There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 25 Mar 2010 15:37 On Mar 24, 4:50 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Burt: When I make a new post, I'm not opening-the-floor for discussions of theories about science. I've discovered that the mechanism of gravity is downward flowing ether caused by pressure differentials due to photon exchange. There are no... 'gravitons', only photon exchange. You are one of the most prolific posters of notions about science. Yet, you have very few who agree with you on anything. Take a long vacation and hope that you can clear your mind regarding science. It has already driven you mad... NE > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 25 Mar 2010 15:42 On Mar 25, 9:01 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 8:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 24, 8:38 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 24, 7:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 23, 10:34 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(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? > > > > > > The question was, > > > > > > "Explain how you think gravity works, PD. Make it short and simple so > > > > > a public school kid could understand it." > > > > > > As for what's missing, everything... > > > > > Be specific. What fundamental elements do you think MUST be present in > > > > a physical explanation, and which of those fundamental elements was > > > > missing in what I gave? > > > > Oh, let's start with the basics, > > > > What the heck 'specifically' isn't 'flat'? > > > How can you curve the path of a mass and violate Newton's third law? > > > How can mass or energy curve paths thru a void? > > > I'd be happy to answer your questions (because I can), but first I > > want you to answer mine. > > There are some fundamental elements that you think MUST be present in > > a physical explanation, and there are apparently some of those > > fundamental elements that you believe are missing from the explanation > > I gave. > > > By fundamental elements, I expect you to answer with adjectives and > > nouns, not questions. Having open questions is one thing, but having > > open questions would not make my explanation not a physical > > explanation. A physical explanation won't answer all possible open > > questions. Since you claim my explanation is not a physical one, then > > you owe me some clear accounting of what you think a physical > > explanation MUST have. > > > > > > All you described was a mapping > > > > > process, one that most public school kid would NOT! understand. > > > > > I disagree. Shall we ask some public school kids? > > > > Well my wife works at a elementary school, want to bet the 5th graders > > > will understand those passages above? > > > Sure. > > > > > > > > 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)? > > > > > > It certainly not a 'numerical constant' at the very least, its a > > > > > physical constant because it is NOT! unitless. > > > > > Oh, come on. You may have a terminology issue. Numerical constant does > > > > not mean "dimensionless constant" or "unitless constant". This is > > > > simply an error on your part. > > > > Yes, you do have a terminology issue, 'numerical' commonly means > > > relating to a 'number' not a physical entity. See: > > > >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/numerical > > > Oh, come, come. We run into this problem all the time, when an amateur > > looks at a term that is used in physics and argues with the meaning of > > the term AS USED IN PHYSICS by referring to a dictionary of common > > usage. This is how Seto confuses "physical" and "material", thinking > > that if it ain't material, it ain't physical. > > Seto is correct. > > Once you lose that understanding of the physics of nature, it allows > for unexplainable 'physical' behaviors such as: > > - 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. A downgraded photon pair are created with opposite angular > momentum in order to conserve the original photons momentum > - 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. > > > > > > > > > > Those units remain no > > > > > matter what system of measure one chooses. > > > > > This is also wrong. The UNITS are highly dependent on which coordinate > > > > system you choose. You may have been thinking of the term > > > > "dimensions", rather than units, which is what is used in classical > > > > physics and chemistry when one talks about dimensional analysis. > > > > Bullshit! Units of length, mass, time does not depend on the systems > > > an inch is still an inch long in milimeters... > > > > > However, even in this case one finds that something that has > > > > dimensions in one system of units is dimensionless in another system > > > > of units. For example, in the SI system of units, the speed of light > > > > has dimensions [L]/[T]. However, in "natural units", the speed of > > > > light is both unitless and dimensionless. > > > > Silly... > > > No, it's a simple fact. You can look up natural units if you like. > > > > > > But, like I said you > > > > > cannot say 'what' it is, how those > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Photons don't have... "mass", because they don't give off photons. Gamma rays DO give off photons and thus have mass. That is why atomic decay LOWERS the atomic number. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 25 Mar 2010 16:10 On Mar 25, 12:27 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 25 mar, 11:40, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 25, 11:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Your inability to physically explain the following is evidence you > > feign hypothesis: > > > - The future determining the past > > What part of "The quantum mystery which cannot go away (in Feynmans > words) of wave-particle duality is illustrated in a striking way by > Wheelers delayed-choice Gedanken Experiment. In this experiment, the > configuration of a two-path interferometer is chosen after a single- > photon pulse has entered it : either the interferometer is closed > (i.e. the two paths are recombined) and the interference is observed, > or the interferometer remains open and the path followed by the photon > is measured. We report an almost ideal realization of that Gedanken > Experiment, where the light pulses are true single photons, allowing > unambiguous which-way measurements, and the interferometer, which has > two spatially separated paths, produces high visibility interference. > The choice between measuring either the open or closed configuration > is made by a quantum random number generator, and is space-like > separated in the relativistic sensefrom the entering of the photon > into the interferometer. Measurements in the closed configuration show > interference with a visibility of 94%, while measurements in the open > configuration allow us to determine the followed path with an error > probability lower than 1%." you do not understand? > > Wait....we already know the answer...you are an idiot!!! > > Rest of nonsense snipped. > > Miguel Rios Dear Miguel Rios: If you can, please find a link to the single photon experiment you describe. I may be able to clarify the science truths (or falsehoods). NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 25 Mar 2010 16:15 On Mar 25, 3:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 2:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 2:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 25, 1:28 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 25, 2:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 2:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Experiment #1 below will provide evidence of Aether Displacement. > > > > > > > > Then do the experiment. Until then, you've got nothin'. You know the > > > > > > > steps you have to follow to do that? > > > > > > > > By the way, scientists don't usually claim to know what results will > > > > > > > come from an experiment until the experiment is actually done.. > > > > > > > I know what the results will be when the experiments are performed. > > > > > > Then you, sir, are no scientist, nor will you ever be one. > > > > > Experiments are performed to consult nature on what the answer is.. > > > > > > Since you claim to be able to read the future, by knowing the outcome > > > > > of experiments before they are performed, you should be able to > > > > > provide a compelling physical explanation of how you know the future, > > > > > without relying on absurd nonsense like the future determining the > > > > > past. > > > > > I know what the results will be because I understand the physics of > > > > nature. > > > > Nice. So not only can you see the future, but you are omniscient, as > > > well. > > > It is simply an understanding of the physics of nature which allows me > > to know what will occur physically in nature when the experiments are > > performed. > > My previous remarks stand, mpc. You have ceased to be amusing and have > now become both pathetic and contemptible. > > Good luck to you in your ventures. I'm sure you'll be able to work > your divine power to acquire the crown you crave.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Hurray for mpc755! PD seems to be... BROKEN! NoEinstein
From: paparios on 25 Mar 2010 16:30
On 25 mar, 16:10, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 25, 12:27 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear Miguel Rios: If you can, please find a link to the single photon > experiment you describe. I may be able to clarify the science truths > (or falsehoods). NoEinstein I think you will be able to learn how a real experiment is carried out. References are: 1-Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Yoon-Ho Kim,* Rong Yu, Sergei P. Kulik, Yanhua Shih and Marlan O. Scully PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, VOLUME 84, 3 JANUARY 2000, NUMBER 1 2-Experimental realization of Wheelers delayed-choice Gedanken Experiment V. Jacques1, E Wu1, F. Grosshans1, F. Treussart1, P. Grangier, A. Aspect, and J.F. Roch Science 315, 966 (2007). Miguel Rios |