Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 2 Jan 2010 22:38 On Jan 2, 10:42 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 1, 8:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 1, 8:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 1, 8:57 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 31 2009, 9:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 31, 2:00 pm, PD the *collective* body > > > > > > of experimental evidence that determines which theory is the most > > > > > > successful. Choosing one experiment that permits both explanations and > > > > > > then insisting that only your favorite is the favored one is > > > > > > scientific fraud. > > > > > > > > > However, > > > > > > > > relativity does not rest on the MMX as its sole experimental support. > > > > > > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > > > > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > > > > > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > > > > > > > The state of the aether is its state of displacement and entrainment. > > > > > > > > > You need to check what other experimental work has been done to test > > > > > > > > not only relativity, but other models that are consistent with a > > > > > > > > subset of the data that relativity also matches. > > > > > > > > The problem is that relativity is the only model so far that > > > > > > > > accurately predicts ALL the experimental results. > > > > > > > > Yes, but it is not a physical explanation. > > > > > > > It is perfectly physical. You perhaps have a disagreement with > > > > > > physicists about what "physical" means. > > > > > > > > Time is a concept. SR (and > > > > > > > its incorrect train gedanken) and GR are mathematical theories > > > > > > > No, they are PHYSICAL theories. > > > > > > SR, GR, and QM are not physical explanations of nature. They are > > > > > mathematical representations of nature. > > > > > > Your dogma makes you insist a 'wave function probability' is nature. > > > > > > > > describing the aether pressure > > > > > > Since SR and GR dispense with aether as something that exerts pressure > > > > > > on anything, it is difficult to say that SR and GR describe aether > > > > > > pressure. Now, it's plain that AD is a theory that describes aether > > > > > > pressure, but AD doesn't have anything to do with SR and GR, does it? > > > > > > AD is a physical representation of SR, GR, and QM, but again, your > > > > > dogma doesn't allow you to understand anything but what you have been > > > > > indoctrinated into believing. > > > > > > You will never understand time is a concept and a 'wave function > > > > > probability' is not nature. > > > > > --------------------------- > > > > i fully agree with your last sentence !!! > > > > > 2 > > > > if you will replace your' Aether pressure' with > > > > **Circlon pressure** i will be with you !!! > > > > > ATB > > > > Y.Porat > > > > ----------------------------------- > > > > If by Circlon Pressure you are referring to: > > > >http://www.circlon-theory.com/index.html' > > > I think it's fair to say that Porat will be aghast that there is a > > website that looks better than his and which features mention of > > "circlons". > > > > Then I have to disagree with you. 'Their' explanation of gravity: > > > >http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/gravitation.html > > > > seems too different than what I am describing. > > > > In terms of the apple falling on Newton's head, the AD explanation of > > > this is the matter which is the apple displaces the aether which would > > > otherwise exist where the apple is and the Earth displaces the aether > > > which would otherwise exist where the matter which is the Earth is. > > > The apple displaces the aether to infinity, but it is like dropping a > > > bowling ball into the ocean. Where does the bowling ball 'stop' > > > displacing the ocean? > > > > When the apple breaks free from the tree, the aether pressure > > > associated with the aether displaced by the Earth and the aether > > > pressure associated with the aether displaced by the apple push the > > > Earth and the apple towards one another, but for all practical > > > purposes, it is only the aether pressure associated with the aether > > > displaced by the Earth that is pushing the apple towards the Earth. > > --------------------- > for PD more importasnt is if it looks better > > sort of a youg woman model is bettr scientifically than an old person > > anyway Mr mpc > my circlon model is not al all th elink you quoted > it i s described schematically at the** appendix** > of my abstract of my model book > it does not look like a young model woman > but anyway > see my model at the appendix: > > http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > ps about my whole ** book*** > PD (and some others )stole it > and is very eager to hide > and obfuscate that fact !!.... > > ATB > Y.Porat > -------------------------- If you want to summarize how 'Circlon pressure' is a more accurate description of nature than 'Aether pressure', go right ahead. But I do not see any difference in nature between 'Aether Pressure' and 'Hydrostatic Pressure' except for the medium in which the clock exists. Think of a clock a couple of feet below the surface of the ocean which has the second hand of the clock exposed to the water. Make it so the second hand on the clock is a paddle that pushes through the water. Time the clock in the water so one full rotation of the second hand correlates with one minute on a clock on the boat. Now drop the clock one mile below the surface of the ocean. Because of the increase in water pressure on the click, I'm guessing it is going to require more force for the second hand with the paddle to push through the water, causing the hand to take more than one minute as determined by the clock on the boat, to make one complete rotation. Has time changed? Of course not. Now, of course, if a fish refuses to believe in the existence of water, then time really does change.
From: mpc755 on 2 Jan 2010 22:54 On Jan 2, 10:42 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 1, 8:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 1, 8:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 1, 8:57 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 31 2009, 9:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 31, 2:00 pm, PD the *collective* body > > > > > > of experimental evidence that determines which theory is the most > > > > > > successful. Choosing one experiment that permits both explanations and > > > > > > then insisting that only your favorite is the favored one is > > > > > > scientific fraud. > > > > > > > > > However, > > > > > > > > relativity does not rest on the MMX as its sole experimental support. > > > > > > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > > > > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > > > > > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > > > > > > > The state of the aether is its state of displacement and entrainment. > > > > > > > > > You need to check what other experimental work has been done to test > > > > > > > > not only relativity, but other models that are consistent with a > > > > > > > > subset of the data that relativity also matches. > > > > > > > > The problem is that relativity is the only model so far that > > > > > > > > accurately predicts ALL the experimental results. > > > > > > > > Yes, but it is not a physical explanation. > > > > > > > It is perfectly physical. You perhaps have a disagreement with > > > > > > physicists about what "physical" means. > > > > > > > > Time is a concept. SR (and > > > > > > > its incorrect train gedanken) and GR are mathematical theories > > > > > > > No, they are PHYSICAL theories. > > > > > > SR, GR, and QM are not physical explanations of nature. They are > > > > > mathematical representations of nature. > > > > > > Your dogma makes you insist a 'wave function probability' is nature. > > > > > > > > describing the aether pressure > > > > > > Since SR and GR dispense with aether as something that exerts pressure > > > > > > on anything, it is difficult to say that SR and GR describe aether > > > > > > pressure. Now, it's plain that AD is a theory that describes aether > > > > > > pressure, but AD doesn't have anything to do with SR and GR, does it? > > > > > > AD is a physical representation of SR, GR, and QM, but again, your > > > > > dogma doesn't allow you to understand anything but what you have been > > > > > indoctrinated into believing. > > > > > > You will never understand time is a concept and a 'wave function > > > > > probability' is not nature. > > > > > --------------------------- > > > > i fully agree with your last sentence !!! > > > > > 2 > > > > if you will replace your' Aether pressure' with > > > > **Circlon pressure** i will be with you !!! > > > > > ATB > > > > Y.Porat > > > > ----------------------------------- > > > > If by Circlon Pressure you are referring to: > > > >http://www.circlon-theory.com/index.html' > > > I think it's fair to say that Porat will be aghast that there is a > > website that looks better than his and which features mention of > > "circlons". > > > > Then I have to disagree with you. 'Their' explanation of gravity: > > > >http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/gravitation.html > > > > seems too different than what I am describing. > > > > In terms of the apple falling on Newton's head, the AD explanation of > > > this is the matter which is the apple displaces the aether which would > > > otherwise exist where the apple is and the Earth displaces the aether > > > which would otherwise exist where the matter which is the Earth is. > > > The apple displaces the aether to infinity, but it is like dropping a > > > bowling ball into the ocean. Where does the bowling ball 'stop' > > > displacing the ocean? > > > > When the apple breaks free from the tree, the aether pressure > > > associated with the aether displaced by the Earth and the aether > > > pressure associated with the aether displaced by the apple push the > > > Earth and the apple towards one another, but for all practical > > > purposes, it is only the aether pressure associated with the aether > > > displaced by the Earth that is pushing the apple towards the Earth. > > --------------------- > for PD more importasnt is if it looks better > > sort of a youg woman model is bettr scientifically than an old person > > anyway Mr mpc > my circlon model is not al all th elink you quoted > it i s described schematically at the** appendix** > of my abstract of my model book > it does not look like a young model woman > but anyway > see my model at the appendix: > > http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > ps about my whole ** book*** > PD (and some others )stole it > and is very eager to hide > and obfuscate that fact !!.... > > ATB > Y.Porat > -------------------------- If you want to summarize how 'Circlon pressure' is a more accurate description of nature than 'Aether pressure', go right ahead. But I do not see any difference in nature between 'Aether Pressure' and 'Hydrostatic Pressure' except for the medium in which the clock exists. Think of a clock a couple of feet below the surface of the ocean which has the second hand of the clock exposed to the water. Make it so the second hand on the clock is a paddle that pushes through the water. Time the clock in the water so one full rotation of the second hand correlates with one minute on a clock on the boat. Now drop the clock one mile below the surface of the ocean. Because of the increase in water pressure on the clock, I'm guessing it is going to require more force for the second hand with the paddle to push through the water, causing the hand to take more than one minute to make one complete rotation as determined by the clock on the boat. Has time changed? Of course not. Now, of course, if a fish refuses to believe in the existence of water, then time really does change.
From: Y.Porat on 3 Jan 2010 05:22 On Jan 3, 5:54 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 2, 10:42 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 1, 8:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 1, 8:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 1, 8:57 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 31 2009, 9:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 31, 2:00 pm, PD the *collective* body > > > > > > > of experimental evidence that determines which theory is the most > > > > > > > successful. Choosing one experiment that permits both explanations and > > > > > > > then insisting that only your favorite is the favored one is > > > > > > > scientific fraud. > > > > > > > > > > However, > > > > > > > > > relativity does not rest on the MMX as its sole experimental support. > > > > > > > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > > > > > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > > > > > > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > > > > > > > > The state of the aether is its state of displacement and entrainment. > > > > > > > > > > You need to check what other experimental work has been done to test > > > > > > > > > not only relativity, but other models that are consistent with a > > > > > > > > > subset of the data that relativity also matches. > > > > > > > > > The problem is that relativity is the only model so far that > > > > > > > > > accurately predicts ALL the experimental results. > > > > > > > > > Yes, but it is not a physical explanation. > > > > > > > > It is perfectly physical. You perhaps have a disagreement with > > > > > > > physicists about what "physical" means. > > > > > > > > > Time is a concept. SR (and > > > > > > > > its incorrect train gedanken) and GR are mathematical theories > > > > > > > > No, they are PHYSICAL theories. > > > > > > > SR, GR, and QM are not physical explanations of nature. They are > > > > > > mathematical representations of nature. > > > > > > > Your dogma makes you insist a 'wave function probability' is nature. > > > > > > > > > describing the aether pressure > > > > > > > Since SR and GR dispense with aether as something that exerts pressure > > > > > > > on anything, it is difficult to say that SR and GR describe aether > > > > > > > pressure. Now, it's plain that AD is a theory that describes aether > > > > > > > pressure, but AD doesn't have anything to do with SR and GR, does it? > > > > > > > AD is a physical representation of SR, GR, and QM, but again, your > > > > > > dogma doesn't allow you to understand anything but what you have been > > > > > > indoctrinated into believing. > > > > > > > You will never understand time is a concept and a 'wave function > > > > > > probability' is not nature. > > > > > > --------------------------- > > > > > i fully agree with your last sentence !!! > > > > > > 2 > > > > > if you will replace your' Aether pressure' with > > > > > **Circlon pressure** i will be with you !!! > > > > > > ATB > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > ----------------------------------- > > > > > If by Circlon Pressure you are referring to: > > > > >http://www.circlon-theory.com/index.html' > > > > I think it's fair to say that Porat will be aghast that there is a > > > website that looks better than his and which features mention of > > > "circlons". > > > > > Then I have to disagree with you. 