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 14 May 2010 04:27 On May 11, 9:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD never explains anything, he just CLAIMS that he already has. He's to lazy to explain his definition of MOMENTUM. Is a single sentence of SCIENCE too much to ask? NE > > On May 11, 7:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 5, 11:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > PD: Energy IN must = energy OUT. Since KE = 1/2mv^2 can't meet that > > requirement, then it is 100% in violation of the Law of the > > Conservation of Energy; and no 'consensus' of physicists (ha!) who say > > otherwise, can change that fact! NE > > But it does meet that requirement. I showed you exactly how, just the > other day. > It seems you are slipping, NoEinstein, no longer able to remember what > was said the day before. > So each day is brand new to you. You could hide your own Christmas > presents. > It's a shame you've slipped into senility, but it does give me pause > on how much effort to expend on a serious reply to you. > > > > > > > > On May 4, 6:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 3, 11:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: IF, as you've just said, everyone knows > > > > that the KE equation (KE = 1/2mv^2) is inconsistent with the Law of > > > > the Conservation of energy, then you've just agreed that the former is > > > > WRONG! > > > > But I didn't say that, John. I said that the KE equation above is > > > completely CONSISTENT with the Law of Conservation of Energy. > > > > I think I've isolated the source of your great difficulties, John. You > > > cannot comprehend the meaning of a single sentence that you read. Did > > > you understand THAT? > > > > > The physicists whom YOU know may not be concerned, but the > > > > Laws of Nature are very, very mad, indeed! NoEinstein > > > > > > 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. That is taught to 4th graders. Were you absent that day, > > > > > or did you determine in the 4th grade that your science teachers > > > > > didn't know what they were talking about and you realized then that > > > > > all of scientific truths could be determined by logic? > > > > > > > Einstein got physicists > > > > > > believing that ILLOGIC is where the most... I.Q. is. Since you > > > > > > understood nothing taught to you in physics (the right stuff nor the > > > > > > WRONG), you figured your strength was to fight anything and everything > > > > > > that wasnt COOKBOOKED from some out-of-date, McGraw-Hill, Jewish > > > > > > publication. > > > > > > > Tell me, PD, WHO on this EARTH is a qualification to confirm YOUR > > > > > > ideas about science? Anyone who understands math, and knows what the > > > > > > Law of the Conservation of Energy requires, will immediately confirm > > > > > > that Coriolis and Einstein had no earthly idea that KE and 'E' must > > > > > > not be exponential equations, but LINEAR equations (or additive). > > > > > > I'm sorry, John, but just about everyone except for you knows that the > > > > > Law of Conservation of Energy is completely consistent with the > > > > > expressions for kinetic energy and total energy. It seems to be only > > > > > you with the problem. Shouldn't that be a flag to you? > > > > > > If everyone in the world points to the same animal and calls it a > > > > > zebra, and you call it a penguin, does that make you a world-class > > > > > genius or a world-class fool? > > > > > > > Since you don't think COASTING increases an object's distance of > > > > > > travel, it is YOU, not me, needing others to confirm your stupidity! > > > > > > Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 10:05 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 3:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: "We" (you and I) aren't having a > > > > > > > > discussion about science. You simply take the anti-thesis of any > > > > > > > > science truth, knowing that there are some naive readers who won't > > > > > > > > know the difference. It may sound 'high-and-mighty' for you to keep > > > > > > > > referring to... the experimental evidence, and the 'textbook' > > > > > > > > definitions, but you NEVER paraphrase a possible counterargument. You > > > > > > > > only claim that there is 'something', somewhere that disagrees with > > > > > > > > me. And you expect me to go look that up. > > > > > > > > Yes, indeed, because physics is not something that is settled by > > > > > > > puffed-up posturing and debate. > > > > > > > It is not something that is determined by force of logic. > > > > > > > You may be confusing physics with philosophy. > > > > > > > > Ultimately, the truth in physics is determined by careful and > > > > > > > independently confirmed experimental measurement. > > > > > > > That body of experimental evidence is documented and available to you. > > > > > > > It is referred to in textbooks, and references to it have been made > > > > > > > here to you. > > > > > > > > So yes, you are expected to look it up. > > > > > > > > ANYBODY doing physics is expected to look it up. > > > > > > > > > Folks, PD is the deep thinker (sic) who said that atomic decay is a > > > > > > > > "chemical reaction". And just today, he said that a car which is > > > > > > > > COASTING isn't increasing its "displacement". He has just proposed > > > > > > > > that... "displacement" is only apt to calculating, or measuring, an > > > > > > > > object's unit velocity. And since the unit velocity of the car > > > > > > > > doesn't change, he claims that coasting isn't increasing the distance > > > > > > > > of travel of the car. Can't most of you see how little PD cares about > > > > > > > > truth and logic? Does he think everyone but him is a fool? > > > > > > > > > *** Tell us this, PD: How many science experiments, of any kind, have > > > > > > > > YOU designed, built, and successfully tested? > > > > > > > > Are you sure you want to ask this question? My professional history is > > > > > > > as an experimental physicist, and my record is public. > > > > > > > Please don't puff yourself up as a songwriter when talking to a > > > > > > > professional musician. > > > > > > > It's not smart to put on airs as an expert on law when talking to a > > > > > > > judge. > > > > > > > > > I've made two most > > > > > > > > definitive tests which support the LOGIC that Coriolis's KE equation > > > > > > > > is not only WRONG, its so obviously in violation of the Law of the > > > > > > > > Conservation of Energy, that no experiments are needed, at all, to > > > > > > > > disprove: KE = 1/2mv^2; nor to similarly disprove E = mc^2 / beta. > > > > > > > > For you, a proof is only valid if it involves experiments which you > > > > > > > > have never cited, nor paraphrased, and definitions that you claim are > > > > > > > > in textbooks, but which you never quote. > > > > > > > > Two comments: > > > > > > > 1. Your experimental results will be worth something when confirmed by > > > > > > > an independent investigator. That is how it is done in science. Until > > > > > > > then, you are a self-feeding loop. > > > > > > > 2. Yes, I expect you to look up textbooks, as they are easy to find > > > > > > > even in your local library. I'm assuming that you are not under house > > > > > > > arrest, you aren't bedridden, that you have bus fare to get you > > > > > > > downtown, and that you are capable of reading when you get there. I'm > > > > > > > also assuming that you are not so pathologically lazy that you refuse > > > > > > > to budge your butt from your chair. > > > > > > > > > I recently told you that I had suspected that the readers agreed with > > > > > > > > my correctness our yours by two to one. But in light of your recent > > > > > > > > statements of utter stupidity, that number is probably closer to ten > > > > > > > > to one! > > > > > > > > This is just like you, to suspect something is true without a single > > > > > > > shred of tangible evidence. It's your style. > > > > > > > > > *** No scientist on Earth has more credibility than yours > > > > > > > > truly. *** If any think that they do, I would love for them to go > > > > > > > > head-to-head with me, so that I can kick their asses into solar > > > > > > > > orbit. Like those purported scientists, you, PD, dont have a leg, > > > > > > > > nor a stump to stand on. NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 2:18 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 10:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dear PD: Some readers, who don't know either of us from Adam, may > > > > > > > > > > think that your sidestepping of science is credible. An attack on... > > > > > > > > > > the messenger (me) is a quick put-down that you had to have learned > > > > > > > > > > (tongue-in-cheekha!) very early won't work on me. If the regular > > > > > > > > > > readers of my posts and replies got to vote, they'd probably say that > > > > > > > > > > I'm beating you in the "one-up-manship" by a two to one margin. But > > > > > > > > > > you're still around because you won't stay on any discussion long > > > > > > > > > > enough to get the life squished out of your... 'science'. I enjoy > > > > > > > > > > knowing that you haven't won; can't; and won't win, PD. That > > > > > > > > > > qualifies you as a looser; doesn't it? NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > > I'm fascinated by this idea you have of winning or losing.. > > > > > > > > > > We're having a discussion about physics. I'm explaining to you what we > > > > > > > > > know matches experiment, and what the definitions of the words are > > > > > > > > > that are used in physics, what the equations mean, and how that is > > > > > > > > > exemplified in measurements, and the fact that none of what we're- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more »
From: NoEinstein on 14 May 2010 04:28 On May 11, 9:15 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The publisher, Barnes and Nobel, goofed, not me, PD. NE > > On May 11, 7:36 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 7, 12:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Dunce: You take any TRUTH; generalize it to absurdity; > > then claim that the truth is wrong. Actually, the only thing wrong is > > your (sidestepping) generalizations into absurdity! NoEinstein > > This from the man who can't find the ISBN number of a book, and can't > accurately copy down a Library of Congress catalog number. > > > > > > > > On May 6, 9:23 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 5, 12:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > PD: The L. C. catalogue card number is: 5241857. (look on page 19). > > > > Here's the response to my query at the Library of Congress: > > > The LCCN you entered [ 5241857 ] was not found in the Library of > > > Congress Online Catalog. > > > Are you lying, John? > > > What's the ISBN? > > > > > Also, my The Wiley Engineer's Desk Reference, by Stanford I. Heisler, > > > > on page 94, says momentum = mv. > > > > That is different than F=mv. Momentum is not force. > > > > Moreover, this is not a good definition of momentum, though it is a > > > useful approximation for engineers, not suitable for physics. > > > > > A scripted style of the "m" is used > > > > to differentiate from "mass". That book errs by saying that the > > > > "units" is: (mass)-feet/secondwhich is bullshit! > > > > And yet you would have me trust this Wiley Engineer's Desk Reference, > > > when you don't believe it yourself. When are you going to support any > > > of your assertions, John, other than blustering about what comes out > > > of your own head? > > > > > Momentum is > > > > measured in pounds! It is velocity proportional, and that is a > > > > simple, unit-less FRACTION NE > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 14 May 2010 04:30 On May 11, 2:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Where is your evidence, PD? You only CLAIM that you showed evidence. PARAPHRASE everything! NE > > On May 7, 5:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 7, 3:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > Oh, this is easy. There is a circular track that circulates muons at a > > lab called g-2. > > > Here is a picture of it, in case you doubt it's real:http://www.g-2.bnl..gov/pictures/g2magnet2.jpg > > > The ring is about 30 feet across and about 90 feet around. Muons at > > rest live for 2.2 microseconds, which is easily observed with a Navy > > surplus oscilloscope. If the muons lived that long in the ring, they > > would go around the ring about 24 times before decaying. Instead, they > > go around 37 times. That is, they live longer when they are traveling > > fast around the ring. But the extra time they have before decaying is > > exactly what Lorentz time dilation says they will have. Perfect > > example of just one bit of evidence that time dilation is real. There > > is of course scads and scads of further evidence. > > > There. Short and sweet, and indisputable. > > I hope you see, John, that the Lorentz equations are fully consistent > with experimental measurements.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 14 May 2010 04:32 On May 11, 2:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Claiming to have shown evidence NOT shown nakes you a fraud's fraud, PD. NE > > On May 7, 5:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 7, 3:16 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 9:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > PD, you are a LIAR! Never ONCE have you explained why KE = 1/2mv^2 > > > isn't in violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Until > > > you do (and you CAN'T) everyone will know that you are just an air- > > > head FRAUD! NoEinstein > > So, John, do you now see how 1/2mv^2 is not in violation of the > conservation of energy? > I showed you how below, in plain language, step by step. Even a 7th > grader can follow it. > > > > > > > Oh, but I have. If you really need to have it explained again, I ask > > you this time to print it out. > > > The law of conservation of energy says that any change in the energy > > of a system must be due solely to the work done on the system. > > > The work is the force acting on the object times the displacement of > > the object. So any change in energy of the object must be due solely > > to this work. > > > In the case of a falling body released from rest, we'll look at the > > increase in the kinetic energy, which must be due to the work done by > > the only force acting on the body -- gravity. If the increase of > > kinetic energy the body has at any time is accounted for by the work > > that was done on the body during that time, then we know that the law > > of conservation of energy has been respected. > > > In the first second, the body will fall 16 ft. In the next second, it > > will fall an additional 48 feet. In the third second, it will fall an > > additional 80 feet. During these first three seconds, the force has > > remained constant, so that it is the same in the first second, the > > second second, the third second. The speed increases linearly, so that > > it is falling at 32 ft/s after the first second, 64 ft/s after the > > second second, and 96 ft/s after the third second. > > > Now, let's take a look at the work. The work done since the drop, > > after the first second, is the force of gravity times the > > displacement. This is mass x g x (16 ft). So this is how much kinetic > > energy the object has after one second. Now, in the second second, > > we'll add more work, in the amount mass x g x (48 ft), since that's > > the displacement for the next second. This increases the kinetic > > energy of the body, so that it now has kinetic energy mass x g x (16 > > ft + 48 ft) = mass x g x (64 ft), and that number is four times bigger > > than it was after the first second. Now, in the third second, we'll > > add more work, in the amount mass x g x (80 ft), since that's the > > displacement for the next sentence. Since energy is conserved, this > > added energy must add to the kinetic energy of the body, so that it > > now has kinetic energy mass x g x (64 ft + 80 ft) = mass x g x (144 > > ft), and that number is nine times bigger than it was after the first > > second. > > > Now, it should be plain that the kinetic energy is conserved, since > > the only thing that has been contributing to it is the work done in > > subsequent seconds. We lost nothing, and we added only that which > > gravity added. The energy is conserved. > > > It should also be apparent that the kinetic energy is increasing in > > the ratios 1:4:9. > > Meanwhile, the velocities are increasing linearly, in the ratios > > 1:2:3. > > > Now, any fourth grader can see that we've completely conserved energy, > > losing track of nothing, and yet the kinetic energy is increasing as > > the square of the velocity. 1:4:9 are the squares of 1:2:3. > > > There is no violation of conservation of kinetic energy, and yet KE is > > proportional to v^2. > > > Now, don't you feel silly that a 4th grader can understand all of > > this, but you've never understood it? > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 14 May 2010 06:01
On May 13, 2:29 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Timo: A constant in an equation is something like pi, 3.1416... Since both the surface area of stars, and the temperatures of stars are variables, those only become constant once the values are plugged in. What you arent considering (relative to your 1,000 fold gravity difference) is that those stars, with the masses that you state, arent rotating about the midpoint between their centers. And you arent including the surface area of each star in the equation. Brighter stars will have a larger surface area per unit mass. Also, though the TOTAL gravity of a star is equal to the product of the luminosity and the surface area, the fraction of the gravity thats holding two objects together is the illuminated area, or the percentage of the total stars light that actually hits the other star. It is the addition of photons to the facing sides of stars that allows the ether pressure on the opposing sides to hold the two stars together. Please re read my original post, There is no PULL of gravity; only the PUSH of flowing ether! Im pleased that you are investigating my New Science theory. You appear to be one of the brightest people to reply to me on sci.physics. But like I explained: I am a generalist. When the concepts fitwithout having to throw-out logic or disregard the good science data thats available (minus, of course, the often errant science theories of others)then, a theory (like mine) starts having validity. Unfortunately, I dont have the time, nor the interest in math, to seek to prove that Im right. I invalidated the M-M experiment by showing that such didnt have a control light course. The latter invalidation required only an hour of analysis in my public library, and not a single bit of math. I disproved Einsteins SR theory by showing that such violated the Law of the Conservation of Energy, and other points of logic. Again, no math was required. If your motive is to disprove my most-logical-concept-for-gravity-thats- ever-been-postulated, then, you are forcing me into an adversarial relationship with youwhich I dont have time for. Your process should be to simply accept my theory as logical, then, to use your obvious talents to verify that theory from the available data. But if you come running to me at each of your learning steps in the analyses, you arent doing you, me nor science a favor. Ill respect what you are doing, if you will respect what I have already done. The easiest way for you to confirm my theory would be to heat the larger ball in the Cavendish experiment as hot as possible. The torsion slowing should occur quicker with the hot ball than with the same ball cold. No other measurements are required. Do THAT experiment, and find that the heated ball has more gravity, and you can sit back and let the astronomers and scientists all over the world quantify the temperature-variant gravity! I, the generalist, provided the spark of inspiration. If others get to determine more of the specifics, they can share in the glory. NoEinstein > > On Wed, 12 May 2010, NoEinstein wrote: > > On May 7, 5:29 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > On May 8, 5:57 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > No, I tell you that all of these numbers are available on www, so you > > > don't even need to go and look in a book. When you sit at your > > > keyboard, the relevant numbers _are_ at your fingertips. > > > > It's an obvious test. Since you claim your theory explains reality, I > > > expected that you would have compared the two - your theory and > > > reality - and checked if they agree. My mistake - you don't seem to > > > have done this. > > > > You give a clear and easily checked statement: > > > > > 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. > > > > But before it's worth checking this, you should clarify: > > > > (1) By "directly proportional", you mean: gravity = (constant) times > > > (photon emission)? That's is, linear proportionality. Or do you mean > > > something else? > > > No. "Directly proportional" means: Double the luminosity, and you > > double the gravity. Or double the surface area, and you double the > > gravity. > > This is clear. Linear proportionality it is, then. > > > Your word (constant), is actually a variable fraction. But > > I suppose that for a given luminosity and star surface area, the > > gravity would be a single (constant) value. > > But this isn't clear. If (constant) is actually a variable, then do you > have linear proportionality? (As a technical note, "luminosity" doesn't > mean "surface brightness", but "total brightness", i.e., double the > surface area while keeping everything else the same, and you double the > luminosity. > > Anyway, it's time to check against reality. Take a well-known close binary > system like Sirius. From