There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 24 Mar 2010 16:32 On Mar 22, 5:28 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 22, 5:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 3:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Because the state of the aether is determined by its connections with > > > the matter. > > > > > 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. > > > > Because the aether is displaced by the matter. > > > > > 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*. > > > > The teacher needs to qualify the statement by stating to the students > > > that it must be assumed the triangle is at rest with respect to the > > > aether. > > > > > 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. > > > > Because light waves propagate with respect to the aether. > > > > > What makes space not flat is matter and energy. > > > > Matter and aether. > > > > > Where there is a lot > > > > of matter > > > > The state of the aether is determined by its connections with the > > > matter. Where there is a lot of matter the state of the aether is less > > > at rest then when there is less 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. > > > > before it starts to get close to another clump of matter and [aether] > > > 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. > > > > matter and aether. > > > > > 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. > > > > The students will especially understand the above when it is mentioned > > > to the the aether is displaced by the matter. > > > All this from the guy who was thinking that Observers look out the > > windows of GPS satellites at the distant stars. > > The atomic clock could have been in the space station. What the atomic > clock exists in is not important. Just that it ticks at a different > rate than a similar clock on the Earth. > > What is important in the analogy is the Observer orbiting the Earth > where the atomic clock exists will determine one year has passed based > upon measurements of the distant stars. > > The measurements of the distant stars, used to determine the Earth has > made a complete orbit of the Sun, is more accurate in determining one > year has passed then the atomic clock on the space station which ticks > off 360 days. > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The > C-60 molecule describes a very small region of the wave. This very > small region enters and exits a single slit in a double slit > experiment. > > The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is based upon the aether > pressure in which it exists. > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object > is gravity.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - MAKE YOUR OWN '+new post' GUY! You are only going in circles!!!!! NE
From: PD on 24 Mar 2010 16:33 On Mar 24, 3:13 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 But it's not, is it? Have you tried publishing any of your ideas on sci.physics.research? That IS a moderated group. This should give you an idea whether your own ideas would be considered a contribution to science. If you're interested in moderation, I would suggest creating a free blog at blogger.com, which you can moderate to your heart's content. Otherwise, you're just going to frustrate yourself wishing for control on a group over which you have no control. > > > > > 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 - > >
From: NoEinstein on 24 Mar 2010 16:34 On Mar 22, 9:02 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 22, 1:10 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. > > All of that and you did not answer his question. Hell, you can't even > say what G is... Waving one's hand one paths says NOTHING! about how > that occurs... > > Paul Stowe- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Thanks, Paul! Your instincts are RIGHT ON! NoEinstein
From: PD on 24 Mar 2010 16:35 On Mar 24, 3:15 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 22, 4:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear mpc755: Why don't you or PD make a '+new post'? Then, you could > argue back-and-forth without bothering anyone. NE > John, when you post here, you are implicitly agreeing to the terms of use of this newsgroup and the group charter. If you do not wish to comply with the terms of use, then you should not use the group. If you continue to use the group while abusing the terms of use, you will be reported to your internet service provider and to Google groups, and your service may be terminated.
From: NoEinstein on 24 Mar 2010 16:36
On Mar 23, 9:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 22, 8:02 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 1:10 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. > > > All of that and you did not answer his question. > > Of course I did. What were you expecting in terms of an explanation? > What fundamental element do you think MUST be present in a physical > explanation that was missing from what I gave? > > > Hell, you can't even > > say what G is... > > G is a numerical conversion factor, empirically determined, whose > value is determined by the choice of units being used. It basically is > a coupling strength, which means given the value of the amount of a > source (mass and energy), what is the amount of the influence (force > in Newton's version of the explanation, curvature in the more modern > version)? > > > Waving one's hand one paths says NOTHING! about how > > that occurs... > > That depends on what you think MUST always be involved in "how that > happens". What do you think has to be there for you to recognize it as > a "how that occurs"? > > > > > > > Paul Stowe- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - PD: The question was: WHAT IS THE MECHANISM OF GRAVITY? Numerical values have NOTHING to do with the MECHANISM!!!!! NE |