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 7 May 2010 12:56 On May 6, 9:04 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 5, 12:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Neither of those choices, PD, have anything to do with the price-of- > eggs-in-China! NE I believe you are incapable of deciding whether the statement 5+17=22 is correct, John. It is a generally accepted statement, and in your mind that means it is nearly certainly wrong. Is it right, or is it wrong? > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: NoEinstein on 7 May 2010 14:35 On May 6, 10:16 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Burt: The Universe is like an ungulating soap bubble filled with galaxies. Galaxies only SEEM to be moving away due the "aging" of the light, or as I prefer, the wedging of the photons further apart by crossing light rays. The only thing, other than... religion that supports the Big Bang is the increasing redness of light at increasing distancesand that is because of what I just explained. NoEinstein > > On May 6, 6:34 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > 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. > > What then is flying outward? The whole of a gravity must be an > influence. > > > > > 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!- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: spudnik on 7 May 2010 14:54 you call that, an explanation, "photons wedged apart by light rays?" an interesting relationship between two things that only exist as mathematics, both representing "rocks o'light!" > The Universe is like an ungulating soap bubble filled with > galaxies. Galaxies only SEEM to be moving away due the "aging" of the > light, or as I prefer, the wedging of the photons further apart by > crossing light rays. The only thing, other than... religion that > supports the Big Bang is the increasing redness of light at increasing > distancesand that is because of what I just explained. thus: how do you know, Lanczos did that, and how'd coordinates generate fractal patterns, and why would that matter?... if you believe in the Big Bang, then it seems to have had a period, as opposed to "frequency," of 13 billion years, but none of this seems to even be able to be quantized a la "biquaternions;" so, why bother? thus: you are pretending to define "complex 4-vectors," but "real" 4-vectors are part of the gross and unfinished porgramme of Minkowski, to "spatialize" time, while it is quite obvious that the "time part" is not symmetrical with the spatial coordinates, either in 4-vectors or quaternions. anyway, bi-quaternions would be 8-dimensional or octonions. and, it is all obfuscation, trying to insist that a phase-space tells you what time really is; it's very useful for seeing patterns "in" time though, as in electronics (although, NB, electronics is mostly done in "1-1" complex phase-space, instead of quaternions, as it could be, for some reason .-) maybe, all you and polysignosis need to do, is work the math of quaternions ... that'll take me wome time, as well. (I mean, what is the difference in labeling a coordinate axis with a "different sign" and a different letter, whether or not negatives are even needed?) --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: NoEinstein on 7 May 2010 15:57 On May 7, 2:21 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Timo: On the one hand you compliment me; on the other you chide me for not having all of the numbers at my fingertips. Im pleased that you know so much about astronomy. That was a major hobby of mine through high school. I saw things like stars that werent round, and I never realized that most were galaxies. I would lie in bed at night wondering what the mechanism of gravity is. I heard that the many colors of light related to the temperature of the source. It was by reasoning, alone, that Ive concluded that all photons are identical regardless of the temperature. The only temperature variant in light is the spacing of the photons. Photons carry some ether away like hobos on a train, which eventually jump off. Since gravity is directly proportional to photon emission (not gravitons, which dont exist), then it is the luminosity and the temperature of the light that determine the gravity of stars. At room temperatures gravity is mass proportional, and matches Newtons law. There has to be an object-size threshold that DENIES mass in favor of surface area and temperature. I suspect that a heated Cavendish ball will have gravity somewhere between the room temperature, and the white hot. I had concerns with my theory that very cold planets would have limited infrared emissions. Then, I realized that it is the SUN that provides the photons to the colder planets, that keeps the gravity forces going. Block off that solar energy from a planet, and it will go flying out on its tangent. Ive realized that the estimates of the masses of the planets are probably wrong. Kepler had the Laws of Planetary Motion exactly right, if one substitutes apparent mass, for the object mass. Timo, you probably know that my mind isnt a compendium with every bit of data youre seeking. Until about grade 5, I had an ear photographic memory. Later, I hated courses requiring memorization (history), favoring, instead, courses that require analytical ability, like math and science. I would be happy to assist you in quantifying gravity. But most of my realizations about the Universe have come from accepting the data of others, and making my theories not be in conflict. Now, since Ive opened up this gravity-can-of-worms to include temperature, there isnt any raw data to readily aid me in finding the answers, no matter how smart I am. I hope you can select some little corner of that problem and attack it, objectively. Keep me apprised of your progress. Its possible I might have a spark of inspiration that could help you. *** Because of you, I realized that every star in a galaxy gets tugs from every other star. Successfully calculating the STRUCTURE of that unifying force will require a super-computer. I suspect that those resultstogether with my temperature determinant gravitywill show that ZERO mass (gravity) is needed at the galactic centers. And since the Big Bang never happened, there is no dark matter, whatsoever, needed to hold the Universe together. Im busy trying to save the USA via my New Constitution. The way most people think about science, having that man who disproved Einstein write a constitution may not give me very many Brownie Points. But I invite any of you who are interested to go to Political Forum and read: Start the Revolution! Government is out-of-touch with the People! Talk-it-up! NoEinstein (AKA John A. Armistead) > > 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: NoEinstein on 7 May 2010 16:02
On May 7, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: No. Since you are a fraud, I would be happy if you could find, and paraphrase, even one bit of evidence supporting, Lorentz. He and Einstein (ha!) were meant for each other! NE > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |