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: spudnik on 7 May 2010 14:54 you call that, an explanation, "photons wedged apart by light rays?" an interesting relationship between two things that only exist as mathematics, both representing "rocks o'light!" > 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. thus: how do you know, Lanczos did that, and how'd coordinates generate fractal patterns, and why would that matter?... if you believe in the Big Bang, then it seems to have had a period, as opposed to "frequency," of 13 billion years, but none of this seems to even be able to be quantized a la "biquaternions;" so, why bother? thus: you are pretending to define "complex 4-vectors," but "real" 4-vectors are part of the gross and unfinished porgramme of Minkowski, to "spatialize" time, while it is quite obvious that the "time part" is not symmetrical with the spatial coordinates, either in 4-vectors or quaternions. anyway, bi-quaternions would be 8-dimensional or octonions. and, it is all obfuscation, trying to insist that a phase-space tells you what time really is; it's very useful for seeing patterns "in" time though, as in electronics (although, NB, electronics is mostly done in "1-1" complex phase-space, instead of quaternions, as it could be, for some reason .-) maybe, all you and polysignosis need to do, is work the math of quaternions ... that'll take me wome time, as well. (I mean, what is the difference in labeling a coordinate axis with a "different sign" and a different letter, whether or not negatives are even needed?) --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: NoEinstein on 7 May 2010 15:57 On May 7, 2:21 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Timo: On the one hand you compliment me; on the other you chide me for not having all of the numbers at my fingertips. Im pleased that you know so much about astronomy. That was a major hobby of mine through high school. I saw things like stars that werent round, and I never realized that most were galaxies. I would lie in bed at night wondering what the mechanism of gravity is. I heard that the many colors of light related to the temperature of the source. It was by reasoning, alone, that Ive concluded that all photons are identical regardless of the temperature. The only temperature variant in light is the spacing of the photons. Photons carry some ether away like hobos on a train, which eventually jump off. Since gravity is directly proportional to photon emission (not gravitons, which dont exist), then it is the luminosity and the temperature of the light that determine the gravity of stars. At room temperatures gravity is mass proportional, and matches Newtons law. There has to be an object-size threshold that DENIES mass in favor of surface area and temperature. I suspect that a heated Cavendish ball will have gravity somewhere between the room temperature, and the white hot. I had concerns with my theory that very cold planets would have limited infrared emissions. Then, I realized that it is the SUN that provides the photons to the colder planets, that keeps the gravity forces going. Block off that solar energy from a planet, and it will go flying out on its tangent. Ive realized that the estimates of the masses of the planets are probably wrong. Kepler had the Laws of Planetary Motion exactly right, if one substitutes apparent mass, for the object mass. Timo, you probably know that my mind isnt a compendium with every bit of data youre seeking. Until about grade 5, I had an ear photographic memory. Later, I hated courses requiring memorization (history), favoring, instead, courses that require analytical ability, like math and science. I would be happy to assist you in quantifying gravity. But most of my realizations about the Universe have come from accepting the data of others, and making my theories not be in conflict. Now, since Ive opened up this gravity-can-of-worms to include temperature, there isnt any raw data to readily aid me in finding the answers, no matter how smart I am. I hope you can select some little corner of that problem and attack it, objectively. Keep me apprised of your progress. Its possible I might have a spark of inspiration that could help you. *** Because of you, I realized that every star in a galaxy gets tugs from every other star. Successfully calculating the STRUCTURE of that unifying force will require a super-computer. I suspect that those resultstogether with my temperature determinant gravitywill show that ZERO mass (gravity) is needed at the galactic centers. And since the Big Bang never happened, there is no dark matter, whatsoever, needed to hold the Universe together. Im busy trying to save the USA via my New Constitution. The way most people think about science, having that man who disproved Einstein write a constitution may not give me very many Brownie Points. But I invite any of you who are interested to go to Political Forum and read: Start the Revolution! Government is out-of-touch with the People! Talk-it-up! NoEinstein (AKA John A. Armistead) > > On Thu, 6 May 2010, NoEinstein wrote: > > 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). > > Measurements of the "mass" of stars in binary systems are really > measurements of the gravitational force of stars in binary systems. If > you're right, a plot bolometric luminosity versus measured "mass" of stars > in binary systems should give a straight line (within experimental error).. > Since you're obviously smart enough to have realised this long ago, and > are also obviously smart enough to have checked this yourself, what was > the result? > > The "mass", as measured from binary orbits, is available for many stars > (including nearby ones such as Alpha Centari A and B, Sirius A and B), > and the relevant information is readily available online, so I suppose I > could check this myself if you don't care enough to provide the result (or > didn't care enough to bother checking something so trivial). > > If it isn't a directly proportional linear relationship, what would that > mean? > > > 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%. > > So, you don't know? Why not apply your mighty intellect and provide the > answer? > > > Consider this: If you can heat one ball white hot, > > and you DO detect a greater gravity, youve confirmed my theory. > > It would _support_ your theory, not confirm it in any absolute sense. > If one tries this and _doesn't_ detect a greater gravitational force, > would that mean your theory is wrong and it's time to forget it and move > on?
From: NoEinstein on 7 May 2010 16:02 On May 7, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: No. Since you are a fraud, I would be happy if you could find, and paraphrase, even one bit of evidence supporting, Lorentz. He and Einstein (ha!) were meant for each other! NE > > On May 6, 8:42 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 5, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: If you have "other" supporting evidence > > for Lorentz (ha!), paraphrase it! You are all bluster and no > > substance! NoEinstein > > John, as I said, there are SCORES of independent experiments that have > all provided experimental evidence. You might as well be asking for a > paraphrased summary of the support for Newton's laws of motion. > > If you want to understand the depth of the experimental support, then > you're going to have to immerse yourself in the OVERWHELMINGLY MASSIVE > documentation of that support. That's the only way to truly convince > yourself. > > > > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 7 May 2010 16:13 On May 7, 9:10 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Lorentz's rubber rulers gave Einstein the mistaken notion that objects contract, or flatten, with increased velocity. Since "that" was so illogical, he compensated by claiming that time and space... contracted, too (sic). Without that G. D. M-M experiment, Lorentz wouldn't have come up with his drunken notion that velocity can contract, and hold contracted, all materials in the Universe regardless of their composition or their geometries (SIC!). I see right through you, PD! You wish to change the subject to... "relativity" so that you will have YOUR notions about motion calculation (train, embankment, elevator, etc.) needing to be countered. Those who argue relativity are two things: Not very good at visualizing stuff; and not able to see the forest for the trees! NoEinstein > > On May 6, 8:50 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 5, 11:36 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD: When Maxwell urged Michelson to conduct the M-M experiment, > > they were expecting a uniform, velocity-proportional, drag on light. > > And this was 20 years before relativity was ever introduced. > My post to you was about what *relativity* says, not what was thought > 20 years before relativity was discovered. > > > > > The major variant was the orientation of the instrument relative to > > Earth's velocity vector. Since velocity alone has NO effect on the > > length of any material (or ruler), then it's moot, indeed, to argue > > whether the plot of the... contraction (sic) is a waterfall curve, or > > linear. Neither contraction occurs! NoEinstein > > > > 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- 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 7 May 2010 16:16
On May 7, 9:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD, you are a LIAR! Never ONCE have you explained why KE = 1/2mv^2 isn't in violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Until you do (and you CAN'T) everyone will know that you are just an air- head FRAUD! NoEinstein > > On May 6, 8:54 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 5, 11:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > OH? Then please explain, PD, how a UNIFORM force inputthe static > > weight of the falling objectcan cause a semi-parabolic increase in > > the KE. Haven't you heard?: Energy IN must = energy OUT! > > NoEinstein > > I have explained this to you dozens of times. I gather that you do not > remember any of those posts, and you do not know how to use your > newsreader or Google to go back and find any of those dozens of times > when it has been explained to you. > > I surmise that you are slipping into dementia, where each day begins > anew, with any lessons learned the previous day forgotten. > > I don't think it's a good use of my time to explain the same thing to > you each day, only to have you retire at night and forget it by > morning, do you? > > PD |