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 14 May 2010 07:46 On May 14, 8:01 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 13, 2:29 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > 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. The size of the orbit - which we can directly measure since this binary system is very close to us - and the orbital period - which we can also directly measure - together give us the combined mass of the two stars. Where the centre of the orbital motion lies along a line joining them tells us where the centre of mass is, and how that combined mass is divided between them. The figures of m_A = 2M, m_B = 1M come from this. So, you now know where the centre of motion is, relative to the 2 stars. If, according to your theory, this calculation should be done differently, do it. > 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, No, "luminosity" is the total emitted power. It already includes the surface area. "Luminosity" = "surface brightness" times surface area. As I said in the previous post. Sirius A radiates about 1000 times as much power as Sirius B. This already includes the effect of surface area. Yes, Sirius A has a much larger surface area - that's why it's brighter. Go and look for yourself - Sirius A is the brightest star in the night sky, and Sirius B isn't visible to the naked eye. It's a big difference in luminosity. Look up the numbers for yourself, at your fingertips via www. > 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! You're the one who said that the gravity is proportional to the photon emission. You didn't give any other usable quantitative model of the strength of gravity. If the gravitational force should be found some other way, perhaps you should have said so, and said how. All I did was test the quantitative model that you gave me. If it's the wrong model, why did you give it? If it's the wrong model, give the right one. One star emits 1000 times as many photons as the other, yet only appears to have twice the gravity. This is compatible with conventional physics, including conventional theories of gravitation. If it isn't compatible with your theory, then perhaps reality has cast its vote, the only vote which counts in science. > 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 As I keep asking, and as you keep refusing to say: How large is the effect supposed to be? In other words, how sensitive does the experiment need to be to detect it? There isn't much point in trying it without knowing this. Since you claim that gravity is proportional to "photon emission", for masses above some threshold mass (which you haven't explained or given even an approximate value for yet), and radiation by hot bodies is well known and understood, why can't you say how large the effect should be? A simple calculation, surely, and should be trivial for you. Why not just answer? For example, double the absolute temperature of the balls; easy to do, just heat to about 330C. 16 times the radiated power, at double the peak frequency, as compared with a room temperature ball. How much larger should the gravitational force be?
From: PD on 14 May 2010 10:24 On May 14, 2:02 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 13, 11:07 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD: You are an absolute paradox: On the one hand you shun "what > I am sellingmy New Science"; and on the other you survive only to, > hopefully, elevate your lame intellectual status by protecting the > status quo of physics from being disproved. Your only means of > raising your status is now FAILING, PD, by about 19 to one. That's > because no more than 5% of your fellow dunces support what you are > doing. [*** An actual poll of the readers would be welcomed.] Fascinating. Love this policy of yours of just making data up. > > Your "right" to be here, if it were just a matter of free speech, > would be clear. But since your motive is to ANCHOR having there be > any progress, by anyone, in SCIENCE, then, you are a person to be > disdained by the Human Race. "Without CHANGE there can be no > progress." Without the PDs of this world, there SHALL be progress! > NoEinstein > > P. S.: I don't need PD as "a client", nor would I accept such a > failed pedant as him for a client. > > > > > On May 12, 9:22 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 5:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I chose Architecture, PD, because the subject is BIG, like my > > > capabilities. You chose High Energy Particle Physics, because those > > > objects are TINY, like your BRAIN! Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein > > > Then stick to architecture, John. Not that I'll be a customer. > > > > > On May 7, 3:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On May 7, 9:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear PD: When you can't attack my science, you attack my profession, > > > > > architecture. > > > > > I'm not disparaging your profession at all. I'm casting doubt on your > > > > qualifications to practice that profession. > > > > > > If I had a choice between designing great concert halls > > > > > or etc., or figuring out how the Universe works and improving all of > > > > > humanity, I would choose the latter every time! > > > > > Then why did you choose architecture instead? > > > > > > Concert halls are for > > > > > the recreation of the lazy, like you. What great edifices have YOU > > > > > built, in science or otherwise? NoEinstein > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 14 May 2010 10:27 On May 14, 2:54 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 12:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: ... and what does THAT have to do with > the price-of-eggs in China? NE You made this claim: the longer a theory is debated, the less its validity. The roundness of the earth has been debated five times longer than relativity has been debated. According to YOU, then, the theory that the earth is round is five times more invalid than relativity. That's what it has to do with the price of eggs in China, John. > > > > > On May 6, 9:07 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 5, 12:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Consider this, PD: The validity of any science theory is inversely > > > proportional to the time spend debating it. Einstein's 'relativity' > > > has been debated for over a century, and such is patently WRONG! > > > NoEinstein > > > There is ongoing debate about whether the Earth is flat, John.http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm > > Since this debate has been going on for 500 years, by your argument, > > the claim that the earth is round is 5x as wrong as relativity is. > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 14 May 2010 10:28 On May 14, 3:05 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 5:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD: Tell us, PD: How have you "cast doubt" on my ability to > practice architecture? If you think you have any insights at all > regarding my qualifications, list them one-by-one. If I was so a- > mind, I could sue you for every penny in your worthless bank account! Be my guest to try. Looking forward to it. Or are you nothing but hot air, John? > NoEinstein > > > > > On May 7, 3:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 9:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD: When you can't attack my science, you attack my profession, > > > architecture. > > > I'm not disparaging your profession at all. I'm casting doubt on your > > qualifications to practice that profession. > > > > If I had a choice between designing great concert halls > > > or etc., or figuring out how the Universe works and improving all of > > > humanity, I would choose the latter every time! > > > Then why did you choose architecture instead? > > > > Concert halls are for > > > the recreation of the lazy, like you. What great edifices have YOU > > > built, in science or otherwise? NoEinstein > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 14 May 2010 10:33
On May 14, 3:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD hasn't quoted any authoritative source showing that WORK is in any > way involved in calculating KE. Oh, yes, I have, John. You don't seem to remember anything that was told to you the day before. Do you like easy to read pages? Here's one for students at West Virginia University: http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Work/WorkEngergyTheorem.html "The energy associated with the work done by the net force does not disappear after the net force is removed (or becomes zero), it is transformed into the Kinetic Energy of the body. We call this the Work- Energy Theorem." > And he hasn't quoted any > authoritative source saying that "work" can be done simply by > COASTING, against no resistance! The definition of work is in high school books, John. > And he certainly can't explain how > 'gravity' could possibly 'know' the velocities of every falling object > (like hail from varying heights) and add the exact semi-parabolic KE > increase to each. Doesn't have to, John. The force is not solely responsible for the increase in energy. The work is. The work is the product of both the force and the displacement. That's how the work increases in each second. It's simple, John. Seventh graders can understand it. I don't know why you're so much slower than the average 7th grader. > In short, PD is a total, sidestepping FRAUD! And > 95% of the readers know that he's a fraud! NoEinstein > > > > > 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 > > > 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 - > > |