THE GRAVITY OF MASSES DOESN’T BEND LIGHT!
NoEinstein
gravitationally attracted.” The mechanism of gravity is: “Pressure
differentials in the ether, which cause ether flows toward the
masses.” The Moon stays in orbit around the Earth—because the
effective ether pressure on the “backsides” of both bodies is greater
than the ether pressure on the facing sides between them. Tides are
higher on the facing sides (neglecting solar effects to simplify the
discussion), NOT because of the gravitational “pull” of the Moon, but
because there is less downward flow of ether on the facing sides.
The reason for the latter is because both the Moon and the Earth are
“seeding” each other with radiant energy—photons, if you like. That
can be infrared photons, but the exchange must be there in order for
there to be a “real” gravitational attraction. Matter can be 100%
converted into energy (via antimatter if necessary). So, in a most
fundamental way matter is just concentrations of energy which can be
moved from one place to another by forces—gravitational or not.
Photons are just clumps of ether (energy) moving at a velocity greater
than the background ether. The smallest units of the ether energy—
which I have named “IOTAs”—are without mass, just as light is without
mass. A quality of all matter and mass is that such can “shed”
energy. What is being shed is essentially IOTAs. Any ‘decay’ of
matter, or any radiant emission from matter, has the effect of
transporting concentrations of IOTAs to other places in the vicinity
of the main mass itself. Those processes create and maintain an ether
density and flow, near masses, which obeys the inverse square law.
Any two masses which exchange particles of decay, or which exchange
photons, will be gravitationally attracted. But pure energy can’t
transfer (radiate or emit) energy to any other place. Light rays are
just trains of photons or clumps of IOTAs. Photons passing massive
objects won’t emit energy toward the massive object; nor do those
photons receive energy radiated from the massive object. But it is an
accepted scientific fact that light rays will be bent in passing
massive objects. And such will be bent more if they pass closer to
the massive object.
In the latter example, light rays are bent at various angles WITHOUT
there having been the required exchange of IOTAs. So, such bending
could NOT be a gravitational effect! The light is bent—because of the
non-gravitational mechanism of its passing through areas of VARYING
ETHER DENSITY AND FLOW! Since the latter obeys the inverse square
law, the observed bending of the light is very close to the amount of
bending which would have occurred if gravity had been the actual
“mechanism” causing such.
__________
I will reply to thoughtful comments regarding specific aspects of the
above post. But I won’t reply to an alternative rationale relating to
the entire post! Do Google a favor: Copy your point to be commented
on; do so; then CUT out the repeats of what has already been said.
Thanks!
Respectfully submitted,
— NoEinstein —
Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e426fff6a5894/898737b3de57d9e6?hl=en&lnk=st&q=Where+Angels+Fear+to+Fall#898737b3de57d9e6
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ac6fcd9b4e8112ed?hl=en
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
It is good to see you moving into a new area of ignorance and humor.
Your laughable attempts at kinetic energy and interferometers was
getting old. We needed something new from you to laugh at. However,
bringing back the ether to get the humorous effect you are working
on is stretching things as much as your wrong experiments were
doing before.
>
> Respectfully submitted,
>
> — NoEinstein —
>
> Where Angels Fear to Fall
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e426fff6a5894/898737b3de57d9e6?hl=en&lnk=st&q=Where+Angels+Fear+to+Fall#898737b3de57d9e6
>
> Cleaning Away NOEinstein’s Mishmash
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
>
> Dropping NOEinstein Like a Stone
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
>
> Replicating Einstein’s Invalidation of NOEinstein
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ac6fcd9b4e8112ed?hl=en
NoEinstein
>
> > Cleaning Away NOEinstein’s Mishmash
>
> > Dropping NOEinstein Like a Stone
>
> > Replicating Einstein’s Invalidation of NOEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Doug: Rather than "shoot the Messenger", why don't you offer a
single title and link to a post by you? Don't have one? Then,
consider that your mind is one vacuum not needed on the groups, nor in
science. So, put up or SHUT up! — NoEinstein —
Igor
>
> Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
>
> Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...
>
> Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-Mhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ac6fcd9b4e8112ed?hl=en
I understand that this guy named Alex Bell just invented a newfangled
thing that lets people talk over great distances.
doug
You post in a public forum where anyone can post or reply. You post, I
reply. That is how newgroups work. You have not posted any physics
instead you seem to prefer serious delusions as you have shown a
complete lack of knowledge of even basic high school physics. If
you do not want people to comment on your ignorance, do not post
here. I have shown that all your attempts at physics are wrong.
Others have done so as well. You are the one who needs to put up
something correct. Bluster will not get your mistakes accepted.
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Igor: So... you've invented a time machine to take you back in
time. Good! Stay there! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
> >>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > Dear Doug: Rather than "shoot the Messenger", why don't you offer a
> > single title and link to a post by you? Don't have one? Then,
> > consider that your mind is one vacuum not needed on the groups, nor in
> > science. So, put up or SHUT up! — NoEinstein —
>
> You post in a public forum where anyone can post or reply. You post, I
> reply. That is how newgroups work. You have not posted any physics
> instead you seem to prefer serious delusions as you have shown a
> complete lack of knowledge of even basic high school physics. If
> you do not want people to comment on your ignorance, do not post
> here. I have shown that all your attempts at physics are wrong.
> Others have done so as well. You are the one who needs to put up
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Doug: So your answer is: "No... I have never made an original
post myself." Then, why are you tainting the groups with your
presence? — NoEinstein —
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
You do not read well. This is a public forum open for posting.
I am here to help those who make mistakes but are willing
to learn some physics. You have made very serious mistakes
but are unwilling to learn from them. The correct question
to ask is why you are here when all you do is look silly.
You have no interest in learning any physics and you do not
even know the difference between force and energy.
NoEinstein
>
> >>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>- Show quoted text -
>
> >>>Dear Doug: Rather than "shoot the Messenger", why don't you offer a
> >>>single title and link to a post by you? Don't have one? Then,
> >>>consider that your mind is one vacuum not needed on the groups, nor in
> >>>science. So, put up or SHUT up! — NoEinstein —
>
> >>You post in a public forum where anyone can post or reply. You post, I
> >>reply. That is how newgroups work. You have not posted any physics
> >>instead you seem to prefer serious delusions as you have shown a
> >>complete lack of knowledge of even basic high school physics. If
> >>you do not want people to comment on your ignorance, do not post
> >>here. I have shown that all your attempts at physics are wrong.
> >>Others have done so as well. You are the one who needs to put up
> >>something correct. Bluster will not get your mistakes accepted.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > Dear Doug: So your answer is: "No... I have never made an original
> > post myself." Then, why are you tainting the groups with your
> > presence? — NoEinstein —
>
> You do not read well. This is a public forum open for posting.
> I am here to help those who make mistakes but are willing
> to learn some physics. You have made very serious mistakes
> but are unwilling to learn from them. The correct question
> to ask is why you are here when all you do is look silly.
> You have no interest in learning any physics and you do not
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Doug: If I... look silly, then why are you my groupie? You've
never made a post, so why should anyone think that your sanction is
needed in any discussion of science? You are just a great big minus
infinity! — NoEinstein —
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
The reason you should listen to me is that I know physics and you do
not. You do not know the difference between force and energy, you
have no idea how to do experiments nor how to analyze them. If
you would listen, you could learn something instead of continuously
spouting nonsense.
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Doug: "Force" is: An impetus to move. "Energy" is: A force
delivery potential. What else must I say? — NE —
P.S.: Show me a teacher who can't learn, and I'll show you a PHD in
Physics at any of our universities!
frank...@yahoo.com
>
> Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
>
> Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...
>
You go through a lot of work to pin bending of light on the aether. I
believe that the bending of light is also due to the aether, but the
simple explanation is that gravity pulls down on aether like normal
matter and compresses it make regions of denser aether, much like the
ocean density changes as you get deeper. It is then simple refraction
that causes the light to bend. So gravity is involved to make the
aether density change, but is not directly responsible for the bending
as you say. Isn't that much simpler? I also saw a reference somewhere
that said if you calculate the refaction of light for a compressed
aether, you end up with the same equations as Einstein did and they
are equivalent.
fhugravity
Y.Porat
>
> Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
>
> Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...
>
-----------------
wrong!! (IMHO)
both mass and light has mass!!
the bend trick is of the gravitation agents:
those agents move naturally in closed or curved
paths
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
NoEinstein
>
Dear Farnkli...: The mechanism of gravity is ether flow caused by
pressure differentials generated because masses can exchange photons.
The latter delivers IOTA's to replenish the ether pressure lost by the
downward flow (toward the masses) of ether. I'll copy the more
detailed explanation, below. — NoEinstein —
THE GRAVITY OF MASSES DOESN’T BEND LIGHT!
__________
Respectfully submitted,
— NoEinstein —
Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e426fff6a5894/898737b3de57d9e6?hl=en&lnk=st&q=Where+Angels+Fear+to+Fall#898737b3de57d9e6
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ac6fcd9b4e8112ed?hl=en
> fhugravity- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Y.Porat: Using ‘exclamation points’ doesn't make you right and
me wrong. For years "scientists" have proposed that there must be
some sort of "gravity exchange" particle. Have your ever heard of
"gravitrons"? Well... I have reasoned that photons (clumps of IOTAs)
are the... 'gravitrons'. IOTAs are the basic energy unit from which
everything in the universe is constructed. Because IOTAs are polar,
such can align end-to-end to form magnetic lines of flux.
Concentrated flows of photons can break those chains, so there must be
a reasonable equilibrium in order for light and magnetic lines of flux
to coexist. Sunspots and solar flares are events which highlight the
zones of energy differentials with the most conflict between energy
flow in and out, and magnetic containment of part of it.
If light has mass (it doesn't) such would have to be capable of
emitting random light, sideways. Or... light would constantly be
LOOSING energy. And if such were the case (but it isn't), light would
be incapable of traveling vast distances, because all of its energy
would be giving up... randomly. — NoEinstein —
cusan...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Only infinitely dense energy or point particle can be weighed. Light
is spread out energy just as is the EM force surrounding an atom. The
energy of EM does not weigh therefore unconcentrated energy of force
and light does not create gravity.
Only concentrated mass curves space.
Mitch Raemsch
eigen
a closed is not curved???
can you draw a picture?
eigen
EM force??? you mean field
> energy of EM does not weigh therefore unconcentrated energy of force
> and light does not create gravity.
energy of force ???
>
> Only concentrated mass curves space.
mass is a property of matter, hoe do you concentrate a property???
>
> Mitch Raemsch
paraphrasing Dono, Raemschito
RustyJames
>
> - Show quoted text -
magnetic compression can streach or distort the spasce time continuum
as well
eigen
maybe only if the space-time were an iron or similar metals
cusan...@gmail.com
NO. I mean the forces that they are.
>
> > energy of EM does not weigh therefore unconcentrated energy of force
> > and light does not create gravity.
>
> energy of force ???
Yes. Electric energy density.
>
>
>
> > Only concentrated mass curves space.
>
> mass is a property of matter, hoe do you concentrate a property???
By concentrating energy.
>
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> paraphrasing Dono, Raemschito- Hide quoted text -
Deon Joubert
How do gravitrons get out of black holes?
Y.Porat
------------------
Dear ... (waht is your real name )!
just go to yjr appendix of my abstratct:
http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
and you will realise that the differences between us
are not so big
see there the 'Circlon ' idea
i didnt cal it then Circlon
but you will find it
it is a basic particle,probably as you think
that is comosing all matter
AND FORCES !!!...
that moves** naturally** in curved or closed paths
please note and think about that 'naturally'
it should replace (with all the respect to Einstein
the 'curved space time)
space is nothing and cannot have any prioperties
(beside hosting matter )
so thats it
that is basically the core of the issue
now as an answer to ;Cusatic.
how it is that em escape blackholes:
if the gravitation force is done as well
by those ;Circlons'
why should they block other Circlons
from black holes from escape ??
OH Yess
i forgot to indicate that those
Circlons can move
IN ANY RADIUS !!
ie from the smallest to the biggest
(even galactic size radi!!)
and i forgot to retention that
those paths can change
if there is a collision between two
Corclons that do not collide
in a perfect anti path line
so in that last case
the recoiling path of both of them
will change according to the
momentum law
ie conservation of the resultane old momentum
velocity and direction
(if the direction of one of them is cjhanged
the direction of the other one will change acordigly
in order to conserve the old momentum
(before collision )
hope i made myself clear
if not i will re explain
ps
thank a lot Google for you new good
spell checker that saved me from
endless spelling mistakes (:-)
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Mitch: Energy "becomes" mass when the ordering, or the tangling,
of the polar energy units becomes a barrier to the free passage of
flowing ether. When the "barrier" forms, flowing ether will impart a
force to the mass in proportion to the mass. THAT'S what gravity is
all about! Einstein conjured the universe and he was wrong. You
should stop doing the same thing. Scientific "Theory" must be
consistent with scientific observations. My "Varying ether flow and
density" is consistent with every physical, chemical, electrical, and
biological process in the Universe! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear eigen: Mass is indeed a primary property of matter. You can
increase mass the same way you increase the amount of grain in a hopper
—by adding more grain. The grain has a "specific gravity" which
doesn't change, but the "amount" of mass certainly can! The tangles
of IOTAs which compose all matter can be more concentrated, or less.
The former might be lead; the latter lithium. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Rusty: Read my thread. There is no such thing as a space-time
continuum! M-M has no CONTROL. That shoots down Einstein and his
century of the Dark Ages of Science! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Deon: BLACK HOLES HAVE ZERO GRAVITY! Such is because all
outward emission of energy stops as soon as the star goes BLACK. This
is what happened at the center of the Andromeda Galaxy. Instead of
the stars continuing to spiral to their deaths into the Black Hole,
gravity shut off, and the nearest-in stars flew off on tangents the
same as a rock would it the string swinging it around broke. The
total mass of the galazy limited how far out the stars could go before
the "center of mass" (NOT the Black Hole), held those stars in new
orbits, which are now stable. — NoEinstein —
frank...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I know you are advocating a 'push' model of gravity - but just where
are all these photons coming out of the Earth and moon coming from?
You postulate the existence of something as unexplained (push photons)
as the phenomenon you are trying to explain (gravity). In my mind,
this is no explanation at all.
The only thing my model requires are positrons/electrons and the
electrostatic force. All of which we know exist. See:
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html
I put forth to you this little challenge - is not my theory simpler? I
have no aether flows. It effectively acts like a gravitationally
attracted gas and behaves as such.
-fhugravity
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Frankli...: Photons are just clusters of IOTAs (the smallest
energy units in the ether). Because IOTAs are polar, each photon can
carry lots of IOTAs with it as it travels. The further the light
travels the more those tag-along IOTAs will break free to replenish
the ether pressure "pushing down" (flowing down) as GRAVITY. Light,
including infrared heat energy, is just high velocity photons
transporting IOTAs out. The ether flow toward big masses is like
gently falling snow, while the photons are like machine gun bullets.
Those are going in opposite directions, but the travel paths become
clearly defined, and there are no bumping into problems!
Gravity will only function if there is heat to send out photons. Black
holes are at absolute zero, and thus have ZERO gravity! — NoEinstein
—
extremesou...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Rusty: Read my thread. There is no such thing as a space-time
continuum! M-M has no CONTROL. That shoots down Einstein and his
century of the Dark Ages of Science! — NoEinstein —
ok what word would you like me to use that's palitable to you how
about aether.
anyway compression or expantion of the aether or what ever you would
like to call is possible through magnetics and gravity, even small
masses with a high enough velocity become infanity hevier and take on
more mass increasing it's own gravitational feild according to e=mc2.
All mass resides within this medium wich is expanding, gravity warps
and distorts this medium the only reson the term curviture is used is
becuase almost all large bodies of mass with their own gravity feilds
are sperical in nature. light travels in a straight line it's the
aether or what ever term you want define as the medium thats distorted
noticed I didn't say curved. light travels in a straight path gravity
doesnt bend the light but gravity did bend the medium in wich it
propagates through thus cuasing the optical illusion on light being
bent, if you straighten out the distortion in the medium the light
never changes a course from where the original photon originates. so
its the distorted aether thats creates the illusion of the light
bending the gravity is whats bending medium in wich the light moves
through although the light still moves in a straight path.
NoEinstein
<extremesoundandli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Rusty: Read my thread. There is no such thing as a space-time
> continuum! M-M has no CONTROL. That shoots down Einstein and his
> century of the Dark Ages of Science! — NoEinstein —
Dear Rusty:
Your spelling and punctuation leave much to be desired. So, I have
put your strings of letters into sentences and will comment on your
ideas concerning science.
> OK, what word would you like me to use that's palatable to you about aether?
How about: ether, or aether?
> Compression or expansion of the aether—or what ever you would
like to call it—is possible through magnetics and gravity.
(A.) Ether is the mother energy which, because the smallest ether
units, IOTAs, are polar, can align end-to-end to form magnetic lines
of flux. But the ether ISN’T compressed by magnetism, nor can ether
be expanded by magnetism. In areas away from large masses the ether
density becomes low enough, and the radiant energy passing through the
region, low enough, that IOTAs aren’t being constantly knocked out of
pole-to-pole alignment. Is such cases, long pole-to-pole segments
can, randomly, hook up with similar segments until the many crossing
flux lines form magnetic meniscuses. Those are the boundaries in the
“Swiss Cheese” voids between the galaxies. Inside the voids is little
or no ether. Light will travel perfectly well through those voids.
So, ether is NOT a required medium for the propagation of light!
Magnetic ether meniscuses form the outer boundary of the Universe
itself.
(B.) Ether flowing toward masses IS gravity! To say that gravity
compresses or expands itself is ludicrous. A truer statement would
be: “The intensity of the force of gravity varies in direct proportion
to the ether flow and density.” The electrical analogy of gravity is
AMPS. Ultimately, that would be: How many IOTAs are flowing through a
unit cross-section of mass.
> Even small masses with a high enough velocity become infinity heavier and take on
> more mass, increasing it's own gravitational field according to E = mc^2.
WRONG! There is ZERO increase in mass due to velocity alone. KE
increases LINEARLY with respect to velocity! Einstein’s moronic E =
mc^2 requires that KE increase parabolically with respect to
velocity. And THAT violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy! A
UNIFORM force input—as will cause simple accelerations—has a
corresponding UNIFORM increase in the KE. The only variable in SR is
VELOCITY. A UNIFORM continuous force will cause a UNIFORM linear
increase in velocity; will cause a UNIFORM increase in KE.
Einstein (nor the majority of supposed scientists) know what
acceleration is! Galileo and Newton goofed to let the acceleration
due to gravity, ‘g’, be written: 32.174 feet/second^2. Looks
“parabolic”, doesn’t it? But the only correct way to write ‘g’ is my
own 32.174 feet per second EACH second! The latter is the correct
LINEAR increase in velocity with respect to time.
You’ve all heard it said: “There isn’t enough energy in the entire
Universe to cause even a speck of matter to travel to velocity
‘c’.” [A. Einstein] That’s because Einstein thought that there must
be an unending acceleration-of-the-acceleration to get to ‘c’. The
latter would indeed be energy impossible!
Since speeding objects don’t increase in mass, they don’t increase
their gravitational fields, either.
> All mass resides within this medium which is expanding.
The UNIVERSE is NOT expanding! That is a religious idea necessitated
by the notion that “creation” required a Big Bang. Neither
observations, nor the math, supports an expanding universe… “unless”
one suspends disbelief and accepts Einstein’s “Fudge Factors”: space-
time. When I determined that the Michelson-Morley experiment lacks a
CONTROL, I shot down Lorentz transformations and thus space-time.
Those never vary because of the proximity to massive objects!
> Gravity warps and distorts this medium (ether).
Was answered and refuted in (B.) above.
> The only reason the term curvature is used is because almost all large bodies of
> mass, with their own gravity fields, are spherical in nature.
Galaxies are large masses, and those sure aren’t spherical, Rusty.
> Light travels in a straight line.
… unless bent by varying ether density and flow.
> It's the aether, or what ever term you want to define as the medium that’s distorted
> (notice I didn't say curved.)
Oh? Light can churn the IOTAs, but doesn’t distort the overall ether
density and flow.
> Gravity doesn’t bend the light,
Finally, something with which we agree! But not for long… The
remainder of your musings are nonsense:
> but gravity did bend the medium in which it propagates, thus causing the
> optical illusion on light being bent. If you straighten out the distortion in the medium, > the light never changes a course from where the original photon originates. so
> its the distorted aether that’s creating the illusion of the light
> bending. The gravity is what’s bending medium in which the light moves
> through although the light still moves in a straight path.
Rusty, you got brainwashed by Einstein’s notions. Most of your ideas
are wrong. But are you open-minded enough to realize it? —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
More Einstein Junkies should read my comments! — NoEinstein —