There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
Next: Question about energy eigenvalues of a Hamiltonian, in general
From: spudnik on 4 May 2010 20:50 no-one is without bias; why do you say, that you are without bias? "rubber rulers" is just a simple thing: if matter is ultimately made of energy, then its internal workings can go no faster than light; so, what happens if the matter "approaches" that ultimate speed?... anyway, the Michelson-Morley results were never "nil," and their results have been refined by others. (would you like a reference?) > Whatever the truth is, PD contorts it. "Rubber Rulers" has no > supporting experiment! Lorentz, the imbecile, used RR to 'explain' > the nil results of M-M. thus: why should such analogy be used to insinuate that the redshift is dopplerian -- is there really a perfect vacuum, for lightwaves not to propogate in? was Hubble hounded into this interpretation, or was he such a self-promoter that he just said, Surely! > > 1) Draw spots on a rubber balloon and inflate. thus: what glaciers really do, while gently flowing out to sea in a dynamic stasis (well, on Antarctica and Greenland), is that the boulders stuck in the underside grind teh bedrock into dust (some times blown, later, into deposits of loess). [ref.: J.D.Hamaker, retired mechanical engr., who worked at an oil company.] thus: nor are most glaciers actually receding, although this fact is mainly unnoticed, because of a massive lack of historical data on nearly all glaciers. satellite telemetry has shown almost no change of Antarctic icesheets, but what else would one expect, considering that there is as much ice as can be accomodated, because "ice bergs do calve, period." > OK, NSIDC and NERSC don't agree. NERSC, who shows the years 2007, 2008, > 2009 and 2010, still shows 2010 with much more ice than 2007 and 2008. thus: it's just a "paradox" of assuming that it is a photon, when it is merely a wave; obviously, a thing with p=mv not equal to zero, can't have one of the terms being zero; so, it is not a particle or Newtonian corpuscle -- and did they *have* to give Einstein a Nobel, just to reify that foolishness of his? > There is no mass in the momentum of the photon. thus: it's probably just his grasp of English; don't you think? as for "Newton's law," its universality is actually due to Kepler; Hooke merely algebraized Kepler's orbital constraints, using some work of Huyghens (then, Knewton stole the inverse second-power thing from Hooke, and destroyed Hooke's portraits .-) thus: I'm allowed to agree with Al Gore about one thing; am I not?... even though Mauna Loa is a weird place to measure CO2, it's still just one place, with a record since the '60s (I think). now, most of the effect of humans may not be the burning of Fossilized Fuels (tm), but the burning-up of soil biota & forests. (after all, oil comes out of the ground, by itself, under pressure -- even when we're pumping like crazy in the Gulf of Mexico and the Redondo Seep e.g.) thus: most of these things, you mention, are just theoretical interpretations from the Schroedinger's cat school of Copenhagen, "reifying the math" of the probabilities; they don't actually have any bearing on the correctness of QM or GR or SR or any thing, nor on your so-called theory. but, why do you say that conversation of momentum supposedly doesn't apply to a split quantum of light in some standard theory? and poor Nein Ein Stein believes that p = mv is a force and that F = ma is not, and some thing about Coriolis' force, merely from a didactic say-so of his (in some sort of pidgen English, which could be the whole problem). > - The future determines the past > - Virtual particles exist out of nothing --Light: A History! http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com
From: mpc755 on 4 May 2010 21:21 On May 4, 8:12 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 3, 11:54 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear mpc755: Like... the chicken or the egg, ETHER came before there > was matter. The ether started spiraling as soon as the first star > emitted light. That's how ether flows (like water down a drain)! So > the ether was in close sync with the motions of the masses, not > because the masses moved the ether, but because they were partners in > a common DANCE! NoEinstein > What is thought to be a 'Big Bang' is more of a 'Big Ongoing'. What we see in our telescopes is matter moving away from us. That does not mean the universe itself is expanding. The following can be considered to be an image of an ongoing process: http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html The following can be considered to be an image of the universe, or the local universe: http://www.feandft.com/BlackHole.jpg The top of the 'Black Hole' where the jet stream begins is analogous to the 'Quantum Fluctuations' in the previous image. What is presently considered to be the 'Big Bang' is an ongoing process. Material is continually emitted into the universal jet stream at the ejection point which is the 'Quantum Fluctuations' point in the previous image. This material is aether. At the '1st Stars' point of the previous image is where the pressure is great enough to compress aether into matter. As the matter continually moves away from the emission point it enters the 'Development of Galaxies, Planets, etc.' stage. This is where the matter expands in already existing three dimensional space. This is what we mistake for an expanding universe. This process continues until the material 'falls over the waterfall' and winds up at the Rindler Horizon (the blue disk in the latter image). The material is eventually re-emitted into the jet stream. This is a continual process associated with the universe, or the local universe. You are correct, aether was first and matter is compressed aether.
From: mpc755 on 4 May 2010 21:23 On May 4, 8:13 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 3, 11:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > MASSES DON"T DISPLACE ETHER, mpc755! NE > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. I named this material mæther. Aether is displaced by matter. Displacement creates pressure. Gravity is pressure exerted by æther displaced by matter. Gravitation, the 'Dark Matter' Effect and the Fine Structure Constant http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0401047 "There we see the first arguments that indicate the logical necessity for quantum behaviour, at both the spatial level and at the matter level. There space is, at one of the lowest levels, a quantumfoam system undergoing ongoing classicalisation. That model suggest that gravity is caused by matter changing the processing rate of the informational system that manifests as space, and as a consequence space effectively flows towards matter. However this is not a flow of some form of matter through space, as previously considered in the aether models or in the random particulate Le Sage kinetic theory of gravity, rather the flow is an ongoing rearrangement of the quantum-foam patterns that form space, and indeed only have a geometrical description at a coarse-grained level. Then the flow in one region is relative only to the patterns in nearby regions, and not relative to some a priori background geometrical space" The pressure exerted by the æther in nearby regions towards the matter doing the displacing is described, inadequately, as "[æther] effectively flows towards matter". What is described as "space effectively flows towards matter" is the pressure exerted by the aether towards the matter. "Then the flow in one region is relative only to the patterns in nearby regions" is the pressure exerted by the aether in nearby regions displaced by the matter.
From: mpc755 on 4 May 2010 21:26 On May 4, 8:19 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > so, if the aether was before the matter, > how could a star emit light? > What is thought to be a 'Big Bang' is more of a 'Big Ongoing'. What we see in our telescopes is matter moving away from us. That does not mean the universe itself is expanding. The following can be considered to be an image of an ongoing process: http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html The following can be considered to be an image of the universe, or the local universe: http://www.feandft.com/BlackHole.jpg The top of the 'Black Hole' where the jet stream begins is analogous to the 'Quantum Fluctuations' in the previous image. What is presently considered to be the 'Big Bang' is an ongoing process. Material is continually emitted into the universal jet stream at the ejection point which is the 'Quantum Fluctuations' point in the previous image. This material is aether. At the '1st Stars' point of the previous image is where the pressure is great enough to compress aether into matter. As the matter continually moves away from the emission point it enters the 'Development of Galaxies, Planets, etc.' stage. This is where the matter expands in already existing three dimensional space. This is what we mistake for an expanding universe. This process continues until the material 'falls over the waterfall' and winds up at the Rindler Horizon (the blue disk in the latter image). The material is eventually re-emitted into the jet stream. This is a continual process associated with the universe, or the local universe. In terms of the emission point of the universal jet stream, aether existed prior to matter. When matter falls past the event horizon of the universal jet stream the forces cause the matter to decompress into aether and it is aether which is emitted into the universal jet stream. The continual emission of aether into the universal jet stream causes the pressure to increase to the point where aether is compressed into matter.
From: John Park on 4 May 2010 23:48
PD (thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com) writes: > On May 4, 1:07=A0pm, af...(a)FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Park) wrote: >> PD (thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com) writes: >> > On May 3, 10:07=3DA0pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> >> Dear PD: =3DA0A thin "College Outline Series" book (that fits into the >> >> bookcase behind my computer chair) entitled "Physics", by Clarence E >> >> Bennett, states on page 19: "G. =3DA0Momentum and Impulse. =3DA0(1.) = > =3DA0Momen=3D >> > tum >> >> is defined as the product of the mass times velocity (mv)..." =3DA0The >> >> letter F is used for momentum, because the equation defines forces. = > =3DA0=3D >> > =3D97 >> >> NoEinstein =3D97 >> >> > Oh, good grief. John, what is the ISBN on this book? I'd like to >> > secure it to look at it. >> > From what it is you just told me is in it, if I can verify that you >> > can indeed read it correctly, it is a horrible, horrible booklet and >> > should be burned as worthless. >> >> To quote the Spartans on a quite different occasion: If. >> >> I can't help noticing that the actual quoted passage is reasonable and >> the inference about forces is purely in NE's words. > > Exactly. > > For what it's worth, momentum's *definition* is not mv, either. > Electromagnetic fields have momentum, but this expression certainly > does not work for them. The formula works for a certain class of > matter-based objects traveling at low speed, and that's it. > I know this, but at what level does it enter a college syllabus? (It's a long time since I had any contact with undergraduate--or graduate--physics, and I can't remember where it was first spelled out to me.) --John Park |