Re: Eotvos.
- From: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 20:38:46 -0700
Dear em:
"em" <nootlanoo@dodiggerdo> wrote in message
news:4377e7d8$0$14479$afc38c87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote in message news:x4Ldf.36$6u6.21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Dear em:
>>
>> "em" <nootlanoo@dodiggerdo> wrote in message
>> news:4377231f$0$26117$afc38c87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox
>>>> T:net@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:vOqdf.8092$nh2.3709@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>> I didn't expect this to yield anti-gravity anyway...
>>>
>>> I don't think anti-gravity is even on the cards, anyhow,
>>> more whether the EEP is absolute or not.
>>>
>>> I understand if the EEP is absolute, then gravity really
>>> is derived by the so-called curvature in the space-time
>>> manifold. That's it.
>>>
>>> If it produces a non-null result then what?
>>
>> Then spacetime is only the tip of the iceberg, and
>> another "dimension" is *barely* evident.
>
> I agree with you there that it is the tip of the iceberg,
> as there is more to gather from this really astounding
> fact.
.... when/if it is fact.
>>> Gravity is derived by the mediation of a messenger
>>> particle?
>>
>> No, because it is still being described by "the field",
>> there would be simply another dimension.
>
> I think an expanding Aether would overcome all need
> to ascribe a need to suppose there exist other
> dimensions.
It would have to be expanding on very large scales, to avoid
detection. And any such expansion would not be a Loretnz aether.
>>> It is an important outcome, either way it goes and
>>> a null result is also important.
>>>
>>> But the silence does not bode well that a non-null
>>> outcome was produced.
>>
>> I don't paint my self into that corner. Let's say we
>> were talking about people that knew how somebody
>> published on "cold fusion" before others could verify
>> their results. Let's say that it is remotely possible
>> that a non-null result was obtained, or that the
>> nulling procedures for the various mass
>> configurations was significantly system dependent
>> (different procedures were required, at least in
>> detail). Don't you think they'd hold their breath,
>> and try it several times, before commiting their careers to
>> public view?
>>
>> I can wait a bit longer...
>
> Wise move and I myself too consider be patient.
> So... I just ask without committing. But... I say...
> it does seems a little drafty in here. Do you suppose we are
> sitting here waiting for a train
> that is not coming?
Who is waiting? I have things to keep me busy.
> Oh... and the other thing... what ever happened to that
> GravityB probe?
Being analyzed. Looking for a silly whilimeter. Right at the
edge of the budget.
> When it was launched it was hailed as the most
> expensive and with prominent fanfare, being of great
> significance, etc, yet, once all the cheques had cleared and
> drawn, it pretty well fizzled out into
> mediocrity and obscurity.
>
> All you could hear were the crickets in the hollow.
>
> Do you think it may have done a Michelson and
> Morley and produce results in conflict with the
> designers anticipation?
>
> i.e.... like no frame drag or worst still, no
> physical space/time curvature to speak of?
Already been observed, documented, and published, involving much
less money. Relativity and Lorentz aether are two sides of the
same coin (a statement I'll no doubt get flack for). They both
go down together, so hold on for the results.
David A. Smith
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Eotvos.
- From: em
- Re: Eotvos.
- From: Joe Fischer
- Re: Eotvos.
- References:
- Re: Eotvos.
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: Eotvos.
- From: em
- Re: Eotvos.
- Prev by Date: Re: Attraction VS geometry
- Next by Date: Re: Attraction VS geometry
- Previous by thread: Re: Eotvos.
- Next by thread: Re: Eotvos.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
