Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 73

Thread: gravity waves and gravity speed.

  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,829
    Ok we hav a big flywheel spinning in deep-outerspace. What iz happening to the aether?? Do we hav perpetual motion??

    The aether exiting near the poles probly circles back to re-enter near the rim. If so then the aether flow symmetry would form two doughnuts side by side. In any case the aether entering the flywheel must gradualy veer allmost 90dg while inside the flywheel.
    (Erratum). Later i realized that if aether haz zero shear-rezistance (zero viscosity) then aether exiting near the axle wouldn't quickly circle back in to enter near the rim, it would probly eventually circle back in from a long long way away.

    Veering-aether creates forces tending to pull the flywheel apart axially , ie in addition to the centrifugal forces tending to pull the flywheel apart radially. The atoms of the flywheel rezisting being pulled apart axially create forces tending to oppoze the aether's veering outflow, which creates a backpressure oppozing the aether's inflow, which inkreeces the centrifugal forces tending to pull the flywheel apart. Here we hav a sort of feedback. Will the flywheel-spin and aether-flow quietly reech equilibrium, or will there be short-term or long-term reverberation?? Duzz reverberation rob energy and slow the flywheel??

    Az aether enters at the rim and moovs towards the spin-axis the streamlines converge, ie the aether accelerates, and this reduces the radial centrifugal force(s).

    Do we hav perpetual motion, or iz there energy loss?? If the flywheel (in deep-outerspace) reeches quiet equilibrium then there mightn't be any further energy loss. Perpetual aether-forces creating gravity-mass and inertial-mass probly do not rob kinetic energy.

    Praps the flywheel duznt reech quiet equilibrium. Water passing a post creates eddys downstream, a sort of turbulence. Aether iz a sort of fluid. Iz gravity-mass allways a turbulent process?? Iz inertial-mass or radial inertial-mass allways a turbulent process?? Praps they iz.
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-08-2014 at 09:49 PM.

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,829
    Ok we hav a big flywheel spinning on Earth (not in deep-outerspace). What happens to the aether??
    Firstly, we hav lots of matter nearby in every direktion. Secondly, if on Earth, the flywheel iz surrounded by air (even if it iz in a vacuum chamber there iz air nearby outside)(unless in orbit).

    Inertial-(spin)g pulls aether radially inwards towards the rim, and the aether then exits axially near the two poles of the axle.[/b] The accelerating aether will pull air radially in along the plane of the flywheel, and this air then flows away axially. If the flywheel iz inside a vacuum chamber then air outside the chamber will still flow in and away, allbeit more weakly. Anyhow, air-moovment creates air turbulence and air friction, and needs a driving force, ie a continuous power supply, robbing energy from something.

    If the radial-inflow of aether near the rim pulls air inwards, then this retards the aether inflow. This retardation inkreeces the centrifugal force in the flywheel -- this iz a second feedback effekt, due to the inertial-mass of the air retarding aether inflow (the first feedback effekt involved the inertial-mass of the wheel pulling aether inwards). Feedback due to the inertial-mass of the wheel might create aether-turbulence, but feedback due to air-turbulence must create aether-turbulence.

    There are probly two types of aether-turbulence. Firstly an obvious type of aether-turbulence due to air-turbulence (see abov). But all matter everywhere yields, ie bends, stretches, sqeezes, vibrates, moovs etc -- solids, liquids, gases, all do it. We hav solid tides and liquid tides and gas tides of all sorts and sizes in every corner of the cosmos. And planets and stars are ringing like bells. Any such moovment anywhere in the cosmos must produce feedback and thusly aether-turbulence. Aether-tides (the so called speed of gravity) travel at praps 20,000,000,000*c.

    Secondly there iz some sort of less obvious esoteric aether-reverberation (rather than turbulence) arizing from feedback from the flywheel's inertial-mass and the air's inertial-mass (not just from the air's turbulence). And don't forget to throw in some feedback from the spins and orbits of Earth and Moon and Sun and MilkyWay and cosmos (ie in addition to simple feedback effekts from their simple gravity-mass).

    Kan we harness the power of the air-moovment?? Yes, we kood install wind tunnels with turbine generators, but harvesting energy would slow the flywheel via feedback mechanizms of the sorts allready mentioned. Hencely there iznt any likelyhood of a perpetual-motion-machine here, not on Earth, and not in deep-outerspace.

    I reckon aether-hammer (from feedback and reverberation and turbulence) changes inertial-mass but not gravity-mass.
    Thusly i reckon that inertial-mass duznt equal gravity-mass at all times. I reckon that inertial-mass sort of changes in magnitude, heavyer, lighter, heavyer, at very small time-scales. Naturally this woznt detekted by any of our sloooow historic tests of equivalence.

    Cahill says The Shnoll Effect iz due to gravitational-reverberation of aether-flow due to large bodys at large distances.
    U kood say that reverberation iz a bit like water-hammer in pipes (but aether-hammer, ie gravity-hammer). And, Cahill kood hav sayd Shnoll Effekts, koz Shnoll says there are at least 3 species (due to 3 major cosmic distances). But how and why Cahill's aether-turbulence progresses from London to Perth at only (Cahill's) 500km/sec (ie c/600) iz a mystery. Theze are exciting times.

    The good news iz that i think i hav identyfyd a possible cause of the Shnoll Effekts.
    The Shnoll Effekts are due to the non-equivalence of inertial-mass and gravity-mass at all time scales.
    (Erratum). No, i am wrong, non-equivalence wont produce Shnoll, but a change in non-equivalence will.
    Thusly, if gravity-mass iz constant (which it iz) and if inertial-mass iznt constant (it never iz) then we hav Shnoll.
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-08-2014 at 09:59 PM.

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,829
    Earlyer, re the inertia of spin-up for a flywheel in deep-outerspace, i sayd that tangential-inertia woz zero, i wrote.....
    ...............No, i am wrong. If there iz no other matter nearby (we are in deep-space remember), and if aether haznt mass, during spin-up we will hav radial-inertia but we wont hav any tangential-inertia. Aether duznt rezist motions (ie speeds), it only rezists accelerations. But this rezistance iz only by virtue of aether pulling on other matter nearby. Radial-inertia allways haz other matter to pull on, koz a spinning body haz matter on both sides of the spin-axis (or in the case of a spinning flywheel, on all sides). But tangential-inertia aint so lucky........
    (Not Important). If there iz zero tangential-inertia then flywheel spin-up kan be instantaneous (if u want).
    (Erratum). Later i remembered that the flywheel's own mass will supply (some, not much) tangential-inertia, rezisting spin-up.


    This iz tricky -- it depends on the manner of spin-up.
    If u somehow applyed a tangential spin-up force to every atom in the flywheel then indeed there would be zero tangential-inertia, koz there would be zero spin-up force. Its like this -- if u bump an atom, the atom pulls on aether -- the massless aether looks for mass (atoms) to pull on. If it karnt find any in quick time, then the bumped atom wont offer any rezistance to the bump, it will hav zero inertia.

    The flywheel haz millions of atoms to pull on. But if eech and every atom iz getting a spin-up force in a tangential direktion, and if the size of the force iz dezigned to giv equal radial speed (ie if the outer atoms get a proportionately bigger force), then the aether wont find atoms to pull on. Koz, every atom iz allready mooving with the aether, at all times, at all points. And thusly the flywheel (in this particular example) haz zero tangential-inertia rezisting spin-up. Thusly the spin-up force(s) must be zero. Thusly i shoodnt hav sayd spin-up force, i shood hav sayd spin-up.

    What if u applyed a tangential spin-up force to only one target-atom in the flywheel??
    This atom would then pull and push direktly on touching atoms. An atomic sound-wave would ripple out in every direktion, pulling and pushing on every other atom. There might be lots of atomic sound-waves, echoing back and forth throo the flywheel, depending on the nature of the original force(s). But the aether-tide travels at say 20,000,000,000*c. Atomic sound-waves travel at say 1km/s, which iz say c/300,000. The disparity here iz 1 in 6,000,000,000,000,000. Thusly the aether would pull or push on every atom in the flywheel before any atom heard anything. And the aether-tide would hammer/echo that pulling or pushing back to the target-atom. Thusly the target-atom would rezist the spin-up force, thusly it would exhibit inertia, thusly it would hav inertia-mass.

    Some of the atoms in the flywheel would feel the full force of the aether. But most atoms would feel a partial force, their mass wouldn't fully kontribute to the target-atom's inertial-mass, koz they might be near the same "spoke" of the flywheel az the target-atom, but nearer the axle (or farther). The aether iz pulling or pushing theze on an angle rather than direktly.

    The more mass rezisting the aether then the greater the inertia exhibited by the target-atom. I reckon that ....
    A. Gravity-mass never varys, it iz allways 100%, everywhere in the cosmos.
    B. Inertial-mass iz allways less than 100%, the exakt value depending on surrounding cosmic matter.
    C. Inertial-mass varys up or down due to aether-turbulence at large time-scales due to cosmic turbulence.
    D. Inertial-mass varys up & down due to aether-hammer at small time-scales, due to cosmic distances & masses (at least 3 species here).
    E. Inertial-mass varys up & down due to aether-hammer at very small time-scales due to cosmic spins & orbits.

    F. Miles Mathis' Charge-Field. If Miles iz korrekt re hiz charge-field's contribution to gravity-g, then that might affekt our flywheel stuff etc. Charge-field makes a plus or minus contribution, its komplikated. I hav taken the eezy way out and largely ignored it. Miles duznt beleev in aether, but i see hiz charge-field theory and (my verzion of) aether theory az being very compatible.
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-08-2014 at 10:02 PM.

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,829
    Something duznt add up here. Consider a giant flywheel az massiv az Earth sitting in space.

    1. Aether iz blowing past and throo the flywheel at 400km/s to 460km/s (say 430km/s), along the plane (not along the axle) -- the flywheel feels nothing.

    2. Now we allow the flywheel-mass to annihilate aether, and thusly it attracts aether at say 1km/s in the plane. If so the aether-wind iz now +431km/s on the weather side, and -429km/s on the lee. And the flywheel feels say 1g of compression inside, due to its own gravity acting on itself all round in the plane (gravity-g iz possibly az per earth, ie 9.8m/s/s, in the plane but not axially).

    3. Now the flywheel iz allso spinning. The centrifugal force (spin-g) at the rim iz say 1g. Aether iz sucked in at say 0.1km/s near the rim and iz spat out near the axle. The aether-wind iz now +430.9km/s on the weather side, and -429.1km/s on the lee. The flywheel feels nothing, koz its gravity-g iz balanced by its spin-g, at least it iz balanced at the rim. Or iz it??

    Gravity-g lessens closer to the axle, and iz zero at the spin-axis. Spin-g likewize, lets say equally to gravity-g.
    If so then theze balance at the rim and everywhere else, at least in the plane (not axially). But we havnt taken full account of inertia-(spin)g, ie pulling aether in near the rim (at 0.1km/s). If aether iz accelerating inwards near the rim then the spin-g karnt reech its full value (1g here, at the rim). Or iz it a chicken and egg thing, iz inertia-(spin)g automatically inklooded in spin-g.

    I think that spin-g iz 100% math and zero science. Haz anyone ever measured spin-g accuratly?? I doubt it.
    Or if they hav, then they hav measured a deficiency of say 0.1%, and ignored it, thusly letting a Nobel go down the drain.

    Inertia-(spin)g and spin-g allways go together, u karnt hav one without the other. But they are not identical twins.
    Inertia-(spin)g must hav its maximum about halfway tween rim and axle, koz the inwards acceleration of the aether will be a max about there, depending on the dezign-shape of the flywheel (assuming that gravity-g negates spin-g at all points).
    Anyhow, the flywheel would feel a bit of negative g (outwards)(tension) at the rim -- and ditto but stronger halfway to the axle -- reducing to zero at the spin-axis -- this all adding to giv small forces pulling outwards (allmost similar to spin-g, depending on flywheel shape).

    I reckon i know how science erred in calculating Earth's gravity-g.
    I think science measured Earth's g (ie giving the measured-g)(all over Earth's surface) -- and then (correctly) added Earth's theoretical spin-g (ie theoretical centrifugal-g) -- but then science didn't dedukt inertia-(spin)g (arizing from aether being sucked in near Earth's equator). Thusly science overestimated Earth's gravity-g.

    At the poles, science would hav measured Earth's gravity-g direktly, koz spin-g iz zero at the poles.
    But what about aether being spat out near Earth's poles, the aether flow rate iz probly a max here. However, aether flow-rate duznt produce aetheric g-forces, only aether acceleration-rate produces aetheric g-forces.

    So, what iz the probable aether acceleration at Earth's surface at the poles??
    I reckon there iz deceleration, in which case science would over-estimate Earth's gravity-g, just like at the equator. In fakt i reckon that the deceleration at the poles iz greater than the acceleration at the equator, and the over-estimation greater. After all, all of the aether flowing in over a large area along the equator haz to exit at a smallish area near eech pole. Hencely the flow-speed at the exakt poles iz probly double the flow-speed at the equator. Hencely the deceleration iz probly double. This iz counterintuitive, what with spin-g at the poles being zero. Who would hav thort. Poor scientists, they didn't stand a chance.

    Aether being sucked towards Earth's surface by Earth's mass travels along converging streamlines heading for Earth's center. Thusly aether iz speeding-up, ie accelerating. Inside Earth the streamlines continue to converge, but, in fakt, the acceleration weakens. This iz koz matter iz annihilating aether, matter iz a sink, this iz what attracts the aether to Earth. And, nearer Earth's center, aether continues to converge, and flow continues to slow, eventually slowing to zero near center, at which point acceleration allso drops to zero. Not forgetting that acceleration (ie Earth's gravity) mightbe strongest at the interface of Earth's very dense core, rather than at Earth's surface.

    Inertial aether streamlines are nothing like gravity streamlines. But there are similaritys. The inertial streamlines approaching Earth's surface near the equator do converge towards the spin-axis, but they don't converge in the other dimension (ie measured along the spin-axis) -- its a one-dimensional convergence. The inertial streamlines exiting Earth's surface at the poles diverge in both dimensions. Allso, the angularity of divergence iz probly greater than the equatorial angularity of convergence. Allso, the divergence flow-speed iz probly much greater than the convergence flow-speed. So here are 3 reasons why we probly hav a surprizingly strong inertia-(spin)g at the poles, even tho the spin-g at the poles iz near zero. Az i sayd, who would hav thort, poor scientists, they didn't stand a chance.

    I havnt thort about Earth's orbit. Earth's inertia-(orbit)g might make the error (over-estimating Earth's gravity) even greater.
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-08-2014 at 10:06 PM.

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,829
    During spin-up a flywheel rezists spin-up due to inertia (tangential-inertia). When spin-up ends tangential-inertia drops to zero (but radial-inertia remains).

    During spin-up the aether allso spins-up, but less so than the flywheel. The aether accelerates tangentially, but less so than the atoms of the flywheel. The aether duznt aktually spin like the flywheel, the aether flys away tangentially. Except that radial-inertia pulls aether inwards. The rezult iz that aether leevs the rim on an inwards-angle. The flywheel's own mass allso pulls aether inwards, this inkreeces that inwards-angle.

    But there iz a strong aether-wind blowing throo the flywheel (say along the plane) and the galaxy, and this trumps the others, hencely no aether aktually leevs the flywheel on the weather-edge, only on the lee. Thusly the spinning flywheel leevs a trail of aether-eddys of some sort, especially during spin-up.

    Aether-eddys livv for ever, at least untill modyfyed by matter or inertia downstream. A bit of mud drifting into an eddy will instantly still a part of the eddy, koz mud haz mass, and aether haznt. And while stilling the bit of eddy the mud wont feel a thing, its drift wont be affekted. Eddy-aether kan only pull or push matter if the eddy-aether haz other-matter to pull or push on. And that other-matter haztabe in that eddy. Aether iz very stiff (except for shear), but haz no mass. Re other-matter to pull or push on, the mud duzz provide its own internal atoms to pull or push on, so i shoodnt hav sayd that the mud wont feel a thing, nor that the mud's drift wont be affekted.

    Light haz speed c throo aether, in addition to the speed of the aether. Light entering an eddy iz bent, and then probly bent back to nearnuff its original direction az it exits the eddy (allbeit offset). If light haz mass then it will affekt the aether-eddy (i think it haz a little mass). Light iz bent (or accelerated) by any change in the direction (or speed) of the aether. Thusly light iz bent by gravity, spins and orbits.

    Lorentzian-Relativity says that objects change size and shape due to speed throo aether. Clocks tick faster or slower. But (kontrary to Frankeinsteinian-Relativity) gravitational mass duznt change with speed, nor duz inertial mass (except that inertial mass allways changes all the time for other reasons az i sayd earlyer).
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-08-2014 at 05:00 PM.

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,829
    I think that spin-g iz 100% math and zero science. Haz anyone ever measured spin-g (centrifugal force) accuratly?? I doubt it.
    Or if they hav, then they hav measured a deficiency of say 0.1%, and ignored it, thusly letting a Nobel go down the drain.

    Skoolkid math says that centripetal acceleration = v^2 /r. ........... This iz korrekt.
    Skoolkid math says that.......... centrifugal-force = (m*v^2) /r...... This iznt korrekt. There iz little science behind this.

    The truth iz that centrifugal force depends on the acceleration throo the aether. Spinning allways accelerates aether inwards. Therefore v^2 /r iz the true centripetal acceleration, but this allways overestimates the acceleration relativ to the aether, and thusly allways overestimates the centrifugal force.

    Scientists add a component of the mathematical centrifugal-g to Earth's measured-g to help get Earth's true-g, but they shood be adding a component of the true centrifugal-g.

    Calculating the true centrifugal-g would be a headache. How do u differentiate from gravity?? Which reminds me that science haz that same headache with its prezent erroneous method. Science admits that it duznt know the Earth's mass to better than 2% error or something (scientists claiming 0.012%, ie most of them, are liars), and thusly Newton's big G iz prezently in the same (2% error) boat.

    Aktually Big G iz on the Titanic. The equation for gravity attraction F = GMm/r^2 iz surely wrong. Big G iz/shoodbe constant, but it karnt be constant if the equation iz rubbish (which it iz). r^2 iz surely wrong (Ranzan). Values for M and m and all bodys are circular arguments at best. And gravity-attraction duznt reech far outside our little cosmic-cell (360 million light-years across) of the infinite universe.

    And gravity-attraction tween two widely separated bodys in our cosmic-cell would be affekted by pseudo-attraction
    (or even pseudo-repulsion) due to the spontaneous creation of aether near the center of our cosmic-cell producing and affecting large-scale background aether-flow (and associated aether-accelerations). Aether-flow and aether-convergence and aether-acceleration for aether flowing towards a body and then into a body iz going to be diffikult to understand. The attraction tween two near-bodys might be simple math, but for far-bodys pseudo-attraction will be a major puzzle.

    Its a supply & demand thing. The demand side iz ok (ie all matter sucks). The supply side aint ok. Iz aether created in a small zone or a large zone or everywhere?? What shape zone?? Duzz created aether push the aether-ocean, or pull, or iz it neutral??

    I reckon aether primaryly pulls on the cosmic aether-ocean, due mainly to the sucking cosmic-masses at the cosmic-cell edges. The aether-ocean iz mostly in tension, especially near cosmic-cell-center. Thusly in the beginning there iz aether-tension, which helps aether-creation (near cosmic-cell-center). Aether sort of boils out of nothing. But boiling might be explosiv, giving compression, destroying the creativ-tension (or at least reducing it). If nature iz any guide, the most likely scenario iz an unsteady-equilibrium, a pulsating-creation. I might call it The Bang Bang Theory. What iz the mass of a Nobel??

    So now we hav large-scale aether-pulses, which we kan add to large-scale aether-hammer, and large-scale aether-turbulence, and small-scale aether-waves (and ultra-small-scale aether-spins).
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-11-2014 at 07:35 AM.

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,829
    Equivalence Principles are mostly rubbish.
    They reckon that Dr Who karnt know whether the Tardis iz falling or sitting in gravity or iz being accelerated by Daleks. I reckon that if Dr Who had accuratnuff meters he kood soon tell (without peeking out hiz windows). Gravity and inertia hav all sorts of measureable differences -- and here i aint talking about mac's esoteric aether stuff -- no, i am talking about the laws of mainstream science. Info from meters would soon tell the Doctor whether Daleks were messing with him. Alltho uzing faux laws and pseudo science and faulty equations might soon disappoint.
    mac.

    From time to time i read some bad science writing out there in googleland.
    One writer in an article on gravity wrote that someone made a massive error -- NOOOOOO, don't write massive unless u mean massive.
    One writer in an article on gravity wrote that something or other didn't matter -- NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO.
    And there woz a third word which escapes me for now.
    Plus the use of orient when meaning orientation. Especially if the article haz an Asian focus -- DOUBLE--NNNNNN00000000.
    And if i mean korrekt i write korrekt, i don't write right.
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-06-2014 at 06:21 PM.

  8. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,829
    Aktually Big G iz on the Titanic. The equation for gravity attraction F = GMm/r^2 iz surely wrong. Big G iz/shoodbe constant, but it karnt be constant if the equation iz rubbish (which it iz). r^2 iz surely wrong (Ranzan). Values for M and m and all bodys are circular arguments at best. And gravity-attraction duznt reech far outside our little cosmic-cell (360 million light-years across) of the infinite universe.

    Gravity karnt reech far in a cosmic-cell. Mainstream science says that gravity kan reech allmost forever, obeying very precise equations all the way, limited only by the speed of gravity (waves), and komplikated only by relativity. No, i reckon the reality iz like this. If aether iz created near the centers of cosmic-cells, then aether on one side of a cosmic-cell karnt really talk to aether on the other side. Not if the aether-tide haz to pass throo the creation-zone. The creation-zone reacts to any pulling by creating even moreso.

    Light passes throo creation-zones, creation-zones are transparent to light (ie all bodys in all cells kan see eech other). But creation-zones are allmost opaque to gravity (a body on one side of the cell karnt do gravity very well with a body on the other side). But a body in one cell kan do gravity with a body in an adjacent cell, if a creation-zone duznt interfere. In any case, the farther the cell then the more garbled the gravity-message. Big G bekums a big joke, on the other hand praps Big G iz ok but the equation bekums a big joke. Not forgetting that big empirical constants in big equations are there to hide big ignorance and impress big skoolkids.

    The creation-zone makes aether and possibly radiation. Aether creates mass, ie subatomic-matter, somewhere along the way, mightbe all along the way. Over time this joins to make hydrogen. Over time hydrogen joins to make stars and galaxys. Stars make alpha particles. Alphas join to make heavyer elements (Mathis). Stars explode and make dust. Stars grow cold and die. Stars collide. Dust etc joins to make pre-loved stars. Stars grow giant and eat other stars, bekumming brown-holes. Near cosmic-cell edges brown holes rule, dieing trumps creation. Or putting it another way, once dieing trumps creation then that iz the natural limit of a cell. But this depends on who iz drawing the cells. U kood draw cells with giant brown-holes at center if u want, and creation-zones at vertices (Ranzan). And at no time did we see a nuclear atom, ie at no time did we see or need orbiting electrons, orbiting electrons are sick-science (Mathis).

    The "advantage" of Ranzan's infinite dynamic steady state universe iz that there iz no big bang to worry about, no expanding universe, no 14,000,000,000 years. And no dark matter, no dark energy, no dark flow.

    But what we get iz an infinity of distance, an infinity of time, an infinity of mass, and lots of cosmic background radiation.
    About half an infinity of mass iz very cold, dead and dusty, blocking or scattering radiation. About half an infinity of mass iz big and hot, creating radiation. And about half an infinity of mass iz brown-holes, swallowing stars and radiation and stuff. And all of the infinity of mass slowly eats aether, along with any radiation in that aether. So there iz an infinity of cosmic radiation out there somewhere (everywhere), but we karnt see or hear all of it, we only see or hear what reaches us -- we see or hear lots, but not an infinity.
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-07-2014 at 12:39 AM.

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,829
    I karnt find any science (ie data, ie accurat experiments) that F=ma.
    Iz F for 1,000,000kg a 1,000,000 times F for 1kg?? No one really knows.
    Iz F for 1,000,000g a 1,000,000 times F for 1g???? No one really knows.

    Inertia of a body (The Blob) iz the force of rezistance to acceleration of The Blob, the rezistance being due to aether pulling and pushing on other-matter. Without other-matter, aether will offer zero rezistance. The greater the other-matter then the greater the aether-rezistance, especially if The Blob and the other-matter hav a similar mass. And not forgetting that the other-matter will only hav full effekt if it iz on the line of F, if it iz sitting to one side then its contribution to inertia mightbe allmost zero.

    The aether-rezistance might be greater if the other-matter iz brort closer, especially if the other-matter woz a long distance away. Aether-hammer kan moov 1 light-year in 0.0158seconds based on a speed of 20,000,000,000*c. If so then if the impulse woz less than 0.0158 seconds, and if the other-body woz more than 0.5 light-years away, then rezistance would be affected. The initial-rezistance would be low, even zero, but in the long-run rezistance would make up for its early loss (when aether-hammer dies away to zero).

    Initially aether-slippage accelerates in unison with the acceleration of The Blob. The initial-acceleration of The Blob (and aether) iz "allmost" infinite. If The Blob happens to be the smallest possible particle of matter (called an aetheron) then its initial-acceleration would be infinite (or at least unlimited), and its initial-speed might approach c. Aether-hammer would soon slow the aetheron to its proper final-speed.

    But The Blob haz millions of closely spaced aetherons, and therefore The Blob will feel a small amount of allmost immediate initial-rezistance due to its own mass. And soon it would feel a greater rezistance due to the mass of the other-body. If the internal-inertia woz say 1/3, and if the other-body added another 1/3, then we would hav 2/3. We would achieve 3/3 when the other-body haz infinite mass (i might improov theze estimates later, but u get the drift).

    Not forgetting that the cosmic-aether iz at all times blowing (slipping) past and throo all matter -- the slippage-rate (say 430km/s) iznt important, but any change iz.

    Az time passes (during F) aether-hammer reeches more and more cosmic-mass, the overall-inertia gets closer & closer to 3/3.
    After F stops, aether-hammer continues to be fed by farther cosmic-mass, and slowing continues for a long time. In other words The Blob's true-inertia will allways be under-measured, in other words inertial-tests will allways under-measure The Blob's mass.

    In the real-world, with our large human time-scales, and our giant instruments, and our huge meters, and with lots of nearby Earth-mass, and Igor and Frankeinstein, initial-inertia iz of course nearly 3/3.

    If Igor pushes The Blob then he iz on the line of F (and The Blob pushes Igor). Thusly u hav two bodys pulling on aether, sort of equally. Newton's 3rd Law says F(Igor) equals F(Blob), even if M iz bigger than m (and gained MV = gained mv). Anyhow, there are two lots of aether-hammer going to & fro tween Igor and The Blob, and inertia only takes half the time (u know what i meen).
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-17-2014 at 05:05 PM.

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,829
    Its much the same for a flywheel's inertia.
    After spin-up ends the flywheel's spin will slow and slow for ever az more and more cosmic-mass feeds the aether-hammer contributing to (a) the spin-up tangential-inertia, and (b) the spin-up radial-inertia, and (c) the spin radial-inertia (ie post spin-up).

    Praps cosmic-mass outside our cosmic-cell haz a weak effekt. A cosmic-cell iz say 360million LY across, aether-hammer travelling at 20billion*c (van flandern) would take 6.57days to cross, 13 days to return. The feedback feeding aether-hammer might take 10 cycles before it bekums negligible -- 130days. If so the spinning flywheel would suffer progressively weaker inertial-slowing for at least 130days (and then some). 130days after spin-up ends the flywheel might show nearnuff perpetual spinning. If adjacent cosmic-cells hav a significant gravitational effekt (there are say 12 adjacent cells face'to'face, and say 12 adjacent cells vertice'to'vertice), then add a further 130days.

    Likewize for the previous example for linear-inertia for The Blob. The Blob might settle down to nearnuff perpetual motion 260days after F ends. But if aether-hammer iz much much faster, then mightbe only 260seconds after. Nobody knows.
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-08-2014 at 05:54 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •