There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
NoEinstein
about the Moon. Time and again, the supposed technical experts who
were being interviewed referred to the ‘pull’ of gravity between the
Earth and the Moon. The effect of that… “pull” was discussed as
relates to such things as ocean tides, birthrates, and even crime
rates.
A joke from the Ed Sullivan Show era was by Black comedian, ‘Moms
Mabley’. She said, “Being married to my husband is like trying to
PUSH a Cadillac up a hill… with a ROPE!” Most incidences of ‘pulls’
in physics are actually pushes by the very same ether from which
everything in the Universe is made.
A moron named Albert Einstein spent at least a decade of his life
writing an empirical formula that would match the observed orbital
positions of the planet Mercury about the Sun. An astronomer friend
had observed that the moons of Jupiter were reappearing from behind
the back side of Jupiter sooner than their orbital periods predicted.
Einstein, or more likely, that same astronomer, supposed that some
anomaly beyond Newton’s Law of Universal (sic) Gravitation was
responsible for the bending of the light.
To his credit, Einstein had the work ethic to finally write an
empirical formula for the gravitational influences on the planet
Mercury. There’s a component force, from gravity—that’s greater than
Newton’s Law of Universal (sic) Gravitation predicts—which tends to
overly speed-up Mercury the nearer the planet comes to the Sun. It’s
that same varying force which causes a precession of the Mercury’s
elliptical orbit. Einstein called his new equation(s) his “General
Relativity Theory”, but conveniently neglected to explain how such had
been derived.
Because gravity effects for the moons of Jupiter were greater than for
the moons of the smaller planets, Einstein (or his astronomer friend)
could reason that gravity’s effect on light, when caused by the Sun,
would be mass proportional for the Sun compared to Jupiter. In
perhaps the greatest RUSE every perpetuated on science, Einstein was
able to… “predict” the angle of bending of the light of background
stars reappearing from the back side of the Sun during a total solar
eclipse. Since few even knew that there was a ‘gravity lens’ effect,
that moron, Albert Einstein, was shot to the very top of the supposed
intellectual elite. Yet, Einstein had absolutely no idea what the
mechanism of gravity might be. Since the orbital effects seemed to
be… similar to those of metal balls rolling near holes that had
increasing slopes nearer to the holes, Einstein simply proclaimed that
the mechanism of… “gravity” is WARPED space-time (sic).
From my college days I’ve observed the irrationality of much of
physics. The more absurd the formulas, the more those tend to be
considered works of genius. Most of the absurdities in physics
happened after the failed 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, and
resulted from Lorentz’s ridiculous ‘rubber ruler’ explanation for the
nil results of such. It only took me one hour of thoughtful analysis
to realize that the M-M experiment failed because it didn’t have a
CONTROL, or unchanging light course, to which the other ‘test’ light
course could be compared.
The Lorentz-FitzGerald ‘beta’ divisor in Einstein’s Special Relativity
equation, strangely, shows up in Einstein’s General Relativity theory,
too. Because I could so easily disprove SR—up, down, and sideways—I
knew I had also disproved that GR is caused by warped space-time. The
CORRECT mechanism of gravity is: *** Varying ether flow and
density.*** When both the ether flow rate and the density increase
according to the inverse square law, then the equations will be
similar to those of Einstein’s GR—but with the TRUE cause having
nothing whatsoever to do with varying space-time!!
The Earth and the Moon are being PUSHED together more greatly by the
downward flowing ether on their opposing sides, than on their facing
sides. That’s because the facing sides exchange massive amounts of
radiant energy in the form of photons (including infrared). With
every photon lost from a mass, there is a deficiency of internal ether
which must be made up. That ether comes from the background ether
which spirals, much like weather systems on Earth, near massive
objects. Since the facing sides of the Earth and moon don’t get as
deficient in internal ether as the back sides, the downward ether flow
(gravity) is greater on the opposing sides than on the facing sides.
This paragraph is my very own CORRECT description of the mechanism of
gravity!
Apparently, the Moon was once much closer to the Earth than today.
There were ‘tides’ in the molten moon caused by gravity. The amount
of radiant energy exchanged would have been many times greater than is
the case, today. Yet, the ether deficiency still had to be replaced
by the increased downward flow of ether on the back side of the moon.
That greater gravity was temperature dependent—an effect that Newton
never considered when he wrote his supposed Law of Universal (sic)
Gravitation.
As the Moon cooled, the downward force of gravity decreased, causing
the radius of its orbit to increase. A lady who was one of the
supposed experts on that “Moon” TV show said that the increasing
orbital distance was due to the influence of the spin of the Earth.
But she gave no hint that she knew what the mechanism of that
influence might be. In all probability, she had blindly accepted
Einstein’s warped space-time explanation for gravity. In actuality,
because the Moon is in a constant orbit of the Earth, there is no
“slingshot” effect from Earth’s spiraling ether. It is my hope that
thinking readers of this ‘new post’ will no longer accept the notions
of Albert Einstein, a moron, about anything that has to do with
science. — NoEinstein —
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
> A moron named Albert Einstein
[snip more crap]
> The Earth and the Moon are being PUSHED together more greatly by the
> downward flowing ether on their opposing sides, than on their facing
> sides.
[snip 95 lines of crap overall]
1) No aether
http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
<http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
2) No Lorentz violation
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>
Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
3) idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Sam Wormley
> From my college days I�ve observed the irrationality of much of
> physics.
In other words, you didn't do so well in physics!
alie...@gmail.com
> Yesterday, I happened to tune-in for the last half of a TV program
> about the Moon. Time and again, the supposed technical experts who
> were being interviewed referred to the ‘pull’ of gravity between the
> Earth and the Moon. The effect of that… “pull” was discussed as
> relates to such things as ocean tides
Please explain ocean tides with push gravity.
Mark L. Fergerson
BURT
The ocean is pushed toward the Moon..
Mitch Raemsch
john
First explain how every particle of the universe
can produce unlimited radiations which travel outward from
said particles while all the while providing inward impetus
to anything with which they interact.
Don't you think that's stretching it just a tad?
('Course since then there's DM, DE, so really,
suck gravity is hardly outrageous at all compared
to 'intellectuallizing' a whole new class of matter,
sight unseen )('Course, if it's invisible, well, it's
invisible- but we prove it's there by pointing to
the movements of stars that occasioned its creation
in the first place.So it's real yin/yangy, y'know.)
But the tide thing- really, everything at this scale-
works exactly the same for push as for pull.
Just at larger sizes, where planets
are able to completely shadow push from the other side,
surface gravity will tend towards a limit- therefore ruling out
the whole black hole paradox.
john
bert
NoEistein That name fits well. Push for gravity been around for 200
years.Reality is using it does not fit. It creates more questions
than answers. It takes you down a darl alley. Einstein gave space a
concave curve,and I added a convex curve. Thus my Concave& Convex
gravity theory TreBert
john
>
> - Show quoted text -
300 years.
Concave and convex sounds more like
a hall of mirrors.
Appropriate for today's science.
john
PD
> Yesterday, I happened to tune-in for the last half of a TV program
> about the Moon. Time and again, the supposed technical experts who
> were being interviewed referred to the ‘pull’ of gravity between the
> Earth and the Moon. The effect of that… “pull” was discussed as
> relates to such things as ocean tides, birthrates, and even crime
> rates.
>
> A joke from the Ed Sullivan Show era was by Black comedian, ‘Moms
> Mabley’. She said, “Being married to my husband is like trying to
> PUSH a Cadillac up a hill… with a ROPE!” Most incidences of ‘pulls’
> in physics are actually pushes by the very same ether from which
> everything in the Universe is made.
This is a theory that was proposed by Georges-Louis LeSage in 1748.
You are not the first to come up with this idea, nor the most talented
to look at it. You may also want to Google it to see how it was ruled
out as a viable explanation.
>
> A moron named Albert Einstein spent at least a decade of his life
> writing an empirical formula that would match the observed orbital
> positions of the planet Mercury about the Sun. An astronomer friend
> had observed that the moons of Jupiter were reappearing from behind
> the back side of Jupiter sooner than their orbital periods predicted.
> Einstein, or more likely, that same astronomer, supposed that some
> anomaly beyond Newton’s Law of Universal (sic) Gravitation was
> responsible for the bending of the light.
>
> To his credit, Einstein had the work ethic to finally write an
> empirical formula for the gravitational influences on the planet
> Mercury. There’s a component force, from gravity—that’s greater than
> Newton’s Law of Universal (sic) Gravitation predicts—which tends to
> overly speed-up Mercury the nearer the planet comes to the Sun. It’s
> that same varying force which causes a precession of the Mercury’s
> elliptical orbit. Einstein called his new equation(s) his “General
> Relativity Theory”, but conveniently neglected to explain how such had
> been derived.
Actually, he showed explicitly how they had been derived. However,
this was probably not captured in the Popular Science magazine you
read or the TV show you watched. Were you expecting it would be?
>
> Because gravity effects for the moons of Jupiter were greater than for
> the moons of the smaller planets, Einstein (or his astronomer friend)
> could reason that gravity’s effect on light, when caused by the Sun,
> would be mass proportional for the Sun compared to Jupiter. In
> perhaps the greatest RUSE every perpetuated on science, Einstein was
> able to… “predict” the angle of bending of the light of background
> stars reappearing from the back side of the Sun during a total solar
> eclipse. Since few even knew that there was a ‘gravity lens’ effect,
> that moron, Albert Einstein, was shot to the very top of the supposed
> intellectual elite. Yet, Einstein had absolutely no idea what the
> mechanism of gravity might be.
Actually, he did, and he explained it quite well. Did you miss that
part?
> Since the orbital effects seemed to
> be… similar to those of metal balls rolling near holes that had
> increasing slopes nearer to the holes, Einstein simply proclaimed that
> the mechanism of… “gravity” is WARPED space-time (sic).
>
> From my college days I’ve observed the irrationality of much of
> physics.
What do you find irrational, exactly? Other than the fact that you
think anything done at a college is irrational, I mean.
> The more absurd the formulas, the more those tend to be
> considered works of genius. Most of the absurdities in physics
What absurdities in physics?
> happened after the failed 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, and
> resulted from Lorentz’s ridiculous ‘rubber ruler’ explanation for the
> nil results of such. It only took me one hour of thoughtful analysis
> to realize that the M-M experiment failed because it didn’t have a
> CONTROL, or unchanging light course, to which the other ‘test’ light
> course could be compared.
Note that relativity was not based on the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Also note that had Michelson and Morley never been born, the
experiments that FOLLOWED theirs would still have been performed, and
would have shown that Einstein was right.
>
> The Lorentz-FitzGerald ‘beta’ divisor in Einstein’s Special Relativity
> equation, strangely, shows up in Einstein’s General Relativity theory,
> too. Because I could so easily disprove SR—up, down, and sideways—I
> knew I had also disproved that GR is caused by warped space-time. The
> CORRECT mechanism of gravity is: *** Varying ether flow and
> density.*** When both the ether flow rate and the density increase
> according to the inverse square law, then the equations will be
> similar to those of Einstein’s GR—but with the TRUE cause having
> nothing whatsoever to do with varying space-time!!
>
> The Earth and the Moon are being PUSHED together more greatly by the
> downward flowing ether on their opposing sides, than on their facing
> sides. That’s because the facing sides exchange massive amounts of
> radiant energy in the form of photons (including infrared). With
> every photon lost from a mass, there is a deficiency of internal ether
> which must be made up. That ether comes from the background ether
> which spirals, much like weather systems on Earth, near massive
> objects. Since the facing sides of the Earth and moon don’t get as
> deficient in internal ether as the back sides, the downward ether flow
> (gravity) is greater on the opposing sides than on the facing sides.
> This paragraph is my very own CORRECT description of the mechanism of
> gravity!
And is not original. See LeSage. Also see why LeSage's theory doesn't
work.
Igor
Fudd's first law of opposition: If you PUSH something hard enough, it
will fall over! Maybe you could take a hint from that as to what is
wrong with your hypothesis.
alie...@gmail.com
> On Feb 10, 7:13 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 10, 3:59 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > Yesterday, I happened to tune-in for the last half of a TV program
> > > about the Moon. Time and again, the supposed technical experts who
> > > were being interviewed referred to the ‘pull’ of gravity between the
> > > Earth and the Moon. The effect of that… “pull” was discussed as
> > > relates to such things as ocean tides
>
> > Please explain ocean tides with push gravity
(snip whining)
> really, everything at this scale-
> works exactly the same for push as for pull.
Nonsense. Push gravity claims the moon shadows the gravitation from
the rest of the universe on the surface of the Earth directly under
the moon, which raises the tides on the ocean under the moon.
What about the equally raised tide on the side of the Earth exactly
opposite the Moon?
Mark L. Fergerson
NoEinstein
>
Dear Uncle Al: Copying links to the words of others has no
credibility with me. I don't go on any of those wild-goose-chases.
If you disagree with a thing that I've said, please paraphrase—in your
own words—what your counter-argument(s) is. And while you're at it,
why not give a list of your '+new posts'. My guess is you don't have
a list, and thus don't have much credability. Right? — NoEinstein —
>
> NoEinstein wrote:
>
> [snip crap]
>
> > A moron named Albert Einstein
>
> [snip more crap]
>
> > The Earth and the Moon are being PUSHED together more greatly by the
> > downward flowing ether on their opposing sides, than on their facing
> > sides.
>
> [snip 95 lines of crap overall]
>
> 1) No aether
>
> http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
> <http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
>
> 2) No Lorentz violation
>
> <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>
>
> 3) idiot
>
> --
> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
NoEinstein
>
Dear Sam: It was probably unintended, but you have just explained WHY
physics is so screwed up, today! It's because "doing well" in physics
demands that students BLINDLY accept all of the crap thrown at them.
And the professors got their PhDs because they, too, blindly accepted
the crap being thrown at them. When SR violates the Law of the
Conservation of Energy, and no one before yours truly has pointed that
out, then physics is a near hopeless cause in academia. Since you...
'taught' physics (repeated crap), then you are part of the problem.
Parents: "DON"T let your kids grow up to be physicists!" — NoEinstein
—
>
> On 2/10/10 5:59 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
NoEinstein
>
Dear Mark: Most of the 'bulge' of tides is due to the rotation of the
Earth relative to the plane of the Moon's orbit. When that plane
aligns with the equator, the bulge gets higher. I don't have data on
the relative resistance of water vs. land to ether flow. But it's
probably mass proportional—meaning that ether passes through the
oceans with little effect on the level of the water. The total ether
flow due to the radiation between the Earth and the Moon doesn't have
to occur uniformly across the opposing side of the Earth. Since 75%
of Earth's land mass is in the Northern Hemisphere, it's likely that
ether losses due to radiation won't be replenished through the oceans
(as much) because the oceans act like insulators. The above are some
of the principles affecting the tides. Thanks for asking! —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear John: Particles DON'T produce unlimited radiation unless the
lost ether gets replenished! Gamma rays, which have mass, must emit
photons. But the number of photons is quite small, since the mass is
quite small. Gamma rays replenish their lost photons by banging into
the ether as they travel. Since the tangential velocity of the IOTAs
(smallest energy units of the ether) is 'c', then the gamma rays can
keep right on traveling at velocity 'c' for a very long time. —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Bert: The PUSH of the ether explains gravity and why Black Holes
have ZERO gravity. Nothing OUT (light) means nothing IN (downward
flowing ether that is gravity)! The star distribution data for
Andromeda indicates a narrow space without any stars near the center.
That's where the near-in stars flew out on their tangents when the
central gravity shut off. Stephen Hawking take note! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear John: True; so true! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Paraphrase your disagreements in a 'top
post' of a paragraph or so. I don't have time to read your mixed-in
comments to my well-thought-out science. — NoEinstein —
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
>
Dear Igor: Please give a list of LINKS to your '+new posts'. Readers
will then know that YOU are the one who's easy to push over! Ha, ha,
HA! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Mark: My original post wasn't intended to be 'just' about
tides. For years I heard about there being a supposed particle of
exchange called a... GRAVITRON. When I realized that gravity is
downward flowing ether, it wasn't hard to reason that the downward
flow of anything can't long continue without having the ether be
replinished. Photons go upward from massive objects like machine gun
bullets through falling snow. The only difference between the snow
and the bullets is the velocity. Photon are like a conveyor belt to
carry ether away from the mass—where such becomes available to flow
downward, again. — NoEinstein —
PD
> On Feb 11, 1:24 am, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
> Dear John: Particles DON'T produce unlimited radiation unless the
> lost ether gets replenished!
Something must be producing all this aether to push with, no?
> Gamma rays, which have mass, must emit
> photons.
Oh, John, John, John. Gamma rays ARE photons.
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/gamma.html
PD
> On Feb 11, 1:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Paraphrase your disagreements in a 'top
> post' of a paragraph or so. I don't have time to read your mixed-in
> comments to my well-thought-out science. — NoEinstein —
Top-posting is poor net etiquette, John, you should know that. I don't
care if you have trouble reading unless it's all in short words and
short sentences in one place. I don't make allowances for reading
disabilities.
Sam Wormley
> Dear Sam: It was probably unintended, but you have just explained WHY
> physics is so screwed up, today! It's because "doing well" in physics
> demands that students BLINDLY accept all of the crap thrown at them.
> And the professors got their PhDs because they, too, blindly accepted
> the crap being thrown at them. When SR violates the Law of the
> Conservation of Energy, and no one before yours truly has pointed that
> out, then physics is a near hopeless cause in academia. Since you...
> 'taught' physics (repeated crap), then you are part of the problem.
May I see your proof that SR violates the Conservation of Energy?
BURT
> On 2/12/10 2:30 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > Dear Sam: It was probably unintended, but you have just explained WHY
> > physics is so screwed up, today! It's because "doing well" in physics
> > demands that students BLINDLY accept all of the crap thrown at them.
> > And the professors got their PhDs because they, too, blindly accepted
> > the crap being thrown at them. When SR violates the Law of the
> > Conservation of Energy, and no one before yours truly has pointed that
> > out, then physics is a near hopeless cause in academia. Since you...
> > 'taught' physics (repeated crap), then you are part of the problem.
>
> May I see your proof that SR violates the Conservation of Energy?
Aether only pushes light and is not gravity strength for matter itself
but the slowdown of timerate..
MItch Raemsch
alie...@gmail.com
> On Feb 11, 11:24 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Mark: My original post wasn't intended to be 'just' about
> tides.
It's obvious that push gravity can explain the immediate sublunar
tide easily; the ocean shadowed by the moon from the incoming aether
is free to expand under the lateral pressure of the rest of the ocean
which *is* subject to the pressure of the incoming aether.
But the tide has *two* lobes; one directly under the moon and one at
the antipodal point.
Please explain these diagrams using push gravity:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/images/tides.jpg
Specifically, please explain the rising water on the side of the
planet *away from* the Sun and Moon. Note the height of the rise on
both sides of the planet is about equal. Ordinary "pull" gravity
explains this effect nicely along with many other observed effects.
After you've done this we can discuss orbits.
Mark L. Fergerson
Igor
> On Feb 11, 2:57 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Igor: Please give a list of LINKS to your '+new posts'. Readers
> will then know that YOU are the one who's easy to push over! Ha, ha,
> HA! — NoEinstein —
>
You still don't get it. Maybe you need to go back and read my post
again. Ever heard of torque? And maybe you need to stop top posting
so posterity can understand just who is responding to whom.
Igor
>
> Dear Igor: Please give a list of LINKS to your '+new posts'. Readers
> will then know that YOU are the one who's easy to push over! Ha, ha,
> HA! — NoEinstein —
>
You won't find any of my new ideas posted on usenet. This medium has,
unfortunately, become the home of purveyors of psycho-ceramics, much
like yourself. If you had any sense at all, you'd stop posting your
ignorant nonsense and pick up a real physics textbook.
Androcles
"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:28540a83-1515-4d0b...@c28g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
===========================================
Textbook!
Bwhahahahaha!
NoEinstein
>
No, PD! Gamma rays are PROTONS. Those are much denser 'tangles' of
IOTAs which is the same... 'stuff' that photons (and everything else
in the Universe) is made of. — NoEinstein —
>
> On Feb 12, 2:54 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 11, 1:24 am, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
> > Dear John: Particles DON'T produce unlimited radiation unless the
> > lost ether gets replenished!
>
> Something must be producing all this aether to push with, no?
>
> > Gamma rays, which have mass, must emit
> > photons.
>
NoEinstein
... Then, what you write (long and inserted into the replies of
others) will largely go unread. My reading and writing abilities are
in the top fraction of a percentile, PD. But my time for reading your
dribble is limited. — NE —
NoEinstein
> On 2/12/10 2:30 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > Dear Sam: It was probably unintended, but you have just explained WHY
> > physics is so screwed up, today! It's because "doing well" in physics
> > demands that students BLINDLY accept all of the crap thrown at them.
> > And the professors got their PhDs because they, too, blindly accepted
> > the crap being thrown at them. When SR violates the Law of the
> > Conservation of Energy, and no one before yours truly has pointed that
> > out, then physics is a near hopeless cause in academia. Since you...
> > 'taught' physics (repeated crap), then you are part of the problem.
>
> May I see your proof that SR violates the Conservation of Energy?
OK, Sam. Einstein's complete SR equation is: E = mc^2 / [1-v^2/
c^2]^1/2. Agreed? For any unit mass (like most science is based
upon), the only variables in the SR equation are v and E. To OBEY the
Law of the Conservation of Energy, the energy being input into a
system must equal the energy OUT of the system. But if you input
velocity at a UNIFORM rate, as for all accelerating objects, the SR
equation has the energy OUT increasing to infinity at the FINITE
velocity of 'c'. NO equation nor law of physics relating to ENERGY
can get out more energy than is put IN!
A spaceship accelerating at velocity 'g' will reach and PASS velocity
'c' in about one year. The only thing in the way is the ether drag.
But because the IOTAs are polar, the ether can be magnetized and
caused to flow around the spaceship so as not to restrict the maximum
velocity. I know how to do this, but I'm not letting-the-cat-out-of-
the-bag. I've already "given away" more science than ten men can
figure out, alone! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Hey, Burt! You can forget about space-time or... "Einstein" being
part of any correct explanation of science. The M-M experiment didn't
have the require CONTROL light course. So, there was never any need
to blindly accept Lorentz's rubber rulers. Because Lorentz was
Einstein's mentor, Einstein blindly accepted that lengths were varying
with velocity. Since velocity is distance over time, Einstein figured
(HA!) that if all distances (lengths) were shortening with increased
velocity that time must be shortening, too. His space-time nonsense
is the ultimate smoke and mirrors trick. Length NEVER changes due to
uniform velocity, nor does time vary! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Mark: You are among the smarter people visiting sci.physics.
The 'tidal issue' of there being high tides on opposite sides of the
Earth must surely be caused by the east to west blockage of tidal flow
due to the mainly north to south placement of the continents. In
other words, the tides are restricted from flowing uniformly around
the globe, east to west.
The errant notion that the gravity of the moon PULLS the tides doesn't
explain the observed opposing tides, either. My new science is like
clearing a path through a dense wilderness. Tidal particulars are
like picking up the branches littering the way. I'll leave the latter
to the oceanographers. — NoEinstein —
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
> The errant notion that the gravity of the moon PULLS the tides doesn't
> explain the observed opposing tides, either.
Quadrupole excitation SOP. Earth's spin leading the moon's orbit
phase-shifts the maximum. Try reading.
> My new science is like
> clearing a path through a dense wilderness.
It's like wiping your ass with lace.
--
Uncle Al
NoEinstein
Dear IGOR: Reading a textbook is like admitting that the reader
doesn't know. When the explanations being given in physics started
defying logic and reason, I stopped reading and started thinking for
myself. If this forum isn't good enough for you, why do you keep
showing up? Can't you find enough people to disparage on those other
sites? — NoEinstein —
PD
> On Feb 12, 4:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No, PD! Gamma rays are PROTONS.
No, they're not, John. They're photons. All you had to do is click on
the link that I provided and read two or three lines.
Here it is again, John. Surely this is not too complicated.
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/gamma.html
PD
That's fine, John. You aren't really interested in conversation
anyway. You're just here to listen to yourself talk.
PD
> On Feb 12, 9:30 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 12, 4:08 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 11, 2:57 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dear Igor: Please give a list of LINKS to your '+new posts'. Readers
> > > will then know that YOU are the one who's easy to push over! Ha, ha,
> > > HA! — NoEinstein —
>
> > You won't find any of my new ideas posted on usenet. This medium has,
> > unfortunately, become the home of purveyors of psycho-ceramics, much
> > like yourself. If you had any sense at all, you'd stop posting your
> > ignorant nonsense and pick up a real physics textbook.
>
> Dear IGOR: Reading a textbook is like admitting that the reader
> doesn't know.
I don't know why I *love* this so much.
NoEinstein's rationale for not reading books is that if you have to
read something, this is an admission that you didn't know it already.
Thus, there is no reason to read a book, as long as you can assert
that you already know everything.
Better to not read anything, and just Think Things Through For
Yourself.
alie...@gmail.com
> On Feb 12, 9:30 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 12, 4:08 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 11, 2:57 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dear Igor: Please give a list of LINKS to your '+new posts'. Readers
> > > will then know that YOU are the one who's easy to push over! Ha, ha,
> > > HA! — NoEinstein —
>
> > You won't find any of my new ideas posted on usenet. This medium has,
> > unfortunately, become the home of purveyors of psycho-ceramics, much
> > like yourself. If you had any sense at all, you'd stop posting your
> > ignorant nonsense and pick up a real physics textbook.
>
> Dear IGOR: Reading a textbook is like admitting that the reader
> doesn't know.
Your arrogance keeps you from admitting that you need to crack and
read a few.
Congratulations; enjoy your delusions.
PLONK!
Mark L. Fergerson
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Somehow, you manage to write more
dribble on these groups than probably anyone. Does Google give you
extra time? But in spite of all of your writing, you never PARAPHRASE
what you think, or what others say whom you agree with. I will NOT...
I repeat: I will NOT go on any wild-goose-chases from you to the words
of others. I summarize my New Science almost every day. But your
only ‘defense’ is to claim that I'm lazy. I use time management.
A joke comes to mind: Neighbors observed that a farmer was carrying a
pig in his arms and letting the pig eat apples from the orchard.
Finally, one neighbor got brave enough to ask the farmer: "Isn't what
you're doing a terrible waste of time?" To which the farmer replied:
"What's TIME to a PIG?" PD is like that farmer, not knowing how much
of his own time he is wasting. — NoEinstein —
>
> On Feb 15, 6:13 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 12, 4:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No, PD! Gamma rays are PROTONS.
>
> No, they're not, John. They're photons. All you had to do is click on
> the link that I provided and read two or three lines.
> Here it is again, John. Surely this is not too complicated.http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/gamma.html
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear PD: If that's so, then why do YOU keep reading what I say? — NE
—
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
He who blindly accepts the words of others is a FOOL. You should
realize that fact, Mark. — NE —
PD
> On Feb 15, 8:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Somehow, you manage to write more
> dribble on these groups than probably anyone. Does Google give you
> extra time? But in spite of all of your writing, you never PARAPHRASE
> what you think, or what others say whom you agree with.
I did. I told you that gamma rays are photons. Lots of people agree
with me.
You erroneously stated that they are protons. This is a simple error
of fact.
When there is a dispute over facts, then the best thing to do is to go
to an external source to find the answer.
If you insist on saying that a cow is a reptile, then I certainly
don't owe you a paraphrased argument to correct that error of fact.
I'd tell you to go look up that a cow is a mammal, not a reptile. And
if I'm generous, I'd give you a link to something you can read that
tells you that a cow is a mammal, not a reptile.
If you want to continue just making stuff up, like gamma rays being
protons and cows being reptiles, you go right ahead.
> I will NOT...
> I repeat: I will NOT go on any wild-goose-chases from you to the words
> of others. I summarize my New Science almost every day. But your
> only ‘defense’ is to claim that I'm lazy. I use time management.
>
> A joke comes to mind: Neighbors observed that a farmer was carrying a
> pig in his arms and letting the pig eat apples from the orchard.
> Finally, one neighbor got brave enough to ask the farmer: "Isn't what
> you're doing a terrible waste of time?" To which the farmer replied:
> "What's TIME to a PIG?" PD is like that farmer, not knowing how much
> of his own time he is wasting. — NoEinstein —
That would make you the pig, right?
So you want to be left alone?
Why not write a blog, where you can write whatever you want and you'll
be left alone.
PD
Because I enjoy comedy, John, and you're a clown, whether you intend
to be or not.
I really don't care if you don't want people laughing at you, John. If
you want people to stop laughing, then you'll stop doing whatever it
is you're doing that makes people laugh. If you don't want to stop,
people will continue to laugh.
PD
Sam Wormley
> OK, Sam. Einstein's complete SR equation is: E = mc^2 / [1-v^2/
> c^2]^1/2. Agreed? For any unit mass (like most science is based
> upon), the only variables in the SR equation are v and E. To OBEY the
> Law of the Conservation of Energy, the energy being input into a
> system must equal the energy OUT of the system. But if you input
> velocity at a UNIFORM rate, as for all accelerating objects, the SR
> equation has the energy OUT increasing to infinity at the FINITE
> velocity of 'c'. NO equation nor law of physics relating to ENERGY
> can get out more energy than is put IN!
ILLUCID
Equations of special relativity include:
o Lorentz Transformations
o additions of velocities
o Length contraction
o Time dilation
o Relativistic mass increase
o Relativistic kinetic energy
o Relativistic Doppler
o etc.
No mass can be accelerated to have the velocity c. Whatever gave
you that idea? in a closed system (including relativistic closed
systems) Energy is conserved.
A more appropriate equation is the energy-momentum relation
E^2/c^2 = p^2 + m_o^2 c^2
E^2 = P^2 c^2 + m_o^2 c^4
Methinks you do not have a clear understanding of mass, velocity,
momentum, acceleration and energy.
Benj
> On 2/10/10 5:59 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > From my college days I’ve observed the irrationality of much of
> > physics.
>
In other words Worm must be an "education major" who never studied
real physics, only "physics appreciation" where no math was ever
needed.
On the other hand as much as I hate to defend "noeinstein" and "Mitch
Raemsch" and the rest of the clowns here, allow me to point out that
the "push" theory of gravitation is an OLD theory well reviewed by
Wheeler and Feynman in the past and THEY noted that long before they
reviewed it, it was already an OLD idea! Of course just being an old
idea doesn't make it wrong. The basic idea is that if one assumes the
universe filled with some kind of (unspecified) radiation or waves
capable of creating radiation pressure, the shadows of celestial orbs
upon each other is what creates the "PUSH" that forces them toward
each other. The advantage of this theory is that no "ropes" are needed
to explain the mechanism of gravity in physical terms. Ordinary
physical phenomena we are all familiar with (radiation, shadows,
radiation pressure etc.) create a model that doesn't require bogus
action at a distance, "gravitons" or other things we've never seen
before.
PD
> On Feb 10, 7:43 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2/10/10 5:59 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > From my college days I’ve observed the irrationality of much of
> > > physics.
>
> > In other words, you didn't do so well in physics!
>
> In other words Worm must be an "education major" who never studied
> real physics, only "physics appreciation" where no math was ever
> needed.
>
> On the other hand as much as I hate to defend "noeinstein" and "Mitch
> Raemsch" and the rest of the clowns here, allow me to point out that
> the "push" theory of gravitation is an OLD theory well reviewed by
> Wheeler and Feynman in the past and THEY noted that long before they
> reviewed it, it was already an OLD idea! Of course just being an old
> idea doesn't make it wrong.
No, but the experimental data that were in conflict with the
predictions of the model do make it wrong.
john
> On Feb 16, 11:59 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 7:43 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 2/10/10 5:59 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > From my college days I’ve observed the irrationality of much of
> > > > physics.
>
> > > In other words, you didn't do so well in physics!
>
> > In other words Worm must be an "education major" who never studied
> > real physics, only "physics appreciation" where no math was ever
> > needed.
>
> > On the other hand as much as I hate to defend "noeinstein" and "Mitch
> > Raemsch" and the rest of the clowns here, allow me to point out that
> > the "push" theory of gravitation is an OLD theory well reviewed by
> > Wheeler and Feynman in the past and THEY noted that long before they
> > reviewed it, it was already an OLD idea! Of course just being an old
> > idea doesn't make it wrong.
>
> No, but the experimental data that were in conflict with the
> predictions of the model do make it wrong.
Experimental data like where the outer
stars of galaxies go around way too fast?
Doesn't that make the present theory wrong?
If your numbers indicate you're wrong, simply invoke
a whole new class of matter!! Simple.
Our theory of gravitation is being propped up
by a totally new and unseen (because it's invisible
*by definition*) class of matter- Dark Matter.
So why couldn't there be something like
Dark Aether? Or fairies? Or Zeus, or Thor, or
King Tut?
I mean, really, if you're going
to introduce fantastical stuff like
Dark Matter and Dark Energy into your
science, you're not doing science anymore.
You're doing AGW.
john
PD
> On Feb 17, 8:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 11:59 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 10, 7:43 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 2/10/10 5:59 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > > From my college days I’ve observed the irrationality of much of
> > > > > physics.
>
> > > > In other words, you didn't do so well in physics!
>
> > > In other words Worm must be an "education major" who never studied
> > > real physics, only "physics appreciation" where no math was ever
> > > needed.
>
> > > On the other hand as much as I hate to defend "noeinstein" and "Mitch
> > > Raemsch" and the rest of the clowns here, allow me to point out that
> > > the "push" theory of gravitation is an OLD theory well reviewed by
> > > Wheeler and Feynman in the past and THEY noted that long before they
> > > reviewed it, it was already an OLD idea! Of course just being an old
> > > idea doesn't make it wrong.
>
> > No, but the experimental data that were in conflict with the
> > predictions of the model do make it wrong.
>
> Experimental data like where the outer
> stars of galaxies go around way too fast?
> Doesn't that make the present theory wrong?
No. Some theories make statements about the *relationships* between
numbers. That is, if you know the input really well, then the theory
makes a firm prediction of the output, which can be therefore checked.
But in some cases, if the predicted output doesn't match measurement,
this can mean EITHER:
a) the relationship proposed by the theory is wrong
b) you don't know the input as well as you think
I'll give you an example. You can use Newton's 2nd law (F=ma) to
predict the parabolic trajectory of a golf-ball that is launched at a
particular speed and angle, using gravity as the force that causes the
acceleration back to earth. You can then predict where the ball will
land. You will get the wrong answer. Now, should you conclude that
F=ma is wrong? Not necessarily. In fact, you quickly discover that
you've left out a few key contributors to F: drag from air friction,
lift from air flow, *variations* in gravity, etc. When you include all
the right inputs to F, you find that the outputs work much better, and
that there is nothing wrong with F=ma at all.
>
> If your numbers indicate you're wrong, simply invoke
> a whole new class of matter!! Simple.
Indeed. Sometimes you learn some things from that. See the golf-ball
example above, where we *learned* about the Magnus effect without
chucking Newton's 2nd law. Of course, it's important to not just leave
it as a fudge. One has to have independent verification of this new
class of matter, other than just "finding" it as the missing part of
the input. And that's precisely what experiments like CDMS are doing,
looking for *independent* verification of dark matter other than its
gravitational effect.
>
> Our theory of gravitation is being propped up
> by a totally new and unseen (because it's invisible
> *by definition*) class of matter- Dark Matter.
>
> So why couldn't there be something like
> Dark Aether? Or fairies? Or Zeus, or Thor, or
> King Tut?
It could. But then you'd have to find a way to independently test for
Thor or King Tut. That's what's being done.
>
> I mean, really, if you're going
> to introduce fantastical stuff like
> Dark Matter and Dark Energy into your
> science, you're not doing science anymore.
Sure you are. You're opening up the possibility of discovering things
that are new and unlike anything seen before. But again, you have to
independently check it.
Timo Nieminen
> On the other hand as much as I hate to defend "noeinstein" and "Mitch
> Raemsch" and the rest of the clowns here, allow me to point out that
> the "push" theory of gravitation is an OLD theory well reviewed by
> Wheeler and Feynman in the past
Reference please, for this supposed review.
--
Timo
john
You don't seem to twig to the scale of this.
We are trying to figure out how the
matter we know about gravitates.
We are trying to pin down our own matter.
By invoking a whole new class of matter,
we are not only going back to square
one, we are going back before that; at least
with our own matter, we can see it. We can watch the apple
fall- we can actually *let* it fall however and whenever we want.
By invoking a whole new class of matter, we are
wandering off into unknown territory, shooting in the dark,
entering random figures into the password slot,
trying random numbers for the combination.
This is not a "tweak". The outer stars in galaxies
go WAY faster than they should. Arms of galaxies
rotate all of a piece from fairly close to their
centers to right out to their edges. This is
CONTRARY to what we expect.
Our theory of gravity is WRONG. Which is not
surprising, since it is inconceivable
for radiation travelling one direction at huge speeds
to act in exactly the opposite
direction. Push gravity makes way more sense
than DM, DE, etc etc etc.
john
PD
Not so. It doesn't chuck us into the unknown without hope. It just
means that we have to work to identify independently what this new
kind of matter is. We already have a number of good ideas how to do
that. Then once the new kind of matter is identified, we can catalog
it. THEN we can see if including this catalog with the other matter,
the theory of gravity holds together.
Don't be in such a hurry, John. No need for rash conclusions.
john
Exactly.
Back to before square one.
But at least when we were at square one,
we knew there *was* matter.
DM is CONJECTURE.
Maybe it's purple invisible elephants.
Maybe it's ANYTHING.
Scientists are using taxpayers' money to
chase a chimera.
DM, DE,.......AGW.......B. f**ckin S. !!!
The observations already say that
our present theory of
gravity *doesn't* hold together.
Deal with it.
PD
Oh dear, John. It seems you're more comfortable with things you know
and understand and hate the idea of new things being entertained.
> DM is CONJECTURE.
Yes. A testable one.
> Maybe it's purple invisible elephants.
If you can make a prediction about independent confirmation with
purple invisible elephants, then by all means chuck it out there.
There's a bunch of testable predictions about independent confirmation
of dark matter, John, and there are a number of experiments underway
to test those predictions.
Or are you of the position that we shouldn't test anything new,
because old is more comfortable? Or are you of the position that we
shouldn't test anything unless it's dead certain first? (And if so,
then what's the purpose of the test?)
> Maybe it's ANYTHING.
> Scientists are using taxpayers' money to
> chase a chimera.
Well, they're certainly using taxpayers' money to test things for
which we don't have certain answers, yes. And your appointed custodian
of taxpayers' money thinks this is a worthwhile venture. Perhaps you
should explain to your appointed custodian that you don't want
anything tested unless it's dead certain first.
>
> DM, DE,.......AGW.......B. f**ckin S. !!!
>
> The observations already say that
> our present theory of
> gravity *doesn't* hold together.
No, it doesn't, as I just explained.
alie...@gmail.com
(stupid top, middle, and bottom posting mixture snipped)
> But at least when we were at square one,
> we knew there *was* matter.
We were wrong. Matter diffracts like waves. Get over it.
Mark L. Fergerson
john
We are continuing to investigate
matter. Matter waves indicate that there
is no such thing as 'particles'.
One of the things matter does is 'gravitate'.
We are trying to explain
that as another property of matter.
Proposing a whole new matter as a way
of explaining 'this' matter is a case
of one step forward, ten steps back.
*That's* what is stupid.
If PD were so open-minded, he would
give more credence to push gravity, which has been
brought forward by more than one 'stupid person',
aka reknowned scientists of earlier centuries.
john
PD
> On Feb 18, 4:49 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 18, 11:32 am, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
> > (stupid top, middle, and bottom posting mixture snipped)
>
> > > But at least when we were at square one,
> > > we knew there *was* matter.
>
> > We were wrong. Matter diffracts like waves. Get over it.
>
> > Mark L. Fergerson
>
> We are continuing to investigate
> matter. Matter waves indicate that there
> is no such thing as 'particles'.
Actually, it does no such thing, as matter clearly indicates
properties of particles as well. It's only the foolish mind that says,
"Well, it's got to be one or the other, and so if it's waves, then it
can't be particles."
> One of the things matter does is 'gravitate'.
> We are trying to explain
> that as another property of matter.
>
> Proposing a whole new matter as a way
> of explaining 'this' matter is a case
> of one step forward, ten steps back.
I don't know why you think so. You've got this horrible anxiety about
"new stuff" throwing us all back into the dark ages. Are you SO
uncomfortable with new?
>
> *That's* what is stupid.
>
> If PD were so open-minded, he would
> give more credence to push gravity, which has been
> brought forward by more than one 'stupid person',
> aka reknowned scientists of earlier centuries.
Of course. Now, John, it would serve you well to ask the question what
ever happened to those theories, especially since they were put
forward by reputable scientists? In fact, it's worth asking why some
theories put forward by reputable scientists are ever put to rest? Is
there a good reason? And the answer to this is yes, of course there's
a good reason. Theories, no matter who proposes them, are put to
experimental tests, because they make certain predictions about what
will be observed under certain circumstances. Then if the predictions
turn out to be wrong, compared to measurement, this is how science
knows that a theory is no good, no matter how reputable the scientists
was that put it forward. Also notice that a theory can be completely
logically consistent and mistake-free, and still be wrong, in that it
just does not make the right predictions about what will be observed
in nature.
Once you have this little tidbit about the scientific method under
your belt, perhaps you could do a little Google searching to find out
what predictions "push gravity" theories made that turned out to be
*irretrievably* wrong. Please keep in mind what I told you earlier,
that the theory is still viable while you have some doubt about the
inputs, even if there is disagreement between the outputs and the
measurement. But once you've got the inputs locked down and the theory
STILL doesn't work, then the theory is no good. With this in mind, you
can look up the *considerable* work that was done to test "push
gravity" models.
PD
john
Time to do some more tests.
Invest the same money on this as is
invested on finding the 'God particle'-
the Higgs.
What is the shape of a quark?
Does it have a pointy end?
What is the shape of a Higgs?
Does *it* have a pointy end?
What 'material' are they made from?
What 'material' is a gluon made from?
Why do you give credence to these ideas?
Now that HEPs (hiugh energy particles)
travelling at near c
have been observed being spewed out the
jets of all black holes that have jets in
HUGE amounts, do you still think
Stephen Hawking's ideas are so smart?
As more and more observations refute our
ideas about black holes being caused by
suck gravity, why won't you realize how stupid
a theory is when it leads to so many
singularity/paradox/conundrum/impossibilities?
Suck gravity makes no sense, PD.
It leads to NONSENSE- which you are defending,
for some reason.
john
PD
Stupid in science is determined by whether it makes successful
predictions. Period.
You have some other metric for "stupid", such as perhaps "lacking
colors or shape," which is based on your presuppositions about what
kinds of properties are indispensable. But presuppositions have never
been a good measure for "stupid" in science.
You've asked questions, not presented a model with testable
predictions of *measurable* properties. When you have a model that
makes such predictions, and which is consistent with data we already
have, and which are distinct from the predictions made by the
prevailing theory, then your model would indeed be something to invest
experiments to test.
>
> Now that HEPs (hiugh energy particles)
> travelling at near c
> have been observed being spewed out the
> jets of all black holes that have jets in
> HUGE amounts, do you still think
> Stephen Hawking's ideas are so smart?
I wish that made grammatical sense. Could you please rephrase that
question?
>
> As more and more observations refute our
> ideas about black holes being caused by
> suck gravity, why won't you realize how stupid
> a theory is when it leads to so many
> singularity/paradox/conundrum/impossibilities?
What paradoxes? What impossibilities?
Nothing is impossible, by the way, until you prove that the places
where those are predicted to happen don't in fact happen. How would
you possibly decide what is possible and impossible before looking for
it?
>
> Suck gravity makes no sense, PD.
What do you mean, no sense? It's certainly not nonsensical or self-
contradictory. What problems or impossibilities?
john
travelling at near c
have been observed being spewed out the
HUGE amounts, do you still think
Stephen Hawking's ideas are so smart?
>
have good grammar? It's pretty clear, PD- jets, matter coming out,
Hawking said only x-rays could come out- come on, where
do you stand?
>
> > As more and more observations refute our
> > ideas about black holes being caused by
> > suck gravity, why won't you realize how stupid
> > a theory is when it leads to so many
> > singularity/paradox/conundrum/impossibilities?
>
> What paradoxes? What impossibilities?
> Nothing is impossible, by the way, until you prove that the places
> where those are predicted to happen don't in fact happen. How would
> you possibly decide what is possible and impossible before looking for
> it?
>
>
>
> > Suck gravity makes no sense, PD.
>
> What do you mean, no sense? It's certainly not nonsensical or self-
> contradictory. What problems or impossibilities?
Or probably just so invested in
the status quo that to go outside
your little box would invalidate your whole education.
PD
Where did you get the idea that Hawking said only X-rays could come
out? He said no such thing.
The jets have nothing to do with Hawking radiation.
Here, let me help you. In the vicinity of a black hole there are at
least THREE sources of emission:
1. X-rays emitted from the acceleration of in-falling matter in the
accretion disk
2. Jets of particles pulled from the accretion disk of in-falling
matter and collimated along the axis of the rotation of the
gravitating body by the enormous magnetic field of that rotating,
charged body.
3. Hawking radiation caused by vacuum polarization near the event
horizon.
Perhaps you were confusing these to all be the same thing.
>
> > > As more and more observations refute our
> > > ideas about black holes being caused by
> > > suck gravity, why won't you realize how stupid
> > > a theory is when it leads to so many
> > > singularity/paradox/conundrum/impossibilities?
>
> > What paradoxes? What impossibilities?
> > Nothing is impossible, by the way, until you prove that the places
> > where those are predicted to happen don't in fact happen. How would
> > you possibly decide what is possible and impossible before looking for
> > it?
>
> You could try thinking.
Sorry, but intuition is a crappy barometer for what's possible and
what's impossible. Remember when bunches of people thought heavier-
than-air vehicles couldn't fly?
>
> > > Suck gravity makes no sense, PD.
>
> > What do you mean, no sense? It's certainly not nonsensical or self-
> > contradictory. What problems or impossibilities?
>
> You are irretrievably blinkered. Hypnotized, maybe?
> Or probably just so invested in
> the status quo that to go outside
> your little box would invalidate your whole education.
You didn't answer the question. What problems? What contradictions?
Perhaps you don't KNOW of any impossibilities or contradictions, but
you've maybe heard that some people say there are, and you're so
irretrievably blinkered you just take it as gospel truth without
investigating it yourself.
john
yikes
PD
Indeed. I understand that what comes out of your mouth is fueled more
by your emotions than by your wits, but perhaps if you paused a bit
before opening your mouth, your slower wits would have a chance to
catch up with your reflex-fast emotions.
john
> On Feb 19, 12:41 pm, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
> > yikes
>
> Indeed. I understand that what comes out of your mouth is fueled more
> by your emotions than by your wits, but perhaps if you paused a bit
> before opening your mouth, your slower wits would have a chance to
> catch up with your reflex-fast emotions.
No, I mean yikes, where do I start?
You have so many things ass-backwards,
it's hard to even *start* with the same picture.
Let me start with matter and gravity.
Gravity *has* to radiate outwards from
the matter if the matter produces it.
But in order to act, the gravity has to
act in an inwardly-directed way. So it's
no longer *radiation*:
"transitive verb 1 : to send out in or as if in rays
2 : irradiate, illuminate
3 : to spread abroad or around as if from a center"
Now it becomes *absorption*:
"1 a : the process of absorbing or of being absorbed
... b : interception of radiant energy or sound waves"
And therefore it's both.
When whatever it is falls and hits the Earth the
Earth *gains energy*
So the Earth is making its own energy- from
nothing.
Don't you see how that doesn't make
sense?
The cause and the effect become the same thing.
john
PD
> On Feb 19, 12:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 12:41 pm, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
> SNIP
> > > yikes
>
> > Indeed. I understand that what comes out of your mouth is fueled more
> > by your emotions than by your wits, but perhaps if you paused a bit
> > before opening your mouth, your slower wits would have a chance to
> > catch up with your reflex-fast emotions.
>
> No, I mean yikes, where do I start?
> You have so many things ass-backwards,
> it's hard to even *start* with the same picture.
>
> Let me start with matter and gravity.
> Gravity *has* to radiate outwards from
> the matter if the matter produces it.
Really? Do the banks of a hole radiate from the hole? After all, the
hole produced the banks, so the banks must be radiating away from the
hole, right? Hmmmm....
When water drains out of a tub, the vortex that is produced is caused
by the drain. Since the drain produces the vortex, then the water must
be radiating away from the drain, right? Hmmmm....
> But in order to act, the gravity has to
> act in an inwardly-directed way. So it's
> no longer *radiation*:
Why? Are you stuck in your head that stuff that radiates MUST push
away? If that's so, then every force must be repulsive and now you
have a small problem with why it is that balloons charged with static
electricity are *attracted* to walls and not repelled by them. In
fact, you must have difficulty understanding how ANY attractive force
works.
In fact, let's take a positively charged ping-pong ball. Now there is
something (as you say) that is radiating away from this ping-pong ball
and this we know because if we bring another positively charged ping-
pong ball into the space around the first one, it gets repelled. But
if we leave the first ping-pong ball there and change NOTHING about
what it's radiating, and if we put a negatively charged felt ball
where the other ping pong ball was a minute ago, then we find that the
felt ball is ATTRACTED. Did the first ping-pong ball suddenly switch
gears and stop radiating outward??
Are you thinking AT ALL, John?
> "transitive verb 1 : to send out in or as if in rays
> 2 : irradiate, illuminate
> 3 : to spread abroad or around as if from a center"
> Now it becomes *absorption*:
> "1 a : the process of absorbing or of being absorbed
> ... b : interception of radiant energy or sound waves"
> And therefore it's both.
> When whatever it is falls and hits the Earth the
> Earth *gains energy*
I'm sorry, where does the Earth gain energy? Raising something against
gravity requires you to do work. YOU put the energy into the system,
and you got it from chewing Twinkies, which in turn got it from
sunlight shining on wheat and sugar cane plants. When the object
falls, that energy turns into kinetic energy. There is no energy that
wasn't put there by the sun and pushed around a little in between.
> So the Earth is making its own energy- from
> nothing.
>
> Don't you see how that doesn't make
> sense?
It doesn't make sense TO YOU because you don't know what you're
talking about.
clivevrob
It's so entertaining reading all these crackpot ideas you guys have,
aether. push gravity, my god I had no idea there were such people!
For the muppets amongst you, check out http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100217131125.htm
and, for those of you who can understand it (maybe 5% of you), please
explain how such rubbish theories produce such fantastically accurate
predictions.
john
Pull gravity says a body can act upon itself
and because of geometry this action will
increase in severity ultimately forming a black hole.
This is a singularity.
This indicates the theory is wrong.
How about this?
Matter *does* emanate a frequency unto
itself that travels infinitely, and pushes on
other matter and is absorbed by it.
Since there is, in an infinite universe,
such emanations coming from all the
other matter from all points, there is push
coming from all sides which over-rides
the push coming from any one planet
(since that push is diverging).
Push gravity
john
PD
Actually, we don't know what happens inside the event horizon, and
there is no singularity at the event horizon.
But there's nothing intrinsically wrong with a singularity, John. Why
do you presume that nature MUST be continuous, smooth and finite
everywhere?
>
> How about this?
> Matter *does* emanate a frequency unto
> itself that travels infinitely, and pushes on
> other matter and is absorbed by it.
> Since there is, in an infinite universe,
> such emanations coming from all the
> other matter from all points, there is push
> coming from all sides which over-rides
> the push coming from any one planet
> (since that push is diverging).
Explain again please why the ping-pong ball that just a second ago
repelled another ping-pong ball now attracts a felt ball.
Did something happen to the "emanations" from the ping-pong ball, or
did the rest of the universe suddenly decide to start pushing harder?
>
> Push gravity
>
> john
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Gamma rays are the most energetic
'things' of the entire spectrum. As such, gamma rays straddle-the-
fence between photons and particles. Only neutrons (with a paired
electron) are more penetrating of matter—such as concrete. Atomic
decay via the emission of gamma rays eventually lowers the atomic
number, because gamma rays are protons. Dense matter, like U-235, has
a lot of protons. So, it takes a very long time to decay to, say,
thorium. All matter is composed of tangles of IOTAs. Photons are
smaller tangles of IOTAs that are polar. The only difference between
a photon and a proton, is: The proton, as a free particle, must be
capable of giving off at least one photon. It is "photon exchange"
which allows gravitational attraction. In a soup of particles,
protons can clump into heavier and heavier matter, aided by the
tremendous temperatures and pressures inside star cores. Learn to
think, PD. Status quo physics is dead! — NoEinstein —
>
> On Feb 16, 1:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 15, 8:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Somehow, you manage to write more
> > dribble on these groups than probably anyone. Does Google give you
> > extra time? But in spite of all of your writing, you never PARAPHRASE
> > what you think, or what others say whom you agree with.
>
> I did. I told you that gamma rays are photons. Lots of people agree
> with me.
> You erroneously stated that they are protons. This is a simple error
> of fact.
> When there is a dispute over facts, then the best thing to do is to go
> to an external source to find the answer.
> If you insist on saying that a cow is a reptile, then I certainly
> don't owe you a paraphrased argument to correct that error of fact.
> I'd tell you to go look up that a cow is a mammal, not a reptile. And
> if I'm generous, I'd give you a link to something you can read that
> tells you that a cow is a mammal, not a reptile.
>
> If you want to continue just making stuff up, like gamma rays being
> protons and cows being reptiles, you go right ahead.
>
> > I will NOT...
> > I repeat: I will NOT go on any wild-goose-chases from you to the words
> > of others. I summarize my New Science almost every day. But your
> > only ‘defense’ is to claim that I'm lazy. I use time management.
>
> > A joke comes to mind: Neighbors observed that a farmer was carrying a
> > pig in his arms and letting the pig eat apples from the orchard.
> > Finally, one neighbor got brave enough to ask the farmer: "Isn't what
> > you're doing a terrible waste of time?" To which the farmer replied:
> > "What's TIME to a PIG?" PD is like that farmer, not knowing how much
> > of his own time he is wasting. — NoEinstein —
>
> That would make you the pig, right?
> So you want to be left alone?
> Why not write a blog, where you can write whatever you want and you'll
> be left alone.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On Feb 15, 6:13 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 12, 4:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > No, PD! Gamma rays are PROTONS.
>
> > > No, they're not, John. They're photons. All you had to do is click on
> > > the link that I provided and read two or three lines.
> > > Here it is again, John. Surely this is not too complicated.http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/gamma.html
>
> > > > Those are much denser 'tangles' of
> > > > IOTAs which is the same... 'stuff' that photons (and everything else
> > > > in the Universe) is made of. — NoEinstein —
>
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2:54 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 11, 1:24 am, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Dear John: Particles DON'T produce unlimited radiation unless the
> > > > > > lost ether gets replenished!
>
> > > > > Something must be producing all this aether to push with, no?
>
> > > > > > Gamma rays, which have mass, must emit
> > > > > > photons.
>
> > > > > Oh, John, John, John. Gamma rays ARE photons.http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/gamma.html
>
> > > > > > But the number of photons is quite small, since the mass is
> > > > > > quite small. Gamma rays replenish their lost photons by banging into
> > > > > > the ether as they travel. Since the tangential velocity of the IOTAs
> > > > > > (smallest energy units of the ether) is 'c', then the gamma rays can
> > > > > > keep right on traveling at velocity 'c' for a very long time. —
> > > > > > NoEinstein —
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 10, 7:13 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 10, 3:59 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Yesterday, I happened to tune-in for the last half of a TV program
> > > > > > > > > about the Moon. Time and again, the supposed technical experts who
> > > > > > > > > were being interviewed referred to the ‘pull’ of gravity between the
> > > > > > > > > Earth and the Moon. The effect of that… “pull” was discussed as
> > > > > > > > > relates to such things as ocean tides
>
> > > > > > > > Please explain ocean tides with push gravity
>
> > > > > > > First explain how every particle of the universe
> > > > > > > can produce unlimited radiations which travel outward from
> > > > > > > said particles while all the while providing inward impetus
> > > > > > > to anything with which they interact.
> > > > > > > Don't you think that's stretching it just a tad?
> > > > > > > ('Course since then there's DM, DE, so really,
> > > > > > > suck gravity is hardly outrageous at all compared
> > > > > > > to 'intellectuallizing' a whole new class of matter,
> > > > > > > sight unseen )('Course, if it's invisible, well, it's
> > > > > > > invisible- but we prove it's there by pointing to
> > > > > > > the movements of stars that occasioned its creation
> > > > > > > in the first place.So it's real yin/yangy, y'know.)
>
> > > > > > > But the tide thing- really, everything at this scale-
> > > > > > > works exactly the same for push as for pull.
> > > > > > > Just at larger sizes, where planets
> > > > > > > are able to completely shadow push from the other side,
> > > > > > > surface gravity will tend towards a limit- therefore ruling out
> > > > > > > the whole black hole paradox.
>
> > > > > > > john- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
john
It takes two to tango, PD>
>
>
> > How about this?
> > Matter *does* emanate a frequency unto
> > itself that travels infinitely, and pushes on
> > other matter and is absorbed by it.
> > Since there is, in an infinite universe,
> > such emanations coming from all the
> > other matter from all points, there is push
> > coming from all sides which over-rides
> > the push coming from any one planet
> > (since that push is diverging).
>
> Explain again please why the ping-pong ball that just a second ago
> repelled another ping-pong ball now attracts a felt ball.
> Did something happen to the "emanations" from the ping-pong ball, or
> did the rest of the universe suddenly decide to start pushing harder?
>
Are you saying that
pull gravity explains electric fields?
NoEinstein
> On 2/15/10 6:35 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > OK, Sam. Einstein's complete SR equation is: E = mc^2 / [1-v^2/
> > c^2]^1/2. Agreed? For any unit mass (like most science is based
> > upon), the only variables in the SR equation are v and E. To OBEY the
> > Law of the Conservation of Energy, the energy being input into a
> > system must equal the energy OUT of the system. But if you input
> > velocity at a UNIFORM rate, as for all accelerating objects, the SR
> > equation has the energy OUT increasing to infinity at the FINITE
> > velocity of 'c'. NO equation nor law of physics relating to ENERGY
> > can get out more energy than is put IN!
>
> ILLUCID
>
Hey, Sam: Give links to YOUR '+new posts' and let the readers decide
which of us is more... LUCID.
>
> Equations of special relativity include:
>
> o Lorentz Transformations
Those are the delusions of an imbecile who figured that velocity can
cause all types of matter, of any given geometry, to contract,
identically, and without the possibility of... ELASTIC REBOUND, unless
the velocity is reduced. Mentioning anything to do with Lorentz shows
you are a candidate for being an imbecile, too.
> o additions of velocities
Yes, one +one = two.
> o Length contraction
Never happens due to velocity, nor due to a uniform increase in
velocity (acceleration).
> o Time dilation
Any fast moving plane or spaceship will be impacting the ether in its
path. Ether impacts, like gravity on Earth, can slow down mechanical,
electrical, or atomic processes. But TIME itself will remain uniform
throughout the Universe and beyond!
A slowing of any time-measuring device is NOT, I repeat, NOT an
indication of the slowing of time!
> o Relativistic mass increase
Very specific types of energy can combine to create matter.
Unfortunately, for you Einstein junkies, VELOCITY and any of the
associated Kinetic Energy will NEVER add a single atom to the mass of
the moving object!
> o Relativistic kinetic energy
The CORRECT formula for kinetic energy is my own: KE = a/g (m) + v/
32.174 (m). There is nothing Relativistic that needs to be considered—
unless it's how shallow you are for not knowing the truth, already.
.
> o Relativistic Doppler
Any frequency shifts are due to the velocity of the source adding to
or subtracting from the emission velocity. And there is nothing
Relativistic about THAT either!
> o etc.
>
> No mass can be accelerated to have the velocity c. Whatever gave
> you that idea? in a closed system (including relativistic closed
> systems) Energy is conserved.
Whatever gave YOU the idea that 'c' is the maximum? I've shown that
the M-M experiment lacked a CONTROL light course. And 9th grade
algebra easily shows that speeding up and slowing down light is
occurring in that M-M experiment all the time. Einstein was a MORON.
He had no insights how the universe functions beyond what he
plagiarized or faked.
>
> A more appropriate equation is the energy-momentum relation
Momentum is: f = mv. Notice that there are no exponents. Newton's
Second Law of Motion is (wrongly) written: f = ma. If both equation
for force are set equal: mv = ma (sic). There is no way that
acceleration and velocity are the same! Physics is screwed up because
no one teaching understands what they teach well enough to catch the
glaring mistakes!
For example: the acceleration due to gravity has been written
INCORRECTLY since Galileo (and later Newton): g = 32 feet per second^2—
WRONG!!! g = 32.174 feet per second EACH second! Saying... PER has
lead many to believe, especially Coriolis and Einstein, that gravity
is causing exponential things to happen to the mass. Acceleration, g,
is a UNIFORM velocity increase of 32.174 feet EACH second—which
corresponds to the rate of change of the SLOPE of a parabola.
>
> E^2/c^2 = p^2 + m_o^2 c^2
>
> E^2 = P^2 c^2 + m_o^2 c^4
>
> Methinks you do not have a clear understanding of mass, velocity,
> momentum, acceleration and energy.
I, and most readers who can think for themselves, suspect that YOU
don't know you ASS from a hole-in-the-ground!
— NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
> On Feb 10, 7:43 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2/10/10 5:59 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > From my college days I’ve observed the irrationality of much of
> > > physics.
>
> > In other words, you didn't do so well in physics!
>
> In other words Worm must be an "education major" who never studied
> real physics, only "physics appreciation" where no math was ever
> needed.
>
> On the other hand as much as I hate to defend "noeinstein" and "Mitch
> Raemsch" and the rest of the clowns here, allow me to point out that
> the "push" theory of gravitation is an OLD theory well reviewed by
> Wheeler and Feynman in the past and THEY noted that long before they
> reviewed it, it was already an OLD idea! Of course just being an old
> universe filled with some kind of (unspecified) radiation or waves
> capable of creating radiation pressure, the shadows of celestial orbs
> upon each other is what creates the "PUSH" that forces them toward
> each other. The advantage of this theory is that no "ropes" are needed
> to explain the mechanism of gravity in physical terms. Ordinary
> physical phenomena we are all familiar with (radiation, shadows,
> radiation pressure etc.) create a model that doesn't require bogus
> action at a distance, "gravitons" or other things we've never seen
> before.
Dear Benj: It may not be fun from your perspective, but it almost
seems like you are agreeing with me. If so, THANKS! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: "Data" is a collective, just like
INFORMATION. Both are SINGULAR. You should have written: "No, but
the experimental data that IS in conflict with the predictions of the
model do make it wrong." For you information, there is nothing that
can contradict ANYTHING about my New Science! — NoEinstein —
>
> On Feb 16, 11:59 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 10, 7:43 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 2/10/10 5:59 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > From my college days I’ve observed the irrationality of much of
> > > > physics.
>
> > > In other words, you didn't do so well in physics!
>
> > In other words Worm must be an "education major" who never studied
> > real physics, only "physics appreciation" where no math was ever
> > needed.
>
> > On the other hand as much as I hate to defend "noeinstein" and "Mitch
> > Raemsch" and the rest of the clowns here, allow me to point out that
> > the "push" theory of gravitation is an OLD theory well reviewed by
> > Wheeler and Feynman in the past and THEY noted that long before they
> > reviewed it, it was already an OLD idea! Of course just being an old
> > idea doesn't make it wrong.
>
>
>
>
> > The basic idea is that if one assumes the
> > universe filled with some kind of (unspecified) radiation or waves
> > capable of creating radiation pressure, the shadows of celestial orbs
> > upon each other is what creates the "PUSH" that forces them toward
> > each other. The advantage of this theory is that no "ropes" are needed
> > to explain the mechanism of gravity in physical terms. Ordinary
> > physical phenomena we are all familiar with (radiation, shadows,
> > radiation pressure etc.) create a model that doesn't require bogus
> > action at a distance, "gravitons" or other things we've never seen
NoEinstein
>
Dear John: Dark matter is an unneeded attempt to locate the gravity
necessary to stop the supposed expansion of the Universe (sic). As
soon as I realized that Newton's supposed Law of Universal (sic)
Gravitation wasn't considering that very hot objects emit more
radiation that cooler ones, I knew that the missing mass was in the
OVER estimation of the mass of the Universe, and the UNDER estimation
of the gravity holding galaxies together. There was no Big Bang and
there is NO expansion of the universe. The red shifts are caused by
the AGING of light due to the crossing light rays forcing the photons
to be further and further apart. If there were no crossing photons,
there would be NO red shift! — NoEinstein —
> On Feb 17, 8:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 16, 11:59 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 10, 7:43 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 2/10/10 5:59 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > > From my college days I’ve observed the irrationality of much of
> > > > > physics.
>
> > > > In other words, you didn't do so well in physics!
>
> > > In other words Worm must be an "education major" who never studied
> > > real physics, only "physics appreciation" where no math was ever
> > > needed.
>
> > > On the other hand as much as I hate to defend "noeinstein" and "Mitch
> > > Raemsch" and the rest of the clowns here, allow me to point out that
> > > the "push" theory of gravitation is an OLD theory well reviewed by
> > > Wheeler and Feynman in the past and THEY noted that long before they
> > > reviewed it, it was already an OLD idea! Of course just being an old
> > > idea doesn't make it wrong.
>
> > No, but the experimental data that were in conflict with the
> > predictions of the model do make it wrong.
>
> Experimental data like where the outer
> stars of galaxies go around way too fast?
> Doesn't that make the present theory wrong?
>
> If your numbers indicate you're wrong, simply invoke
> a whole new class of matter!! Simple.
>
> Our theory of gravitation is being propped up
> by a totally new and unseen (because it's invisible
> *by definition*) class of matter- Dark Matter.
>
> So why couldn't there be something like
> Dark Aether? Or fairies? Or Zeus, or Thor, or
> King Tut?
>
> I mean, really, if you're going
> to introduce fantastical stuff like
> Dark Matter and Dark Energy into your
> science, you're not doing science anymore.
>
> You're doing AGW.
>
> john
>
>
>
>
>
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bravo! — NoEinstein —
Sam Wormley
> unless it's how shallow you are for not knowing the truth, already.
> .
>> o Relativistic Doppler
>
> Any frequency shifts are due to the velocity of the source adding to
> or subtracting from the emission velocity. And there is nothing
> Relativistic about THAT either!
>
>> o etc.
>>
>> No mass can be accelerated to have the velocity c. Whatever gave
>> you that idea? in a closed system (including relativistic closed
>> systems) Energy is conserved.
>
> Whatever gave YOU the idea that 'c' is the maximum? I've shown that
> the M-M experiment lacked a CONTROL light course. And 9th grade
> algebra easily shows that speeding up and slowing down light is
> occurring in that M-M experiment all the time. Einstein was a MORON.
> He had no insights how the universe functions beyond what he
> plagiarized or faked.
>
>>
>> A more appropriate equation is the energy-momentum relation
>
> Momentum is: f = mv. Notice that there are no exponents. Newton's
> Second Law of Motion is (wrongly) written: f = ma. If both equation
> for force are set equal: mv = ma (sic). There is no way that
> acceleration and velocity are the same! Physics is screwed up because
> no one teaching understands what they teach well enough to catch the
> glaring mistakes!
>
> For example: the acceleration due to gravity has been written
> WRONG!!! g = 32.174 feet per second EACH second! Saying... PER has
> lead many to believe, especially Coriolis and Einstein, that gravity
> is causing exponential things to happen to the mass. Acceleration, g,
> corresponds to the rate of change of the SLOPE of a parabola.
>>
>> E^2/c^2 = p^2 + m_o^2 c^2
>>
>> E^2 = P^2 c^2 + m_o^2 c^4
>>
>> Methinks you do not have a clear understanding of mass, velocity,
>> momentum, acceleration and energy.
>
> I, and most readers who can think for themselves, suspect that YOU
> don't know you ASS from a hole-in-the-ground!
>
Even more ILLUCID
PD
I have no idea what you're trying to say with that comment.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > How about this?
> > > Matter *does* emanate a frequency unto
> > > itself that travels infinitely, and pushes on
> > > other matter and is absorbed by it.
> > > Since there is, in an infinite universe,
> > > such emanations coming from all the
> > > other matter from all points, there is push
> > > coming from all sides which over-rides
> > > the push coming from any one planet
> > > (since that push is diverging).
>
> > Explain again please why the ping-pong ball that just a second ago
> > repelled another ping-pong ball now attracts a felt ball.
> > Did something happen to the "emanations" from the ping-pong ball, or
> > did the rest of the universe suddenly decide to start pushing harder?
>
> Are you saying that
> pull gravity explains electric fields?
No. But the objections you have against pull gravity -- the things you
say make no sense whatsoever -- also happen with electrostatics.
And so if electrostatics makes no sense for the same reasons, then you
should be able to account for simple electrostatic observations with
your push model. If you cannot, then perhaps there is a problem with
your complaints against attractive fields in general.
PD
> On Feb 17, 9:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: "Data" is a collective, just like
> INFORMATION. Both are SINGULAR. You should have written: "No, but
> the experimental data that IS in conflict with the predictions of the
> model do make it wrong." For you information, there is nothing that
> can contradict ANYTHING about my New Science! — NoEinstein —
Geez, NoEinstein, you even make up grammar.
The singular form is "datum", the plural is "data". Check a
dictionary.
One datum is, the data are.
Of course, you always have the option of saying that by the power of
PURE THOUGHT ALONE you have discovered that the dictionary is wrong.
PD
> On Feb 16, 2:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Gamma rays are the most energetic
> 'things' of the entire spectrum. As such, gamma rays straddle-the-
> fence between photons and particles. Only neutrons (with a paired
> electron) are more penetrating of matter—such as concrete. Atomic
> decay via the emission of gamma rays eventually lowers the atomic
> number, because gamma rays are protons. Dense matter, like U-235, has
> a lot of protons. So, it takes a very long time to decay to, say,
> thorium. All matter is composed of tangles of IOTAs. Photons are
> smaller tangles of IOTAs that are polar. The only difference between
> a photon and a proton, is: The proton, as a free particle, must be
> capable of giving off at least one photon. It is "photon exchange"
> which allows gravitational attraction. In a soup of particles,
> protons can clump into heavier and heavier matter, aided by the
> tremendous temperatures and pressures inside star cores. Learn to
> think, PD. Status quo physics is dead! — NoEinstein —
>
And so you respond to a correction of a simple error of fact by simply
making more stuff up.
Keep it up, NoEinstein! I'm sure it's fun to make stuff up.
Most children give up playing pretend by the time they're 11 or so.
Are you having a second childhood?
john
The push influx is at many levels;
harmonics that get higher and higher
in frequency at the same time as
smaller and smaller in wave amplitude.
At each level, a part of the push gravity influx
is felt as push by the atomic nuclei
but not by the electrons which produce that
frequency. Multiple push-type fields can be
construed to acount for electrostatics, etc.
Why don't you try that as an exercise, PD?
You know these fields way better than me.
There are no attractive forces.
A rope 'pulls' by pushing the
backside of its loop at you.
john
glird
> On Feb 18, 12:01 pm, john parker aka Androcles etc wrote:
>
> > john- Hide quoted text -
>
Boo to both one of you, even though we both agree that a
g-force is a push, not a pull. 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.
glird
john
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.
These emanations are absorbed by the nuclei,
imparting a push, but not by the electrons
themselves.
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.
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. Yet it is electrons
just like ours that made the radiations that push on our nuclei
and create inertia.
john
glird
> On Feb 20, 12:52 pm, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
> 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.
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.
> These emanations are absorbed by the nuclei,
> imparting a push, but not by the electrons themselves.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> Yet it is electrons just like ours that made the radiations
> that push on our nuclei and create inertia.
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.
glird
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
> Although electrons CAUSE light waves to come into existence
> and propagate at c,
[snip rest of crap]
1) Hawking radiation.
2) Unruh effect.
3) Photons emitted without electrons.
4) idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
PD
In other words, "Splutter, foam, blather, blah-blah. Buzzword.
Amplitude. Frequency. Another buzzword. Harmonics. All that. Wave
hands vigorously. Surely there's a way to do it. You do it. I can't,
but I'm sure it can be done if you weren't too fucking chicken to
try."
>
> There are no attractive forces.
> A rope 'pulls' by pushing the
> backside of its loop at you.
OK, so do that for the ping-pong balls and the felt ball that I
described earlier. Where is your stinking model for that, John?"
>
> john
john
> On Feb 20, 8:54 pm, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 12:52 pm, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> Although electrons CAUSE light waves to come into existence
> and propagate at c, no electrons travel further than about 1
> wave-length.
But the photons form in pairs, one on each side of
the nucleus, and are given off when they reach
the right frequency.
Look at the accretion disc surrounding the
origin of each jet in an AGN. This is not
ingoing material. The ingoing stuff orbits closer
and closer to the hole, and when it
falls in, you see fireworks. But the jets are constantly
pumping *outwardly-moving* HEPs up that magnetic staircase.
And the accretion discs are stuff that won't go, because it's
different- it's not matter, it's photons, and they aren't pushed
by the field so they can't get away, and they fall back and gradually
pile up until they reach a critical size, whereupon they
are released simultaneously in opposite directions as
two quasars.
.
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.
Oh, so you think tired (depleted) light eplains
redshifting of distant galaxies rather than expansion?
>
> > These emanations are absorbed by the nuclei,
> > imparting a push, but not by the electrons themselves.
>
> 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.
You're still not getting it glird.
I'm talking about the emanations from electrons that
are analagous to the emanations of a galaxy's suns (regular photons).
This is radiation that would be super-super-super high
frequency, and I don't think anyone is playing with them yet.
As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure the status quo is that
electrons don't radiate.
I'm saying they do, and that the resulting background
from a universe of radiating electrons, makes for push
gravity because this energy is absorbed by nuclei precisely
because they must recharge their electrons (energy-wise)
at the same rate they radiate.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
Nothing we have found yet.
And we still haven't found electron radiations.
They should travel at 30c, and this is the speed of gravity.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> > Yet it is electrons just like ours that made the radiations
> > that push on our nuclei and create inertia.
>
> 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.
>
> glird
Mass is not a constant.
It can vary in degree as well as direction.
This is how UFOs operate. They can
literally blinker their craft to pay attention
only to gravity in a certain direction.
john
john
NoEinstein
>
Dear John: The FIVE STARS is from me! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Dear glird: "Boo to both one of you..." ? Are you agreeing with me
or booing me? — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
from ether). The bubble is bounded by a magnetic meniscus which forms
the longest continuous lines of (push) force in the Universe.
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.
Electrons aren't the creative source of photons. Since electrons have
no mass they are incapable of giving off photons. The valence rings
in which the electrons orbit CAN give of photons. 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 ether (also the
Swiss Cheese void between galaxies). — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
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. 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":
NoEinstein
> glird wrote:
>
> [snip crap]
>
> > Although electrons CAUSE light waves to come into existence
> > and propagate at c,
>
> [snip rest of crap]
>
> 1) Hawking radiation.
> 2) Unruh effect.
> 3) Photons emitted without electrons.
> 4) idiot
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Dear Uncle Al: You should tell Barack Obama that you have a "green"
way to treat sewage: Let YOU "snip the crap"! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Sam: Instead of making your... about-the-"messenger" comments,
comment on the MESSAGE in your own words. That means paraphrasing
your specific argument(s) of disagreement. Unless you can do the
latter, you have no business remarking about anything that anyone at
sci.physics says. — NoEinstein —
> > unless it's how shallow you are for not knowing the truth, already.
> > .
> >> o Relativistic Doppler
>
> > Any frequency shifts are due to the velocity of the source adding to
> > or subtracting from the emission velocity. And there is nothing
> > Relativistic about THAT either!
>
> >> o etc.
>
> >> No mass can be accelerated to have the velocity c. Whatever gave
> >> you that idea? in a closed system (including relativistic closed
> >> systems) Energy is conserved.
>
> > Whatever gave YOU the idea that 'c' is the maximum? I've shown that
> > the M-M experiment lacked a CONTROL light course. And 9th grade
> > algebra easily shows that speeding up and slowing down light is
> > occurring in that M-M experiment all the time. Einstein was a MORON.
> > He had no insights how the universe functions beyond what he
> > plagiarized or faked.
>
> >> A more appropriate equation is the energy-momentum relation
>
> > Momentum is: f = mv. Notice that there are no exponents. Newton's
> > Second Law of Motion is (wrongly) written: f = ma. If both equation
> > for force are set equal: mv = ma (sic). There is no way that
> > acceleration and velocity are the same! Physics is screwed up because
> > no one teaching understands what they teach well enough to catch the
> > glaring mistakes!
>
> > For example: the acceleration due to gravity has been written
> > WRONG!!! g = 32.174 feet per second EACH second! Saying... PER has
> > lead many to believe, especially Coriolis and Einstein, that gravity
> > is causing exponential things to happen to the mass. Acceleration, g,
> > corresponds to the rate of change of the SLOPE of a parabola.
>
> >> E^2/c^2 = p^2 + m_o^2 c^2
>
> >> E^2 = P^2 c^2 + m_o^2 c^4
>
> >> Methinks you do not have a clear understanding of mass, velocity,
> >> momentum, acceleration and energy.
>
> > I, and most readers who can think for themselves, suspect that YOU
> > don't know you ASS from a hole-in-the-ground!
>
> Even more ILLUCID- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: The present "push" model for gravity is
my own. The 'John' you reply to isn't the same 'John' as NoEinstein—
though he has a good head on his shoulders to recognize that PUSH
gravity is logical. Electromotive forces are also PUSH effects. Long
magnetic lines of flux form around and through conductors. The IOTAs
are polar and have a tangential velocity of 'c'. The flux lines cork-
screw from the power source to the load and back to the source,
usually through the ground. Free electrons caught between the lines
of flux get pushed by the cork-screw. In the case of alternating
current, the cork-screws reverse direction matching the frequency of
the current. This explains how electricity is a push effect. —
NoEinstein —
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: LATIN is a dead language. Data, as used
colloquially, is a SINGULAR collective. Also, OLYMPICS is SINGULAR
(unless you are talking about how many different ones, every four
years, you have been to)! The correct sentence is: THIS Olympics,
not "these" Olympics. Since the usual reference is to the collective,
it is correct to say: THIS (Olympic) games. Bob Costas and his
shallow-minded sportscasting ilk please take note! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Your mind is like... GLUE; once you get
the wrong information you're stuck! — NE —
john
> On Feb 20, 9:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Your mind is like... GLUE; once you get
> the wrong information you're stuck! — NE —
>
years agao. Still do.
Electrons radiate magnetism in all directions.
Most bodies of matter have lots of electrons,
and these create magnetism that radiates
outward in all directions. This creates
a pressure, or push.
But there is so much matter in
all directions, that there is
more pressure towards a body's
center than away. This is gravity.
When electrons are moved
in a circle, they radiate at
right-angles to that circle, creating less push
to counter gravity in one
direction, while augmenting it in
the other.
glird
Yes.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Did you know that making things up is tantamount to lying?
Micth Raemsch
PD
> On Feb 20, 9:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Your mind is like... GLUE; once you get
> the wrong information you're stuck! — NE —
>
>
And according to you, the best way to get unstuck is just to make up
new information. After all, the best and most reliable information is
the stuff that just pops into your head!
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.
>
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.
>
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.
>
imparting a push, but not by the electrons themselves.
>
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.
>
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.
>
at c = 1 unit-length per second, where a unit-length is a specific
amount of matter rather than a number of meters.
>
in absolutely huge numbers, lending such a system to a push gravity
in layers, where the layer affecting us does not affect our electrons.
>
the layer affecting us affects everything embedded in, thus part of,
that gradient.
>
that push on our nuclei and create inertia.
>
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