There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 19 Feb 2010 20:33 On Feb 18, 12:01 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Feb 17, 1:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 9:38 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > 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? > > > No. Some theories make statements about the *relationships* between > > numbers. That is, if you know the input really well, then the theory > > makes a firm prediction of the output, which can be therefore checked. > > But in some cases, if the predicted output doesn't match measurement, > > this can mean EITHER: > > a) the relationship proposed by the theory is wrong > > b) you don't know the input as well as you think > > > I'll give you an example. You can use Newton's 2nd law (F=ma) to > > predict the parabolic trajectory of a golf-ball that is launched at a > > particular speed and angle, using gravity as the force that causes the > > acceleration back to earth. You can then predict where the ball will > > land. You will get the wrong answer. Now, should you conclude that > > F=ma is wrong? Not necessarily. In fact, you quickly discover that > > you've left out a few key contributors to F: drag from air friction, > > lift from air flow, *variations* in gravity, etc. When you include all > > the right inputs to F, you find that the outputs work much better, and > > that there is nothing wrong with F=ma at all. > > > > If your numbers indicate you're wrong, simply invoke > > > a whole new class of matter!! Simple. > > > Indeed. Sometimes you learn some things from that. > > You don't seem to twig to the scale of this. > > We are trying to figure out how the > matter we know about gravitates. > We are trying to pin down our own matter. > > By invoking a whole new class of matter, > we are not only going back to square > one, we are going back before that; at least > with our own matter, we can see it. We can watch the apple > fall- we can actually *let* it fall however and whenever we want. > > By invoking a whole new class of matter, we are > wandering off into unknown territory, shooting in the dark, > entering random figures into the password slot, > trying random numbers for the combination. > > This is not a "tweak". The outer stars in galaxies > go WAY faster than they should. Arms of galaxies > rotate all of a piece from fairly close to their > centers to right out to their edges. This is > CONTRARY to what we expect. > > Our theory of gravity is WRONG. Which is not > surprising, since it is inconceivable > for radiation travelling one direction at huge speeds > to act in exactly the opposite > direction. Push gravity makes way more sense > than DM, DE, etc etc etc. > > john- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Bravo! NoEinstein
From: PD on 20 Feb 2010 09:37 On Feb 19, 7:23 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 Geez, NoEinstein, you even make up grammar. The singular form is "datum", the plural is "data". Check a dictionary. One datum is, the data are. Of course, you always have the option of saying that by the power of PURE THOUGHT ALONE you have discovered that the dictionary is wrong. > > > > > 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: PD on 20 Feb 2010 09:39 On Feb 19, 6:25 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 > And so you respond to a correction of a simple error of fact by simply making more stuff up. Keep it up, NoEinstein! I'm sure it's fun to make stuff up. Most children give up playing pretend by the time they're 11 or so. Are you having a second childhood? > > > > 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: glird on 20 Feb 2010 13:52 On Feb 19, 8:33 pm, NoEinstein aka Androcles etc wrote: > On Feb 18, 12:01 pm, john parker aka Androcles etc wrote: > > > john- Hide quoted text - > > Bravo! NoEinstein Boo to both one of you, even though we both agree that a g-force is a push, not a pull. Indeed, since a force is a net pressure, it is ALWAYS a push. A "force of attraction" is a push TOWARD the causative agent. A "force of repulsion" is a push AWAY from the causative agent. Since a g-field is a density gradient, it is always centered on "the causative agent', which is the matter-unit that causes it to exist. glird
From: john on 20 Feb 2010 20:54
On Feb 20, 12:52 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Feb 19, 8:33 pm, NoEinstein aka Androcles etc wrote: > > > On Feb 18, 12:01 pm, john parker aka Androcles etc wrote: > > > > john- Hide quoted text - > > > Bravo! NoEinstein > > Boo to both one of you, even though we both agree that a > g-force is a push, not a pull. Indeed, since a force is a > net pressure, it is ALWAYS a push. > A "force of attraction" is a push TOWARD the causative agent. > A "force of repulsion" is a push AWAY from the causative agent. > Since a g-field is a density gradient, it is always centered on > "the causative agent', which is the matter-unit that causes it to > exist. > > glird Everything is push. Sometimes it comes to shove. Electrons are just like galactic arms; they emanate just like millions of suns, but at much higher frequency.. There is universe forever in all directions with matter just like ours, so the emanations from electrons will be coming from all directions. A la Olber's Paradox, these emanations cannot travel infinitely or there would be an infinite amount of energy coming at us from all sides. But they travel a long, long way, so there will be more coming from any one direction than is coming from any matter in that direction. These emanations are absorbed by the nuclei, imparting a push, but not by the electrons themselves. Likewise, the electrons' electrons are emanating at a much higher frequency/smaller amplitude. Emanations from the electrons travel at about 30 times c. Emanations from the electrons' electrons travel at 30 times 30 times c. These and yet higher frequencies must be coming from all sides in absolutely huge numbers, lending such a system to a push gravity in layers, where the layer affecting us does not affect our electrons. Yet it is electrons just like ours that made the radiations that push on our nuclei and create inertia. john |