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 04:50 On May 4, 9:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 4, 8:12 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 3, 11:54 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear mpc755: Like... the chicken or the egg, ETHER came before there > > was matter. The ether started spiraling as soon as the first star > > emitted light. That's how ether flows (like water down a drain)! So > > the ether was in close sync with the motions of the masses, not > > because the masses moved the ether, but because they were partners in > > a common DANCE! NoEinstein > > What is thought to be a 'Big Bang' is more of a 'Big Ongoing'. > IT NEVER HAPPENED AT ALL! NE > > What we see in our telescopes is matter moving away from us. That does > not mean the universe itself is expanding. > > The following can be considered to be an image of an ongoing process: > > http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html > > The following can be considered to be an image of the universe, or the > local universe: > > http://www.feandft.com/BlackHole.jpg > > The top of the 'Black Hole' where the jet stream begins is analogous > to the 'Quantum Fluctuations' in the previous image. > > What is presently considered to be the 'Big Bang' is an ongoing > process. Material is continually emitted into the universal jet stream > at the ejection point which is the 'Quantum Fluctuations' point in the > previous image. This material is aether. At the '1st Stars' point of > the previous image is where the pressure is great enough to compress > aether into matter. As the matter continually moves away from the > emission point it enters the 'Development of Galaxies, Planets, etc.' > stage. This is where the matter expands in already existing three > dimensional space. This is what we mistake for an expanding universe. > This process continues until the material 'falls over the waterfall' > and winds up at the Rindler Horizon (the blue disk in the latter > image). The material is eventually re-emitted into the jet stream. > This is a continual process associated with the universe, or the local > universe. > > You are correct, aether was first and matter is compressed aether.
From: Timo Nieminen on 5 May 2010 05:22 On May 5, 6:27 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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. There is very little point in doing the experiment without knowing how big the effect is supposed to be. If I know in advance that our Cavendish apparatus isn't sensitive enough, there isn't any point in trying the measurement using it. But this is simply a very elementary idea in experimental physics, so you will already be thoroughly familiar with it. Which is why your continued reluctance to actually say how large the expected effect should be is truly baffling. Why, even a typical physicist - an imbecile by your exalted standards - would be able to do the quantitative prediction without too much trouble, perhaps with a few hours of work. A genius of your level should have no trouble at all, and certainly shouldn't take more than a few hours. Why would it even take that long? Likely some tens of minutes at the most would suffice. But once again, you refused to answer the question. Obviously, the hotter the balls, the larger the effect, but _how much_ larger? Don't you know? Can't you be bothered doing a calculation which should take well under an hour for somebody of your claimed ability when it would lend tremendous and convincing support to your theory? > But if you are wishing to do the experiment, yourself, why > didn't you say just that? I did say just that. But it seems Mr Genius can't understand plain English, or simply can't be bothered reading, because he's too busy writing irrelevant essays to distract attention from having had an error of billions of dollars per year pointed out. But because you showed so abundantly that you're a rude and abusive arsehole, it clearly isn't worthwhile donating one's time, effort, and equipment to you. Besides, you can't be bothered providing information - trivial for one of your intellect to provide - that's necessary for experiment to be useful, so again, it isn't worthwhile doing it. Getting concrete experimental support for your theory would be vastly more convincing than endlessly repeating waffle, but you seem to prefer the waffle. Enjoy!
From: mpc755 on 5 May 2010 07:55 On May 5, 4:50 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 4, 9:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On May 4, 8:12 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 3, 11:54 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear mpc755: Like... the chicken or the egg, ETHER came before there > > > was matter. The ether started spiraling as soon as the first star > > > emitted light. That's how ether flows (like water down a drain)! So > > > the ether was in close sync with the motions of the masses, not > > > because the masses moved the ether, but because they were partners in > > > a common DANCE! NoEinstein > > > What is thought to be a 'Big Bang' is more of a 'Big Ongoing'. > > IT NEVER HAPPENED AT ALL! NE > It is more correct to say it is continually occurring. What is thought to be a 'Big Bang' is more of a 'Big Ongoing'. What we see in our telescopes is matter moving away from us. That does not mean the universe itself is expanding. The following can be considered to be an image of an ongoing process: http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html The following can be considered to be an image of the universe, or the local universe: http://www.feandft.com/BlackHole.jpg The top of the 'Black Hole' where the jet stream begins is analogous to the 'Quantum Fluctuations' in the previous image. What is presently considered to be the 'Big Bang' is an ongoing process. Material is continually emitted into the universal jet stream at the ejection point which is the 'Quantum Fluctuations' point in the previous image. This material is aether. At the '1st Stars' point of the previous image is where the pressure is great enough to compress aether into matter. As the matter continually moves away from the emission point it enters the 'Development of Galaxies, Planets, etc.' stage. This is where the matter expands in already existing three dimensional space. This is what we mistake for an expanding universe. This process continues until the material 'falls over the waterfall' and winds up at the Rindler Horizon (the blue disk in the latter image). The material is eventually re-emitted into the jet stream. This is a continual process associated with the universe, or the local universe.
From: PD on 5 May 2010 10:24 On May 4, 7:22 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 4, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. Then, supposed scientists say that M-M > SUPPORTS Lorentz! Where are the brains, and WHERE is the scientific > method! NE Of course there are supporting experiments, John. You seem to be under the impression that the MMX was the only experiment ever done to test relativity and that the whole of relativity rests on this one experiment, so that if you somehow fault the MMX, then all of relativity falls. Nothing could be further from the truth, John. Relativity has been tested in scores of experiments, all independent of each other. > > > > > On May 3, 9:43 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 3, 11:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On May 1, 8:25 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On May 1, 11:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: You just said that "physics isn't > > > > > determined by logic". Of course, you would think that! That's > > > > > because you don't know HOW to reason! > > > > > Well, it's because physics is a science, which means that it invokes > > > > the scientific method, and it determines truth by experimental test, > > > > not by logic. > > > > Dear PD: WHERE was the "scientific method" when Lorentz proposed his > > > ANTI-ENGINEERING, "rubber ruler" explanation for the nil results of M- > > > M? > > > Lorentz's proposal was subject to experimental test, NoEinstein. > > That's how science works. > > And what on earth makes you think that this stuff is "anti- > > engineering"? > > Perhaps you don't know that engineers make use of relativity in their > > designs whenever it is needed? If it's anti-engineering, why are > > engineers happy to use it as needed? > > > > And where was the scientific method when both Coriolis and > > > Einstein wrote energy equations that were exponential, and thus in > > > violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy? > > > Those energy equations have also been thoroughly tested in experiment, > > John, exactly as I was stating. You on the other hand are trying to > > rule them out with your bandy-legged logic, rather than considering > > independently verified experimental tests. > > > > When the truth be > > > known, PD, is this low I. Q. flunky who compensates by constantly > > > faulting his superiors. He has never stated a single contribution > > > that he has made to science. For one who devotes so much time to.... > > > 'science' shouldn't PD have... "something" to show for it? > > > NoEinstein > > > What do you think I should have to show for it, John? > > > PD > >
From: PD on 5 May 2010 11:36
On May 5, 2:40 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 4, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 3, 9:43 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 3, 11:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On May 1, 8:25 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On May 1, 11:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: You just said that "physics isn't > > > > > determined by logic". Of course, you would think that! That's > > > > > because you don't know HOW to reason! > > > > > Well, it's because physics is a science, which means that it invokes > > > > the scientific method, and it determines truth by experimental test, > > > > not by logic. > > > > Dear PD: WHERE was the "scientific method" when Lorentz proposed his > > > ANTI-ENGINEERING, "rubber ruler" explanation for the nil results of M- > > > M? > > > Lorentz's proposal was subject to experimental test, NoEinstein. > > Dear PD: Show me any "test" proving that all materials shrink (or > expand) an identical percentage in response to velocity changes, and > the same amount regardless of the size and shape of the material. First of all, it would help if you understood what relativity actually says. * It does not say that materials shrink "an identical percentage in response to velocity changes". The functional relationship between length and velocity is certainly not a proportional one. It involves the factor 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), which is nothing like a proportionality to v. * You seem to think that this shrinkage would be obvious to the naked eye if it were in effect. It would be worth it for you to sit with a calculator and actually figure out how much shorter something is if it's moving at 10 mph, 100 mph, 1000 mph. Take a paper clip, measure it, and then use the factor above to calculate how much shorter it would be at those speeds. Then tell me whether this is in fact something you should expect to notice with the naked eye. Numbers are important, John. * The shrinkage predicted by relativity only applies to reference frames in which the object is observed to be *moving*. The paper clip sitting on your desk is not moving in your reference frame, is it? (If you claim it is, then you claim you are as well, and in that case, I would ask you what you think your velocity is right this second. You don't even have to give me a number. Just tell me how you *would* calculate it. What is the reference point that you would mark your velocity with respect to?) > If > such a contraction occurred, loose paperclips on your desk would > rotate like compass needles to be aligned perpendicular to the > compressive force (sic) of velocity. Additionally, all of the matter > in the Earth would be alternately squeezed and relaxed (due to the > ever-changing velocity component of the Earth), until either the Earth > became a molten BLOB, or until the Earth stopped rotating on its axis > and orbiting the Sun. Again, you have a confusion about what relativity actually says. Relativistic length changes are NOT due to a physical compression like squeezing something in a vise or driving something through a wind. > Of course, all of those would mean that none of > us are alive... So very sad... that you are so BRAINLESS! Ha, ha, > HA! NoEinstein > > > > > That's how science works. > > And what on earth makes you think that this stuff is "anti- > > engineering"? > > Perhaps you don't know that engineers make use of relativity in their > > designs whenever it is needed? If it's anti-engineering, why are > > engineers happy to use it as needed? > > > > And where was the scientific method when both Coriolis and > > > Einstein wrote energy equations that were exponential, and thus in > > > violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy? > > > Those energy equations have also been thoroughly tested in experiment, > > John, exactly as I was stating. You on the other hand are trying to > > rule them out with your bandy-legged logic, rather than considering > > independently verified experimental tests. > > > > When the truth be > > > known, PD, is this low I. Q. flunky who compensates by constantly > > > faulting his superiors. He has never stated a single contribution > > > that he has made to science. For one who devotes so much time to.... > > > 'science' shouldn't PD have... "something" to show for it? > > > NoEinstein > > > What do you think I should have to show for it, John? You haven't answered this question, John. > > > PD > > |