There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 9 Mar 2010 17:33 On Mar 8, 1:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 8, 2:31 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 5, 10:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 5, 4:39 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 3, 11:55 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear mpc755: You should make your own '+new post' if you wish to > > > > expound new notions about science. You are clearly off the subject. > > > > NoEinstein > > > > He does, all the time. You can't find them? Are you completely > > > incompetent with newsgroups? > > > > > > On Mar 3, 11:14 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 3, 11:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 26, 8:31 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 26, 12:15 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Matter has ether flowing within it. Ether is the mother > > > > > > > > > > of creation, not matter. > > > > > > > > > > There is no ether other than matter itself. In harmony with my > > > > > > > > > belief that important words should be defiend the first time they are > > > > > > > > > used in written form, I defined ether as being the continuity aspect > > > > > > > > > of a material field, whether or not particles are part of it. > > > > > > > > > > Because matter cannot be created or destroyed, it always existed and > > > > > > > > > so did the five other basic items of which everything in the universe > > > > > > > > > is composed. As to 'creation", I long ago realized that Evolution is > > > > > > > > > God's method of creating what now exists. > > > > > > > > > > glird > > > > > > > > > Dear glird: Every time you ride on a jet airliner you get pushed back > > > > > > > > in your seat by the ether that is flowing through the plane, front to > > > > > > > > back. > > > > > > > > Really? Then why do people sleep on airplanes, without their hair > > > > > > > streaming backwards as though they were in a breeze? > > > > > > > Because they are moving with constant momentum and the aether applies > > > > > > equal pressure to every part of the matter. The pressure the aether > > > > > > exerts on and throughout a moving airplane is greater than an object > > > > > > at the same altitude which would be considered to be at rest with > > > > > > respect to the aether but the pressure associated with the aether > > > > > > exerted on each and every nuclei in the moving plane is equal on every > > > > > > part of the nuclei. > > > > > > > It is during acceleration that the pressure associated with the aether > > > > > > is not equal on each and every part of the nuclei and that is why you > > > > > > are pushed back in you chair on take off and move forward during > > > > > > landings. Each and every nuclei which is the human body is interacting > > > > > > with the aether. > > > > > >http://www.physorg.com/news185201084.html > > > > > > "Superfluidity and superconductivity cause particles to move without > > > > > friction. Koos Gubbels investigated under what conditions such > > > > > particles keep moving endlessly without losing energy, like a swimmer > > > > > who takes one mighty stroke and then keeps gliding forever along the > > > > > swimming pool." > > > > > > Each nuclei is the swimmer. > > > > > > 'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum > > > > > medium and the inertial motion of particles'http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0701/0701155.pdf > > > > > > "a particle moving through the vacuum medium at a speed less than the > > > > > speed of light in vacuum, though interacting with the vacuum medium, > > > > > never feels friction force and thus undergoes a frictionless and > > > > > inertial motion." > > > > > > "The property of the physical vacuum of our universe is a central > > > > > issue in modern particle physics and cosmology. In this paper we shall > > > > > show that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as a ubiquitous back > > > > > ground field is a super fluid medium." > > > > > > If the particle were accelerating through the super fluid medium then > > > > > even though the interaction is frictionless there is still more > > > > > pressure exerted on the front of the particle (in the direction of > > > > > travel) then on the back of the particle. > > > > > > Each nuclei is the particle moving through the aether, which in this > > > > > instance is analogous to a super fluid medium. > > > > > > If the nuclei are accelerating through the aether then even though the > > > > > interaction is frictionless there is still more pressure exerted on > > > > > the front of the nuclei (in the direction of travel) then on the back > > > > > of the nuclei. > > > > > > The opposite occurs during deceleration.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Like I tell YOU all the time, PD: I don't go on any wild-goose > > searches for anyone. > > It's not a wild goose chase. If you had any competence with your > newsreader at all, you'd see them laying right at your feet. If you > claim you cannot find any stones and you're standing in a gravel pit, > do you consider a wild-goose chase when someone suggests you look > down? > > > If you (or they) want to show competence on > > science, paraphrase your discussion points or give links to posts > > which you (or they) have authored. Otherwise, you'll be ignored. > > In other words, spoon feed you in the only way you can see it, or > you'll ignore it. That's fine. You're a mule led to water. If you > don't drink and you die thirsty, you've got no complaint that no one > carried the water to your lips. > I repeat: "If you (or they) want to show competence on science, paraphrase your discussion points or give links to posts which you (or they) have authored. Otherwise, you'll be ignored." NE
From: NoEinstein on 9 Mar 2010 17:36 On Mar 8, 5:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 5, 5:07 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Mar 2, 6:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear mpc755: Your "mather" is both a misspelling and a > > misunderstanding of matter. Tell me, guy: Why is it necessary for > > there to be THREE states of the Universe when only TWO are required? > > AFAIK, there are only two states of mather, matter and aether. > > > > > Ether doesn't FILL space; it flows through it like wind in weather > > systems on Earth. Ether is NOT a medium required for the propagation > > of light 'waves' (sic). I know that to be true because light quanta, > > or photons, can travel through the Swiss Cheese voids between > > galaxies. Additionally, there is no wavelike motion of the ether > > associated with 'gravity', either. > > > Since ether is the energy building block of everything else, I > > realized that ether must be capable of TANGLING into energy densities > > much greater than in the ether at large. Because ether can flow, > > there must be a meniscus on the edge of the Universe, otherwise the > > ether would keep flowing outward until the density gets too low to > > form any matter. Having the Universe be "infinite" doesn't compute > > never has and never will. That leaves open the possibility that there > > are other universes out there. The main 'creation' question that is > > unanswered is: How did the ether energy get there? Proposing that an > > omnipotent God put the energy there leaves this question: Who created > > God? Ultimately, the understanding of the Universe won't require > > faith. It's fun to know that there are still things to be learned! > > NoEinstein > > > > On Mar 2, 5:06 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 26, 12:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> > > > > > Dear mpc755: When you touch an index finger to the back of the > > > > opposite hand, at atomic scales, the IOTAs (smallest energy units of > > > > the ether), which are polar, oppose the polar IOTAs of the opposite > > > > hand. Thought of that way, there is no "matter" in the Universe, only > > > > tangles of IOTAs and free-flowing ether in the spaces between. So, it > > > > would be more proper to say that "matter" (the energy tangles) is a > > > > state of the ether, not the other way around. NoEinstein > > > > This is the opposite definition glird proposes. glird definition of > > > aether is "aether-is-the- > > > continuous-form-of-the-material-outside-of-and-surrounding-atomic- > > > nuclei IS matter-is-the-compressible-substance-that-fills-space". > > > > This is why I am naming the material which both the aether and matter > > > consist of mather. This avoids redefining already existing and > > > conceptualized terms. > > > > I think 'we' all have the same basic concept of what aether is. I > > > think 'we' all have the same basic concept of what matter is. Instead > > > of trying to modify the concept of aether to be a state of matter or > > > for matter to be a state of aether it is better if we define matter > > > and aether to both be states of mather. > > > > We can then agree mather has mass. Meaning both matter and aether have > > > mass. Meaning the aether is displaced by matter. Meaning the aether > > > applies pressure towards the matter doing the displacing. > > > > Meaning the pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive > > > objects is gravity.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear mpc755: You are... hopeless. Make a '+new post' promoting your notions. My post is not the place! NE
From: NoEinstein on 9 Mar 2010 17:39 On Mar 8, 5:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 5, 5:32 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Mar 3, 11:14 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear mpc755: The flowing ether applies pressure in direct proportion > > to the specific gravity and porosity of the matternot equally. That > > is why 'gravity' (flowing ether) causes lead to weigh more than > > feathers. NoEinstein > > The pressure associated with gravity is not equally applied to every > part of each and every nuclei the massive object consists of. > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects > is gravity. more BS... NE
From: NoEinstein on 9 Mar 2010 17:41 On Mar 8, 5:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 5, 5:39 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Mar 3, 11:55 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear mpc755: You should make your own '+new post' if you wish to > > expound new notions about science. You are clearly off the subject. > > NoEinstein > > This thread discusses gravity as being the 'push of flowing aether'. > > A better description of gravity is the pressure associated with the > aether displaced by massive objects. You are a FOOL, mpc755! Masses do NOT displace ether, they thrive in ether! NE
From: NoEinstein on 9 Mar 2010 17:44
On Mar 8, 11:58 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 8, 2:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 5, 5:07 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Mar 2, 6:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear mpc755: Your "mather" is both a misspelling and a > > > misunderstanding of matter. Tell me, guy: Why is it necessary for > > > there to be THREE states of the Universe when only TWO are required? > > > AFAIK, there are only two states of mather, matter and aether. > > The immaterial aether flow is for energy. It sets up its time. Proper > time is the truth of the sameness of timerates to itself. > > Mitch Raemsch Dear Burt: Has anyone other than me ever told you that you are a loony? NE |