There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: john on 26 Mar 2010 23:31 On Mar 26, 7:16 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 26, 6:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 10:48 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > "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. > > > > Do you have a problem with your long term memory??? I've snswered > > > that question at least four times now! I'm tired of repeating myself > > > and things haven't changed...! It is V-E-R-Y well known that GR does > > > not, and can not provide an explanation for the mechanism the actually > > > causes gravity. Examples, > > > >http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070810_gm_gravity.htmlhttp://w.... > > > > I am soooo sick and tired of repeating things to you... > > > You have STILL not answered my question. > > You have just generated more open questions about general relativity, > > as though if a theory has open questions, it is not a physical > > explanation. > > It has not explanation, thus the T-E-R-M! mathematical correlation. > Newton's gravitational equation is also in that same category. The > very same category Ptolemy's method was in. Maxwell's equations, > devoid of Maxwell's model is also just a correlation. Much of modern > physics lacks any actual phsical foundations. Pay attention, this is > the very last time I will answer you in this area, a physical theory > must be derivable from primitive elements that LEADS to the > equations. A good example of such model is Maxwell's and LeSage's. > Both leads to the final equations FROM! first principle primitive > elements. > > > I am asking you a very specific question. > > In order for a theory -- any theory -- to be classed as a physical > > explanation, there would be certain elements in that theory that would > > warrant it being called a physical explanation. What are those > > elements? And specifically which of those elements are missing in the > > description that I gave above? > > Yeah, one should be able to eplain the process WITHOUT the need for > mathematics. The mathematics quantifies and fills in the specific > details. > > > If you cannot LIST the fundamental elements that ANY theory must have > > for you to consider it a physical explanation, then I guess it's > > obvious that YOU don't know what you mean by the term "physical > > explanation". > > I cannot help you poor memory Peter, maybe you need to be tested for > dementia... > > > > > 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. > > > > Fundamental means just what the 'word' is defined to mean, do you > > > understand English? Especially, given you nationality Peter... > > > Peter? Who's Peter? And I think we agree on what "fundamental" means. > > What are the fundamental elements of a physical theory, Paul? > > You, Peter Draper of the Draper Family... > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > And I'm tired of the childish game of play secret handshake, code word > > > bullshit! If you have to reinvent meanings to common words the problem > > > is not with the dictionary... > > > That's not right, Paul. Every discipline has jargon where the words > > mean something other than common usage as listed in the dictionary. > > That's why the terms are so carefully defined in textbooks, sometimes > > repeatedly with refinements at successive iterations. This is in true > > in music and law as well as physics. It's just a reality. Not a basis > > for complaint. > > Good, give us an example for Law... > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > I know that so-called natural units 'scale' c to be defined as 1 > > > bullshit length per 1 bullshit time unit thus like furlongs per > > > forthnight it just another invented system to play a shell game! > > > Speed is still speed and length is still length, time still time they > > > don't magically dissapear! E does not magically equal m no matter how > > > much you click you heels together. > > > So you don't buy "natural units" either, because you just say so. > > No, nature says so... > > > > > > > > > > > > But, like I said you > > > > > > > cannot say 'what' it is, how those units came to be or even where it > > > > > > > comes from. You can only say it 'appears' and is needed in the > > > > > > > equations. > > > > > > > > > > Waving one's hand on 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"? > > > > > > > > I happen to agree with Newton on that one... > > > > > > > And you believe his position is what, exactly? Please be absolutely > > > > > > specific. > > > > > > If you can't be specific, perhaps it has not occurred to you that even > > > > > > YOU don't know what you're looking for? > > > > > > That you cannot provide a physical theory with only a mathematical > > > > > correlational expression, thus his famous quote "Hypothesis Non- > > > > > Fingo"! It's plain stupid to think otherwise. > > > > > And what are the indispensable elements of a PHYSICAL theory that this > > > > lacks? You STILL haven't found a way to answer this question. > > > > Something I think you'll never understand, true understanding, Pun > > > intended, sadly... > > > Since you cannot answer the question, Paul, it would be reasonable for > > any reader to conclude that you don't know the answer to it, either. > > Well at least I've derived several new physical relationships from the > modeling I've done. Like the LeSage drag equation, the terms of G, > Boltzman's constant, ... etc. In your model, Paul, what are you using for your ultra-mundane particles? My galaxy model is indicating a flow of miniature photons and neutrinos coming from all electrons that are 10^27 smaller and travel at 30c. With this fractal model there has to be another flow of yet smaller energy another 10^27 smaller and travelling at 900c. Such flows must come from all electrons all over the universe- wherever there is matter. john
From: NoEinstein on 27 Mar 2010 12:43 On Mar 25, 4:30 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Dear Miguel Rios: Please explain to me and the readers what you think isn't "real" about my Dropping Einstein Like a Stone Experiment. Like I've told others, I don't read anything but the paraphrases of those who reply. In rare cases I will read a link to an essay composed by the person replying. You are sadly mistaken if you think "the words of others" gives you credibility. NoEinstein Dropping Einstein Like a Stone http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en
From: NoEinstein on 27 Mar 2010 12:56 On Mar 25, 5:47 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear mpc755: Obviously, you've fabricated a broad-sounding explanation(s) of some aspect of science or science observation. But your verbiage is a detraction from the possible viability of anything you say, because I and the readers only have so much time to spend. Those things you keep proposing like: matter "displacing" ether, and matter and ether being a state of your invented "mather", don't hold water. So, it's probably pointless to read anything you say. But I'll give you another chance IF you will stick to discussing the mechanism of gravity, and will do so without repeating what OBSERVATION shows to be wrong. NoEinstein > > 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. > > If you were able to understand waves propagate available paths and > particles travel a single path then what is occurring would be easily > understood. > > For example, in the image on the right here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experi... > There are waves propagating both the red and blue paths towards D0. > One of the downgraded photon 'particles' is traveling either the red > or blue path towards D0. The lens causes the waves to create > interference which alters the direction the particle travels. One set > of downgraded photons is creating one of the interference patterns at > D0 and the other set of downgraded photons is creating the other. > > It's all very easy to understand once you realize 'delayed-choice', > 'quantum eraser', and the future determining the past is simply > misinterpreting what is occurring in nature. > > In the image on the right here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experi... > When the downgraded photon pair are created, in order for there to be > conservation of momentum, the original photons momentum is maintained. > This means the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. > We will describe one of the photons as being the 'up' photon and the > other photon as being the 'down' photon. One of the downgraded photons > travels either the red or blue path towards D0 and the other photon > travels either the red or blue path towards the prism. > > There are physical waves in the aether propagating both the red and > blue paths. The aether waves propagating towards D0 interact with the > lens and create interference prior to reaching D0. The aether waves > create interference which alters the direction the photon travels > prior to reaching D0. There are actually two interference patterns > being created at D0. One associated with the 'up' photons when they > arrive at D0 and the other interference pattern associated with the > 'down' photons when they arrive at D0. > > Both 'up' and 'down' photons are reflected by BSa and arrive at D3. > Since there is a single path towards D3 there is nothing for the wave > in the aether to interfere with and there is no interference pattern > and since it is not determined if it is an 'up' or 'down' photon being > detected at D3 there is no way to distinguish between the photons > arriving at D0 which interference pattern each photon belongs to. The > same for photons reflected by BSb and arrive at D4. > > Photons which pass through BSa and are reflected by BSc and arrive at > D1 are either 'up' or 'down' photons but not both. If 'up' photons > arrive at D1 then 'down' photons arrive at D2. The opposite occurs for > photons which pass through BSb. Photons which pass through BSa and > pass through BSb and arrive at D1 are all either 'up' or 'down' > photons. If all 'up' photons arrive at D1 then all 'down' photons > arrive at D2. Since the physical waves in the aether traveling both > the red and blue paths are combined prior to D1 and D2 the aether > waves create interference which alters the direction the photon > travels. Since all 'up' photons arrive at one of the detectors and all > 'down' photons arrive at the other an interference pattern is created > which reflects back to the interference both sets of photons are > creating at D0. > > Figures 3 and 4 here:http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9903/9903047v1.pdf > Show the interference pattern of the 'up' and 'down' photons. If you > were to combine the two images and add the peaks together and add the > valleys together you would have the interference pattern of the > original photon. This is evidence the downgraded photon pair maintain > the original photons momentum and have opposite angular momentums. > > Nothing is erased. There is no delayed choice. Physical waves in the > aether are traveling both the red and blue paths and when the paths > are combined the waves create interference which alters the direction > the photon 'particle' travels. > > Experiments which are evidence of Aether Displacement: > > Experiment #1: > > Instead of having a single beam splitter BSc have two beam splitters > BSca and BScb. Have the photons reflected by mirror Ma interact with > BSca and have the photons reflected by mirror Mb interact with BScb. > Do not combine the red and blue paths. Have additional detectors D1a, > D2a, D1b, and D2b. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through > BSca be detected at D1a and D2a. Have the photons reflected by and > propagate through BScb be detected at D1b and D2b. If you compare the > photons detected at D1a and D1b with the photons detected at D0, the > corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference > pattern. If you compare the photons detected at D2a and D2b with the > photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will > form an interference pattern. What is occurring is all 'up' photons > are being detected at one pair of detectors, for example D1a and D1b, > and all 'down' photons are being detected at the other pair of > detectors, for example D2a and D2b. Interference patterns do not even > need to be created in order to 'go back' and determine the > interference patterns created at D0. > > Experiment #2: > > Alter the experiment. When the downgraded photon pair are created, > have each photon interact with its own double slit apparatus. Have > detectors at one of the exits for each double slit apparatus. When a > photon is detected at one of the exits, in AD, the photon's aether > wave still exists and is propagating along the path exiting the other > slit. When a photon is not detected at one of the exits, the photon > 'particle' along with its associated aether wave exits the other slit. > Combine the path the aether wave the detected photon is propagating > along with the path of the other photon and its associated aether > wave. An interference pattern will still be created. This shows the > aether wave of a detected photon still exists and is able to create > interference with the aether wave of another photon, altering the > direction the photon 'particle' travels. > > Your inability to physically explain the following is evidence you > feign hypothesis: > > - 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 following are the most correct physical explanations to date: > > - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate > aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits > - The aether displaced by the matter which are the plates extends > past the other plate. The pressure exerted by the aether displaced > by the plates 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 27 Mar 2010 12:56 On Mar 25, 5:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 4:47 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > If you were able to understand waves propagate available paths and > > particles travel a single path then what is occurring would be easily > > understood. > > Why try to understand absurd nonsense?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Exactly! NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 27 Mar 2010 13:05
On Mar 25, 5:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > WRONG, mpc755! The ether inside matter is MASS PROPORTIONAL. There are more electrons around larger nuclei. Since electrons are wave crests on a revolving soup of ether (IOTAs), massive objects have more IOTAs and thus have more ether. Downward flowing ether, which imparts the forces of gravity, measures the mass by impacting the massin the same way that flowing water measures the resistance of a boat trying to go up-stream. NoEinstein > > On Mar 25, 3:29 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Mar 24, 4:44 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > GET LOST, mpc755! Gravity (ether) flows THROUGH matter! That's why > > the force of gravity is mass proportional. > > It is mass proportional because aether is displaced based on mass per > volume. The more massive an object is per volume the less aether it > contains, the more aether it displaces. > > > Electrons swim in a soup > > of ether, and are likely just the crest of a revolving wave. If > > matter displaced ether (sic), then ether would be excluded and there > > would be no... "stuff" for matter to be made from. NoEinstein > > Matter and aether are different states of the same material. I have > named this material mather. Matter is compressed mather and aether is > uncompressed mather. Even though both matter and aether are the same > material, matter is compressed mather and exists in and displaces the > aether. There is a connectedness between the matter and aether. The > state of the aether is determined by its connections with the matter. > This is the aether's state of displacement.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |