Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #721650 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-12-30 17:36 -0800 |
| Last post | 2019-01-09 21:35 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 194 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-30 17:36 -0800
Re: Push Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-31 01:45 +0000
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-30 18:02 -0800
Re: Push Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-31 02:37 +0000
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-30 19:28 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-30 22:09 -0600
Re: Push Gravity Paul Dakota <jsf@iaswmh.nb> - 2018-12-31 07:14 +0000
Re: Push Gravity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-31 09:48 -0600
Re: Push Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-31 04:57 +0000
Re: Push Gravity poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-12-30 23:19 -0800
Re: Push Gravity poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-12-30 23:23 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Paul Dakota <jsf@iaswmh.nb> - 2018-12-31 07:34 +0000
Re: Push Gravity poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-12-31 00:26 -0800
Re: Push Gravity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 00:31 -0800
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 03:20 -0800
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 04:40 -0800
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 05:06 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 14:30 +0000
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 08:42 -0800
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 09:27 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 18:07 +0000
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 10:19 -0800
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 10:25 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-31 12:53 -0600
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 19:29 +0000
Re: Push Gravity Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 14:08 -0800
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 14:26 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 14:44 -0800
Re: Push Gravity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 19:15 -0500
Re: Push Gravity Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 18:36 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-02 22:54 -0600
Re: Push Gravity Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 11:23 -0800
Re: Push Gravity poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-01-03 14:53 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 21:40 -0800
Re: Push Gravity poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-01-03 22:49 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 12:53 -0800
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 09:23 -0800
Re: Push Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-05 18:23 +0000
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 11:04 -0800
Re: Push Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-05 19:59 +0000
Re: Push Gravity Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 10:26 -0800
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 11:27 -0800
Re: Push Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-05 20:18 +0000
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 12:45 -0800
Re: Push Gravity poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-01-05 11:30 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 13:20 -0800
Re: Push Gravity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 18:30 -0500
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 16:23 -0800
Re: Push Gravity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-05 17:47 -0800
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 18:47 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-05 23:08 -0600
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 21:19 -0800
Re: Push Gravity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-05 21:01 -0800
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 21:56 -0800
Re: Push Gravity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-05 22:37 -0800
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 06:31 -0800
Re: Push Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-06 16:54 +0000
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 09:30 -0800
Re: Push Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-06 18:27 +0000
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 21:30 +0000
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 13:38 -0800
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 13:45 -0800
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 13:53 -0800
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:04 -0800
Re: Push Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-07 00:46 +0000
Re: Push Gravity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-06 14:05 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 22:16 +0000
Re: Push Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-07 00:44 +0000
Re: Push Gravity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-01-07 02:53 +0100
Re: Push Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-07 02:11 +0000
Re: Push Gravity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-01-07 03:57 +0100
Re: Push Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-08 15:55 +0000
Re: Push Gravity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-01-09 01:49 +0100
Re: Push Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-09 04:48 +0000
Re: Push Gravity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-01-09 15:27 +0100
Re: Push Gravity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-01-07 02:47 +0100
Re: Push Gravity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-07 10:58 -0600
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 22:16 +0000
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:21 -0800
Re: Push Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-07 00:38 +0000
Re: Push Gravity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-01-07 02:54 +0100
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 22:16 +0000
Re: Push Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-07 00:35 +0000
Re: Push Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-07 00:51 +0000
Re: Push Gravity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-01-07 03:02 +0100
Re: Push Gravity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 15:04 -0500
Re: Push Gravity poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-01-07 01:34 -0800
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 03:07 -0800
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 04:26 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 14:31 +0000
Re: Push Gravity "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 11:55 -0800
Re: Push Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-08 15:32 +0000
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 04:32 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 14:31 +0000
Re: Push Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-08 15:37 +0000
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 13:21 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 14:31 +0000
Re: Push Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-08 15:30 +0000
Re: Push Gravity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 15:02 -0500
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 23:00 +0000
Re: Push Gravity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 23:36 -0500
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 14:45 +0000
Re: Push Gravity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 15:43 -0500
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 12:52 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 21:39 +0000
Re: Push Gravity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 19:18 -0500
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-10 01:27 +0000
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 17:50 -0800
Re: Push Gravity poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-01-09 18:38 -0800
Re: Push Gravity poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-01-09 18:27 -0800
Re: Push Gravity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-06 11:11 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 21:07 +0000
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 21:07 +0000
Re: Push Gravity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 20:52 -0800
Re: Push Gravity poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-01-06 04:55 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 05:12 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-06 10:34 -0600
Re: Push Gravity "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 12:39 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-07 09:31 -0600
Re: Push Gravity poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-01-08 05:00 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 10:57 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 10:30 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 21:07 +0000
Re: Push Gravity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 14:54 -0500
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 23:00 +0000
Re: Push Gravity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 23:33 -0500
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 14:45 +0000
Re: Push Gravity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 15:42 -0500
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 19:29 +0000
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 12:05 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 20:50 +0000
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 13:13 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 21:48 +0000
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 14:01 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 22:11 +0000
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 14:17 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 22:31 +0000
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 14:50 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-01 00:00 +0000
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 16:13 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-01 01:47 +0000
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 18:00 -0800
Re: Push Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-01 13:36 +0000
Re: Push Gravity poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-01-04 02:33 -0800
Re: Push Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-04 16:26 +0000
Re: Push Gravity poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-01-04 08:47 -0800
Re: Push Gravity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 22:28 -0500
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 19:51 -0800
Re: Push Gravity turcaudjp@gmail.com - 2019-01-01 02:13 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-01 16:33 +0000
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-01 16:33 +0000
Re: Push Gravity poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-01-02 15:12 -0800
Re: Push Gravity poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-01-02 15:09 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 23:24 +0000
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 15:45 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 23:54 +0000
Re: Push Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 15:57 -0800
Re: Push Gravity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 19:23 -0500
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 02:44 +0000
I've been slandering UseNutters for 28 years now. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2019-01-02 16:19 -0800
Re: I've been slandering UseNutters for 28 years now. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-02 19:27 -0500
Re: I've been slandering UseNutters for 28 years now. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 17:30 -0700
Re: I've been slandering UseNutters for 28 years now. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 17:30 -0700
PeeScent's fifth grade education. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2019-01-02 16:39 -0800
Re: PeeScent's fifth grade education. Jeff-Relf.Me@ - 2019-01-02 17:43 -0700
Re: PeeScent's fifth grade education. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-02 19:53 -0500
Re: PeeScent's fifth grade education. Jeff-Relf.Me@ - 2019-01-02 17:59 -0700
Re: PeeScent is homeless, I assume. Jeff-Relf.Me@ - 2019-01-03 07:13 -0700
Re: PeeScent's fifth grade education. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-02 19:47 -0500
Re: PeeScent's fifth grade education. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 17:51 -0700
Re: Push Gravity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 19:22 -0500
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 02:44 +0000
Re: Push Gravity poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-01-02 23:49 -0800
Re: Push Gravity poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-01-03 02:47 -0800
Re: Push Gravity poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-01-03 02:53 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Arther Jackson <invalid@example.com> - 2019-01-04 15:10 -0800
Re: Push Gravity % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 16:12 -0700
Re: Push Gravity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 19:41 -0500
Re: Push Gravity poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-01-04 23:17 -0800
Re: Push Gravity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 19:17 -0500
Re: Push Gravity "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 14:41 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-06 10:35 -0600
Re: Push Gravity poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-01-02 23:45 -0800
Re: Push Gravity poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-01-01 02:19 -0800
Re: Push Gravity poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-12-31 01:59 -0800
Re: Push Gravity poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-12-31 02:15 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 14:14 +0000
Re: Push Gravity "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 09:57 -0800
Re: Push Gravity mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-31 14:08 -0800
Re: Push Gravity "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 14:42 -0800
Push Gravity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 19:53 -0800
Re: Push Gravity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-09 20:49 -0800
Re: Push Gravity Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 21:03 -0800
Re: Push Gravity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-09 21:35 -0800
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 10:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <67aafae9-8e15-484e-97a3-64c2c4b8aa48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #722268 |
On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 2:59:55 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > > >MM > >"Now you have something different from LeSage gravity. LeSage > >gravity has 'ultra mundane particles' coming uniformly from OUTSIDE, " > >Outside where? > > You'd have to ask LeSage, but he's dead. Death and Taxes. Right? Well, while people do, ideas never die. > It appears that he intended that they're from infinitely far away, but it > should 'work' as long as they come from well outside the region of the > gravitating bodies. That is, if it worked at all (it doesn't). That seems to be the consensus throughout the last 200+ years span of history. It was fun reading from all the names on the Wikipedia site. -- Mahipal == माहिपाल "My Pal" or "Maple" Loops, S(y)rup, Wood. IPMM ७६३८!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 11:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6aac37d4-cac9-49f7-9c29-c2e56de02ff3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #722264 |
MM “What is _electric_ force? Electrons and protons attract each other much more strongly than gravitation, as well as repel themselves. ” Yes, they do. They have opposite SPIN in Space (which you say cannot spin but CAN ‘warp’- you guys have SO MANY mutuall-exclusive ideas packed into your bullshit.) Opposite spins ATTRACT. Same spins REPEL. From fluid dynamics: ‘Generalizing, in fluid theory any two objects that spin in opposite directions will attract, while any two objects that spin in the same direction will repel.’ With your stupid Suck Gravity, electrons are both attracted to protons gravitationally AND electrically, and should INSTANTLY combine, but they don’t because....why? I know that you won’t even ATTEMPT to explain that one, because it HAS no explanation except for some Quantum probability hand-waving.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 20:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q0r3ev$nq5$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #722266 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >"What is _electric_ force? Electrons and protons attract each other much >more strongly than gravitation, as well as repel themselves. >" >Yes, they do. >They have opposite SPIN in Space (which you say cannot spin but CAN >'warp'- you guys have SO MANY mutuall-exclusive ideas packed into your >bullshit.) You are describing yourself by mutually exclusive ideas, not "us guys". >Opposite spins ATTRACT. >Same spins REPEL. >From fluid dynamics: WHAT? So now space is a FLUID? WTF, John? So what is this fluid? I assume you call it 'aether'/'ether'? Does your 'fluid theory' explain the inverse square law? >With your stupid Suck Gravity, electrons are both attracted to protons >gravitationally AND electrically, and should INSTANTLY combine, but they >don't because....why? It has been explained to you, many, many times. And that's just by myself. >I know that you won't even ATTEMPT to explain that one, because it HAS no >explanation except for some Quantum probability hand-waving. QM, not probability. And it's not "hand-waving", it is a VERY succesful theory. There is no N=0 state in Schrodinger's Wave Equation. Besides, HUP predicts it would require a huge amount of energy to confine an electron to within a proton's volume. >>Not to mention all kinds of stuff you simply ignore. What about neutrons? >>They are affected by gravity somewhat more than protons. You don't even >>mention neutrons at all, even though they contribute more than half the >>mass of non-hydrogen ordinary matter! >>What about the fact that electrons are affected by gravity less than >>protons (by a factor of 1800!) ? And what about other particles, >>antimatter and energy itself? Gravity affects all energy, not just >>electrons and protons. >>What about free/isolated electrons and protons? No answers to any of this, John? I guess that shit didn't stick to the wall, did it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 12:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <620a5505-3784-4749-a60d-91588365c67d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #722270 |
MM “No answers to any of this, John? I guess that shit didn't stick to the wall, did it. ” No answers you accept. You’re worried about the minutiae of my mechanism for gravity when you don’t have a mechanism AT ALL, and you invoke BRAND NEW forms of matter and energy on all fronts. Sad
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty6@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 11:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9d5ed4ea-5eae-4ee2-847b-9758ea88f344@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #722264 |
On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 8:23:28 PM UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > >Actually, Fatio came up with it before LeSage. > > >My addition is basically that it is the matter, itself, that provides > >these 'ultra mundane particles'. They come from the electrons radiating. > > >The objection to electrons radiating is they will run out of energy. > >One of the objections to Fatio/LeSage is the matter that absorbs will > >quickly have TOO MUCH energy. > >Hmm. > >Seems like the protons just have to feed it back to the electrons and > >it's all good > > Umm, no. Now you have something different from LeSage gravity. LeSage > gravity has 'ultra mundane particles' coming uniformly from OUTSIDE, and > since they purportedly provide the energy of gravitation, they must > provide energy to mass when they are absorbed. Too much energy. Now you > purportedly have matter radiating 'ultra mundane particles'/energy (which > would push everything apart!), something completely different. It can sort > of work if your radiation has negative momentum (allowing matter to > attract) but now what you have is essentially standard gravity with an > unnecessary dynamic radiation layered on top of it. Gravity, if viewed as > a force (GR says it isn't), is static, there is no need for any radiation > of negative momentum to implement it. All the radiation adds is a > complication of where all this unnecessary magic energy comes from and > where does it go. > > Not to mention all kinds of stuff you simply ignore. What about neutrons? > They are affected by gravity somewhat more than protons. You don't even > mention neutrons at all, even though they contribute more than half the > mass of non-hydrogen ordinary matter! > > What about the fact that electrons are affected by gravity less than > protons (by a factor of 1800!) ? And what about other particles, > antimatter and energy itself? Gravity affects all energy, not just > electrons and protons. > > What about free/isolated electrons and protons? > > What is _electric_ force? Electrons and protons attract each other much > more strongly than gravitation, as well as repel themselves. > > (No, I don't expect any real answer for any of this. All you do is pull > crap from your butt, ========================= =indeed pull crap !! there is no such thing as pull force any ting is ----PUSH FORCES !!!! TIA Y.P ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 13:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e8394395-df36-4e5d-b083-48d942db59a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #722261 |
On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 12:23:27 PM UTC-5, john wrote: > Mahipal > “"As its title suggests, this book expounds a theory that the force of > gravity is a push rather than a pull. This is not an idea invented by > Wright - a Frenchman named George-Louis LeSage is usually credited > with coming up with the first version of it in 1784." > > I've always enjoyed discussing whether ideas either discovered or invented.” > > Actually, Fatio came up with it before LeSage. TimeLife JackBenny "I'm 25, you're 39, when I'm 50, and you're still 39? What then?" joked the pretty young blonde. Yes, I did read the name Fatio when I was skimming through a few of those 84.1 million hits. It's like people spend their whole lives dealing with their mortality. > My addition is basically that it is the matter, itself, that > provides these ‘ultra mundane particles’. They come from the > electrons radiating. The objection to electrons radiating is they > will run out of energy. One of the objections to Fatio/LeSage is > the matter that absorbs will quickly have TOO MUCH energy. > Hmm. I read that ‘ultramundane particles’ came/orginated from outside the Universe. Also ultramundane?! What kind of a naming is that! Then again, WIMPs are fairly funny named too. The 'ol English Language all the way down to its acronyms. > Seems like the protons just have to feed it back to the electrons > and it’s all good Feynman insisted that there were/are/will be only two kinds of entities that physics had to deal with -- mass and radiation. Upon learning that, I thought that all was good and simplified. -- Mahipal == माहिपाल "My Pal" or "Maple" Loops, S(y)rup, Wood. IPMM ७६३८!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 18:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q0ren6$ka9$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #722277 |
On 1/5/2019 4:20 PM, Mahipal wrote: > On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 12:23:27 PM UTC-5, john wrote: >> Mahipal >> “"As its title suggests, this book expounds a theory that the force of >> gravity is a push rather than a pull. This is not an idea invented by >> Wright - a Frenchman named George-Louis LeSage is usually credited >> with coming up with the first version of it in 1784." >> >> I've always enjoyed discussing whether ideas either discovered or invented.” >> >> Actually, Fatio came up with it before LeSage. > > TimeLife JackBenny "I'm 25, you're 39, when I'm 50, and you're still > 39? What then?" joked the pretty young blonde. Yes, I did read the > name Fatio when I was skimming through a few of those 84.1 million hits. > > It's like people spend their whole lives dealing with their mortality. > >> My addition is basically that it is the matter, itself, that >> provides these ‘ultra mundane particles’. They come from the >> electrons radiating. The objection to electrons radiating is they >> will run out of energy. One of the objections to Fatio/LeSage is >> the matter that absorbs will quickly have TOO MUCH energy. >> Hmm. > > I read that ‘ultramundane particles’ came/orginated from outside the > Universe. Also ultramundane?! What kind of a naming is that! Then > again, WIMPs are fairly funny named too. The 'ol English Language all > the way down to its acronyms. > >> Seems like the protons just have to feed it back to the electrons >> and it’s all good > > Feynman insisted that there were/are/will be only two kinds of > entities that physics had to deal with -- mass and radiation. > Upon learning that, I thought that all was good and simplified. Actually it all can be traced back to Maxwell who noted that there are only two known ways to transmit energy (information): One is kinetic by the motion of particles (mass) and the other is by waves in a medium. Of course Odd came along and pointed out that this was all wrong and light needs no medicum and is not really waves, right? > -- Mahipal == माहिपाल "My Pal" or "Maple" Loops, S(y)rup, Wood. IPMM ७६३८! >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 16:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e3236eb2-2355-4f77-88fd-9cb6660e7f6c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #722287 |
Mahipal “Feynman insisted that there were/are/will be only two kinds of entities that physics had to deal with -- mass and radiation. ” Well, yes, but let’s call it ‘matter and radiation’ that reoccurs up and down the size scale like the same note at different octaves. “Mass” will be shown to be a variable, depending on outside influences
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 17:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6623b7f0-6a82-4fb1-b787-c20d9020698f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #722289 |
On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 4:23:56 PM UTC-8, john wrote: > Mahipal > “Feynman insisted that there were/are/will be only two kinds of > entities that physics had to deal with -- mass and radiation. ” > Well, yes, but let’s call it ‘matter and radiation’ that reoccurs up and down the size scale like the same note at different octaves. > “Mass” will be shown to be a variable, depending on outside influences. Well, John, as usual, you have put your mouth in motion before putting your mind in gear... https://www.quora.com/Is-Mass-constant "Mass can be defined as the amount of matter present in a body. This value does not change under any condition, when mass is measured at a state where it is moving at a velocity not comparable to the speed of light (3 x 10^8 m/s)." It goes on the say... "On the other hand, the weight of a body, which is a function of the mass of a body as well as the acceleration due to gravity it undergoes, changes with the acceleration due to gravity from location to location. So, generally speaking: yes, mass is a constant." Do you actually believe that you are smarter than Feynman? That would be very unusual, an extremely small percentage of humanity is smarter than Feynman... Google is your friend and you should consult with him more often.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 18:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <643fb546-f595-4f41-ac8e-30abda0dd510@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #722291 |
pnal “Mass can be defined as the amount of matter present in a body” I know this is what is currently believed. It’s wrong
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 23:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <q0s2g6$15k1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #722300 |
On 1/5/2019 8:47 PM, john wrote: > pnal > “Mass can be defined as the amount of matter present in a body” > I know this is what is currently believed. > It’s wrong > why ? if you weight 250 #, that is your mass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 21:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dd2a7667-c879-4b39-8e16-99faf4382779@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #722306 |
Sergio “why ? if you weight 250 #, that is your mass” Matter can be levitated using sound, for one. The movement of electrons in a body is random. The movement of electrons in an atom is not. If you can unify the movement of all the atoms in a body by sound or magnetic patterning, you can affect its reaction to gravity, and even to light, for as long as you apply that pattern of sound waves or magnetic waves. During that time, it’s mass is altered. Mass can be altered
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 21:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e9a6c791-c776-43ff-84fd-a4d9ab1b34c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #722300 |
On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 6:47:51 PM UTC-8, john wrote: > pnal > “Mass can be defined as the amount of matter present in a body” > I know this is what is currently believed. > It’s wrong It's a DEFINITION, John, not a belief! It can't be wrong... what are you thinking? Oh, wait, you are not thinking...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 21:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d014a255-04b7-407a-9efb-75281c079a91@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #722310 |
pnal “It's a DEFINITION” And it’s wrong. In some cases, the mass can be changed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 22:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <77622f10-f667-4ca1-9e3d-8c8101500b53@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #722321 |
On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 10:16:32 PM UTC-8, john wrote: > pnal > “It's a DEFINITION” > And it’s wrong. > In some cases, the mass can be changed def·i·ni·tion /ˌdefəˈniSH(ə)n/Submit noun 1. a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary. What don't you understand about this? A definition, by definition, can't be wrong, unless it is misquoted...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 06:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b873baa4-359a-4661-a799-b10e7f5324f9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #722326 |
pnal “What don't you understand about this? A definition, by definition, can't be wrong, unless it is misquoted... ” So are you saying that a body composed of a certain number of atoms will always react to gravity in the same way? What about levitation by sound?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 16:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q0tbrp$jv5$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #722337 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >pnal >"What don't you understand about this? A definition, by definition, > can't be wrong, unless it is misquoted... " >So are you saying that a body composed of a certain number of atoms Certain mass, yes. > will always react to gravity in the same way? What about levitation by sound? What? You understand much less than I gave you credit for. Do you not understand simple mechanics, where the total force = the sum of all forces on a body? In that case the vector force of gravity (downward) plus the force of sound levitation (upward) add to zero, so the object remains stationary. And since when is levitation by sound gravity? Maybe you don't even understand the difference between force and gravity?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 09:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <adabbcf0-23a7-4827-bdf3-5587ad3bdcfc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #722342 |
MM “And since when is levitation by sound gravity?” Here Michael- from Wiki ‘Levitation refers to raising an object against the force of gravity ’ Levitation automatically infers ‘against gravity’. You and Odd have a lot of trouble with the meaning of simple words. Something to do with your QM indoctrination? Spin isn’t spin, etc?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q0thai$vmq$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #722343 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >"And since when is levitation by sound gravity?" >Here Michael- from Wiki >"Levitation refers to raising an object against the force of gravity " >Levitation automatically infers "against gravity". It says "against gravity", not "is gravity". If I push against you, it does not mean I am you! Once again, forces are vectors and add as vectors. See what this dude Newton had to say. So the force of gravity pulls downward, and the levitation force is upward, against gravity, they add to zero and the object remains stationary. This is high school physics. Maybe middle school physics. Were you cutting physics class in order to patronize Little Pharma back then? Or did their products just fry your mind? >You and Odd have a lot of trouble with the meaning of simple words. >Something to do with your QM indoctrination? Spin isn't spin, etc? Complains the guy who doesn't even know the meaning of "against" (or "is", or perhaps some other word). QM spin has units of angular momentum like actual spin, it was called spin way back when before they knew many details but did know it had units of angular momentum. There are many QM properties that don't have a macroscopic relevance. Does it really bother you that scientists use words like "spin", "color", "flavor" rather than words like "plyxxt", "zlommk" or "quobblut" to describe those properties?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 21:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q0ts1a$108i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #722343 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > MM > “And since when is levitation by sound gravity?” > Here Michael- from Wiki > ‘Levitation refers to raising an object against the force of gravity ’ > Levitation automatically infers ‘against gravity’. > > You and Odd have a lot of trouble with the meaning of simple words. And the force a table pushes upward on an ashtray is “against gravity”. As is the string that holds up a fishing weight and hook: against gravity. Levitation simply means an upward directed force that opposes the downward gravitational force on an object, when that force is not applied by some other solid body. So a helium balloon rises not because gravity has been removed. (In fact a helium balloon on the moon would fall to the ground as quickly as a dropped hammer.) It rises because the surrounding air exerts an upward buoyant force due to the difference in air pressure from the top to the bottom of the balloon, and that buoyant force happens to be larger than the gravitation force downward. You are very confused about basic high school physics. > Something to do with your QM indoctrination? Spin isn’t spin, etc? > QM has nothing to do with this. And no, explanations in science are not required to use the same commonplace language you like. In fact that is counterproductive, which is exactly why physics textbooks do not cater to your desires. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web