|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#941
|
|||
|
|||
Appendix V (was - Einstein was a wise old elf)
Double-a The answer to your question is 'no.' A spider web is not the
best scenario that fits. Its just the best I* can come up with. I try to match something that fits better. Two BH colliding Hmmm is an interesting thought but my thinking they would not send out waves. My gravity need no field of waves,and so far all the 100s of millions looking for gravity waves only proves I'm on firm ground go figure bert |
#942
|
|||
|
|||
Appendix V (was - Einstein was a wise old elf)
Art Deco wrote:
Double-A wrote: Bill Sheppard wrote: From AA, quoting one of the duckie-droids: No. There is no aether. That statement is certainly correct when it's defined as the immobile, rigid-lattice 'ether' of Lorentz and Einstein. It simply don't exist, as MMX and stellar aberration demonstrate. But the MMX null result is consistent with a *vertical*, entrained flow field and would in fact be expected (same with stellar aberration). The void-droids recite the 'no medium' mantra, implying space to be "no-thing" or pure void. Yet with the very next breath they'll intone "space-time" and its "curvature" as being omnipotently causal. They don't seem to see the conflict here. It's like saying "There is no air. But there is atmosphere." It's totally irrational, yet apparently normal, otherwise-intelligent people subscribe to it. The dynamic is not one whit different than the groundless faith in some litany of medievel religion. Hrrumph. (-: oc It shows the powerful hold that brainwashing has over people, doesn't it? People are induced to defend all doctrines, even the irrational ones. Modern science doesn't threaten anyone with burning in Hell or at the stake for questioning, but public ridicule as a crank, and shunning by the science establishment are still in play. Criticize an established theory, and you may never work in science again! Double-A This, of course, is a load of unmitigated horse****. And just because you don't understand them doesn't imply that cosmology and general relativity are "irrational". But then again, this is just the usual saucerhead dicta, so it is to be expected from your lot. yeah, but retards like that aren't much different from you retards who can't explain certain documented quantum effects that violate entropy (that i guess you just can't understand, or else you'd explain them). get back to work, carl. http://netkooks.org/osterwald - "art deco" in a disguise! (he is the walrus) -- jade hasn't said anything about my new sig, either. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#943
|
|||
|
|||
Appendix V (was - Einstein was a wise old elf)
From Bert:
LIGO,or LISA will detect no gravity waves. I base that on a lot of good science,and it also goes against my thoughts on gravity.... Two BH colliding Hmmm is an interesting thought but my thinking they would not send out waves. My gravity needs no field of waves,and so far all the 100s of millions looking for gravity waves only proves I'm on firm ground. Bert, Einstein predicted 'em. Check out this site (it should come up OK on your rig, but without the animation) - http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/en/kids/lisa_fact2.shtml While you don't believe in Google or Googling, there's a wealth of information on this subject, some of very recent date. There's this Russian expatriate named Eugene Podkletnov who's a sort of science gadfly. He's been coming up with various whirigig devices to try to demonstrate anti-gravity effects. One of these devices was even investigated by the Boeing aircraft company back in '02. But it was found to be bunkum. Boeing's initial confidence in Podkletnov was stoked because the year before, in '01, he had demonstrated clear-cut evidence of gravitic effects at Los Alamos labs (a very prestigious and accredited insttitution). The effects were predictable and repeatable, and documented by Los Alamos. But what he had demonstrated there was *not* a spinning device, but an electrical superconductor that when hit with a high current spike, emitted a *wave* that had all the earmarks of a gravitational wave. It would kick a distant pendulum and knock over distant objects. And it propagated with _LONGITUDINAL POLARIZATION_ (for db's benefit:-)). For anyone who's interested, a quick Google under 'Superconduction, gravity, Los Alamos, Podkletnov' will turn up this fascinating stuff. Podkletnov's later imbroglio with Boeing, however, pretty well washed him up as a credible researcher. It was only by sheer chance that his superconducting-discharge device had worked successfully. Sorta like Franklin and his kite. Meanwhile, across the Pond, the European Space Agency has been doing some gravity research of their own. Their device uses *spinning* superconductors to generate gravitic effects. And here's the kicker -- the effects occur only during the *acceleration phase* of the spinup. And what have we been saying here all along about gravity being the product of acceleration and *only* of acceleration? A quick Google under 'superconduction, gravity, ESA' will turn up this equally-fascinating material, some as recent as this year. By all appearances, it won't be necessary to look to the distant cosmos for gravitational-wave sources if they can be generated at will in the lab. You're missin' a lot of neat stuff by being an anti-Googler, Bert. oc |
#944
|
|||
|
|||
Appendix V (was - Einstein was a wise old elf)
On Jan 23, 1:37 pm, (Bill Sheppard) wrote: From Bert: LIGO,or LISA will detect no gravity waves. I base that on a lot of good science,and it also goes against my thoughts on gravity.... Two BH colliding Hmmm is an interesting thought but my thinking they would not send out waves. My gravity needs no field of waves,and so far all the 100s of millions lookingfor gravity waves only proves I'm on firm ground. Bert, Einstein predicted 'em. Check out this site (it should come up OK on your rig, but without the animation) -http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/en/kids/lisa_fact2.shtml While you don't believe in Google or Googling, there's a wealth of information on this subject, some of very recent date. There's this Russian expatriate named Eugene Podkletnov who's a sort of science gadfly. He's been coming up with various whirigig devices to try to demonstrate anti-gravity effects. One of these devices was even investigated by the Boeing aircraft company back in '02. But it was found to be bunkum. Boeing's initial confidence in Podkletnov was stoked because the year before, in '01, he had demonstrated clear-cut evidence of gravitic effects at Los Alamos labs (a very prestigious and accredited insttitution). The effects were predictable and repeatable, and documented by Los Alamos. But what he had demonstrated there was *not* a spinning device, but an electrical superconductor that when hit with a high current spike, emitted a *wave* that had all the earmarks of a gravitational wave. It would kick a distant pendulum and knock over distant objects. And it propagated with _LONGITUDINAL POLARIZATION_ (for db's benefit:-)). For anyone who's interested, a quick Google under 'Superconduction, gravity, Los Alamos, Podkletnov' will turn up this fascinating stuff. Podkletnov's later imbroglio with Boeing, however, pretty well washed him up as a credible researcher. It was only by sheer chance that his superconducting-discharge device had worked successfully. Sorta like Franklin and his kite. Meanwhile, across the Pond, the European Space Agency has been doing some gravity research of their own. Their device uses *spinning* superconductors to generate gravitic effects. And here's the kicker -- the effects occur only during the *acceleration phase* of the spinup. And what have we been saying here all along about gravity being the product of acceleration and *only* of acceleration? A quick Google under 'superconduction, gravity, ESA' will turn up this equally-fascinating material, some as recent as this year. By all appearances, it won't be necessary to look to the distant cosmos for gravitational-wave sources if they can be generated at will in the lab. You're missin' a lot of neat stuff by being an anti-Googler, Bert. oc NASA had an antigravity project a couple of years ago too based on this. But they couldn't get it to work. Double-A |
#945
|
|||
|
|||
Appendix V (was - Einstein was a wise old elf)
From AA:
NASA had an antigravity project a couple of years ago too based on this. But they couldn't get it to work. Yes, both Boeing (in '02) and NASA were looking for *sustainable* gravity-modification effects which might be applicable to lift augmentation. But that obviously was not doable. Gravitic effects can be produced only in short-duration impulses or bursts, because an _accelerational period_ is required to produce them. Podkletnov's demonstrations at Los Alamos in '01 were clearly legitimate and documented. They were short-duration impulses that had every earmark of gravitational waves. But this wasn't in any way applicable to lift augmentation which was Boeing's whole interest. The European Space Agency's current research is producing 'bursts' of gravitic effects. But again, the effects are observed only during the _accelerational period_ of the spinup of the apparatus. This obviously in not useful for sustained lift augmentation. You gotta remember that all these researchers are Void-Spacers and do not understand _WHY_ acceleration is the key.. because they don't understand that the _accelerating flow of space_ is the cause of gravity. When they understand this, *then* they will have a working foundation for developing sustained gravity modification. As it is, their experiments with tiny bursts of gravitic effects are like the little 'sparklers' at the end of Franklin's kite string. Like Franklin, these guys have no working concept of the forces behind what they're looking at. Yet they're having their very first peek into the nature of space itself, the 'pneuma' of our age. Nonetheless, the current level of research *does* have the potential for generating gravitational waves on demand, without waiting for the LIGO/LISA facilities to come on line. oc |
#946
|
|||
|
|||
Appendix V (was - Einstein was a wise old elf)
On Jan 23, 9:04 pm, (Bill Sheppard) wrote: From AA: NASA had an antigravity project a couple of years ago too based on this. But they couldn't get it to work.Yes, both Boeing (in '02) and NASA were looking for *sustainable* gravity-modification effects which might be applicable to lift augmentation. But that obviously was not doable. Gravitic effects can be produced only in short-duration impulses or bursts, because an _accelerational period_ is required to produce them. Podkletnov's demonstrations at Los Alamos in '01 were clearly legitimate and documented. They were short-duration impulses that had every earmark of gravitational waves. But this wasn't in any way applicable to lift augmentation which was Boeing's whole interest. The European Space Agency's current research is producing 'bursts' of gravitic effects. But again, the effects are observed only during the _accelerational period_ of the spinup of the apparatus. This obviously in not useful for sustained lift augmentation. You gotta remember that all these researchers are Void-Spacers and do not understand _WHY_ acceleration is the key.. because they don't understand that the _accelerating flow of space_ is the cause of gravity. When they understand this, *then* they will have a working foundation for developing sustained gravity modification. As it is, their experiments with tiny bursts of gravitic effects are like the little 'sparklers' at the end of Franklin's kite string. Like Franklin, these guys have no working concept of the forces behind what they're looking at. Yet they're having their very first peek into the nature of space itself, the 'pneuma' of our age. Nonetheless, the current level of research *does* have the potential for generating gravitational waves on demand, without waiting for the LIGO/LISA facilities to come on line. oc It is amazing that NASA and Boeing actually funded this research, because I know that all the mainstream physicists were scoffing at it. I remember reading about some guy way back in the 50's I think who believed he had created gravity waves. I think their detection was only possible over a very short range though. I think he was a corporate research scientist and was also a writer. There are a lot in interesting things out there if you want to spend enough time with Google. And don't forget, Google isn't the only search engine out there. www.scirus.com specializes in only science searches. Gravitational waves got 107,823 hits on scirus. Remember that "gravitational waves" is the correct technical term to search on. "Gravity waves" is a technical term for a weather condition. Double-A |
#947
|
|||
|
|||
Appendix V (was - Einstein was a wise old elf)
oc and Double-A It was seen as a fact that there were 4 colors,and Mr.
Land (of Polaroid) proved the fact was there were only 3 Go figure Little is carved in stone,and it you don't think about the universe in every direction you are missing a lot. If you let the dim wit parrots in science groups(there out there) call you stupid,crazy,and don't know what your talking about,and they shut you up,Than I say to you "hang your head in shame." Its your universe,and you have the right to show how you see it. Even without a telescope Bert |
#948
|
|||
|
|||
Appendix V (was - Einstein was a wise old elf)
oc I'm not anti-Google at all I read a lot of science. I keep up to
date. I have a creative mind told to me by my late friend 'Joe" who was a math genius. He told me to think things out before looking for answers in Google. I do just that. You mentioned pendulums,and when one is brought into a room with another pendulum and their swing is out of beat,in a very short time they will swing in tune. That has to tell you some thing,and Mach gave us the answer. It was a Swedish physicist that loved pendulum clocks that showed this amazing feature. Living closer to the north pole helps too Go figure I said 25 years ago they are wasting millions looking for gravity waves,and so far I have been proven right. Just think we can detect one photon wave,and 6 trillion can sit on a pin head We can detect just one neutrino,as trillions go through 10 light year diameter of even lead But not one graviton wave. If detected it would be as big as Columbus's discovery of the new world. That's for sure Bert |
#949
|
|||
|
|||
Appendix V (was - Einstein was a wise old elf)
Double-A You want to create gravity ride an elevator going up. The
only way NASA could create anti-gravity is to cut the elevators cord.and there is no money in that. My "spin is in theory" is based on the Revere Beach "tornado' ride(that I loved) Gravities effect like magnetisim comes out of curved motion,and it shows Einstein was half right,and I have added to its other half. Best to keep in mid my concave convex theory. Its the one I will get my Nobel (when I'm long gone). Bert |
#950
|
|||
|
|||
Appendix V (was - Einstein was a wise old elf)
"The God of Odd Statements" wrote...
in message news On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:52:33 +0000, Painius did most oddly state: "Bookman" wrote... "Painius" wrote: "Art Deco" wrote... Painius wrote: "Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote... "Painius" wrote: Yes, but i'm not familiar with the poster, Honest. What do you suppose it means? Is Mother Goose actually challenging Einstein? Is the unchallengable leader of all coffee boys just being obtuse to expect that "all _Models_ describe it that way ?" Is Art Deco really and truly Phineas T. Puddleduck in DRAAAG ??? Yes its true. I'm also Mother Theresa, The Pope and Steve Jobs. Is this truly the level of debate you have left? Lighten up, Mother... It's just that we're nearing the "end" once again. You've been so busy that you probably haven't noticed. You see, we can only take this whole thing just so far. The void-spacers chide us to answer questions that they know we can't really answer. And we [tinu-or-w] chide them to do the same. I suppose the void-spacers eventually get bored and they sneak away. This leaves the rest of us to stay behind, knock the CBB and other stuff around for awhile, and wait for new meat like yourself to challenge the CBB and flowing space. In other words, you don't give a whit about truth or reality, all you live for are the lip flappings. In other words, you don't give a whit about truth or reality, all you live for are the honkings. In other words, you don't give a whit about truth or reality, all you live for are the imaginary geese you are obsessed with. You seem pretty real to me, gooseling. Imagine that! Can you at least get the lame right? It's "gosling". Gaaaahhh... No, Mr. "I don't live up to my name" coffeeboi, it's... gooseling ! After all, when you're feelin' frisky, would you really want someone to "gos" you? The Mother of all Gooses, Art Deco, and all her cute li'l gooselings just love to "goose" people, not "gos" them! So they're odd-statemently called "gooselings", oh dearest GOOS. You din't *really* think i was calling them a bunch of birds, did you? Why you cute li'l klooless ko0ky goosling, you! happy days and... starry starry nights -- SMILE... your love for astrogooseing is starting to show! Indelibly yours, Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/ http://www.painellsworth.net |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EINSTEIN DIDN'T KNOW WHY | ACE | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 28th 05 07:07 PM |
Calling Einstein bluff .. OK AGAIN with CApItaLS CALLING EINSTEIN BLUFF, MEASURING OWLS | ftl_freak | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 6th 05 04:48 PM |
Calling Einstein bluff .. OK AGAIN with CApItaLS CALLING EINSTEIN BLUFF, MEASURING OWLS | ftl_freak | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 6th 05 04:09 PM |
Einstein | Tom Kirke | Astronomy Misc | 10 | June 1st 05 10:13 PM |
Einstein | Tom Kirke | Amateur Astronomy | 11 | June 1st 05 10:13 PM |