There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: john on 18 Feb 2010 14:32 On Feb 18, 11:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Exactly. Back to before square one. But at least when we were at square one, we knew there *was* matter. DM is CONJECTURE. Maybe it's purple invisible elephants. Maybe it's ANYTHING. Scientists are using taxpayers' money to chase a chimera. DM, DE,.......AGW.......B. f**ckin S. !!! The observations already say that our present theory of gravity *doesn't* hold together. Deal with it. > > 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
From: PD on 18 Feb 2010 14:50 On Feb 18, 1:32 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Feb 18, 11:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Exactly. > Back to before square one. > But at least when we were at square one, > we knew there *was* matter. Oh dear, John. It seems you're more comfortable with things you know and understand and hate the idea of new things being entertained. > DM is CONJECTURE. Yes. A testable one. > Maybe it's purple invisible elephants. If you can make a prediction about independent confirmation with purple invisible elephants, then by all means chuck it out there. There's a bunch of testable predictions about independent confirmation of dark matter, John, and there are a number of experiments underway to test those predictions. Or are you of the position that we shouldn't test anything new, because old is more comfortable? Or are you of the position that we shouldn't test anything unless it's dead certain first? (And if so, then what's the purpose of the test?) > Maybe it's ANYTHING. > Scientists are using taxpayers' money to > chase a chimera. Well, they're certainly using taxpayers' money to test things for which we don't have certain answers, yes. And your appointed custodian of taxpayers' money thinks this is a worthwhile venture. Perhaps you should explain to your appointed custodian that you don't want anything tested unless it's dead certain first. > > DM, DE,.......AGW.......B. f**ckin S. !!! > > The observations already say that > our present theory of > gravity *doesn't* hold together. No, it doesn't, as I just explained. > Deal with it. > > > > > 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 > >
From: nuny on 18 Feb 2010 17:49 On Feb 18, 11:32 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: (stupid top, middle, and bottom posting mixture snipped) > But at least when we were at square one, > we knew there *was* matter. We were wrong. Matter diffracts like waves. Get over it. Mark L. Fergerson
From: john on 18 Feb 2010 23:01 On Feb 18, 4:49 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 11:32 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > (stupid top, middle, and bottom posting mixture snipped) > > > But at least when we were at square one, > > we knew there *was* matter. > > We were wrong. Matter diffracts like waves. Get over it. > > Mark L. Fergerson We are continuing to investigate matter. Matter waves indicate that there is no such thing as 'particles'. One of the things matter does is 'gravitate'. We are trying to explain that as another property of matter. Proposing a whole new matter as a way of explaining 'this' matter is a case of one step forward, ten steps back. *That's* what is stupid. If PD were so open-minded, he would give more credence to push gravity, which has been brought forward by more than one 'stupid person', aka reknowned scientists of earlier centuries. john
From: PD on 19 Feb 2010 09:58
On Feb 18, 10:01 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Feb 18, 4:49 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 18, 11:32 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > (stupid top, middle, and bottom posting mixture snipped) > > > > But at least when we were at square one, > > > we knew there *was* matter. > > > We were wrong. Matter diffracts like waves. Get over it. > > > Mark L. Fergerson > > We are continuing to investigate > matter. Matter waves indicate that there > is no such thing as 'particles'. Actually, it does no such thing, as matter clearly indicates properties of particles as well. It's only the foolish mind that says, "Well, it's got to be one or the other, and so if it's waves, then it can't be particles." > One of the things matter does is 'gravitate'. > We are trying to explain > that as another property of matter. > > Proposing a whole new matter as a way > of explaining 'this' matter is a case > of one step forward, ten steps back. I don't know why you think so. You've got this horrible anxiety about "new stuff" throwing us all back into the dark ages. Are you SO uncomfortable with new? > > *That's* what is stupid. > > If PD were so open-minded, he would > give more credence to push gravity, which has been > brought forward by more than one 'stupid person', > aka reknowned scientists of earlier centuries. Of course. Now, John, it would serve you well to ask the question what ever happened to those theories, especially since they were put forward by reputable scientists? In fact, it's worth asking why some theories put forward by reputable scientists are ever put to rest? Is there a good reason? And the answer to this is yes, of course there's a good reason. Theories, no matter who proposes them, are put to experimental tests, because they make certain predictions about what will be observed under certain circumstances. Then if the predictions turn out to be wrong, compared to measurement, this is how science knows that a theory is no good, no matter how reputable the scientists was that put it forward. Also notice that a theory can be completely logically consistent and mistake-free, and still be wrong, in that it just does not make the right predictions about what will be observed in nature. Once you have this little tidbit about the scientific method under your belt, perhaps you could do a little Google searching to find out what predictions "push gravity" theories made that turned out to be *irretrievably* wrong. Please keep in mind what I told you earlier, that the theory is still viable while you have some doubt about the inputs, even if there is disagreement between the outputs and the measurement. But once you've got the inputs locked down and the theory STILL doesn't work, then the theory is no good. With this in mind, you can look up the *considerable* work that was done to test "push gravity" models. PD |