There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 21 Mar 2010 01:34 On Mar 20, 11:03 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 20, 1:12 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > The only sauce I've ever been on when writing is BBQ.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Good for you! Send me some. NE
From: NoEinstein on 21 Mar 2010 01:37 On Mar 20, 11:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 20, 1:04 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > You just keep telling yourself that. Recall the Music Man where the > flim-flam band-uniform salesman convinced kids they could learn to > play music by the Think System. > > > 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! > > Oh my. I suggest you keep an eye out in the news or on NOVA for > "Messiah complex". > > > > > > > NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - PD: I taught myself to play the Cornet, excellently, without needing a... "Music Man" (or woman). I can figure out science, too. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 21 Mar 2010 01:38 On Mar 20, 11:25 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 20, 10:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 9:21 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. > > > No, we know there is no change in the matter, too. So if there is no > > change in the matter, and no change in the light quanta, then the two > > don't interact, by definition of "interact". > > 'Frictionless supersolid a step closer'http://www.physorg.com/news185201084.html > > "Superfluidity and superconductivity cause particles to move without > friction. Koos Gubbels investigated under what conditions such > particles keep moving endlessly without losing energy, like a swimmer > who takes one mighty stroke and then keeps gliding forever along the > swimming pool." > > The 'swimmer' interacts with the 'water' and does not have a change in > momentum. The 'swimmer' interacts with the 'water' and does not have a > change in state. > > 'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum > medium and the inertial motion of particles'http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0701/0701155.pdf > > "Abstract: The similarity between the energy spectra of relativistic > particles and that of quasi-particles in super-conductivity BCS theory > makes us conjecture that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as > the ground state of the background field is a super fluid medium, and > the rest mass of a relativistic particle is like the energy gap of a > quasi-particle. This conjecture is strongly supported by the results > of our following investigation: a particle moving through the vacuum > medium at a speed less than the speed of light in vacuum, though > interacting with the vacuum medium, never feels friction force and > thus undergoes a frictionless and inertial motion." > > The particle interacts with the super fluid medium (i.e. aether) and > does not have a change in momentum. The particle interacts with the > aether and does not have a change in state. > > > > This does not mean gravity quanta is different then light quanta. Just > > > that the state of the quanta interacts with matter differently. > > > And how are "different states of quanta" distinguished from "different > > quanta"? > > Exactly.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear mpc755: MAKE YOUR OWN NEW POST. Don't "push" your science on my post! NE
From: mpc755 on 21 Mar 2010 01:50 On Mar 21, 1:38 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 20, 11:25 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 20, 10:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > No, we know there is no change in the matter, too. So if there is no > > > change in the matter, and no change in the light quanta, then the two > > > don't interact, by definition of "interact". > > > 'Frictionless supersolid a step closer'http://www.physorg.com/news185201084.html > > > "Superfluidity and superconductivity cause particles to move without > > friction. Koos Gubbels investigated under what conditions such > > particles keep moving endlessly without losing energy, like a swimmer > > who takes one mighty stroke and then keeps gliding forever along the > > swimming pool." > > > The 'swimmer' interacts with the 'water' and does not have a change in > > momentum. The 'swimmer' interacts with the 'water' and does not have a > > change in state. > > > 'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum > > medium and the inertial motion of particles'http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0701/0701155.pdf > > > "Abstract: The similarity between the energy spectra of relativistic > > particles and that of quasi-particles in super-conductivity BCS theory > > makes us conjecture that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as > > the ground state of the background field is a super fluid medium, and > > the rest mass of a relativistic particle is like the energy gap of a > > quasi-particle. This conjecture is strongly supported by the results > > of our following investigation: a particle moving through the vacuum > > medium at a speed less than the speed of light in vacuum, though > > interacting with the vacuum medium, never feels friction force and > > thus undergoes a frictionless and inertial motion." > > > The particle interacts with the super fluid medium (i.e. aether) and > > does not have a change in momentum. The particle interacts with the > > aether and does not have a change in state. > > > > > This does not mean gravity quanta is different then light quanta. Just > > > > that the state of the quanta interacts with matter differently. > > > > And how are "different states of quanta" distinguished from "different > > > quanta"? > > > Exactly. > > Dear mpc755: MAKE YOUR OWN NEW POST. Don't "push" your science on my > post! NE As you can tell by this thread, it is you who first responds to a post having nothing to do with you. A nuclei is moving through the aether. What happens in your theory to the aether which exists directly in front of the nuclei? When the nuclei moves into three dimensional space previously occupied by the aether, what happens to the aether? Does the aether vanish? Does the aether disappear? In AD, aether is a material and the aether is displaced by the nuclei.
From: PD on 21 Mar 2010 14:21
On Mar 21, 12:15 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 20, 10:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 20, 1:38 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > Dear John: PD, who is hooked on the status quo in physics, probably > > > is referring to the supposed 'dark matter' not yet foundand wrongly > > > assumed to be super-massive Black Holes (sic!!!). > > > Well, yes, but more ordinary things, too. > > > > Because Newton > > > never realized that very hot bodies have more gravity per unit of mass > > > than colder bodies, the estimated mass of a typical galaxy has been > > > over-estimated by about a factor of ten. And the force of gravity > > > holding galazies together has been underestimated by about a factor of > > > ten. Make the corrections for those two mistakes and one will find > > > that there is no... missing mass in the > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: There is no missing mass in the > Universe! Those neutrinos, Higgs, and etc. couldn't be part of the > missing "mass", because they don't give off photons (a requirement for > a mass to be a mass). I'm curious where you ever got the notion that in order for something to have mass, it has to give off photons. > And because the ether is discontinuous millions > or billions of times across the expanse of the Universe, there could > never be any gravity effects caused by any, as yet, unfound > particles. You mean, like your aether particles? > Without the flow of etherthat is continuous across the > Universethere can never be any gravity effects (including waves... > ha!) across the Universe. Note: The hugely expensive search for > gravity waves goes on the notion that space-time (sic) changes each > time a super nova kicks matter outward. We should rightly fear the > particles, but not the... waves. Unless a super nova is nearby, there > will be near zero effect on gravity. NoEinstein |