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: NoEinstein on 6 May 2010 22:04 On May 5, 12:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Neither of those choices, PD, have anything to do with the price-of- eggs-in-China! NE > > On May 4, 7:17 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 4, 11:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 3, 8:29 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 2, 9:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On May 2, 4:24 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 10:54 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear mpc755: "Wrong is WRONG, no matter who said it!" NoEinstein > > > > > > You have your own definition of 'aether drag' which is different than > > > > > what is generally accepted. > > > > > Dear mpc755: It is 'generally accepted' that no one (until yours > > > > truly) has found the one, simple energy-force mechanism that will > > > > explain everything in the Universe. So, if anything is... "generally > > > > accepted" that would be a near certain PROOF that such is WRONG! > > > > It's generally accepted that 5+17=22, NoEinstein. > > > Since you have been claiming that other things that are taught to > > > elementary school kids is wrong, like Newton's 2nd law, perhaps you'd > > > be willing to claim that this is nearly certainly wrong, too. If > > > 5+17=22 is nearly certainly wrong, what then is the correct answer? > > You attempted to say something here, John, but fell short. Is it your > contention that the generally accepted statement that 5+17=22 is > correct or nearly certainly wrong? > > > > > > > > > "Varying ether flow and density" accounts for: light; gravity; the EM > > > > force; mass; inertia; weight; all chemical reactions; all biological > > > > constructs; and every object(s) or effect(s) ever observed. > > > > Understand the ether, and its 'tangles' and 'untangles', and you will > > > > know the Universe! NoEinstein > > > > > >'Aether drag' is in reference to the > > > > > interaction of aether and matter. The subsequent effect is the effect > > > > > 'aether drag' has on light. > > > > > > The pressure exerted by the aether in nearby regions towards the > > > > > matter doing the displacing is described, weakly, as "space > > > > > effectively flows towards matter". > > > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > > > > > Aether is displaced by matter. > > > > > Displacement creates pressure. > > > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. > > > > > > Gravitation, the 'Dark Matter' Effect and the Fine Structure Constanthttp://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" > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 6 May 2010 22:07 On May 5, 12:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Consider this, PD: The validity of any science theory is inversely proportional to the time spend debating it. Einstein's 'relativity' has been debated for over a century, and such is patently WRONG! NoEinstein > > On May 5, 2:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 4, 11:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > PD: And the point of your 'addition' extrapolation is? Your science > > notions are shallow enough without implying that I have disavowed > > common math. If Einstein had known how to do simple mathnowhere in > > evidence in his (mindless) equation physicsperhaps the dark ages of > > Einstein wouldn't have lasted so long. NoEinstein > > You made a general statement that if something is generally accepted, > then that is a sign that it is nearly certainly WRONG. > > Now you don't seem so sure. > > You don't want to disavow common math, but you are certainly willing > to disavow common, grade school mechanics like Newton's 2nd law. And I > want to point out again that this has nothing to do with the "dark > ages of Einstein", since Newton's 2nd law has been around for 323 > years! You've decided that all of physics since Galileo and Newton are > the dark ages! Einstein has nothing to do with your complaint. > > PD
From: NoEinstein on 6 May 2010 22:09 On May 5, 12:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > No imbecile, not even you, PD, instructs me to do anything! NE > > On May 5, 2:48 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 4, 11:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 3, 10:07 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 3, 12:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 1, 9:01 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 10:16 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Several times before you have referenced > > > > > > Newton's ERRANT F = ma. > > > > > > Ah, excellent, just so it's clear. You're problem then isn't with > > > > > Einstein and the physics of the 20th century. It's with all of physics > > > > > since the 1600's. Basically, it's just ALL plain wrong, everything > > > > > that is taught to schoolchildren from the 3rd grade on. And you, in > > > > > your infinite genius, have discovered this by the power of reason.. > > > > > > > Most equations that contain a "mass" can be > > > > > > changed to be a UNIT mass of one pound (or whatever). The "textbook" > > > > > > definition of MOMENTUM is F = mv. > > > > > > I'm sorry, but that equation appears in no textbook anywhere. > > > > > If you disagree, cite the textbook and the page number. > > > > > > > The latter mass can also be changed > > > > > > to be a unit mass of one pound (or whatever). SO... Since both > > > > > > equations are forces, > > > > > > First of all, you just said it was an equation for momentum (though > > > > > you got it wrong), not a force. > > > > > > Good heavens, John, you've gotten confused two equations for two > > > > > different quantities, you can't even get one written down right and > > > > > you call the other one wrong. > > > > > > You're a mental case, John. > > > > > > > set the right half of the two equations to be > > > > > > EQUAL, or: ma = mv. Since the masses are both one pound unit masses, > > > > > > then, the resulting equation says: ACCELERATION = VELOCITY! Even an > > > > > > imbecile like you, PD, should realize that velocity, (or say) feet/ > > > > > > sec, isn't the same as feet/second EACH second! > > > > > > > Ironically, I was studying for college physics when I realized the > > > > > > conflict between those two equations. That same week, I concluded > > > > > > that the entire chapter on mechanics was screwed up. Newton' "Law", > > > > > > in words, says: For every uniform force, there is one and only one > > > > > > associated acceleration. The correct equation for that should have > > > > > > been F = a, provided, of course, that the relationships between those > > > > > > two variables are stipulated, or are included in a less generalized > > > > > > equation. > > > > > > > The equation for MOMENTUM, F = mv, is correct! For objects in free > > > > > > fall, or objects that are accelerating, the correct kinetic energy > > > > > > formula is my own: KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m). The latter replaces > > > > > > both KE = 1/2mv^2 and E = mc^2 / beta. What contributions have > > > > > > YOU made to science, PD? Ha. ha, HA! NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Dear PD: A 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. Momentum and Impulse. (1.) Momentum > > > > is defined as the product of the mass times velocity (mv)..." The > > > > letter F is used for momentum, because the equation defines forces. > > > > NoEinstein > > > > 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. > > > > If this is what you learned physics from in your architectural > > > studies, then I have absolutely no doubt that you and your firm are on > > > thin legal ground. > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > The AUTHOR and the Title are all you need. NE > > Then let me make sure we're talking about the same title, because > Clarence E. Bennett has written the following: > Physics Problems and How to Solve Them (1958, 1959, 1960, 1968, 1972, > 1985) > College Physics (College Outline Series) (1962, 1972) > Physics Without Mathematics (College Outline Series) (1949, 1953, > 1960, 1970) > New Outline of First Year College Physics (1944, 1946, 1948) > An Outline of First Year College Physics (College Outline Series) > (1937, 1943) > Physics (1952, 1954) > First Year College Physics (1954) > Descriptive Physics (1945) > > As you can see, it's important that I know more about the particular > title you own. The ISBN is either in the frontmatter or is printed on > the back of the paperback. It's a 10-digit number right next to the > letters I-S-B-N. Can you do that, John? > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: BURT on 6 May 2010 22:16 On May 6, 6:34 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 5, 5:22 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > Dear Timo: Since physicists have been looking for the "missing mass" > in the Universe for decadesand not found itits occurred to me that > it was the estimates of the masses of the stars and galaxies that was > wrong. The observed red/blue shifts imply the rotational speed of the > arms of galaxies. Since physicists can calculate the centrifugal > force that must be countered by the "central" gravity source, over- > estimating the mass of stars would exaggerate the centripetal force > needed to keep the stars from flying away. I also realized that it > isn't 'just' the central gravity holding the galaxies together, it > also includes the EFFECTIVE central gravity of all of the stars, > combined. Think of that as being similar to having two equal size and > mass binary stars rotating about their common centerhalfway between > the two stars. Though there is no "mass" at the center, the two stars > orbit as though there is a mass there. > > Since gravity is "distance proportional" (actually inverse > proportional) stars that aren't on a 'diameter' line, can still help > to keep the whole thing from flying outward. What then is flying outward? The whole of a gravity must be an influence. > That would be like > having lots of people hold hands to form a circle. If there is a > 'flying out' force, the tension (gravity) in their arms will keep the > circle together. NOTE: I strongly suspect that 'physicists', who > aren't structural engineers (like was my training), neglected to > consider the CIRCULAR routes of gravity, which could be 50 plus > percent of what is holding the galaxies together! > > Timo, a good way to 'estimate' the gravity sensitivity needed, is to > search for the accepted missing mass in the Universe (99%?); divide > that in half (due to the circular paths of gravity), yields 44.5% that > is unaccounted for. Since both the mass and the gravity force are > about equal in the fly out predicted by Newtons errant equation, > there would only need to be a 22.25% under-estimate of the gravity of > the stars, and a corresponding 22.25% over-estimate in the mass of the > stars. > > The gravity of a star is proportional to the surface area (not the > mass) and the surface temperature. It isnt proportional to the > internal temperatures, at all. Not counting solar flare temperatures, > determine the surface temperatures of different size and color stars. > Of course, that will be a plasma which you certainly cant do a > Cavendish on. The change in gravity that you seek is probably > linearly proportional to temperature. Assume the Earth to be zero > temperature. Find what percentage of the stars surface temperature > that you can achieve without melting the balls. My guess is you can > get about 10% of the typical surface temperature. 10% of 22.25% means > that you are hoping to detect a 2.225% increase in the gravity of > the balls. If you only heat the larger ball, increase its > contributing gravity by 2.225%, and leave the other ball(s) as they > were. > > The sensitivity of a well-designed Cavendish can probably verify the > gravity within .5% So, if you can run the experiment at all, the > results sought should be within the sensitivity! > > *** However, this just occurred to me: The gravity of every possible > star attractionnot just the circular and the cross-diameterwill be > helping to hold the galaxies together! As proved by the Andromeda > Galaxy (that has a zone without stars next to the center), Black Holes > have zero gravity. So, the multi-paths of gravity, taken together, > must be capable of holding, say, the Milky Way together without > needing a super-massive black hole (sic) at all! > > 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). But the > centrifugal force of stars orbiting the galaxy is directly > proportional to the MASSES of the stars. 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%. Consider this: If you can heat one ball white hot, > and you DO detect a greater gravity, youve confirmed my theory. I > suppose that a temperature-corrected Law of Universal Gravitation > could take decades to validate. But that isnt all bad! Simply by > understanding that temperature affects gravity, can begin being used > to design, say, gravity drive spacecrafts. And Ive got THOSE on my > to-do list! NoEinstein > > > > > > > On May 5, 6:27 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 4, 7:59 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > Dear Timo: Obviously, you want an 'out'. You were so insistent that > > > the numbers be right, and the math be done before performing > > > experiments, that I assumed you were wanting ME to do all of those > > > things. > > > There is very little point in doing the experiment without knowing how > > big the effect is supposed to be. If I know in advance that our > > Cavendish apparatus isn't sensitive enough, there isn't any point in > > trying the measurement using it. But this is simply a very elementary > > idea in experimental physics, so you will already be thoroughly > > familiar with it. > > > Which is why your continued reluctance to actually say how large the > > expected effect should be is truly baffling. Why, even a typical > > physicist - an imbecile by your exalted standards - would be able to > > do the quantitative prediction without too much trouble, perhaps with > > a few hours of work. A genius of your level should have no trouble at > > all, and certainly shouldn't take more than a few hours. Why would it > > even take that long? Likely some tens of minutes at the most would > > suffice. > > > But once again, you refused to answer the question. Obviously, the > > hotter the balls, the larger the effect, but _how much_ larger? Don't > > you know? Can't you be bothered doing a calculation which should take > > well under an hour for somebody of your claimed ability when it would > > lend tremendous and convincing support to your theory? > > > > But if you are wishing to do the experiment, yourself, why > > > didn't you say just that? > > > I did say just that. But it seems Mr Genius can't understand plain > > English, or simply can't be bothered reading, because he's too busy > > writing irrelevant essays to distract attention from having had an > > error of billions of dollars per year pointed out. > > > But because you showed so abundantly that you're a rude and abusive > > arsehole, it clearly isn't worthwhile donating one's time, effort, and > > equipment to you. > > > Besides, you can't be bothered providing information - trivial for one > > of your intellect to provide - that's necessary for experiment to be > > useful, so again, it isn't worthwhile doing it. > > > Getting concrete experimental support for your theory would be vastly > > more convincing than endlessly repeating waffle, but you seem to > > prefer the waffle. Enjoy!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 6 May 2010 22:23
On May 5, 12:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD: The L. C. catalogue card number is: 5241857. (look on page 19). Also, my The Wiley Engineer's Desk Reference, by Stanford I. Heisler, on page 94, says momentum = mv. A scripted style of the "m" is used to differentiate from "mass". That book errs by saying that the "units" is: (mass)-feet/secondwhich is bullshit! Momentum is measured in pounds! It is velocity proportional, and that is a simple, unit-less FRACTION NE > > On May 5, 2:56 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 4, 2:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > PD loves to extrapolate things into unworkability, so he can claim > > everything was invalid. MOMENTUM is: F = mv, expressed in pounds. > > He'll find that same equation (but not the correct units, pounds) in > > most textbooks. NE > > No, I won't, John. That equation F=mv is not listed in most > textbooks. > When you can clearly identify which title you think DOES have that > listed, then I can look for myself. > As it is, since you obviously have problems reading an understanding a > single sentence from beginning to end, I have my doubts. > > > > > > > > On May 4, 1:07 pm, af...(a)FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Park) wrote: > > > > > PD (thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com) writes: > > > > > On May 3, 10:07=A0pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > >> Dear PD: =A0A 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. =A0Momentum and Impulse. =A0(1.) =A0Momen= > > > > > tum > > > > >> is defined as the product of the mass times velocity (mv)..." =A0The > > > > >> letter F is used for momentum, because the equation defines forces. =A0= > > > > > =97 > > > > >> NoEinstein =97 > > > > > > 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. > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |