There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 19 Feb 2010 13:47 On Feb 19, 12:41 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Feb 19, 12:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 19, 10:22 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > On Feb 19, 10:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 19, 9:54 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 19, 8:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > Only STUPID new. > > > > > Stupid in science is determined by whether it makes successful > > > > predictions. Period. > > > > You have some other metric for "stupid", such as perhaps "lacking > > > > colors or shape," which is based on your presuppositions about what > > > > kinds of properties are indispensable. But presuppositions have never > > > > been a good measure for "stupid" in science. > > > > > > > > *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 > > > > > > Time to do some more tests. > > > > > > Invest the same money on this as is > > > > > invested on finding the 'God particle'- > > > > > the Higgs. > > > > > > What is the shape of a quark? > > > > > Does it have a pointy end? > > > > > > What is the shape of a Higgs? > > > > > Does *it* have a pointy end? > > > > > > What 'material' are they made from? > > > > > What 'material' is a gluon made from? > > > > > Why do you give credence to these ideas? > > > > > You've asked questions, not presented a model with testable > > > > predictions of *measurable* properties. When you have a model that > > > > makes such predictions, and which is consistent with data we already > > > > have, and which are distinct from the predictions made by the > > > > prevailing theory, then your model would indeed be something to invest > > > > experiments to test. > > > > > > Now that HEPs (hiugh energy particles) > > > > > travelling at near c > > > > > have been observed being spewed out the > > > > > jets of all black holes that have jets in > > > > > HUGE amounts, do you still think > > > > > Stephen Hawking's ideas are so smart? > > > > > I wish that made grammatical sense. Could you please rephrase that > > > > question? > > > > Now that HEPs (high energy particles) > > > travelling at near c > > > have been observed being spewed out the > > > jets of all black holes (that have jets) in > > > HUGE amounts, do you still think > > > Stephen Hawking's ideas are so smart? > > > > Better? Do you only answer questions that > > > have good grammar? It's pretty clear, PD- jets, matter coming out, > > > Hawking said only x-rays could come out- come on, where > > > do you stand? > > > Where did you get the idea that Hawking said only X-rays could come > > out? He said no such thing. > > The jets have nothing to do with Hawking radiation. > > Here, let me help you. In the vicinity of a black hole there are at > > least THREE sources of emission: > > 1. X-rays emitted from the acceleration of in-falling matter in the > > accretion disk > > 2. Jets of particles pulled from the accretion disk of in-falling > > matter and collimated along the axis of the rotation of the > > gravitating body by the enormous magnetic field of that rotating, > > charged body. > > 3. Hawking radiation caused by vacuum polarization near the event > > horizon. > > > Perhaps you were confusing these to all be the same thing. > > > > > > As more and more observations refute our > > > > > ideas about black holes being caused by > > > > > suck gravity, why won't you realize how stupid > > > > > a theory is when it leads to so many > > > > > singularity/paradox/conundrum/impossibilities? > > > > > What paradoxes? What impossibilities? > > > > Nothing is impossible, by the way, until you prove that the places > > > > where those are predicted to happen don't in fact happen. How would > > > > you possibly decide what is possible and impossible before looking for > > > > it? > > > > You could try thinking. > > > Sorry, but intuition is a crappy barometer for what's possible and > > what's impossible. Remember when bunches of people thought heavier- > > than-air vehicles couldn't fly? > > > > > > Suck gravity makes no sense, PD. > > > > > What do you mean, no sense? It's certainly not nonsensical or self- > > > > contradictory. What problems or impossibilities? > > > > You are irretrievably blinkered. Hypnotized, maybe? > > > Or probably just so invested in > > > the status quo that to go outside > > > your little box would invalidate your whole education. > > > You didn't answer the question. What problems? What contradictions? > > Perhaps you don't KNOW of any impossibilities or contradictions, but > > you've maybe heard that some people say there are, and you're so > > irretrievably blinkered you just take it as gospel truth without > > investigating it yourself. > > > > > > It leads to NONSENSE- which you are defending, > > > > > for some reason. > > > > > > john > > yikes Indeed. I understand that what comes out of your mouth is fueled more by your emotions than by your wits, but perhaps if you paused a bit before opening your mouth, your slower wits would have a chance to catch up with your reflex-fast emotions.
From: NoEinstein on 19 Feb 2010 19:25 On Feb 16, 2:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Gamma rays are the most energetic 'things' of the entire spectrum. As such, gamma rays straddle-the- fence between photons and particles. Only neutrons (with a paired electron) are more penetrating of mattersuch as concrete. Atomic decay via the emission of gamma rays eventually lowers the atomic number, because gamma rays are protons. Dense matter, like U-235, has a lot of protons. So, it takes a very long time to decay to, say, thorium. All matter is composed of tangles of IOTAs. Photons are smaller tangles of IOTAs that are polar. The only difference between a photon and a proton, is: The proton, as a free particle, must be capable of giving off at least one photon. It is "photon exchange" which allows gravitational attraction. In a soup of particles, protons can clump into heavier and heavier matter, aided by the tremendous temperatures and pressures inside star cores. Learn to think, PD. Status quo physics is dead! NoEinstein > > On Feb 16, 1:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Feb 15, 8:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Somehow, you manage to write more > > dribble on these groups than probably anyone. Does Google give you > > extra time? But in spite of all of your writing, you never PARAPHRASE > > what you think, or what others say whom you agree with. > > I did. I told you that gamma rays are photons. Lots of people agree > with me. > You erroneously stated that they are protons. This is a simple error > of fact. > When there is a dispute over facts, then the best thing to do is to go > to an external source to find the answer. > If you insist on saying that a cow is a reptile, then I certainly > don't owe you a paraphrased argument to correct that error of fact. > I'd tell you to go look up that a cow is a mammal, not a reptile. And > if I'm generous, I'd give you a link to something you can read that > tells you that a cow is a mammal, not a reptile. > > If you want to continue just making stuff up, like gamma rays being > protons and cows being reptiles, you go right ahead. > > > I will NOT... > > I repeat: I will NOT go on any wild-goose-chases from you to the words > > of others. I summarize my New Science almost every day. But your > > only defense is to claim that I'm lazy. I use time management. > > > A joke comes to mind: Neighbors observed that a farmer was carrying a > > pig in his arms and letting the pig eat apples from the orchard. > > Finally, one neighbor got brave enough to ask the farmer: "Isn't what > > you're doing a terrible waste of time?" To which the farmer replied: > > "What's TIME to a PIG?" PD is like that farmer, not knowing how much > > of his own time he is wasting. NoEinstein > > That would make you the pig, right? > So you want to be left alone? > Why not write a blog, where you can write whatever you want and you'll > be left alone. > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 6:13 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 12, 4:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > No, PD! Gamma rays are PROTONS. > > > > No, they're not, John. They're photons. All you had to do is click on > > > the link that I provided and read two or three lines. > > > Here it is again, John. Surely this is not too complicated.http://www..epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/gamma.html > > > > > Those are much denser 'tangles' of > > > > IOTAs which is the same... 'stuff' that photons (and everything else > > > > in the Universe) is made of. NoEinstein > > > > > > On Feb 12, 2:54 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 11, 1:24 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear John: Particles DON'T produce unlimited radiation unless the > > > > > > lost ether gets replenished! > > > > > > Something must be producing all this aether to push with, no? > > > > > > > Gamma rays, which have mass, must emit > > > > > > photons. > > > > > > Oh, John, John, John. Gamma rays ARE photons.http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/gamma.html > > > > > > > But the number of photons is quite small, since the mass is > > > > > > quite small. Gamma rays replenish their lost photons by banging into > > > > > > the ether as they travel. Since the tangential velocity of the IOTAs > > > > > > (smallest energy units of the ether) is 'c', then the gamma rays can > > > > > > keep right on traveling at velocity 'c' for a very long time. > > > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > > > > On Feb 10, 7:13 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 10, 3:59 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yesterday, I happened to tune-in for the last half of a TV program > > > > > > > > > about the Moon. Time and again, the supposed technical experts who > > > > > > > > > were being interviewed referred to the pull of gravity between the > > > > > > > > > Earth and the Moon. The effect of that pull was discussed as > > > > > > > > > relates to such things as ocean tides > > > > > > > > > Please explain ocean tides with push gravity > > > > > > > > First explain how every particle of the universe > > > > > > > can produce unlimited radiations which travel outward from > > > > > > > said particles while all the while providing inward impetus > > > > > > > to anything with which they interact. > > > > > > > Don't you think that's stretching it just a tad? > > > > > > > ('Course since then there's DM, DE, so really, > > > > > > > suck gravity is hardly outrageous at all compared > > > > > > > to 'intellectuallizing' a whole new class of matter, > > > > > > > sight unseen )('Course, if it's invisible, well, it's > > > > > > > invisible- but we prove it's there by pointing to > > > > > > > the movements of stars that occasioned its creation > > > > > > > in the first place.So it's real yin/yangy, y'know.) > > > > > > > > But the tide thing- really, everything at this scale- > > > > > > > works exactly the same for push as for pull. > > > > > > > Just at larger sizes, where planets > > > > > > > are able to completely shadow push from the other side, > > > > > > > surface gravity will tend towards a limit- therefore ruling out > > > > > > > the whole black hole paradox. > > > > > > > > john- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 19 Feb 2010 20:15 On Feb 17, 12:59 am, 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. The basic idea is that if one assumes the > universe filled with some kind of (unspecified) radiation or waves > capable of creating radiation pressure, the shadows of celestial orbs > upon each other is what creates the "PUSH" that forces them toward > each other. The advantage of this theory is that no "ropes" are needed > to explain the mechanism of gravity in physical terms. Ordinary > physical phenomena we are all familiar with (radiation, shadows, > radiation pressure etc.) create a model that doesn't require bogus > action at a distance, "gravitons" or other things we've never seen > before. Dear Benj: It may not be fun from your perspective, but it almost seems like you are agreeing with me. If so, THANKS! NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 19 Feb 2010 20:23 On Feb 17, 9:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: "Data" is a collective, just like INFORMATION. Both are SINGULAR. You should have written: "No, but the experimental data that IS in conflict with the predictions of the model do make it wrong." For you information, there is nothing that can contradict ANYTHING about my New Science! NoEinstein > > 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. > > > > > The basic idea is that if one assumes the > > universe filled with some kind of (unspecified) radiation or waves > > capable of creating radiation pressure, the shadows of celestial orbs > > upon each other is what creates the "PUSH" that forces them toward > > each other. The advantage of this theory is that no "ropes" are needed > > to explain the mechanism of gravity in physical terms. Ordinary > > physical phenomena we are all familiar with (radiation, shadows, > > radiation pressure etc.) create a model that doesn't require bogus > > action at a distance, "gravitons" or other things we've never seen > > before.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 19 Feb 2010 20:31
On Feb 17, 10:38 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > Dear John: Dark matter is an unneeded attempt to locate the gravity necessary to stop the supposed expansion of the Universe (sic). As soon as I realized that Newton's supposed Law of Universal (sic) Gravitation wasn't considering that very hot objects emit more radiation that cooler ones, I knew that the missing mass was in the OVER estimation of the mass of the Universe, and the UNDER estimation of the gravity holding galaxies together. There was no Big Bang and there is NO expansion of the universe. The red shifts are caused by the AGING of light due to the crossing light rays forcing the photons to be further and further apart. If there were no crossing photons, there would be NO red shift! NoEinstein > 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? > > If your numbers indicate you're wrong, simply invoke > a whole new class of matter!! Simple. > > Our theory of gravitation is being propped up > by a totally new and unseen (because it's invisible > *by definition*) class of matter- Dark Matter. > > So why couldn't there be something like > Dark Aether? Or fairies? Or Zeus, or Thor, or > King Tut? > > I mean, really, if you're going > to introduce fantastical stuff like > Dark Matter and Dark Energy into your > science, you're not doing science anymore. > > You're doing AGW. > > john > > > > > > > > The basic idea is that if one assumes the > > > universe filled with some kind of (unspecified) radiation or waves > > > capable of creating radiation pressure, the shadows of celestial orbs > > > upon each other is what creates the "PUSH" that forces them toward > > > each other. The advantage of this theory is that no "ropes" are needed > > > to explain the mechanism of gravity in physical terms. Ordinary > > > physical phenomena we are all familiar with (radiation, shadows, > > > radiation pressure etc.) create a model that doesn't require bogus > > > action at a distance, "gravitons" or other things we've never seen > > > before.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |