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 7 May 2010 12:47 On May 6, 9:23 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 5, 12:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD: The L. C. catalogue card number is: 5241857. (look on page 19). Here's the response to my query at the Library of Congress: The LCCN you entered [ 5241857 ] was not found in the Library of Congress Online Catalog. Are you lying, John? What's the ISBN? > Also, my The Wiley Engineer's Desk Reference, by Stanford I. Heisler, > on page 94, says momentum = mv. That is different than F=mv. Momentum is not force. Moreover, this is not a good definition of momentum, though it is a useful approximation for engineers, not suitable for physics. > A scripted style of the "m" is used > to differentiate from "mass". That book errs by saying that the > "units" is: (mass)-feet/secondwhich is bullshit! And yet you would have me trust this Wiley Engineer's Desk Reference, when you don't believe it yourself. When are you going to support any of your assertions, John, other than blustering about what comes out of your own head? > Momentum is > measured in pounds! It is velocity proportional, and that is a > simple, unit-less FRACTION NE > > > > > On May 5, 2:56 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > No, I won't, John. That equation F=mv is not listed in most > > textbooks. > > When you can clearly identify which title you think DOES have that > > listed, then I can look for myself. > > As it is, since you obviously have problems reading an understanding a > > single sentence from beginning to end, I have my doubts. > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 7 May 2010 12:52 On May 6, 9:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 5, 12:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > No imbecile, not even you, PD, instructs me to do anything! NE > You can understand, John, why this would give the appearance of your being afraid to have your claims examined. You claim something is backed up in your references, and so -- unlike you -- I am more than willing to check out your cited references. Now suddenly you are waffling and being vague. This is the sure sign of someone caught in a lie. You wouldn't be a compulsive liar, would you John? I mean, that too would be reason not to trust you or your firm to do any architectural work. Are you a liar and a cheat? Remember, I'm specifically looking for the equation F=mv, where F is taken to denote force. If you're willing to recant the lie before it gets too deep, then you might salvage a small portion of your remaining dignity. > > > > > > Dear PD: A 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. Momentum and Impulse. (1.) Momentum > > > > > is defined as the product of the mass times velocity (mv)..." The > > > > > letter F is used for momentum, because the equation defines forces. > > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > 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. > > > > > If this is what you learned physics from in your architectural > > > > studies, then I have absolutely no doubt that you and your firm are on > > > > thin legal ground. > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > The AUTHOR and the Title are all you need. NE > > > Then let me make sure we're talking about the same title, because > > Clarence E. Bennett has written the following: > > Physics Problems and How to Solve Them (1958, 1959, 1960, 1968, 1972, > > 1985) > > College Physics (College Outline Series) (1962, 1972) > > Physics Without Mathematics (College Outline Series) (1949, 1953, > > 1960, 1970) > > New Outline of First Year College Physics (1944, 1946, 1948) > > An Outline of First Year College Physics (College Outline Series) > > (1937, 1943) > > Physics (1952, 1954) > > First Year College Physics (1954) > > Descriptive Physics (1945) > > > As you can see, it's important that I know more about the particular > > title you own. The ISBN is either in the frontmatter or is printed on > > the back of the paperback. It's a 10-digit number right next to the > > letters I-S-B-N. Can you do that, John? >
From: PD on 7 May 2010 12:54 On May 6, 9:07 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 There is ongoing debate about whether the Earth is flat, John. http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm Since this debate has been going on for 500 years, by your argument, the claim that the earth is round is 5x as wrong as relativity is. > > > > > 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 > >
From: PD on 7 May 2010 12:56 On May 6, 9:04 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 I believe you are incapable of deciding whether the statement 5+17=22 is correct, John. It is a generally accepted statement, and in your mind that means it is nearly certainly wrong. Is it right, or is it wrong? > > > > > 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 7 May 2010 14:35
On May 6, 10:16 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Burt: The Universe is like an ungulating soap bubble filled with galaxies. Galaxies only SEEM to be moving away due the "aging" of the light, or as I prefer, the wedging of the photons further apart by crossing light rays. The only thing, other than... religion that supports the Big Bang is the increasing redness of light at increasing distancesand that is because of what I just explained. NoEinstein > > On May 6, 6:34 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 5, 5:22 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > Dear Timo: Since physicists have been looking for the "missing mass" > > in the Universe for decadesand not found itits occurred to me that > > it was the estimates of the masses of the stars and galaxies that was > > wrong. The observed red/blue shifts imply the rotational speed of the > > arms of galaxies. Since physicists can calculate the centrifugal > > force that must be countered by the "central" gravity source, over- > > estimating the mass of stars would exaggerate the centripetal force > > needed to keep the stars from flying away. I also realized that it > > isn't 'just' the central gravity holding the galaxies together, it > > also includes the EFFECTIVE central gravity of all of the stars, > > combined. Think of that as being similar to having two equal size and > > mass binary stars rotating about their common centerhalfway between > > the two stars. Though there is no "mass" at the center, the two stars > > orbit as though there is a mass there. > > > Since gravity is "distance proportional" (actually inverse > > proportional) stars that aren't on a 'diameter' line, can still help > > to keep the whole thing from flying outward. > > What then is flying outward? The whole of a gravity must be an > influence. > > > > > That would be like > > having lots of people hold hands to form a circle. If there is a > > 'flying out' force, the tension (gravity) in their arms will keep the > > circle together. NOTE: I strongly suspect that 'physicists', who > > aren't structural engineers (like was my training), neglected to > > consider the CIRCULAR routes of gravity, which could be 50 plus > > percent of what is holding the galaxies together! > > > Timo, a good way to 'estimate' the gravity sensitivity needed, is to > > search for the accepted missing mass in the Universe (99%?); divide > > that in half (due to the circular paths of gravity), yields 44.5% that > > is unaccounted for. Since both the mass and the gravity force are > > about equal in the fly out predicted by Newtons errant equation, > > there would only need to be a 22.25% under-estimate of the gravity of > > the stars, and a corresponding 22.25% over-estimate in the mass of the > > stars. > > > The gravity of a star is proportional to the surface area (not the > > mass) and the surface temperature. It isnt proportional to the > > internal temperatures, at all. Not counting solar flare temperatures, > > determine the surface temperatures of different size and color stars. > > Of course, that will be a plasma which you certainly cant do a > > Cavendish on. The change in gravity that you seek is probably > > linearly proportional to temperature. Assume the Earth to be zero > > temperature. Find what percentage of the stars surface temperature > > that you can achieve without melting the balls. My guess is you can > > get about 10% of the typical surface temperature. 10% of 22.25% means > > that you are hoping to detect a 2.225% increase in the gravity of > > the balls. If you only heat the larger ball, increase its > > contributing gravity by 2.225%, and leave the other ball(s) as they > > were. > > > The sensitivity of a well-designed Cavendish can probably verify the > > gravity within .5% So, if you can run the experiment at all, the > > results sought should be within the sensitivity! > > > *** However, this just occurred to me: The gravity of every possible > > star attractionnot just the circular and the cross-diameterwill be > > helping to hold the galaxies together! As proved by the Andromeda > > Galaxy (that has a zone without stars next to the center), Black Holes > > have zero gravity. So, the multi-paths of gravity, taken together, > > must be capable of holding, say, the Milky Way together without > > needing a super-massive black hole (sic) at all! > > > My theory, counter to Newtons Law of Universal (sic) Gravity, > > states that the gravity of a star is directly proportional to the > > temperature-determined, photon emissions over the entire surface area > > of the star (without needing to consider the mass). But the > > centrifugal force of stars orbiting the galaxy is directly > > proportional to the MASSES of the stars. Timo, because of what Ive > > just reasoned your Cavendish may not be sensitive enough. Until > > someone does an every star gravity weave calculation for, say, the > > Milky Way, I dont know if there is a 22.25% underestimate of star > > gravity, or a 5%. Consider this: If you can heat one ball white hot, > > and you DO detect a greater gravity, youve confirmed my theory. I > > suppose that a temperature-corrected Law of Universal Gravitation > > could take decades to validate. But that isnt all bad! Simply by > > understanding that temperature affects gravity, can begin being used > > to design, say, gravity drive spacecrafts. And Ive got THOSE on my > > to-do list! NoEinstein > > > > 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!- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |