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 5 May 2010 11:43 On May 4, 6:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 3, 11:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: IF, as you've just said, everyone knows > that the KE equation (KE = 1/2mv^2) is inconsistent with the Law of > the Conservation of energy, then you've just agreed that the former is > WRONG! But I didn't say that, John. I said that the KE equation above is completely CONSISTENT with the Law of Conservation of Energy. I think I've isolated the source of your great difficulties, John. You cannot comprehend the meaning of a single sentence that you read. Did you understand THAT? > The physicists whom YOU know may not be concerned, but the > Laws of Nature are very, very mad, indeed! NoEinstein > > > > > 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. That is taught to 4th graders. Were you absent that day, > > or did you determine in the 4th grade that your science teachers > > didn't know what they were talking about and you realized then that > > all of scientific truths could be determined by logic? > > > > Einstein got physicists > > > believing that ILLOGIC is where the most... I.Q. is. Since you > > > understood nothing taught to you in physics (the right stuff nor the > > > WRONG), you figured your strength was to fight anything and everything > > > that wasnt COOKBOOKED from some out-of-date, McGraw-Hill, Jewish > > > publication. > > > > Tell me, PD, WHO on this EARTH is a qualification to confirm YOUR > > > ideas about science? Anyone who understands math, and knows what the > > > Law of the Conservation of Energy requires, will immediately confirm > > > that Coriolis and Einstein had no earthly idea that KE and 'E' must > > > not be exponential equations, but LINEAR equations (or additive). > > > I'm sorry, John, but just about everyone except for you knows that the > > Law of Conservation of Energy is completely consistent with the > > expressions for kinetic energy and total energy. It seems to be only > > you with the problem. Shouldn't that be a flag to you? > > > If everyone in the world points to the same animal and calls it a > > zebra, and you call it a penguin, does that make you a world-class > > genius or a world-class fool? > > > > Since you don't think COASTING increases an object's distance of > > > travel, it is YOU, not me, needing others to confirm your stupidity! > > > Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein > > > > > On Apr 30, 10:05 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 30, 3:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: "We" (you and I) aren't having a > > > > > discussion about science. You simply take the anti-thesis of any > > > > > science truth, knowing that there are some naive readers who won't > > > > > know the difference. It may sound 'high-and-mighty' for you to keep > > > > > referring to... the experimental evidence, and the 'textbook' > > > > > definitions, but you NEVER paraphrase a possible counterargument. You > > > > > only claim that there is 'something', somewhere that disagrees with > > > > > me. And you expect me to go look that up. > > > > > Yes, indeed, because physics is not something that is settled by > > > > puffed-up posturing and debate. > > > > It is not something that is determined by force of logic. > > > > You may be confusing physics with philosophy. > > > > > Ultimately, the truth in physics is determined by careful and > > > > independently confirmed experimental measurement. > > > > That body of experimental evidence is documented and available to you. > > > > It is referred to in textbooks, and references to it have been made > > > > here to you. > > > > > So yes, you are expected to look it up. > > > > > ANYBODY doing physics is expected to look it up. > > > > > > Folks, PD is the deep thinker (sic) who said that atomic decay is a > > > > > "chemical reaction". And just today, he said that a car which is > > > > > COASTING isn't increasing its "displacement". He has just proposed > > > > > that... "displacement" is only apt to calculating, or measuring, an > > > > > object's unit velocity. And since the unit velocity of the car > > > > > doesn't change, he claims that coasting isn't increasing the distance > > > > > of travel of the car. Can't most of you see how little PD cares about > > > > > truth and logic? Does he think everyone but him is a fool? > > > > > > *** Tell us this, PD: How many science experiments, of any kind, have > > > > > YOU designed, built, and successfully tested? > > > > > Are you sure you want to ask this question? My professional history is > > > > as an experimental physicist, and my record is public. > > > > Please don't puff yourself up as a songwriter when talking to a > > > > professional musician. > > > > It's not smart to put on airs as an expert on law when talking to a > > > > judge. > > > > > > I've made two most > > > > > definitive tests which support the LOGIC that Coriolis's KE equation > > > > > is not only WRONG, its so obviously in violation of the Law of the > > > > > Conservation of Energy, that no experiments are needed, at all, to > > > > > disprove: KE = 1/2mv^2; nor to similarly disprove E = mc^2 / beta. > > > > > For you, a proof is only valid if it involves experiments which you > > > > > have never cited, nor paraphrased, and definitions that you claim are > > > > > in textbooks, but which you never quote. > > > > > Two comments: > > > > 1. Your experimental results will be worth something when confirmed by > > > > an independent investigator. That is how it is done in science. Until > > > > then, you are a self-feeding loop. > > > > 2. Yes, I expect you to look up textbooks, as they are easy to find > > > > even in your local library. I'm assuming that you are not under house > > > > arrest, you aren't bedridden, that you have bus fare to get you > > > > downtown, and that you are capable of reading when you get there. I'm > > > > also assuming that you are not so pathologically lazy that you refuse > > > > to budge your butt from your chair. > > > > > > I recently told you that I had suspected that the readers agreed with > > > > > my correctness our yours by two to one. But in light of your recent > > > > > statements of utter stupidity, that number is probably closer to ten > > > > > to one! > > > > > This is just like you, to suspect something is true without a single > > > > shred of tangible evidence. It's your style. > > > > > > *** No scientist on Earth has more credibility than yours > > > > > truly. *** If any think that they do, I would love for them to go > > > > > head-to-head with me, so that I can kick their asses into solar > > > > > orbit. Like those purported scientists, you, PD, dont have a leg, > > > > > nor a stump to stand on. NoEinstein > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 2:18 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 10:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear PD: Some readers, who don't know either of us from Adam, may > > > > > > > think that your sidestepping of science is credible. An attack on... > > > > > > > the messenger (me) is a quick put-down that you had to have learned > > > > > > > (tongue-in-cheekha!) very early won't work on me. If the regular > > > > > > > readers of my posts and replies got to vote, they'd probably say that > > > > > > > I'm beating you in the "one-up-manship" by a two to one margin. But > > > > > > > you're still around because you won't stay on any discussion long > > > > > > > enough to get the life squished out of your... 'science'. I enjoy > > > > > > > knowing that you haven't won; can't; and won't win, PD. That > > > > > > > qualifies you as a looser; doesn't it? NoEinstein > > > > > > > I'm fascinated by this idea you have of winning or losing. > > > > > > > We're having a discussion about physics. I'm explaining to you what we > > > > > > know matches experiment, and what the definitions of the words are > > > > > > that are used in physics, what the equations mean, and how that is > > > > > > exemplified in measurements, and the fact that none of what we're > > > > > > talking about is beyond 7th grade science level. > > > > > > > You on the other hand seem to be more worried about winning some kind > > > > > > of battle or contest, and to you winning means: > > > > > > - that you talk longer than anyone else, ensuring that you always have > > > > > > the last word > > > > > > - that no one can *force* you to believe what 7th graders have no > > > > > > difficulty understanding > > > > > > - that no one can *force* to you stop talking > > > > > > - that you stick by your guns, no matter what, regardless of how > > > > > > stupid it starts to sound even to you > > > > > > - disparaging your respondents by calling them negativists and other > > > > > > assorted names > > > > > > - that you have offered a retort to every single response to your > > > > > > posts. > > > > > > > By that metric, someone who firmly believes that 17+4=32, and who > > > > > > insists on this long after the last person has walked away, and who > > > > > > insists that 2nd grade math teachers are obviously wrong, and who is > > > > > > proud that no one has been able to get him to stop saying 17+4=32, and > > > > > > who calls people who believe otherwise to be ninnies and brainwashed > > > > > > -- well, by golly, in your eyes that person has won something. > > > > > > > Of course, 17+4 is not 32, but the IMPORTANT thing, you see, is > > > > > > winning, not being right. Isn't that so? > > > > > > > As for attacking you, you'll pardon me if I'd decline to hire you to > > > > > > be the architect for a doghouse. I'm sure you understand my reasons > > > > > > why.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 5 May 2010 12:04 On May 5, 2:47 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 4, 11:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD: You are Mr. Negativity. You can only feel superior (sic) by > putting others down. I wish I had had you for my teacher. I'd have > made you the laughing-stock of the school! NE > Oh dear. So you DO think reality checks are just negative put-downs. Such a fragile ego you have, John. You are very poorly suited for scientific work. This is not the place for the thin-skinned. > > > > On May 3, 11:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I don't think this is talking down to the student, John, as I made > > clear. Would you think of this as an emotional smack-down if it > > happened to you, or would you consider it a fair reality-check? Or do > > you not like reality checks? Do you find reality checks to be nothing > > but negativism?- Hide quoted text - >
From: PD on 5 May 2010 12:08 On May 4, 7:24 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 4, 11:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD: In large measure, BOOKS bias the readers. But my logical > thinking is without bias! NE Just like "Professor" Harold Hill in Music Man, who teaches music via "the Think Method". > > > > > On May 3, 9:49 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 3, 11:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 1, 8:33 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On May 1, 11:04 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Nice "try" PD: Like I've told you a hundred times, PARAPHRASE, or > > > > > copy, what you want me to read. You, an imbecile, don't qualify to > > > > > tell me (who's off the top of the I. Q. chart) what I should do. You > > > > > can only dream that I would care to follow your instructions, in any > > > > > regard. NoEinstein > > > > > OK, so I take it that you refuse to do one of these steps > > > > 1) Vacate your chair > > > > 2) Take your butt to the library > > > > 3) Open the book to the pages I mentioned > > > > 4) Read > > > > either because you're incapable of it or you are too lazy. > > > > > Sorry, but I am not a nursemaid, and I don't cut other people's meat > > > > for them, and I don't serve their meat on a rubber coated spoon, even > > > > if they whine that they won't eat it any other way. Starve, if you > > > > like. > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: I'm not "starving" for any information > > > that you are unwilling to provide. And I'm pretty certain that the > > > readers aren't starving for what you have to say, either. > > > Other readers don't seem to have the same phobias about opening books > > that you do, John. > > > > The few > > > times that you've opened your mouth and said anything at all about > > > science, youve put your foot in you mouth. You must be surviving > > > on... toenails, PD. Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 10:13 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 3:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: I, sir, am King of the Hill in science. > > > > > > > If you would like for the readers to see some "textbook definition" > > > > > > > which you claim is more valid than my F. & W. Standard College > > > > > > > Dictionary, then copy and paste your definition for the world to see. > > > > > > > *** Put up or shut up, PD! *** You've done nothing to even hint that > > > > > > > you have objectivity in scienceonly empty bluster. NoEinstein > > > > > > > Good grief. OK, I'll come part way. You do some work too. > > > > > > Go to the library and ask for Giancoli, Physics, any edition more > > > > > > recent than than the 4th. > > > > > > See sections 2-2 and 2-3. In my copy, that's pages 21-23. > > > > > > There, I have made the search bonehead simple for you. All you have to > > > > > > do is > > > > > > 1) Vacate your chair > > > > > > 2) Take your butt to the library > > > > > > 3) Open the book to the pages I mentioned > > > > > > 4) Read- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 5 May 2010 12:13 On May 5, 2:42 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 4, 11:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Dunce: Those who... escape into books are the ones with the > phobiasmainly being found-out not to have much common sense. > NoEinstein Common sense is a liar and a cheat, NoEinstein. Here is an example, in a multiple-choice question. Which answer is correct? You toss a watermelon horizontally off the roof of a 10-story building. Which statement is correct about the motion of the watermelon, according to your common sense? a) The horizontal motion slows down until gravity can overcome the horizontal motion and drive vertical motion. b) Gravity turns horizontal motion into vertical motion. c) The horizontal motion stays completely unchanged, and vertical motion is added by gravity. d) The watermelon proceeds in a diagonal line to the ground, with constant components of horizontal and vertical motion. > > > On May 3, 9:49 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 3, 11:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 1, 8:33 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On May 1, 11:04 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Nice "try" PD: Like I've told you a hundred times, PARAPHRASE, or > > > > > copy, what you want me to read. You, an imbecile, don't qualify to > > > > > tell me (who's off the top of the I. Q. chart) what I should do. You > > > > > can only dream that I would care to follow your instructions, in any > > > > > regard. NoEinstein > > > > > OK, so I take it that you refuse to do one of these steps > > > > 1) Vacate your chair > > > > 2) Take your butt to the library > > > > 3) Open the book to the pages I mentioned > > > > 4) Read > > > > either because you're incapable of it or you are too lazy. > > > > > Sorry, but I am not a nursemaid, and I don't cut other people's meat > > > > for them, and I don't serve their meat on a rubber coated spoon, even > > > > if they whine that they won't eat it any other way. Starve, if you > > > > like. > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: I'm not "starving" for any information > > > that you are unwilling to provide. And I'm pretty certain that the > > > readers aren't starving for what you have to say, either. > > > Other readers don't seem to have the same phobias about opening books > > that you do, John. > > > > The few > > > times that you've opened your mouth and said anything at all about > > > science, youve put your foot in you mouth. You must be surviving > > > on... toenails, PD. Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 10:13 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 3:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: I, sir, am King of the Hill in science. > > > > > > > If you would like for the readers to see some "textbook definition" > > > > > > > which you claim is more valid than my F. & W. Standard College > > > > > > > Dictionary, then copy and paste your definition for the world to see. > > > > > > > *** Put up or shut up, PD! *** You've done nothing to even hint that > > > > > > > you have objectivity in scienceonly empty bluster. NoEinstein > > > > > > > Good grief. OK, I'll come part way. You do some work too. > > > > > > Go to the library and ask for Giancoli, Physics, any edition more > > > > > > recent than than the 4th. > > > > > > See sections 2-2 and 2-3. In my copy, that's pages 21-23. > > > > > > There, I have made the search bonehead simple for you. All you have to > > > > > > do is > > > > > > 1) Vacate your chair > > > > > > 2) Take your butt to the library > > > > > > 3) Open the book to the pages I mentioned > > > > > > 4) Read- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 5 May 2010 12:18
On May 4, 7:17 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 4, 11:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 3, 8:29 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 2, 9:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On May 2, 4:24 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 26, 10:54 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear mpc755: "Wrong is WRONG, no matter who said it!" NoEinstein > > > > > You have your own definition of 'aether drag' which is different than > > > > what is generally accepted. > > > > Dear mpc755: It is 'generally accepted' that no one (until yours > > > truly) has found the one, simple energy-force mechanism that will > > > explain everything in the Universe. So, if anything is... "generally > > > accepted" that would be a near certain PROOF that such is WRONG! > > > It's generally accepted that 5+17=22, NoEinstein. > > Since you have been claiming that other things that are taught to > > elementary school kids is wrong, like Newton's 2nd law, perhaps you'd > > be willing to claim that this is nearly certainly wrong, too. If > > 5+17=22 is nearly certainly wrong, what then is the correct answer? You attempted to say something here, John, but fell short. Is it your contention that the generally accepted statement that 5+17=22 is correct or nearly certainly wrong? > > > > "Varying ether flow and density" accounts for: light; gravity; the EM > > > force; mass; inertia; weight; all chemical reactions; all biological > > > constructs; and every object(s) or effect(s) ever observed. > > > Understand the ether, and its 'tangles' and 'untangles', and you will > > > know the Universe! NoEinstein > > > > >'Aether drag' is in reference to the > > > > interaction of aether and matter. The subsequent effect is the effect > > > > 'aether drag' has on light. > > > > > The pressure exerted by the aether in nearby regions towards the > > > > matter doing the displacing is described, weakly, as "space > > > > effectively flows towards matter". > > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > > > > Aether is displaced by matter. > > > > Displacement creates pressure. > > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. > > > > > Gravitation, the 'Dark Matter' Effect and the Fine Structure Constanthttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0401047 > > > > > "There we see the first arguments that indicate the logical necessity > > > > for quantum behaviour, at both the spatial level and at the matter > > > > level. There space is, at one of the lowest levels, a quantumfoam > > > > system undergoing ongoing classicalisation. That model suggest that > > > > gravity is caused by matter changing the processing rate of the > > > > informational system that manifests as space, and as a consequence > > > > space effectively flows towards matter. However this is not a flow > > > > of some form of matter through space, as previously considered in > > > > the aether models or in the random particulate Le Sage kinetic > > > > theory of gravity, rather the flow is an ongoing rearrangement of the > > > > quantum-foam patterns that form space, and indeed only have a > > > > geometrical description at a coarse-grained level. Then the flow in > > > > one region is relative only to the patterns in nearby regions, and not > > > > relative to some a priori background geometrical space" > > > > > What is described as "space effectively flows towards matter" is the > > > > pressure exerted by the aether towards the matter. > > > > > "Then the flow in one region is relative only to the patterns in > > > > nearby regions" is the pressure exerted by the aether in nearby > > > > regions displaced by the matter.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > |