There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: glird on 21 Feb 2010 12:17 On Feb 20, 8:54 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Feb 20, 12:52 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > Indeed, since a force is a net pressure, it is ALWAYS a push. > > A "force of attraction" is a push TOWARD the causative agent. > > A "force of repulsion" is a push AWAY from the causative agent. > > Since a g-field is a density gradient, it is always centered on > > "the causative agent', which is the matter-unit that causes it to > > exist. > > Everything is push. Sometimes it comes to shove. > > Electrons are just like galactic arms; they > emanate just like millions of suns, but at > much higher frequency.. > There is universe forever in all directions > with matter just like ours, so the emanations from > electrons will be coming from all directions. > A la Olber's Paradox, these emanations cannot > travel infinitely or there would be an infinite amount of energy > coming at us from all sides. But they travel a long, > long way, so there will be more coming from any one > direction than is coming from any matter in that direction. Although electrons CAUSE light waves to come into existence and propagate at c, no electrons travel further than about 1 wave-length. The reason that light undergoes a red-shift as it travels through hydrogen-filled space is that a Compton effect occurs per H atom it passes. > These emanations are absorbed by the nuclei, > imparting a push, but not by the electrons themselves. When an electron flies out of an atom it has a quantity of action of h = 2pirmc', in which r is the radius of its orbit in an atom, m is its weight therein, and c' is its orbital speed. When light- waves transit an atom whose internal structural pattern happens to fit, the quantity of energy-is-the-ability-to-do-work so absorbed will be e = hf, where f is the frequency=number-of-waves-per-second. > Likewise, the electrons' electrons are emanating at a > much higher frequency/smaller amplitude. Emanations from > the electrons travel at about 30 times c. Emanations from > the electrons' electrons travel at 30 times 30 times c. Nothing travels faster than the speed of em waves; which move at c = 1 unit-length per second, where a unit-length is a specific amount of matter rather than a number of meters. > These and yet higher frequencies must be coming from all > sides in absolutely huge numbers, lending such a > system to a push gravity in layers, where the layer > affecting us does not affect our electrons. Although a g-field-is-a-density-gradient DOES come in layers, the layer affecting us affects everything embedded in, thus part of, that gradient. > Yet it is electrons just like ours that made the radiations > that push on our nuclei and create inertia. No, John, the g-force doesn't come from a push against atomic nuclei. It arises INSIDE each such nucleus, as a net pressure-is-a-push in the direction of greater resistance by the mass-is-a-quantity-of-matter per responding nucleus. As to inertia, that doesn't come from radiation-against- atomic-nuclei either. It is the weight-in-grams of a mass times its speed wrt an object it happens to hit. glird
From: john on 21 Feb 2010 17:22 On Feb 21, 11:17 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Feb 20, 8:54 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 20, 12:52 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > Indeed, since a force is a net pressure, it is ALWAYS a push. > > > A "force of attraction" is a push TOWARD the causative agent. > > > A "force of repulsion" is a push AWAY from the causative agent. > > > Since a g-field is a density gradient, it is always centered on > > > "the causative agent', which is the matter-unit that causes it to > > > exist. > > > Everything is push. Sometimes it comes to shove. > > > Electrons are just like galactic arms; they > > emanate just like millions of suns, but at > > much higher frequency.. > > There is universe forever in all directions > > with matter just like ours, so the emanations from > > electrons will be coming from all directions. > > A la Olber's Paradox, these emanations cannot > > travel infinitely or there would be an infinite amount of energy > > coming at us from all sides. But they travel a long, > > long way, so there will be more coming from any one > > direction than is coming from any matter in that direction. > > Although electrons CAUSE light waves to come into existence > and propagate at c, no electrons travel further than about 1 > wave-length. Yes, electrons *cause* photons to form. But the photons form in pairs, one on each side of the nucleus, and are given off when they reach the right frequency. Look at the accretion disc surrounding the origin of each jet in an AGN. This is not ingoing material. The ingoing stuff orbits closer and closer to the hole, and when it falls in, you see fireworks. But the jets are constantly pumping *outwardly-moving* HEPs up that magnetic staircase. And the accretion discs are stuff that won't go, because it's different- it's not matter, it's photons, and they aren't pushed by the field so they can't get away, and they fall back and gradually pile up until they reach a critical size, whereupon they are released simultaneously in opposite directions as two quasars. .. The reason that light undergoes a red-shift as > it travels through hydrogen-filled space is that a Compton effect > occurs per H atom it passes. Oh, so you think tired (depleted) light eplains redshifting of distant galaxies rather than expansion? > > > These emanations are absorbed by the nuclei, > > imparting a push, but not by the electrons themselves. > > When an electron flies out of an atom it has a quantity of action > of h = 2pirmc', in which r is the radius of its orbit in an atom, > m is its weight therein, and c' is its orbital speed. When light- > waves > transit an atom whose internal structural pattern happens to fit, the > quantity of energy-is-the-ability-to-do-work so absorbed will be > e = hf, where f is the frequency=number-of-waves-per-second. You're still not getting it glird. I'm talking about the emanations from electrons that are analagous to the emanations of a galaxy's suns (regular photons). This is radiation that would be super-super-super high frequency, and I don't think anyone is playing with them yet. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure the status quo is that electrons don't radiate. I'm saying they do, and that the resulting background from a universe of radiating electrons, makes for push gravity because this energy is absorbed by nuclei precisely because they must recharge their electrons (energy-wise) at the same rate they radiate. > > > Likewise, the electrons' electrons are emanating at a > > much higher frequency/smaller amplitude. Emanations from > > the electrons travel at about 30 times c. Emanations from > > the electrons' electrons travel at 30 times 30 times c. > > Nothing travels faster than the speed of em waves; which move > at c = 1 unit-length per second, where a unit-length is a specific > amount of matter rather than a number of meters. Nothing we have found yet. And we still haven't found electron radiations. They should travel at 30c, and this is the speed of gravity. > > > These and yet higher frequencies must be coming from all > > sides in absolutely huge numbers, lending such a > > system to a push gravity in layers, where the layer > > affecting us does not affect our electrons. > > Although a g-field-is-a-density-gradient DOES come in layers, > the layer affecting us affects everything embedded in, thus part of, > that gradient. > > > Yet it is electrons just like ours that made the radiations > > that push on our nuclei and create inertia. > > No, John, the g-force doesn't come from a push against > atomic nuclei. It arises INSIDE each such nucleus, as a > net pressure-is-a-push in the direction of greater resistance > by the mass-is-a-quantity-of-matter per responding nucleus. > As to inertia, that doesn't come from radiation-against- > atomic-nuclei either. It is the weight-in-grams of a mass > times its speed wrt an object it happens to hit. > > glird Mass is not a constant. It can vary in degree as well as direction. This is how UFOs operate. They can literally blinker their craft to pay attention only to gravity in a certain direction. john john
From: NoEinstein on 23 Feb 2010 10:11 On Feb 20, 9:37 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: LATIN is a dead language. Data, as used colloquially, is a SINGULAR collective. Also, OLYMPICS is SINGULAR (unless you are talking about how many different ones, every four years, you have been to)! The correct sentence is: THIS Olympics, not "these" Olympics. Since the usual reference is to the collective, it is correct to say: THIS (Olympic) games. Bob Costas and his shallow-minded sportscasting ilk please take note! NoEinstein > > On Feb 19, 7:23 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Feb 17, 9:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: "Data" is a collective, just like > > INFORMATION. Both are SINGULAR. You should have written: "No, but > > the experimental data that IS in conflict with the predictions of the > > model do make it wrong." For you information, there is nothing that > > can contradict ANYTHING about my New Science! NoEinstein > > Geez, NoEinstein, you even make up grammar. > The singular form is "datum", the plural is "data". Check a > dictionary. > One datum is, the data are. > > Of course, you always have the option of saying that by the power of > PURE THOUGHT ALONE you have discovered that the dictionary is wrong. > > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 11:59 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 10, 7:43 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 2/10/10 5:59 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > > > From my college days Ive observed the irrationality of much of > > > > > > physics. > > > > > > In other words, you didn't do so well in physics! > > > > > In other words Worm must be an "education major" who never studied > > > > real physics, only "physics appreciation" where no math was ever > > > > needed. > > > > > On the other hand as much as I hate to defend "noeinstein" and "Mitch > > > > Raemsch" and the rest of the clowns here, allow me to point out that > > > > the "push" theory of gravitation is an OLD theory well reviewed by > > > > Wheeler and Feynman in the past and THEY noted that long before they > > > > reviewed it, it was already an OLD idea! Of course just being an old > > > > idea doesn't make it wrong. > > > > No, but the experimental data that were in conflict with the > > > predictions of the model do make it wrong. > > > > > The basic idea is that if one assumes the > > > > universe filled with some kind of (unspecified) radiation or waves > > > > capable of creating radiation pressure, the shadows of celestial orbs > > > > upon each other is what creates the "PUSH" that forces them toward > > > > each other. The advantage of this theory is that no "ropes" are needed > > > > to explain the mechanism of gravity in physical terms. Ordinary > > > > physical phenomena we are all familiar with (radiation, shadows, > > > > radiation pressure etc.) create a model that doesn't require bogus > > > > action at a distance, "gravitons" or other things we've never seen > > > > before.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 23 Feb 2010 10:14 On Feb 20, 9:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Your mind is like... GLUE; once you get the wrong information you're stuck! NE > > On Feb 19, 6:25 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Feb 16, 2:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Gamma rays are the most energetic > > 'things' of the entire spectrum. As such, gamma rays straddle-the- > > fence between photons and particles. Only neutrons (with a paired > > electron) are more penetrating of mattersuch as concrete. Atomic > > decay via the emission of gamma rays eventually lowers the atomic > > number, because gamma rays are protons. Dense matter, like U-235, has > > a lot of protons. So, it takes a very long time to decay to, say, > > thorium. All matter is composed of tangles of IOTAs. Photons are > > smaller tangles of IOTAs that are polar. The only difference between > > a photon and a proton, is: The proton, as a free particle, must be > > capable of giving off at least one photon. It is "photon exchange" > > which allows gravitational attraction. In a soup of particles, > > protons can clump into heavier and heavier matter, aided by the > > tremendous temperatures and pressures inside star cores. Learn to > > think, PD. Status quo physics is dead! NoEinstein > > And so you respond to a correction of a simple error of fact by simply > making more stuff up. > Keep it up, NoEinstein! I'm sure it's fun to make stuff up. > Most children give up playing pretend by the time they're 11 or so. > Are you having a second childhood? > > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 1:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 8:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Somehow, you manage to write more > > > > dribble on these groups than probably anyone. Does Google give you > > > > extra time? But in spite of all of your writing, you never PARAPHRASE > > > > what you think, or what others say whom you agree with. > > > > I did. I told you that gamma rays are photons. Lots of people agree > > > with me. > > > You erroneously stated that they are protons. This is a simple error > > > of fact. > > > When there is a dispute over facts, then the best thing to do is to go > > > to an external source to find the answer. > > > If you insist on saying that a cow is a reptile, then I certainly > > > don't owe you a paraphrased argument to correct that error of fact. > > > I'd tell you to go look up that a cow is a mammal, not a reptile. And > > > if I'm generous, I'd give you a link to something you can read that > > > tells you that a cow is a mammal, not a reptile. > > > > If you want to continue just making stuff up, like gamma rays being > > > protons and cows being reptiles, you go right ahead. > > > > > I will NOT... > > > > I repeat: I will NOT go on any wild-goose-chases from you to the words > > > > of others. I summarize my New Science almost every day. But your > > > > only defense is to claim that I'm lazy. I use time management. > > > > > A joke comes to mind: Neighbors observed that a farmer was carrying a > > > > pig in his arms and letting the pig eat apples from the orchard. > > > > Finally, one neighbor got brave enough to ask the farmer: "Isn't what > > > > you're doing a terrible waste of time?" To which the farmer replied: > > > > "What's TIME to a PIG?" PD is like that farmer, not knowing how much > > > > of his own time he is wasting. NoEinstein > > > > That would make you the pig, right? > > > So you want to be left alone? > > > Why not write a blog, where you can write whatever you want and you'll > > > be left alone. > > > > > > On Feb 15, 6:13 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 4:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > No, PD! Gamma rays are PROTONS. > > > > > > No, they're not, John. They're photons. All you had to do is click on > > > > > the link that I provided and read two or three lines. > > > > > Here it is again, John. Surely this is not too complicated.http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/gamma.html > > > > > > > Those are much denser 'tangles' of > > > > > > IOTAs which is the same... 'stuff' that photons (and everything else > > > > > > in the Universe) is made of. NoEinstein > > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 2:54 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 11, 1:24 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear John: Particles DON'T produce unlimited radiation unless the > > > > > > > > lost ether gets replenished! > > > > > > > > Something must be producing all this aether to push with, no? > > > > > > > > > Gamma rays, which have mass, must emit > > > > > > > > photons. > > > > > > > > Oh, John, John, John. Gamma rays ARE photons.http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/gamma.html > > > > > > > > > But the number of photons is quite small, since the mass is > > > > > > > > quite small. Gamma rays replenish their lost photons by banging into > > > > > > > > the ether as they travel. Since the tangential velocity of the IOTAs > > > > > > > > (smallest energy units of the ether) is 'c', then the gamma rays can > > > > > > > > keep right on traveling at velocity 'c' for a very long time. > > > > > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 10, 7:13 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 10, 3:59 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Yesterday, I happened to tune-in for the last half of a TV program > > > > > > > > > > > about the Moon. Time and again, the supposed technical experts who > > > > > > > > > > > were being interviewed referred to the pull of gravity between the > > > > > > > > > > > Earth and the Moon. The effect of that pull was discussed as > > > > > > > > > > > relates to such things as ocean tides > > > > > > > > > > > Please explain ocean tides with push gravity > > > > > > > > > > First explain how every particle of the universe > > > > > > > > > can produce unlimited radiations which travel outward from > > > > > > > > > said particles while all the while providing inward impetus > > > > > > > > > to anything with which they interact. > > > > > > > > > Don't you think that's stretching it just a tad? > > > > > > > > > ('Course since then there's DM, DE, so really, > > > > > > > > > suck gravity is hardly outrageous at all compared > > > > > > > > > to 'intellectuallizing' a whole new class of matter, > > > > > > > > > sight unseen )('Course, if it's invisible, well, it's > > > > > > > > > invisible- but we prove it's there by pointing to > > > > > > > > > the movements of stars that occasioned its creation > > > > > > > > > in the first place.So it's real yin/yangy, y'know.) > > > > > > > > > > But the tide thing- really, everything at this scale- > > > > > > > > > works exactly the same for push as for pull. > > > > > > > > > Just at larger sizes, where planets > > > > > > > > > are able to completely shadow push from the other side, > > > > > > > > > surface gravity will tend towards a limit- therefore ruling out > > > > > > > > > the whole black hole paradox. > > > > > > > > > > john- 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 23 Feb 2010 10:20
On Feb 20, 1:52 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Feb 19, 8:33 pm, NoEinstein aka Androcles etc wrote: > > > On Feb 18, 12:01 pm, john parker aka Androcles etc wrote: > > > > john- Hide quoted text - > > > Bravo! NoEinstein > > Boo to both one of you, even though we both agree that a > g-force is a push, not a pull. Indeed, since a force is a > net pressure, it is ALWAYS a push. > A "force of attraction" is a push TOWARD the causative agent. > A "force of repulsion" is a push AWAY from the causative agent. > Since a g-field is a density gradient, it is always centered on > "the causative agent', which is the matter-unit that causes it to > exist. > > glird Dear glird: "Boo to both one of you..." ? Are you agreeing with me or booing me? NoEinstein |