Re: THE GRAVITY OF MASSES DOESN’T BEND LIGHT!

On Dec 6, 8:19 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 5, 2:03 am, frankli...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Dear Farnkli...:  The mechanism of gravity is ether flow caused by
pressure differentials generated because masses can exchange photons.
The latter delivers IOTA's to replenish the ether pressure lost by the
downward flow (toward the masses) of ether.  I'll copy the more
detailed explanation, below.  — NoEinstein —

THE GRAVITY OF MASSES DOESN’T BEND LIGHT!

Matter and mass can be defined: “That which has the potential of being
gravitationally attracted.”  The mechanism of gravity is: “Pressure
differentials in the ether, which cause ether flows toward the
masses.”  The Moon stays in orbit around the Earth—because the
effective ether pressure on the “backsides” of both bodies is greater
than the ether pressure on the facing sides between them.  Tides are
higher on the facing sides (neglecting solar effects to simplify the
discussion), NOT because of the gravitational “pull” of the Moon, but
because there is less downward flow of ether on the facing sides.

The reason for the latter is because both the Moon and the Earth are
“seeding” each other with radiant energy—photons, if you like.  That
can be infrared photons, but the exchange must be there in order for
there to be a “real” gravitational attraction.  Matter can be 100%
converted into energy (via antimatter if necessary).  So, in a most
fundamental way matter is just concentrations of energy which can be
moved from one place to another by forces—gravitational or not.

Photons are just clumps of ether (energy) moving at a velocity greater
than the background ether.  The smallest units of the ether energy—
which I have named “IOTAs”—are without mass, just as light is without
mass.  A quality of all matter and mass is that such can “shed”
energy.  What is being shed is essentially IOTAs.  Any ‘decay’ of
matter, or any radiant emission from matter, has the effect of
transporting concentrations of IOTAs to other places in the vicinity
of the main mass itself.  Those processes create and maintain an ether
density and flow, near masses, which obeys the inverse square law.

Any two masses which exchange particles of decay, or which exchange
photons, will be gravitationally attracted.  But pure energy can’t
transfer (radiate or emit) energy to any other place.  Light rays are
just trains of photons or clumps of IOTAs.  Photons passing massive
objects won’t emit energy toward the massive object; nor do those
photons receive energy radiated from the massive object.  But it is an
accepted scientific fact that light rays will be bent in passing
massive objects.  And such will be bent more if they pass closer to
the massive object.

In the latter example, light rays are bent at various angles WITHOUT
there having been the required exchange of IOTAs.  So, such bending
could NOT be a gravitational effect!  The light is bent—because of the
non-gravitational mechanism of its passing through areas of VARYING
ETHER DENSITY AND FLOW!  Since the latter obeys the inverse square
law, the observed bending of the light is very close to the amount of
bending which would have occurred if gravity had been the actual
“mechanism” causing such.

__________

I will reply to thoughtful comments regarding specific aspects of the
above post.  But I won’t reply to an alternative rationale relating to
the entire post!  Do Google a favor: Copy your point to be commented
on; do so; then CUT out the repeats of what has already been said.
Thanks!

Respectfully submitted,

— NoEinstein —

Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e4...

Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...

Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...

Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-Mhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ac6fcd9b4e8112ed?hl=en





On Nov 22, 4:46 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Matter and mass can be defined: “That which has the potential of being
gravitationally attracted.”  The mechanism of gravity is: “Pressure
differentials in the ether, which cause ether flows toward the
masses.”  The Moon stays in orbit around the Earth—because the
effective ether pressure on the “backsides” of both bodies is greater
than the ether pressure on the facing sides between them.  Tides are
higher on the facing sides (neglecting solar effects to simplify the
discussion), NOT because of the gravitational “pull” of the Moon, but
because there is less downward flow of ether on the facing sides.

The reason for the latter is because both the Moon and the Earth are
“seeding” each other with radiant energy—photons, if you like.  That
can be infrared photons, but the exchange must be there in order for
there to be a “real” gravitational attraction.  Matter can be 100%
converted into energy (via antimatter if necessary).  So, in a most
fundamental way matter is just concentrations of energy which can be
moved from one place to another by forces—gravitational or not.

Photons are just clumps of ether (energy) moving at a velocity greater
than the background ether.  The smallest units of the ether energy—
which I have named “IOTAs”—are without mass, just as light is without
mass.  A quality of all matter and mass is that such can “shed”
energy.  What is being shed is essentially IOTAs.  Any ‘decay’ of
matter, or any radiant emission from matter, has the effect of
transporting concentrations of IOTAs to other places in the vicinity
of the main mass itself.  Those processes create and maintain an ether
density and flow, near masses, which obeys the inverse square law.

Any two masses which exchange particles of decay, or which exchange
photons, will be gravitationally attracted.  But pure energy can’t
transfer (radiate or emit) energy to any other place.  Light rays are
just trains of photons or clumps of IOTAs.  Photons passing massive
objects won’t emit energy toward the massive object; nor do those
photons receive energy radiated from the massive object.  But it is an
accepted scientific fact that light rays will be bent in passing
massive objects.  And such will be bent more if they pass closer to
the massive object.

In the latter example, light rays are bent at various angles WITHOUT
there having been the required exchange of IOTAs.  So, such bending
could NOT be a gravitational effect!  The light is bent—because of the
non-gravitational mechanism of its passing through areas of VARYING
ETHER DENSITY AND FLOW!  Since the latter obeys the inverse square
law, the observed bending of the light is very close to the amount of
bending which would have occurred if gravity had been the actual
“mechanism” causing such.

__________

I will reply to thoughtful comments regarding specific aspects of the
above post.  But I won’t reply to an alternative rationale relating to
the entire post!  Do Google a favor: Copy your point to be commented
on; do so; then CUT out the repeats of what has already been said.
Thanks!

Respectfully submitted,

— NoEinstein —

Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e4...

Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci..physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...

Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...

Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-Mhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ac6fcd9b4e8112ed?hl=en

You go through a lot of work to pin bending of light on the aether. I
believe that the bending of light is also due to the aether, but the
simple explanation is that gravity pulls down on aether like normal
matter and compresses it make regions of denser aether, much like the
ocean density changes as you get deeper. It is then simple refraction
that causes the light to bend. So gravity is involved to make the
aether density change, but is not directly responsible for the bending
as you say. Isn't that much simpler? I also saw a reference somewhere
that said if you calculate the refaction of light for a compressed
aether, you end up with the same equations as Einstein did and they
are equivalent.

fhugravity- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I know you are advocating a 'push' model of gravity - but just where
are all these photons coming out of the Earth and moon coming from?
You postulate the existence of something as unexplained (push photons)
as the phenomenon you are trying to explain (gravity). In my mind,
this is no explanation at all.

The only thing my model requires are positrons/electrons and the
electrostatic force. All of which we know exist. See:

http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html

I put forth to you this little challenge - is not my theory simpler? I
have no aether flows. It effectively acts like a gravitationally
attracted gas and behaves as such.

-fhugravity
.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast