There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: Paul Stowe on 27 Mar 2010 15:34 On Mar 27, 11:37 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 27, 2:24 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 26, 8:31 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > On Mar 26, 7:16 pm, PaulStowe<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 > > > Hi John, > > > The calculated (from the LeSage process model) linear attenuation > > coefficient is of the proper order for a neutrino. However, there is > > no actual evidence to rule it in or out YET! It is more likely that, > > what we call the neutrino is just specific examples of a more general > > class which could be called the graviton... > > > Regards, > > > PaulStowe > > A particle is not responsible for gravity. The aether as a one > something is responsible for gravity. > > The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter is gravity. Look, I usually don't respond to your posts since you are as closed minded as most. You're trying to 'preach' your version of scientific religion and ignore all else. I am an aetherist (modern type) but ask yourself a question, in all known cases, how does pressure come about? Further, you keep saying matter displaces aether, thus, by that logic this would seem to indicate that you think matter is something else. I disagree, matter is just standing patterns of the very same thing, thus it cannot displace aether. But, on the other hand, those patterns can, and do, affect the properties of the medium due to their presence... Paul Stowe
From: spudnik on 27 Mar 2010 16:25 don't top-post! well-said -- i think. I was flirting with aether, for a while, but i came to realize that the "claassical" aether was missing a lot of what we have come to know. unfotunately, the whole "field" is aflood with crappy timespace sillygisms, and the overweaning abuse of Schroedinger's joke-cat by the Copenhagenskoolers myticism. there are no rocks o'light, and there is no vacuum. you have got to start from somw where, where there is not no where! > > The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter is gravity. > > Look, I usually don't respond to your posts since you are as closed > minded as most. You're trying to 'preach' your version of scientific > religion and ignore all else. I am an aetherist (modern type) but ask > yourself a question, in all known cases, how does pressure come > about? Further, you keep saying matter displaces aether, thus, by > that logic this would seem to indicate that you think matter is > something else. I disagree, matter is just standing patterns of the > very same thing, thus it cannot displace aether. But, on the other > hand, those patterns can, and do, affect the properties of the medium > due to their presence... --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: mpc755 on 27 Mar 2010 16:59 On Mar 27, 3:34 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 27, 11:37 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > A particle is not responsible for gravity. The aether as a one > > something is responsible for gravity. > > > The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter is gravity. > > Look, I usually don't respond to your posts since you are as closed > minded as most. You're trying to 'preach' your version of scientific > religion and ignore all else. I am an aetherist (modern type) but ask > yourself a question, in all known cases, how does pressure come > about? Further, you keep saying matter displaces aether, thus, by > that logic this would seem to indicate that you think matter is > something else. I disagree, matter is just standing patterns of the > very same thing, thus it cannot displace aether. But, on the other > hand, those patterns can, and do, affect the properties of the medium > due to their presence... > > Paul Stowe Aether and matter are different states of the same material. I have named this material mather. Matter is compressed mather and aether is uncompressed mather. "Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium." - Albert Einstein If there was no way to know if water consists of particles, or not, placing a bowling ball into the water still displaces the water. Water is not at rest when displaced. When you take the bowling ball out of the water is there a void in the water where the bowling was? No, of course not. The displaced water exerts pressure towards the bowling ball. If the bowling ball consisted of tiny particles separated by springs the water would exert pressure on and throughout the bowling ball. If tracking the motion of the particles of aether is a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" - Albert Einstein The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter is the aether's state of displacement. Displacement creates pressure. Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter.
From: BURT on 27 Mar 2010 17:08 On Mar 27, 11:37 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 27, 2:24 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 26, 8:31 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > On Mar 26, 7:16 pm, PaulStowe<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 > > > Hi John, > > > The calculated (from the LeSage process model) linear attenuation > > coefficient is of the proper order for a neutrino. However, there is > > no actual evidence to rule it in or out YET! It is more likely that, > > what we call the neutrino is just specific examples of a more general > > class which could be called the graviton... > > > Regards, > > > Paul Stowe > > A particle is not responsible for gravity. The aether as a one > something is responsible for gravity. > > The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter is gravity.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The particle has its microgravity since the very beginning of the universe. But there is also the macro domain since then. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 27 Mar 2010 17:14
On Mar 27, 5:08 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 27, 11:37 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > A particle is not responsible for gravity. The aether as a one > > something is responsible for gravity. > > > The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter is gravity. > > The particle has its microgravity since the very beginning of the > universe. But there is also the macro domain since then. > > Mitch Raemsch A nucleus displaces the aether. The aether is not at rest when displaced. In the analogies below where there is a swimmer or a particle in a frictionless superfluid medium, if the swimmer/particle is moving, is a void left in their wake, or does the frictionless superfluid fill-in where the swimmer/particle was? The frictionless superfluid wills in where the swimmer/particle was. The frictionless superfluid applies pressure towards the swimmer/ particle. This occurs for a single nuclei whether at rest with respect to the aether, or not. This is what you refer to as 'microgravity'. 'Frictionless supersolid a step closer' http://www.physorg.com/news185201084.html "Superfluidity and superconductivity cause particles to move without friction. Koos Gubbels investigated under what conditions such particles keep moving endlessly without losing energy, like a swimmer who takes one mighty stroke and then keeps gliding forever along the swimming pool." In the analogy the swimmer is any body and the water is the aether. Just as the swimmer displaces the water, whether the swimmer is at rest with respect to the water, or not, a body displaces the aether, whether the body is at rest with respect to the aether, or not. In the analogy the moving swimmer creates a displacement wave in the water. A moving body creates a displacement wave in the aether. 'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum medium and the inertial motion of particles' http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0701/0701155.pdf "Abstract: The similarity between the energy spectra of relativistic particles and that of quasi-particles in super-conductivity BCS theory makes us conjecture that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as the ground state of the background field is a super fluid medium, and the rest mass of a relativistic particle is like the energy gap of a quasi-particle. This conjecture is strongly supported by the results of our following investigation: a particle moving through the vacuum medium at a speed less than the speed of light in vacuum, though interacting with the vacuum medium, never feels friction force and thus undergoes a frictionless and inertial motion." A particle in the super fluid medium displaces the super fluid medium, whether the particle is at rest with respect to the super fluid medium, or not. A moving particle creates a displacement wave in the super fluid medium. A particle in the aether displaces the aether, whether the particle is at rest with respect to the aether, or not. The particle could be an individual nucleus. A moving particle creates a displacement wave in the aether. |