There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 20 Mar 2010 02:04 On Mar 19, 6:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear PD: You are exactly right! Someone with my analytical ability can figure things out without having to research anything. That doesn't mean that I'm not still exposed to what is going on in science, because I simply read the news and watch usually dumb shows like NOVA talking about Einstein and the Big Bang, etc. When I was a kid, I read a lot and disagreed a lot. When I found in college that mechanics, in particular, was without reason, I vowed to correct the many errors once my time would allow. The great mysteries to me were: What is light? And what is gravity? I, better than anyone else on Earth, know the answer to both of those questions! NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 20 Mar 2010 02:05 On Mar 19, 6:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I never said otherwise, PD. NE
From: NoEinstein on 20 Mar 2010 02:11 On Mar 19, 6:42 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - PD: Somewhere you (I thought) said that a screen door will affect the wind that comes through. The 'right point' symbols under your reply may have been something that mpc755 said. You and he are off-base about the same. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 20 Mar 2010 02:12 On Mar 19, 6:42 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 19, 4:57 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> 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. > > > > > 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)- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > One of PD's better replies. I wonder if he copied it from someplace? > > Probably. NoEinstein > > Nope.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Then, you must have been off the sauce when you wrote that. NE
From: NoEinstein on 20 Mar 2010 02:23
On Mar 19, 6:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 19, 5:01 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> 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. > > > > > > > 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)- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > True scientists can make statements, not just... ask questions. NE > > I do that too. But true scientists also ask questions, not just ... > make stuff up.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Einstein made up 'space-time' and the cosmological constant. I have correctly determined, via clear reasoning alone, that the mechanism of gravity is photon exchange that results in ether flow. I have also reasoned that there was no Big Bang. So, there is no need for a cosmological constant to explain anything. The reason the universe 'seems' to be expanding is because trains of photons (light rays) get wedged apart by other passing light waves, so, over a very long time, the wave length (a misnomer... that word 'wave') gets longer and the light gets redder. I determined these things by clear thinking and deductive reasoning. Making up stuff involves neither of those two. NE |