What is this antigravity force?

On Oct 19, 12:13 pm, HardySpicer wrote:

Dark matter (should it exist) is probably other Universes that we
cannot see.

For competent students of Newtonian physics, it should not be too
difficult to show the following Poisson equation.

** GRAD^2 U = k rho

Where

** GRAD^2 = @^2/@x^2 + @^2/@y^2 + @^2/@z^2
** r^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2
** @ = partial derivative
** U = G M / c^2 / r
** k = constant
** rho = mass density

When rho == 0, the Poisson equation becomes the Laplace equation.

After the mathematics of the Ricci tensor is worked out. Nordstrom
suggested the following to observe gravitation in accordance to the
Laplace equation.

** [R] = 0

Or

** [R]_ij = 0

Where

** [R] = the matrix of the Ricci tensor
** [R]_ij = elements to [R]

Of course, the Laplace equation equivalence of the field equations is
not good enough. You need to the field equations that satisfy the
Poisson equation in general. Not that it matters in real life. All
experimental results have been based on Nordstrom’s field equations.
Attempting to reverse-engineer what Nordstrom had, Hilbert suddenly
tossed in the following so-called Lagrangian without any
justifications.

** L = (R / k + rho) sqrt(-det([g]))

Where

** R = Ricci scalar
** [g] = the matrix of the metric
** det() = determinant of a matrix

You get the field equations by taking the partial derivative of the
above so-called Lagrangian with respect to each element, [g^-1]^ij, of
[g^-1], the inverse of [g], and set the result to null.

** @L/@[g^-1]^ij = 0, if [g^-1}^ij != 0

Where

** [g^-1] = inverse of [g]
** [g^-1]^ij = elements of [g^-1]

Following through with the simple mathematics, the above equations
become the Einstein field equations.

** 2 [R]_ij – R [g]_ij = k rho [g]_ij

Or

** 2 [R]_ij / [g]_ij – R = k rho, if [g]_ij != 0

Where

** [R] = the matrix of the Ricci tensor

Compare the field equations to the Poisson equation. Both are
similar.

** 2 [R]_ij / [g]_ij – R = k rho, field equations
** GRAD^2 U = k rho, Poisson equation

In vacuum, rho is zero for both. In observing a binary system, rho is
also zero for both. The mysticism is to call the right hand side of
the field equations some energy momentum tensor where it can foliage
into any form mystified with mathemaGics. In reality, there is
nothing special with the field equations. It does not suggest
whatever bull**** offered by Tom Roberts about when the gravitated
mass is not too small compared to the gravitating mass.

During the 1920’s, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
tried to halt the collapse of his estranged universe by suggesting
there exists negative mass density in vacuum. The nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar was actually referring to Newtonian law of
gravity where the Poisson equation can trivially be modified as
follows.

** GRAD^2 U = k (rho + nvm)

Where

** nvm = negative vacuum mass density 0

You can certainly do the same nonsense to the field equations.

** 2 [R]_ij / [g]_ij – R = k (rho + nvm)

Knowing that calling the mass density in vacuum negative is just too
****ing stupid, the self-styled physicists have attempted to label
that bull**** term as the Cosmological constant hoping to rub off this
mysticism over time. If that is not enough, they have called it the
dark energy which is basically the Cosmological constant at work
according to GR.

** 2 [R]_ij / [g]_ij – R – Lambda = k rho

Where

** Lambda = k nvm = Cosmological constant

Similarly, you can also modify the Poisson equation with this bull****
term.

** GRAD^2 U – Lambda = k rho

After the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar became more sober, the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar would call that suggesting a
negative mass density in vacuum as the only ****ing blunder in his
lifetime as if Newton had not thought of negative mass would generate
antigravity. If Newtonian physics is wrong, then GR is wrong too. GR
is not superior to Newton. It is just more mathematically
complicated, and that is all there is to GR. The mathematics
certainly does not suggest another manifestation of force (or lack of
it). To claim so, it has no basis. GR must be the most ****ing
stupid piece of **** ever conceived by man. Dark energy with it.
shrug

On Oct 19, 5:20*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:13 pm, HardySpicer wrote:

Dark matter (should it exist) is probably other Universes that we
cannot see.

For competent students of Newtonian physics, it should not be too
difficult to show the following Poisson equation.

** *GRAD^2 U = k rho

Where

** *GRAD^2 = @^2/@x^2 + @^2/@y^2 + @^2/@z^2
** *r^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2
** *@ = partial derivative
** *U = G M / c^2 / r
** *k = constant
** *rho = mass density

When rho == 0, the Poisson equation becomes the Laplace equation.

After the mathematics of the Ricci tensor is worked out. *Nordstrom
suggested the following to observe gravitation in accordance to the
Laplace equation.

** *[R] = 0

Or

** *[R]_ij = 0

Where

** *[R] = the matrix of the Ricci tensor
** *[R]_ij = elements to [R]

Of course, the Laplace equation equivalence of the field equations is
not good enough. *You need to the field equations that satisfy the
Poisson equation in general. *Not that it matters in real life. *All
experimental results have been based on Nordstrom’s field equations.
Attempting to reverse-engineer what Nordstrom had, Hilbert suddenly
tossed in the following so-called Lagrangian without any
justifications.

** *L = (R / k + rho) sqrt(-det([g]))

Where

** *R = Ricci scalar
** *[g] = the matrix of the metric
** *det() = determinant of a matrix

You get the field equations by taking the partial derivative of the
above so-called Lagrangian with respect to each element, [g^-1]^ij, of
[g^-1], the inverse of [g], and set the result to null.

** *@L/@[g^-1]^ij = 0, if [g^-1}^ij != 0

Where

** *[g^-1] = inverse of [g]
** *[g^-1]^ij = elements of [g^-1]

Following through with the simple mathematics, the above equations
become the Einstein field equations.

** *2 [R]_ij – R [g]_ij = k rho [g]_ij

Or

** *2 [R]_ij / [g]_ij – R = k rho, if [g]_ij != 0

Where

** *[R] = the matrix of the Ricci tensor

Compare the field equations to the Poisson equation. *Both are
similar.

** *2 [R]_ij / [g]_ij – R = k rho, field equations
** *GRAD^2 U = k rho, Poisson equation

In vacuum, rho is zero for both. *In observing a binary system, rho is
also zero for both. *The mysticism is to call the right hand side of
the field equations some energy momentum tensor where it can foliage
into any form mystified with mathemaGics. *In reality, there is
nothing special with the field equations. *It does not suggest
whatever bull**** offered by Tom Roberts about when the gravitated
mass is not too small compared to the gravitating mass.

During the 1920’s, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
tried to halt the collapse of his estranged universe by suggesting
there exists negative mass density in vacuum. *The nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar was actually referring to Newtonian law of
gravity where the Poisson equation can trivially be modified as
follows.

** *GRAD^2 U = k (rho + nvm)

Where

** *nvm = negative vacuum mass density 0

You can certainly do the same nonsense to the field equations.

** *2 [R]_ij / [g]_ij – R = k (rho + nvm)

Knowing that calling the mass density in vacuum negative is just too
****ing stupid, the self-styled physicists have attempted to label
that bull**** term as the Cosmological constant hoping to rub off this
mysticism over time. *If that is not enough, they have called it the
dark energy which is basically the Cosmological constant at work
according to GR.

** *2 [R]_ij / [g]_ij – R – Lambda = k rho

Where

** *Lambda = k nvm = Cosmological constant

Similarly, you can also modify the Poisson equation with this bull****
term.

** *GRAD^2 U – Lambda = k rho

After the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar became more sober, the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar would call that suggesting a
negative mass density in vacuum as the only ****ing blunder in his
lifetime as if Newton had not thought of negative mass would generate
antigravity. *If Newtonian physics is wrong, then GR is wrong too. *GR
is not superior to Newton. *It is just more mathematically
complicated, and that is all there is to GR. *The mathematics
certainly does not suggest another manifestation of force (or lack of
it). *To claim so, it has no basis. *GR must be the most ****ing
stupid piece of **** ever conceived by man. *Dark energy with it.
shrug

Or, you could understand the Universe is, or the local Universe we
exist in is in, a jet; analogous to the polar jet of a black hole and
what is postulated as dark energy is the pressure gradient of the
aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet.

Or, you could understand the Universe is, or the local Universe we
exist in is in, a jet; analogous to the polar jet of a black hole and
what is postulated as dark energy is the pressure gradient of the
aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet.


or not

Michelson–Morley experiment=no aether

no jet

no pressure gradient

David Staup wrote:


Or, you could understand the Universe is, or the local Universe we
exist in is in, a jet; analogous to the polar jet of a black hole and
what is postulated as dark energy is the pressure gradient of the
aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet.


or not

Michelson–Morley experiment=no aether

no jet

no pressure gradient




The Michelson-Morley experiment was looking for a very specific type of
aether.

This is an excellent article from another thread which explains what the
Michelson-Morley experiment was looking for.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...ce5615262299a#

"Thirdly, Michelson’s experiments aimed to differentiate between only
two of the many theories, and were moreover inconclusive."

"Michelson and Morley, who, far from banishing the æther, seemed to
support Stokes’s model over Fresnel’s."

The Michelson-Morley experiment is evidence of the aether of relativity.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...ein_ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.

To see a visual representation of the state of the aether as determined
by its connections with the Earth and the state of the aether in
neighboring places, which is the state of displacement of the aether,
watch the following video starting at 0:45. What is referred to as a
twist in spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether. What is
referred to as frame-dragging is the state of displacement of the aether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE

The above video visually represents the state of displacement of the
aether of relativity.

"mpc755" wrote in message
...
David Staup wrote:


Or, you could understand the Universe is, or the local Universe we
exist in is in, a jet; analogous to the polar jet of a black hole and
what is postulated as dark energy is the pressure gradient of the
aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet.


or not

Michelson–Morley experiment=no aether

no jet

no pressure gradient




The Michelson-Morley experiment was looking for a very specific type of
aether.

This is an excellent article from another thread which explains what the
Michelson-Morley experiment was looking for.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...ce5615262299a#

"Thirdly, Michelson’s experiments aimed to differentiate between only two
of the many theories, and were moreover inconclusive."

"Michelson and Morley, who, far from banishing the æther, seemed to
support Stokes’s model over Fresnel’s."

The Michelson-Morley experiment is evidence of the aether of relativity.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...ein_ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with
the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with the
matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of
displacement of the aether.

To see a visual representation of the state of the aether as determined by
its connections with the Earth and the state of the aether in neighboring
places, which is the state of displacement of the aether, watch the
following video starting at 0:45. What is referred to as a twist in
spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether. What is referred to
as frame-dragging is the state of displacement of the aether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE

The above video visually represents the state of displacement of the
aether of relativity.


all fantasy

show me facts backed by science to support your contensions

published papers, etc.

David Staup wrote:
wrote in message
...
David Staup wrote:


Or, you could understand the Universe is, or the local Universe we
exist in is in, a jet; analogous to the polar jet of a black hole and
what is postulated as dark energy is the pressure gradient of the
aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet.


or not

Michelson–Morley experiment=no aether

no jet

no pressure gradient




The Michelson-Morley experiment was looking for a very specific type of
aether.

This is an excellent article from another thread which explains what the
Michelson-Morley experiment was looking for.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...ce5615262299a#

"Thirdly, Michelson’s experiments aimed to differentiate between only two
of the many theories, and were moreover inconclusive."

"Michelson and Morley, who, far from banishing the æther, seemed to
support Stokes’s model over Fresnel’s."

The Michelson-Morley experiment is evidence of the aether of relativity.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...ein_ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with
the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with the
matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of
displacement of the aether.

To see a visual representation of the state of the aether as determined by
its connections with the Earth and the state of the aether in neighboring
places, which is the state of displacement of the aether, watch the
following video starting at 0:45. What is referred to as a twist in
spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether. What is referred to
as frame-dragging is the state of displacement of the aether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE

The above video visually represents the state of displacement of the
aether of relativity.


all fantasy

show me facts backed by science to support your contensions

published papers, etc.


'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old
Cosmological Constant Problem'
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...106.3955v3.pdf

"We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in this theory
are sourced by pressure or vorticity."

The pressure or vorticity is due to the state of the aether being
determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the
aether in neighboring places being the state of displacement of the aether.

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by matter. Aether displaced by matter
exerts pressure toward matter. Pressure exerted by displaced aether
toward matter is gravity.

To see a visual representation of the state of the aether as determined
by its connections with the Earth and the state of the aether in
neighboring places, which is the state of displacement of
the aether, watch the following video starting at 0:45. What is referred
to as a twist in spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether.
What is referred to as frame-dragging is the state of displacement of
the aether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE

The above video visually represents the state of displacement of the
aether of relativity.

On Oct 19, 5:44*pm, mpc755 wrote:
On Oct 19, 5:20*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:









On Oct 19, 12:13 pm, HardySpicer wrote:

Dark matter (should it exist) is probably other Universes that we
cannot see.

For competent students of Newtonian physics, it should not be too
difficult to show the following Poisson equation.

** *GRAD^2 U = k rho

Where

** *GRAD^2 = @^2/@x^2 + @^2/@y^2 + @^2/@z^2
** *r^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2
** *@ = partial derivative
** *U = G M / c^2 / r
** *k = constant
** *rho = mass density

When rho == 0, the Poisson equation becomes the Laplace equation.

After the mathematics of the Ricci tensor is worked out. *Nordstrom
suggested the following to observe gravitation in accordance to the
Laplace equation.

** *[R] = 0

Or

** *[R]_ij = 0

Where

** *[R] = the matrix of the Ricci tensor
** *[R]_ij = elements to [R]

Of course, the Laplace equation equivalence of the field equations is
not good enough. *You need to the field equations that satisfy the
Poisson equation in general. *Not that it matters in real life. *All
experimental results have been based on Nordstrom’s field equations.
Attempting to reverse-engineer what Nordstrom had, Hilbert suddenly
tossed in the following so-called Lagrangian without any
justifications.

** *L = (R / k + rho) sqrt(-det([g]))

Where

** *R = Ricci scalar
** *[g] = the matrix of the metric
** *det() = determinant of a matrix

You get the field equations by taking the partial derivative of the
above so-called Lagrangian with respect to each element, [g^-1]^ij, of
[g^-1], the inverse of [g], and set the result to null.

** *@L/@[g^-1]^ij = 0, if [g^-1}^ij != 0

Where

** *[g^-1] = inverse of [g]
** *[g^-1]^ij = elements of [g^-1]

Following through with the simple mathematics, the above equations
become the Einstein field equations.

** *2 [R]_ij – R [g]_ij = k rho [g]_ij

Or

** *2 [R]_ij / [g]_ij – R = k rho, if [g]_ij != 0

Where

** *[R] = the matrix of the Ricci tensor

Compare the field equations to the Poisson equation. *Both are
similar.

** *2 [R]_ij / [g]_ij – R = k rho, field equations
** *GRAD^2 U = k rho, Poisson equation

In vacuum, rho is zero for both. *In observing a binary system, rho is
also zero for both. *The mysticism is to call the right hand side of
the field equations some energy momentum tensor where it can foliage
into any form mystified with mathemaGics. *In reality, there is
nothing special with the field equations. *It does not suggest
whatever bull**** offered by Tom Roberts about when the gravitated
mass is not too small compared to the gravitating mass.

During the 1920’s, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
tried to halt the collapse of his estranged universe by suggesting
there exists negative mass density in vacuum. *The nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar was actually referring to Newtonian law of
gravity where the Poisson equation can trivially be modified as
follows.

** *GRAD^2 U = k (rho + nvm)

Where

** *nvm = negative vacuum mass density 0

You can certainly do the same nonsense to the field equations.

** *2 [R]_ij / [g]_ij – R = k (rho + nvm)

Knowing that calling the mass density in vacuum negative is just too
****ing stupid, the self-styled physicists have attempted to label
that bull**** term as the Cosmological constant hoping to rub off this
mysticism over time. *If that is not enough, they have called it the
dark energy which is basically the Cosmological constant at work
according to GR.

** *2 [R]_ij / [g]_ij – R – Lambda = k rho

Where

** *Lambda = k nvm = Cosmological constant

Similarly, you can also modify the Poisson equation with this bull****
term.

** *GRAD^2 U – Lambda = k rho

After the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar became more sober, the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar would call that suggesting a
negative mass density in vacuum as the only ****ing blunder in his
lifetime as if Newton had not thought of negative mass would generate
antigravity. *If Newtonian physics is wrong, then GR is wrong too. *GR
is not superior to Newton. *It is just more mathematically
complicated, and that is all there is to GR. *The mathematics
certainly does not suggest another manifestation of force (or lack of
it). *To claim so, it has no basis. *GR must be the most ****ing
stupid piece of **** ever conceived by man. *Dark energy with it.
shrug

Or, you could understand the Universe is, or the local Universe we
exist in is in, a jet; analogous to the polar jet of a black hole and
what is postulated as dark energy is the pressure gradient of the
aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet.

My "Convex space curve" gives the answer to space inflating. Call it
anti-gravity if you like. I want a Nobel. I am teaching myself Swedish
just in case Go figure TeBert

On Oct 19, 6:04*pm, "David Staup" wrote:
Or, you could understand the Universe is, or the local Universe we
exist in is in, a jet; analogous to the polar jet of a black hole and
what is postulated as dark energy is the pressure gradient of the
aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet.

or not

Michelson–Morley experiment=no aether

no jet

no pressure gradient

MM experiment = no aether DRIFT! (NOT "no aether"!) Aether affirmed
as empty space has properties. (Note name aether chosen for
convenience, but you can choose your own: Dark energy, Fermi sea,
"behavior of empty space" whatever)

The reason for no jet would be no expansion of universe = no big bang
= no dark energy. Red shift is a result of geometry and nothing more.

Gravity on the other hand is the result of wave energy filling aether
which interacts with matter much as sound waves produce forces on
balloons filled with various gasses. The shadow of one object upon the
other produces the modulation of the forces pushing on masses forcing
them together. There is NO "attraction" involved in gravity. Go read
the Feynman-Wheeler theory and get back to us.

On Oct 20, 2:51*am, Benj wrote:
On Oct 19, 6:04*pm, "David Staup" wrote:

Or, you could understand the Universe is, or the local Universe we
exist in is in, a jet; analogous to the polar jet of a black hole and
what is postulated as dark energy is the pressure gradient of the
aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet.

or not

Michelson–Morley experiment=no aether

no jet

no pressure gradient

MM experiment = no aether DRIFT! *(NOT "no aether"!) *Aether affirmed
as empty space has properties. (Note name aether chosen for
convenience, but you can choose your own: Dark energy, Fermi sea,
"behavior of empty space" whatever)

The reason for no jet would be no expansion of universe = no big bang
= no dark energy. Red shift is a result of geometry and nothing more.

Gravity on the other hand is the result of wave energy filling aether
which interacts with matter much as sound waves produce forces on
balloons filled with various gasses. The shadow of one object upon the
other produces the modulation of the forces pushing on masses forcing
them together. There is NO "attraction" involved in gravity. Go read
the Feynman-Wheeler theory and get back to us.

Curve of space is very smooth both concave & convex. TreBert

On Oct 20, 2:51*am, Benj wrote:
On Oct 19, 6:04*pm, "David Staup" wrote:

Or, you could understand the Universe is, or the local Universe we
exist in is in, a jet; analogous to the polar jet of a black hole and
what is postulated as dark energy is the pressure gradient of the
aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet.

or not

Michelson–Morley experiment=no aether

no jet

no pressure gradient

MM experiment = no aether DRIFT! *(NOT "no aether"!) *Aether affirmed
as empty space has properties. (Note name aether chosen for
convenience, but you can choose your own: Dark energy, Fermi sea,
"behavior of empty space" whatever)

The reason for no jet would be no expansion of universe = no big bang
= no dark energy. Red shift is a result of geometry and nothing more.

Gravity on the other hand is the result of wave energy filling aether
which interacts with matter much as sound waves produce forces on
balloons filled with various gasses. The shadow of one object upon the
other produces the modulation of the forces pushing on masses forcing
them together. There is NO "attraction" involved in gravity. Go read
the Feynman-Wheeler theory and get back to us.

Pressure exerted by displaced aether toward matter is gravity.