There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: spudnik on 19 Mar 2010 17:13 so, if it's dysplacing molecules of H2O, why does it need to dysplace an aether, two? > The matter which is the millions of individual particles still > displaces the water which would otherwise exist where the millions of > individual particles do. thus: now, give either a wave or a particle analysis of both phenomenon -- not both at the same time! > And this marks a significant difference between light quanta and > gravitational quanta. Thank you. thus: don't pull any of that "remote viewing" crappage on me, dood! > Does light as a wave appear all at once? > What size does it start at when created? thus: all three of you bring to mind two particles, associated with the "standard model" of transmitting either a) elecctromagnetism or b) the implied force of gravity. so, what if they are considered dually, to be waves; do they transverally oscillate through what medium? if you're going to rely on the standard model of saying that, somehow, these waves are their own media -- if there were stationary particles, called photons, they could transmit some thing, like H2Os -- well ... you've already got your package shrink-wrapped! thus: Young proved, a humdred years after Newton espoused his "theory" of corpuscles, that light is simply waves (in the air, if you will, viz permeability & permitivity); among his proofs was the "two pin-hole experiment" -- 2PHX? -- which gave a loveley moire' pattern on the photographic (silver oxide?) emulsion. (his source of light was another pinhole in the far wall, admitting sunlight, quite coherently !-) --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus! http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/ --Cheeny, Rice, Pendergast the ICC and Waxman's (sik) Third British invasion -- their brain, our bronze -- of Sudan!
From: NoEinstein on 19 Mar 2010 17:29 On Mar 17, 6:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 17, 5:11 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 11:30 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear mpc755: You said: "It is more correct to describe gravity as the > > 'downward' pressure > > associated with the aether displaced by a massive object." > > > Actually... it is more correct to say that gravity is downward flowing > > ether which exerts a continuous force on objects, whether at rest or > > falling, which is directly proportional to the mass of the object. > > Like you never seem to grasp, ether flows through masses to generate > > the downward forces, just like flowing water puts pressure on a boat. > > There is no displacement of ether by the mass! The boat displaces > > water, but flowing ether goes THROUGH the boat as if such was > > constructed of screen wire. Loose the "displacement" notion and loose > > the "mather" and you are on the right track. NoEinstein > > 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. > > What your 'aether flow' theory can not account for is a massive body > at rest with respect to the aether. In your 'understanding' of nature > if a massive body were at rest with respect to the aether there would > be no aether flow with respect to the aether body and as such there > would be no gravity.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - .... Tell that to the drowned crew of a submarine with a hole in the side. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 19 Mar 2010 17:34 On Mar 17, 9:46 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 17, 3:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 5:11 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Mar 17, 11:30 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear mpc755: You said: "It is more correct to describe gravity as the > > > 'downward' pressure > > > associated with the aether displaced by a massive object." > > > > Actually... it is more correct to say that gravity is downward flowing > > > ether which exerts a continuous force on objects, whether at rest or > > > falling, which is directly proportional to the mass of the object. > > > Like you never seem to grasp, ether flows through masses to generate > > > the downward forces, just like flowing water puts pressure on a boat. > > > There is no displacement of ether by the mass! The boat displaces > > > water, but flowing ether goes THROUGH the boat as if such was > > > constructed of screen wire. Loose the "displacement" notion and loose > > > the "mather" and you are on the right track. NoEinstein > > > 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. > > > What your 'aether flow' theory can not account for is a massive body > > at rest with respect to the aether. In your 'understanding' of nature > > if a massive body were at rest with respect to the aether there would > > be no aether flow with respect to the aether body and as such there > > would be no gravity.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > There is no aether pressure to be found. I challenge that. It flows > over as time. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - .... and you, Burt, 'flow over' as so much hot air. Albert Einstein was enough of an inventor of science nonsense to spoil a dozen generations. Try to get-on-board TRUE science, without trying to out- stupid the many dunces about. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 19 Mar 2010 17:36 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? .... Great! Now PD is attacking someone else besides NE. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 19 Mar 2010 17:44
On Mar 18, 10:36 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) Dear mpc755: All objects displace their weight in water. The 'air' inside boats creates a new virtual weight; and in the case of submarines, the virtual weight is variable (so the sub can submerge and then rise). The issue with your 'displacement notion' is that no ether can go inside the massive parts of the boat or sub, such as inside the steel hull. But that can't be the true as explained in my reply to you, above. NoEinstein |