Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 73

Thread: gravity waves and gravity speed.

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,840
    Aether drag hypothesis
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    In the 19th century, the theory of the luminiferous aether as the hypothetical medium for the propagation of light was widely discussed. An important part of this discussion was the question concerning the state of motion of Earth with respect to this medium. The aether drag hypothesis dealt with the question whether the luminiferous aether is dragged by or entrained within moving matter. According to the first variant no relative motion exists between Earth and aether; according to the second one, relative motion exists and thus the speed of light should depend on the speed of this motion ("aether wind"), which should be measurable by instruments at rest on Earth's surface. Specific aether models were invented by Augustin-Jean Fresnel who in 1818 proposed that the aether is partially entrained by matter. The other one was proposed by George Stokes in 1845, in which the aether is completely entrained within or in the vicinity of matter. While Fresnel's almost stationary theory was apparently confirmed by the Fizeau experiment (1851), Stokes' theory was apparently confirmed by the Michelson–Morley experiment (1881, 1887). This contradictory situation was resolved by the works of Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1895, 1904) whose Lorentz ether theory banished any form of aether dragging, and finally with the work of Albert Einstein (1905) whose theory of special relativity doesn't contain the aether as a mechanical medium at all. [1] [2] [3].........

    .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ............................................
    It looks like Wikileaks duznt beleev in any form of aether-drag (no full-drag, no partial-drag).
    The truth iz simple. Aether-drag exists when matter iz accelerating (eg changing speed, eg changing direction).
    And aether-drag allso exists when aether iz changing speed or direction, (a) due to aether-creation (probly in the creation-zone), and (b) due to aether-hammer (due to matter accelerating somewhere).

    But what iz aether-drag?? What duzz it look like??
    The aether-wind blowing throo Earth at prezent varys tween 400km/s and 460km/s (or ???km/s), depending on where Earth iz in its orbit round the Sun. Any drag merely changes this by praps a few km/s (i suppoze).
    Earth's average lineal speed throo the cosmos iz nearnuff nonchanging. But Earth's orbits (about six) and spin (one) are all accelerations.

    Orbital aether-drag and spin aether-drag all drag aether towards the axes of orbit/spin. And thems drags are never-ending. But once again theze drags only modyfy the aether-wind a bit. Theze little drag-effekts merely form weak eddys downstream in the aether-wind. I reckon u karnt detect aether-drag very eezyly. Its too weak, and its hiding in the aether-wind.

    But there iz at least one exception. Lab tests hav shown that a horizontal spinning disc dekreeces Earth's-g just abov the disc (and would show an inkreec in Earth's-g just below the disc), due to inertia-(spin)g spitting aether out upwards at the axle (and out downwards below the axle). The upwards flow speed of the aether duznt do it, the upwards acceleration duzz the trick (if flow streamlines converge this iz acceleration). A little further away abov the disc the converging streamlines would probly bekum parallel (=zero acceleration, zero affekt on Earth's-g), and further away the streamlines would probly diverge (=deceleration, an inkreec in Earth's-g). Thusly i reckon that this test iz very sensitiv to the closeness. There hav been lots of tests showing null, but theze must hav been too far away, for a disc, r/4 might be too far. For a spinning sphere, r/2 might be too far (r being measured from center), ie the meter would be too far away even if touching the surface of the sphere.

    The spitting-outs are due only to the aether being sucked-in around the rim of the disc. The aether flowing in = the aether flowing out. There iz no driving force spitting aether axially outwards, there iz only a driving force in the plane, sucking aether inwards. And aether duznt necessaryly go in, nor duzz it necessaryly go out, no, aether merely goze past (at 400 to 460km/s). But if u ignore the average background aether-wind, then your drawing only shows changes in the wind, thusly showing convergence and divergence etc.

    Aether-drag iz aether-acceleration -- aether-drag aint aether-flow.
    mac.

    Google DePalma, & Podkletnov, & Aspden, & others re gravity shielding etc. Most of their stuff iz antigravity, and magnetic, and superconductors, and vibration, ie mostly rubbish. DePalma's spinning ball haz got me thinking.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-17-2014 at 04:47 PM.

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,840
    Dangle-beamometer tests hav prooved the equivalence of inertia-mass & gravity-mass to 1 in 10^13. Or praps knot??

    Miles Mathis reckons that the good old historic 'pairs of identically weighted blobs of differing-substances stuck on the ends of a balanced beam aligned along the circle of latitude and dangling on a platinum wire' tests merely proov that the ratio of inertia-mass to gravity-mass for a substance duznt change when u moov it from a dangling-pan to the end of a dangling-beam. That ratio might be 1 to 1 (equivalence), or 1 to 1.1 (non-equivalence), it would allways giv a null rezult, unless the ratio changed.
    Strictly speaking, i kan add to what Miles sayd. I reckon that even if the ratio did somehow change tween pan & beam the dangle-beamometer would still giv a null rezult if the ratio changed equally for the two substances being compared.

    I reckon that it must be diffikult to devize extremely accurat experiments. U hav to outsmart the fakts that time length mass and force cannot be measured accuratly. The standards are only accurat to 1 in 10^10 and 10^11 and 10^9 and 10^9. Alltho there are instruments that kan giv 1 in 10^18 and 10^11 and 10^18 and 10^18. I am thinking that the dangle-beamometer duznt really need the two blobs to hav the same wt, and the beam duznt need to be well balanced (ie its ok for the beam to lean a bit). And i think the beam duznt need to be well aligned on the circle of latitude. Its pretty forgiving here.

    Error theory iz interesting. Error involves accuracy, precision, resolution, trueness, repeatability, reproducibility, etc. When i woz a virgin i impressed my physics lecturer when for my experiment i calculated the resolution-error by estimating the resolution of varyus voltage-meters etc and crunching theze in my equations to produce the worst possible outkum even tho this woznt in the assignment. However i didn't write to the manufacturers for the precisions, & not yet having dunn statistics i didn't calculate the benefit of multiple readings.

    Theoretical Theoretical Error. U karnt assign a % error for the possibility that your theory iznt 100% korrekt -- but allow me to hav a try, how about this...............
    ..................99% of all theory will be prooven completely wrong sooner or later, and 1% partly wrong.

    Dr Frankeinstein walks across to hiz dangle-beamometer and takes a reading.
    Dr F weighs 6 by 10^1kg. Earth weighs 6 by 10^24kg. The distance to center of Earth iz 6.371 by 10^6m.
    Dr F's gravity attraction to the dangle-beamometer will be equal to Earth's if he stands 0.000,000,4mm from the dangle-beamometer.
    (My arithmetic). r^2/dist^2 = 10^24/10^1. Therefore dist = (6.371*10^6)^2 / 10^23 = 4.05896 by 10^-10m = 0.000,000,405896mm.

    If Dr F stands 500mm from the dangle-ometer, hiz gravity attraktion to the dangle-beamometer iz (500/0.000,000,405896)^2 = 1.5242/10^18 that of Earth. This iz very weak, but for the equivalence test we must compare it to the meter's centrifugal force (spin-g).

    A wt dangling on a wire at the equator will aim nearnuff throo the center of Earth -- here gravity-g and centrifugal force (spin-g) are aligned, but opposit -- wiki says the centrifugal force at the equator iz 0.3% of gravity-g. A wt dangling on a wire at a pole will likewize aim throo the center of Earth -- here gravity-g and spin-g are at 90dg -- but spin-g iz zero (0.0% of gravity-g). At some latitude the wire will dangle off-centre to the max -- aktually i havnt seen this latitude calculated (it might be near 45dg).

    At latitude 45dg the spin-g iz weaker (0.003g bekums 0.003g/2^0.5). Divide by root-2 again and u get the tangential component tilting the wire (ie 0.003g/2 which iz 0.0015, ie 0.15%, ie 1.5/10^3). Dr F's gravity-g akts tangentially too, and it iz 1.5242/10^18. And lets assume it akts along the meridian. The dangle-beamometer's tangential (along the meridian) component of spin-g iz 10^15 times az strong az the tangential component of the dangle-beamometer's attraction to Dr F.

    Thusly Dr F's mass haz only a very weak effekt on the dangle-angle of the wire in hiz dangle-beamometer equivalence test.
    However the test involvs measuring change in beam alignment, so i hope Dr F kept an equal distance from each Blob. I know that Dr F woz carefull to get in and out pronto every reading. But he needn't hav worryed too much, after all the box says...........

    Dangle-BeamOmeter -- Givs null rezult first time every time (Beware of cheap imitations).
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 05-06-2014 at 05:38 PM.

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,840
    Q1. Eleven thin disc-shaped flywheels are spun-up in deep-outerspace. They are touching side'by'side, very lightly clamped together. Total L = Diameter (not very important). The clamps are remooved. Now only their own internal gravity keeps the discs together. What happens next???
    I reckon that if the discs are spinning fastnuff then the discs will somehow overpower gravity and push apart (inkreecing total-L). The inner-disc stays put, but a gap opens up tween it and the 5 discs either side. The 2 gap(s) get bigger with time. Then another gap opens up to the next disc (eech side). Then another, then another, then the last. Then no discs will be touching, and the gaps and the total-L will inkreec for ever. (I changed my mind, see later).

    Q2. Different scenario, same 11 discs. This time we don't remoov the clamps. We spin-up until a disc or discs shatters. Which???
    I reckon the center-disc shatters.

    Q3. Different scenario, the 11 discs are spun-up to a low spin-rate. This time there are zero clamps, & gravity holds the discs together. The touching surfaces hav zero friktion. When spin-up ends which discs will tend to slow most???
    I reckon the center disc.
    .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ........................................
    Q1. Aether being pulled in at the rims (due to spin-g) must exit at the two poles. The entering aether must veer allmost 90dg while inside the assembly of discs (both sides of center). The veering iz in effekt an aether acceleration outwards, which pushes upwards & outwards on aetherons in the discs in the veering zone (ie every disc).
    The horizontal outwards axial component of the push oppozes the internal axial gravity-attraction pulling all 11 discs together. Exaktly which of the 5 joints on eech side experiences the greatest outwards axial push iz diffikult to imagin.
    The gravity attraction at eech joint iz eezyer -- obviously the innermost joint(s) experience the greatest inwards axial pull. The first gap will develop at the joint where the nett inwards force iz first to drop below zero. Aktually, re my earlyer estimate that the center-disc stays put, i hav now changed my mind, i now think 4 discs on eech side will moov away from the 3 in the middle. After that i think all hell breaks loose and u would need super-slo-mo replay to sort out the mayhem, some discs flying one way and then stopping and going the other way, but all discs staying faithfully on the same axis, an orderly mayhem.

    Q2. I reckon that the center disc haz the greatest centrifugal-force, and shatters first.
    Here i introduce the idea of aether backpressure. The exiting aether rezists the entering aether, a sort of backpressure. The exiting aether iz rezisted by aetherons. Backpressure iz probly greatest in the center disc. If so then the aether inflow in the central disc iz less than the inflow in other discs, less in volume and less in speed.
    Here i introduce the idea of simple-slippage-rate and inertial-slippage-rate. A blob mooving in a straight line at constant speed throo stationary aether will hav an aetheric simple-slippage-rate equal to its speed V. If a blob haz constant acceleration in a straight line then az its speed reaches V its aetheric simple-slippage-rate will be V-v, where v iz what i call the inertial-slippage-rate. It iz v that rezults in the inertial-force rezisting acceleration. V inkreeces with time, and hencely the simple-slippage-rate inkreeces with time. But v stays constant. Little v iz probly greater the greater the acceleration. And the greater the v then the greater the inertia force. If little v iz constant u might think that inertia must be zero, but don't forget that big V iz inkreecing, and V-v iz inkreecing, and hencely we will hav inertia.
    Getting back to the central disc. Here iz the way i look at things. I assume that the radial component of simple-slippage, V, iz zero. In any case, zero or knot, it iz constant if the spin-rate iz constant. The centripetal acceleration haz the usual simple geometrical skoolkid value, and iz constant if the spin-rate iz constant. If the centripetal inwards acceleration in the central disc iz the same az in the other discs, and if the aether inflow iz less, then little v (the inertial-slippage-rate), must be greater than in other discs. Thusly the centrifugal force must be greater, and the central disc shatters first. Yes, i know, up above, lineal V inkreeced, but our radial V duznt. At least lineal v and radial v obey the same rule.
    Aether inflow due to simple mass, ie due to gravity, ie due to aether destruction, kan be ignored here above. The centrifugal aether stuff kan be looked at in isolation, az above. After all, we are allso ignoring the fakt that the background aether wind iz blowing throo and past our discs at 430km/s, plus or minus 30km/s and plus or minus 0.45km/s. (Erratum) Later i remembered that this iz deep-outerspace, ie i allways assume that there iz zero nearby mass and zero background aether-wind for my deep-outerspace hypotheticals).
    If rate of change of slippage iz related to force in a very lineal way, then here above its ok to look at centrifugal inflow in isolation (ie ignoring background aether wind, and ignoring gravity aether inflow). But if it aint linear, then we karnt/shoodnt -- i think nobody knows, & there aint any experimental data. (Reminder) Not forgetting that in deep-outerspace the only rezistance to aether moovment iz the internal mass of the discs themselves.

    Q3. The discs wont spin for ever. I reckon that the center disc will slow most. Hmmmmmm -- still thinking. I'll be back
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-28-2014 at 03:34 PM.

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,840
    The Speed of Gravity......by Miles Mathis
    In 2003, the press worldwide reported that the speed of gravity had been measured, and that it was within a margin of error—the same as c. [See diagram above.] I just studied that report and immediately saw that it was flawed. The authors of the original research, Fomalont and Kopeikin, simply made a basic mathematical error in analyzing the data, mistaking the speed of their data for the speed of gravity.

    But this time, I am not alone in that claim. With more research, I found several mainstream physicists pointing out the same thing. Stuart Samuel, a participating scientist with the Theory Group of Berkeley Lab’s physics Division, in a paper published in Physical Review Letters, pointed out the error in the original paper. He said, “In effect, the experiment was measuring effects associated with the propagation of light, not the speed of gravity.” Now, nine years later, that opinion seems to be the majority opinion of rank and file astronomers and physicists.

    Despite that, we still see the original reports leading all searches on this question, so a lot of readers will assume that the speed of gravity has been measured. It hasn't.

    We also see the mainstream huddling behind the manufactured consensus that gravity travels at c, despite the fall of this central paper. Why? Because particle physicists need gravity to travel at c, so as not to upset their models (see below). Their models are more important than data or logic. If we continue our research we find that they are still trying to measure or even find gravity waves, but as of 2012, they hadn't done that either. They publish a lot of mainstream articles on gravity waves, to keep the propaganda fresh, but they have exactly what they had almost a century ago: zip. So what do we really have, concerning the speed of gravity? Beyond the usual disinformation, not much. Tom van Flandern, an independent researcher like me who created a website in 1991 called metaresearch.org, has compiled a page covering most of the history and a great deal of the math and theory. Although I do not agree with van Flandern's conclusion, I highly recommend this page for an understanding of the current problem. Van Flandern had a PhD in astronomy and had consulted for JPL, among others. He worked on the SETI project. And his paper on the speed of gravity was published in Physics Letters A, getting a lot of attention for a while before it was buried by Steve Carlip and the other phonies now running theoretical physics. So he is worth looking at again...............

    http://milesmathis.com/fland.pdf
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-15-2014 at 02:00 AM.

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,840
    D'Alembert's paradox.... From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jean le Rond d'Alembert (1717–1783), who formulated the paradox.

    From experiments it is known that there is always – except in case of superfluidity – a drag force for a body placed in a steady fluid onflow.
    In fluid dynamics, d'Alembert's paradox (or the hydrodynamic paradox) is a contradiction reached in 1752 by French mathematician Jean le Rond d'Alembert.[1] D'Alembert proved that – for incompressible and inviscid potential flow – the drag force is zero on a body moving with constant velocity relative to the fluid.[2]

    Zero drag is in direct contradiction to the observation of substantial drag on bodies moving relative to fluids, such as air and water; especially at high velocities corresponding with high Reynolds numbers. It is a particular example of the reversibility paradox.[3]

    D’Alembert, working on a 1749 Prize Problem of the Berlin Academy on flow drag, concluded: "It seems to me that the theory (potential flow), developed in all possible rigor, gives, at least in several cases, a strictly vanishing resistance, a singular paradox which I leave to future Geometers [i.e. mathematicians - the two terms were used interchangeably at that time] to elucidate".[4] A physical paradox indicates flaws in the theory.

    Fluid mechanics was thus discredited by engineers from the start, which resulted in an unfortunate split – between the field of hydraulics, observing phenomena which could not be explained, and theoretical fluid mechanics explaining phenomena which could not be observed – in the words of the Chemistry Nobel Laureate Sir Cyril Hinshelwood.[5].......

    .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .........................................
    But it aint a paradox for aether, D'Alembert in effekt gave uz the first two Aetheric Laws:

    1. First Law: Aether offers zero rezistance to constant slippage of an aetheron.

    2. Second Law: Aether rezists accelerating slippage, rezistance iz what we call force.

    3. Third Law: Force givs an aetheron what we call mass.

    4. Fourth Law: Aether haz no mass, and cannot produce force, it merely transmits force between aetherons.

    5. Fifth Law: Large-scale aetheric force transmits at constant speed (20,000,000,000c at least).

    6. Sixth Law: Force transmission to&from nearby aetherons iz an incremental feedback process, and for large distant cosmic bodys this rezults in aether-hammer.

    7. Seventh Law: Small-scale aetheric forces travel az waves at a constant speed (300,000km/s).

    8. Eighth Law: Small-scale aetheric forces (waves) do not giv mass.

    9. Ninth Law: Aetherons cannot travel at or above the speed of small-scale waves.

    10. Tenth Law: Distance-contraction occurs if aetherons moov relativ to aether. (This iz real contraction).

    11. Eleventh Law: Time-dilation appears to occur to an observer mooving relativ to aether or aetherons. (But real time duznt change).

    12. Twelth Law: Aether excretes aetherons, aetherons eat aether, and photons are farts. (needs editing).

    Hencely Aetherians everywhere shood giv thanx to Saint Bert. While at the same time spitting on the stupid other Bert (Frankeinstein).
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-17-2014 at 04:50 PM.

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,840
    Speed of light From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The distance from the Sun to the Earth is shown as 150 million kilometers, an approximate average. Sunlight takes about 8 minutes 17 seconds to travel the average distance from the surface of the Sun to the Earth.
    metres per second 299792458
    Approx km per sec 300,000.....km per hour 1,080 million..... miles per sec 186,000....astronomical units per day 173

    Approx light signal travel times from geostationary orbit to Earth 119 ms....the length of Earth's equator 134 ms.....from Moon to Earth 1.3 s......from Sun to Earth (1 AU) 8.3 min.......from nearest star to Sun (1.3 pc) 4.2 years ......from the nearest galaxy (the Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy) to Earth 25,000 years .....across the Milky Way 100,000 years.......from the Andromeda Galaxy (the nearest spiral galaxy) to Earth 2.5 million years.

    The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second, a figure that is exact because the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time.[1] This is, to three significant figures, 186,000 miles per second, or about 671 million miles per hour. According to special relativity, c is the maximum speed at which all energy, matter, and information in the universe can travel. It is the speed at which all massless particles and associated fields (including electromagnetic radiation such as light) travel in vacuum. It is also the speed of gravity (i.e. of gravitational waves) predicted by current theories. Such particles and waves travel at c regardless of the motion of the source or the inertial frame of reference of the observer. In the theory of relativity, c interrelates space and time, and also appears in the famous equation of mass–energy equivalence E = mc2.[2]

    The speed at which light propagates through transparent materials, such as glass or air, is less than c. The ratio between c and the speed v at which light travels in a material is called the refractive index n of the material (n = c / v). For example, for visible light the refractive index of glass is typically around 1.5, meaning that light in glass travels at c / 1.5 ≈ 200000 km/s; the refractive index of air for visible light is 1.000293, so the speed of light in air is 299705 km/s or about 88 km/s slower than c.

    In most practical cases, light and other electromagnetic waves can be thought of as moving "instantaneously", but for long distances and very sensitive measurements their finite speed has noticeable effects. For example, in videos of an intense lightning storm on the Earth's surface taken from the International Space Station, the expansion of light wavefronts from individual flashes of lightning is clearly visible, and allows estimates of the speed of light to be made from frame-to-frame analysis of the position of the light wavefront. This is not surprising, as the time for light to propagate completely around the Earth is of the order of 140 milliseconds. This transit time is what causes the Schumann resonance. In communicating with distant space probes, it can take minutes to hours for a message to get from Earth to the spacecraft, or vice versa. The light we see from stars left them many years ago, allowing us to study the history of the universe by looking at distant objects. The finite speed of light also limits the theoretical maximum speed of computers, since information must be sent within the computer from chip to chip. Finally, the speed of light can be used with time of flight measurements to measure large distances to high precision.

    Ole Rømer first demonstrated in 1676 that light travelled at a finite speed (as opposed to instantaneously) by studying the apparent motion of Jupiter's moon Io. In 1865, James Clerk Maxwell proposed that light was an electromagnetic wave, and therefore travelled at the speed c appearing in his theory of electromagnetism.[3] In 1905, Albert Einstein postulated that the speed of light with respect to any inertial frame is independent of the motion of the light source,[4] and explored the consequences of that postulate by deriving the special theory of relativity and showing that the parameter c had relevance outside of the context of light and electromagnetism. After centuries of increasingly precise measurements, in 1975 the speed of light was known to be 299792458 m/s with a measurement uncertainty of 4 parts per billion. In 1983, the metre was redefined in the International System of Units (SI) as the distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. As a result, the numerical value of c in metres per second is now fixed exactly by the definition of the metre........

    .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..........................................
    THIS IZ MOSTLY RUBBISH. MY COMMENTS ARE ABOVE.
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 05-02-2014 at 07:26 AM.

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,840
    ........... The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second, a figure that is exact because the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time.
    Real-World.
    c iz the speed of light in stationary-aether. The true total speed depends on +/- V (the speed of the observer relativ to the aether).
    However that figure of 299,792,458 might be accurat, due to good luck, koz all historic tests for c are 2-way averages.

    ........... It is also the speed of gravity (i.e. of gravitational waves) predicted by current theories. Such particles and waves travel at c regardless of the motion of the source or the inertial frame of reference of the observer.
    Real-World.
    The speed of gravity iz at least 20,000,000,000c. The apparent speed needs +/- V (not that it iz very apparent).
    Gravity waves don't exist.

    ........... The speed at which light propagates through transparent materials, such as glass or air, is less than c.
    Real-World.
    The speed of light iz never less than c. The speed of propagation varys in different materials koz path-length varys.

    .......... in 1975 the speed of light was known to be 299792458 m/s with a measurement uncertainty of 4 parts per billion. In 1983, the metre was redefined in the International System of Units (SI) as the distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. As a result, the numerical value of c in metres per second is now fixed exactly by the definition of the metre........
    Real-World.
    Luckyly all of this iz probly true koz (a) 299792458 iz a 2-way average (thusly luckyly overkumming sick-science's blindness), and
    (b) the aether-wind (uzually on Earth 430km/s +/- 30km/s +/- 0.45km/s)(if not zero) and the speed of the observer (if not zero) are both time-dilated and distance-dilated in accordance with Lorentz Relativity, thusly apparent c equals true c.

    (Not important) Earth's aether-wind probly inkreecs or dekreeces by 230km/s during our (galactic-year) 235 million year orbit in the milky-way. Not forgetting that the milky-way iz moving/orbiting throo the local cosmos at 552 ± 6 km/s or praps 600km/s.

    ......in 1975 the speed of light was known to be 299792458 m/s with a measurement uncertainty of 4 parts per billion.
    Real-World.
    Lemmeseenow. +/- 4 ppb iz +/- 1.2m/s. Fantastic effort. Nice job.

    But, aether-wind varys by +30,450 m/s to -30,450 m/s, that's +/- 101,570 ppb. This iznt uncertainty-error, aetherists know this error iz a certainty. Its a form of theoretical theoretical error, due to sick-science ignorance, but well known to aetherians. (Any bona-fide uncertainty re accuracy of data etc would need to be added). But this time sick-science got lucky, lucky that length-contraction (Lorentz & Lamor) fixed their distance-travelled, and lucky that time-dilation (Lamor) fixed their second, this time.
    mac.
    .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ............................................
    Sick-science reckons that Einsteinian stuff refutes aether. What sick-science duznt realize iz that aetherian stuff duznt necessaryly refute Einsteinian stuff. Aetherians beleev in Lorentz Relativity, and Einsteinian Relativity iz (kan be) a special case of Lorentz Relativity.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-17-2014 at 04:51 PM.

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,840
    8. Eighth Law: Small-scale aetheric forces (waves) do not giv mass.

    Here are 6 ideas of mine re mass, i think they are novel.
    1. Non-Equivalence. Long ago i explained that gravity-mass and inertia-mass are different animals, having different sources, therefore equivalence iz an impossibility. Furthermore, Gravity-mass iz allways 100%, whilst inertia-mass iz allways less than 100%. I hav sayd that they were the opposit faces of the same coin -- but i must find a better analogy. Gravity iz due to loss of aether (ie aetherons eating aether), inertia duznt involve aether loss.

    2. Pseudo-mass. And i postulated that we hav an animal called pseudo-mass at the center of our cosmic-cell, due to aether-creation in the creation-zone producing aether-outflow. I sayd that creation and aether-outflow might pulsate, pulses taking days. Pseudo-mass iz a 3rd class of mass, due to creation of aether (probly non-constant mass). Gravity iz due to loss of aether (ie aetherons eating aether). Inertia duznt involve aether loss. Three different animals. The pseudo-mass rezults in attraction towards the creation-zone. Creation initially pushes aether outwards, but outside the creation zone aether must decelerate az aether spreads out. Deceleration-out iz acceleration-in. Hencely a Nobel Medallion iz attracted in towards the creation-zone. This attraction must be weak, otherwize every Medallion would be found floating at the edge of creation (or praps they are???). I reckon that pseudo-mass wouldn't affekt ordinary attraction tween Medallions, except that pulsations would affekt the nearest first, hencely attraction tween Medallions would pulsate too, but this pulsation would depend on their separation and might be microseconds rather than days.

    3. Slippage. And i postulated the existence of aetheric-slippage (little v) -- and i postulated that aetheric-force depends on little v, which iz itself constant -- and that little v depends on the rate of change of the overall rate of slippage (V - v). I hear u say that i havnt yet mentioned mass here. No real need. There aint any such thing az mass. Force iz mass. And slippage iz force.

    4. Aether-hammer. We allready know that gravity-mass and inertia-mass are large-scale effekts, and i coined the term aether-hammer, to describe the feedback from more distant cosmic bodys. Aether haz zero mass in itself, but it transfers acceleration force from aetherons to other aetherons, this force giving what we call gravity-mass or inertia-mass depending on the type of source. And in the case of pseudo-mass aether transfers acceleration from nothing to aetherons.

    5. Plus-mass, and minus-mass. Theze are i suppoze our 4th type of mass. At small scales there iz (kan be) pure aether-waves (i aint sure whether u kan hav a single wave, praps u kan). Aether haz no mass and uzually kannot on its own exert force (we allready know it kan transmit force tween aetherons). But constrained aether kan exert a force. Its like this. We karnt constrain aether, ie uzing aetherons, koz aether slips throo aetherons, allbeit rezulting in a force (eg backpressure, mentioned earlyer). But in a wave, aether constrains aether, koz aether haz aether eech side and all-round. Eech bubble(??) constrains the other (ie sideways and upways and downways). A pure wave will create a to&fro force, and briefly a plus-inertia-mass and then briefly a minus-inertia-mass (etc etc), but only if/when it eventually meets an aetheron. Theze inertia-masses only exist at small time-scales, and only briefly. In our large-scale world they cancel (or they don't manifest). We hav inertia-mass in one realm (briefly one way, then briefly the other way) but we hav zero mass in our realm.
    When a wave meets an aetheron the wave dies, or partly dies -- and it might be reflected or refracted or something.
    This stuff partly sins gainst the Fourth Law (go back 3 postings) -- praps i shood change this Law to say non-constrained aether or something. And it partly sins gainst the Eighth Law.

    6. Backpressure. Re my mention of backpressure (in 5 above, and 5 posts earlyer, and allso much earlyer), i reckon that aetheric backpressure dezervs recognition az being a novel idea. It exists inside a fat solid spinning body -- but not if the body iz thin or hollow or haz spokes or openings, eg orbiting wouldn't create much backpressure. Backpressure iz due to radial-inertia (centrifugal force), and it inkreeces the size of that radial inertia (this iz counterintuitiv). Plus it creates inertia in non-radial direktions (slightly counterintuitiv, or at least surprizing). An inkreec in inertia iz in effekt an inkreec in inertia-mass, ie relativ to skoolkid equations telling us what the mass must be. This iz a radial spin-orbit-rotation effekt, but i wouldn't be surprized if backpressure raizes its ugly head in some special instances in relation to linear stuff too.

    7. Pseudo-Inertia. Three postings down the line i mention a novel concept re pseudo aether-acceleration az a body crosses an aether flow boundary (an aether shear-zone). The boundary or shear-zone separates zones with different aether-speeds, or different aether-direktions. A body crossing a shear-zone thinx that the aether iz accelerating. The body feels a force, i call it pseudo-inertia.
    So now we hav 3 types of inertia, pseudo linear & radial. Linear iz due to the body accelerating. Radial iz due to a body spinning (every bit of the body iz accelerating inwards). Pseudo iz not due to the body accelerating or spinning. Strictly it iznt a type of inertia, but neither iz it due to gravity-mass, nor pseudo-mass. Strictly it dezerves to hav its own class, and its own name. I called it pseudo-inertia, but it dezervs a better name. It aint an inertia.
    U kan get pseudo-inertia 3 ways, eech involvs the body crossing an aether shear-zone. Firstly the body kood moov across the surface of Earth, thusly crossing the shear-zone. Secondly the body might be stationary on Earth, but Earth moovs or spins across the shear-zone. Thirdly the shear-zone might moov across Earth (and the body). And u kan hav a mixture of theze 3 ways. Pseudo-inertia kood lead to error when measuring or calculating gravity-mass or inertia-mass.
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 05-06-2014 at 06:54 AM.

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,840
    Podkletnov's gravity shielding experiments[edit] wikileaks

    According to the account Podkletnov gave to reporter Charles Platt in a 1996 phone interview, during a 1992 experiment with a rotating superconducting disk,
    Someone in the laboratory was smoking a pipe, and the pipe smoke rose in a column above the superconducting disc. So we placed a ball-shaped magnet above the disc, attached to a balance. The balance behaved strangely. We substituted a nonmagnetic material, silicon, and still the balance was very strange. We found that any object above the disc lost some of its weight, and we found that if we rotated the disc, the effect was increased.[2]
    Podkletnov published a paper in 1992 reporting that the weight of an object directly above the disk was decreased. He concluded that the superconducting disk was shielding the Earth's gravitational force above it.[3] This is sometimes called the Podkletnov effect.

    Public controversy[edit]
    Podkletnov's first peer-reviewed paper on the apparent gravity-modification effect, published in 1992, attracted little notice. In 1996, he submitted a longer paper, in which he claimed to have observed a larger effect (2% weight reduction as opposed to 0.3% in the 1992 paper) to the Journal of Physics D. According to science reporter Charles Platt, a member of the editorial staff, Ian Sample, leaked the submitted paper to Robert Matthews, the science correspondent for the British newspaper, the Sunday Telegraph.[2].....


    http://www.scansite.org/scan.php?pid=158
    Google ..........According to Dr. Eugene Podkletnov, the discovery was accidental. It emerged during routine work on so-called “superconductivity”, the ability of some materials to lose their electrical resistance at very low temperatures. The team was carrying out tests on a rapidly spinning disc of superconducting ceramic suspended in the magnetic field of three electric coils, all enclosed in a low-temperature vessel called a cryostat.

    In an article in the Sunday Telegraph BREAKTHROUGH AS SCIENTISTS BEAT GRAVITY by Robert Matthews and Ian Sample September 1, 1996, page 3 he is quoted as saying

    “One of my friends came in and he was smoking his pipe,” Dr. Podkletnov said. “He put some smoke over the cryostat and we saw that the smoke was going to the ceiling all the time. It was amazing—we couldn’t explain it.” Tests showed a small drop in the weight of objects placed over the device, as if it were shielding the object from the effects of gravity – an effect deemed impossible by most scientists. “We thought it might be a mistake,” Dr. Podkletnov said, “but we have taken every precaution.” Yet the bizarre effects persisted. The team found that even the air pressure vertically above the device dropped slightly, with the effect detectable directly above the device on every floor of the laboratory.”.....


    http://www.rense.com/general27/rusgrav.htm?floc=FF-PLS
    .......Podkletnov had built his equipment to test superconductivity, the ability of some metal alloys to transmit electricity with no resistance at low temperatures. The kit was basic by current scientific standards: a ceramic disc coated in specially formulated alloys was cooled to -220C and then spun at high speed in a magnetic field. It was important but dull work, and had no apparent link with challenging the forces of gravity. But when Podkletnov observed his columns of smoke he was puzzled enough to investigate further. First he suspended a metal ball above the machine, then some silicone and wood. Each time he found that the objects lost about 2% of their weight above the spinning disc. That wasn,t all. Investigating further, Podkletnov found that the anti-gravity effect extended far above the machine, right to the ceiling. Then he went up to the roof and, sure enough, there was a narrow circular beam penetrating right the way through the building which reduced the weight of anything placed in its path. It was just as strong there as it was above the machine. His anti-gravity beam, it seemed, had no limit. It extended upwards forever......
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-15-2014 at 11:47 PM.

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,840
    Some of this wikileaks stuff re force iz ok and some aint.
    mac.
    .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...................................
    ......In physics, a force is any influence that causes an object to undergo a certain change, either concerning its movement, direction, or geometrical construction. In other words, a force can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate, or a flexible object to deform, or both. Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or a pull. A force has both magnitude and direction, making it a vector quantity. It is measured in the SI unit of newtons and represented by the symbol F..............

    With modern insights into quantum mechanics and technology that can accelerate particles close to the speed of light, particle physics has devised a Standard Model to describe forces between particles smaller than atoms. The Standard Model predicts that exchanged particles called gauge bosons are the fundamental means by which forces are emitted and absorbed. Only four main interactions are known: in order of decreasing strength, they are: strong, electromagnetic, weak, and gravitational...................

    In modern particle physics, forces and the acceleration of particles are explained as a mathematical by product of exchange of momentum-carrying gauge bosons. With the development of quantum field theory and general relativity, it was realized that force is a redundant concept arising from conservation of momentum (4-momentum in relativity and momentum of virtual particles in quantum electrodynamics). The conservation of momentum, can be directly derived from homogeneity (=shift symmetry) of space and so is usually considered more fundamental than the concept of a force. Thus the currently known fundamental forces are considered more accurately to be "fundamental interactions".[5]:199–128 When particle A emits (creates) or absorbs (annihilates) virtual particle B, a momentum conservation results in recoil of particle A making impression of repulsion or attraction between particles A A' exchanging by B. This description applies to all forces arising from fundamental interactions...............

    All of the forces in the universe are based on four fundamental interactions. The strong and weak forces are nuclear forces that act only at very short distances, and are responsible for the interactions between subatomic particles, including nucleons and compound nuclei. The electromagnetic force acts between electric charges, and the gravitational force acts between masses. All other forces in nature derive from these four fundamental interactions. For example, friction is a manifestation of the electromagnetic force acting between the atoms of two surfaces, and the Pauli exclusion principle,[24] which does not permit atoms to pass through each other. Similarly, the forces in springs, modeled by Hooke's law, are the result of electromagnetic forces and the Exclusion Principle acting together to return an object to its equilibrium position. Centrifugal forces are acceleration forces which arise simply from the acceleration of rotating frames of reference................

    Since then, and so far, general relativity has been acknowledged as the theory which best explains gravity. In GR, gravitation is not viewed as a force, but rather, objects moving freely in gravitational fields travel under their own inertia in straight lines through curved space-time – defined as the shortest space time path between two space-time events. From the perspective of the object, all motion occurs as if there were no gravitation whatsoever. It is only when observing the motion in a global sense that the curvature of space-time can be observed and the force is inferred from the object's curved path..........

    The electrostatic force was first described in 1784 by Coulomb as a force which existed intrinsically between two charges.[17]:519 The properties of the electrostatic force were that it varied as an inverse square law directed in the radial direction, was both attractive and repulsive (there was intrinsic polarity), was independent of the mass of the charged objects, and followed the superposition principle. Coulomb's law unifies all these observations into one succinct statement....................

    Meanwhile, the Lorentz force of magnetism was discovered to exist between two electric currents. It has the same mathematical character as Coulomb's Law with the proviso that like currents attract and unlike currents repel. Similar to the electric field, the magnetic field can be used to determine the magnetic force on an electric current at any point in space................

    There are two "nuclear forces" which today are usually described as interactions that take place in quantum theories of particle physics. The strong nuclear force[17]:940 is the force responsible for the structural integrity of atomic nuclei while the weak nuclear force[17]:951 is responsible for the decay of certain nucleons into leptons and other types of hadrons....................

    The strong force is today understood to represent the interactions between quarks and gluons as detailed by the theory of quantum chromodynamics (QCD).[36] The strong force is the fundamental force mediated by gluons, acting upon quarks, antiquarks, and the gluons themselves. The (aptly named) strong interaction is the "strongest" of the four fundamental forces...................

    The strong force only acts directly upon elementary particles. However, a residual of the force is observed between hadrons (the best known example being the force that acts between nucleons in atomic nuclei) as the nuclear force. Here the strong force acts indirectly, transmitted as gluons which form part of the virtual pi and rho mesons which classically transmit the nuclear force (see this topic for more). The failure of many searches for free quarks has shown that the elementary particles affected are not directly observable. This phenomenon is called color confinement.....................

    The weak force is due to the exchange of the heavy W and Z bosons. Its most familiar effect is beta decay (of neutrons in atomic nuclei) and the associated radioactivity. The word "weak" derives from the fact that the field strength is some 1013 times less than that of the strong force. Still, it is stronger than gravity over short distances. A consistent electroweak theory has also been developed which shows that electromagnetic forces and the weak force are indistinguishable at a temperatures in excess of approximately 1015 kelvins. Such temperatures have been probed in modern particle accelerators and show the conditions of the universe in the early moments of the Big Bang....................

    There are forces which are frame dependent, meaning that they appear due to the adoption of non-Newtonian (that is, non-inertial) reference frames. Such forces include the centrifugal force and the Coriolis force.[40] These forces are considered fictitious because they do not exist in frames of reference that are not accelerating..........................

    In general relativity, gravity becomes a fictitious force that arises in situations where spacetime deviates from a flat geometry. As an extension, Kaluza–Klein theory and string theory ascribe electromagnetism and the other fundamental forces respectively to the curvature of differently scaled dimensions, which would ultimately imply that all forces are fictitious...............

    .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...................................
    Funny that. Mac haz thort a lot about the universe etc, and a long time ago realized that one day science would learn that the universe and time etc were fictitious, and that the only reality woz force. Yet Frankeinstein & Co beleev the opposit.
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-17-2014 at 05:45 AM.

Posting Permissions

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