There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: BURT on 19 Mar 2010 18:12 On Mar 19, 3:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 19, 4:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 8:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 18, 8:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 3:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 18, 2:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 10:43 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 11:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 10:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > What I told you about the size of electrons vs atoms is a *measured* > > > > > > > > result. > > > > > > > > Yes, when you measure the electron it collapses and is detected as a > > > > > > > quantum of mather. > > > > > > > Fascinating. And what do you think is involved in the measurement? And > > > > > > how does the electron know whether it is interacting (for which it > > > > > > needs to be big) or being measured (for which it needs to be small)? > > > > > > And what physically happens when the electron collapses? > > > > > > > Feel free to make stuff up. > > > > > > > > > Let me also tell me that, despite your guess, why electrons don't > > > > > > > > penetrate is in fact well understood. You just don't know yet what the > > > > > > > > explanation is. (And so you try to invent something yourself.) Hint: > > > > > > > > it has nothing to do with how much room there is. > > > > > > > > I did not say it has anything to do with room. > > > > > > > > > And whatever the electron is doing that prevents it from penetrating > > > > > > > > atoms, will also have to be true for aether. > > > > > > > > The nuclei is a self contained entity. It displaces the aether which > > > > > > > the electron, which is likely a directed/pointed wave, exists in. > > > > > > > Fascinating. And what in your mind are the differences between protons > > > > > > and neutrons and electrons that they behave so differently? And how > > > > > > would you test this hypothesis outside the atom to be sure it's right? > > > > > > > Feel free to make stuff up. > > > > > > How do you know a gravity quanta and a light quanta are not the same? > > > > > Lots of reasons. > > > > Fundamental strength of interaction is orders of magnitude different, > > > > experimentally. > > > This is very important. > > > > > The two kinds of quanta interact with different classes of matter -- > > > > Quanta, as gravity quanta, interacts with all matter. > > > > > there is some matter that interacts via gravity quanta but not with > > > > light quanta, for example, and this is experimentally confirmed. > > > > Quanta, as light quanta interacts with all matter. It is a matter of > > > detection of the light quanta. > > > That is counter to experiment. Light does not interact with all > > matter, observationally. > > And what do you mean by it does not interact with? That it is not > detected? > > > > > > > You can claim all you want that things happen that are inconsistent > > with observation, and claim that the observation is wrong, but then > > you are being religious, not scientific. > > > > > The angular momentum of light quanta is 1xPlanck's constant, and that > > > > of the gravitational quanta is 2xPlanck's constant. > > > This is also important. > > > > > The detection methodology for light quanta and gravitational quanta is > > > > fundamentally different, observationally. > > > > Obviously. > > > And this marks a significant difference between light quanta and > > gravitational quanta. Thank you. > > Yes, because light quanta propagates at 'c'. > > > > > > We are discussing light and gravity. That doesn't mean the > > > quanta are different. For example, light quanta propagates at 'c' > > > while gravity quanta state is determined by its connections with the > > > matter and the state of the neighboring quanta. > > > > Quanta state as determined by its connections with the matter is its > > > state of displacement. The pressure associated with the quanta > > > displaced by a massive object is gravity.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - What about the virtual light wave? We should see this photon but we do not. Mitch Raemsch
From: NoEinstein on 19 Mar 2010 18:13 On Mar 19, 4:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 8:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 8:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 18, 3:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 2:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 18, 10:43 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 11:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 10:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > What I told you about the size of electrons vs atoms is a *measured* > > > > > > > result. > > > > > > > Yes, when you measure the electron it collapses and is detected as a > > > > > > quantum of mather. > > > > > > Fascinating. And what do you think is involved in the measurement? And > > > > > how does the electron know whether it is interacting (for which it > > > > > needs to be big) or being measured (for which it needs to be small)? > > > > > And what physically happens when the electron collapses? > > > > > > Feel free to make stuff up. > > > > > > > > Let me also tell me that, despite your guess, why electrons don't > > > > > > > penetrate is in fact well understood. You just don't know yet what the > > > > > > > explanation is. (And so you try to invent something yourself.) Hint: > > > > > > > it has nothing to do with how much room there is. > > > > > > > I did not say it has anything to do with room. > > > > > > > > And whatever the electron is doing that prevents it from penetrating > > > > > > > atoms, will also have to be true for aether. > > > > > > > The nuclei is a self contained entity. It displaces the aether which > > > > > > the electron, which is likely a directed/pointed wave, exists in. > > > > > > Fascinating. And what in your mind are the differences between protons > > > > > and neutrons and electrons that they behave so differently? And how > > > > > would you test this hypothesis outside the atom to be sure it's right? > > > > > > Feel free to make stuff up. > > > > > How do you know a gravity quanta and a light quanta are not the same? > > > > Lots of reasons. > > > Fundamental strength of interaction is orders of magnitude different, > > > experimentally. > > This is very important. > > > > The two kinds of quanta interact with different classes of matter -- > > > Quanta, as gravity quanta, interacts with all matter. > > > > there is some matter that interacts via gravity quanta but not with > > > light quanta, for example, and this is experimentally confirmed. > > > Quanta, as light quanta interacts with all matter. It is a matter of > > detection of the light quanta. > > That is counter to experiment. Light does not interact with all > matter, observationally. > You can claim all you want that things happen that are inconsistent > with observation, and claim that the observation is wrong, but then > you are being religious, not scientific. > > > > > > The angular momentum of light quanta is 1xPlanck's constant, and that > > > of the gravitational quanta is 2xPlanck's constant. > > This is also important. > > > > The detection methodology for light quanta and gravitational quanta is > > > fundamentally different, observationally. > > > Obviously. > > And this marks a significant difference between light quanta and > gravitational quanta. Thank you. > Light is high speed ether packets: gravity is slow speed 'rain'. NE > > > > > We are discussing light and gravity. That doesn't mean the > > quanta are different. For example, light quanta propagates at 'c' > > while gravity quanta state is determined by its connections with the > > matter and the state of the neighboring quanta. > > > Quanta state as determined by its connections with the matter is its > > state of displacement. The pressure associated with the quanta > > displaced by a massive object is gravity.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 19 Mar 2010 18:40 On Mar 19, 4:36 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> 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? > > ... Great! Now PD is attacking someone else besides NE. NoEinstein You obviously don't read much else other than threads you are participating in. I get the impression you don't read much of anything anyway.
From: PD on 19 Mar 2010 18:41 On Mar 19, 4:52 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: I am an architect who majored in > structural design. The wind resistance of buildings (in lieu of > conflicting test data) is the frontal cross-sectional area for each > wind pressure zone. Right, the wind resistance is. But not the wind pressure. The wind pressure is independent of the frontal cross-sectional area. > The higher the building, the higher the wind > speed and pressure that the law requires be used in the design. Get > off of your rump and go-fly-a-kite; you just might learn something! > NoEinstein
From: PD on 19 Mar 2010 18:42
On Mar 19, 4:54 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 18, 11:11 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > PD: Why don't you make a... '+new post' of your startling 'new' > observation? Ha, ha HA! NoEinstein What new observation? You know you were responding to a post by someone else, don't you? |