Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: Inertial on 3 Jan 2010 22:24 "spudnik" <Space998(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ef651a3b-4fe8-437d-8aaa-5c7235c971c8(a)l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > every single object in Universe has a mass (except for "photons") And other bosons that have no mass. > 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. Proof by assertion? >> The matter does not exist in a >> void, or there would be no propagation of anything. That does not logically follow.
From: mpc755 on 3 Jan 2010 22:30 On Jan 3, 5:22 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 !! > Sounds like: '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 at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state of displacement and entrainment.
From: mpc755 on 3 Jan 2010 22:33 On Jan 3, 10:11 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. > Again, seems like we will have to agree to disagree. I agree with: 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable" According to Aether Displacement, space without aether is unthinkable. > > 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...
From: spudnik on 3 Jan 2010 22:35 you must be confusing the standard textbook say-so about water waves; the water does not move in the forward direction of the wave, but it sure does make a circular path (depending upon the polarization of the wave, if any .-)... now, why do you need to fluff that up with some aether-stuff, when water is such an amazing substance? > Because the water is not "waving". It is the aether contained within > the H2O molecules which is doing the waving. > > there is no vacuum for the red to shift in, although > > Alfven had postulated that 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 --In perpetuity clause in healthcare bill, Where? http://larouchepub.com/pr/2009/091229reid_exposed.html
From: mpc755 on 3 Jan 2010 22:35
On Jan 3, 10:24 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "spudnik" <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:ef651a3b-4fe8-437d-8aaa-5c7235c971c8(a)l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > every single object in Universe has a mass (except for "photons") > > And other bosons that have no mass. > > > 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. > > Proof by assertion? > > >> The matter does not exist in a > >> void, or there would be no propagation of anything. > > That does not logically follow. Should have been more specific. No propagation of light or waves. 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light" |