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 6 May 2010 21:57 On May 5, 12:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Tell me, PD: If I'm so "poorly suited" for scientific work, how is it that I've made a greater contribution to physics than all of the previous physicists put together? NoEinstein > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 6 May 2010 21:59 On May 5, 12:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD: I learned to play the Cornet, by ear, to professional quality. There were no lessons required, nor books to be read. NoEinstein > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 6 May 2010 22:02 On May 5, 12:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Common sense sure... "cheated" you, PD, because you don't have any! That's why YOU are a liarto compensate! NoEinstein > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 6 May 2010 22:04 On May 5, 12:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Neither of those choices, PD, have anything to do with the price-of- eggs-in-China! NE > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 6 May 2010 22:07
On May 5, 12:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Consider this, PD: The validity of any science theory is inversely proportional to the time spend debating it. Einstein's 'relativity' has been debated for over a century, and such is patently WRONG! NoEinstein > > On May 5, 2:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 4, 11:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > PD: And the point of your 'addition' extrapolation is? Your science > > notions are shallow enough without implying that I have disavowed > > common math. If Einstein had known how to do simple mathnowhere in > > evidence in his (mindless) equation physicsperhaps the dark ages of > > Einstein wouldn't have lasted so long. NoEinstein > > You made a general statement that if something is generally accepted, > then that is a sign that it is nearly certainly WRONG. > > Now you don't seem so sure. > > You don't want to disavow common math, but you are certainly willing > to disavow common, grade school mechanics like Newton's 2nd law. And I > want to point out again that this has nothing to do with the "dark > ages of Einstein", since Newton's 2nd law has been around for 323 > years! You've decided that all of physics since Galileo and Newton are > the dark ages! Einstein has nothing to do with your complaint. > > PD |