There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 25 Feb 2010 21:26 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.
From: BURT on 26 Feb 2010 00:40 On Feb 25, 6:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I see you are still hiding the atomic electrons in a surrounding aether? Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 26 Feb 2010 07:48 On Feb 26, 12:40 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 25, 6:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I see you are still hiding the atomic electrons in a surrounding > aether? > > Mitch Raemsch Is there an abundance of evidence electrons are particles when they exist in the shell of atoms? Even if they do, in terms of Aether Displacement, "electrons contribute less than 0.06% to an atom's total mass." (wikipedia). In terms of Aether Displacement what is more important than what an electron exists as in the shell of an atom is the space, filled with aether, which exists between the nuclei in matter.
From: NoEinstein on 26 Feb 2010 11:45 On Feb 23, 2:32 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Feb 23, 9:14 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:> 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 > > I went round and round with PD > years agao. Still do. > > Electrons radiate magnetism in all directions. > Most bodies of matter have lots of electrons, > and these create magnetism that radiates > outward in all directions. This creates > a pressure, or push. > > But there is so much matter in > all directions, that there is > more pressure towards a body's > center than away. This is gravity. > > When electrons are moved > in a circle, they radiate at > right-angles to that circle, creating less push > to counter gravity in one > direction, while augmenting it in > the other. Dear John: Like I've already said (but you may have missed reading), polar ETHER is the source of the energy in the Universe. Electrons are a transient 'tangle' of the IOTAs that make up the ether. They are NOT the cause of magnetic effects. The alignment of the polar IOTAs is what causes magnetism. The latter PUSH objects together, not pull them together. Magnetic lines of flux can be broken by bright light (photons), making those fickle. Except on the boundary of the Universe's ether bubble, and bounding the Swiss Cheese Voids between galaxies, electromagnetism is a largely local phenomena. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 26 Feb 2010 11:47
On Feb 24, 4:45 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Feb 23, 10:20 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > Yes.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear glird: Ah! So you are agreeing with me, reluctantly. Thanks! NoEinstein |