Prev: Kip Thorne. Objects do not fall faster than light in a blackhole
Next: Energy is never pushed faster than light by gravity
From: john on 5 Aug 2010 11:08
On Aug 5, 7:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 9:03 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 4, 4:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 4, 12:29 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > The neutrinos released by fusion within
> > > > stars go right through matter but impact
> > > > 100% on galactic centers. They constitute
> > > > the from-everywhere flux that drives the
> > > > movement of the galaxies themselves.
>
> > > > Similar radiation of a much smaller scale
> > > > is released from millions of points of fusion within
> > > > each electron. This is the from-everywhere flux
> > > > that drives the movement of atoms.
>
> > > > The smaller-scale radiation travels faster, so
> > > > the matter surrounding galactic centers will
> > > > gravitate faster than the centers themselves.
>
> > > > Is *that* a prediction, PD?
>
> > > Not quite yet. When you say the matter surrounding galactic centers
> > > will "gravitate faster" than the centers themselves, what does this
> > > mean in terms of measurable observations?
>
> > > Does it mean that the orbits of stars further out from the galactic
> > > centers will show a faster-than-expected orbital period than ones
> > > further in? Or what?
>
> > It means the stuff surrounding each
> > center can move faster than the center.
>
> > It makes sense, really, for otherwise it
> > would get lost.
>
> > I don't know how it would show up.
>
> Then it's not a prediction, John.
>
> A prediction means a distinguishable *observation* that would be
> unique to your model. This means a measurable behavior, preferably a
> predicted curve that you expect all the measurements to lie upon. The
> curve comes from a relationship between two measured properties, where
> the measurements yield numbers. It's of the following sort: "For each
> batch of stuff near the center, you measure quantities X and Y. The
> model says that for the batch of stuff that has X=39, then you expect
> for that same batch of stuff that Y=188. It says that the batch of
> stuff that has X=57 will have Y=101."
>
> THAT is a prediction, John.
>
>
>
>
>
> > john- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Whatever.
Delegate.

What I am saying is that different parts of the
universe, size-wise, have different gravity masters.
Matter does not react to that which pushes
galaxies apart. Matter simply does not *see* that
force. It is neutrinos.
But the force matter does "see" comes from
the ongoing fusion process within all electrons.
And that force has a much higher speed limit,
than that for galaxies
because it is so much finer in individual structure.

john
From: PD on 5 Aug 2010 12:18
On Aug 5, 10:08 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 7:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 4, 9:03 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 4, 4:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 4, 12:29 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > The neutrinos released by fusion within
> > > > > stars go right through matter but impact
> > > > > 100% on galactic centers. They constitute
> > > > > the from-everywhere flux that drives the
> > > > > movement of the galaxies themselves.
>
> > > > > Similar radiation of a much smaller scale
> > > > > is released from millions of points of fusion within
> > > > > each electron. This is the from-everywhere flux
> > > > > that drives the movement of atoms.
>
> > > > > The smaller-scale radiation travels faster, so
> > > > > the matter surrounding galactic centers will
> > > > > gravitate faster than the centers themselves.
>
> > > > > Is *that* a prediction, PD?
>
> > > > Not quite yet. When you say the matter surrounding galactic centers
> > > > will "gravitate faster" than the centers themselves, what does this
> > > > mean in terms of measurable observations?
>
> > > > Does it mean that the orbits of stars further out from the galactic
> > > > centers will show a faster-than-expected orbital period than ones
> > > > further in? Or what?
>
> > > It means the stuff surrounding each
> > > center can move faster than the center.
>
> > > It makes sense, really, for otherwise it
> > > would get lost.
>
> > > I don't know how it would show up.
>
> > Then it's not a prediction, John.
>
> > A prediction means a distinguishable *observation* that would be
> > unique to your model. This means a measurable behavior, preferably a
> > predicted curve that you expect all the measurements to lie upon. The
> > curve comes from a relationship between two measured properties, where
> > the measurements yield numbers. It's of the following sort: "For each
> > batch of stuff near the center, you measure quantities X and Y. The
> > model says that for the batch of stuff that has X=39, then you expect
> > for that same batch of stuff that Y=188. It says that the batch of
> > stuff that has X=57 will have Y=101."
>
> > THAT is a prediction, John.
>
> > > john- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Whatever.
> Delegate.

No, John, it's your idea. For it to be scientific, you need
predictions.
Coming up with a bit of poetry and then asking the rest of the work to
be delegated as so much "technician" work won't cut it.
What you have now is poetry, not science.
The fact that it's about galaxies and atoms just makes it poetry about
galaxies and atoms.
If you'd like it to be thought of as science, then YOU need to make it
more than poetry.

>
> What I am saying is that different parts of the
> universe, size-wise, have different gravity masters.
> Matter does not react to that which pushes
> galaxies apart. Matter simply does not *see* that
> force. It is neutrinos.
> But the force matter does "see" comes from
> the ongoing fusion process within all electrons.
> And that force has a much higher speed limit,
> than that for galaxies
> because it is so much finer in individual structure.
>
> john

From: john on 5 Aug 2010 13:06
On Aug 5, 10:18 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 10:08 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 5, 7:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 4, 9:03 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 4, 4:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 4, 12:29 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > > The neutrinos released by fusion within
> > > > > > stars go right through matter but impact
> > > > > > 100% on galactic centers. They constitute
> > > > > > the from-everywhere flux that drives the
> > > > > > movement of the galaxies themselves.
>
> > > > > > Similar radiation of a much smaller scale
> > > > > > is released from millions of points of fusion within
> > > > > > each electron. This is the from-everywhere flux
> > > > > > that drives the movement of atoms.
>
> > > > > > The smaller-scale radiation travels faster, so
> > > > > > the matter surrounding galactic centers will
> > > > > > gravitate faster than the centers themselves.
>
> > > > > > Is *that* a prediction, PD?
>
> > > > > Not quite yet. When you say the matter surrounding galactic centers
> > > > > will "gravitate faster" than the centers themselves, what does this
> > > > > mean in terms of measurable observations?
>
> > > > > Does it mean that the orbits of stars further out from the galactic
> > > > > centers will show a faster-than-expected orbital period than ones
> > > > > further in? Or what?
>
> > > > It means the stuff surrounding each
> > > > center can move faster than the center.
>
> > > > It makes sense, really, for otherwise it
> > > > would get lost.
>
> > > > I don't know how it would show up.
>
> > > Then it's not a prediction, John.
>
> > > A prediction means a distinguishable *observation* that would be
> > > unique to your model. This means a measurable behavior, preferably a
> > > predicted curve that you expect all the measurements to lie upon. The
> > > curve comes from a relationship between two measured properties, where
> > > the measurements yield numbers. It's of the following sort: "For each
> > > batch of stuff near the center, you measure quantities X and Y. The
> > > model says that for the batch of stuff that has X=39, then you expect
> > > for that same batch of stuff that Y=188. It says that the batch of
> > > stuff that has X=57 will have Y=101."
>
> > > THAT is a prediction, John.
>
> > > > john- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Whatever.
> > Delegate.
>
> No, John, it's your idea. For it to be scientific, you need
> predictions.
> Coming up with a bit of poetry and then asking the rest of the work to
> be delegated as so much "technician" work won't cut it.
> What you have now is poetry, not science.
> The fact that it's about galaxies and atoms just makes it poetry about
> galaxies and atoms.
> If you'd like it to be thought of as science, then YOU need to make it
> more than poetry.
>
>
>
>
>
> > What I am saying is that different parts of the
> > universe, size-wise, have different gravity masters.
> > Matter does not react to that which pushes
> > galaxies apart. Matter simply does not *see* that
> > force. It is neutrinos.
> > But the force matter does "see" comes from
> > the ongoing fusion process within all electrons.
> > And that force has a much higher speed limit,
> > than that for galaxies
> > because it is so much finer in individual structure.
>
> > john- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Stop that, PD!

Perhaps I should try to
keep all my ideas secret?

(But thanks for calling them poetry!)

Let's try inputting the dual gravity
idea into the 95% missing mass problem.
Don't listen to PD- anyone run with this ball!

:)

john
From: bert on 5 Aug 2010 13:53
On Aug 5, 12:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 10:08 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 5, 7:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 4, 9:03 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 4, 4:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 4, 12:29 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > > The neutrinos released by fusion within
> > > > > > stars go right through matter but impact
> > > > > > 100% on galactic centers. They constitute
> > > > > > the from-everywhere flux that drives the
> > > > > > movement of the galaxies themselves.
>
> > > > > > Similar radiation of a much smaller scale
> > > > > > is released from millions of points of fusion within
> > > > > > each electron. This is the from-everywhere flux
> > > > > > that drives the movement of atoms.
>
> > > > > > The smaller-scale radiation travels faster, so
> > > > > > the matter surrounding galactic centers will
> > > > > > gravitate faster than the centers themselves.
>
> > > > > > Is *that* a prediction, PD?
>
> > > > > Not quite yet. When you say the matter surrounding galactic centers
> > > > > will "gravitate faster" than the centers themselves, what does this
> > > > > mean in terms of measurable observations?
>
> > > > > Does it mean that the orbits of stars further out from the galactic
> > > > > centers will show a faster-than-expected orbital period than ones
> > > > > further in? Or what?
>
> > > > It means the stuff surrounding each
> > > > center can move faster than the center.
>
> > > > It makes sense, really, for otherwise it
> > > > would get lost.
>
> > > > I don't know how it would show up.
>
> > > Then it's not a prediction, John.
>
> > > A prediction means a distinguishable *observation* that would be
> > > unique to your model. This means a measurable behavior, preferably a
> > > predicted curve that you expect all the measurements to lie upon. The
> > > curve comes from a relationship between two measured properties, where
> > > the measurements yield numbers. It's of the following sort: "For each
> > > batch of stuff near the center, you measure quantities X and Y. The
> > > model says that for the batch of stuff that has X=39, then you expect
> > > for that same batch of stuff that Y=188. It says that the batch of
> > > stuff that has X=57 will have Y=101."
>
> > > THAT is a prediction, John.
>
> > > > john- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Whatever.
> > Delegate.
>
> No, John, it's your idea. For it to be scientific, you need
> predictions.
> Coming up with a bit of poetry and then asking the rest of the work to
> be delegated as so much "technician" work won't cut it.
> What you have now is poetry, not science.
> The fact that it's about galaxies and atoms just makes it poetry about
> galaxies and atoms.
> If you'd like it to be thought of as science, then YOU need to make it
> more than poetry.
>
>
>
>
>
> > What I am saying is that different parts of the
> > universe, size-wise, have different gravity masters.
> > Matter does not react to that which pushes
> > galaxies apart. Matter simply does not *see* that
> > force. It is neutrinos.
> > But the force matter does "see" comes from
> > the ongoing fusion process within all electrons.
> > And that force has a much higher speed limit,
> > than that for galaxies
> > because it is so much finer in individual structure.
>
> > john- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Surface gravity on Earth varies. Poles its half of one percent greater
than at the equator. All proven,and makes balance scales the way to
go TreBert
From: Michael Moroney on 5 Aug 2010 14:01
john <vegan16(a)accesscomm.ca> writes:

>Let's try inputting the dual gravity
>idea into the 95% missing mass problem.
>Don't listen to PD- anyone run with this ball!

Once again, you are trying to get others to do
your work.

It's your so-called "theory". Come up with predictions, and an experiment
that can show a measurable difference between what we'd see if electrons
were full of little "suns" with fusion, and the "status quo" which states
electrons are featureless and point-like. If you can't come up with an
experiment that make predictions about your ideas, then you really don't
have anything more than poetry.

Also, don't hijack previously defined words. For example, photons and
neutrinos have specific meanings in physics, and neutrinos specifically
aren't even force carriers (they're fermions).
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Kip Thorne. Objects do not fall faster than light in a blackhole
Next: Energy is never pushed faster than light by gravity