Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #592728 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-10 22:14 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-08-15 05:52 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 93 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 22:14 -0400
Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-10 22:36 -0400
Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-11 05:34 -0400
Re: The New Gravity Theory Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 20:30 -0700
Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-11 05:29 -0400
Re: The New Gravity Theory bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:16 +0200
Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 06:41 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 16:29 +0200
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:35 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 08:11 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 10:49 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:14 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 11:28 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-11 17:48 +0000
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:21 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-11 18:20 -0400
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 17:35 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-11 22:30 -0400
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 07:27 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 11:24 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-12 15:36 +0000
"theory of **** noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 12:38 -0700
"theory of **** john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 16:22 -0700
"theory of **** john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 19:33 -0700
Re: "theory of **** moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-13 03:11 +0000
Re: "theory of **** john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 08:06 -0700
Re: "theory of **** Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 11:40 -0500
Re: "theory of **** moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-13 17:23 +0000
"theory of ideal gasses & beyond them noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 10:30 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory margaretporat@gmail.com - 2016-08-15 01:58 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-11 17:59 -0400
Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 16:18 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 14:45 +0200
Re: The New Gravity Theory LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 10:10 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 12:38 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 11:05 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:30 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 11:47 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 14:19 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:21 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 15:47 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-11 13:55 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 16:32 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-12 15:50 +0000
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 10:59 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-11 18:31 -0400
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 17:39 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:43 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 15:40 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 17:45 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 16:37 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:10 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 17:31 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 02:54 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-14 10:35 +0200
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:17 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-15 21:19 +0200
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 13:26 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-16 19:17 +0000
Re: The New Gravity Theory Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 12:44 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 14:54 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:52 -0500
zero thus defined noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 11:08 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-19 23:07 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 10:14 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-20 20:59 -0400
Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-20 23:00 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 18:12 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 23:31 -0700
it's a military-marhcing theme noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 15:43 -0700
Re: it's a military-marhcing theme LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 16:28 -0700
Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-12 04:59 -0400
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 10:38 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 23:35 -0700
Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-14 20:07 -0400
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:43 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 02:49 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 02:39 -0700
Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-12 06:41 -0400
Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 08:49 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 04:28 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 23:34 -0700
skwaresville noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 10:35 -0700
skwaresville john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 15:03 -0700
Re: skwaresville moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-14 00:50 +0000
Re: skwaresville poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-14 00:04 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-13 18:30 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-13 21:50 -0400
Re: The New Gravity Theory xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-14 10:29 -0700
Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-14 20:11 -0400
Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-14 17:46 -0700
Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-14 23:54 -0700
Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-15 05:52 -0700
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 22:14 -0400 |
| Subject | The New Gravity Theory |
| Message-ID | <l1mnqb9f0ruha4p83dd8g0idbnqrtuth56@4ax.com> |
Gravity results from an imbalance in the gravitational flux (gravitons if you will) on a line between two massive objects. A solitary mass sources a flux of gravitons which imparts momentum to anything they hit. The universe imparts equal momentum to this solitary mass on all sides so it has no net force on it. Two objects placed near each other occult (block/eclipse) some of this ambient flux coming from the remainder of the masses in the universe. This occulting is proportional to the product of their cross section area (pi*r^2) and the linear thickness of matter this flux must traverse. It is also inversely proportional to the distance between the two masses squared (R^2). The math/geometry is correct, the only question: Is this a more useful model? Mike --------------------------------------------------- Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA ---------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 22:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57abe4b8$0$55943$c3e8da3$33881b6a@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #592728 |
On 8/10/2016 10:14 PM, Michael J. Strickland wrote: > Gravity results from an imbalance in the gravitational flux (gravitons > if you will) on a line between two massive objects. A solitary mass > sources a flux of gravitons which imparts momentum to anything they > hit. The universe imparts equal momentum to this solitary mass on all > sides so it has no net force on it. > > Two objects placed near each other occult (block/eclipse) some of this > ambient flux coming from the remainder of the masses in the universe. > This occulting is proportional to the product of their cross section > area (pi*r^2) and the linear thickness of matter this flux must > traverse. It is also inversely proportional to the distance between > the two masses squared (R^2). > > The math/geometry is correct, the only question: > > Is this a more useful model? > > Mike > --------------------------------------------------- > Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA > --------------------------------------------------- > So you reinvented the Feynman-Wheeler theory (and they admit the idea was due to others long before them). And of course, it is basically correct (except for the "gravitons" part.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 05:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1dhoqb1uk4oav7fbguja0hcvvvocvin25t@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #592732 |
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 22:36:25 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >On 8/10/2016 10:14 PM, Michael J. Strickland wrote: >> Gravity results from an imbalance in the gravitational flux (gravitons >> if you will) on a line between two massive objects. A solitary mass >> sources a flux of gravitons which imparts momentum to anything they >> hit. The universe imparts equal momentum to this solitary mass on all >> sides so it has no net force on it. >> >> Two objects placed near each other occult (block/eclipse) some of this >> ambient flux coming from the remainder of the masses in the universe. >> This occulting is proportional to the product of their cross section >> area (pi*r^2) and the linear thickness of matter this flux must >> traverse. It is also inversely proportional to the distance between >> the two masses squared (R^2). >> >> The math/geometry is correct, the only question: >> >> Is this a more useful model? >> >> Mike >> --------------------------------------------------- >> Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA >> --------------------------------------------------- >> >So you reinvented the Feynman-Wheeler theory (and they admit the idea >was due to others long before them). And of course, it is basically >correct (except for the "gravitons" part. I believe I might have posted this one here 10-15 years ago but not sure. I know I wrote it in my notes. What is wrong with the "gravitons part? I'll admit I may be seeing a defect in it (see my response to Alan about force vectors no longer being exactly on a line between them) but this may be a near-field correction to Newtonian gravity since point masses don't really exist except theoretically. Mike --------------------------------------------------- Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA ---------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 20:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10f1d394-be95-43dd-980d-1f640412324c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #592728 |
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 4:14:40 PM UTC-10, Michael Strickland wrote: > Gravity results from an imbalance in the gravitational flux (gravitons > if you will) on a line between two massive objects. A solitary mass > sources a flux of gravitons which imparts momentum to anything they > hit. The universe imparts equal momentum to this solitary mass on all > sides so it has no net force on it. > > Two objects placed near each other occult (block/eclipse) some of this > ambient flux coming from the remainder of the masses in the universe. > This occulting is proportional to the product of their cross section > area (pi*r^2) and the linear thickness of matter this flux must > traverse. It is also inversely proportional to the distance between > the two masses squared (R^2). > > The math/geometry is correct, the only question: > > Is this a more useful model? Yes, a useful model. You wrote, " occulting is proportional to the product of their cross section area (pi*r^2) and the linear thickness of matter " Why a product of areas, not a sum? Is r the proton radius?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 05:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <rteoqb5mq8fm0noa04c4idv8hccelv1n89@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #592737 |
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 20:30:26 -0700 (PDT), Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> wrote: >On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 4:14:40 PM UTC-10, Michael Strickland wrote: >> Gravity results from an imbalance in the gravitational flux (gravitons >> if you will) on a line between two massive objects. A solitary mass >> sources a flux of gravitons which imparts momentum to anything they >> hit. The universe imparts equal momentum to this solitary mass on all >> sides so it has no net force on it. >> >> Two objects placed near each other occult (block/eclipse) some of this >> ambient flux coming from the remainder of the masses in the universe. >> This occulting is proportional to the product of their cross section >> area (pi*r^2) and the linear thickness of matter this flux must >> traverse. It is also inversely proportional to the distance between >> the two masses squared (R^2). >> >> The math/geometry is correct, the only question: >> >> Is this a more useful model? > >Yes, a useful model. You wrote, " occulting is proportional to the product of their cross section area (pi*r^2) and the linear thickness of matter " > >Why a product of areas, not a sum? If each mass doubles in radius, eight times the flux impacting each mass element of the other is blocked. Since there are now 8 times as many mass elements in each mass, you have 8 times the oculting on 8 times as many mass elements yielding 8 * 8 = 64 times the force on each one. While some of this flux blocking is not exactly on a line between them now, for separation distance large compared to their diameter, it is nearly on a line between them. >Is r the proton radius? r is the radius of each mass, R is their separation distance. Mike --------------------------------------------------- Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA ---------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 13:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nohmqa$1rg$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #592728 |
On 11.08.2016 04:14, Michael J. Strickland wrote: > Gravity results from an imbalance in the gravitational flux (gravitons > if you will) on a line between two massive objects. A solitary mass > sources a flux of gravitons which imparts momentum to anything they > hit. The universe imparts equal momentum to this solitary mass on all > sides so it has no net force on it. > > Two objects placed near each other occult (block/eclipse) some of this > ambient flux coming from the remainder of the masses in the universe. > This occulting is proportional to the product of their cross section > area (pi*r^2) and the linear thickness of matter this flux must > traverse. It is also inversely proportional to the distance between > the two masses squared (R^2). > > The math/geometry is correct, the only question: > > Is this a more useful model? Banj mentioned Feynman-Wheeler theory. The gravitatiopnal version is Hoyle–Narlikar theory (probably one of many) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%E2%80%93Narlikar_theory_of_gravity But for me your theory looks more like Le Sage's theory of gravitation. There is a flux of particles (thermalized or not)/waves/radiation in all directions, mass is shielding this flux so the other mass is in a "shadow" and get less pressure from the direction od the first mass. It was proposed ot the end of XVII century, the main contribution was done in XVIII, and the theory, under different modifications, was investigated by many scientist, including quite good ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation Read especially criticism and problems with this theory, so you would known what you need to fix. bartekltg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 06:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2f2488b0-62c2-4c95-ba8b-979ee20960a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #592752 |
Fatio was the one who LeSage plagiarized- Fatio was 200 years before LeSage. The "ultramundane particles" are the problem, which is solved when it is recognized that the Universe is Fractal in nature: matter with ITS radiation is composed of smaller-scaled matter that releases a smaller-scaled radiation. It is this smaller-scaled radiation-specifically smaller-scaled neutrinos- that are your push-gravitons
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 16:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <noi257$dec$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #592762 |
On 11.08.2016 15:41, john wrote: > Fatio was the one who LeSage plagiarized- > Fatio was 200 years before LeSage. 60 years, not 200. And Einstein Fridge was not invented by Einstein! ;-) That LeSage was not the first you can read both in my post and in linked wiki article. So what, maybe LeSage did it better*). Maybe he explained it better. Or had better friends. For physics id do not mean anything. *) "Leonhard Euler once remarked that Le Sage's model was "infinitely better" than that of all other authors" Zorn lemma was proven by Kuratowski 20 years earlier. Still called Zorn lemma ;-) Plagiarised? I do not think so. Michael J. Strickland figure it on his own. My friend had similar idea. It is not so complex that a couple of people could not invent it. Also, we speak about old dead theories. bartekltg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 09:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <noi2f2$1nl6$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #592762 |
On 8/11/2016 8:41 AM, john wrote: > Fatio was the one who LeSage plagiarized- > Fatio was 200 years before LeSage. > > The "ultramundane particles" are the > problem, which is solved How so? Show that the problems with LeSage gravity are resolved by your fractal scheme. > when > it is recognized that the Universe > is Fractal in nature: matter with ITS > radiation is composed of smaller-scaled matter > that releases a smaller-scaled radiation. > It is this smaller-scaled radiation-specifically > smaller-scaled neutrinos- that are > your push-gravitons > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 08:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7db63f52-532e-4f97-a3e7-a55396b6bdfc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #592767 |
Odd said " How so? Show that the problems with LeSage gravity are resolved by your fractal scheme" The "fractal scheme" predicates smaller and faster radiations down the scale. LeSage gravity has been proposed to only be possible if such "ultramundane" radiations exist. Look it up. Read for content, not show
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 10:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <noi6q8$1uum$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #592769 |
On 8/11/2016 10:11 AM, john wrote: > Odd said > " > How so? Show that the problems with LeSage gravity are resolved by your > fractal scheme" > The "fractal scheme" predicates > smaller and faster radiations > down the scale. > LeSage gravity has been proposed > to only be possible if such > "ultramundane" radiations exist. And yet there are problems with LeSage's "ultramundane particles". Do you know what they are? How does having smaller and faster ones fix them? > Look it up. Read for content, not show > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 09:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <974d68bc-285c-4712-bcce-0a5dbec93662@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #592776 |
Odd asked "And yet there are problems with LeSage's "ultramundane particles". Do you know what they are? How does having smaller and faster ones fix them? " You know what, Odd? You see if you can find that answer on your own, okay? It's out there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 11:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <noi92p$2tu$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #592779 |
On 8/11/2016 11:14 AM, john wrote: > Odd asked > "And yet there are problems with LeSage's "ultramundane particles". Do > you know what they are? How does having smaller and faster ones fix them? " > > You know what, Odd? > You see if you can find that answer > on your own, okay? > It's out there. > John, I really don't think so. The idea of fractal structures accounting for gravity is yours and yours alone. If it can be defended, then you are the one to do it. If you can't defend it, then there is no defense for your claim anywhere else. You are claiming that YOUR idea of fractal particles FIXES the problems that LeSage's theory has. So defend that claim. Or don't, and it will be recognized as empty and coming from someone who likes to blather. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 17:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <noidq1$a11$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #592779 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd asked >"And yet there are problems with LeSage's "ultramundane particles". Do >you know what they are? How does having smaller and faster ones fix them? " >You know what, Odd? >You see if you can find that answer >on your own, okay? >It's out there. So you don't have an answer for Odd. Because there isn't one. Yet you believe anyway. That is called religious faith, not science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 13:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <noifmp$dr4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #592790 |
On 8/11/2016 12:48 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > >> Odd asked >> "And yet there are problems with LeSage's "ultramundane particles". Do >> you know what they are? How does having smaller and faster ones fix them? " > >> You know what, Odd? >> You see if you can find that answer >> on your own, okay? >> It's out there. > > So you don't have an answer for Odd. Because there isn't one. > Yet you believe anyway. That is called religious faith, not science. > I think this motivates a lot of John's thinking. There are certain things he believes are true. Large corporations are evil. The government lies more than other human organizations. The universe is fractal. There is a savior for humanity that will rescue us from our ills. All things have structure. There is life at all scales. There are benevolent aliens who hold solutions for our ills. There is a massive conspiracy to avoid learning about those solutions for our ills. He can't really tell you WHY he believes such things, nor can he provide much in the way of corroborated evidence. But he insists these are true anyway. And he says that anyone who doesn't believe what he believes is a blind fool. He says, "Open your eyes, and believe what I believe!" And he has no reasons to offer when someone responds, "But why?" -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 18:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57acfa56$0$13183$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #592793 |
On 8/11/2016 2:21 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/11/2016 12:48 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Odd asked >>> "And yet there are problems with LeSage's "ultramundane particles". Do >>> you know what they are? How does having smaller and faster ones fix >>> them? " >> >>> You know what, Odd? >>> You see if you can find that answer >>> on your own, okay? >>> It's out there. >> >> So you don't have an answer for Odd. Because there isn't one. >> Yet you believe anyway. That is called religious faith, not science. >> > > I think this motivates a lot of John's thinking. There are certain > things he believes are true. Large corporations are evil. The government > lies more than other human organizations. The universe is fractal. There > is a savior for humanity that will rescue us from our ills. All things > have structure. There is life at all scales. There are benevolent aliens > who hold solutions for our ills. There is a massive conspiracy to avoid > learning about those solutions for our ills. > > He can't really tell you WHY he believes such things, nor can he provide > much in the way of corroborated evidence. But he insists these are true > anyway. And he says that anyone who doesn't believe what he believes is > a blind fool. He says, "Open your eyes, and believe what I believe!" And > he has no reasons to offer when someone responds, "But why?" > Oddly Odd believes that government lies no more than other groups of humans. Wonder where he got that idea? Probably spending too much time making wooden toys to notice that government is made up mostly of politicians. His believe might be proved true IF and ONLY IF the "other group" of humans is used car salesmen or journalists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 17:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <noiujg$14v0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #592841 |
On 8/11/2016 5:20 PM, benj wrote: >> > Oddly Odd believes that government lies no more than other groups of > humans. Wonder where he got that idea? Probably spending too much time > making wooden toys to notice that government is made up mostly of > politicians. First of all, I would contest that the government is made up mostly of politicians. If you had said Congress, yes. But the government includes caseworkers for Medicare, military soldiers, schoolteachers, VA hospital doctors, police officers, IRS auditors, Smithsonian Museum curators, highway project engineers, national park rangers and many many many more people than ever set foot in the Capitol. The number of POLITICIANS in government is a minority, one that gets a lot of press. So yes, I think the government AS A WHOLE lies no more than any other group of humans. And if you want to demonize certain professions and say that most people in those professions do more than their share of lying, then that's on you, bub. > His believe might be proved true IF and ONLY IF the "other > group" of humans is used car salesmen or journalists. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 22:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57ad34c3$0$43758$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #592846 |
On 8/11/2016 6:35 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/11/2016 5:20 PM, benj wrote: >>> >> Oddly Odd believes that government lies no more than other groups of >> humans. Wonder where he got that idea? Probably spending too much time >> making wooden toys to notice that government is made up mostly of >> politicians. > > First of all, I would contest that the government is made up mostly of > politicians. If you had said Congress, yes. But the government includes > caseworkers for Medicare, military soldiers, schoolteachers, VA hospital > doctors, police officers, IRS auditors, Smithsonian Museum curators, > highway project engineers, national park rangers and many many many more > people than ever set foot in the Capitol. The number of POLITICIANS in > government is a minority, one that gets a lot of press. So you "win" the debate again, right counselor? You always twist every situation around until you can make yourself the "winner" but you are really a loser because you are so busy twisting that you can't even think. The NUMBERS of workers as a whole exceeds the number of politicians. But are they HONEST? Admit it. Policy is set by politicians. Workers follow and support that policy (if they want to keep their jobs) So now lets ask is it a VALID scientific measure of honesty to count heads when the politicians are setting the stories and making everyone support the lies? Indeed when workers falsely support policies and stories they KNOW to be false is that dishonesty or just "doing your job". Clearly when we say government LIES we mean that government stories and polities and justifications are all lies. And those are all set by...wait for it... politicians. > So yes, I think the government AS A WHOLE lies no more than any other > group of humans. And if you want to demonize certain professions and say > that most people in those professions do more than their share of lying, > then that's on you, bub. Ah so in general used car salesmen are to be trusted because they are as honest as I am, right? No wait, as Honest as YOU are! Got it. >> His believe might be proved true IF and ONLY IF the "other >> group" of humans is used car salesmen or journalists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 07:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nokfc6$16l6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #592867 |
On 8/11/2016 9:30 PM, benj wrote: > On 8/11/2016 6:35 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/11/2016 5:20 PM, benj wrote: >>>> >>> Oddly Odd believes that government lies no more than other groups of >>> humans. Wonder where he got that idea? Probably spending too much time >>> making wooden toys to notice that government is made up mostly of >>> politicians. >> >> First of all, I would contest that the government is made up mostly of >> politicians. If you had said Congress, yes. But the government includes >> caseworkers for Medicare, military soldiers, schoolteachers, VA hospital >> doctors, police officers, IRS auditors, Smithsonian Museum curators, >> highway project engineers, national park rangers and many many many more >> people than ever set foot in the Capitol. The number of POLITICIANS in >> government is a minority, one that gets a lot of press. > > So you "win" the debate again, right counselor? You always twist every > situation around until you can make yourself the "winner" but you are > really a loser because you are so busy twisting that you can't even > think. The NUMBERS of workers as a whole exceeds the number of > politicians. But are they HONEST? I have no reason to believe they are not. > Admit it. Policy is set by > politicians. Workers follow and support that policy (if they want to > keep their jobs) So now lets ask is it a VALID scientific measure of > honesty to count heads when the politicians are setting the stories and > making everyone support the lies? So let's see if I understand your argument. You are saying that the few who are at the top of the power chain are corrupt. And that, because they are liars, then everyone in the same far-reaching organization and in the employ of the "government" are therefore complicit and guilty of the same lie. So that when a Senator lies, so then does the policeman. When a general lies, so then does the schoolteacher. > Indeed when workers falsely support > policies and stories they KNOW to be false is that dishonesty or just > "doing your job". Clearly when we say government LIES we mean that > government stories and polities and justifications are all lies. > And those are all set by...wait for it... politicians. And so the only way someone can remain pure and untainted by all this lying is to be not part of any organization of humans, because in every organization of humans, there is someone in power who is therefore corrupt, and then by association everyone else in the organization is also corrupt. Hence, better to be standing alone, employed by no one. Have I got that right? > >> So yes, I think the government AS A WHOLE lies no more than any other >> group of humans. And if you want to demonize certain professions and say >> that most people in those professions do more than their share of lying, >> then that's on you, bub. > > Ah so in general used car salesmen are to be trusted because they are as > honest as I am, right? No wait, as Honest as YOU are! Got it. Within the last 48 hours, Ben, you told me you lied, and it wasn't the first time. So yes, in general, used car sales salesmen are as honest as you are. Better get used to that idea. > >>> His believe might be proved true IF and ONLY IF the "other >>> group" of humans is used car salesmen or journalists. > > > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 11:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2d050cba-45ed-4274-9c46-1794691b0b10@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #592790 |
Michael "As shown by Laplace, another possible Le Sage effect is orbital aberration due to finite speed of gravity. Unless the Le Sage particles are moving at speeds much greater than the speed of light, as Le Sage and Kelvin ..." Answered- fractal radiations would move much faster than c. Suck gravity has the same problem, but since it has NO MECHANISM, it's not even wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web