There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 19 Mar 2010 22:21 On Mar 19, 6:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 19, 5:04 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? > > No, I do not mean that. I mean that an interaction changes the state > of the matter, by imparting for example momentum or kinetic energy or > charge or changing its temperature or entropy. > > We know that there is matter that light does not interact with. > You do not know that the light does not interact with the matter. What you do know is there is no change in the light quanta. This does not mean gravity quanta is different then light quanta. Just that the state of the quanta interacts with matter differently.
From: BURT on 19 Mar 2010 22:43 On Mar 19, 7:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 19, 6:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 5:04 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? > > > No, I do not mean that. I mean that an interaction changes the state > > of the matter, by imparting for example momentum or kinetic energy or > > charge or changing its temperature or entropy. > > > We know that there is matter that light does not interact with. > > You do not know that the light does not interact with the matter. What > you do know is there is no change in the light quanta. > > This does not mean gravity quanta is different then light quanta. Just > that the state of the quanta interacts with matter differently.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Gravity waves cannot be absorbed. Light energy can go in and out of mass. Mitch Raemsch
From: NoEinstein on 20 Mar 2010 01:45 On Mar 19, 6:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear mpc755: NEVER have I said, nor implied, that ether is at rest! Ether flows and varies in pressure much like weather systems on Earth. There is near zero ether pressure between galaxies. For that reason, gravity doesn't operate over trans-universal distances. But in areas of relatively low lightsuch as bounding the Swiss Cheese voids observed between galaxies, there are meniscuses of magnetic lines of flux. Those same type lines wrap around the entire Universe like string wound around a ball. That is what holds in the ether and keeps the Universe from expanding outwards and... dying cold. The Big Bang never happened. The basic unit of creation is probably the galaxy. And those keep recycling the matter and energy. NoEinstein > > On Mar 19, 6:07 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Mar 18, 8:36 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:> yes, but if we can take the elaborations & more correct formulations > > > of "energy is the mass times the second power of the rate of light," > > > then where do "gravitons" come into it?... anyway, > > > no need to bring "photons" into it, what so ever. > > > Except that photon exchange which causes ether flow is the mechanism > > of gravity! NoEinstein > > If the aether is at rest with respect to the massive object, is there > still gravity? > > Not by your theory. > > By Aether Displacement, aether is displaced by mass. So the more > massive an object is per volume the more aether is displaced whether > the object is at rest with respect to the aether or not. > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > The two kinds of quanta interact with different classes of matter -- > > > > > there is some matter that interacts via gravity quanta but not with > > > > > light quanta, for example, and this is experimentally confirmed. > > > > > The angular momentum of light quanta is 1xPlanck's constant, and that > > > > > of the gravitational quanta is 2xPlanck's constant. > > > > > The detection methodology for light quanta and gravitational quanta is > > > > > fundamentally different, observationally. > > > > > Light quanta become unified with weak quanta at the 1 TeV scale, and > > > > > gravitational quanta do not, experimentally. > > > > thus: > > > every student of relativity knows that > > > the the last 3/4 is much more difficult > > > than the first 3/4; perhaps, > > > because all of matter is "going" at lightspeed, > > > internally, already. > > > > not only is there no vacuum, > > > there is therefore no need of an aether; > > > Pascal is dead -- long-live Pascal! > > > > > <ttp://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf> > > > > thus: > > > simply reject the picture of "quantum" as a "photon," and > > > go with Young's original essay -- or what ever he called it -- > > > about the noncorpuscularity of lightwaves. > > > second step, pretend that there is no aether; > > > what's left? > > > > thus: > > > I don't have audio at this terminal; > > > what is the jist of this "economists's" theory? > > > LaRouche is an ecomist, two, and that doesn't mean > > > that he is correct about "controlled demo/ > > > Cheeny scrounging in the basement." > > > > >http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18188 > > > > 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/- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 20 Mar 2010 01:52 On Mar 19, 6:12 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Hey Mitch: Light is NOT a wave! Light is spaced photons that will travel perfectly well either through the ether, or through the Swiss Cheese voids between galaxies. Because the smallest energy unit of the ether, IOTAs, are polar, and because the tangential velocity of each IOTA is 'c', then the ether NURTURES the passage of light and maintains the velocity over great distances at 'c'. However, over shorter distances light can be traveling much faster (or slower) than 'c', because V sub light = 'c' plus or minus v, the velocity of the source. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 20 Mar 2010 01:54
On Mar 19, 6:13 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> 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. > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - correction: ...Gravity is slow speed ETHER 'rain'. NE |