Re: There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
glird
> On Feb 21, 12:17 pm, glird wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 8:54 pm, john wrote:
> > > On Feb 20, 12:52 pm, glird wrote:
gl:>>>> Indeed, since a force is a net pressure, it is ALWAYS a push.
A "force of attraction" is a push TOWARD the causative agent.
A "force of repulsion" is a push AWAY from the causative agent.
Since a g-field is a density gradient, it is always centered on
"the causative agent', which is the matter-unit that causes it to
exist.
>
J: >>> Everything is push. Sometimes it comes to shove.
Electrons are just like galactic arms; they
emanate just like millions of suns, but at
much higher frequency..
There is universe forever in all directions
with matter just like ours, so the emanations from electrons will be
coming from all directions.
A la Olber's Paradox, these emanations cannot travel infinitely or
there would be an infinite amount of energy coming at us from all
sides. But they travel a long, long way, so there will be more coming
from any one direction than is coming from any matter in that
direction.
>
gl: >> Although electrons CAUSE light waves to come into existence and
propagate at c, no electrons travel further than about 1 wave-length.
The reason that light undergoes a red-shift as it travels through
hydrogen-filled space is that a Compton effect occurs per H atom it
passes.
>
J: >>> These emanations are absorbed by the nuclei,
imparting a push, but not by the electrons themselves.
>
gl: >> When an electron flies out of an atom it has a quantity of
action of h = 2pirmc', in which r is the radius of its orbit in an
atom, m is its weight therein, and c' is its orbital speed. When light-
waves transit an atom whose internal structural pattern happens to
fit, the quantity of energy-is-the-ability-to-do-work so absorbed will
be e = hf, where f is the frequency=number-of-waves-per-second.
>
J: >>> Likewise, the electrons' electrons are emanating at a much
higher frequency/smaller amplitude. Emanations from the electrons
travel at about 30 times c. Emanations from the electrons' electrons
travel at 30 times 30 times c.
>
gl: >> Nothing travels faster than the speed of em waves; which move
at c = 1 unit-length per second, where a unit-length is a specific
amount of matter rather than a number of meters.
>
J: >>> These and yet higher frequencies must be coming from all sides
in absolutely huge numbers, lending such a system to a push gravity
in layers, where the layer affecting us does not affect our electrons.
>
gl: >> Although a g-field-is-a-density-gradient DOES come in layers,
the layer affecting us affects everything embedded in, thus part of,
that gradient.
>
J: >>> Yet it is electrons just like ours that made the radiations
that push on our nuclei and create inertia.
>
gl: >> No, John, the g-force doesn't come from a push against atomic
nuclei. It arises INSIDE each such nucleus, as a net pressure-is-a-
push in the direction of greater resistance by the mass-is-a-quantity-
of-matter per responding nucleus.
As to inertia, that doesn't come from radiation-against-atomic-
nuclei either. It is the weight-in-grams of a mass times its speed wrt
an object it happens to hit.
NoE: >< Dear glird: You've got answers—sometimes more complex than
nature manifests—to much of science. Don't get lost in the
"internal", or inside atoms, math. >
Thank you for the warning, Dr NoE. Actually, my math herein was
concerned with a quantum of energy and its relation to electrons. Half
of present Physics is lost in that math. (The other half is lost in
the tensor math of GR.) Don't worry, Mr. Dr. No, at my age I won't
get lost in mathematics at all.
Mr Dr NoE: >< It is the ETHER from which all energy derives, not
electrons. Think of electrons as being the banked-up IOTAs in the
rings of valence. They are like a wave (ocean) about to break, but
being pushed in a constant circle. I copy below my apt reply to
"John":
Dear John: The Universe is a finite bubble of ether (and matter made
from ether). >
Please pardon me for interrupting, but despite the Big Bungle
theory, the universe is infinite and ether is the material that fills
it everywhere.
>< The bubble is bounded by a magnetic meniscus which forms the longest continuous lines of (push) force in the Universe. >
According to present Physics, the universe is finite but unbounded.
Even if it was a bubble, a boundary would not be "in" it; it would
surround it.
>< Magnetic flux is vulnerable to having the lines broken by strong photon emissions. That's why magnetic flux tends to concentrate near massive objects. There, the lines "stake out" locations around which the light must pass. >
What is a "strong photon" and how does it break a magnetic flux
line? Where did you get the idea that magnetic flux tends to
concentrate near massive objects? What happens to a ray of light when
it passes through such a "staked out" location, and why does it
happen?
> Electrons aren't the creative source of photons. Since electrons have no mass they are incapable of giving off photons. >
Although electrons don't "give off" photons, the textbook value of
the mass of an electron is 9.1095 x 10^-27 grams.
>The valence rings in which the electrons orbit CAN give of photons. >
Although valence rings (and electrons in them) COULD give off photons,
they don't.
A valence ring is actually a layer of material filling the space
between a nucleus and/or another such layer. An electron is either the
entire layer or the wavular system circulating in it. When a quantum
reaction happens, either the entire layer doubles in thickness or it
escapes from the given atom. If the latter happens, the electron
escapes and linearly moves into the surrounding material (the
"matrix") within which the layer was a density gradient whose minimum
level was much greater than the maximum level in the matrix. Within
two wave-lengths, each being about 2 x pi x 5.225 x 10^-9 cm long, the
electron that escaped becomes a cloud of matter in the local matrix.
As such, it is an increased density zone in a less dense material. At
the instant that happens, the weight of that matter becomes zero and
the density imbalance causes an increase in pressure -- a local grad
s, to exist in that zone. Whenever that happens, for any reason at
all, that grad s,d radiates away in all directions at a speed of c = 1
unit of matter/second = 1. We call the portion that happens to be
visible to our eyes "light"; and that's what light is. As to a
"photon" (Einstein's word for Planck's quantity of energy, e_o), it is
NEVER a particle of energy-is-the-ability-to-do-work NOR is it a
transverse wave when radiating at c.
(Yes, Dr NoE, I know that present theory says that Since light can't
be made of particles on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and can't be
wave systems on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, "it is therefore
BOTH"!!!!
But to me, if many experiments prove that light can't be made of
particles and many other equally valid experiments prove that it is
not a collection of transverse waves, then IT IS NEITHER, not both.)
>< There are only so many IOTAs that can be pushed around inside each valence ring. When an outside light source has a frequency matching the valence ring, the excess energy corresponding to that ring throws off corresponding photons. The latter is the re emission of photons—sometimes wrongly referred to as... reflections, but 1/2 phase out of step. Neither gravity nor electromotive forces will have "influence" over universal distances, except for the meniscuses bounding the ["unbounded"] ether (also the Swiss Cheese void between galaxies). >
No, NoE; there is no void-is-an-empty-space either in Swiss Cheese
or between galaxies or stars or planets and moons or molecules or
atoms or smaller bits and pieces now called "subatomic
particles".
Indeed, the idea that there IS stems from the false premise at the
start and heart of Physics. It was the secret answer "NO" to the
unasked question, "Is matter compressible", that led the ancient Geek
philosophers to decide that there have to be void spaces between bits
of matter in order for things to change in any way at all. THAT is
why they invented what is now called "the kinetic atomic theory", that
matter is made of atoms surrounded by empty spaces into which they
easily move.
Once people learn that "Matter is Compressible" the need for empty
spaces will disappear and the kinetic atomic theory will go with it.
Matter isn't made of atoms. Atoms are made of MATTER. And between
those atoms there is more of the very same resistively compressible
material that conducts light and other forms of radiation throughout
the infinite and unbounded universe.
glird
BURT
Galaxies don't spin. All stars are in swiveling elliptical orbits
around the Milky Way Center.
mpc755
How about: Matter and aether are different states of the same
material.
I understand your concept of matter is that it is the 'stuff of space'
but for everyone else matter is nuclei and the stuff combinations of
nuclei create. To try and re-label aether as matter is not going to
work.
You'd be better off inventing a new name like 'mather'.
Matter and aether are different states of mather.
GogoJF
Glird, if you take a visible meter and direct it to measure the size
of the moon, in terms of the observers' eyes (let's say that the
length of the meter is 1 meter) you will get a measure of, let's say .
334 cm. Similarly, if one was to measure objects, in terms of a
simple mirror alone, at the same distance, what would be the size of
the mirror "drawn" on the mirror, in terms of size, may not be very
magnified than compared to the human observer
glird
>
>Galaxies don't spin. All stars are in swiveling elliptical
>orbits around the Milky Way Center.
You are almost entirely right about this, Burt.
The detail that you omitted is this:
Although an entire galaxy doesn't bodily spin, it has a
a nucleus that DOES.
Because the pressure perpendicular to a moving surface decreases
when its speed increases, the faster a nucleus spins the less the
pressure will be at both sides of the spin-surface. Therefore matter
will be pushed toward this interface from both sides of it. Since
there is a relatively small amount of matter INSIDE the nuclear
interface, compared to the infinite amount outside it, the nucleus
will be compressed until its density increased enough so that its
increased pressure exactly matches that of its surroundings.
For various reasons that I won't discuss now, equilibrium exists
throughout a zone containing such spinning nuclei when the average
pressure throughout that zone is the same everywhere; and that occurs
only when the density GRADIENTS
are such that the closer we go toward either side of the interface(s)
the steeper they are.
glird
glird
> On Feb 24, 11:35 pm, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
"influence" over universal distances, except for the meniscuses
bounding the ["unbounded"] ether (also the Swiss Cheese void between
galaxies). >
>
Cheese or between galaxies or stars or planets and moons or molecules
or atoms or smaller bits and pieces now called "subatomic particles".
Indeed, the idea that there IS stems from the false premise at the
start and heart of Physics. It was the secret answer "NO" to the
unasked question, "Is matter compressible", that led the ancient Geek
philosophers to decide that there have to be void spaces between bits
they invented what is now called "the kinetic atomic theory", that
matter is made of atoms surrounded by empty spaces into which they
easily move. Once people learn that "Matter is Compressible" the need
Matter isn't made of atoms. Atoms are made of MATTER. And between
those atoms there is more of the very same resistively compressible
material that conducts light and other forms of radiation throughout
the infinite and unbounded universe.>
>
> same material.
Sorry, MPC, but I disagree for several reasons, one being hat the
aether isn't a different state of matter; it is just a word for the
matter outside of local atoms.
>< I understand your concept of matter is that it is the 'stuff of space' but for everyone else matter is nuclei and the stuff combinations of nuclei create. >
I never said nor do I believe that "matter is the stuff of space"!
(John Duffield not only believes it, he constructed an elaborate
general theory based on his assumption that matter is a kink in the
fabric of empty space.)
> To try and re-label aether as matter is not going to
> work.
Although I did try to define "aether" in a way that would fit YOUR
use of the word -- which I long ago replaced with "ether" -- I didn't
intend to re-label aether as matter even though the aether-is-the-
continuous-form-of-the-material-outside-of-and-surrounding-atomic-
nuclei IS matter-is-the-compressible-substance-that-fills-space.
> You'd be better off inventing a new name like 'mather'.
> Matter and aether are different states of mather.
I'd rather say it like it is.
If my definition of your "aether" isn't going to work, I suggest that
we eliminate it entirely; as I long ago did in my books.
glird
master1729
if aether exists , why isnt there an eather propulsion ?
i know UFO propulsion is often associated with that , and also the coral castle -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr9U1cP68eU
and related stuff such as the lonocraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft
magnetic levitation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation
and others.
im also familiar with boat and plane design and their propulsion techniques.
but those propulsions are based upon the environment such as mass ( air , air (wind) , water , fuel ) and energy ( electromagnetism ).
since no eather propulsion can be shown , the existance of eather is dubious ...
if aether exists , why isnt there an eather propulsion ?
saying eather is 'different' from liquid , gas or electromagnetism doesnt cut it !
regards
tommy1729
mpc755
What I meant by matter is the 'stuff of space' is in your definition
it is all of the stuff in space. Including 'the-continuous-form-of-the-
material-outside-of-and-surrounding-atomic-nuclei IS matter-is-the-
compressible-substance-that-fills-space'
Matter = nuclei
Aether = the-continuous-form-of-the-material-outside-of-and-
surrounding-atomic-nuclei IS matter-is-the-compressible-substance-that-
fills-space
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Atomic shells should be included as part of the structure of matter
mpc.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
If our interpretation of the nuclei and what the nuclei exist of and
what the nuclei themselves combine to form is matter and the space
between the nuclei to consist of aether then in this definition of
mather what exists between the nuclei is not matter.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
I see you are still hiding the atomic electrons in a surrounding
aether?
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
Is there an abundance of evidence electrons are particles when they
exist in the shell of atoms?
Even if they do, in terms of Aether Displacement, "electrons
contribute less than 0.06% to an atom's total mass." (wikipedia).
In terms of Aether Displacement what is more important than what an
electron exists as in the shell of an atom is the space, filled with
aether, which exists between the nuclei in matter.
NoEinstein
Dear glird: The Universe is FINITE, and electrons have no more than a
10% importance in the energy scheme of things. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Burt: There you go... making up things, again. — NE —
NoEinstein
one or more photons. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
GogoJF: You state the examples, but don't explain the purpose of your
comment. What is your point of science? — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Dear glird: You are obviously a baseball fan. But galaxies don't
obey your ideas of the dynamics. — NE —
NoEinstein
Dear glird: The presense of nearby matter necessitates the presence of
ether. Since all matter requires energy (ether) for its formation,
that ether must have come from someplace. The Swiss Cheese voids are
where the IOTAs that make up matter came from. Your acceptance of
that fact isn't necessary for such to be true. Continuing to harp on
it is only wasting your time. — NE —
glird
No, Dear NoE, the universe is NOT finite; and although electrons
are a small fraction of the matter and energy in it per huge volume,
they are the all-important ingredient in the otherwise impotent half
of physics called "QED".
glird
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Matter has ether flowing within it. Ether is the mother of creation,
not matter. — NE —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Burt: Valance shells are an atomic fact. There is no... "should be"
about it! — NE —
mpc755
Matter and aether are different states of mather. At this time, it is
more correct to say matter consists of compressed mather and aether is
uncompressed mather.
glird
> of creation, not matter.
There is no ether other than matter itself. In harmony with my
belief that important words should be defiend the first time they are
used in written form, I defined ether as being the continuity aspect
of a material field, whether or not particles are part of it.
Because matter cannot be created or destroyed, it always existed and
so did the five other basic items of which everything in the universe
is composed. As to 'creation", I long ago realized that Evolution is
God's method of creating what now exists.
glird
clivevrob
Have you realized you're a complete idiot yet?
glird
Still talking to the picture in your mirror, eh, Dono!
NoEinstein
>
Dear mpc755: When you touch an index finger to the back of the
opposite hand, at atomic scales, the IOTAs (smallest energy units of
the ether), which are polar, oppose the polar IOTAs of the opposite
hand. Thought of that way, there is no "matter" in the Universe, only
tangles of IOTAs and free-flowing ether in the spaces between. So, it
would be more proper to say that "matter" (the energy tangles) is a
state of the ether, not the other way around. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Dear glird: Every time you ride on a jet airliner you get pushed back
in your seat by the ether that is flowing through the plane, front to
back. That same flowing ether will slow down all mechanical, atomic,
and biological processes. Instead of making up your own ideas about
physics, realize that in nearly four years that I have been using
sci.physics, not a SINGLE person has shown that my NEW science is in
any way wrong. You've got a very long way to go before you can match
what I have accomplished. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear clivevrob: Please identify yourself! Are you an ally? —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Dear glird: 'Mirror' put-downs apply to you, too. — NE —
mpc755
> On Feb 26, 12:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:>
>
> Dear mpc755: When you touch an index finger to the back of the
> opposite hand, at atomic scales, the IOTAs (smallest energy units of
> the ether), which are polar, oppose the polar IOTAs of the opposite
> hand. Thought of that way, there is no "matter" in the Universe, only
> tangles of IOTAs and free-flowing ether in the spaces between. So, it
> would be more proper to say that "matter" (the energy tangles) is a
> state of the ether, not the other way around. — NoEinstein —
>
>
This is the opposite definition glird proposes. glird definition of
aether is "aether-is-the-
continuous-form-of-the-material-outside-of-and-surrounding-atomic-
nuclei IS matter-is-the-compressible-substance-that-fills-space".
This is why I am naming the material which both the aether and matter
consist of mather. This avoids redefining already existing and
conceptualized terms.
I think 'we' all have the same basic concept of what aether is. I
think 'we' all have the same basic concept of what matter is. Instead
of trying to modify the concept of aether to be a state of matter or
for matter to be a state of aether it is better if we define matter
and aether to both be states of mather.
We can then agree mather has mass. Meaning both matter and aether have
mass. Meaning the aether is displaced by matter. Meaning the aether
applies pressure towards the matter doing the displacing.
Meaning the pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive
objects is gravity.
mpc755
> On Feb 26, 8:31 pm, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 12:15 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > Matter has ether flowing within it. Ether is the mother
> > > of creation, not matter.
>
> > There is no ether other than matter itself. In harmony with my
> > belief that important words should be defiend the first time they are
> > used in written form, I defined ether as being the continuity aspect
> > of a material field, whether or not particles are part of it.
>
> > Because matter cannot be created or destroyed, it always existed and
> > so did the five other basic items of which everything in the universe
> > is composed. As to 'creation", I long ago realized that Evolution is
> > God's method of creating what now exists.
>
> > glird
>
> Dear glird: Every time you ride on a jet airliner you get pushed back
> in your seat by the ether that is flowing through the plane, front to
> back.
While accelerating. Not during constant momentum.
PD
> On Feb 26, 8:31 pm, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 12:15 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > Matter has ether flowing within it. Ether is the mother
> > > of creation, not matter.
>
> > There is no ether other than matter itself. In harmony with my
> > belief that important words should be defiend the first time they are
> > used in written form, I defined ether as being the continuity aspect
> > of a material field, whether or not particles are part of it.
>
> > Because matter cannot be created or destroyed, it always existed and
> > so did the five other basic items of which everything in the universe
> > is composed. As to 'creation", I long ago realized that Evolution is
> > God's method of creating what now exists.
>
> > glird
>
> Dear glird: Every time you ride on a jet airliner you get pushed back
> in your seat by the ether that is flowing through the plane, front to
> back.
Really? Then why do people sleep on airplanes, without their hair
streaming backwards as though they were in a breeze?
mpc755
> On Mar 2, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 8:31 pm, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 26, 12:15 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Matter has ether flowing within it. Ether is the mother
> > > > of creation, not matter.
>
> > > There is no ether other than matter itself. In harmony with my
> > > belief that important words should be defiend the first time they are
> > > used in written form, I defined ether as being the continuity aspect
> > > of a material field, whether or not particles are part of it.
>
> > > Because matter cannot be created or destroyed, it always existed and
> > > so did the five other basic items of which everything in the universe
> > > is composed. As to 'creation", I long ago realized that Evolution is
> > > God's method of creating what now exists.
>
> > > glird
>
> > Dear glird: Every time you ride on a jet airliner you get pushed back
> > in your seat by the ether that is flowing through the plane, front to
> > back.
>
> Really? Then why do people sleep on airplanes, without their hair
> streaming backwards as though they were in a breeze?
>
Because they are moving with constant momentum and the aether applies
equal pressure to every part of the matter. The pressure the aether
exerts on and throughout a moving airplane is greater than an object
at the same altitude which would be considered to be at rest with
respect to the aether but the pressure associated with the aether
exerted on each and every nuclei in the moving plane is equal on every
part of the nuclei.
It is during acceleration that the pressure associated with the aether
is not equal on each and every part of the nuclei and that is why you
are pushed back in you chair on take off and move forward during
landings. Each and every nuclei which is the human body is interacting
with the aether.
master1729
why no aether propulsion ?
tommy1729
mpc755
http://www.physorg.com/news185201084.html
"Superfluidity and superconductivity cause particles to move without
friction. Koos Gubbels investigated under what conditions such
particles keep moving endlessly without losing energy, like a swimmer
who takes one mighty stroke and then keeps gliding forever along the
swimming pool."
Each nuclei is the swimmer.
'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum
medium and the inertial motion of particles'
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0701/0701155.pdf
"a particle moving through the vacuum medium at a speed less than the
speed of light in vacuum, though interacting with the vacuum medium,
never feels friction force and thus undergoes a frictionless and
inertial motion."
"The property of the physical vacuum of our universe is a central
issue in modern particle physics and cosmology. In this paper we shall
show that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as a ubiquitous back
ground field is a super fluid medium."
If the particle were accelerating through the super fluid medium then
even though the interaction is frictionless there is still more
pressure exerted on the front of the particle (in the direction of
travel) then on the back of the particle.
Each nuclei is the particle moving through the aether, which in this
instance is analogous to a super fluid medium.
If the nuclei are accelerating through the aether then even though the
interaction is frictionless there is still more pressure exerted on
the front of the nuclei (in the direction of travel) then on the back
of the nuclei.
The opposite occurs during deceleration.
James Burns
master1729 wrote:
; ok , aether fans , here is a big question.
;
; if aether exists , why isnt there an eather propulsion ?
[...]
[then, you asked:]
master1729 wrote:
> you didnt answer my question
>
> why no aether propulsion ?
Perhaps every aether fan that reads sci.math
has already responded to your request.
Jim Burns
spudnik
that these suppositions would provide?
if there is matter & antimatter,
is there mather & antimather, or is there
also two kinds of aether?
> If the nuclei are accelerating through the aether then even though the
> interaction is frictionless there is still more pressure exerted on
> the front of the nuclei (in the direction of travel) then on the back
> of the nuclei.
>
> The opposite occurs during deceleration.- Hide quoted text -
thus:
there is a simple explanation: there is no vacuum;
that is to say, the "speed of light in vacuuo" is only a limit,
that is never quite achieved even by light.
this nonvacuuo is the medium through which the alleged photon
must go. I'm really getting tired of playing
with Schroedinger's undead cat!
thus:
in deed, one ought to write the book,
A Brief History of Schroedinger's Putty-tat!
> the particle & wave evocations are duals;
> (Shcroedinger's and/or Pauli's e.g.).
thus:
so, if the 1st conj. is (or leads to) the twin primes one, then
what is the 2nd conjecture of Littlewood and Hardy?... and,
why would one not believe, there is no end to twin primes?
> I too have noted that the Harris approach is very similar to the first
> H-L conjecture and I would add Merten's Third Theorem. His approach is
> not better as he leaves out an important constant but it can still be
> used to do useful work with twin primes.
--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com
--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/
--The Ides of March Are Coming:
Pro-Impeachment Democrat
Wins Nomination in Texas!http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2010/lar_pac/
100303kesha_victory.htm
spudnik
of the googolplex, that is why I never googol a God-am thing.
I summoned sci.physics, earlier today, instead
of my usual habit of sci.math. since I came, immediately
within the vanilla schedule of last-in/first-out items,
to one of your aether items, it serves to show that
the googolplex keeps track of the habitual users
-- i.e. while still not signed-in --
from whatever server, and interpolates one
with one's self-selected set of correspondents,
which can be quite a small group of folks!
thus:
so, what experiment should be preformed,
that these suppositions would provide?
if there is matter & antimatter,
is there mather & antimather, or is there
also two kinds of aether?
thus:
spudnik
> Perhaps every aether fan that reads sci.math
> has already responded to your request.
thus quoth:
Strictly speaking, of course, Planck’s discovery of the quantum
of action, and the subsequent elaboration of the so-called
wave mechanics by Schrödinger, already imply a fundamental
correction of classical mechanics. The standard textbook
accounts assure us, however, that this correction, while significant
in the domain of microscopic physical objects, can be
virtually neglected when dealing with systems of macroscopic
bodies. The reason given for this, is the practically infinitesimally
small value of Planck’s quantum, compared to the magnitudes
of action involved in the motion of macroscopic bodies.
The latter would include Doubochinski’s pendulum and
all other macroscopic systems belonging to the traditional
domain of classical mechanics.
Physicists and engineers, who for generations have been
drilled in the formalisms of phase- or
configuration- or time-spaces of Lagrange and
Hamilton, often regard it as self-evident, that a macroscopic
mechanical system is in principle fully equivalent to the
corresponding
set of differential or integral equations derived
according to the Lagrangian or Hamiltonian methods of analytical
mechanics. Many would hasten to add, of course, that
in practice certain idealizations, simplifications, and approximations
are always introduced, in order to make the mathematical
equations more manageable. But this practice is purely
pragmatic, and does not contradict the assumed, principled
equivalence between the physical and mathematical systems.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/highlights/Winter2005.html
thus:
spudnik
Max Planck’s Unanswered Challenge
Caroline Hartmann
The accepted quantum theory still leaves unanswered the fundamental
questions raised by Max Planck’s discovery of a century ago. What is
the structure of the atom, and how does it produce the results
measured by Planck’s constant?
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/highlights/summ01TOC.html
spudnik
Marjorie Mazel Hecht
The modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor is an ideal choice as
the powerhouse for agroindustrial development from Eastern Europe to
East Africa-simple, safe, versatile, and ready to come on line fast.
Poland Needs the MHTGR
An interview with Polish nuclear scientist Dr. Edward Obryk
Sun Yat-sen’s Grand Design for Industrializing China:
An Idea Whose Time Has Come
Jonathan Tennenbaum
Sun Yat-sen’s comprehensive development plan to make China into the
“New World of the 20th century” and guarantee world peace is six
decades old, but exactly what must be done today.
The U.S. Space Program and the Ming Navy
Dr. Arthur Kantrowitz
Retreat from an adventurous technology policy has led America, like
the Ming dynasty, into the clutches of the no-risk, no-growth
Malthusians.
Big Bang Cosmology Bites Intergalactic Dust
Paul Marmet
More and more astronomical evidence points to the absurdity of the
theory that the universe started with a Big Bang. A Canadian
astrophysicist presents this evidence and explains how the cosmic
redshift is caused by matter between galaxies, not by the Doppler
effect.
The Metaphysics of Complex Numbers
Karl Gauss
The 19th century German mathematician’s commentary on the geometric
determination of relationships among numbers, in an English
translation
Jonathan Tennenbaum
Special Report: A Decade of AIDS—And Inaction
John Grauerholz, M.D.
International AIDS Conference Condemns Genocidal Policies
AIDS in Africa: Worse Than the Black Death
Jonathan Tennenbaum
Understanding Cold Fusion As a New Physical Principle
Hal Fox
Cold Fusion Works at Stanford University: An Interview with Prof.
Robert A. Huggins
glird
>< We can then agree mather has mass. Meaning both matter and aether have mass. Meaning the aether is displaced by matter. Meaning the aether applies pressure towards the matter doing the displacing. >
Unless and until you define "mass", your statement is meaningless.
glird
mpc755
It has nothing to do with defining mass. You state aether is matter.
The other poster states matter is aether. I am saying aether and
matter are both different states of the same material, the mather.
Since matter has mass and matter and aether are both different states
of mather, the aether has mass.
Matter is compressed mather and aether is uncompressed mather.
spudnik
you going to live in the virtual ghetto
for the rest of the Singularity?
> Matter is compressed mather and aether is uncompressed mather.
thus:
kind of a nice idea, that Moon might
be just a bit holllow (or riddled with subsurface caves).
however, the main confomations of mare & highland appear
to be simple plate tectonics, albeit mostly finished
(the last gasp would be very "nonlinear,"
thus giving rise to explosive craters, volcanically;
as opposed to the mainstream impactoids theory --
the former one not being mine, either .-)
thus:
has anyone stated what Thermite (tm) is made of, and
what its primary use is?
thus:
perhaps, the answer lays in front of you;
how well do you see, underwater?
thus:
the funny thing about this thread, is that
There Are No Electrons -- oops;
that was a pedagogical treatise on "basic electronics,"
I suppose, using hydraulics analogies etc.
I meant, there clearly are no photons,
in the same way that there are no phonons,
except in a delimited "quantization" or math
(the photoelctrical instrumentation e.g.)
"Death to the lightcone; long-live the lightcone!"
thus quoth:
The negative AO has brought warmer temperatures to the arctic but has
also lead to wind patterns that tend to keep the ice intact. If the
AO stays negative then this year's September ice coverage minimum
should be fairly normal. It was wind patterns, and not temperature,
that lead to the record arctic ice lost in 2007.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html
thus:
read Alfven. in the meantime,
positrons spiral in the opposite bubble-tracks
to electrons, as has been known for decades.
what the Hell;
do what ever you were going to do with your typewriter,
anyway. if we can get a Psalm per century out
of you two, we'll win the Lotto!
> How would you identify an individual positron if it was emited?
thus:
wow; what Al and PD said about the pointiness of electrons,
I'd never read of, before; prove them wrong!
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
NoEinstein
>
Dear mpc755: Your "mather" is both a misspelling and a
misunderstanding of matter. Tell me, guy: Why is it necessary for
there to be THREE states of the Universe when only TWO are required?
Ether doesn't FILL space; it flows through it like wind in weather
systems on Earth. Ether is NOT a medium required for the propagation
of light 'waves' (sic). I know that to be true because light quanta,
or photons, can travel through the Swiss Cheese voids between
galaxies. Additionally, there is no wavelike motion of the ether
associated with 'gravity', either.
Since ether is the energy building block of everything else, I
realized that ether must be capable of TANGLING into energy densities
much greater than in the ether at large. Because ether can flow,
there must be a meniscus on the edge of the Universe, otherwise the
ether would keep flowing outward until the density gets too low to
form any matter. Having the Universe be "infinite" doesn't compute——
never has and never will. That leaves open the possibility that there
are other universes out there. The main 'creation' question that is
unanswered is: How did the ether energy get there? Proposing that an
omnipotent God put the energy there leaves this question: Who created
God? Ultimately, the understanding of the Universe won't require
faith. It's fun to know that there are still things to be learned!
—— NoEinstein ——
NoEinstein
>
Dear mpc755: The 'push back'-in-your-seat while the plane is taking
off and climbing to cruising altitude is due to the INERTIA of your
body resisting being made to go faster. There is ether flow causing
that 'push back'. The reason (observed) UFOs can change direction so
quickly without having the 'g' forces kill the occupants is because
UFOs control the ether envelope that must be there in order for there
to be any 'g' forces at all.
When airliners are in level flight, and traveling at cruising speed,
you are still being pushed back in your seat, slightly, by the ether
flowing through the plane. You will notice that you seem to be
walking up hill when going to the little plumbing room. And walking
downhill going back to your seat. Clocks on the space shuttle slow
down in proportion to the total length of the flight. If acceleration
was the only cause of the slowing, space flights of any length would
cause identical slowing of the clocks, since the acceleration phases
of each would be identical. — NoEinstein —
> > what I have accomplished. — NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Ether flow is by degrees. And it isn't
something going around the body, but through the body and the hair.
Both the body and the hair get pushed proportionately. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear mpc755: The flowing ether applies pressure in direct proportion
to the specific gravity and porosity of the matter——not equally. That
is why 'gravity' (flowing ether) causes lead to weigh more than
feathers. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Dear tommy1729: Who didn't answer your question? Your change of the
subject relates to the engineering of spaceships, not to the basis of
my New Science, and the present post. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear mpc755: You should make your own '+new post' if you wish to
expound new notions about science. You are clearly off the subject.
— NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Spudnik: Instead of 'getting lost' in replying to any one person,
you should try to grasp the larger concepts. Matching verbiage with
verbiage is playing a loosing game. — NoEinstein —
>
> --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/
NoEinstein
You are WAY off the subject of the present post! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
> --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/
>
> --The Ides of March Are Coming:
> Pro-Impeachment Democrat
> Wins Nomination in Texas!http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2010/lar_pac/100303kesha_victory.htm
Dear Spudnik: I suggest you make your own '+new post' to WOW readers
with your depth of reading the works of others. Please talk about
ether, or about gravity, or just go away! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Dear glird: OK. "Mass (also, matter) is: Any concentration of
energy which will resist the flow of ether through it. AND which is
capable of giving off photons." — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear mpc755: I recommend that you make your own '+new post' to PUSH
your funny notions about... mather. You are wasting my time and the
readers' time with your repeated nonsense. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear spudnik: Go away! Gravity is too important a subject for you to
be causing your STATIC! — NE —
PD
> On Mar 2, 6:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear mpc755: The 'push back'-in-your-seat while the plane is taking
> off and climbing to cruising altitude is due to the INERTIA of your
> body resisting being made to go faster. There is ether flow causing
> that 'push back'. The reason (observed) UFOs can change direction so
> quickly without having the 'g' forces kill the occupants is because
> UFOs control the ether envelope that must be there in order for there
> to be any 'g' forces at all.
>
> When airliners are in level flight, and traveling at cruising speed,
> you are still being pushed back in your seat, slightly, by the ether
> flowing through the plane. You will notice that you seem to be
> walking up hill when going to the little plumbing room.
Oh dear.
PD
Right, same with wind. Wind pushes the body and the hair. But the hair
is lighter so it responds to the wind more easily. So tell me again
why the hair does not blow backwards in the aether breeze you say is
there?
PD
> On Mar 3, 11:55 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear mpc755: You should make your own '+new post' if you wish to
> expound new notions about science. You are clearly off the subject.
> — NoEinstein —
He does, all the time. You can't find them? Are you completely
incompetent with newsgroups?
spudnik
away from uselessnet, altogether; if I's a hacker,
I'd blow you out, with me!
> > read Alfven. in the meantime,
> > positrons spiral in the opposite bubble-tracks
> > to electrons, as has been known for decades.
> > > How would you identify an individual positron if it was emited?
> > wow; what Al and PD said about the pointiness of electrons,
> > I'd never read of, before; prove them wrong!
thus:
didn't finish, but it began rather nicely.
also, see about Weber's "magnetic molecule"
as http://21stcenturysciencetech.com -- or knot.
> http://www.amperefitz.com/lawrm.htm
thus:
the speed of light depends upon the density of the medium,
viz the index of refraction, cf. the brachistochrone
(tautochrone) of Bernoulli and Liebniz,
the cannonical problem that defined "the" caclulus.
the speed of sound depends upon the density
of the medium; about 600mph at sea-level;
clearly, that is an upper bound on the speed of wind
at sea-level!
spudnik
New Mexico -- OMG, shag me with a spoon, rolling on the floor,
trying to supress laughter (in a library).
> > When airliners are in level flight, and traveling at cruising speed,
> > you are still being pushed back in your seat, slightly, by the ether
> > flowing through the plane. You will notice that you seem to be
> > walking up hill when going to the little plumbing room.
>
> Oh dear.
thus:
when I "go away," I'll just tear myself
away from uselessnet, altogether; if I's a hacker,
I'd blow you out, with me!
read Alfven. in the meantime,
positrons spiral in the opposite bubble-tracks
to electrons, as has been known for decades.
>How would you identify an individual positron if it was emited?
thus:
spudnik
did your daddy uncover an element of the periodical table,
NoMendeleyeev?
> my New Science, and the present post. — NoEinstein —
thus:
ah, a Reverse Engineer from the Shrine of Roswell,
New Mexico -- OMG, shag me with a spoon, rolling on the floor,
trying to supress laughter (in a library).
thus quoth:
When airliners are in level flight, and traveling at cruising speed,
you are still being pushed back in your seat, slightly, by the ether
flowing through the plane. You will notice that you seem to be
walking up hill when going to the little plumbing room.
read Alfven. in the meantime,
spudnik
do not engage in "level flight," but
make some kind of *trajectory*, akin
to the brachistochrone (for the "ray-tracing"
of light in a stratified medium, air e.g.). also,
note that Fermat's least-time principle is done
in terms of rays (or the phictive foton), but
that is just a formality.
the trajectory wouldn't be bilaterally symmetrical
around the highest reach, because of drag & so forth;
eh?
thus quoth:
When airliners are in level flight, and traveling at cruising speed,
you are still being pushed back in your seat, slightly, by the ether
flowing through the plane. You will notice that you seem to be
walking up hill when going to the little plumbing room.
thus:
there is no need of a resolution between wave & particle;
they are just formal duals -- don't try to us both,
at the same time!
heat is infrared lightwaves. there is nothing wrong
with saying that light "goes from A to B instantaneuosly
in its own frame of reference," except that
it doesn't have one, nor is aether necessitated as such.
(there is no vacuum; it's just a verb.)
thus quoth:
“Its [corpuscular theory] place is taken by the undulatory theory,
first suggested by Huygens in 1690, reconciled to some extent with
the
discoveries of Newton by Euler, advocated by Hartley, and finally
established by a study of the phenomenon of interference by Thomas
Young and by Fresnel. This theory gives a complete explanation of all
phenomena of light. According to this view, light, objectively
considered, is simply a mode of motion of a substance called the
luminiferous ether which pervades not only what is commonly regarded
as space, but also all translucent substances. By the molecular
movements of luminous bodies, this ether is set vibrating in a series
of waves.”
thus:
ah, a Reverse Engineer from the Shrine of Roswell,
New Mexico -- OMG, shag me with a spoon, rolling on the floor,
trying to supress laughter (in a library).
thus:
read Alfven. in the meantime,
positrons spiral in the opposite bubble-tracks
to electrons, as has been known for decades.
thus:
master1729
( little sigh )
> On Mar 3, 11:41 am, master1729 <tommy1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > you didnt answer my question
> >
> > why no aether propulsion ?
> >
> > tommy1729
>
> Dear tommy1729: Who didn't answer your question?
nobody answered my question.
> Your change of the
> subject relates to the engineering of spaceships, not
> to the basis of
> my New Science, and the present post. — NoEinstein —
this is a physics thread ( in a math forum ! ) and you guys have been talking about ether for months or years.
this is thus very suitable to ask the question here.
btw you have avoided the question.
but then again , so did everyone else of course ...
as usual on sci.math ...
tommy1729
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Tell me, guy: How is "Oh dear" a
discussion of science? Did you forget and leave the kettle boiling?
— NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wrong, PD! Lightweight hair responds to moving AIR more easily.
Ether flows through the air and through the hair in proportion to the
masses of each. Take a lead plumb bob and such will not hang
vertically in a level-flight jetliner at a uniform cruising speed. —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Like I tell YOU all the time, PD: I don't go on any wild-goose
searches for anyone. If you (or they) want to show competence on
science, paraphrase your discussion points or give links to posts
which you (or they) have authored. Otherwise, you'll be ignored. —
NE —
NoEinstein
> when I "go away," I'll just tear myself
> away from uselessnet, altogether; if I's a hacker,
> I'd blow you out, with me!
>
> > > read Alfven. in the meantime,
> > > positrons spiral in the opposite bubble-tracks
> > > to electrons, as has been known for decades.
> > > > How would you identify an individual positron if it was emited?
> > > wow; what Al and PD said about the pointiness of electrons,
> > > I'd never read of, before; prove them wrong!
>
> thus:
> didn't finish, but it began rather nicely.
>
> also, see about Weber's "magnetic molecule"
>
> >http://www.amperefitz.com/lawrm.htm
>
> thus:
> the speed of light depends upon the density of the medium,
> viz the index of refraction, cf. the brachistochrone
> (tautochrone) of Bernoulli and Liebniz,
> the cannonical problem that defined "the" caclulus.
> the speed of sound depends upon the density
> of the medium; about 600mph at sea-level;
> clearly, that is an upper bound on the speed of wind
> at sea-level!
>
> --Light: A History!http://wlym.com
Spudnik: Compressed air released from a cannon can easily exceed the
speed of sound. But tell me: What does sound have to do with my
present post on ether flow and gravity? Please take your...
wanderings elsewhere! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
> ah, a Reverse Engineer from the Shrine of Roswell,
> New Mexico -- OMG, shag me with a spoon, rolling on the floor,
> trying to supress laughter (in a library).
>
> > > When airliners are in level flight, and traveling at cruising speed,
> > > you are still being pushed back in your seat, slightly, by the ether
> > > flowing through the plane. You will notice that you seem to be
> > > walking up hill when going to the little plumbing room.
>
> > Oh dear.
>
> thus:
> when I "go away," I'll just tear myself
> away from uselessnet, altogether; if I's a hacker,
> I'd blow you out, with me!
>
> read Alfven. in the meantime,
> positrons spiral in the opposite bubble-tracks
> to electrons, as has been known for decades.
>
> >How would you identify an individual positron if it was emited?
>
> thus:
> wow; what Al and PD said about the pointiness of electrons,
> I'd never read of, before; prove them wrong!
>
> thus:
> didn't finish, but it began rather nicely.
> also, see about Weber's "magnetic molecule"
>
> >http://www.amperefitz.com/lawrm.htm
>
> thus:
> the speed of light depends upon the density of the medium,
> viz the index of refraction, cf. the brachistochrone
> (tautochrone) of Bernoulli and Liebniz,
> the cannonical problem that defined "the" caclulus.
> the speed of sound depends upon the density
> of the medium; about 600mph at sea-level;
> clearly, that is an upper bound on the speed of wind
> at sea-level!
>
> --Light: A History!http://wlym.com
Spudnik: The speed of light outside of Earth's atmosphere is
unaffected by the varying density of the ether, because the tangential
velocity of the polar IOTAs (smallest energy units of the ether) is
'c'. The IOTAs NURTURE the light on its way, not slowing light down.
— NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
> >http://www.amperefitz.com/lawrm.htm
>
> thus:
> the speed of light depends upon the density of the medium,
> viz the index of refraction, cf. the brachistochrone
> (tautochrone) of Bernoulli and Liebniz,
> the cannonical problem that defined "the" caclulus.
> the speed of sound depends upon the density
> of the medium; about 600mph at sea-level;
> clearly, that is an upper bound on the speed of wind
> at sea-level!
>
> --Light: A History!http://wlym.com
Dear Spudnik: A jet in level flight around the globe is traveling a
circular course. But for any given altitude of flight the ether
density is the same. And up to, say, 40,000 feet the downward flow of
the ether is practically vertical (though the ether deviates from
vertical the higher up you go). Einstein, the moron, supposedly
predicted that gravity isn't vertical higher up. My guess is that the
precession of the orbit of Mercury requires a more pronounced 'kick'
at greater distances from the Sun, and such fact was necessary in
order to write a "close" empirical formula—that became GR. The USA
spent nearly a billion dollars from the NSF putting up a satellite to
measure the direction of pull of gravity using a precise
interferometer. All they had to do was to ask ME, and I could have
saved the poor taxpayers a lot of money. The moral? Close down the
National Science Foundation. Such organization only perpetuates
STUPIDITY! — NoEinstein —
PD
> On Mar 5, 10:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Tell me, guy: How is "Oh dear" a
> discussion of science? Did you forget and leave the kettle boiling?
But NoEinstein, why would you be complaining about the absence of a
discussion of science? You've already said you don't like reading my
posts, regardless whether they're a discussion of science. You don't
seem to know what you want. You ask for something, and then when it's
given to you, you say you don't want it after all. That's a
personality disorder, right?
PD
So lightweight hair does not respond to aether more easily too? Why
not?
> Take a lead plumb bob and such will not hang
> vertically in a level-flight jetliner at a uniform cruising speed.
Are you sure about that? Have you done measurements? And while we're
on the subject, how do you know that the fuselage is completely
horizontal in level flight? How would you test that? Have you tried
taking a water glass and laying it in the aisle to see if it rolls
backwards to the rear of the plane?
> —
> NoEinstein —
PD
It's not a wild goose chase. If you had any competence with your
newsreader at all, you'd see them laying right at your feet. If you
claim you cannot find any stones and you're standing in a gravel pit,
do you consider a wild-goose chase when someone suggests you look
down?
> If you (or they) want to show competence on
> science, paraphrase your discussion points or give links to posts
> which you (or they) have authored. Otherwise, you'll be ignored.
In other words, spoon feed you in the only way you can see it, or
you'll ignore it. That's fine. You're a mule led to water. If you
don't drink and you die thirsty, you've got no complaint that no one
carried the water to your lips.
> —
> NE —
mpc755
> On Mar 2, 6:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear mpc755: Your "mather" is both a misspelling and a
> misunderstanding of matter. Tell me, guy: Why is it necessary for
> there to be THREE states of the Universe when only TWO are required?
AFAIK, there are only two states of mather, matter and aether.
> Ether doesn't FILL space; it flows through it like wind in weather
> systems on Earth. Ether is NOT a medium required for the propagation
> of light 'waves' (sic). I know that to be true because light quanta,
> or photons, can travel through the Swiss Cheese voids between
> galaxies. Additionally, there is no wavelike motion of the ether
> associated with 'gravity', either.
>
> Since ether is the energy building block of everything else, I
> realized that ether must be capable of TANGLING into energy densities
> much greater than in the ether at large. Because ether can flow,
> there must be a meniscus on the edge of the Universe, otherwise the
> ether would keep flowing outward until the density gets too low to
> form any matter. Having the Universe be "infinite" doesn't compute——
> never has and never will. That leaves open the possibility that there
> are other universes out there. The main 'creation' question that is
> unanswered is: How did the ether energy get there? Proposing that an
> omnipotent God put the energy there leaves this question: Who created
> God? Ultimately, the understanding of the Universe won't require
> faith. It's fun to know that there are still things to be learned!
> —— NoEinstein ——
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 5:06 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 26, 12:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:>
>
> > > Dear mpc755: When you touch an index finger to the back of the
> > > opposite hand, at atomic scales, the IOTAs (smallest energy units of
> > > the ether), which are polar, oppose the polar IOTAs of the opposite
> > > hand. Thought of that way, there is no "matter" in the Universe, only
> > > tangles of IOTAs and free-flowing ether in the spaces between. So, it
> > > would be more proper to say that "matter" (the energy tangles) is a
> > > state of the ether, not the other way around. — NoEinstein —
>
> > This is the opposite definition glird proposes. glird definition of
> > aether is "aether-is-the-
> > continuous-form-of-the-material-outside-of-and-surrounding-atomic-
> > nuclei IS matter-is-the-compressible-substance-that-fills-space".
>
> > This is why I am naming the material which both the aether and matter
> > consist of mather. This avoids redefining already existing and
> > conceptualized terms.
>
> > I think 'we' all have the same basic concept of what aether is. I
> > think 'we' all have the same basic concept of what matter is. Instead
> > of trying to modify the concept of aether to be a state of matter or
> > for matter to be a state of aether it is better if we define matter
> > and aether to both be states of mather.
>
> > We can then agree mather has mass. Meaning both matter and aether have
> > mass. Meaning the aether is displaced by matter. Meaning the aether
> > applies pressure towards the matter doing the displacing.
>
> > Meaning the pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive
> > objects is gravity.
>
>
mpc755
> On Mar 2, 6:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear mpc755: The 'push back'-in-your-seat while the plane is taking
> off and climbing to cruising altitude is due to the INERTIA of your
> body resisting being made to go faster. There is ether flow causing
> that 'push back'. The reason (observed) UFOs can change direction so
> quickly without having the 'g' forces kill the occupants is because
> UFOs control the ether envelope that must be there in order for there
> to be any 'g' forces at all.
>
> When airliners are in level flight, and traveling at cruising speed,
> you are still being pushed back in your seat, slightly, by the ether
> flowing through the plane. You will notice that you seem to be
> downhill going back to your seat. Clocks on the space shuttle slow
> down in proportion to the total length of the flight. If acceleration
> was the only cause of the slowing, space flights of any length would
> cause identical slowing of the clocks, since the acceleration phases
> of each would be identical. — NoEinstein —
>
The faster an object moves with constant momentum the greater the
aether pressure equally applied to each and every part of every nuclei
the object consists of.
Atomic clocks tick based upon the aether pressure in which they exist.
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 5:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 26, 8:31 pm, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 26, 12:15 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Matter has ether flowing within it. Ether is the mother
> > > > > of creation, not matter.
>
> > > > There is no ether other than matter itself. In harmony with my
> > > > belief that important words should be defiend the first time they are
> > > > used in written form, I defined ether as being the continuity aspect
> > > > of a material field, whether or not particles are part of it.
>
> > > > Because matter cannot be created or destroyed, it always existed and
> > > > so did the five other basic items of which everything in the universe
> > > > is composed. As to 'creation", I long ago realized that Evolution is
> > > > God's method of creating what now exists.
>
> > > > glird
>
> > > Dear glird: Every time you ride on a jet airliner you get pushed back
> > > in your seat by the ether that is flowing through the plane, front to
> > > back.
>
> > While accelerating. Not during constant momentum.
>
> > > That same flowing ether will slow down all mechanical, atomic,
> > > and biological processes. Instead of making up your own ideas about
> > > physics, realize that in nearly four years that I have been using
> > > sci.physics, not a SINGLE person has shown that my NEW science is in
> > > any way wrong. You've got a very long way to go before you can match
> > > what I have accomplished. — NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -
mpc755
> On Mar 3, 11:14 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear mpc755: The flowing ether applies pressure in direct proportion
> to the specific gravity and porosity of the matter——not equally. That
> is why 'gravity' (flowing ether) causes lead to weigh more than
> feathers. — NoEinstein —
>
>
The pressure associated with gravity is not equally applied to every
part of each and every nuclei the massive object consists of.
The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects
is gravity.
mpc755
> On Mar 3, 11:55 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear mpc755: You should make your own '+new post' if you wish to
> expound new notions about science. You are clearly off the subject.
> — NoEinstein —
>
This thread discusses gravity as being the 'push of flowing aether'.
A better description of gravity is the pressure associated with the
aether displaced by massive objects.
BURT
> On Mar 5, 5:07 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 2, 6:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear mpc755: Your "mather" is both a misspelling and a
> > misunderstanding of matter. Tell me, guy: Why is it necessary for
> > there to be THREE states of the Universe when only TWO are required?
>
> AFAIK, there are only two states of mather, matter and aether.
>
>
The immaterial aether flow is for energy. It sets up its time. Proper
time is the truth of the sameness of timerates to itself.
Mitch Raemsch
spudnik
as I already stated, aircraft do not do "level" flight,
in order to minimize use of feul; it's a trajectory, but
it can't be symmetrical, due to drag & so forth.
> DearSpudnik: A jet in level flight around the globe is traveling a
> circular course. But for any given altitude of flight the ether
> interferometer. All they had to do was to ask ME, and I could have
thus:
I haven't seen this study, but
are you avoiding the issue,
that M&M et al did not get null results,
as proclaimed by non-et al, and Al?
now, perhaps this study refutes them, or
perhaps it does not -- silly & stupid,
for a guy who does actual experiments.
> A 2007 study sensitive to 10^(-16) relative employed two simultaneous
> interferometers over a year's observation: Optical in Berlin, Germany
> at 52°31'N 13°20'E and microwave in Perth, Australia at 31°53'S
> 115°53E. An aether background could never be at rest relative to both
> of them.
>
> http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/sample.html
--Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman and the ICC's 3rd British invasion of
Sudan!
http://laroucehpub.com
spudnik
to wave transversally?... there is no absolute vacuum, and
their are no rocks o'light!
> Spudnik: The speed of light outside of Earth's atmosphere is
> unaffected by the varying density of the ether, because the tangential
> velocity of the polar IOTAs (smallest energy units of the ether) is
> 'c'. The IOTAs NURTURE the light on its way, not slowing light down.
thus:
you refer to the great-circle path on the God-am map!...
as I already stated, aircraft do not do "level" flight,
in order to minimize use of feul; it's a trajectory, but
it can't be symmetrical, due to drag & so forth.
> interferometer. All they had to do was to ask ME, and I could have
thus:
I haven't seen this study, but
are you avoiding the issue,
that M&M et al did not get null results,
as proclaimed by non-et al, and Al?
now, perhaps this study refutes them, or
perhaps it does not -- silly & stupid,
for a guy who does actual experiments.
> http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Once again, you make a reply containing
not a word about science. You only purport to be qualified to tell
the world what the correct processes are. Unless and until you can
make a thoughtful statement about science, without implying your non-
existent (un plagiarized) posts, then, you continue to be just a
perennial DRAG on progress in science. — NE —
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Wind resistance is proportional to the
frontal area of the hair. Ether flow is independent of the frontal
area and is in proportion to the average density of the hair. The
ventilation system inside planes causes more hair motion than the
flowing ether. Budding scientists who read this should perform a
hanging plumb bob test with the plane, in level flight, and at a
steady cruising speed. There will be a leaning of the plumb bob
toward the back of the plane. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
paraphrase your discussion points or give links to posts which you (or
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear mpc755: You are... hopeless. Make a '+new post' promoting your
notions. My post is not the place! — NE —
NoEinstein
more BS... — NE —
NoEinstein
You are a FOOL, mpc755! Masses do NOT displace ether, they thrive in
ether! — NE —
NoEinstein
Dear Burt: Has anyone other than me ever told you that you are a
loony? — NE —
NoEinstein
> you are referring to teh great-circle path on the God-am map;
> as I already stated, aircraft do not do "level" flight,
> in order to minimize use of feul; it's a trajectory, but
> it can't be symmetrical, due to drag & so forth.
>
> > DearSpudnik: A jet in level flight around the globe is traveling a
> > circular course. But for any given altitude of flight the ether
> > interferometer. All they had to do was to ask ME, and I could have
>
> thus:
> I haven't seen this study, but
> are you avoiding the issue,
> that M&M et al did not get null results,
> as proclaimed by non-et al, and Al?
>
> now, perhaps this study refutes them, or
> perhaps it does not -- silly & stupid,
> for a guy who does actual experiments.
>
> > A 2007 study sensitive to 10^(-16) relative employed two simultaneous
> > interferometers over a year's observation: Optical in Berlin, Germany
> > at 52°31'N 13°20'E and microwave in Perth, Australia at 31°53'S
> > 115°53E. An aether background could never be at rest relative to both
> > of them.
>
> >http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
>
>
> --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/sample.html
GET lost! — NE —
mpc755
Your post is responding to my post. If you don't want me to respond to
your posts then don't respond to mine.
The title of this thread is stating gravity is "the PUSH of flowing
aether".
A better description of gravity is the pressure associated with the
aether displaced by massive objects.
mpc755
Does the aether vanish when the matter which is Jupiter occupies the
space previously occupied by the aether? Of course not. The aether
does not vanish. The aether does not disappear. The aether which
existed in the three dimensional space prior to the matter which is
Jupiter occupying this same space is displaced. The aether is
displaced by the matter which is Jupiter. The aether is not at rest
when displaced. The aether applies a pressure towards the matter doing
the displacing. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by
massive objects is gravity.
NoEinstein
Correction: Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Wind resistance is
proportional to the frontal area of the hair. *** Pressure from ***
ether flow is independent of the frontal area and is in proportion to
PD
> On Mar 8, 1:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Wind resistance is proportional to the
> frontal area of the hair. Ether flow is independent of the frontal
> area and is in proportion to the average density of the hair. The
> ventilation system inside planes causes more hair motion than the
> flowing ether.
Really? The plane is traveling at 550 mph through the aether, so your
hair is traveling at 550 mph relative to the aether. The ventilation
system pumps air at 2 mph relative to the aether. And the hair doesn't
move?
> Budding scientists who read this should perform a
> hanging plumb bob test with the plane, in level flight, and at a
> steady cruising speed. There will be a leaning of the plumb bob
> toward the back of the plane.
Are you sure? I think you'll be surprised if you actually do this.
PD
>
> > > Like I tell YOU all the time, PD: I don't go on any wild-goose
> > > searches for anyone.
>
> > It's not a wild goose chase. If you had any competence with your
> > newsreader at all, you'd see them laying right at your feet. If you
> > claim you cannot find any stones and you're standing in a gravel pit,
> > do you consider a wild-goose chase when someone suggests you look
> > down?
>
> > > If you (or they) want to show competence on
> > > science, paraphrase your discussion points or give links to posts
> > > which you (or they) have authored. Otherwise, you'll be ignored.
>
> > In other words, spoon feed you in the only way you can see it, or
> > you'll ignore it. That's fine. You're a mule led to water. If you
> > don't drink and you die thirsty, you've got no complaint that no one
> > carried the water to your lips.
>
> I repeat: "If you (or they) want to show competence on science,
> paraphrase your discussion points or give links to posts which you (or
> they) have authored. Otherwise, you'll be ignored."
Yes, I know. You're incompetent with a newsgroup reader, and so if
people don't carry water to your lips, you will ignore them.
PD
Irony meter just went into the red.
PD
But wind pressure is not. Then it's the same as aether pressure after
all.
> *** Pressure from ***
> ether flow is independent of the frontal area and is in proportion to
> the average density of the hair. The ventilation system inside planes
> causes more hair motion than the flowing ether. Budding scientists
> who read this should perform a hanging plumb bob test with the plane,
> in level flight, and at a steady cruising speed. There will be a
> leaning of the plumb bob toward the back of the plane. — NoEinstein
mpc755
'Frictionless supersolid a step closer'
http://www.physorg.com/news185201084.html
"Superfluidity and superconductivity cause particles to move without
friction. Koos Gubbels investigated under what conditions such
particles keep moving endlessly without losing energy, like a swimmer
who takes one mighty stroke and then keeps gliding forever along the
swimming pool."
The 'water' still applies pressure to the 'swimmer' even though the
swimmer glides forever (i.e. a void is not left in the swimmer's
wake).
'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum
medium and the inertial motion of particles'
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0701/0701155.pdf
"Abstract: The similarity between the energy spectra of relativistic
particles and that of quasi-particles in super-conductivity BCS theory
makes us conjecture that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as
the ground state of the background field is a super fluid medium, and
the rest mass of a relativistic particle is like the energy gap of a
quasi-particle. This conjecture is strongly supported by the results
of our following investigation: a particle moving through the vacuum
medium at a speed less than the speed of light in vacuum, though
interacting with the vacuum medium, never feels friction force and
thus undergoes a frictionless and inertial motion."
The aether applies pressure to the particle moving through the aether,
but the interaction of the particle and the aether is frictionless.
spudnik
the practice of commercial pilots?
> GET lost! — NE —-
thus:
science is about refining a hypothesis,
which doesn't have to be one's own. most of "global" warming is,
strictly, computerized simulacra & very selective reporting:
the "hole" in the ozone is really, "the sky is glowing!"
> Science is not about showing that somebody was wrong; it's about showing
> what is right. Do your own work, using your own data, and derive an
> analysis of your own. Then publish your result. THAT is science.
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/sample.html
--Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman, ICC's 3rd British invasion of Sudan!
http://laroucehpub.com