There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 16 Feb 2010 14:16 On Feb 16, 1:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 did. I told you that gamma rays are photons. Lots of people agree with me. You erroneously stated that they are protons. This is a simple error of fact. When there is a dispute over facts, then the best thing to do is to go to an external source to find the answer. If you insist on saying that a cow is a reptile, then I certainly don't owe you a paraphrased argument to correct that error of fact. I'd tell you to go look up that a cow is a mammal, not a reptile. And if I'm generous, I'd give you a link to something you can read that tells you that a cow is a mammal, not a reptile. If you want to continue just making stuff up, like gamma rays being protons and cows being reptiles, you go right ahead. > 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 That would make you the pig, right? So you want to be left alone? Why not write a blog, where you can write whatever you want and you'll be left alone. > > > > > 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: PD on 16 Feb 2010 14:18 On Feb 16, 1:03 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Feb 15, 8:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 15, 6:18 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > ... Then, what you write (long and inserted into the replies of > > > others) will largely go unread. My reading and writing abilities are > > > in the top fraction of a percentile, PD. But my time for reading your > > > dribble is limited. NE > > > That's fine, John. You aren't really interested in conversation > > anyway. You're just here to listen to yourself talk.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Dear PD: If that's so, then why do YOU keep reading what I say? NE > Because I enjoy comedy, John, and you're a clown, whether you intend to be or not. I really don't care if you don't want people laughing at you, John. If you want people to stop laughing, then you'll stop doing whatever it is you're doing that makes people laugh. If you don't want to stop, people will continue to laugh. PD
From: Sam Wormley on 16 Feb 2010 22:06 On 2/15/10 6:35 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > OK, Sam. Einstein's complete SR equation is: E = mc^2 / [1-v^2/ > c^2]^1/2. Agreed? For any unit mass (like most science is based > upon), the only variables in the SR equation are v and E. To OBEY the > Law of the Conservation of Energy, the energy being input into a > system must equal the energy OUT of the system. But if you input > velocity at a UNIFORM rate, as for all accelerating objects, the SR > equation has the energy OUT increasing to infinity at the FINITE > velocity of 'c'. NO equation nor law of physics relating to ENERGY > can get out more energy than is put IN! ILLUCID Equations of special relativity include: o Lorentz Transformations o additions of velocities o Length contraction o Time dilation o Relativistic mass increase o Relativistic kinetic energy o Relativistic Doppler o etc. No mass can be accelerated to have the velocity c. Whatever gave you that idea? in a closed system (including relativistic closed systems) Energy is conserved. A more appropriate equation is the energy-momentum relation E^2/c^2 = p^2 + m_o^2 c^2 E^2 = P^2 c^2 + m_o^2 c^4 Methinks you do not have a clear understanding of mass, velocity, momentum, acceleration and energy.
From: Benj on 17 Feb 2010 00:59 On Feb 10, 7:43 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/10/10 5:59 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > From my college days Ive observed the irrationality of much of > > physics. > > In other words, you didn't do so well in physics! In other words Worm must be an "education major" who never studied real physics, only "physics appreciation" where no math was ever needed. On the other hand as much as I hate to defend "noeinstein" and "Mitch Raemsch" and the rest of the clowns here, allow me to point out that the "push" theory of gravitation is an OLD theory well reviewed by Wheeler and Feynman in the past and THEY noted that long before they reviewed it, it was already an OLD idea! Of course just being an old idea doesn't make it wrong. The basic idea is that if one assumes the universe filled with some kind of (unspecified) radiation or waves capable of creating radiation pressure, the shadows of celestial orbs upon each other is what creates the "PUSH" that forces them toward each other. The advantage of this theory is that no "ropes" are needed to explain the mechanism of gravity in physical terms. Ordinary physical phenomena we are all familiar with (radiation, shadows, radiation pressure etc.) create a model that doesn't require bogus action at a distance, "gravitons" or other things we've never seen before.
From: PD on 17 Feb 2010 09:48
On Feb 16, 11:59 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > On Feb 10, 7:43 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 2/10/10 5:59 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > From my college days Ive observed the irrationality of much of > > > physics. > > > In other words, you didn't do so well in physics! > > In other words Worm must be an "education major" who never studied > real physics, only "physics appreciation" where no math was ever > needed. > > On the other hand as much as I hate to defend "noeinstein" and "Mitch > Raemsch" and the rest of the clowns here, allow me to point out that > the "push" theory of gravitation is an OLD theory well reviewed by > Wheeler and Feynman in the past and THEY noted that long before they > reviewed it, it was already an OLD idea! Of course just being an old > idea doesn't make it wrong. No, but the experimental data that were in conflict with the predictions of the model do make it wrong. > The basic idea is that if one assumes the > universe filled with some kind of (unspecified) radiation or waves > capable of creating radiation pressure, the shadows of celestial orbs > upon each other is what creates the "PUSH" that forces them toward > each other. The advantage of this theory is that no "ropes" are needed > to explain the mechanism of gravity in physical terms. Ordinary > physical phenomena we are all familiar with (radiation, shadows, > radiation pressure etc.) create a model that doesn't require bogus > action at a distance, "gravitons" or other things we've never seen > before. |