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 5 May 2010 03:56 On May 4, 2:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD loves to extrapolate things into unworkability, so he can claim everything was invalid. MOMENTUM is: F = mv, expressed in pounds. He'll find that same equation (but not the correct units, pounds) in most textbooks. NE > > On May 4, 1:07 pm, af...(a)FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Park) wrote: > > > PD (thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com) writes: > > > On May 3, 10:07=A0pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > >> Dear PD: =A0A thin "College Outline Series" book (that fits into the > > >> bookcase behind my computer chair) entitled "Physics", by Clarence E > > >> Bennett, states on page 19: "G. =A0Momentum and Impulse. =A0(1.) =A0Momen= > > > tum > > >> is defined as the product of the mass times velocity (mv)..." =A0The > > >> letter F is used for momentum, because the equation defines forces. =A0= > > > =97 > > >> NoEinstein =97 > > > > Oh, good grief. John, what is the ISBN on this book? I'd like to > > > secure it to look at it. > > > From what it is you just told me is in it, if I can verify that you > > > can indeed read it correctly, it is a horrible, horrible booklet and > > > should be burned as worthless. > > > To quote the Spartans on a quite different occasion: If. > > > I can't help noticing that the actual quoted passage is reasonable and > > the inference about forces is purely in NE's words. > > Exactly. > > For what it's worth, momentum's *definition* is not mv, either. > Electromagnetic fields have momentum, but this expression certainly > does not work for them. The formula works for a certain class of > matter-based objects traveling at low speed, and that's it. > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 5 May 2010 04:15 On May 4, 7:39 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > whoever thinks that "p = mv" has units of a force -- and > what in Hell is the role of the Coriolis force in all o'this? > Dear spudnik: Sometimes the letter 'p' is used for pressure, which is force per unit area. If a big football lineman ran into you, I suppose you'd feel more of the pressure than the force. Coriolis wrote formulas which account for the spiral of water going down drains, and the spiral of winds going from high pressure toward low press areas. He also explained why the rotation direction changes depending on the location north or south of the equator. The latter was brilliant and is still used today in making weather predictions. Coriolis's big goof was to try to explain why wooden (plank) foot bridges would be more likely to break if the person jumped up and down in the middle. He attributed that to the 'exponential' increase in KE due to the person's velocity. But what he never realized is that all materials respond poorly to RAPIDLY APPLIED LOADS. It was the change in the strength of the plank more than the increase in KE! That is another of my contributions to science which I failed to list a week or so ago. NoEinstein > > > > Dear spudnik: To whom are you replying? NE > > thus: > most of these things, you mention, are just theoretical > interpretations from the Schroedinger's cat school > of Copenhagen, "reifying the math" of the probabilities; > they don't actually have any bearing on the correctness > of QM or GR or SR or any thing, nor > on your so-called theory. but, > why do you say that conversation of momentum > supposedly doesn't apply to a split quantum > of light in some standard theory? > > and poor Nein Ein Stein believes that p = mv is a force and > that F = ma is not, > merely from a didactic say-so of his (in some sort > of pidgen English, which could be the whole problem). > > > - The future determines the past > > - Virtual particles 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 > > - Michelson's "aether displacement to the electric current" is > > different than Maxwell's displacement current > > - Mass is not conserved. > > - An electromagnetic field to have momentum. > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com
From: NoEinstein on 5 May 2010 04:27 On May 4, 7:59 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Timo: Obviously, you want an 'out'. You were so insistent that the numbers be right, and the math be done before performing experiments, that I assumed you were wanting ME to do all of those things. But if you are wishing to do the experiment, yourself, why didn't you say just that? Anyway... The gravity results should be more pronounced at temperatures of white hot steel (1,700 degrees F., plus). If you could get cast tungsten balls, the temperature could be closer to 5,000 degrees F. Of course the wires holding the balls should be tungsten as well. Do this experiment, and you could become acclaimed in your own right. Good luck! NoEinstein > > On Tue, 4 May 2010, NoEinstein wrote: > > On May 3, 5:10 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > Dear Timo: There was a jealous tone to your insistence that I stop > > whatever I'm doing and start doing experiments to define how best to > > correct Newton's errant Law of Universal (sic) Gravitation. > > Don't lie. I insisted no such thing, did not suggest that _you_ do any > such experiments. > > I said it might be worthwhile for _me_ to do the experiment. > > _I_ am not _you_, and I don't see why, given your great intellect, you > would misunderstand. > > What is necessary for the experiment to be worth doing is a quantitative > prediction of how large the effect should be. If your ability is within an > order of magnitude of what you claim, this should take you no more than a > few hours (at the absolute most; well under an hour is far more likely). > You don't care to provide the necessary information - not my problem, I > simply won't do the experiment.
From: NoEinstein on 5 May 2010 04:44 On May 4, 8:03 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear spudnik: You are right about the history. But after Newton claimed his law was... "universal" it never occurred to him nor anyone that hot objects have a higher gravity per unit of mass. Later scientists, in estimating the mass of the galaxies and the whole universe, used the brightness of the heavens for figuring how many Milky Ways are out there. When they missed the mass of the Sun, they missed the mass of everything else. Overestimating the masses revolving in the galaxies, caused them to over-estimate the FORCE of gravity needed to hold the stars in orbits about the center of the galaxies. That caused them to WRONGLY assume that there must be a super-massive black hole in the center of our galaxy. But of course I've proved that black holes come in one basic size and have ZERO gravity. Since there is no molecular motion possible, the temperature is close to absolute zero. The radiation from nearby stars can evaporate (or sublimate) away the matter on the outside of a black hole. IF a comet or wandering star happens to hit a black hole, the entire energy could un compact in an explosion like a quasar. One shouldn't crash things into black holes! It would be like splitting open a big can of springs. Once the can goes the springs will shoot everywhere. NoEinstein > > it's probably just his grasp of English; > don't you think? > > as for "Newton's law," > its universality is actually due to Kepler; > Hooke merely algebraized Kepler's orbital constraints > (then, newton stole the inverse second-power thing > from Hooke .-) > > thus: > nor are most glaciers actually receding, although > this fact is mainly unnoticed, because of a massive lack > of historical data on virtually all glaciers. > > satellite telemetry has shown almost no change > of Antarctic icesheets, but what else would one expect, > considering that there is as much ice as can > be accomodated, because "ice bergs do calve, > period." > > > OK, NSIDC and NERSC don't agree. NERSC, who shows the years 2007, 2008, > > 2009 and 2010, still shows 2010 with much more ice than 2007 and 2008. > > thus: > I'm allowed to agree with Al Gore about one thing; > am I not?... even though Mauna Loa is a weird place > to measure CO2, it's still just one place, > with a record since the '60s (I think). > > now, most of the effect of humans may not > be the burning of Fossilized Fuels (tm), but > the burning-up of soil biota & forests. (after all, > oil comes out of the ground, by itself, > under pressure -- even when we're pumping like crazy > in the Gulf of Mexico and the Redondo Seep e.g.) > > thus: > most of these things, you mention, are just theoretical > interpretations from the Schroedinger's cat school > of Copenhagen, "reifying the math" of the probabilities; > they don't actually have any bearing on the correctness > of QM or GR or SR or any thing, nor > on your so-called theory. but, > why do you say that conversation of momentum > supposedly doesn't apply to a split quantum > of light in some standard theory? > > and poor Nein Ein Stein believes that p = mv is a force and > that F = ma is not, and some thing about Coriolis' force, > merely from a didactic say-so of his (in some sort > of pidgen English, which could be the whole problem). > > > - The future determines the past > > - Virtual particles exist out of nothing > > - Conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com
From: NoEinstein on 5 May 2010 04:49
On May 4, 8:50 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > no-one is without bias; why do you say, > that you are without bias? > Dear spudnik: People with bias (the second worst trait after dishonesty) compensate by being unfair. They see things only in ways that benefit them or their group. Since I've sought the truth, rather than ego boosts, I have no need to be unfair in my representation of how nature works. NoEinstein > > "rubber rulers" is just a simple thing: > if matter is ultimately made of energy, then > its internal workings can go no faster than light; > so, what happens if the matter "approaches" > that ultimate speed?... anyway, > the Michelson-Morley results were never "nil," > and their results have been refined by others. > (would you like a reference?) > > > Whatever the truth is, PD contorts it. "Rubber Rulers" has no > > supporting experiment! Lorentz, the imbecile, used RR to 'explain' > > the nil results of M-M. > > thus: > why should such analogy be used > to insinuate that the redshift is dopplerian -- > is there really a perfect vacuum, > for lightwaves not to propogate in? > > was Hubble hounded into this interpretation, or > was he such a self-promoter that he just said, > Surely! > > > > 1) Draw spots on a rubber balloon and inflate. > > thus: > what glaciers really do, > while gently flowing out to sea in a dynamic stasis (well, > on Antarctica and Greenland), is that > the boulders stuck in the underside grind teh bedrock > into dust (some times blown, later, > into deposits of loess). > > [ref.: J.D.Hamaker, retired mechanical engr., > who worked at an oil company.] > > thus: > nor are most glaciers actually receding, although > this fact is mainly unnoticed, because of a massive lack > of historical data on nearly all glaciers. > satellite telemetry has shown almost no change > of Antarctic icesheets, but what else would one expect, > considering that there is as much ice as can > be accomodated, because "ice bergs do calve, > period." > > > OK, NSIDC and NERSC don't agree. NERSC, who shows the years 2007, 2008, > > 2009 and 2010, still shows 2010 with much more ice than 2007 and 2008. > > thus: > it's just a "paradox" of assuming that it is a photon, > when it is merely a wave; obviously, > a thing with p=mv not equal to zero, > can't have one of the terms being zero; so, > it is not a particle or Newtonian corpuscle -- and > did they *have* to give Einstein a Nobel, > just to reify that foolishness of his? > > > There is no mass in the momentum of the photon. > > thus: > it's probably just his grasp of English; > don't you think? > as for "Newton's law," > its universality is actually due to Kepler; > Hooke merely algebraized Kepler's orbital constraints, > using some work of Huyghens (then, > Knewton stole the inverse second-power thing from Hooke, > and destroyed Hooke's portraits .-) > > thus: > I'm allowed to agree with Al Gore about one thing; > am I not?... even though Mauna Loa is a weird place > to measure CO2, it's still just one place, > with a record since the '60s (I think). > now, most of the effect of humans may not > be the burning of Fossilized Fuels (tm), but > the burning-up of soil biota & forests. (after all, > oil comes out of the ground, by itself, > under pressure -- even when we're pumping like crazy > in the Gulf of Mexico and the Redondo Seep e.g.) > > thus: > most of these things, you mention, are just theoretical > interpretations from the Schroedinger's cat school > of Copenhagen, "reifying the math" of the probabilities; > they don't actually have any bearing on the correctness > of QM or GR or SR or any thing, nor > on your so-called theory. but, > why do you say that conversation of momentum > supposedly doesn't apply to a split quantum > of light in some standard theory? > and poor Nein Ein Stein believes that p = mv is a force and > that F = ma is not, and some thing about Coriolis' force, > merely from a didactic say-so of his (in some sort > of pidgen English, which could be the whole problem). > > > - The future determines the past > > - Virtual particles exist out of nothing > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com |