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: Timo Nieminen on 13 May 2010 02:29 On Wed, 12 May 2010, NoEinstein wrote: > On May 7, 5:29 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > On May 8, 5:57 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 7, 2:21 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > Dear Timo: On the one hand you compliment me; on the other you chide > > > me for not having all of the numbers at my fingertips. > > > > No, I tell you that all of these numbers are available on www, so you > > don't even need to go and look in a book. When you sit at your > > keyboard, the relevant numbers _are_ at your fingertips. > > > > It's an obvious test. Since you claim your theory explains reality, I > > expected that you would have compared the two - your theory and > > reality - and checked if they agree. My mistake - you don't seem to > > have done this. > > > > You give a clear and easily checked statement: > > > > > Since gravity is > > > directly proportional to photon emission (not gravitons, which dont > > > exist), then it is the luminosity and the temperature of the light > > > that determine the gravity of stars. > > > > But before it's worth checking this, you should clarify: > > > > (1) By "directly proportional", you mean: gravity = (constant) times > > (photon emission)? That's is, linear proportionality. Or do you mean > > something else? > > > No. "Directly proportional" means: Double the luminosity, and you > double the gravity. Or double the surface area, and you double the > gravity. This is clear. Linear proportionality it is, then. > Your word (constant), is actually a variable fraction. But > I suppose that for a given luminosity and star surface area, the > gravity would be a single (constant) value. But this isn't clear. If (constant) is actually a variable, then do you have linear proportionality? (As a technical note, "luminosity" doesn't mean "surface brightness", but "total brightness", i.e., double the surface area while keeping everything else the same, and you double the luminosity. Anyway, it's time to check against reality. Take a well-known close binary system like Sirius. From their mutual orbit, the "known" masses are 2.02M for Sirius A and 0.98M for B (M = solar mass). So, gravitationally, they differ by a factor of 2. How do the luminosities compare? For A, we have 25L (L = solar luminosity), and for B, 0.026L. Factor of 1,000 difference in luminosity, but only a factor of 2 difference in "mass" as measured from the orbit. This isn't at all close to your prediction. Since you're highly intelligent, and a careful and logical thinker, it isn't likely that you made any error in proceeding from your theory to your prediction. Therefore, it's likely that your theory is wrong. > > (2) What do you mean by "photon emission"? What you mean by "photon" > > might not be what conventional science means by "photon". How is > > "photon emission" related to radiated power? Since the bolometric > > luminosity is the total radiated power, is there any _further_ > > dependence on temperature beyond its effect on the bolometric > > luminosity. (If talking about visual luminosity, then, yes, the > > bolometric luminosity depends on the visual luminosity and the > > temperature.) > > > The wavelength of the light (color) determines how many photons are > being emitted in a given, say, second. Gravity, actually, depends on > how efficiently the trains of photons 'pump' ether back into space. I > can't say, with certainty, that a wavelength of light that's half as > long will be exactly twice as efficient moving ether, out. > Experiments will have to confirm the efficiency for various > wavelengths. So, to test you claims of stellar gravity versus luminosity, one should compare stars of the same temperature. Sirius A and B aren't identical, but close. Sirius A is A1V, Sirius B is A2. Close enough, considering the x1,000 ratio of luminosities. > > > At room temperatures gravity is mass proportional, and matches > > > Newtons law. There has to be an object-size threshold that DENIES > > > mass in favor of surface area and temperature. > > > > This is new. You didn't say anything about this that I saw before. > > > Thanks! You've just admitted that you are a regular reader of my > science posts. And you are observant enough to realize that > 'reasoning' is taking place even as I write a reply. You, better than > most, should understand why I don't need to go running to books, by > others, to find answersI give things my own best shot, first. > > > > > I suspect that a > > > heated Cavendish ball will have gravity somewhere between the room > > > temperature, and the white hot. > > > > "Suspect" isn't good enough for the experiment to be worthwhile. It's > > directly connected to the following point which you didn't address in > > your reply. Do note that this is absolutely essential for the > > experiment to be worthwhile (as you will no doubt already know, since > > this is a simple matter of logic and analytical ability). > > > Timo: The Cavendish experiment is conducted in a room with a high > ceiling. There is air around the balls to influence the twisting > speed. And the radiation of the heated ball(s) would be reflected > back by the colder walls. In outer space, there would not be air to > both drag the balls and to intercept the radiant energy. I can > virtually guarantee that the Cavendish isn't a perfect analogy to the > gravity of stars that are very, very hot. > > > > To repeat the question: if a Cavendish experiment _doesn't_ detect a > > greater gravitational force, what does that mean for your theory? > > > Send me photographs of the experiment, and etc. It could be that the > heated balls might change the torsion characteristics of the wire > being more-so toward the end of the experiment, after the wire has had > time to get hot. The answer to your question requires that the > experiment be valid, for hot balls. M-M got nil results. > Understanding the reason for that failure took over a century until I > came along. I'd want to do a... post mortem on everything. The experiment can be designed to try to achieve a desired accuracy. If you could be bothered saying how accurate the experiment needs to be, then perhaps something could be done. Since you keep refusing to say (and surely you must know how large the effect should be, or at least capable of quickly deducing, from your theory, how large the effect should be), there isn't any point in trying the experiment. If you have two identical balls, and heat one to be double the absolute temperature of the other (i.e., to about 330C; yes, easy to heat it more, but let us keep this simple), the hot ball will radiate 16 times as much power, with peak emission at double the frequency (i.e., half the wavelength). How much stronger will the gravitational force be? If you can be bothered applying your mighty intellect, and actually provide a quantitative answer, perhaps an experimental test might be worthwhile. Without such an answer, useless. > > > > > Consider this: If you can heat one ball white hot, > > > > > and you DO detect a greater gravity, youve confirmed my theory. > > > > > > It would _support_ your theory, not confirm it in any absolute sense. > > > > If one tries this and _doesn't_ detect a greater gravitational force, > > > > would that mean your theory is wrong and it's time to forget it and move > > > > on?- Hide quoted text > > > Probably not. The LOGIC of gravity being flowing ether answers too > many of the century's old questions about the Universe. NoEinstein Well, if your theory is perfectly OK with a null result, why would a positive result support your theory? Surely your statement above means that the experiment is completely irrelevant to your theory. Or, since the luminosity/gravity predictions of your theory appear to fall at the first astronomical hurdle, perhaps it's more that your theory is irrelevant to reality.
From: PD on 13 May 2010 11:01 On May 12, 9:01 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 5, 12:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD: What, exactly, is Newton's Second Law useful for? In essence it > says that the uniform, continuous force that's necessary to cause a > given acceleration must be the same fraction (up or down) as the > target acceleration relates to 32.174 feet per second, each second. > Or, in order to produce, say, a 64.348 feet/sec., each second > acceleration, there must be two pounds of force acting upon each one > pound of the object's mass. Or... a doubling of the continuous force > will cause a 32.174 feet per second, each second increase in the > acceleration, IF the initial acceleration was 'g'. Newton's second > law wasn't very useful, was it. Oh, good heavens. No, it does not say that, even in essence. And if you have no idea what Newton's 2nd law is good for, then good heavens, you learned nothing in school. Nothing. > > The force and the acceleration must be in this proportion: F = v / > 32.174 (m). Oh, good grief. No. Geez, you are denser than a stack of National Geographic magazines. > I say 'v', rather than 'A', because the compared > fractions have the same unites in both the top and bottom of the > fraction. So, the units cancel out. That leaves just the numeric > portion of the fraction. All accelerations use the "per second" > velocity as the datum point. So, in essence, you are comparing two > velocities at "one second". That's why it says "v/32.174" instead of > "A/32.174". > > V/32.174 (m) = the MOMENTUM of the object! No again. This has no bearing whatsoever on the concept of momentum used in physics. You simply manufacture things in your head and apply words to them that are already reserved for something else. > That is the latter half of > my correct kinetic energy equation which replaces Coriolis's KE = 1/2 > mc^2; and Einstein's E = mc^2 / beta, or : *** KE = a/g (m) + v / > 32.174 (m). Note: Having a unit mass in any equation doesn't require > that there be a "work" calculation for moving the mass. The only > thing needed is to know that the VELOCITY, and the force will be in > the proportion as given by my equation. 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: PD on 13 May 2010 11:05 On May 12, 9:16 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 12:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: It's interesting that you are eager to > play the Wizard and to assert what I never said, nor considered worthy > of comment. But you have yet to back up any of your "the experiments > show"; "or the texts say..." by paraphrasing any point of science that > you think refutes any part of my New Science. So here's the problem, NoEinstein. I've summarized for you several things in the last week. I've summarized an experimental result that shows that Lorentz time dilation is observed. I've summarized an experimental result that shows that Lorentz length contraction is observed. I've shown you in detail how conserving energy is fully consistent with kinetic energy being proportional to the velocity squared. Today you say that none of these things happened. This tells me either: - You cannot read and do not understand anything that is written to you, or - You suffer from dementia, and you forget on Tuesday what you read on Monday, or - You are a persistent, malicious, and compulsive liar. Now, given that one of these three things is going on with you, why would anyone believe that you have anything to contribute to science at all? > If you can't put... > useful information in your replies for the readers to see, then, you > simply don't have anything, pro or con, to contribute. "Changing the > subject", PD, isn't SCIENCE, it's cowardice! NoEinstein > > > > > On May 6, 9:07 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > There is ongoing debate about whether the Earth is flat, John.http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm > > Since this debate has been going on for 500 years, by your argument, > > the claim that the earth is round is 5x as wrong as relativity is. > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 13 May 2010 11:06 On May 12, 9:18 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 12:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD: Have fun with your speculation. The only one coming across as > dumb is Paul Draper! NE Don't you find it remarkable, John, that you are hesitant to say whether you believe that 5+17=22? Isn't it remarkable that you are sufficiently unsure of yourself that you cannot even stake a claim in the sand about simple yes or no questions like that? > > > > > On May 6, 9:04 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > I believe you are incapable of deciding whether the statement 5+17=22 > > is correct, John. > > It is a generally accepted statement, and in your mind that means it > > is nearly certainly wrong. Is it right, or is it wrong? > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 13 May 2010 11:07
On May 12, 9:22 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 5:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I chose Architecture, PD, because the subject is BIG, like my > capabilities. You chose High Energy Particle Physics, because those > objects are TINY, like your BRAIN! Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein Then stick to architecture, John. Not that I'll be a customer. > > > > > On May 7, 3:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 9:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD: When you can't attack my science, you attack my profession, > > > architecture. > > > I'm not disparaging your profession at all. I'm casting doubt on your > > qualifications to practice that profession. > > > > If I had a choice between designing great concert halls > > > or etc., or figuring out how the Universe works and improving all of > > > humanity, I would choose the latter every time! > > > Then why did you choose architecture instead? > > > > Concert halls are for > > > the recreation of the lazy, like you. What great edifices have YOU > > > built, in science or otherwise? NoEinstein > > > > > On May 6, 8:57 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On May 5, 12:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Tell me, PD: If I'm so "poorly suited" for scientific work, how is it > > > > > that I've made a greater contribution to physics than all of the > > > > > previous physicists put together? NoEinstein > > > > > And if you're so poorly suited for architecture, how is it that you > > > > have designed the grandest performance halls and the tallest buildings > > > > in the world? > > > > > What's the weather like today in NoEinsteinLand? > > > > > > > On May 5, 2:47 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 4, 11:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear PD: You are Mr. Negativity. You can only feel superior (sic) by > > > > > > > putting others down. I wish I had had you for my teacher. I'd have > > > > > > > made you the laughing-stock of the school! NE > > > > > > > Oh dear. So you DO think reality checks are just negative put-downs. > > > > > > Such a fragile ego you have, John. > > > > > > You are very poorly suited for scientific work. This is not the place > > > > > > for the thin-skinned. > > > > > > > > > > On May 3, 11:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I don't think this is talking down to the student, John, as I made > > > > > > > > clear. Would you think of this as an emotional smack-down if it > > > > > > > > happened to you, or would you consider it a fair reality-check? Or do > > > > > > > > you not like reality checks? Do you find reality checks to be nothing > > > > > > > > but negativism?- Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > |