There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 18 Mar 2010 10:36 On Mar 18, 9:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 17, 5:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Just the opposite is more correct. Instead of a boat let's use a > > submarine. Even if the submarine consists of millions of > > interconnected particles where the water is able to flow through the > > submarine the matter which is the submarine will still displace the > > water and the water will still apply pressure towards the matter which > > is the submarine. > > This is an interesting remark. Even though the water would flow right > through the submarine, the water would be displaced? What do you think > "displaced" means? The water would not flow 'right' through the submarine. The more massive the submarine is the less the water flows through the submarine but if the submarine consists of millions of individual particles separated by a short distance it does not matter how massive the submarine is the water will exert a pressure on and throughout the millions if individual particles. The matter which is the millions of individual particles still displaces the water which would otherwise exist where the millions of individual particles do. displace: 1 a : to remove from the usual or proper place 2 a : to move physically out of position <a floating object displaces water> (m-w.com)
From: PD on 18 Mar 2010 10:54 On Mar 18, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 9:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 17, 5:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Just the opposite is more correct. Instead of a boat let's use a > > > submarine. Even if the submarine consists of millions of > > > interconnected particles where the water is able to flow through the > > > submarine the matter which is the submarine will still displace the > > > water and the water will still apply pressure towards the matter which > > > is the submarine. > > > This is an interesting remark. Even though the water would flow right > > through the submarine, the water would be displaced? What do you think > > "displaced" means? > > The water would not flow 'right' through the submarine. The more > massive the submarine is the less the water flows through the > submarine but if the submarine consists of millions of individual > particles separated by a short distance it does not matter how massive > the submarine is the water will exert a pressure on and throughout the > millions if individual particles. > > The matter which is the millions of individual particles still > displaces the water which would otherwise exist where the millions of > individual particles do. > > displace: > 1 a : to remove from the usual or proper place > 2 a : to move physically out of position <a floating object displaces > water> > (m-w.com) Does a screen door displace a breeze?
From: mpc755 on 18 Mar 2010 11:11 On Mar 18, 10:54 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 9:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 17, 5:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Just the opposite is more correct. Instead of a boat let's use a > > > > submarine. Even if the submarine consists of millions of > > > > interconnected particles where the water is able to flow through the > > > > submarine the matter which is the submarine will still displace the > > > > water and the water will still apply pressure towards the matter which > > > > is the submarine. > > > > This is an interesting remark. Even though the water would flow right > > > through the submarine, the water would be displaced? What do you think > > > "displaced" means? > > > The water would not flow 'right' through the submarine. The more > > massive the submarine is the less the water flows through the > > submarine but if the submarine consists of millions of individual > > particles separated by a short distance it does not matter how massive > > the submarine is the water will exert a pressure on and throughout the > > millions if individual particles. > > > The matter which is the millions of individual particles still > > displaces the water which would otherwise exist where the millions of > > individual particles do. > > > displace: > > 1 a : to remove from the usual or proper place > > 2 a : to move physically out of position <a floating object displaces > > water> > > (m-w.com) > > Does a screen door displace a breeze? Let's start off by discussing the three dimensional space occupied by the screen door prior to adding in a breeze. Let's assume there is no door at all to start with. The three dimensional space in the door way is occupied by air (and aether, but let's not go there right now). When you install the screen door the matter which is the screen door occupies three dimensional space. The air which existed where the matter which is the screen door now does has been displaced. Let's go back to there being no screen door and add in a breeze. The breeze flows freely through the open door way. Now a screen door is installed. The same breeze will interact with the matter which is the screen door. If you were to measure the amount of breeze entering the structure before and after the installation of the screen door the would be less breeze entering the structure after the installation of the screen door.
From: PD on 18 Mar 2010 11:13 On Mar 18, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 9:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 17, 5:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Just the opposite is more correct. Instead of a boat let's use a > > > submarine. Even if the submarine consists of millions of > > > interconnected particles where the water is able to flow through the > > > submarine the matter which is the submarine will still displace the > > > water and the water will still apply pressure towards the matter which > > > is the submarine. > > > This is an interesting remark. Even though the water would flow right > > through the submarine, the water would be displaced? What do you think > > "displaced" means? > > The water would not flow 'right' through the submarine. The more > massive the submarine is the less the water flows through the > submarine but if the submarine consists of millions of individual > particles separated by a short distance it does not matter how massive > the submarine is the water will exert a pressure on and throughout the > millions if individual particles. > > The matter which is the millions of individual particles still > displaces the water which would otherwise exist where the millions of > individual particles do. It's worth noting that in the case of two atoms that are close together, the atoms are about a tenth of a nanometer across, and the electrons in the atoms are a hundred million times smaller than than. Thus electrons are in fact very small compared to the size of atoms, and could in principle slip right through atoms, because atoms are mostly empty space. And yet electrons in atoms in molecules don't do that, and there is a specific interatomic spacing in a molecule. Since atoms are mostly empty space, you'd think they'd be able to pass right through each other like two sparse flocks of birds. But they don't. Now you should ask yourself why they do not, since there is obviously lots of empty space available. It's obviously not just a matter of having lots of room. So why do you think electrons don't penetrate other atoms really easily? Hint: electrons in atoms *do* exert pressure on neighboring atoms, and how it exerts this pressure is also pertinent to why they do not penetrate. When you answer that question, then you'll be able to address how the aether would have to work. Remember, it's not just having the room available that matters. Keep in mind that you want your aether to also exert pressure on the atoms of matter, so whatever it does that enables that, electrons also do, and what electrons do prevents them from penetrating neighboring atoms. Chew on that a while. > > displace: > 1 a : to remove from the usual or proper place > 2 a : to move physically out of position <a floating object displaces > water> > (m-w.com)
From: mpc755 on 18 Mar 2010 11:23
On Mar 18, 11:13 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 9:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 17, 5:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Just the opposite is more correct. Instead of a boat let's use a > > > > submarine. Even if the submarine consists of millions of > > > > interconnected particles where the water is able to flow through the > > > > submarine the matter which is the submarine will still displace the > > > > water and the water will still apply pressure towards the matter which > > > > is the submarine. > > > > This is an interesting remark. Even though the water would flow right > > > through the submarine, the water would be displaced? What do you think > > > "displaced" means? > > > The water would not flow 'right' through the submarine. The more > > massive the submarine is the less the water flows through the > > submarine but if the submarine consists of millions of individual > > particles separated by a short distance it does not matter how massive > > the submarine is the water will exert a pressure on and throughout the > > millions if individual particles. > > > The matter which is the millions of individual particles still > > displaces the water which would otherwise exist where the millions of > > individual particles do. > > It's worth noting that in the case of two atoms that are close > together, the atoms are about a tenth of a nanometer across, and the > electrons in the atoms are a hundred million times smaller than than. > Thus electrons are in fact very small compared to the size of atoms, > and could in principle slip right through atoms, because atoms are > mostly empty space. > > And yet electrons in atoms in molecules don't do that, and there is a > specific interatomic spacing in a molecule. Since atoms are mostly > empty space, you'd think they'd be able to pass right through each > other like two sparse flocks of birds. But they don't. Now you should > ask yourself why they do not, since there is obviously lots of empty > space available. It's obviously not just a matter of having lots of > room. So why do you think electrons don't penetrate other atoms really > easily? Hint: electrons in atoms *do* exert pressure on neighboring > atoms, and how it exerts this pressure is also pertinent to why they > do not penetrate. > > When you answer that question, then you'll be able to address how the > aether would have to work. Remember, it's not just having the room > available that matters. Keep in mind that you want your aether to also > exert pressure on the atoms of matter, so whatever it does that > enables that, electrons also do, and what electrons do prevents them > from penetrating neighboring atoms. > > Chew on that a while. > My guess is electrons are not particles but more like photons. Electrons are directed/pointed waves which collapse when detected as a quantum of mather. So, an electron is actually a disturbance which surrounds the nuclei. The pressure associated with a nuclei is due to the aether displaced by the nuclei and the aether displaced by the neighboring nuclei, not the electron. > > > > displace: > > 1 a : to remove from the usual or proper place > > 2 a : to move physically out of position <a floating object displaces > > water> > > (m-w.com) > > |