their mutual orbit, the "known" masses are 2.02M > for Sirius A and 0.98M for B (M = solar mass). So, gravitationally, they > differ by a factor of 2. How do the luminosities compare? For A, we have > 25L (L = solar luminosity), and for B, 0.026L. Factor of 1,000 difference > in luminosity, but only a factor of 2 difference in "mass" as measured > from the orbit. > > This isn't at all close to your prediction. Since you're highly > intelligent, and a careful and logical thinker, it isn't likely that you > made any error in proceeding from your theory to your prediction. > Therefore, it's likely that your theory is wrong. > > > > > > > > (2) What do you mean by "photon emission"? What you mean by "photon" > > > might not be what conventional science means by "photon". How is > > > "photon emission" related to radiated power? Since the bolometric > > > luminosity is the total radiated power, is there any _further_ > > > dependence on temperature beyond its effect on the bolometric > > > luminosity. (If talking about visual luminosity, then, yes, the > > > bolometric luminosity depends on the visual luminosity and the > > > temperature.) > > > The wavelength of the light (color) determines how many photons are > > being emitted in a given, say, second. Gravity, actually, depends on > > how efficiently the trains of photons 'pump' ether back into space. I > > can't say, with certainty, that a wavelength of light that's half as > > long will be exactly twice as efficient moving ether, out. > > Experiments will have to confirm the efficiency for various > > wavelengths. > > So, to test you claims of stellar gravity versus luminosity, one should > compare stars of the same temperature. Sirius A and B aren't identical, > but close. Sirius A is A1V, Sirius B is A2. Close enough, considering the > x1,000 ratio of luminosities. > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > This is new. You didn't say anything about this that I saw before. > > > Thanks! You've just admitted that you are a regular reader of my > > science posts. And you are observant enough to realize that > > 'reasoning' is taking place even as I write a reply. You, better than > > most, should understand why I don't need to go running to books, by > > others, to find answersI give things my own best shot, first. > > > > > I suspect that a > > > > heated Cavendish ball will have gravity somewhere between the room > > > > temperature, and the white hot. > > > > "Suspect" isn't good enough for the experiment to be worthwhile. It's > > > directly connected to the following point which you didn't address in > > > your reply. Do note that this is absolutely essential for the > > > experiment to be worthwhile (as you will no doubt already know, since > > > this is a simple matter of logic and analytical ability). > > > Timo: The Cavendish experiment is conducted in a room with a high > > ceiling. There is air around the balls to influence the twisting > > speed. And the radiation of the heated ball(s) would be reflected > > back by the colder walls. In outer space, there would not be air to > > both drag the balls and to intercept the radiant energy. I can > > virtually guarantee that the Cavendish isn't a perfect analogy to the > > gravity of stars that are very, very hot. > > > > To repeat the question: if a Cavendish experiment _doesn't_ detect a > > > greater gravitational force, what does that mean for your theory? > > > Send me photographs of the experiment, and etc. It could be that the > > heated balls might change the torsion characteristics of the wire > > being more-so toward the end of the experiment, after the wire has had > > time to get hot. The answer to your question requires that the > > experiment be valid, for hot balls. M-M got nil results. > > Understanding the reason for that failure took over a century until I > > came along. I'd want to do a... post mortem on everything. > > The experiment can be designed to try to achieve a desired accuracy. If > you could be bothered saying how accurate the experiment needs to be, then > perhaps something could be done. Since you keep refusing to say (and > surely you must know how large the effect should be, or at least capable > of quickly deducing, from your theory, how large the effect should be), > there isn't any point in trying the experiment. > > If you have two identical balls, and heat one to be double the absolute > temperature of the other (i.e., to about 330C; yes, easy to heat it more, > but let us keep this simple), the hot ball will radiate 16 times as much > power, with peak emission at double the frequency (i.e., half the > wavelength). How much stronger will the gravitational force be? > > If you can be bothered applying your mighty intellect, and actually > provide a quantitative answer, perhaps an experimental test might be > worthwhile. Without such an answer, useless. > > > > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text > > > Probably not. The LOGIC of gravity being flowing ether answers too > > many of the century's old questions about the Universe. NoEinstein > > Well, if your theory is perfectly OK with a null result, why would a > positive result support your theory? Surely your statement above means > that the experiment is completely irrelevant to your theory. > > Or, since the luminosity/gravity predictions of your theory appear to fall > at the first astronomical hurdle, perhaps it's more that your theory is > irrelevant to reality.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |