There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 26 Feb 2010 12:06 On Feb 25, 2:09 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > 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 Dear glird: You are obviously a baseball fan. But galaxies don't obey your ideas of the dynamics. NE
From: john on 26 Feb 2010 12:09 On Feb 26, 10:45 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 > Electrons radiate magnetons which are repulsive. Thus they repel each other and the proton. When they are accelerated in a circle they align with the turn such that their radiations go at right-angles to the turn. Magnetons are coming from wherever there are electrons in the universe, which is everywhere, and they are what is holding us to the ground. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. john
From: NoEinstein on 26 Feb 2010 12:12 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.) > > > 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 Dear glird: The presense of nearby matter necessitates the presence of ether. Since all matter requires energy (ether) for its formation, that ether must have come from someplace. The Swiss Cheese voids are where the IOTAs that make up matter came from. Your acceptance of that fact isn't necessary for such to be true. Continuing to harp on it is only wasting your time. NE
From: glird on 26 Feb 2010 12:15 On Feb 26, 11:56 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Feb 24, 11:35 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 23, 10:50 am, NoEinstein wrote:> On Feb 21, 12:17 pm, glird wrote: > > > > On Feb 20, 8:54 pm, john wrote: > > > > > On Feb 20, 12:52 pm, glird wrote: > > > gl:>>>> 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. > > > J: >>> 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. > > > gl: >> 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. > > > J: >>> These emanations are absorbed by the nuclei, > > imparting a push, but not by the electrons themselves. > > > gl: >> 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. > > > J: >>> 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. > > > gl: >> 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. > > > J: >>> 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. > > > gl: >> 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. > > > J: >>> Yet it is electrons just like ours that made the radiations > > that push on our nuclei and create inertia. > > > gl: >> 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. > > > NoE: >< Dear glird: You've got answerssometimes more complex than > > nature manifeststo much of science. Don't get lost in the > > "internal", or inside atoms, math. > > > > Thank you for the warning, Dr NoE. Actually, my math herein was > > concerned with a quantum of energy and its relation to electrons. Half > > of present Physics is lost in that math. (The other half is lost in > > the tensor math of GR.) Don't worry, Mr. Dr. No, at my age I won't > > get lost in mathematics at all. > > > Mr Dr NoE: >< It is the ETHER from which all energy derives, not > > electrons. Think of electrons as being the banked-up IOTAs in the > > rings of valence. They are like a wave (ocean) about to break, but > > being pushed in a constant circle. I copy below my apt reply to > > "John": > > Dear John: The Universe is a finite bubble of ether (and matter made > > from ether). > > > > Please pardon me for interrupting, but despite the Big Bungle > > theory, the universe is infinite and ether is the material that fills > > it everywhere. > > > >< The bubble is bounded by a magnetic meniscus which forms the longest continuous lines of (push) force in the Universe. > > > > According to present Physics, the universe is finite but unbounded. > > Even if it was a bubble, a boundary would not be "in" it; it would > > surround it. > > > >< Magnetic flux is vulnerable to having the lines broken by strong photon emissions. That's why magnetic flux tends to concentrate near massive objects. There, the lines "stake out" locations around which the light must pass. > > > > What is a "strong photon" and how does it break a magnetic flux > > line? Where did you get the idea that magnetic flux tends to > > concentrate near massive objects? What happens to a ray of light when > > it passes through such a "staked out" location, and why does it > > happen? > > > > Electrons aren't the creative source of photons. Since electrons have no mass they are incapable of giving off photons. > > > > Although electrons don't "give off" photons, the textbook value of > > the mass of an electron is 9.1095 x 10^-27 grams. > > > >The valence rings in which the electrons orbit CAN give of photons. > > > > Although valence rings (and electrons in them) COULD give off photons, > > they don't. > > A valence ring is actually a layer of material filling the space > > between a nucleus and/or another such layer. An electron is either the > > entire layer or the wavular system circulating in it. When a quantum > > reaction happens, either the entire layer doubles in thickness or it > > escapes from the given atom. If the latter happens, the electron > > escapes and linearly moves into the surrounding material (the > > "matrix") within which the layer was a density gradient whose minimum > > level was much greater than the maximum level in the matrix. Within > > two wave-lengths, each being about 2 x pi x 5.225 x 10^-9 cm long, the > > electron that escaped becomes a cloud of matter in the local matrix. > > As such, it is an increased density zone in a less dense material. At > > the instant that happens, the weight of that matter becomes zero and > > the density imbalance causes an increase in pressure -- a local grad > > s, to exist in that zone. Whenever that happens, for any reason at > > all, that grad s,d radiates away in all directions at a speed of c = 1 > > unit of matter/second = 1. We call the portion that happens to be > > visible to our eyes "light"; and that's what light is. As to a > > "photon" (Einstein's word for Planck's quantity of energy, e_o), it is > > NEVER a particle of energy-is-the-ability-to-do-work NOR is it a > > transverse wave when radiating at c. > > (Yes, Dr NoE, I know that present theory says that Since light can't > > be made of particles on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and can't be > > wave systems on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, "it is therefore > > BOTH"!!!! > > But to me, if many experiments prove that light can't be made of > > particles and many other equally valid experiments prove that it is > > not a collection of transverse waves, then IT IS NEITHER, not both.) > > > >< There are only so many IOTAs that can be pushed around inside each valence ring. When an outside light source has a frequency matching the valence ring, the excess energy corresponding to that ring throws off corresponding photons. The latter is the re emission of photonssometimes wrongly referred to as... reflections, but 1/2 phase out of step. 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). > > > > 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 is > > 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 the kinetic atomic theory will go with it. > > 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. > > > glird > > Dear glird: The Universe is FINITE, and electrons have no more than a > 10% importance in the energy scheme of things. NoEinstein No, Dear NoE, the universe is NOT finite; and although electrons are a small fraction of the matter and energy in it per huge volume, they are the all-important ingredient in the otherwise impotent half of physics called "QED". glird
From: NoEinstein on 26 Feb 2010 12:15
On Feb 25, 7:31 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 - Matter has ether flowing within it. Ether is the mother of creation, not matter. NE |