Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #592728 > unrolled thread

The New Gravity Theory

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#592913

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael
>Suck gravity has the same problem,
>but since it has NO MECHANISM,
>it's not even wrong.

What do you mean no mechanism?  GR gravitation can be summed up as
follows: "Mass tells space how to curve. Curved space tells mass how
to move."

Since you demand science be explainable practically at the kindergarten
level, you should love that description.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592950 — "theory of ****

Aristarchus showed the diameter of rrth,
by using a pair of gnomon on two lattitudes
of the same longitude at n00n e.g

> What do you mean no mechanism?  GR gravitation can be summed up as
> follows: "Mass tells space how to curve. Curved space tells mass how
> to move."
> 
> Since you demand science be explainable practically at the kindergarten
> level, you should love that description.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592981 — "theory of ****

Aristotle would have laughed
at DM
It was originally a joke
Still is for thinking ppl

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592992 — "theory of ****

If one uses radiation of a certain
frequency in place of
the "ultramundane particles",
then the gravity does
not come from a physical pressure
but from increased synchrony
with the proper vibration.
This would also eliminate the
problem with going faster;
it doesn't "hit" more, it just interacts
with a different, Doppler-shifted
population of the radiation spectrum.

Word salad for mickey 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592995 — Re: "theory of ****

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

<snip crap>

>Word salad for mickey 

So if you know it's word salad, why post it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593011 — Re: "theory of ****

Michael said
"

So if you know it's word salad, why post it? "

It's only word salad FOR YOU

For others, it makes sense

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593017 — Re: "theory of ****

On 8/13/2016 10:06 AM, john wrote:
> Michael said
> "
>
> So if you know it's word salad, why post it? "
>
> It's only word salad FOR YOU
>
> For others, it makes sense
>

What others besides you?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593027 — Re: "theory of ****

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael said
>"

>So if you know it's word salad, why post it? "

>It's only word salad FOR YOU

>For others, it makes sense

I don't think so.

Unless by "others" you mean yourself and a mouse in your pocket.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593028 — "theory of ideal gasses & beyond them

what the o,p mentioned about gravitons;
completely alleviated by Alfven et al at u.c.s.d, and Upsalla.u labs

> For others, it makes sense

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593201

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 8:49:49 PM UTC+3, 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.
=======================================
Hi Ass keaker Moroney !!
=====================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592838

On 8/11/2016 7:16 AM, bartekltg wrote:
> 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
>
See the criticisms as to why "Gravitons" won't work. Actual mechanism is 
aether waves which produce forces on mass like soundwaves do on 
balloons. Shielding effect produce the gravitational variation with 
distance as all have surmised.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592856

Benj alluded to "waves in the aether".
If matter is structured from a smaller
version of itself, then the aether is
simply unstructured, or fluid, matter,
which might have waves.
But I still think the answer lies
in the existence of smaller-scale emr
realms to match that smaller version
of the atom.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592900

On 11.08.2016 23:59, benj wrote:
> On 8/11/2016 7:16 AM, bartekltg wrote:

>> 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
>>
> See the criticisms as to why "Gravitons" won't work. Actual mechanism is
> aether waves which produce forces on mass like soundwaves do on
> balloons. Shielding effect produce the gravitational variation with
> distance as all have surmised.

I saw in this article quite long paragraph about wave model and
why it would not work too:)

BTW. "aether"? WTF.


bartekltg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592787

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 7:14:40 PM UTC-7, 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?
> 
> Mike
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------

Any gravity theory that posits a "flux" of force particles is dead on arrival. The reason is that gravity affects everything including the flux particles themselves, thereby resulting in an infinite self-referential regress. Not even wrong.

Gravity is indeed the result of an imbalance (all forces are) but the imbalance is caused by violations in the conservation of energy. Nature tries to correct the violations by moving energy (both massive and massless particles) toward the source of the violations. The energy conservation principle is a nonlocal principle. Gravity is thus nonlocal and instantaneous.

To repeat, all flux gravity theories are wrong right out of the gate. This is one of the many reason that LIGO is a fucking fraud to the tune of billions of dollars. Hell GR itself is a fraud. Einstein knew it, calling it "my entire castle in the air." Some people need to go to jail. It's not nice to con the entire world.

ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592789

On 8/11/2016 12:10 PM, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
> Any gravity theory that posits a "flux" of force particles is dead on arrival.
> The reason is that gravity affects everything including the flux particles
> themselves, thereby resulting in an infinite self-referential regress. Not even wrong.

You may be interested in a highly verified theory of the strong nuclear 
interactions called quantum chromodynamics. Introduced in the 1960's, it 
has had five decades of experimental test and verification. One of the 
interesting features of this theory is that the "force particles", 
called gluons, also feel the strong nuclear interaction. That is, gluons 
interact with gluons. This is what I gather you call "self-referential 
regress", something you think cannot possibly be (for some reason not 
articulated). However, this aspect of QCD turns out to be the only way 
to explain some of the observed phenomenology of strong interactions, 
including jets of secondary particles in high transverse-pT collisions 
at particle accelerators. Thus something you think cannot be true of the 
universe does in fact appear to be true in experiment. In science, 
anyway, experiment trumps all human expectations of how the universe 
should work.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592792

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 10:38:16 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/11/2016 12:10 PM, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
> > Any gravity theory that posits a "flux" of force particles is dead on arrival.
> > The reason is that gravity affects everything including the flux particles
> > themselves, thereby resulting in an infinite self-referential regress. Not even wrong.
> 
> You may be interested in a highly verified theory of the strong nuclear 
> interactions called quantum chromodynamics. Introduced in the 1960's, it 
> has had five decades of experimental test and verification. One of the 
> interesting features of this theory is that the "force particles", 
> called gluons, also feel the strong nuclear interaction. That is, gluons 
> interact with gluons. This is what I gather you call "self-referential 
> regress", something you think cannot possibly be (for some reason not 
> articulated). However, this aspect of QCD turns out to be the only way 
> to explain some of the observed phenomenology of strong interactions, 
> including jets of secondary particles in high transverse-pT collisions 
> at particle accelerators. Thus something you think cannot be true of the 
> universe does in fact appear to be true in experiment. In science, 
> anyway, experiment trumps all human expectations of how the universe 
> should work.

Bodkin, why don't you crawl back under your little rock you live under? Electrons, too, interact with electrons. So fucking what? The problem with gravitons is that gravity does not behave as if the "force particles" interact with themselves. Even the stupid black hole crackpottery of mainstream physics would be impossible if gravitons were involved because nothing can escape a black hole by definition, including the gravitons themselves.

Gravitons (or whatever unicorn particle you clueless bozos can think of) would be accelerated at twice the rate of massive particles if they existed. Think about it. How would you get an inverse square law from this crap?

Modern physics is sitting on a mountain of crap. Physicists wallow in the crap with a smile on their faces.

ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592796

On 8/11/2016 1:05 PM, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
> On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 10:38:16 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/11/2016 12:10 PM, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
>>> Any gravity theory that posits a "flux" of force particles is dead on arrival.
>>> The reason is that gravity affects everything including the flux particles
>>> themselves, thereby resulting in an infinite self-referential regress. Not even wrong.
>>
>> You may be interested in a highly verified theory of the strong nuclear
>> interactions called quantum chromodynamics. Introduced in the 1960's, it
>> has had five decades of experimental test and verification. One of the
>> interesting features of this theory is that the "force particles",
>> called gluons, also feel the strong nuclear interaction. That is, gluons
>> interact with gluons. This is what I gather you call "self-referential
>> regress", something you think cannot possibly be (for some reason not
>> articulated). However, this aspect of QCD turns out to be the only way
>> to explain some of the observed phenomenology of strong interactions,
>> including jets of secondary particles in high transverse-pT collisions
>> at particle accelerators. Thus something you think cannot be true of the
>> universe does in fact appear to be true in experiment. In science,
>> anyway, experiment trumps all human expectations of how the universe
>> should work.
>
> Bodkin, why don't you crawl back under your little rock you live under? Electrons, too, interact with
> electrons. So fucking what?

No, they don't. They interact with PHOTONS. The only path for electrons 
to interact with electrons is through an intermediary photon. But 
photons do not interact with photons. So in this way, quantum 
electrodynamics is different than quantum chromodynamics, because gluons 
DO interact with gluons, as well as with quarks.

> The problem with gravitons is that gravity does not behave as if the "force particles" interact with
> themselves. Even the stupid black hole crackpottery of mainstream physics would be impossible if
> gravitons were involved because nothing can escape a black hole by definition, including the gravitons
> themselves.

Here is where you have simply taken a soundbite and completely 
misunderstood what was being said. Somehow you think that theories of 
gravitation say that gravitons are emitted from inside the event horizon 
of a black hole and that's how matter would be attracted to the black 
hole. But in fact this is NOT WHAT THOSE THEORIES SAY. The gravitons do 
NOT come from the interior of the black hole at all.

>
> Gravitons (or whatever unicorn particle you clueless bozos can think of) would be accelerated at
> twice the rate of massive particles if they existed.

Another sound bite where you have completely misunderstood what was 
being said.

> Think about it. How would you get an inverse
> square law from this crap?

It's pretty easy to show how general relativity produces the inverse 
square law in the low-gravity limit, which is where Newtonian gravity 
applies.

>
> Modern physics is sitting on a mountain of crap. Physicists wallow in the crap with a smile on their faces.

I think all that you've demonstrated, Louis, is that you are only 
capable of misreading soundbites from magazine articles and an 
occasional web page, and then running with that misreading straight into 
the weeds. It's like you get in a truck and drive it badly on the 
highway, having no clue how to make the think work right, and when you 
topple the truck over into a ditch, you get out and say, "See? I told 
you this truck is a broken piece of shit!"


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592798

Odd
I'm not sure why you believe in
all the fantasies in modern day
Physics.
Point particles.
Suck (magic) gravity.
Dark matter.
Length contractions.
Random energies somehow organizing.
Etc.
Etc.
But I'll give you this: you're sure stubborn!
No damn OBSERVATIONS are going
to get in the way of your beliefs.
They're all hoaxes, anyway, according to you.
According to you,
the world is FULL of hoaxers and tricksters,
ALL spending HUGE amounts of
Time and energy manufacturing
very similar pictures and stories about
aliens and their craft.
Must be a scary life, Odd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592803

On 8/11/2016 1:47 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> I'm not sure why you believe in
> all the fantasies in modern day
> Physics.
> Point particles.
> Suck (magic) gravity.
> Dark matter.
> Length contractions.
> Random energies somehow organizing.
> Etc.
> Etc.

Because observations support this.

> But I'll give you this: you're sure stubborn!
> No damn OBSERVATIONS are going
> to get in the way of your beliefs.

Observations are what makes me believe the above that you call fantasies.

> They're all hoaxes, anyway, according to you.
> According to you,
> the world is FULL of hoaxers and tricksters,

No, not full, but there's enough of them.

> ALL spending HUGE amounts of
> Time and energy manufacturing
> very similar pictures and stories about
> aliens and their craft.

I'm not sure how much money you think I'm saying is involved. The 
production of the alien autopsy movie cost about $2500, according to 
Santilli. Adamski's wife described the things her husband used to build 
to fake his photos. Most were in the vicinity of a couple hundred or 
less. We're talking maybe a few hundred $k by the hoaxsters, tops. Of 
course, as they sold their stuff -- like Geller and others -- they could 
use the proceeds to create more stage craft.

But time and energy, yes. A lot of people have their whole lives 
absorbed by the alien thing. Ask the people in Roswell. There are some 
people there who have spent the last 40 years, 2000 hrs/year, promoting 
aliens. That's 80,000 hours for ONE PERSON, devoted to catering to 
people like you.

> Must be a scary life, Odd
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592813

Odd
"People like me"?
Whoa.
Like to pigeon-hole much?
There is me.
There is you.
We are each unique.
One of us has a mind that's more
open to new ideas.
One of us doesn't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web