There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: glird on 25 Feb 2010 14:09 On Feb 24, 11:44 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >Galaxies don't spin. All stars are in swiveling elliptical >orbits around the Milky Way Center. You are almost entirely right about this, Burt. The detail that you omitted is this: Although an entire galaxy doesn't bodily spin, it has a a nucleus that DOES. Because the pressure perpendicular to a moving surface decreases when its speed increases, the faster a nucleus spins the less the pressure will be at both sides of the spin-surface. Therefore matter will be pushed toward this interface from both sides of it. Since there is a relatively small amount of matter INSIDE the nuclear interface, compared to the infinite amount outside it, the nucleus will be compressed until its density increased enough so that its increased pressure exactly matches that of its surroundings. For various reasons that I won't discuss now, equilibrium exists throughout a zone containing such spinning nuclei when the average pressure throughout that zone is the same everywhere; and that occurs only when the density GRADIENTS are such that the closer we go toward either side of the interface(s) the steeper they are. glird
From: glird on 25 Feb 2010 15:26 On Feb 25, 12:03 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 24, 11:35 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > NoEinstein: ><< Neither gravity nor electromotive forces will have "influence" over universal distances, except for the meniscuses bounding the ["unbounded"] ether (also the Swiss Cheese void between galaxies). > > glird: >< No, NoE; there is no void-is-an-empty-space either in Swiss Cheese or between galaxies or stars or planets and moons or molecules or atoms or smaller bits and pieces now called "subatomic particles". Indeed, the idea that there IS stems from the false premise at the start and heart of Physics. It was the secret answer "NO" to the unasked question, "Is matter compressible", that led the ancient Geek philosophers to decide that there have to be void spaces between bits of matter in order for things to change in any way at all. THAT'S why they invented what is now called "the kinetic atomic theory", that matter is made of atoms surrounded by empty spaces into which they easily move. Once people learn that "Matter is Compressible" the need for empty spaces will disappear and so will the kinetic atomic theory. Matter isn't made of atoms. Atoms are made of MATTER. And between those atoms there is more of the very same resistively compressible material that conducts light and other forms of radiation throughout the infinite and unbounded universe.> > > How about: Matter and aether are different states of the > same material. Sorry, MPC, but I disagree for several reasons, one being hat the aether isn't a different state of matter; it is just a word for the matter outside of local atoms. >< I understand your concept of matter is that it is the 'stuff of space' but for everyone else matter is nuclei and the stuff combinations of nuclei create. > I never said nor do I believe that "matter is the stuff of space"! (John Duffield not only believes it, he constructed an elaborate general theory based on his assumption that matter is a kink in the fabric of empty space.) > To try and re-label aether as matter is not going to > work. Although I did try to define "aether" in a way that would fit YOUR use of the word -- which I long ago replaced with "ether" -- I didn't intend to re-label aether as matter even though the aether-is-the- continuous-form-of-the-material-outside-of-and-surrounding-atomic- nuclei IS matter-is-the-compressible-substance-that-fills-space. > You'd be better off inventing a new name like 'mather'. > Matter and aether are different states of mather. I'd rather say it like it is. If my definition of your "aether" isn't going to work, I suggest that we eliminate it entirely; as I long ago did in my books. glird
From: mpc755 on 25 Feb 2010 19:31 On Feb 25, 3:26 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Feb 25, 12:03 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 24, 11:35 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > NoEinstein: ><< Neither gravity nor electromotive forces will have > "influence" over universal distances, except for the meniscuses > bounding the ["unbounded"] ether (also the Swiss Cheese void between > galaxies). > > > glird: >< No, NoE; there is no void-is-an-empty-space either in Swiss > Cheese or between galaxies or stars or planets and moons or molecules > or atoms or smaller bits and pieces now called "subatomic particles". > Indeed, the idea that there IS stems from the false premise at the > start and heart of Physics. It was the secret answer "NO" to the > unasked question, "Is matter compressible", that led the ancient Geek > philosophers to decide that there have to be void spaces between bits > of matter in order for things to change in any way at all. THAT'S why > they invented what is now called "the kinetic atomic theory", that > matter is made of atoms surrounded by empty spaces into which they > easily move. Once people learn that "Matter is Compressible" the need > for empty spaces will disappear and so will the kinetic atomic theory. > Matter isn't made of atoms. Atoms are made of MATTER. And between > those atoms there is more of the very same resistively compressible > material that conducts light and other forms of radiation throughout > the infinite and unbounded universe.> > > > > > How about: Matter and aether are different states of the > > same material. > > Sorry, MPC, but I disagree for several reasons, one being hat the > aether isn't a different state of matter; it is just a word for the > matter outside of local atoms. > > >< I understand your concept of matter is that it is the 'stuff of space' but for everyone else matter is nuclei and the stuff combinations of nuclei create. > > > I never said nor do I believe that "matter is the stuff of space"! > (John Duffield not only believes it, he constructed an elaborate > general theory based on his assumption that matter is a kink in the > fabric of empty space.) > What I meant by matter is the 'stuff of space' is in your definition it is all of the stuff in space. Including 'the-continuous-form-of-the- material-outside-of-and-surrounding-atomic-nuclei IS matter-is-the- compressible-substance-that-fills-space' Matter = nuclei Aether = the-continuous-form-of-the-material-outside-of-and- surrounding-atomic-nuclei IS matter-is-the-compressible-substance-that- fills-space Matter and aether are different states of mather. > > To try and re-label aether as matter is not going to > > work. > > Although I did try to define "aether" in a way that would fit YOUR > use of the word -- which I long ago replaced with "ether" -- I didn't > intend to re-label aether as matter even though the aether-is-the- > continuous-form-of-the-material-outside-of-and-surrounding-atomic- > nuclei IS matter-is-the-compressible-substance-that-fills-space. > > > You'd be better off inventing a new name like 'mather'. > > Matter and aether are different states of mather. > > I'd rather say it like it is. > If my definition of your "aether" isn't going to work, I suggest that > we eliminate it entirely; as I long ago did in my books. > > glird
From: BURT on 25 Feb 2010 20:28 On Feb 25, 4:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 25, 3:26 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 25, 12:03 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 24, 11:35 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > NoEinstein: ><< Neither gravity nor electromotive forces will have > > "influence" over universal distances, except for the meniscuses > > bounding the ["unbounded"] ether (also the Swiss Cheese void between > > galaxies). > > > > glird: >< No, NoE; there is no void-is-an-empty-space either in Swiss > > Cheese or between galaxies or stars or planets and moons or molecules > > or atoms or smaller bits and pieces now called "subatomic particles". > > Indeed, the idea that there IS stems from the false premise at the > > start and heart of Physics. It was the secret answer "NO" to the > > unasked question, "Is matter compressible", that led the ancient Geek > > philosophers to decide that there have to be void spaces between bits > > of matter in order for things to change in any way at all. THAT'S why > > they invented what is now called "the kinetic atomic theory", that > > matter is made of atoms surrounded by empty spaces into which they > > easily move. Once people learn that "Matter is Compressible" the need > > for empty spaces will disappear and so will the kinetic atomic theory. > > Matter isn't made of atoms. Atoms are made of MATTER. And between > > those atoms there is more of the very same resistively compressible > > material that conducts light and other forms of radiation throughout > > the infinite and unbounded universe.> > > > > How about: Matter and aether are different states of the > > > same material. > > > Sorry, MPC, but I disagree for several reasons, one being hat the > > aether isn't a different state of matter; it is just a word for the > > matter outside of local atoms. > > > >< I understand your concept of matter is that it is the 'stuff of space' but for everyone else matter is nuclei and the stuff combinations of nuclei create. > > > > I never said nor do I believe that "matter is the stuff of space"! > > (John Duffield not only believes it, he constructed an elaborate > > general theory based on his assumption that matter is a kink in the > > fabric of empty space.) > > What I meant by matter is the 'stuff of space' is in your definition > it is all of the stuff in space. Including 'the-continuous-form-of-the- > material-outside-of-and-surrounding-atomic-nuclei IS matter-is-the- > compressible-substance-that-fills-space' > > Matter = nuclei > Aether = the-continuous-form-of-the-material-outside-of-and- > surrounding-atomic-nuclei IS matter-is-the-compressible-substance-that- > fills-space > > Matter and aether are different states of mather. > > > > > > To try and re-label aether as matter is not going to > > > work. > > > Although I did try to define "aether" in a way that would fit YOUR > > use of the word -- which I long ago replaced with "ether" -- I didn't > > intend to re-label aether as matter even though the aether-is-the- > > continuous-form-of-the-material-outside-of-and-surrounding-atomic- > > nuclei IS matter-is-the-compressible-substance-that-fills-space. > > > > You'd be better off inventing a new name like 'mather'. > > > Matter and aether are different states of mather. > > > I'd rather say it like it is. > > If my definition of your "aether" isn't going to work, I suggest that > > we eliminate it entirely; as I long ago did in my books. > > > glird- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Atomic shells should be included as part of the structure of matter mpc. Mitch Raemsch
From: Mike Cavedon on 25 Feb 2010 21:16
On Feb 25, 8:28 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 25, 4:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 25, 3:26 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 25, 12:03 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 24, 11:35 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > NoEinstein: ><< Neither gravity nor electromotive forces will have > > > "influence" over universal distances, except for the meniscuses > > > bounding the ["unbounded"] ether (also the Swiss Cheese void between > > > galaxies). > > > > > glird: >< No, NoE; there is no void-is-an-empty-space either in Swiss > > > Cheese or between galaxies or stars or planets and moons or molecules > > > or atoms or smaller bits and pieces now called "subatomic particles". > > > Indeed, the idea that there IS stems from the false premise at the > > > start and heart of Physics. It was the secret answer "NO" to the > > > unasked question, "Is matter compressible", that led the ancient Geek > > > philosophers to decide that there have to be void spaces between bits > > > of matter in order for things to change in any way at all. THAT'S why > > > they invented what is now called "the kinetic atomic theory", that > > > matter is made of atoms surrounded by empty spaces into which they > > > easily move. Once people learn that "Matter is Compressible" the need > > > for empty spaces will disappear and so will the kinetic atomic theory.. > > > Matter isn't made of atoms. Atoms are made of MATTER. And between > > > those atoms there is more of the very same resistively compressible > > > material that conducts light and other forms of radiation throughout > > > the infinite and unbounded universe.> > > > > > How about: Matter and aether are different states of the > > > > same material. > > > > Sorry, MPC, but I disagree for several reasons, one being hat the > > > aether isn't a different state of matter; it is just a word for the > > > matter outside of local atoms. > > > > >< I understand your concept of matter is that it is the 'stuff of space' but for everyone else matter is nuclei and the stuff combinations of nuclei create. > > > > > I never said nor do I believe that "matter is the stuff of space"! > > > (John Duffield not only believes it, he constructed an elaborate > > > general theory based on his assumption that matter is a kink in the > > > fabric of empty space.) > > > What I meant by matter is the 'stuff of space' is in your definition > > it is all of the stuff in space. Including 'the-continuous-form-of-the- > > material-outside-of-and-surrounding-atomic-nuclei IS matter-is-the- > > compressible-substance-that-fills-space' > > > Matter = nuclei > > Aether = the-continuous-form-of-the-material-outside-of-and- > > surrounding-atomic-nuclei IS matter-is-the-compressible-substance-that- > > fills-space > > > Matter and aether are different states of mather. > > > > > To try and re-label aether as matter is not going to > > > > work. > > > > Although I did try to define "aether" in a way that would fit YOUR > > > use of the word -- which I long ago replaced with "ether" -- I didn't > > > intend to re-label aether as matter even though the aether-is-the- > > > continuous-form-of-the-material-outside-of-and-surrounding-atomic- > > > nuclei IS matter-is-the-compressible-substance-that-fills-space. > > > > > You'd be better off inventing a new name like 'mather'. > > > > Matter and aether are different states of mather. > > > > I'd rather say it like it is. > > > If my definition of your "aether" isn't going to work, I suggest that > > > we eliminate it entirely; as I long ago did in my books. > > > > glird- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Atomic shells should be included as part of the structure of matter > mpc. > > Mitch Raemsch If our interpretation of the nuclei and what the nuclei exist of and what the nuclei themselves combine to form is matter and the space between the nuclei to consist of aether then in this definition of mather what exists between the nuclei is not matter. |