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 13 May 2010 11:05 On May 12, 9:16 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 12:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: It's interesting that you are eager to > play the Wizard and to assert what I never said, nor considered worthy > of comment. But you have yet to back up any of your "the experiments > show"; "or the texts say..." by paraphrasing any point of science that > you think refutes any part of my New Science. So here's the problem, NoEinstein. I've summarized for you several things in the last week. I've summarized an experimental result that shows that Lorentz time dilation is observed. I've summarized an experimental result that shows that Lorentz length contraction is observed. I've shown you in detail how conserving energy is fully consistent with kinetic energy being proportional to the velocity squared. Today you say that none of these things happened. This tells me either: - You cannot read and do not understand anything that is written to you, or - You suffer from dementia, and you forget on Tuesday what you read on Monday, or - You are a persistent, malicious, and compulsive liar. Now, given that one of these three things is going on with you, why would anyone believe that you have anything to contribute to science at all? > If you can't put... > useful information in your replies for the readers to see, then, you > simply don't have anything, pro or con, to contribute. "Changing the > subject", PD, isn't SCIENCE, it's cowardice! NoEinstein > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 13 May 2010 11:06 On May 12, 9:18 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 12:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD: Have fun with your speculation. The only one coming across as > dumb is Paul Draper! NE Don't you find it remarkable, John, that you are hesitant to say whether you believe that 5+17=22? Isn't it remarkable that you are sufficiently unsure of yourself that you cannot even stake a claim in the sand about simple yes or no questions like that? > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 13 May 2010 11:07 On May 12, 9:22 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 5:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I chose Architecture, PD, because the subject is BIG, like my > capabilities. You chose High Energy Particle Physics, because those > objects are TINY, like your BRAIN! Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein Then stick to architecture, John. Not that I'll be a customer. > > > > > On May 7, 3:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 9:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD: When you can't attack my science, you attack my profession, > > > architecture. > > > I'm not disparaging your profession at all. I'm casting doubt on your > > qualifications to practice that profession. > > > > If I had a choice between designing great concert halls > > > or etc., or figuring out how the Universe works and improving all of > > > humanity, I would choose the latter every time! > > > Then why did you choose architecture instead? > > > > Concert halls are for > > > the recreation of the lazy, like you. What great edifices have YOU > > > built, in science or otherwise? NoEinstein > > > > > On May 6, 8:57 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > And if you're so poorly suited for architecture, how is it that you > > > > have designed the grandest performance halls and the tallest buildings > > > > in the world? > > > > > What's the weather like today in NoEinsteinLand? > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 13 May 2010 11:08 On May 12, 10:17 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD: IN NO CASE IS IT NECESSARY TO MAKE A KE EQUATION INTO A WORK > EQUATION. KE = ½v^2 doesnt have WORK in there, does it? That's where conservation of energy comes in, John, don't you see? Conservation of energy says explicitly that any change in kinetic energy must come from work. That's where the equality comes in. Do you not understand conservation of energy, John? > And E = > mc^2 / beta doesnt have work in there, either, does it? Motion that > is due to COASTING has NO resisting force. Work can only be done > AGAINST a resistance that is equal and opposite. Push a frictionless, > weightless wheelbarrow full of air, and see if any construction > foreman on Earth will consider that you have done a thing. KE > equations arent work equations, PD, because there is no readily > associated RESISTANCE. NoEinstein > > > > > On May 7, 3:16 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > Oh, but I have. If you really need to have it explained again, I ask > > you this time to print it out. > > > The law of conservation of energy says that any change in the energy > > of a system must be due solely to the work done on the system. > > > The work is the force acting on the object times the displacement of > > the object. So any change in energy of the object must be due solely > > to this work. > > > In the case of a falling body released from rest, we'll look at the > > increase in the kinetic energy, which must be due to the work done by > > the only force acting on the body -- gravity. If the increase of > > kinetic energy the body has at any time is accounted for by the work > > that was done on the body during that time, then we know that the law > > of conservation of energy has been respected. > > > In the first second, the body will fall 16 ft. In the next second, it > > will fall an additional 48 feet. In the third second, it will fall an > > additional 80 feet. During these first three seconds, the force has > > remained constant, so that it is the same in the first second, the > > second second, the third second. The speed increases linearly, so that > > it is falling at 32 ft/s after the first second, 64 ft/s after the > > second second, and 96 ft/s after the third second. > > > Now, let's take a look at the work. The work done since the drop, > > after the first second, is the force of gravity times the > > displacement. This is mass x g x (16 ft). So this is how much kinetic > > energy the object has after one second. Now, in the second second, > > we'll add more work, in the amount mass x g x (48 ft), since that's > > the displacement for the next second. This increases the kinetic > > energy of the body, so that it now has kinetic energy mass x g x (16 > > ft + 48 ft) = mass x g x (64 ft), and that number is four times bigger > > than it was after the first second. Now, in the third second, we'll > > add more work, in the amount mass x g x (80 ft), since that's the > > displacement for the next sentence. Since energy is conserved, this > > added energy must add to the kinetic energy of the body, so that it > > now has kinetic energy mass x g x (64 ft + 80 ft) = mass x g x (144 > > ft), and that number is nine times bigger than it was after the first > > second. > > > Now, it should be plain that the kinetic energy is conserved, since > > the only thing that has been contributing to it is the work done in > > subsequent seconds. We lost nothing, and we added only that which > > gravity added. The energy is conserved. > > > It should also be apparent that the kinetic energy is increasing in > > the ratios 1:4:9. > > Meanwhile, the velocities are increasing linearly, in the ratios > > 1:2:3. > > > Now, any fourth grader can see that we've completely conserved energy, > > losing track of nothing, and yet the kinetic energy is increasing as > > the square of the velocity. 1:4:9 are the squares of 1:2:3. > > > There is no violation of conservation of kinetic energy, and yet KE is > > proportional to v^2. > > > Now, don't you feel silly that a 4th grader can understand all of > > this, but you've never understood it? > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 13 May 2010 11:10
On May 12, 10:23 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 6:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD, the Dunce: Muon particles going faster and faster around a circle > are impacting the ETHER inside the chamber. It is the ether PRESSURE > which keeps things from flying apart. Muons do not fly apart when they decay. If you have a model that can quantitatively predict HOW MUCH the lifetime of the muon would be lengthened by impacting ether, then trot it out. Quantitative prediction is a necessary and indispensable part of a scientific explanation, John. No quantitative prediction? Then it's not science. Sorry, pal, that's the breaks. > Suppose that a button came > loose on your... stuffed shirt. If you press your hand over the > button soon enough, you can prevent it from coming completely off. > Muon are glued together by the ether pressure. And space-time (sic) > has nothing to do with the extended time of decay. NoEinstein > > > > > On May 7, 3:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > Oh, this is easy. There is a circular track that circulates muons at a > > lab called g-2. > > > Here is a picture of it, in case you doubt it's real:http://www.g-2.bnl..gov/pictures/g2magnet2.jpg > > > The ring is about 30 feet across and about 90 feet around. Muons at > > rest live for 2.2 microseconds, which is easily observed with a Navy > > surplus oscilloscope. If the muons lived that long in the ring, they > > would go around the ring about 24 times before decaying. Instead, they > > go around 37 times. That is, they live longer when they are traveling > > fast around the ring. But the extra time they have before decaying is > > exactly what Lorentz time dilation says they will have. Perfect > > example of just one bit of evidence that time dilation is real. There > > is of course scads and scads of further evidence. > > > There. Short and sweet, and indisputable. > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > |