There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 25 Mar 2010 10:45 On Mar 25, 9:38 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 10:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 25, 8:48 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 25, 9:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 25, 8:18 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 25, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 8:01 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Seto is correct. > > > > > > > No, he's not. Physics has involved more than the material for a few > > > > > > centuries now. Do catch up. > > > > > > Fields are used when what is physically occurring in physical space is > > > > > not understood. 'Virtual' particles are invented when what is > > > > > physically occurring in physical space is not understood. C-60 > > > > > molecules are able to create interference patterns in and of > > > > > themselves when what is physically occurring in physical space is not > > > > > understood. Not being able to describe how physical space becomes > > > > > 'unflat' and not move is what occurs when what is physically occurring > > > > > in physical space is not understood. > > > > > > If Seto was not correct, you could physically describe the following: > > > > > That's not right. Correctness in physics is NOT determined by being to > > > > physically describe things in a way that you find believable. It is > > > > simply is not required. All attempts by you to demand such will be > > > > ignored. > > > > > Correctness in physics is determined SOLELY be a model's ability to > > > > quantitatively predict numerical measurements made in experiment. > > > > > You believe that physics owes you a physical description of what is > > > > going on in a way that you believe. You are wrong. Physics owes you > > > > nothing of the kind. > > > > > You may not like this, but it is what it is. > > > > Your inability to answer the following questions is evidence the > > > future does not determine the past and 'virtual' particle, obviously, > > > do not exist out of nothing. It is not a matter of what is, or is not, > > > believable, it is a matter of what is physically possible in nature. > > > No sir. What is physically possible is NOT determined by deciding > > ahead of time what is absurd nonsense and what is not. Making that > > call ahead of time, based on your intuition (or worse, your flat > > declaration) is a horrible idea. What is physically possible is > > determined by whether the model that says it is possible demonstrates > > accurate quantitative predictions of experimental measurement. If a > > model is successful that way, and it says that something is physically > > possible in nature (whether you think so or not), then it IS > > physically possible in nature. This comparison with experiment is THE > > WAY we determine what is physically possible and what is not. There is > > no other way to make that determination. > > > You say that it is not physically possible in nature for the future to > > determine the past. You make this flat declaration as though it MUST > > be true. > > > But science does not do it that way. It asks the question, is it > > possible for the future to determine the past? So it builds different > > models. One model will say it's impossible. Another model will say it > > is possible. Then the predictions of both those models is compared to > > experimental measurements, quantitatively. If the model that says it's > > possible is the one that agrees, then it IS possible in nature for the > > future to determine the past. This is how science figures out what is > > possible in nature and what is not. > > > You want to decide what is possible and what is not possible ahead of > > time. That is a stupid way of studying nature, and it is not > > scientific. > > > > Provide physical explanations for the following. If you can not then > > > what you choose to believe is not the physics of nature. > > > BS. You don't get to decide that unless you get a satisfying > > explanation, then it must not be true of nature. You are not the judge > > and arbiter of what is possible in nature. If you don't accept it or > > understand it, that's your problem, not nature's problem, not > > science's problem. > > > Get over yourself. > > > > If you choose > > > to believe in the following without being able to provide physical > > > explanations for them then that is your choice, but it is not physics.. > > By not being able to provide physical explanations for the following > you are stating, "Because I said so". No. It's because experiments say so. Experiments are how we consult nature. Thereby, it is nature that says so, whether you understand or accept the physical explanations or not. You demand a physical explanation that you will accept before you are willing to believe what physicists say. Sorry, you won't get that. What you will get is a comparison of models against experimental data. The model that matches experimental data is the one that is right, because nature has selected the model that is right, via experiment. Then what that model says is right, whether you buy the physical explanation or not. I do understand what you want from science. You just aren't going to get it. You may not be happy with that, but that's too bad. Somewhere along the line, you must have gotten the impression that the goal of science was to provide physical explanations that you are inclined to believe. It is not the goal of science to do so. Any demands on your part to get it anyway are going to be ignored. > There are quantitative > predictions being made. However, those quantitative predictions are > not backed by physical explanations. > > If you are not stating, "Because I said so", then provide physical > explanations for the following: >
From: mpc755 on 25 Mar 2010 10:46 On Mar 25, 10:38 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 10:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 25, 8:48 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 25, 9:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 25, 8:18 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 25, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 8:01 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Seto is correct. > > > > > > > No, he's not. Physics has involved more than the material for a few > > > > > > centuries now. Do catch up. > > > > > > Fields are used when what is physically occurring in physical space is > > > > > not understood. 'Virtual' particles are invented when what is > > > > > physically occurring in physical space is not understood. C-60 > > > > > molecules are able to create interference patterns in and of > > > > > themselves when what is physically occurring in physical space is not > > > > > understood. Not being able to describe how physical space becomes > > > > > 'unflat' and not move is what occurs when what is physically occurring > > > > > in physical space is not understood. > > > > > > If Seto was not correct, you could physically describe the following: > > > > > That's not right. Correctness in physics is NOT determined by being to > > > > physically describe things in a way that you find believable. It is > > > > simply is not required. All attempts by you to demand such will be > > > > ignored. > > > > > Correctness in physics is determined SOLELY be a model's ability to > > > > quantitatively predict numerical measurements made in experiment. > > > > > You believe that physics owes you a physical description of what is > > > > going on in a way that you believe. You are wrong. Physics owes you > > > > nothing of the kind. > > > > > You may not like this, but it is what it is. > > > > Your inability to answer the following questions is evidence the > > > future does not determine the past and 'virtual' particle, obviously, > > > do not exist out of nothing. It is not a matter of what is, or is not, > > > believable, it is a matter of what is physically possible in nature. > > > No sir. What is physically possible is NOT determined by deciding > > ahead of time what is absurd nonsense and what is not. Making that > > call ahead of time, based on your intuition (or worse, your flat > > declaration) is a horrible idea. What is physically possible is > > determined by whether the model that says it is possible demonstrates > > accurate quantitative predictions of experimental measurement. If a > > model is successful that way, and it says that something is physically > > possible in nature (whether you think so or not), then it IS > > physically possible in nature. This comparison with experiment is THE > > WAY we determine what is physically possible and what is not. There is > > no other way to make that determination. > > > You say that it is not physically possible in nature for the future to > > determine the past. You make this flat declaration as though it MUST > > be true. > > > But science does not do it that way. It asks the question, is it > > possible for the future to determine the past? So it builds different > > models. One model will say it's impossible. Another model will say it > > is possible. Then the predictions of both those models is compared to > > experimental measurements, quantitatively. If the model that says it's > > possible is the one that agrees, then it IS possible in nature for the > > future to determine the past. This is how science figures out what is > > possible in nature and what is not. > > > You want to decide what is possible and what is not possible ahead of > > time. That is a stupid way of studying nature, and it is not > > scientific. > > > > Provide physical explanations for the following. If you can not then > > > what you choose to believe is not the physics of nature. > > > BS. You don't get to decide that unless you get a satisfying > > explanation, then it must not be true of nature. You are not the judge > > and arbiter of what is possible in nature. If you don't accept it or > > understand it, that's your problem, not nature's problem, not > > science's problem. > > > Get over yourself. > > > > If you choose > > > to believe in the following without being able to provide physical > > > explanations for them then that is your choice, but it is not physics.. > > By not being able to provide physical explanations for the following > you are stating, "Because I said so". There are quantitative > predictions being made. However, those quantitative predictions are > not backed by physical explanations. > > If you are not stating, "Because I said so", then provide physical > explanations for the following: > > - The future determining the past > - Virtual particles which exist out of nothing > - Conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair > - A C-60 molecule can enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits > simultaneously without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having > a change in momentum. > - Matter causes physical space to be 'unflat' but not move > > The above are physically answered: > > - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate > aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits > - Pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter forces the plates > together > - Conservation of momentum does apply to a downgraded photon pair. > When a photon is detected its wave collapses which determines its > spin. In order for the original photons momentum to be conserved, > the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. > - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate > aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits > - Physical space is displaced by matter. Aether is displaced by > matter. The other poster said it best when quoting Newton, "Hypotheses non fingo": "I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo) Newton was able to make correct predictions. Newton realized this was different the understanding the cause of gravity.
From: mpc755 on 25 Mar 2010 10:51 On Mar 25, 10:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > By not being able to provide physical explanations for the following > > you are stating, "Because I said so". > > No. It's because experiments say so. Experiments are how we consult > nature. Thereby, it is nature that says so, whether you understand or > accept the physical explanations or not. > > You demand a physical explanation that you will accept before you are > willing to believe what physicists say. Sorry, you won't get that. > What you will get is a comparison of models against experimental data. > The model that matches experimental data is the one that is right, > because nature has selected the model that is right, via experiment. > Then what that model says is right, whether you buy the physical > explanation or not. > > I do understand what you want from science. You just aren't going to > get it. You may not be happy with that, but that's too bad. > > Somewhere along the line, you must have gotten the impression that the > goal of science was to provide physical explanations that you are > inclined to believe. It is not the goal of science to do so. Any > demands on your part to get it anyway are going to be ignored. > The poster said it best when quoting Newton, "Hypotheses non fingo": "I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo) Newton was able to make correct predictions. Newton realized this was different the understanding the cause of gravity. You feign hypothesis. If you didn't you would provide physical explanations for the following: - The future determining the past - Virtual particles which exist out of nothing - Conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair - A C-60 molecule can enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum. - Matter causes physical space to be 'unflat' but not move The above are physically answered: - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - Pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter forces the plates together - Conservation of momentum does apply to a downgraded photon pair. When a photon is detected its wave collapses which determines its spin. In order for the original photons momentum to be conserved, the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - Physical space is displaced by matter. Aether is displaced by matter.
From: mpc755 on 25 Mar 2010 10:57 On Mar 25, 10:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > By not being able to provide physical explanations for the following > > you are stating, "Because I said so". > > No. It's because experiments say so. Experiments are how we consult > nature. Thereby, it is nature that says so, whether you understand or > accept the physical explanations or not. > > You demand a physical explanation that you will accept before you are > willing to believe what physicists say. Sorry, you won't get that. > What you will get is a comparison of models against experimental data. > The model that matches experimental data is the one that is right, > because nature has selected the model that is right, via experiment. > Then what that model says is right, whether you buy the physical > explanation or not. > > I do understand what you want from science. You just aren't going to > get it. You may not be happy with that, but that's too bad. > > Somewhere along the line, you must have gotten the impression that the > goal of science was to provide physical explanations that you are > inclined to believe. It is not the goal of science to do so. Any > demands on your part to get it anyway are going to be ignored. > The poster said it best when quoting Newton, "Hypotheses non fingo": "I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo) Newton was able to make correct predictions. Newton realized this was different than understanding the cause of gravity. You feign hypothesis. If you didn't you would provide physical explanations for the following: - The future determining the past - Virtual particles which exist out of nothing - Conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair - A C-60 molecule can enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum. - Matter causes physical space to be 'unflat' but not move The above are physically answered: - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - Pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter forces the plates together - Conservation of momentum does apply to a downgraded photon pair. When a photon is detected its wave collapses which determines its spin. In order for the original photons momentum to be conserved, the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - Physical space is displaced by matter. Aether is displaced by matter.
From: PD on 25 Mar 2010 11:12
On Mar 25, 9:57 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 10:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > By not being able to provide physical explanations for the following > > > you are stating, "Because I said so". > > > No. It's because experiments say so. Experiments are how we consult > > nature. Thereby, it is nature that says so, whether you understand or > > accept the physical explanations or not. > > > You demand a physical explanation that you will accept before you are > > willing to believe what physicists say. Sorry, you won't get that. > > What you will get is a comparison of models against experimental data. > > The model that matches experimental data is the one that is right, > > because nature has selected the model that is right, via experiment. > > Then what that model says is right, whether you buy the physical > > explanation or not. > > > I do understand what you want from science. You just aren't going to > > get it. You may not be happy with that, but that's too bad. > > > Somewhere along the line, you must have gotten the impression that the > > goal of science was to provide physical explanations that you are > > inclined to believe. It is not the goal of science to do so. Any > > demands on your part to get it anyway are going to be ignored. > > The poster said it best when quoting Newton, "Hypotheses non fingo": > > "I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these > properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. > For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a > hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based > on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental > philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred > from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by > induction." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo) > > Newton was able to make correct predictions. Newton realized this was > different than understanding the cause of gravity. Exactly. As I told you, if you demand physical explanations for things, especially ones that you find believable, you are barking up the wrong tree. There are ALWAYS unanswered questions about "what is physically going on" in a theory. What science does is determine models that agree quantitatively with measurements. This is what science does. It does NOT provide complete and final answers to "what is physically going on". Now, you have some statements that you believe represent answers to "what is physically going on". But you do not have a model that can be quantitatively compared to experiments. So what you have is satisfying to YOU, but it is not scientific. What you want, and what science does, are apparently two completely different things. Someone, somewhere, told you that science provides ultimate physical explanations for what's going on. That was a lie. That is not what science does. > > You feign hypothesis. If you didn't you would provide physical > explanations for the following: > |