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: PD on 24 Mar 2010 16:01 On Mar 24, 1:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 24, 2:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Making cut-and-paste posts, mpc, even if amended with a small > > addition, are an abuse of the newsgroup, and could warrant > > cancellation of your membership to the group, not to mention > > cancellation of your account with your ISP. Several people on the > > newsgroup have been canned for the same thing. Could you please > > consider modifying this knee-jerk behavior? > > Is this your response because you can not answer the questions? > > Someone who chooses to believe the future determines the past does not > understand science. > > What occurs physically in nature for the future to determine the past? > > Someone who says gravity is 'unflat' space and when asked how space > physically becomes 'unflat' says, I don't know does not understand > science. > > What occurs physically in nature to cause space to become 'unflat'? > > Someone who chooses to believe in 'virtual' particles which exist out > of nothing does not understand science. > > What occurs physically in nature to cause 'virtual' particles to exist > out of nothing? > > Someone who ignores conservation of momentum in a downgraded photon > pair in order to believe in instantaneous action at a distance does > not understand science. > > What occurs physically in nature to allow you to ignore conservation > of momentum? > > In AD, the future does not determine the past. A C-60 molecule enters > and exits a single slit and the associated aether displacement wave > enters and exits the available slits. > > In AD, physical space is displaced by matter. > > In AD, aether displaced by matter (i.e. the plates in the Casimir > Effect) exerts pressure towards the matter doing the displacing. This > forces the plates in the Casimir Effect together. > > In AD, conservation of momentum is not simply ignored when a > downgraded photon pair are created. The downgraded photon pair have > opposite angular momentums in order to maintain the original photon's > momentum. > > In AD, in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule, the C-60 > molecule enters and exits a single slit and the associated aether > displacement wave enters and exits the available slits. See de Broglie > wave mechanics for more information. > > In AD, gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. > > Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory, to date. reported to abuse(a)comcast and to abuse(a)google
From: mpc755 on 24 Mar 2010 16:05 On Mar 24, 4:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > reported to abuse(a)comcast and to abuse(a)google Is this because you can't answer the questions? Someone who chooses to believe the future determines the past does not understand science. What occurs physically in nature for the future to determine the past? Someone who says gravity is 'unflat' space and when asked how space physically becomes 'unflat' says, I don't know does not understand science. What occurs physically in nature to cause space to become 'unflat'? Someone who chooses to believe in 'virtual' particles which exist out of nothing does not understand science. What occurs physically in nature to cause 'virtual' particles to exist out of nothing? Someone who ignores conservation of momentum in a downgraded photon pair in order to believe in instantaneous action at a distance does not understand science. What occurs physically in nature to allow you to ignore conservation of momentum? In AD, the future does not determine the past. A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit and the associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits. In AD, physical space is displaced by matter. In AD, aether displaced by matter (i.e. the plates in the Casimir Effect) exerts pressure towards the matter doing the displacing. This forces the plates in the Casimir Effect together. In AD, conservation of momentum is not simply ignored when a downgraded photon pair are created. The downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums in order to maintain the original photon's momentum. In AD, in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule, the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit and the associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits. See de Broglie wave mechanics for more information. In AD, gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory, to date.
From: Androcles on 25 Mar 2010 19:47 "Timo Nieminen" <timo(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.50.1003260905590.3187-100000(a)localhost... > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Paul Stowe 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: >> > >> > > > 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. > > Newton explicity said that the mathematical model is enough. From the > Motte/Cajori translation: > > "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." > > More than that, Newton explcitly stated that stories spun about the > "physical" causes - tales of mechanism in the Cartesian style - have no > place in physics: > > 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. > > So, Newton says that the mathematical model is enough, and Newton says > that Cartesian-style "explanations" of causes are not physics. Was Newton > stupid? He clearly thought otherwise. > > Newton himself stepped back from such explanations. He may well have still > preferred to have one, provided it could be adequately tested so as to be > proper physics rather than a story, but he was willing to work without > one. > > The General Scholium is largely a defence against Cartesianist criticism > of his law of gravitation, criticism along the lines of your criticism of > GR. I don't see why you invoke it in support of your position, when it's a > barenaked attack against your position. (Newton appeared to think a > strong attack was a good defence, coming out swinging against Cartesian > gravity in the opening of the General Scholium.) > > -- > Timo You've come a long way from your silly statement "Refusal to discuss physics noted", Nieminen. Are you ready to discuss physics now?
From: Timo Nieminen on 29 Mar 2010 23:46 On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Paul Stowe wrote: > On Mar 28, 6:40 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, PaulStowewrote: > > > On Mar 25, 4:39 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > I think the key term here is the word experimental. In that context > > > I agree, data is data and should not be laden with speculations. Thus > > > my fundamental disagreement with Tom Robert's claim that one cannot, > > > possibly, do an experiment without first having a theory in which to > > > frame it. Faraday's experiments are a great example of this. But, > > > that is not what I'm talking about here. [cut] > > > > The modern usage of "experiment", in a strict and restricted philosophical > > sense, is not the same as it was for Newton, or in his time, when, more or > > less, we had "experiment" = "experience", including pure observation, > > modern experiment in the strict sense, and lots of stuff in-between. In > > the strict modern usage, Tom Roberts is entirely correct, since an > > experiment is performed to reject one of two theories. "Experiment" is > > used in a much broader sense, even today, and such loose usage is closer > > to that of Newton's time. > > Many true 'discoveries' involved observations or elements of > experiments that were NOT intended to be part of the original. And, > more importantly, NOT! theoried before it was done. This, in and of > itself invalidates Robert's stance. No. First, such observation is not "experiment", in the strict sense. That useful discoveries can be made without experiment doesn't invalidate anything that's been said here about experiments. Second, such observation remains strongly informed by theory. How else do you know what observations are surprising, interesting, worth further investigation? You might never have observed a dog with 212,304 hairs before, and the number of hairs on a dog is something you could measure. How do you know it isn't worthwhile? Answer: theory. An observation that isn't known theoretically beforehand can be very interesting. It can tell you something that the theory can predict that has escaped notice, or, even better, it can tell you that the theory is wrong or incomplete. In the absence of theory, what does an observation tell you? > > > > So, Newton says that the mathematical model is enough, and Newton says > > > > that Cartesian-style "explanations" of causes are not physics. Was Newton > > > > stupid? He clearly thought otherwise. > > > > > Correlations are useful, fruitful and point to understanding. But, if > > > he or you believe(d) that correlations are enough then then you think > > > reversed 'engineering' not fundamental understanding is sufficient. > > > And I, and I think other find such philosophy a poor excuse for > > > science. > > > > "Enough" for further progress to be made. > > Indeed! > > > If it's the best that can be done (at least for the visible future), > > I think that very mentality is selling both oneself and humanity short > if one actually believes it. > > > does one proceed in the Newtonian > > fashion, or discard that approach as "not enough"? > > Proceeds and openly declares that it's not enough, and in the long > run, an unaceptable state. Lack of understanding of the ultimate secrets of the universe has been with us for a long time. If it's "unacceptable", what do you do? One could try an Apollo program scale effort, a Manhattan-scale effort, to try to get there. Would this be a good investment? That more than one story can lead to exactly the same quantitative model is the giant roadblock on the road to "fundamental understanding". How is this to be overcome? A quantitative model can be tested. How can the story behind it be tested? (There are some interesting parallels in the history of theology, concerning trying to decide what humans can know about the divine.) > > It's clear that more is wanted, at least by many physicists, other > > scientists, and non-scientists. Witness the intellectual investment in the > > various interpretations of quantum mechanics. Also witness the progress > > that has resulted from these interpretations. > > That's a hopeful sign that the mentality ofr the last 80 years is > changing. ??? Work on interpretations of quantum mechanics has been with us as long as quantum mechanics has been with us. The scientific progress that has resulted from the various interpretations is close to zero (unless you consider "shut up and calculate" an "intepretation"). Interpretations have at times impeded progress. People like interpretations, find them interesting, and contribute to them, putting much effort and time into this. This doesn't make it science, or scientifically productive. (Try replacing "interpretations" with "art".) > > The Newtonianisation of electrical and magnetic theory by Aepinus is a > > superb example of the progress that can be made by being willing to work > > with "enough", and being prepared to ignore Cartesian would-be-burdens. > > There's a nice discussion in the English translation of his book. > > Yes but it took the insight of Maxwell to put it all together. Then, > what does modern science do? Throws out the baby and keeps the > bathwater and claims the baby never existed... Where "modern" is over a century old, at least throws out the just-so story and keeps the scientifically useful part, the testable part, the part that enables further progress. To Hertz, the baby was the equations, the rest the leftover refuse of the creative act. But even Maxwell was doing this. Witness the role of aether in his sequence of publication in 1861-2, 1865, and 1873. The de-aetherisation of Maxwell's theory was well underway in Maxwell's writing. And this was despite Maxwell being a convinced aetherist. Maxwell was also aware that exactly the same quantitative model could be obtained without his story behind it. He knew that Lorenz had done this (published in 1867, the equivalence noted in Maxwell's Treatise). Hertz did it again some years later, making Maxwell's theory (as in the quantitative model) much more acceptable to his contemporaries. Finally, a lot of Cartesianist stories only remove the unknown to one step further away. They "explain" some observed phenomenon, but the elements of the Cartesianist story remain unexplained. For example, a story of aether as a fluid with special properties might well yield Maxwell's equations. Why does this fluid have these properties? No good pointing at real-world materials that have some of these properties - these real-world properties are the result of long-range interactions between the constituent atoms. So assume that the aether-fluid aether-atoms have such long-range interactions? What causes these? If one is willing to accept such interactions without further explanation, what was wrong with just accepting the original electromagnetic interactions without further explanation? If one were to invest time and effort in explanatory stories that lead to _different_ quantitative models, then one can at least test which of the models is better (but keep in mind that it'd be a test of the quantitative models, not the explanatory stories behind them), then this might lead somewhere. If the model arising from the new story has too many free parameters so that the model is effectively immune from falsification, then it's less likely to lead anywhere. There are good reasons why string theory is widely considered as non-science. -- Timo Nieminen
From: mpc755 on 30 Mar 2010 00:51
On Mar 29, 11:46 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Paul Stowe wrote: > > On Mar 28, 6:40 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, PaulStowewrote: > > > > On Mar 25, 4:39 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > I think the key term here is the word experimental. In that context > > > > I agree, data is data and should not be laden with speculations. Thus > > > > my fundamental disagreement with Tom Robert's claim that one cannot, > > > > possibly, do an experiment without first having a theory in which to > > > > frame it. Faraday's experiments are a great example of this. But, > > > > that is not what I'm talking about here. > [cut] > > > > The modern usage of "experiment", in a strict and restricted philosophical > > > sense, is not the same as it was for Newton, or in his time, when, more or > > > less, we had "experiment" = "experience", including pure observation, > > > modern experiment in the strict sense, and lots of stuff in-between. In > > > the strict modern usage, Tom Roberts is entirely correct, since an > > > experiment is performed to reject one of two theories. "Experiment" is > > > used in a much broader sense, even today, and such loose usage is closer > > > to that of Newton's time. > > > Many true 'discoveries' involved observations or elements of > > experiments that were NOT intended to be part of the original. And, > > more importantly, NOT! theoried before it was done. This, in and of > > itself invalidates Robert's stance. > > No. First, such observation is not "experiment", in the strict sense. That > useful discoveries can be made without experiment doesn't invalidate > anything that's been said here about experiments. > > Second, such observation remains strongly informed by theory. How else do > you know what observations are surprising, interesting, worth further > investigation? You might never have observed a dog with 212,304 hairs > before, and the number of hairs on a dog is something you could measure. > How do you know it isn't worthwhile? Answer: theory. > > An observation that isn't known theoretically beforehand can be very > interesting. It can tell you something that the theory can predict that > has escaped notice, or, even better, it can tell you that the theory is > wrong or incomplete. In the absence of theory, what does an observation > tell you? > > > > > > > > So, Newton says that the mathematical model is enough, and Newton says > > > > > that Cartesian-style "explanations" of causes are not physics. Was Newton > > > > > stupid? He clearly thought otherwise. > > > > > Correlations are useful, fruitful and point to understanding. But, if > > > > he or you believe(d) that correlations are enough then then you think > > > > reversed 'engineering' not fundamental understanding is sufficient. > > > > And I, and I think other find such philosophy a poor excuse for > > > > science. > > > > "Enough" for further progress to be made. > > > Indeed! > > > > If it's the best that can be done (at least for the visible future), > > > I think that very mentality is selling both oneself and humanity short > > if one actually believes it. > > > > does one proceed in the Newtonian > > > fashion, or discard that approach as "not enough"? > > > Proceeds and openly declares that it's not enough, and in the long > > run, an unaceptable state. > > Lack of understanding of the ultimate secrets of the universe has been > with us for a long time. If it's "unacceptable", what do you do? > > One could try an Apollo program scale effort, a Manhattan-scale effort, to > try to get there. Would this be a good investment? > > That more than one story can lead to exactly the same quantitative model > is the giant roadblock on the road to "fundamental understanding". How is > this to be overcome? A quantitative model can be tested. How can the story > behind it be tested? > > (There are some interesting parallels in the history of theology, > concerning trying to decide what humans can know about the divine.) > > > > It's clear that more is wanted, at least by many physicists, other > > > scientists, and non-scientists. Witness the intellectual investment in the > > > various interpretations of quantum mechanics. Also witness the progress > > > that has resulted from these interpretations. > > > That's a hopeful sign that the mentality ofr the last 80 years is > > changing. > > ??? Work on interpretations of quantum mechanics has been with us as long > as quantum mechanics has been with us. > > The scientific progress that has resulted from the various interpretations > is close to zero (unless you consider "shut up and calculate" an > "intepretation"). Interpretations have at times impeded progress. > > People like interpretations, find them interesting, and contribute to > them, putting much effort and time into this. This doesn't make it > science, or scientifically productive. (Try replacing "interpretations" > with "art".) > > > > The Newtonianisation of electrical and magnetic theory by Aepinus is a > > > superb example of the progress that can be made by being willing to work > > > with "enough", and being prepared to ignore Cartesian would-be-burdens. > > > There's a nice discussion in the English translation of his book. > > > Yes but it took the insight of Maxwell to put it all together. Then, > > what does modern science do? Throws out the baby and keeps the > > bathwater and claims the baby never existed... > > Where "modern" is over a century old, at least throws out the just-so > story and keeps the scientifically useful part, the testable part, the > part that enables further progress. To Hertz, the baby was the equations, > the rest the leftover refuse of the creative act. > > But even Maxwell was doing this. Witness the role of aether in his > sequence of publication in 1861-2, 1865, and 1873. The de-aetherisation of > Maxwell's theory was well underway in Maxwell's writing. And this was > despite Maxwell being a convinced aetherist. > > Maxwell was also aware that exactly the same quantitative model could be > obtained without his story behind it. He knew that Lorenz had done this > (published in 1867, the equivalence noted in Maxwell's Treatise). Hertz > did it again some years later, making Maxwell's theory (as in the > quantitative model) much more acceptable to his contemporaries. > > Finally, a lot of Cartesianist stories only remove the unknown to one step > further away. They "explain" some observed phenomenon, but the elements of > the Cartesianist story remain unexplained. > > For example, a story of aether as a fluid with special properties might > well yield Maxwell's equations. Why does this fluid have these properties? > No good pointing at real-world materials that have some of these > properties - these real-world properties are the result of long-range > interactions between the constituent atoms. So assume that the > aether-fluid aether-atoms have such long-range interactions? What causes > these? '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. Aether is displaced by an individual nucleus. When discussing gravity as the pressure associated with the aether displaced by matter, what is being discussed is the aether being displaced by each and every nucleus which is the matter which is the object. A C-60 molecule displaces the aether. A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule itself occupies a very small region of the wave. The C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment. The associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits. When the aether displacement wave exits the slits it creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference. The Casimir Effect is caused by gravity. Each and every nucleus which is the matter which is the plate displaces the aether. The aether displaced by one plate extends past the other plate. The pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the plates forces the plates together. 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "These are essentially based on the way in which quantities respectively characterizing the regular v wave and the internal u0 wave of the particle connect with the neighbourhood of the singular region. u0 would have to increase very sharply as one penetrates the singular region." This is similar to Einstein's concept of: 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places". There is a connectedness between the particle and the neighborhood. There is a connectedness between the matter and the aether. The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state of displacement. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. Aether Displacement is a unified theory. > If one is willing to accept such interactions without further > explanation, what was wrong with just accepting the original > electromagnetic interactions without further explanation? > > If one were to invest time and effort in explanatory stories that lead to > _different_ quantitative models, then one can at least test which of the > models is better (but keep in mind that it'd be a test of the quantitative > models, not the explanatory stories behind them), then this might lead > somewhere. If the model arising from the new story has too many free > parameters so that the model is effectively immune from falsification, > then it's less likely to lead anywhere. > > There are good reasons why string theory is widely considered as > non-science. > > -- > Timo Nieminen |