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 | 13 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 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 04:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <83ba994a-7bac-4776-90e8-becfb90289ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #592728 |
בתאריך יום חמישי, 11 באוגוסט 2016 בשעה 05:14:40 UTC+3, מאת Michael Strickland: > 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] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 23:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <882cbb5f-c377-461e-b84c-e57b06ed6747@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #592728 |
בתאריך יום חמישי, 11 באוגוסט 2016 בשעה 05:14:40 UTC+3, מאת Michael Strickland: > 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] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 10:35 -0700 |
| Subject | skwaresville |
| Message-ID | <fc756cd5-64bf-40f3-b54e-c5301b23673a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593000 |
po rat tried to a) type, b) use English in a an a.s.c.i.i statement > > 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] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 15:03 -0700 |
| Subject | skwaresville |
| Message-ID | <c440810f-deea-4a56-9bf1-973a51bd67ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593030 |
Okay two hands went up. Here's the difference: at each level, neutrinos represent a VIBRATION given off- a unit of spin having a certain frequency- as their electron/Suns fuse matter. These are not particles, these are waves. There are these coming from matter in every possible trajectory wrt our matter. And our matter synchronizes with the ones that match its own frequency. So. Going faster won't increase the number of particles hitting the front and decrease the number hitting the back, it will simply redshift what is reacted to in front and blueshift what is reacted to behind, and everything will stay the same, and there will be no "bow wind".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 00:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: skwaresville |
| Message-ID | <noof8k$ttg$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #593060 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> tarded: <snip word salad, Oops, nothing left!>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 00:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: skwaresville |
| Message-ID | <bb5f0dad-b2b0-4e58-9e7b-0fe9f8ba69f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593030 |
בתאריך יום שבת, 13 באוגוסט 2016 בשעה 20:35:07 UTC+3, מאת noTthaTguY: > po rat tried to a) > type, b) > use English in a an a.s.c.i.i statement =============================== anonymous dreck hired gangster what is you r real baboon face better go f your mother ================================== Y.P ======================== > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 18:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <35fd1498-5ac5-4d79-8b9f-a11bc5c67886@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #592728 |
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:14:40 PM UTC-4, 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 > --------------------------------------------------- xxein: Turn everything above inside out and reverse it. Then you might come close. You might think that you are thinking outside the box but when the box says K-mart, you ain't going far.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 21:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57afce7a$0$40419$c3e8da3$b280bf18@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #593091 |
On 8/13/2016 9:30 PM, xxein1@att.net wrote: > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:14:40 PM UTC-4, 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 >> --------------------------------------------------- > > xxein: Turn everything above inside out and reverse it. Then you might come close. > > You might think that you are thinking outside the box but when the box says K-mart, you ain't going far. > XXein's opinion is worth just what you paid for it. The Internet rule is the more someone calls you a moron and a kook, the closer your theory is to truth. The dumber people are the more they think everyone else is stooopid. Lots of examples right here. Your theory actually IS how gravity works...except for that graviton thing, natch. That one came in the K-mart box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 10:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dc6f4e3b-49d9-4101-8176-c5160715ac60@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593094 |
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 9:50:53 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 8/13/2016 9:30 PM, xxein1@att.net wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:14:40 PM UTC-4, 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 > >> --------------------------------------------------- > > > > xxein: Turn everything above inside out and reverse it. Then you might come close. > > > > You might think that you are thinking outside the box but when the box says K-mart, you ain't going far. > > > XXein's opinion is worth just what you paid for it. > > The Internet rule is the more someone calls you a moron and a kook, the > closer your theory is to truth. The dumber people are the more they > think everyone else is stooopid. Lots of examples right here. > > Your theory actually IS how gravity works...except for that graviton > thing, natch. That one came in the K-mart box. xxein: Aha! I knew I could tease the real gravity out of you. Now we've got the answer to what gravity is. A flux from mass of something that is NOT gravitons that impart momentum, a universe that also imparts momentum except for a shielding density thing and it all works as 1/r^2. If we had only listened to you, we wouldn't have gone on that silly wild graviton chase. And all this Benji knowledge is for free. Now we can do stuff with gravity besides fall down. Wow! We sure were stupid. (Everybody shhhh. I think I can get an answer for this God thing out of him too.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 20:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <c122rbdejbcii0ln78ud09q7kpmqor1h1n@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #593091 |
On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 18:30:46 -0700 (PDT), xxein1@att.net wrote: >On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:14:40 PM UTC-4, 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 >> --------------------------------------------------- > >xxein: Turn everything above inside out and reverse it. Then you might come close. > >You might think that you are thinking outside the box but when the box says K-mart, you ain't going far. Anything relevant to say or just your above childish disrespect? Btw, what's your real name coward? Michael John Strickland --------------------------------------------------- Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA ---------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 17:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d2510f5c-df12-4dc1-a83d-9de57bb47c92@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593168 |
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 8:11:31 PM UTC-4, Michael Strickland wrote: > On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 18:30:46 -0700 (PDT), xxein1@att.net wrote: > > >On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:14:40 PM UTC-4, 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 > >> --------------------------------------------------- > > > >xxein: Turn everything above inside out and reverse it. Then you might come close. > > > >You might think that you are thinking outside the box but when the box says K-mart, you ain't going far. > > Anything relevant to say or just your above childish disrespect? > > Btw, what's your real name coward? > > Michael John Strickland > --------------------------------------------------- > Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA > --------------------------------------------------- xxein: See below. "DOA. Unfortunately for you, there is no good evidence for gravity to be occulted as you describe. However, instead of 'gravitons' originating from mass, try space. Think of them as tiny packets of energy but not electromagnetic energy as we know it. Instead of particles, let them be nodes of this energy field in an homogeneous equilibrium - except when they are used by mass. That is when they have to move to maintain the equilibrium state again. The flux. If you think of it as the 'fabric of space', you can realize the movement behavior of mass. As mass'eats them up' it creates a sinkhole in the fabric - proportional to the mass. As said, "Mass tells space how to curve. Curved space tells mass how to move." The effects are the same. But instead of a curved space-time that may be hard to grasp in the GR terminology, there is space that moves in time." (Incomplete sketch thought.) The above, I wrote a few days ago when the thread was getting out of hand. I filed it away. Would you like to discuss this as to what is known, possible and what is already debunked? I don't know everything but there many who would like to make good contributions. Unfortunately, there are still those who would attempt to take this far off track. Up to you. Btw, 'xxein' is my only posting handle. Always has been. I am told by Google that my email (one and only) is sometimes exposed. Big deal, huh?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 23:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cdaa5f56-0b02-4d29-bebf-a05cf925d5aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593175 |
בתאריך יום שני, 15 באוגוסט 2016 בשעה 03:46:11 UTC+3, מאת xxe...@att.net: > On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 8:11:31 PM UTC-4, Michael Strickland wrote: > > On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 18:30:46 -0700 (PDT), xxein1@att.net wrote: > > > > >On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:14:40 PM UTC-4, 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 > > >> --------------------------------------------------- > > > > > >xxein: Turn everything above inside out and reverse it. Then you might come close. > > > > > >You might think that you are thinking outside the box but when the box says K-mart, you ain't going far. > > > > Anything relevant to say or just your above childish disrespect? > > > > Btw, what's your real name coward? > > > > Michael John Strickland > > --------------------------------------------------- > > Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA > > --------------------------------------------------- > > xxein: See below. > > "DOA. Unfortunately for you, there is no good evidence for gravity to be occulted as you describe. > > However, instead of 'gravitons' originating from mass, try space. Think of them as tiny packets of energy but not electromagnetic energy as we know it. Instead of particles, let them be nodes of this energy field in an homogeneous equilibrium - except when they are used by mass. That is when they have to move to maintain the equilibrium state again. The flux. > > If you think of it as the 'fabric of space', you can realize the movement behavior of mass. As mass'eats them up' it creates a sinkhole in the fabric - proportional to the mass. As said, "Mass tells space how to curve. Curved space tells mass how to move." The effects are the same. But instead of a curved space-time that may be hard to grasp in the GR terminology, there is space that moves in time." > (Incomplete sketch thought.) > > The above, I wrote a few days ago when the thread was getting out of hand. I filed it away. Would you like to discuss this as to what is known, possible and what is already debunked? I don't know everything but there many who would like to make good contributions. Unfortunately, there are still those who would attempt to take this far off track. Up to you. > > Btw, 'xxein' is my only posting handle. Always has been. I am told by Google that my email (one and only) is sometimes exposed. Big deal, huh? ===================================== much simpler !! see Google 'the Y Circlon mechanism ''!! TIA Y.Porat ============================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 05:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2f2291ec-ec57-47de-aebc-7a8b05315393@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593200 |
On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 2:54:51 AM UTC-4, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > בתאריך יום שני, 15 באוגוסט 2016 בשעה 03:46:11 UTC+3, מאת xxe...@att.net: > > On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 8:11:31 PM UTC-4, Michael Strickland wrote: > > > On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 18:30:46 -0700 (PDT), xxein1@att.net wrote: > > > > > > >On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:14:40 PM UTC-4, 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 > > > >> --------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > >xxein: Turn everything above inside out and reverse it. Then you might come close. > > > > > > > >You might think that you are thinking outside the box but when the box says K-mart, you ain't going far. > > > > > > Anything relevant to say or just your above childish disrespect? > > > > > > Btw, what's your real name coward? > > > > > > Michael John Strickland > > > --------------------------------------------------- > > > Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA > > > --------------------------------------------------- > > > > xxein: See below. > > > > "DOA. Unfortunately for you, there is no good evidence for gravity to be occulted as you describe. > > > > However, instead of 'gravitons' originating from mass, try space. Think of them as tiny packets of energy but not electromagnetic energy as we know it. Instead of particles, let them be nodes of this energy field in an homogeneous equilibrium - except when they are used by mass. That is when they have to move to maintain the equilibrium state again. The flux. > > > > If you think of it as the 'fabric of space', you can realize the movement behavior of mass. As mass'eats them up' it creates a sinkhole in the fabric - proportional to the mass. As said, "Mass tells space how to curve. Curved space tells mass how to move." The effects are the same. But instead of a curved space-time that may be hard to grasp in the GR terminology, there is space that moves in time." > > (Incomplete sketch thought.) > > > > The above, I wrote a few days ago when the thread was getting out of hand. I filed it away. Would you like to discuss this as to what is known, possible and what is already debunked? I don't know everything but there many who would like to make good contributions. Unfortunately, there are still those who would attempt to take this far off track. Up to you. > > > > Btw, 'xxein' is my only posting handle. Always has been. I am told by Google that my email (one and only) is sometimes exposed. Big deal, huh? > ===================================== > much simpler !! > see Google > 'the Y Circlon mechanism ''!! > > TIA > Y.Porat > ============================ xxein: It's much simpler yet to say the Angels do all the housekeeping.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web