smack-down if it > > > > happened to you, or would you consider it a fair reality-check? Or do > > > > you not like reality checks? Do you find reality checks to be nothing > > > > but negativism?- Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > |