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 15 May 2010 18:46 On May 14, 10:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD: Like I've explained, it is the head-on ether pressure inside the ring that holds the muons together, longer. Lorentz was a drunken fool. His rubber-ruler explanation for M-M violates all principles of engineering. Ether pressure, not space-time and rubber rulers, is why the decay of the muons is slower when traveling at high speed. NoEinstein > > On May 14, 3:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > 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 > > I did exactly what you asked for. I paraphrased the evidence that you > will not look up yourself. That paraphrased evidence is below. If you > do not believe the paraphrasing, then you will have to look at the > evidence yourself. I'd be happy to provide you the reference for where > you can do that. > > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 15 May 2010 18:52 On May 14, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD: I am a scientist. You, on the other hand, are a suppressor of the truth. In short, you gladly lie and sidestep if those can "seem" to increase the power of your negativity. I invite anyone to Poll the readers to see how many support my honesty over your FRAUD. As things now stand, you probable just dropped to one person in 25. NE > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 15 May 2010 18:54 On May 14, 7:53 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > Dear Readers: At some point, someone change my post to be on sci.physics.relativity. There is a much larger discussion going on there. NoEinstein > > On May 14, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey Guy: You are a CAD for implying that I make up anything. I > strongly suspect that you... MADE UP that there is a description of > the Law of the Conservation of Energy, that has WORK in any way > associated with the computation. And I doubt that if there was an > expression that there would be a statement saying that WORK happens > due to "displacement", even if such is due to COASTING against zero > resisting load. And you are a CAD for implying that my f or p = mv > definition of MOMENTUM is wrong, when you have never cold copied the > text and the equations that say otherwise. The letter p stands for > FORCE in most engineering texts. You CLAIM that p means something > else, but you never quote your source. The reason you fault that > little College Outline Series book that says f = mv, is because you > don't want anyone faulting your... WORK definition of Conservation of > ENERGY. Put up or shut up, PD. You are hanging by a 5% thread that > will strangle you, if your don't! NE > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 15 May 2010 18:56 On May 7, 2:21 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Readers: At some point, someone changed my post to be on sci.physics.relativity. There is a much larger discussion going on there. NoEinstein > > 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 15 May 2010 18:58
On May 7, 2:21 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Readers: At some point, someone changed my post to be on sci.physics.relativity. There is a much larger discussion going on there. NoEinstein > > 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? |