There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 21 Mar 2010 14:25 On Mar 21, 12:28 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 20, 10:59 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 20, 1:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Mar 19, 6:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All matter must interact with light, > > > because matter doesn't exist which didn't at some point both give off > > > and receive photon energy. > > > And that's just nonsense. There are plenty of examples of matter which > > has been measured and documented and which has never radiated or > > absorbed a photon. You do need to catch up. > > > Dear PD, the Dunce: That was the state of science BEFORE my discovery > that the mechanism of gravity is ether flow induced by photon exchange > (not... graviton exchange). I'm sorry, John, but what I've told you about particles that do not radiate or absorb photons is an *experimental* fact. Now, you may have a separate, imaginary universe in your head that is the result of clear thinking, and in this imaginary universe of yours, it may well be that things behave differently than what experiment shows in the real world, but that's only of interest to you. > If, as I suspect, you think that high > speed particles contribute to the universal gravity, I said no such thing. > each of those > particles must be capable of giving off at least one photon. Any > particle that doesn't isn't matter, per se. NoEinstein I'm curious why you think matter MUST always give off photons. Especially when we've observed particles that don't.
From: PD on 21 Mar 2010 14:27 On Mar 21, 12:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 20, 11:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 19, 5:13 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > Light is high speed ether packets: gravity is slow speed 'rain'. NE > > > Well, except that gravity appears to propagate at c. > > > Where did you get THAT ridiculous notion? NE Experimental observations, John, where else? Do you think that science can come up with correct conclusions without reference to experiment?
From: PD on 21 Mar 2010 14:31 On Mar 21, 12:32 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 20, 11:02 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 20, 1:23 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > I determined > > > these things by clear thinking and deductive reasoning. Making up > > > stuff involves neither of those two. NE > > > On the contrary. Fiction writers use clear thinking and deductive > > reasoning when they compose fiction, just as you've done. > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: If you suppose that what I have reasoned > about gravity is wrong, why don't you explain what you suppose the > "right" (ha!) explanation is? NE I'd be happy to, John, but you've already declared that you don't read people's response to you. Why would I waste my time jumping through a hoop you really don't want anyone to jump through? If you want the "right explanation" about gravity but don't want people telling you about it here, would a decent book on the subject serve? PD
From: PD on 21 Mar 2010 14:31 On Mar 21, 12:37 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 You just keep telling yourself that. I'm sure it's better for your ego than reality has been.
From: NoEinstein on 22 Mar 2010 14:59
On Mar 21, 1:14 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 21, 12:41 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 8:46 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 20, 1:45 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > 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! > > > > And I am saying that is a problem with your theory. > > > > You can not account for gravity if the aether were at rest with > > > respect to a massive object. > > > > Aether Displacement does not requiring a flowing aether. > > > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object > > > is gravity. > > > Dear mpc755: And you, Sir, continue to push your own errant notions > > rather than accept my clearly-expressed explanation that's at the > > start of the present post. Rather than continuing to run-down my New > > Science, I recommend that you make a '+new post' that outlines your > > reasoning regarding the mechanism of gravity; your ether displacement > > notions; and your... "mather"none of which hold water. You might be > > enlightened to learn how quickly your post ceases to get any readers. > > NoEinstein > > Mentioning water is an appropriate analogy. > > An object at rest with respect to water displaces the water. When you > take the object out of the water is there a void in the water where > the object was? No, the water was applying a pressure towards the > object. If the object consisted of individual particles separated by > water then the pressure of the water displaced by the object would be > exerted throughout the object. > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object > is gravity. > > Motion (with respect to the aether) and gravity (pressure associated > with the aether displaced by a massive object) determine the aether > pressure on and throughout an object. > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" - > Albert Einstein > > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the > matter is the aether's state of displacement.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear mpc755: You, Sir, are like a broken record with the needle stuck in the groove. Saying the same thing over and over won't convince anyonecertainly not methat your INVENTED science is true. Please take your remarks elsewhere. NoEinstein |