There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: john on 17 Feb 2010 10:38 On Feb 17, 8:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Experimental data like where the outer stars of galaxies go around way too fast? Doesn't that make the present theory wrong? If your numbers indicate you're wrong, simply invoke a whole new class of matter!! Simple. Our theory of gravitation is being propped up by a totally new and unseen (because it's invisible *by definition*) class of matter- Dark Matter. So why couldn't there be something like Dark Aether? Or fairies? Or Zeus, or Thor, or King Tut? I mean, really, if you're going to introduce fantastical stuff like Dark Matter and Dark Energy into your science, you're not doing science anymore. You're doing AGW. john > > > 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 14:26 On Feb 17, 9:38 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Feb 17, 8:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Experimental data like where the outer > stars of galaxies go around way too fast? > Doesn't that make the present theory wrong? No. Some theories make statements about the *relationships* between numbers. That is, if you know the input really well, then the theory makes a firm prediction of the output, which can be therefore checked. But in some cases, if the predicted output doesn't match measurement, this can mean EITHER: a) the relationship proposed by the theory is wrong b) you don't know the input as well as you think I'll give you an example. You can use Newton's 2nd law (F=ma) to predict the parabolic trajectory of a golf-ball that is launched at a particular speed and angle, using gravity as the force that causes the acceleration back to earth. You can then predict where the ball will land. You will get the wrong answer. Now, should you conclude that F=ma is wrong? Not necessarily. In fact, you quickly discover that you've left out a few key contributors to F: drag from air friction, lift from air flow, *variations* in gravity, etc. When you include all the right inputs to F, you find that the outputs work much better, and that there is nothing wrong with F=ma at all. > > If your numbers indicate you're wrong, simply invoke > a whole new class of matter!! Simple. Indeed. Sometimes you learn some things from that. See the golf-ball example above, where we *learned* about the Magnus effect without chucking Newton's 2nd law. Of course, it's important to not just leave it as a fudge. One has to have independent verification of this new class of matter, other than just "finding" it as the missing part of the input. And that's precisely what experiments like CDMS are doing, looking for *independent* verification of dark matter other than its gravitational effect. > > Our theory of gravitation is being propped up > by a totally new and unseen (because it's invisible > *by definition*) class of matter- Dark Matter. > > So why couldn't there be something like > Dark Aether? Or fairies? Or Zeus, or Thor, or > King Tut? It could. But then you'd have to find a way to independently test for Thor or King Tut. That's what's being done. > > I mean, really, if you're going > to introduce fantastical stuff like > Dark Matter and Dark Energy into your > science, you're not doing science anymore. Sure you are. You're opening up the possibility of discovering things that are new and unlike anything seen before. But again, you have to independently check it. > > You're doing AGW. > > john > > > > > > 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: Timo Nieminen on 17 Feb 2010 17:33 On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Benj wrote: > 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 Reference please, for this supposed review. -- Timo
From: john on 18 Feb 2010 12:01 On Feb 17, 1:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 17, 9:38 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 17, 8:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Experimental data like where the outer > > stars of galaxies go around way too fast? > > Doesn't that make the present theory wrong? > > No. Some theories make statements about the *relationships* between > numbers. That is, if you know the input really well, then the theory > makes a firm prediction of the output, which can be therefore checked. > But in some cases, if the predicted output doesn't match measurement, > this can mean EITHER: > a) the relationship proposed by the theory is wrong > b) you don't know the input as well as you think > > I'll give you an example. You can use Newton's 2nd law (F=ma) to > predict the parabolic trajectory of a golf-ball that is launched at a > particular speed and angle, using gravity as the force that causes the > acceleration back to earth. You can then predict where the ball will > land. You will get the wrong answer. Now, should you conclude that > F=ma is wrong? Not necessarily. In fact, you quickly discover that > you've left out a few key contributors to F: drag from air friction, > lift from air flow, *variations* in gravity, etc. When you include all > the right inputs to F, you find that the outputs work much better, and > that there is nothing wrong with F=ma at all. > > > > > If your numbers indicate you're wrong, simply invoke > > a whole new class of matter!! Simple. > > Indeed. Sometimes you learn some things from that. You don't seem to twig to the scale of this. We are trying to figure out how the matter we know about gravitates. We are trying to pin down our own matter. By invoking a whole new class of matter, we are not only going back to square one, we are going back before that; at least with our own matter, we can see it. We can watch the apple fall- we can actually *let* it fall however and whenever we want. By invoking a whole new class of matter, we are wandering off into unknown territory, shooting in the dark, entering random figures into the password slot, trying random numbers for the combination. This is not a "tweak". The outer stars in galaxies go WAY faster than they should. Arms of galaxies rotate all of a piece from fairly close to their centers to right out to their edges. This is CONTRARY to what we expect. Our theory of gravity is WRONG. Which is not surprising, since it is inconceivable for radiation travelling one direction at huge speeds to act in exactly the opposite direction. Push gravity makes way more sense than DM, DE, etc etc etc. john
From: PD on 18 Feb 2010 12:17
On Feb 18, 11:01 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Feb 17, 1:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 17, 9:38 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > On Feb 17, 8:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Experimental data like where the outer > > > stars of galaxies go around way too fast? > > > Doesn't that make the present theory wrong? > > > No. Some theories make statements about the *relationships* between > > numbers. That is, if you know the input really well, then the theory > > makes a firm prediction of the output, which can be therefore checked. > > But in some cases, if the predicted output doesn't match measurement, > > this can mean EITHER: > > a) the relationship proposed by the theory is wrong > > b) you don't know the input as well as you think > > > I'll give you an example. You can use Newton's 2nd law (F=ma) to > > predict the parabolic trajectory of a golf-ball that is launched at a > > particular speed and angle, using gravity as the force that causes the > > acceleration back to earth. You can then predict where the ball will > > land. You will get the wrong answer. Now, should you conclude that > > F=ma is wrong? Not necessarily. In fact, you quickly discover that > > you've left out a few key contributors to F: drag from air friction, > > lift from air flow, *variations* in gravity, etc. When you include all > > the right inputs to F, you find that the outputs work much better, and > > that there is nothing wrong with F=ma at all. > > > > If your numbers indicate you're wrong, simply invoke > > > a whole new class of matter!! Simple. > > > Indeed. Sometimes you learn some things from that. > > You don't seem to twig to the scale of this. > > We are trying to figure out how the > matter we know about gravitates. > We are trying to pin down our own matter. > > By invoking a whole new class of matter, > we are not only going back to square > one, we are going back before that; at least > with our own matter, we can see it. We can watch the apple > fall- we can actually *let* it fall however and whenever we want. > > By invoking a whole new class of matter, we are > wandering off into unknown territory, shooting in the dark, > entering random figures into the password slot, > trying random numbers for the combination. Not so. It doesn't chuck us into the unknown without hope. It just means that we have to work to identify independently what this new kind of matter is. We already have a number of good ideas how to do that. Then once the new kind of matter is identified, we can catalog it. THEN we can see if including this catalog with the other matter, the theory of gravity holds together. Don't be in such a hurry, John. No need for rash conclusions. > > This is not a "tweak". The outer stars in galaxies > go WAY faster than they should. Arms of galaxies > rotate all of a piece from fairly close to their > centers to right out to their edges. This is > CONTRARY to what we expect. > > Our theory of gravity is WRONG. Which is not > surprising, since it is inconceivable > for radiation travelling one direction at huge speeds > to act in exactly the opposite > direction. Push gravity makes way more sense > than DM, DE, etc etc etc. > > john |