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 14 May 2010 04:30 On May 11, 2:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Where is your evidence, PD? You only CLAIM that you showed evidence. PARAPHRASE everything! NE > > On May 7, 5:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > I hope you see, John, that the Lorentz equations are fully consistent > with experimental measurements.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 14 May 2010 04:32 On May 11, 2:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Claiming to have shown evidence NOT shown nakes you a fraud's fraud, PD. NE > > On May 7, 5:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > So, John, do you now see how 1/2mv^2 is not in violation of the > conservation of energy? > I showed you how below, in plain language, step by step. Even a 7th > grader can follow it. > > > > > > > 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: NoEinstein on 14 May 2010 06:01 On May 13, 2:29 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Timo: A constant in an equation is something like pi, 3.1416... Since both the surface area of stars, and the temperatures of stars are variables, those only become constant once the values are plugged in. What you arent considering (relative to your 1,000 fold gravity difference) is that those stars, with the masses that you state, arent rotating about the midpoint between their centers. And you arent including the surface area of each star in the equation. Brighter stars will have a larger surface area per unit mass. Also, though the TOTAL gravity of a star is equal to the product of the luminosity and the surface area, the fraction of the gravity thats holding two objects together is the illuminated area, or the percentage of the total stars light that actually hits the other star. It is the addition of photons to the facing sides of stars that allows the ether pressure on the opposing sides to hold the two stars together. Please re read my original post, There is no PULL of gravity; only the PUSH of flowing ether! Im pleased that you are investigating my New Science theory. You appear to be one of the brightest people to reply to me on sci.physics. But like I explained: I am a generalist. When the concepts fitwithout having to throw-out logic or disregard the good science data thats available (minus, of course, the often errant science theories of others)then, a theory (like mine) starts having validity. Unfortunately, I dont have the time, nor the interest in math, to seek to prove that Im right. I invalidated the M-M experiment by showing that such didnt have a control light course. The latter invalidation required only an hour of analysis in my public library, and not a single bit of math. I disproved Einsteins SR theory by showing that such violated the Law of the Conservation of Energy, and other points of logic. Again, no math was required. If your motive is to disprove my most-logical-concept-for-gravity-thats- ever-been-postulated, then, you are forcing me into an adversarial relationship with youwhich I dont have time for. Your process should be to simply accept my theory as logical, then, to use your obvious talents to verify that theory from the available data. But if you come running to me at each of your learning steps in the analyses, you arent doing you, me nor science a favor. Ill respect what you are doing, if you will respect what I have already done. The easiest way for you to confirm my theory would be to heat the larger ball in the Cavendish experiment as hot as possible. The torsion slowing should occur quicker with the hot ball than with the same ball cold. No other measurements are required. Do THAT experiment, and find that the heated ball has more gravity, and you can sit back and let the astronomers and scientists all over the world quantify the temperature-variant gravity! I, the generalist, provided the spark of inspiration. If others get to determine more of the specifics, they can share in the glory. NoEinstein > > On Wed, 12 May 2010, NoEinstein wrote: > > On May 7, 5:29 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > On May 8, 5:57 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > No, I tell you that all of these numbers are available on www, so you > > > don't even need to go and look in a book. When you sit at your > > > keyboard, the relevant numbers _are_ at your fingertips. > > > > It's an obvious test. Since you claim your theory explains reality, I > > > expected that you would have compared the two - your theory and > > > reality - and checked if they agree. My mistake - you don't seem to > > > have done this. > > > > You give a clear and easily checked statement: > > > > > 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. > > > > But before it's worth checking this, you should clarify: > > > > (1) By "directly proportional", you mean: gravity = (constant) times > > > (photon emission)? That's is, linear proportionality. Or do you mean > > > something else? > > > No. "Directly proportional" means: Double the luminosity, and you > > double the gravity. Or double the surface area, and you double the > > gravity. > > This is clear. Linear proportionality it is, then. > > > Your word (constant), is actually a variable fraction. But > > I suppose that for a given luminosity and star surface area, the > > gravity would be a single (constant) value. > > But this isn't clear. If (constant) is actually a variable, then do you > have linear proportionality? (As a technical note, "luminosity" doesn't > mean "surface brightness", but "total brightness", i.e., double the > surface area while keeping everything else the same, and you double the > luminosity. > > Anyway, it's time to check against reality. Take a well-known close binary > system like Sirius. From their mutual orbit, the "known" masses are 2.02M > for Sirius A and 0.98M for B (M = solar mass). So, gravitationally, they > differ by a factor of 2. How do the luminosities compare? For A, we have > 25L (L = solar luminosity), and for B, 0.026L. Factor of 1,000 difference > in luminosity, but only a factor of 2 difference in "mass" as measured > from the orbit. > > This isn't at all close to your prediction. Since you're highly > intelligent, and a careful and logical thinker, it isn't likely that you > made any error in proceeding from your theory to your prediction. > Therefore, it's likely that your theory is wrong. > > > > > > > > (2) What do you mean by "photon emission"? What you mean by "photon" > > > might not be what conventional science means by "photon". How is > > > "photon emission" related to radiated power? Since the bolometric > > > luminosity is the total radiated power, is there any _further_ > > > dependence on temperature beyond its effect on the bolometric > > > luminosity. (If talking about visual luminosity, then, yes, the > > > bolometric luminosity depends on the visual luminosity and the > > > temperature.) > > > The wavelength of the light (color) determines how many photons are > > being emitted in a given, say, second. Gravity, actually, depends on > > how efficiently the trains of photons 'pump' ether back into space. I > > can't say, with certainty, that a wavelength of light that's half as > > long will be exactly twice as efficient moving ether, out. > > Experiments will have to confirm the efficiency for various > > wavelengths. > > So, to test you claims of stellar gravity versus luminosity, one should > compare stars of the same temperature. Sirius A and B aren't identical, > but close. Sirius A is A1V, Sirius B is A2. Close enough, considering the > x1,000 ratio of luminosities. > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > This is new. You didn't say anything about this that I saw before. > > > Thanks! You've just admitted that you are a regular reader of my > > science posts. And you are observant enough to realize that > > 'reasoning' is taking place even as I write a reply. You, better than > > most, should understand why I don't need to go running to books, by > > others, to find answersI give things my own best shot, first. > > > > > I suspect that a > > > > heated Cavendish ball will have gravity somewhere between the room > > > > temperature, and the white hot. > > > > "Suspect" isn't good enough for the experiment to be worthwhile. It's > > > directly connected to the following point which you didn't address in > > > your reply. Do note that this is absolutely essential for the > > > experiment to be worthwhile (as you will no doubt already know, since > > > this is a simple matter of logic and analytical ability). > > > Timo: The Cavendish experiment is conducted in a room with a high > > ceiling. There is air around the balls to influence the twisting > > speed. And the radiation of the heated ball(s) would be reflected > > back by the colder walls. In outer space, there would not be air to > > both drag the balls and to intercept the radiant energy. I can > > virtually guarantee that the Cavendish isn't a perfect analogy to the > > gravity of stars that are very, very hot. > > > > To repeat the question: if a Cavendish experiment _doesn't_ detect a > > > greater gravitational force, what does that mean for your theory? > > > Send me photographs of the experiment, and etc. It could be that the > > heated balls might change the torsion characteristics of the wire > > being more-so toward the end of the experiment, after the wire has had > > time to get hot. The answer to your question requires that the > > experiment be valid, for hot balls. M-M got nil results. > > Understanding the reason for that failure took over a century until I > > came along. I'd want to do a... post mortem on everything. > > The experiment can be designed to try to achieve a desired accuracy. If > you could be bothered saying how accurate the experiment needs to be, then > perhaps something could be done. Since you keep refusing to say (and > surely you must know how large the effect should be, or at least capable > of quickly deducing, from your theory, how large the effect should be), > there isn't any point in trying the experiment. > > If you have two identical balls, and heat one to be double the absolute > temperature of the other (i.e., to about 330C; yes, easy to heat it more, > but let us keep this simple), the hot ball will radiate 16 times as much > power, with peak emission at double the frequency (i.e., half the > wavelength). How much stronger will the gravitational force be? > > If you can be bothered applying your mighty intellect, and actually > provide a quantitative answer, perhaps an experimental test might be > worthwhile. Without such an answer, useless. > > > > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text > > > Probably not. The LOGIC of gravity being flowing ether answers too > > many of the century's old questions about the Universe. NoEinstein > > Well, if your theory is perfectly OK with a null result, why would a > positive result support your theory? Surely your statement above means > that the experiment is completely irrelevant to your theory. > > Or, since the luminosity/gravity predictions of your theory appear to fall > at the first astronomical hurdle, perhaps it's more that your theory is > irrelevant to reality.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Timo Nieminen on 14 May 2010 07:46 On May 14, 8:01 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 13, 2:29 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > What you arent considering (relative to your 1,000 fold gravity > difference) is that those stars, with the masses that you state, > arent rotating about the midpoint between their centers. The size of the orbit - which we can directly measure since this binary system is very close to us - and the orbital period - which we can also directly measure - together give us the combined mass of the two stars. Where the centre of the orbital motion lies along a line joining them tells us where the centre of mass is, and how that combined mass is divided between them. The figures of m_A = 2M, m_B = 1M come from this. So, you now know where the centre of motion is, relative to the 2 stars. If, according to your theory, this calculation should be done differently, do it. > And you > arent including the surface area of each star in the equation. > Brighter stars will have a larger surface area per unit mass. Also, > though the TOTAL gravity of a star is equal to the product of the > luminosity and the surface area, No, "luminosity" is the total emitted power. It already includes the surface area. "Luminosity" = "surface brightness" times surface area. As I said in the previous post. Sirius A radiates about 1000 times as much power as Sirius B. This already includes the effect of surface area. Yes, Sirius A has a much larger surface area - that's why it's brighter. Go and look for yourself - Sirius A is the brightest star in the night sky, and Sirius B isn't visible to the naked eye. It's a big difference in luminosity. Look up the numbers for yourself, at your fingertips via www. > the fraction of the gravity thats > holding two objects together is the illuminated area, or the > percentage of the total stars light that actually hits the other > star. It is the addition of photons to the facing sides of stars that > allows the ether pressure on the opposing sides to hold the two stars > together. Please re read my original post, There is no PULL of > gravity; only the PUSH of flowing ether! You're the one who said that the gravity is proportional to the photon emission. You didn't give any other usable quantitative model of the strength of gravity. If the gravitational force should be found some other way, perhaps you should have said so, and said how. All I did was test the quantitative model that you gave me. If it's the wrong model, why did you give it? If it's the wrong model, give the right one. One star emits 1000 times as many photons as the other, yet only appears to have twice the gravity. This is compatible with conventional physics, including conventional theories of gravitation. If it isn't compatible with your theory, then perhaps reality has cast its vote, the only vote which counts in science. > The easiest way for you to confirm my theory would be to heat the > larger ball in the Cavendish experiment as hot as possible. The > torsion slowing should occur quicker with the hot ball than with the > same ball cold. No other measurements are required. Do THAT > experiment, and find that the heated ball has more gravity, and you > can sit back and let the astronomers and scientists all over the world > quantify the temperature-variant gravity! I, the generalist, provided > the spark of inspiration. If others get to determine more of the > specifics, they can share in the glory. NoEinstein As I keep asking, and as you keep refusing to say: How large is the effect supposed to be? In other words, how sensitive does the experiment need to be to detect it? There isn't much point in trying it without knowing this. Since you claim that gravity is proportional to "photon emission", for masses above some threshold mass (which you haven't explained or given even an approximate value for yet), and radiation by hot bodies is well known and understood, why can't you say how large the effect should be? A simple calculation, surely, and should be trivial for you. Why not just answer? For example, double the absolute temperature of the balls; easy to do, just heat to about 330C. 16 times the radiated power, at double the peak frequency, as compared with a room temperature ball. How much larger should the gravitational force be?
From: PD on 14 May 2010 10:24
On May 14, 2:02 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 13, 11:07 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD: You are an absolute paradox: On the one hand you shun "what > I am sellingmy New Science"; and on the other you survive only to, > hopefully, elevate your lame intellectual status by protecting the > status quo of physics from being disproved. Your only means of > raising your status is now FAILING, PD, by about 19 to one. That's > because no more than 5% of your fellow dunces support what you are > doing. [*** An actual poll of the readers would be welcomed.] Fascinating. Love this policy of yours of just making data up. > > Your "right" to be here, if it were just a matter of free speech, > would be clear. But since your motive is to ANCHOR having there be > any progress, by anyone, in SCIENCE, then, you are a person to be > disdained by the Human Race. "Without CHANGE there can be no > progress." Without the PDs of this world, there SHALL be progress! > NoEinstein > > P. S.: I don't need PD as "a client", nor would I accept such a > failed pedant as him for a client. > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > |