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 14 May 2010 10:52 On May 14, 3:32 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 Oh, but I DID show it, and it's still printed below, John. All you have to do is read it. A 7th grader would be able to follow it. Of course, if your strategy is to demand something and then fold your arms and shut your eyes and mutter, "No, no, no, no, no, I won't take it and you can't make me -- nyah," then there's not a lot that anyone can do for you, is there? > > > > > 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: PD on 14 May 2010 11:48 On May 14, 2:51 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 12:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD: My New Sciencethat has Varying Ether Flow and Density > accounting for everything in the Universeis the Science truth! So, > it is YOU who must disprove my New Science; not me who must prove it. John, you must be under a serious delusion about how science is done. If you were under the impression that any fruitcake can make an assertion that makes sense to him, and that it stands as correct until someone takes the time to convince the fruitcake it's wrong, then I'm afraid you're horribly naive. Scientists put ideas out by publishing them where they can be examined in great detail. If it is experimental work, then the publication is used to try to replicate or improve on the result. If it is theoretical work, then the work is examined for holes or necessary consequences that would reveal its problems, if it has any. Stuff that is examined and immediately found to be obviously wrong is usually ignored, published but unreferenced in further work and put to no further use. If you find this to be not to your liking, then you probably should find another hobby.
From: NoEinstein on 14 May 2010 18:29 On May 14, 4:27 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > Correction: Make that "too" lazy... NE > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more »
From: NoEinstein on 14 May 2010 18:30 On May 14, 4:28 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > Correction: Make that... Barnes & Noble NoEinstein > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 14 May 2010 19:42
On May 14, 7:46 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Timo: Since my New Science has gravity being temperature and surface area dependent, you can't "know" the correct masses of those stars. The "new" mass of each must consider the color temperature and the surface area. All you know for sure is: The color temperature; the orbital period; and the eccentricity (wobble). You can't know the diameter(s) of the stars, because such is obscured by their own brightness. Michelson successfully used his interferometer to measure very small angles, but the width of stars wasn't possible I dont think. However, you should verify this. Obviously, you are intrigued with trying to confirm my New Science from astronomy rather than from a simple Earthly experiment(s). Be it known: The Laws of Physics are the SAME all across the Universe. Doing experiments, here, makes the most sense, I think. You can measure what you "think" is the total brightness. But you are actually only measuring the very tiny cone of light that has come all the way from the star(s) to the photoelectric cell. The color of that tiny beam will match the color temperature of the star(s), but won't give you a true idea of the actual lumen of a star, nor its surface area. There could, indeed, be valid indicators of the surface areas, but I'm not yet privy to how those could be determined. I clearly implied that the total gravity of a star is the total luminosity over the known surface area of the star. The absolute best place to make those gravity revisions is to correct for the gravity of the Sun. The much colder outer planets were probably over- estimated as to the mass. The mass of the Sun was over-estimated for sure. The gas giants like Jupiter may not have a well enough defined surface to say from whence its photon emissions emanate. Timo, the changes to astronomy, because of my new temperature and surface-area-variable gravity, are probably too broad for your and me, alone, to do anything definitive. Even the Earth/Moon gravity system probably needs adjustments. There is a tremendous amount of data on the likely density of the Moon. So, that would be a good place for someone, other than me, to look for variances. Except for the scientific curiosity, Im not sure how useful it will be knowing exactly how much gravity a certain star has. I suspect that I can devise a gravity drive design for spaceships without needing anything quantitative about stars gravities. The Romans built un reinforced concrete domes long before they knew what the strength of their concrete was, nor knew how to calculate the loads and the stresses on domes. Sometimes just do it is more practical than figure out the physics THEN do it. I already KNOW that the Big Bang didnt happen, and that there is no mass at the center of most galaxies. So, why is it important to know the gravity of stars? I suppose Im a pragmatist. If someone will give some practical application for knowing the new star gravities, I would like to hear. NoEinstein P.S.: Because of the time required to reply to your comments, I exited Google. So, I missed replying to your questions about the Cavendish experiment. I'll think on your questions and reply, soon. > > 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? |