There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 24 Mar 2010 16:37 On Mar 23, 11:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 9:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by a massive object. > > I can back up my grade-schooler description with calculations and > agreement with quantitative data. > > Let me know when you can do the same with your grade-schooler > description.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You two were MADE for each other! NE
From: PD on 24 Mar 2010 16:38 On Mar 24, 3:29 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 22, 5:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Alright, fool. Show me where I said anyone or anything looks out > "windows" on GPS satellites? NE You didn't. MPC775 did. I was responding to HIS post, not yours. You do know how to read the quoting attributions on a newsgroup post, don't you? You don't? Then why are you here? > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: NoEinstein on 24 Mar 2010 16:40 On Mar 23, 2:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 1:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 11:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 23, 10:13 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 23, 11:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 23, 9:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by a massive object. > > > > > > I can back up my grade-schooler description with calculations and > > > > > agreement with quantitative data. > > > > > > Let me know when you can do the same with your grade-schooler > > > > > description. > > > > > Let me know when you can start a sentence with "Gravity is". > > > > Fine. Gravity is unflat space. > > > > There. If simple sentences that are understandable by third graders > > > are important to you, there's one with four words and seven > > > syllables. > > > If by 'space' you are referring to three dimensional space, a > > mathematical construct, then your definition is nonsense. > > It's not a definition. It's a statement of how gravity works. It is > not a definition of gravity, not a definition of space, not a > definition of anything. > > Space is not a mathematical construct as far as I know. It is > physically real, as far as physicists are concerned, and as far as > normal third graders are concerned. > Space is real because you can talk about the amount of space between > two material objects where there is no material object between them. I > can talk about the amount of space between the two walls of a vacuum > vessel, in between which there is nothing, except for space. Third > graders understand this. > > You on the other hand have it fixed in your head that the only things > that physically exist are made of material stuff, and so that if there > is space between two material objects, it must be filled with material > stuff. In other words, you INVENT something so that you can feel more > comfortable with your belief that there is only material stuff that > exists. This is comparable to believing that the only things that have > an identity are things with souls, so that if I identify a rock, the > rock must have a soul. It never occurs to you that the presumption > about identity demanding soul might just be flat wrong. It never > occurs to you that the presumption about physical existence demanding > material stuff might just be flat wrong. > > You do not understand what third graders seem to have no problem with. > Why is that? > > Secondly, in science, whether something is nonsense or not is > determined by calculations and agreement with quantitative data. There > is nothing -- NOTHING -- in the calculations and agreement with > quantitative data that suggests that my description is nonsense. So > you must be claiming it's nonsense for another reason entirely. But > then that reason has nothing to do with science. > > > > > > > More correct: > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by a massive object.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - As far as you know... is a very small distance indeed!!!!! NE
From: mpc755 on 24 Mar 2010 16:44 On Mar 24, 4:40 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by a massive object. > > As far as you know... is a very small distance indeed!!!!! NE Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. The Casimir Effect is caused by gravity. Each and every nuclei which is the matter which are the plates displace the aether. The displaced aether of each plate encompasses the other plate. The pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the plates forces the plates together. When you get to something as massive as the Sun, the aether is displaced to the outer reaches of the solar system.
From: BURT on 24 Mar 2010 16:50
On Mar 24, 7:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 24, 10:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 6:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 23, 6:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 23, 5:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 23, 6:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 5:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 6:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 4:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > You enter the class room and begin to discuss how the future > > > > > > > > > determines the past > > > > > > > > > Yup, and then I show the experimental evidence, so they can judge for > > > > > > > > themselves. Very few of them choose to disbelieve the evidence. > > > > > > > > Any experiment you provide as evidence can be explained as waves > > > > > > > propagating available paths and particles traveling a single path. > > > > > > > Explanations in physics involve calculations and comparison with > > > > > > quantitative measurements. > > > > > > Demonstrate that this explanation exists. > > > > > > > > This will also show your state of delusional denial. > > > > > > > > > > and how wave function probabilities are physical > > > > > > > > > Wave functions are physical. Probabilities are numerical results you > > > > > > > > get from calculating the behavior of wave functions. I can't help it > > > > > > > > if you have trouble with the words. > > > > > > > > > > and how space is 'unflat' but does not move > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > Then that will be the first time. > > > > > > > First time for who? > > > > > > It woudld be the first time you explained what occurs physically in > > > > > nature for space to be 'unflat'. > > > > > > > > > > and how you do not > > > > > > > > > understand what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity. > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > This will also be the first time you explained it. > > > > > > > First time I explained what? > > > > > > It woudld be the first time you explained what occurs physically in > > > > > nature for space to be 'unflat'. > > > > > > > > > > Do you > > > > > > > > > still insist on the existence of gravitons or have you moved past that > > > > > > > > > one and now insist on the existence of gravity quanta? > > > > > > > > > I've never insisted on the existence of gravitons, which is the term > > > > > > > > for gravity quanta. As I told you, they are considered likely, but we > > > > > > > > don't have experimental evidence for them yet. > > > > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > You're funny. You have this idea that what you say is correct until > > > > somebody can explain it otherwise in a way that you believe. > > > > > PD > > > > Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory, to date. > > > No, it isn't. It's absurd nonsense. You don't think so, but other > > people do. > > > In science, the way to establish correctness is to demonstrate its > > ability to make accurate quantitative predictions of observational > > measurements. This is the ONLY way in science to establish > > correctness. > > > I realize that you want there to be another metric, but there isn't. > > Period. Tough luck. Try again. > > Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory, to date.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - But I have a more complete theory. What can you do but say that mine is incorrect? Mitch Raemsch |