There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 15 Feb 2010 20:05 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 -
From: PD on 15 Feb 2010 20:42 On Feb 15, 7:05 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Feb 12, 9:30 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 12, 4:08 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Feb 11, 2:57 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > Dear Igor: Please give a list of LINKS to your '+new posts'. Readers > > > will then know that YOU are the one who's easy to push over! Ha, ha, > > > HA! NoEinstein > > > You won't find any of my new ideas posted on usenet. This medium has, > > unfortunately, become the home of purveyors of psycho-ceramics, much > > like yourself. If you had any sense at all, you'd stop posting your > > ignorant nonsense and pick up a real physics textbook. > > Dear IGOR: Reading a textbook is like admitting that the reader > doesn't know. I don't know why I *love* this so much. NoEinstein's rationale for not reading books is that if you have to read something, this is an admission that you didn't know it already. Thus, there is no reason to read a book, as long as you can assert that you already know everything. Better to not read anything, and just Think Things Through For Yourself. > When the explanations being given in physics started > defying logic and reason, I stopped reading and started thinking for > myself. If this forum isn't good enough for you, why do you keep > showing up? Can't you find enough people to disparage on those other > sites? NoEinstein
From: nuny on 16 Feb 2010 04:37 On Feb 15, 5:05 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Feb 12, 9:30 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 12, 4:08 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Feb 11, 2:57 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > Dear Igor: Please give a list of LINKS to your '+new posts'. Readers > > > will then know that YOU are the one who's easy to push over! Ha, ha, > > > HA! NoEinstein > > > You won't find any of my new ideas posted on usenet. This medium has, > > unfortunately, become the home of purveyors of psycho-ceramics, much > > like yourself. If you had any sense at all, you'd stop posting your > > ignorant nonsense and pick up a real physics textbook. > > Dear IGOR: Reading a textbook is like admitting that the reader > doesn't know. Your arrogance keeps you from admitting that you need to crack and read a few. Congratulations; enjoy your delusions. PLONK! Mark L. Fergerson
From: NoEinstein on 16 Feb 2010 14:02 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 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 > > 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 -
From: NoEinstein on 16 Feb 2010 14:06
On Feb 16, 4:37 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 5:05 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 9:30 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 12, 4:08 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 11, 2:57 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear Igor: Please give a list of LINKS to your '+new posts'. Readers > > > > will then know that YOU are the one who's easy to push over! Ha, ha, > > > > HA! NoEinstein > > > > You won't find any of my new ideas posted on usenet. This medium has, > > > unfortunately, become the home of purveyors of psycho-ceramics, much > > > like yourself. If you had any sense at all, you'd stop posting your > > > ignorant nonsense and pick up a real physics textbook. > > > Dear IGOR: Reading a textbook is like admitting that the reader > > doesn't know. > > Your arrogance keeps you from admitting that you need to crack and > read a few. > > Congratulations; enjoy your delusions. > > PLONK! > > Mark L. Fergerson- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - He who blindly accepts the words of others is a FOOL. You should realize that fact, Mark. NE |