'Their' explanation of gravity: > > > > >http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/gravitation.html > > > > > seems too different than what I am describing. > > > > > In terms of the apple falling on Newton's head, the AD explanation of > > > > this is the matter which is the apple displaces the aether which would > > > > otherwise exist where the apple is and the Earth displaces the aether > > > > which would otherwise exist where the matter which is the Earth is. > > > > The apple displaces the aether to infinity, but it is like dropping a > > > > bowling ball into the ocean. Where does the bowling ball 'stop' > > > > displacing the ocean? > > > > > When the apple breaks free from the tree, the aether pressure > > > > associated with the aether displaced by the Earth and the aether > > > > pressure associated with the aether displaced by the apple push the > > > > Earth and the apple towards one another, but for all practical > > > > purposes, it is only the aether pressure associated with the aether > > > > displaced by the Earth that is pushing the apple towards the Earth. > > > --------------------- > > for PD more importasnt is if it looks better > > > sort of a youg woman model is bettr scientifically than an old person > > > anyway Mr mpc > > my circlon model is not al all th elink you quoted > > it i s described schematically at the** appendix** > > of my abstract of my model book > > it does not look like a young model woman > > but anyway > > see my model at the appendix: > > >http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > ps about my whole ** book*** > > PD (and some others )stole it > > and is very eager to hide > > and obfuscate that fact !!.... > > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > -------------------------- > > If you want to summarize how 'Circlon pressure' is a more accurate > description of nature than 'Aether pressure', go right ahead. > > But I do not see any difference in nature between 'Aether Pressure' > and 'Hydrostatic Pressure' except for the medium in which the clock > exists. > > Think of a clock a couple of feet below the surface of the ocean which > has the second hand of the clock exposed to the water. Make it so the > second hand on the clock is a paddle that pushes through the water. > Time the clock in the water so one full rotation of the second hand > correlates with one minute on a clock on the boat. > > Now drop the clock one mile below the surface of the ocean. Because of > the increase in water pressure on the clock, I'm guessing it is going > to require more force for the second hand with the paddle to push > through the water, causing the hand to take more than one minute to > make one complete rotation as determined by the clock on the boat. > > Has time changed? Of course not. > > Now, of course, if a fish refuses to believe in the existence of > water, then time really does change. -------------------- BTW whose 'Circlon' was first mine of the other one you quoted ?? i did check it 2 please have a look at my appendix how the circlon can make attraction force it is described schematically on teo masses one big and one small (say sun and earth) but not necessarily big and small it can be between any massed and attraction force is equivalentto pressure (if you lke it better that way) but still please note the big difference between your Aether and my Circlon the Circlon is stemming and associated only to and from mass!! not from Vacuum and it as massive! for me no mass - no real physics !! ATB Y.Porat -------------------------------
From: Lucky on 3 Jan 2010 11:28 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:ad7ff6df-1767-4a14-8bf8-858ccbd26be9(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... On Jan 1, 3:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 1, 1:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 31 2009, 5:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 31, 6:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 31, 1:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 31, 2:27 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael > > > > > Moroney) > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > we cannot know which slit it goes through, so we should be able > > > > > > to > > > > > > get interference patterns from such things. > > > > > > This is supposed to be about SCIENCE! Since when if we do not KNOW > > > > > something does that effect physical behaviors? > > > > > It's simple. It's the result of direct experimental observation. > > > > Change the status of a detector and the physical behavior is > > > > OBSERVED > > > > to be affected. > > > > Yes, because the detector physically destroys the coherence of the > > > displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates in the aether, altering > > > the physical results. > > > Well, that's what YOU think happens. But of course, there is ANOTHER > > physical model, which you do not understand, which accounts for the > > same observations. Because you don't understand it, you believe the > > other physical model either doesn't exist or isn't physical -- just > > because it isn't YOUR model. This, of course, is the blindness of > > fools. > > A wave function is not physical. Of course it is. Where did you ever get the idea that it is not? > This is how it occurred in QM. What you wrote below is not accurate and NOT how quantum mechanics was developed. You have made it up out of whole cloth. It doesn't help to support a lie by manufacturing another lie. > When the first experiments were performed where what was occurring > physically in nature was not understood someone didn't realize the > moving particle physically displaces the aether into the form of a > wave. Someone, or someones, decided, incorrectly, that it was the > particle itself that was the wave. So, they placed a label of 'wave > function' on the behavior. Now, when asked to explain what it is that > causes a C-60 molecule to not create an interference pattern when > detected, the answer is 'its wave function collapses'. And the > perfect, incorrect, circular 'logic' is born. Now, since QM is dogma, > when a more correct explanation is brought forth which says the > behavior is due to the C-60 molecule creating a physical displacement > wave in the aether, it is dismissed by those who choose religious > faith over scientific reason. > > When asked to explain how it is the C-60 molecule is able to be > detected exiting a single slit when detectors are placed at the exits > to the slits at the last instance prior to the C-60 molecule exiting > the slit(s), the religious dogma is simply modified to allow for the > future to determine the past, or the QM faithful just punt and say > "It's a wave!". Either way, both answers are incorrect. > > But, the QMr says, the future does determined the past. Look at > delayed choice experiments. When it is pointed out to the QMr, that > what is really occurring in the image on the right > here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experi... > is the wave in the aether the photon creates travels the available > paths and the photon 'particle' travels a single path and when the > paths are combined (as in the red and blue paths are in the image) all > that is occurring in nature is the physical waves in the aether create > interference and alter the direction the 'particle' travels. The QMr > has no response for the more correct understanding of nature. > > And let's not forget the quotes by the guy who originated SR and GR: > > "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is > unthinkable" > > and that the following quote describes aether displacement and > entrainment exactly: > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > > Never mind that some of the accounts that you say YOUR theory makes, > > such as entrainment of aether by the Sun out to Saturn, has been > > already tested in experiment and found to be incompatible with > > measurements. But you don't choose to look at those experiments. Which > > is scientific fraud. This, too, is the blindness of fools. > > Of course, if I ask you to post links to such experiments you will say > that I have to find those links myself. Your behavior is the > definition of denial. >I do expect you to learn how to research the literature yourself, yes. >ANYBODY who does physics learns this as a basic skill. >Not cowtowing to your laziness and apprehensions about doing actual >work is not denial. It is simply refusing to cowtow to childish >behavior. >Sulk if you like. That sounds familiar Yeah, I sat through three hours of a meeting (and a coworker lied (about an issue and a question she's asked me) with a straight face--and then two hours with a committee. Fun, fun, fun! Next Saturday's performance is at 2:00. I'm still trying to decide whether to drive or take metro. I'm leaning towards driving, I think. There's plenty to walk around and see (and there's parking beneath the building where the meeting is).
From: spudnik on 3 Jan 2010 22:11
every single object in Universe has a mass (except for "photons") and a frequency. you can use Schroedinger's wave-math to produce the (quite more fundamental & explanatory) wavey properties of these objects, or you can use Pauli's matrices to look it them *qua* particles -- including the absurdity of the "photon" ... photon *torpedoes* are just fine, though, if you can do the math. there is no void or vacuum, as almost proven by its dyscoverer, Pascal; just because he didn't do that, is of no importance. > But the matter exists in something. The matter does not exist in a > void, or there would be no propagation of anything. > > there is no vacuum for the red to shift in, although > > Alfven had postulated that only matter-antimatter annhialation > > was the only possible source of energy to expand Universe -- --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why? http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How? http://larouchepub.com/other/2009/3650rice_racist.html --The Riemannian Space of the Nucleus, What? http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdf |