There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: "The Einstein Hoax"
Next: ALL DIZEAZZEZ ARE DEZERVED ! ESPECIALLY THE CANCER GOODY, BACKBONE OF THE JUICY DIZEAZZEZ INDUSTRY
From: NoEinstein on 9 Apr 2010 12:52 On Apr 9, 11:25 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > Dear Ken: If you wish to comment to me, do so, to me, not to Timo. I'm glad that I've answered a few of your questions. What are those, specifically? Indeed, there are 'other' explanations for most of science. The strength of my New Science is due to the fact that I didn't lock-in any ideas for explaining the causes and effects until Ive checked to see what effects any 'law' of nature would have on the rest of nature. The only cause and effect which seems to explain the entire Universe is: "Varying ether flow and density." Everything that is is due to the energy of the ether; the varying concentrations of that energy; and the flow of that energy. Such an understanding is my biggest contribution to True Science! NoEinstein > > On Apr 8, 8:09 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, NoEinstein wrote: > > > On Apr 7, 6:52 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > Copied, below, is my original post on the present topic. I would love > > > to have you and Ken discuss the mechanism of gravity. Think you two > > > can do that? > > > I don't think there's much for us to say about it, at least not in a > > discussion about it. My comments are below, and Ken can add if he sees > > fit. > > > > An astronomer friend > > > had observed that the moons of Jupiter were reappearing from behind > > > the back side of Jupiter sooner than their orbital periods predicted. > > > Einstein, or more likely, that same astronomer, supposed that some > > > anomaly beyond Newtons Law of Universal (sic) Gravitation was > > > responsible for the bending of the light. > > > This looks like a garbled version of Roemer's observations that showed > > light travelled at a finite speed. Roemer is often given credit for > > measuring the speed of light, but he didn't do that part. Modern values > > for the needed parameters (such as the a.u.) give 3e8 m/s. > > > Note that Roemer published his results in 1676, and was dead long before > > Einstein was born. Thus, the claim that the astronomer responsible for > > such observations was a friend of Einstein is quite incredible. > > > The account you give of the development of general relativity is grossly > > incorrect. As such, all it does is undermine your presentation of your > > theory. If the reader notices that you are wrong at step 1, why would they > > assume you are any more correct in later steps? > > > [moved] > > > > A lady who was one of the > > > supposed experts on that Moon TV show said that the increasing > > > orbital distance was due to the influence of the spin of the Earth. > > > But she gave no hint that she knew what the mechanism of that > > > influence might be. In all probability, she had blindly accepted > > > Einsteins warped space-time explanation for gravity. > > > No, the slowing of the spin of the Earth, and recession of the Moon is > > a Newtonian prediction. You need to look into it, since you claim that > > your theory explains this. Does your explanation replace the standard > > explanation, or add to it? > > > > The Earth and the Moon are being PUSHED together more greatly by the > > > downward flowing ether on their opposing sides, than on their facing > > > sides. > > ... > > > This paragraph is my very own CORRECT description of the mechanism of > > > gravity! > > > So far, it's just a story. It isn't science yet, only a story. Try turning > > into a science, and if you're right, you'll find where the possible > > experiements are that will distinguish between your theory and other > > theories. For example, you claim: > > > > That greater gravity was temperature dependentan effect that Newton > > > never considered when he wrote his supposed Law of Universal (sic) > > > Gravitation. > > > which is a clear difference between your "theory" of gravitation and > > Newtonian gravitation. What is the dependence on temperature? > > Stefan-Boltzmann suggests it might be T^4, and very accessible to > > laboratory testing. > > > So, turn your "theory" from a story into real science, and test. There > > isn't any point in just repeating it over and over; repetition won't > > convince. > > > Meanwhile, consider Newton's General Scholium in his Principia. The > > most important and relevant part is (from the Motte/Cajori > > translation): > > > "Hitherto we have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our sea by > > the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of this power.. > > This is certain, that it must proceed from a cause that penetrates to the > > very centres of the sun and planets, without suffering the least > > diminution of its force; that operates not according to the quantity of > > the surfaces of the particles upon which it acts (as mechanical causes > > used to do), but according to the quantity of the solid matter which they > > contain, and propagates its virtue on all sides to immense distances, > > decreasing always as the inverse square of the distances. Gravitation > > towards the sun is made up out of the gravitations towards the several > > particles of which the body of the sun is composed; and in receding from > > the sun decreases accurately as the inverse square of the distances as > > far as the orbit of Saturn, as evidently appears from the quiescence of > > the aphelion of the planets; nay, and even to the remotest aphelion of > > the comets, if those aphelions are also quiescent. But hitherto I have > > not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from > > phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from > > the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether > > metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have > > no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular > > propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered > > general by induction. Thus it was that the impenetrability, the mobility, > > and the impulsive force of bodies, and the laws of motion and of > > gravitation, were discovered. And to us it is enough that gravity does > > really exist; and act according to the laws which we have explained, and > > abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, > > and of our Sea." > > Where I'm concerned, I've known Timo for quite a few years, and > he uses a real name as I do. Some ding-bat using the name "noeinstein" > calling relativity 'moronic', I disrespect. > I owe Timo cuz he's answered a few questions I've seen. > > I could happily explain why the the Earth's day is increasing > and the Moon is receeding, using conservation of angular > momentum and energy, but ding-bats don't appreciate the effort. > Regards > Ken- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Timo Nieminen on 9 Apr 2010 17:38 On Apr 10, 12:31 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > Something I enjoyed was using a little electric powered > toy car, allow me to provide the 'menu'. [cut] > Bright students appreciate the unit conversations > and the scaling, if ya can get a bit of time in a > gymnasium it's good fun. Nice exercise. Very good for engineering students in particular. Do you include drag (i.e., air resistance) in the scaling? Wouldn't have fit in the course I was teaching (a bridging course, basically a super-quick coverage of high school physics), would take too much time and would only make sense at the very end (after mechanics and DC circuits had all been covered). Unless one re- arranges the course, does this kind of exercise at the very start, and then attaches the subsequent material to it. Very concrete and connected to reality. Some students will love it, some will hate it - it would be a different-from-usual course and inspire strong reactions, both good and bad. Some students would think they're only learning about the mechanics of toy cars, not mechanics in general - the reverse of the more common thinking they're only learning about the mechanics of fictitious box-shaped objects that only live in free- body diagrams, not in the real world. I'd always do the Bernoulli bottle, plastic drink bottle with hole in side. From Bernoulli, predict the speed of the outflow. From the projectile motion of the water squirting out onto the table, find the flow speed from measurement of the horizontal range. That's the basic part of the exercise. The advanced part is to ask why these two values aren't the same. -- Timo
From: Ken S. Tucker on 9 Apr 2010 20:58 On Apr 9, 2:38 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > On Apr 10, 12:31 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > > > Something I enjoyed was using a little electric powered > > toy car, allow me to provide the 'menu'. > [cut] > > Bright students appreciate the unit conversations > > and the scaling, if ya can get a bit of time in a > > gymnasium it's good fun. > > Nice exercise. Very good for engineering students in particular. Do > you include drag (i.e., air resistance) in the scaling? Ha-ha, scaling Drag Coefficient (?), no. I've worked with scaling aerodynamic models, but that's complicated, if your serious I'm happy to discuss it though. > Wouldn't have fit in the course I was teaching (a bridging course, > basically a super-quick coverage of high school physics), would take > too much time and would only make sense at the very end (after > mechanics and DC circuits had all been covered). Unless one re- > arranges the course, does this kind of exercise at the very start, and > then attaches the subsequent material to it. Very concrete and > connected to reality. Some students will love it, some will hate it - > it would be a different-from-usual course and inspire strong > reactions, both good and bad. Some students would think they're only > learning about the mechanics of toy cars, not mechanics in general - > the reverse of the more common thinking they're only learning about > the mechanics of fictitious box-shaped objects that only live in free- > body diagrams, not in the real world. IMO, a big weakness among phyicists is sliding through units. That's why an intro to Volts x Current = Power (Watts) to HP and to Force x velocity , (1 HP = 550 foot pounds/sec) and so on is worth knowing, (ok a yawner), but later on is dimensional analysis. Mostly people (scientists) focus on energy and momentum, and power and action are sidelined. > I'd always do the Bernoulli bottle, plastic drink bottle with hole in > side. From Bernoulli, predict the speed of the outflow. From the > projectile motion of the water squirting out onto the table, find the > flow speed from measurement of the horizontal range. That's the basic > part of the exercise. The advanced part is to ask why these two values > aren't the same. I've always found that one tough. > Timo Cheers Ken
From: NoEinstein on 10 Apr 2010 11:01 On Apr 9, 8:58 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > Dear Ken: I minored in structural engineering within my architecture major at Clemson. Anything to do with forces and their effects, was of great interest. When I tried to make heads-or-tails out of the... Mechanics chapters in physics, there were so many inconsistencies that I realized the text books... and the professors, were screwed up, not me. Decades later, as I developed my New Science (that explains the basics of the entire Universe!) I realized, as you apparently have, that physicists use the "units" of math while often failing to understand what the apt equations should be. "Horsepower" is a good example: A single (typical) horse, as was used to haul coal from mines, could lift 550 pounds, presumably, with a 'frictionless pulley. Two horses could lift 1,100 pounds, etc. The POWER of a horse has nothing to do with TIME at all! It only has to do with the FORCE that a horse can apply. Work is the "useful" application of a force, against an equal resistance, which moves some object or mechanism, such as a spring, so much distance in the desired direction. The TIME required to move the object has no effect on either the force, nor the work done! So, the correct definition of horsepower is, simply: One horsepower is equal to a force of 550 pounds! Weight, force, energy, momentum and power all have the units POUNDS. Work is force x distance moved in the desired direction. People should understand things that simple. NoEinstein > > On Apr 9, 2:38 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > On Apr 10, 12:31 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > > Something I enjoyed was using a little electric powered > > > toy car, allow me to provide the 'menu'. > > [cut] > > > Bright students appreciate the unit conversations > > > and the scaling, if ya can get a bit of time in a > > > gymnasium it's good fun. > > > Nice exercise. Very good for engineering students in particular. Do > > you include drag (i.e., air resistance) in the scaling? > > Ha-ha, scaling Drag Coefficient (?), no. I've worked with > scaling aerodynamic models, but that's complicated, if your > serious I'm happy to discuss it though. > > > Wouldn't have fit in the course I was teaching (a bridging course, > > basically a super-quick coverage of high school physics), would take > > too much time and would only make sense at the very end (after > > mechanics and DC circuits had all been covered). Unless one re- > > arranges the course, does this kind of exercise at the very start, and > > then attaches the subsequent material to it. Very concrete and > > connected to reality. Some students will love it, some will hate it - > > it would be a different-from-usual course and inspire strong > > reactions, both good and bad. Some students would think they're only > > learning about the mechanics of toy cars, not mechanics in general - > > the reverse of the more common thinking they're only learning about > > the mechanics of fictitious box-shaped objects that only live in free- > > body diagrams, not in the real world. > > IMO, a big weakness among phyicists is sliding through units. > That's why an intro to Volts x Current = Power (Watts) to HP > and to Force x velocity , (1 HP = 550 foot pounds/sec) and so > on is worth knowing, (ok a yawner), but later on is dimensional > analysis. > Mostly people (scientists) focus on energy and momentum, and > power and action are sidelined. > > > I'd always do the Bernoulli bottle, plastic drink bottle with hole in > > side. From Bernoulli, predict the speed of the outflow. From the > > projectile motion of the water squirting out onto the table, find the > > flow speed from measurement of the horizontal range. That's the basic > > part of the exercise. The advanced part is to ask why these two values > > aren't the same. > > I've always found that one tough. > > > Timo > > Cheers > Ken
From: Timo Nieminen on 10 Apr 2010 16:48
On Apr 10, 10:58 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > On Apr 9, 2:38 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > On Apr 10, 12:31 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > > Something I enjoyed was using a little electric powered > > > toy car, allow me to provide the 'menu'. > > [cut] > > > Bright students appreciate the unit conversations > > > and the scaling, if ya can get a bit of time in a > > > gymnasium it's good fun. > > > Nice exercise. Very good for engineering students in particular. Do > > you include drag (i.e., air resistance) in the scaling? > > Ha-ha, scaling Drag Coefficient (?), no. I've worked with > scaling aerodynamic models, but that's complicated, if your > serious I'm happy to discuss it though. It is complicated, but it's the done thing when doing any scale work in fluid flow, and more generally, when using scale models to investigate real systems.Should be compulsory for all engineers. Physicists work a little differently. A physicist will simplify the model until something can be said from basic physics. Hopefully the simplified model still behaves enough like the real system so as to be meaningful. The engineer, OTOH, will measure a scale model (or a different-scale real system) and extrapolate. Two different answers to two different questions; the physicist answers "why", and the engineer answers "how much". The engineer's approach works well, as long as the scaling is understood. Not knowing the "why" can make this dangerous. There are some spectacular roof collapses that resulted from naive scaling, and other disasters too. It was the fundamental problem with the Tacoma Narrows bridge, although stupidity contributed too (i.e., not fixing it as soon as its behaviour was seen). > IMO, a big weakness among phyicists is sliding through units. > That's why an intro to Volts x Current = Power (Watts) to HP > and to Force x velocity , (1 HP = 550 foot pounds/sec) and so > on is worth knowing, (ok a yawner), but later on is dimensional > analysis. > Mostly people (scientists) focus on energy and momentum, and > power and action are sidelined. In mechanics, yes, power is sidelined. Friction is largely ignored, and while P=Fv will appear as a brief note for motion at constant speed with friction, it's minor. For circuits, of course, energy and momentum are ignored, and power is king. But these aren't connected, even appearing in different semesters in the usual courses. The newest generation of students are very metrified. Foot-pounds would be traumatic to them, let alone HP. > > I'd always do the Bernoulli bottle, plastic drink bottle with hole in > > side. From Bernoulli, predict the speed of the outflow. From the > > projectile motion of the water squirting out onto the table, find the > > flow speed from measurement of the horizontal range. That's the basic > > part of the exercise. The advanced part is to ask why these two values > > aren't the same. > > I've always found that one tough. In the proper context, it shouldn't be. As a mystery rule introduced in a hydrodynamics section of a cource, divorced from the rest of the course, it is, well, a mystery. I'd introduce it in mechanics, as an example of the conservation of energy. With no pressure difference (e.g., take the two reference points at the surface of the water and at the hole, where the pressure is atmospheric in both cases), Bernoulli just says "KE + gravitational PE = constant". (Well, KE per unit volume and PE per unit volume.) If there is a pressure difference, deltaP is the work done per unit volume to move from point 1 to point 2, so the complete Bernoulli is "work done = change in (KE + PE)". And you can do the measurement with garbage and a ruler, with the most complicated maths being a quadratic. -- Timo |