Gravity As A Repelling Force - Newton/Einstein

OnlyMe said:
Dear Kaiduorkhon,

Your quote as referenced below is out of context as I read my translation of Newton's PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA.

“For I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend on certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of Nature in vain."

A more complete quote is as shown below, the portion in bold being that part you chose to quote...



It is my assessment that the portion you quoted is a reference to the atomic and molecular nature of objects, which at the time Newton nor his contemporaries had any ability to probe to the same extent that he was able to observe and evaluate the motions of astronomical bodies. Still this single quote showed a great deal of insight, in that it can easily by today's knowledge be associated with the electrodynamic interactions of elemental and molecular substances... At the time beyond the technology of his day to probe.

Based on this reading of the quote and when read IN CONTEXT with his (Newton's) preceding commentary, your application of a portion of a sentence and overall comment, to a description of gravity, rather than a possible frustration with limitations in his ability to describe his examinations involving chemistry and alchemy is OUT OF CONTEXT.

Look up the deffinitionof out of context and re-read the whole of his involved statement.

At this point, while I initially thought that the topic held some promise for civil discussion, I will unsubscribe, as it does not appear that younare interested in discussion and civil discourse.

Respectfully, OnlyMe
Click to expand...

----------------------------

Dear OnlyMe:
Please review post #23 on page 3 of this thread.
Again I say, I couldn't agree with you more.


Regarding your closing statement in your last transmission:

At this point, while I initially thought that the topic held some promise for civil discussion, I will unsubscribe, as it does not appear that younare interested in discussion and civil discourse.

Combined with the apparent fact that you continue to ignore the import of (my) Post #23 on page 3, it appears to have been your objective (from the beginning of you appearance on this thread) to disagree with me on the empty premise of an issue of 'context', which I fully account for in Post 23, p. 3; that is, apparently you premeditated the construction of a false motive for disqualifying the import of the statement by Newton that I did indeed extract 'OUT OF CONTEXT', as you emphasize - feigning disappointment. As though that nullifies the import of the object lesson conveyed.

Of course I did not recite all of the three page preface to the Principia.

Of course the statement is made 'OUT OF CONTEXT'. This does not subtract one iota from the import of the conveyed example, while you ignore the referenced qualification and forge on to proclaim your 'unsubscription', based on the conspicuously false implication that I am not sincere and straightforward in my presentation.

Again, the element of 'duplicity' has apparently found yet another place in this thread.

"It does not appear that you are interested in discussion and civil discourse."
 
As per Billy T and MacM.. For this to work requires matter to form a sort of screening action from the pushing force. This idea has been known about for a long time. (For several hundred years actually. Richard Feynman even discusses it in one of his lectures, and shows explicitly why it doesn't work.) It works marvelously well for the gravitational field of a single object. But when one consideres multiple objects (and considers that a gravitational field never gets absorbed) then we are forced to realize that this fails miserably. So, this idea has actually been ruled out for a few hundred years now. Hope this helps..
Best wishes,
Dave :^)
 
Last edited:
I can see gravity as a repeling force at great distances as I understand the form of the wavelength; as I also understand our visible Universe made up of stuff separated by great distances.

I can see two gravity systems millions of light years apart "drawing new space" from the space in-between as each source is pointed inwards.

Is there any viability to this thread?
 
thank you,haiduk...
for dyywwwyyydydy,u can see that america is made of convicted people from europe,with death penalties...
i wish not to set foot in this country as long as i live..
 
davidoblad said:
As per Billy T and MacM.. For this to work requires matter to form a sort of screening action from the pushing force. This idea has been known about for a long time. (For several hundred years actually. Richard Feynman even discusses it in one of his lectures, and shows explicitly why it doesn't work.) It works marvelously well for the gravitational field of a single object. But when one consideres multiple objects (and considers that a gravitational field never gets absorbed) then we are forced to realize that this fails miserably. So, this idea has actually been ruled out for a few hundred years now. Hope this helps.. Best wishes, Dave :^)
Click to expand...
I agree MacM was a "late comer" to the idea, but its only strong supporter at Sciforums; however, I don't believe there is any evidence that it is not ture or at least possible.

You seem to think there is. Please either sketch what the problem is or give some link that suggests what the flaw is. Simple assertions don't count as disproof.

Among the many ways I tried to demonstrate a flaw was to consider internal gravity forces within a single object. For example see if the sea surface of a non-spinning water planet would be as it is or what the attraction between two floating objects would be. (Gravity makes it take the spherical shape and they do attract each other with the inverse square law in this "pushing model" of gravity.)

I do know of one case where it would fail to make gravity proportional to Mm/(R^2) for spherical mass interactions among any number of masses. For example, if M is the black hole at the center of a galaxy, it may have more inertially massive than we infer from the gravitational effect on the stars of the galaxy; however, we would not know that to be the case as that effect is the only way we can measure it mass.

For example, if M is so large that a say 10% of the flux passing it is absorbed, then the intensity of its "shadow" compared to its mass would be less than if only 0.000001% is absorbed. I.e. as the flux is about to leave the far side after having passed thru most of the mass it is only 90% as strong as normal. I.e. the absorption (or scattering) in the last few meters of its path thru object is not a much as it would be with much lower coefficient of absorption. Thus it would make a little less shadow than M should make; or in other words, the effect on the galaxy stars would be slightly reduced and we would compute a mass for the black hole slight less than its inertial mass.

MacM was, I think, well aware of this "failure" to always reproduce the Mm/(R^2) law as he suggested the absorption coefficient was less for his flux than for neutrinos and that the flux was very intense. MacM did have (at least from now accepted theory) some false beliefs. He did not accept "dark energy" based on the observations, but instead, if I understood him correctly, think that the flux headed towards the more central part of the universe acting on a near to edge object was less intense on the near edge side of the object, so naturally it was being accelerated away from the more central regions - no need for "dark energy" to explain this. His flux did.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Per Billy_T

In 1965 Richard Feynman examined the Fatio/Lesage mechanism, primarily as an example of an attempt to explain a "complicated" physical law (in this case, Newton's inverse-square law of gravity) in terms of simpler primitive operations without the use of complex mathematics, and also as an example of a failed theory. He notes that the mechanism of "bouncing particles" reproduces the inverse-square force law and that "the strangeness of the mathematical relation will be very much reduced", but then notes that the scheme "does not work", because of the drag it predicts would be experienced by moving bodies.

Feynman, R. P. (1967), The Character of Physical Law, The 1964 Messenger Lectures, pp. 37-39, ISBN 0-262-56003-8

or

wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

Again.. This same idea comes up rather frequently.. I thought of it also several years ago.. But I was also shot down on one of these Forums with the same argument relating to drag and heating functions.

Best wishes from Dave :^)
 
Last edited:
Post #27, Page 3:

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
(the Reader is invited to refer to the example of technological resources at point in - TV That Watches You: The Invisible 1984 Machine)[/i]

http://forums.delphiforums.com/mollyspup/messages/?msg=2.1

Click on 'View Full Message' (at the above, introductory location).

-----------------------------------------------------------

Read-Only said:
Thank you for that link - that (The Invisible Machine) has got to be THE most entertaining piece I've read in a long time. Absolutely hilarious!!! :D I realize it wasn't intended to be amusing - in fact, it was supposed to be chilling and even frightening - but it was nice to be given an inside glimpse into the workings of a highly delusional mind.

It's rare for me to find something so funny that I could laugh for a solid hour. ;) I still have the forum open and intend to spend several more happy hours there later tonight. :D
Click to expand...
-----------------------------------------------

To make a longer story shorter, since September 11 2001, the Homeland Security and Patriot Acts have publicly announced (as ‘in place and functioning’) not only the briefly described audio-video microwave vehicularized TV technology (which evoked a mixed response of rebuttal and acceptance by the 1983 reading public which perused my faction essay), but also the ‘legal’ allowance of tapping telephones and audio-visual surveillance of anyone, at any time, for any reason: no judge’s order or justifiable cause required - so says the fine print in the (U.S. Constitution sacking) Homeland Security and Patriot Acts.

So, it came to pass that, what some people were calling ‘ridiculous’ and ‘insane’, in 1983 (including Read-Only's 'hilariously deluded mind'), by-and-by emerged as the government announced and imposed status quo, in the name of ‘anti-terrorism’.

‘Google earth’ and zooming in on your own – or someone else’s – house (including perspectives from street level) via internet coordinated satellite has become a ho-hum well known fact… That such technology can be continuously deployed and focused on anyone, at any time, for any reason of lack of it has literally become a publicly known, government imposed and publicly annouced fact.

Dyw has assertively questioned what it has to do with his posts, since declaring that he's ambivalent about ever setting foot on American soil, thereby identifying himself as residing somewhere besides the U.S.; whereas:
to think that this ('hilariously deluded') technology is employed only in the United States (and instead, like the 500# canary that sleeps where it wants to sleep, and sings in baritone, 'Heeere kitty, kitty, kitty') is the height of naivety.

It may only be speculated if, when & where 'OnlyMe' and his (Hee-Haaw) 'Laugh In' clustered audience may include themselves in the stellar underground of the popular music lyrics declaring: 'They're gonna put me in the movies. They're gonna make a big star outta me...' Etceteras.

Please be advised that there is no element of 'threat' in this missive, other than that imposed - on anyone whomsoever - by U.S. (Constitution busting) government 'law', which excercises a wartime status: without any declaration of war. Introducing the paramount interrogative - 'When - if ever - will the deployment of this ('war-time') 'technological innovation' be discontinued?

'WELCOME TO THE MACHINE: Once yer in, yer in for good'.
 
Last edited:
Kaiduorkhon said:
Dyw has assertively questioned what it has to do with his posts, since declaring that he's ambivalent about ever setting foot on American soil, thereby identifying himself as residing somewhere besides the U.S.; whereas: to think that this ('hilariously deluded') technology is employed only in the United States (and instead, like the 500# canary that sleeps where it wants to sleep, and sings in baritone, 'Heeere kitty, kitty, kitty') is the height of naivety.
Click to expand...
Oops. I see you failed to read (or if you did read, failed to understand) my questions.
Never mind, feel free to continue in your delusion...
 
So what If they got some fancy T.V. They also have microwave emitters sitting on humvees. That doesn't mean they turn them on all the time.
 
davidoblad said:
In 1965 Richard Feynman examined the Fatio/Lesage mechanism, ... then notes that the scheme "does not work", because of the drag it predicts would be experienced by moving bodies ...
Click to expand...
Thanks for the name references. My two quotes below are from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation, which I had not read before, but it seems to me simple to avoid both the “drag” and “thermal heating” problems cited as disproving the theory.

“…According to Le Sage's theory, an isolated body is subjected to drag if it is in motion relative to the unique isotropic frame of the ultramundane flux (i.e., the frame in which the speed of the ultramundane corpuscles is the same in all directions). This is due to the fact that, if a body is in motion, the particles striking the body from the front have a higher speed (relative to the body) than those striking the body from behind. …”

To counter this argument against “pushing gravity momentum carrying mass-less particles” one only need postulate they travel at the speed of light. I.e. relative to the moving body those striking the front side are not traveling faster than the speed of light nor are those striking the trailing side traveling slower than the speed of light. When one of the speeds is “C” the velocity wrt mass moving at V is still C not C+V or C-V.

“…a major problem for every Le Sage model is the energy and heat issue. As Maxwell and Poincaré showed, inelastic collisions lead to a vaporization of matter within fractions of a second …”

To counter this argument against pushing gravity’s momentum carrying mass-less particles one only need postulate they carry momentum but no energy, certainly not kinetic energy as by postulate above they are mass-less like photons (and neutrinos?) Photons have no mass but carry momentum, which in that case is proportional to the energy they also carry, but is there some reason why the postulated particles must carry energy if they carry momentum? We know that the relationship between P & E need not be linear, E ~ P, as it is for photons. Why can it not be E = 0 x P ?

If the particles have no energy then they can produce no heat as they transfer some of their momentum to the mass they are passing thru as that would violate conservation of energy. I would think it most simple to assume that these particles have greater penetrating power than neutrinos and one unit of quantized momentum they cannot exist without.* I.e. the ones that do transfer momentum to the mass they are passing thru cease to exist. Yet they exist in large numbers isotropically distributed thru out all space because each tiny volume of space is like a radioactive atom and spews them out at a "fixed" rate in random directions. (Very much like a kilo of Cobalt 60 spews out gamma rays in random directions at a "fixed" rate. – The major difference is that the gamma rays carry energy away from the kilo so it is decreasing in mass with time. The postulated particles don’t carry away any energy so the tiny elements of space are not decreasing in mass with time.) Possibly the tiny elements of space always radiate two of postulated particles in opposite directions, each with one quantum of momentum, so momentum is conserved but “pair-wise random" in direction of + & - travel.

SUMMARY: What would make my defense fail is some fundamental** reason why the postulated mass-less particle must carry energy if it carries momentum. As I noted above they need not violate either conservation of momentum nor energy if this separation is conceptually possible. We know a mass-less particle can carry momentum and energy (PHOTONS). What proof exists that makes it impossible for such particles, traveling at the speed of light, to carry one without the other?
--------------
* Thus they should not be considered to be particles but only units of quantized momentum. Again, we know momentum can exist without mass.

** I know that E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^4 but do not know this MUST apply to a yet unknown "particle" which is only a quantized unit of momentum. Showing that "must" is what is required. Simply citing this fact, known to be true for all KNOWN particles, is not a proof of "MUST." As Hamlet said to Horatio, "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Note a physics Ph.D. is a doctorate in philosophy. At the level of this question physics is philosophy, not known equations.

PS - To strengthen the case for these quantized units of momentum, do you have any mechanistic alternative that explains gravity, tells how it is created? In my book "something" beats "nothing" all to hell. Saying "Mass warps space." is no more mechanistic than saying "Mass makes gravity."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NietzscheHimself said:
So what If they got some fancy T.V. They also have microwave emitters sitting on humvees. That doesn't mean they turn them on all the time.
Click to expand...

The provided link isn't about humvees equipped with microwave transmitters or what they're for or whether they turn them on all the time. It's about satellites that are in fact actively emitting microwaves - and televising whatever or whomever they target - all the time.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/mollyspup/messages/?msg=2.1

Your 'reasoning' ('So what?') aligns itself with the fact that NietzcheHimself was certified bonkers when he passed on.
------------------------------

Post Script:
Sincere thanks to Billy T for an on-topic interesting and educational contribution to this thread.
-------------------------------

As regards Dyw:

Your most commonly employed method proves to be the reversal of what you are 'incorrect' about.

You either didn't read (or failed to understand) the provided url: http://forums.delphiforums.com/mollyspup/messages/?msg=2.1

You excel in name-calling and proffering allegation without any concern for making your (whatever) case.

In a setting of formal debate your argument platform(s) collapse forthwith, to failure.

Of course you are free to continue practicing your delusionary method of projecting what applies to yourself, on your nemesis.
 
Last edited:
Just because I, unlike you, am capable of nurturing a delusional state doesn't mean I believe the same as this loon. Keep making false assumptions. I find them more entertaining than any point your mind has managed to make.
 
Kaiduorkhon said:
TAs regards Dyw:

Your most commonly employed method proves to be the reversal of what you are 'incorrect' about.
You either didn't read (or failed to understand) the provided url: http://forums.delphiforums.com/mollyspup/messages/?msg=2.1
Click to expand...
Um, no. You misread my questions and appear, still, to be under some misapprehension on the point of my question. But keep trying, it's amusing.

In a setting of formal debate your argument platform(s) collapse forthwith, to failure.
Click to expand...
And another error on your part: this isn't a formal debate.

Of course you are free to continue practicing your delusionary method of projecting what applies to yourself, on your nemesis.
Click to expand...
Nemesis?
Hardly. I don't have nemeses... es. *
* You may or may not get the reference, but never mind.
 
Your compulsion to be amused, bonded with NietzcheHimsef's to be entertained, fused with Read-Only's frantic failure to feign frolic, form an alliteration of (plural) nemeses gridlocked in your own jackboot ranks.

Moreover your characteristically contorted translation of 'Were this a formal debate', does not corroborate - while it reveals - your usual deliberately aversive, levititiously camouflaged 'misunderstanding'.

'Never mind', your - world-accessed internet bulletin board - push-pinned locomotive, boxcars and caboose.

When you can't be on topic to educate, illuminate or elucidate:
impersonate unconcerned entertainment (chuckles, guffaws, heehaws, etceteras. You know the drill - and spin it - so well).

Regarding your labored 'correction' of singular nemesis: no such representative has appeared on your plural behalf. You would 'outwit' your own zig-zag, thread-recorded accountability: if you could.

Your thespian appearance on this thread - with your accounted stooges - is pointless to reciprocate, Mr. 'Er, never mind'. Indeed.
 
Kaiduorkhon said:
Your compulsion to blah blah blah
Click to expand...
Still missing the point I see.

Regarding your labored 'correction' of singular nemesis: no such representative has appeared on your plural behalf.
Click to expand...
Oh, you missed the reference.

Your thespian appearance on this thread - with your accounted stooges - is pointless to reciprocate, Mr. 'Er, never mind'. Indeed.
Click to expand...
My accounted stooges?
Hmm, I wonder if I should charge a membership fee...
 
Observing compliance with the advisories of Sun Tzu, the I Ching, and the principles of Tai Chi and Kenpo, this thread - however momentarily - flows freely with the topic-intercepting go-power of the incumbently crafty Cheerios; not excluding the microwave synthesized, electrically scrambled charicatures of 'snap-crackle & pop'.

NietzscheHimself said:
I find most things that promise the impossible and have no substance entertaining. And hilarious when you realize why it's broken.
Click to expand...

Dear Dyw, Read-Only & Associates (Hither&Skelter):

Dyw's 'Blah blah blah' - ut supra - is qualified prevarication - a threadbare smear tactic rather than a 'misquote' or 'misunderstanding'.
Refer: 'When you tell a big enough lie', and 'The Art of Missing the Point: when you can't afford to - or choose not - to catch on'.


The so called 'unsubstantial impossible promise' and the NLP calibrated method of displacing solemnity with fabricated levity in psywar schooled efforts to hilariously slither beneath cerebral radar in tactically bankrupt maneuvers to evade - and scatter misinformational chaff over - codifically broken realization(s) of what isn't the least bit amusing:

translates to ignoring the following documented and otherwise ongoing information that neither the intruders on this thread nor any of their 'membership fee' paid accessories and ranking cadre wish 'We the people' to know about or otherwise take seriously...

('If you can keep them laughing, you can get away with anything'. - Frank Sinatra.
"Make 7! Up yours!" - Another everyday, garden variety, domestic-tranquility-inspiring 'anal rape joke', brought to the American audience in (Google) the exemplary lyrics of 'Two Live Crew' ("Who?") publicly broadcast in your living room, kitchen and ball-park by the wonderfully amusing sponsors of the enthusiastically bubbling, tolerance-threshold-expanding corporate state 'industrial entertainment' producers and directors'; etceteras)...

You've heard their style-signatured Orwellian ThoughtPolice & QuackSpeaking views...

And now, here's some 'obscure' surveillance of the rest of the story...
All of which would be meadow pies and excrement scattered road apples, if it wasn't true...

Segue to the late Dick Robertson's Beatle-sponsored 'Happiness is a Warm Gun' - most recently translated by NCIS Federal Agents, to:

'Happiness is an innumerably overtaken rogue-CIA-Classified Cluster of Confirmed Kills'
(Refer: Snoopy, swatting flies from the roof of his doghouse).

*****************************

The MK-Ultra program was developed in the 1950s by the (rogue) CIA. ... On August 14, 1987, San Francisco police raided Aquino's Russian Hill home, ... was employed at a child care center on the U.S. Army base at Presidio. .... "Dr. Aquino is High Priest and chief executive officer of the Temple of Set, ...

www.topix.com/forum/news/.../TUN1P2RT415TB4HPJ - Cached - SimilarGet more discussion results

Leonard Horowitz's Report on Child Abuse | The True ViewMay 27, 2011 ... Like Aquino and Gunderson, DeCamp worked for the (rogue) CIA., and Aquino's satanic child-trafficking network,” said Dr. .... Reporter Steinberg also noted that, “The U.S. Attorney in San Francisco handling the [Presidio's pedophilia] ... They said they were taken away from the day care center and ...

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/.../showthread.php?1436...Presidio... - Cached

www.scribd.com › Research › History - Cached

www.rense.com/general61/satanism2.htm - Cached - Similar

www.toequest.com/forum/.../3650-the-rogue-c-i-code-silence.html - CachedGet more ROFACODE discussion results

Nancy Pelosi: Blackbird Technologies, Ravens, The Presidio ...18 posts - 2 authors - Last post: May 18, 2010
In the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Area, it was retired California Appellate ... warned the army of the danger to children in its day care center. ... On August14, 1984, the FBI and officers from the army's criminal ... Aquino along with others was arrested in the Presidio case for child molesting. ...
www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1020319/pg1 - Similar

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread329345/pg1 - Cached - Similar

www.whale.to/b/aquino3.html - Cached

portland imc - 2006.04.13 - CIA, Catholic Church, Canada, and ...Apr 13, 2006 ... rogue valley ..... Aquino was also a prime suspect in a series of pedophile scandals ... On August 14, 1987, San Francisco police raided Aquino's Russian Hill ... was employed at a child care center on the U.S. Army base at Presidio. .... "Dr. Aquino is High Priest and chief executive officer of the ...

www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/.../satanic_subversion.htm - Cached - Similar

Here's a LandSat signatured view of how Osama bin Laden's coordinates were located and shot down, 1 May 2011:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/mollyspup/messages/?msg=2.1


(Don't miss the next thrilling, playfully side splitting episode of:
'How They're Gonna Waddle Their Web-Footed Ways out of This?)

On topic discussions are (still) cordially invited.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/42821561/Total-Field-Theory


(Bring plenty of popcorn ? : )
 
Last edited:
Kaiduorkhon said:
Dyw's 'Blah blah blah' - ut supra - is qualified prevarication - a threadbare smear tactic rather than a 'misquote' or 'misunderstanding'.
Click to expand...
Nope: as I noted - you're STILL missing the point.

But never mind, your (misapplied) verbosity is amusing enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top