There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 24 Mar 2010 16:02 On Mar 24, 3:54 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 22, 3:54 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 22, 3:48 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Mar 22, 3:40 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 22, 3:20 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 22, 1:12 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Mar 21, 2:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Admit it, PD, you don't have the brain needed to explain anything. > > > > > > Your only 'talent' is in sidestepping the logical requests of others, > > > > > > and running-down those who do have a brain. Give your opposing > > > > > > 'theory' of what gravity is, or shut up. NoEinstein > > > > > > Hey, that sounds like an idea. > > > > > > Explain how you think gravity works, PD. > > > > > Make it short and simple so a public school > > > > > kid could understand it. > > > > > > Do it for both of us. > > > > > > john > > > > > For example, use an analogy of a bowling ball and a tub of water. > > > > Explain to the students the bowling ball represents the Earth and the > > > > water represents the aether. Place the bowling ball into the tub of > > > > water. Remove the bowling ball. Note to the students that a void does > > > > not exist in the water. Explain how the water applies pressure towards > > > > the bowling ball. > > > > > Explain if the bowling ball consisted of millions of individual > > > > particles separated by springs the water would apply pressure on and > > > > throughout the bowling ball. > > > > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth is > > > > gravity.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Why don't you apply for a job as a... 'substitute' science teacher. > > > You keep wishing to substitute your won't-hold-water science for my > > > True Science. NoEinstein > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object > > is gravity. > > > Atomic clocks tick based upon the aether pressure in which they exist. > > > Aether Displacement is a unified theory.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > ... a "unified theory" that won't hold water! NE Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory, to date.
From: NoEinstein on 24 Mar 2010 16:05 On Mar 22, 4:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 22, 2:20 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > On Mar 22, 1:12 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Mar 21, 2:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Admit it, PD, you don't have the brain needed to explain anything. > > > Your only 'talent' is in sidestepping the logical requests of others, > > > and running-down those who do have a brain. Give your opposing > > > 'theory' of what gravity is, or shut up. NoEinstein > > > Hey, that sounds like an idea. > > > Explain how you think gravity works, PD. > > Make it short and simple so a public school > > kid could understand it. > > Sure. Space is not flat. Straight lines that start out parallel are > not parallel for very long in our universe. They are only parallel on > very short scales, such as the very short scales for bridges and > buildings, but not at all on the scales between planets. If we > actually build a triangle out of straight beams on that time scale, we > will find that the angles of the triangle do not add up to 180 > degrees, although they get very, very close to that on the scale of > bridges and buildings. Euclidean geometry says it's exact, but > Euclidean geometry does not give the answers we see in the real > universe. If your public school teacher tells you that the angles of a > triangle add up to 180 degrees in our universe, the teacher has told > you a *lie*. > > This means that even things that are traveling in straight lines and > initially parallel to each other, with no external forces on them, > will soon diverge or converge. We can trace such straight lines with, > for example, light beams, which always travel in straight lines. And > we can see parallel light rays from distant galaxies bend toward each > other and cross, because it leaves a distinctive image just like a > lens would, even though there's no material lens between here and > there. > > What makes space not flat is matter and energy. Where there is a lot > of matter and energy, there the space is less flat. Further away from > mass and energy, the space is flatter, but it never gets completely > flat before it starts to get close to another clump of matter and > energy and starts to get more unflat again. > > We can calculate how unflat space is, if we know all the matter and > energy in the region. To do this we use the same G that Newton put in > his equations, but we use a different equation instead. And if we know > how unflat space is, then we can calculate how fast parallel lines > will converge in that space, and therefore we can tell how fast > parallel light rays will converge or diverge in that region of space. > And if we actually do that calculation, we find that it agrees > spectacularly well with how convergent or divergent the light rays > actually are. This tell us that our calculation is right, and that the > connection between mass and energy and the unflatness of space is > right. > > We can do this for all sorts of things other than light, too. It gets > the right answer for everything we've tried where we have a real clear > knowledge of the mass and energy in the area. > > Now, a public school kid can certainly understand the above. In order > to *believe* what he understands, the kid will have to look up some of > the experimental measurements, so that he will say, "Sonofagun, it > really works that way." There will be some idiots, though, who will > understand the above but say "Bullshit. I don't believe it, and you > can't make me look at the measurements, so to hell with you." There > will be other poor fools who can't even read and understand the above > paragraphs that are understandable by a public school student -- > there's not much one can do about those poor fools. > > > > > > > Do it for both of us. > > > john- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - So, PD, you believe Einstein's warped space-time garbage. Why didn't you just say that instead of writing the above? SR violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy. I have invalidated the M-M experiment, because such didn't have a CONTROL, or unchanging, light course. The space-time garbage resulted from the embicilic rubber ruler explanation of Lorentz to "explain" the nil results of M-M. The "logic" (sic) of space-time derived from those rubber rulers, which defy all known principles of engineering. If Einstein is all you have to counter my New Science that has gravity being downward flowing ether, then you are just another looser. NoEinstein
From: PD on 24 Mar 2010 16:06 On Mar 24, 2:51 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 22, 3:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: I gladly paraphrase portions of my New > Science every day, so readers can learn the facts without having to go > back too far in the thread. You, on the other hand, can't paraphrase > anything about science, because you don't have a brain; and your > 'physics' is just whatever the status quo garbage happens to be. Actually, John, you paraphrase because you have no choice. You have to paraphrase because you have no original, published source material to refer to except links on this newsgroup. This, however, is not true for the physics that I'm telling you about, and there are ample original, published, source materials to which I can point you. The latter is preferred. Just because YOU like stuff paraphrased for easy digestion does not mean that this is preferred by anyone else, and so I see no reason to chew your meat for you. > Again, I ask you, PD: What is the mechanism of gravity if NOT flowing > ether? John, are you incapable of reading responses to your posts? Here is the link to my response on this newsgroup. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dddaa8a5e9593908 > You fault my repetitivenesswhich is something you are > incapable of doingexcept sidestepping actually discussing science. > If you don't like my... repetitiveness, you should just go away! No, John, you don't get it. Repeating a post on a newsgroup is called Spam, and it is a violation of your internet terms of service. Your ISP may choose to terminate your service for your action, which is considered illegal. > > NoEinstein >
From: NoEinstein on 24 Mar 2010 16:11 On Mar 22, 4:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Each time you reply, you think you are getting... the last word, but I have science TRUTH on my side. All you have are attacks on the messenger and an occasional reference to grammar school, status quo science. That's about as close as you can get to my advanced understanding of the Universe. NoEinstein > > On Mar 22, 2:40 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Mar 21, 2:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: My disproving of SR and GR wasn't done > > for my ego. Albert Einstein, in order to compensate for his > > stupidity, chose the most obscure 'science' as his area of > > "specialization", because he knew that few people would be able to > > show him wrong. > > I don't know why you think physics is obscure. Physics is the easiest > of all the sciences, especially compared with molecular biology or > organic chemistry. If you have a feeling of insecurity or an > inferiority complex about physics, I assure you it is misplaced. > > Technical physics is a required course for all medical doctors, > architects, engineers, and scientists in any discipline. Any course > that is that broadly taught is not esoteric or obscure. > > > He looked studious (slow) and would bite-off-the-head > > of anyone who disagreed with him. When, after nearly a decade, he > > managed to write an empirical formula to describe the orbit of > > Mercury, he kept the 'source' of his equations secret, and called the > > equations GR. The light bending caused by the mass of Jupiter was > > responsible for the earlier appearance of the moons than their periods > > predicted. Einstein (or more likely, the astronomer) suspected that > > the bending of the light was mass and distance-from-the-visual-center- > > of-mass proportional. Using that probability, Einstein "predicted" > > the angle of bending of stars' light caused by the Sun. With a poker > > face, Einstein conveniently neglected to explain the actual (7th > > grade) manner of making the prediction, and claimed that his knowledge > > of relativity and space-time was the reason. Well, that was pure B. > > S.! > > Making stuff up, John, and presenting it as fact is unbecoming and you > should be ashamed of yourself. > > > > > I have accomplished more for science than any 10 PhDs could accomplish > > in their lifetimes. So, I don't need... ego, as a motive. But the > > wounded egos of the brainless, like you, obviously, need to run-down > > the accomplishments of others. At some point, its likely that > > psychiatry will have a mental illness classification thats called "PD > > Syndrome": Running down the accomplishments of others in order to > > compensate for the extreme inferiority of the sufferer. I pity you, > > PD. NoEinstein > > A hint here, John: The man who assesses his own accomplishment has > accomplished nothing. It is others who determine a man's > accomplishments. You may not like this rule of life, but it is so, and > you should have learned this as a teenager. > > > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 24 Mar 2010 16:13
On Mar 22, 4:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: If this was a moderated group, you would have been kicked out long ago for contributing nothing to science! NoEinstein > > On Mar 22, 2:43 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Mar 22, 3:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 22, 2:59 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object > > > is gravity. > > > > Aether Displacement is a unified theory.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > GET LOST, mpc755! Make your own '+new post' and stop pushing your NON > > SCIENCE, here! NE > > You don't have this right, John. This is a public newsgroup. When you > post here, you are automatically, implicitly giving authority to > anyone who is a member of the group to reply to you. If you do not > agree to those bylaws of the group, you need to remove yourself.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |