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: mpc755 on 23 Apr 2010 17:02 On Apr 23, 3:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 2:03 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 23, 12:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 23, 12:57 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 23, 1:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 23, 12:24 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 12:01 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 10:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear mpc755: I read that delightful little book in which A.. A. > > > > > > > Michelson wrote the quote you cite. My "varying ether flow and > > > > > > > density" is the unifying discovery in all of nature. Michelson would > > > > > > > be thrilled that I found out why his experiment didn't work (no > > > > > > > control), and thrilled that I have found the grand unification > > > > > > > mechanism for all of nature. The latter is varying pressure and > > > > > > > velocity, much like in weather systems on Earth. But the ether ISN'T > > > > > > > displaced by matter! Ether flows THROUGH matter, only to be slowed by > > > > > > > the nuclei, in proportion to the mass. When you can realize that > > > > > > > fact, you and I will be on the same track. NoEinstein > > > > > > > In the quote Michelson discuss aether displacement, "an aether > > > > > > displacement to the electric current". This is conceptually the same > > > > > > as Maxwell's displacement current. > > > > > > Actually, no. Displacement current and aether displacement have > > > > > absolutely nothing to do with each other. Please return to the > > > > > starting line and try again. > > > > > You must have missed this post: > > > > You must have missed the point of my statement, which is that > > > *Maxwell's* displacement current, which has nothing to do with > > > anything that de Broglie ever did, also has nothing to do with aether > > > displacement. So you are either wrong, or a bald-faced liar. Which is > > > it?- > > > Ridiculous. > > > What is aether? > > No-one has the slightest idea. > > Maybe it's neutrinos of selected frequencies. > > How do you 'displace' that? > > > You're arguing about the size of fairies' peckers. > > Maybe they don't have any! > > No-one's ever pissed beside one and looked. > > > Describe your 'aether'. > > What is it made from? > > > john > > That is a question for MPC, since it's his aether he's describing. The > statement he made is that his aether displacement is conceptually the > same as Maxwell's displacement current. That statement is simply > wrong. MPC probably doesn't have the foggiest idea what Maxwell's > displacement current is in the first place. What I said was Michelson's "aether displacement to the electric current" is the same conceptually as Maxwell's displacement current. Now, what is supposed to happen next is I am supposed to say to you that if you think Michelson's concept of "aether displacement to the electric current" is different conceptually than Maxwell's displacement current then you are supposed to explain what the difference is but as you always do with questions you can not answer you go into your state of delusional denial. http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/ Quote from Albert A Michelson's lecture circa 1899. "Suppose that an aether strain corresponds to an electric charge, an aether displacement to the electric current, aether vortices to the atoms; if we continue these suppositions, we arrive at what may be one of the grandest generalizations of modern science, namely that all the phenomena of the physical universe are only different manifestations of the various modes of motion of one all-pervading (substance), the aether. The day seems not to distant when the converging lines from many apparently remote regions of thought will meet on some common ground. Then the nature of the atom and the forces called into play in their chemical union, the interactions between these atoms and the non-differentiated aether as manifested in the phenomena of light and electricity , the structure of the molecule, the explanation of cohesion, elasticity and gravitation, all of these will be marshaled into a single compact and consistent body of scientific knowledge." I would modify the statement to read: "all the phenomena of the physical universe are only different manifestations of the various states of one all-pervading (substance), the aether." http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html Albert Einstein: "the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" I would modify the statement to read: The state of the aether as determined by the connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state of displacement. You must have missed this post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie "This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any moving particle or object had an associated wave." 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle." "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is located." de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of the wave. In AD, the external field is the aether. In a double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits the available slits. For example, in the image on the right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment 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_experiment 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 will provide 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.
From: NoEinstein on 22 Apr 2010 16:03 On Apr 21, 4:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Bucky Fuller explained that nature doesn't think pi is 3.1416... He was right, but I don't HATE curves because of the fractions everywhere. NE > > On Apr 21, 2:28 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Apr 20, 5:17 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear spudnik: While I was a student at Clemson, I attended two > > lectures (in different years) of Robert B. Fuller. He was a 'head-in- > > the-clouds' guy. But I learned that "nature" doesn't construct things > > with curves. The reason pi is an infinitely repeating decimal is > > because circles are actually (in nature) constructed of short straight- > > line segments rather than curves. And the number of segments will > > always a whole number. NoEinstein > > Oh my. > So in your mind, rational numbers and irrational numbers do not > correspond to anything in reality. Only integers. > So, where on a water droplet falling from the sky, are these straight- > line segments? > And when the Earth orbits the sun, how often does it make a quick turn > at a corner between two straight-line segments? And what kicks the > Earth from one segment to the next? > > You know you've lost your mind, right? > > PD
From: NoEinstein on 22 Apr 2010 16:10 On Apr 22, 2:24 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear spudnik: The paths of orbiting objects aren't physical constructs. Bucky never said that orbits are composed of straight line segments. But any "crystalline" sphere will likely have straight line segments. Interestingly, computers "draw" curves by inserting a finite number of straight line segments. Doing so won't screw up the distance traveled by an orbiting object by very much. NoEinstein > > R. Bucky Fuller was a funny guy, and your spiel about orbit > is a perfect counter to his blather about pi. on the other hand, > the vast majority of earth scientists don't know spherical trig., > which Bucky did, in the command of a naval vessel, > just before radio came in (in their GCMs etc., > the poles are singularities, as in a Mercator projection ... but > the space-science folks are *all* about the poles .-) > > see color plates one & two in _Synergetics_.http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/synergetics.html > > > And when the Earth orbits the sun, how often does it make a quick turn > > at a corner between two straight-line segments? And what kicks the > > Earth from one segment to the next? > > thus: > space-time is merely ordinary phase-space, properly seen, > a la Lanczos' use of quaternions -- Death to the lightcone; > long-live the lightcone-heads! > > so, are biquaternions non-associative, like octonions? > > poor Minkowski, made his bizzare slogan about time *qua* the graphed > *function* > on a piece of paper, and then he died, and that ain't electronics *or* > rocketscience (like Bucky saith, It is *all* rocketscience .-) > > the great geometer Minkowski, alas, puts his pants on, > one lightcone at a time, like any one else. > > --No Cap and Trade Bailout for Wall Street and The City! > to whom it concerns; > as I comprehend it, after briefly speaking with Waxman at UCLA, his > bill does > the same as his '91 cap&trade bill under HW, on SO2 and NOx (viz, > acid rain); that is, it is just a "free trade" nostrum. > > if Dubya had known that Kyoto was just another cap&trade "free trade" > nostrum, > I'm sure that he would have signed it, since he has been thoroughly > indoctrinated > in the MBA school on "British Liberal Free Trade" (cotton, sugar & > slavery etc., > why the British organized and supported Secession with ships & > materiel) -- > what the Revolution was mainly about -- not just, > Taxation without representation, as a la the Tea Party effetes and > the Encyclopedia Brittaninca! > > Waxman perhaps has been too long on the job; > when I spoke to him at the Faculty Center, he seemed to be on drugs, > two, > a marked difference form when I saw him in P.Palisades. anyway, > as I asked him, > why can't we just have a very small Carbon Tax, > instead of letting the arbitrageurs run the bull & bear hijinx? > > as they say, the bears make money, the bulls make money, and > the hogs always get slaughtered. > > none of the (two) experts, I have read or asked, > thought that a tax would work as well, but that it was somehow > politically impossible. > > --sooner,bri
From: PD on 22 Apr 2010 16:27 On Apr 22, 3:03 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Apr 21, 4:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Bucky Fuller explained that nature > doesn't think pi is 3.1416... He was right, but I don't HATE curves > because of the fractions everywhere. NE You didn't answer my questions below. Where in the orbit of the earth does it navigate a sudden corner from one straight line segment to another? Either answer the question, John, or retract your earlier statement, which was clearly foolish. > > > > > On Apr 21, 2:28 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Apr 20, 5:17 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear spudnik: While I was a student at Clemson, I attended two > > > lectures (in different years) of Robert B. Fuller. He was a 'head-in- > > > the-clouds' guy. But I learned that "nature" doesn't construct things > > > with curves. The reason pi is an infinitely repeating decimal is > > > because circles are actually (in nature) constructed of short straight- > > > line segments rather than curves. And the number of segments will > > > always a whole number. NoEinstein > > > Oh my. > > So in your mind, rational numbers and irrational numbers do not > > correspond to anything in reality. Only integers. > > So, where on a water droplet falling from the sky, are these straight- > > line segments? > > And when the Earth orbits the sun, how often does it make a quick turn > > at a corner between two straight-line segments? And what kicks the > > Earth from one segment to the next? > > > You know you've lost your mind, right? > > > PD > >
From: NoEinstein on 22 Apr 2010 16:38
On Apr 22, 4:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Dunce: "Orbits" aren't physical constructs! NE > > On Apr 22, 3:03 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Apr 21, 4:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Bucky Fuller explained that nature > > doesn't think pi is 3.1416... He was right, but I don't HATE curves > > because of the fractions everywhere. NE > > You didn't answer my questions below. Where in the orbit of the earth > does it navigate a sudden corner from one straight line segment to > another? > > Either answer the question, John, or retract your earlier statement, > which was clearly foolish. > > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 2:28 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 20, 5:17 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear spudnik: While I was a student at Clemson, I attended two > > > > lectures (in different years) of Robert B. Fuller. He was a 'head-in- > > > > the-clouds' guy. But I learned that "nature" doesn't construct things > > > > with curves. The reason pi is an infinitely repeating decimal is > > > > because circles are actually (in nature) constructed of short straight- > > > > line segments rather than curves. And the number of segments will > > > > always a whole number. NoEinstein > > > > Oh my. > > > So in your mind, rational numbers and irrational numbers do not > > > correspond to anything in reality. Only integers. > > > So, where on a water droplet falling from the sky, are these straight- > > > line segments? > > > And when the Earth orbits the sun, how often does it make a quick turn > > > at a corner between two straight-line segments? And what kicks the > > > Earth from one segment to the next? > > > > You know you've lost your mind, right? > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |