Einstein’s Idiots # 9 — The secret Law of Attraction
http://www.lulu.com/content/7436620
http://www.amazon.com/Why-God-Doesnt-Exist-ebook/dp/B002IPHCME
http://youstupidrelativist.com/WGDE.html
http://youstupidrelativist.com/06QM/10Magnet.html
Quantum Mechanics proposes that the Universe is entirely made of particles. One phenomenon this religion fails to ‘predict’ is fields. If fields are made of particles, how do two magnets attract one another? How does the gravitational ‘field’ of the Earth keep you glued to the ground?
The reason Quantum Mechanics has failed and will continue to fail to incorporate gravity (attraction) is that discrete particles have no rational way of explaining the force of PULL.
With the Rope Hypothesis, things simplify enormously. The mystical ‘field’ that Faraday studied 180 years ago consists of threads that are swung around by spinning rows of atoms. With this hypothesis we can finally give a physical interpretation to attraction and repulsion.
http://www.youstupidrelativist.com
Duration : 0:9:7
Comments
25 Responses to “Einstein’s Idiots # 9 — The secret Law of Attraction”
Leave a Reply
Get Your Ex Back! Thousands of Testimonials!
In my theory, in my … In my theory, in my explanation, the entity that underlies the phenomenon we call light is a two strand rope. The ASSUMPTION is that any two H-atoms in the U are bound by an EM rope-like, DNA-like entity. This is not a CONCEPT (e.g., field, 0D particle, wave, wave-packet, state vector, probability wave, or other nonsense). This is a physical OBJECT that I’m proposing as a mediator for light and gravity.
Physics is first and foremost the study of objects. W/o objects, there can be no Physics!
e.g.,
” … e.g.,
“Radiation / EM/ IR, etc., is comprised of discrete particles.”
Now we can follow YOUR theory. We are watching images on the screen that show particles traveling rectilinearly to the target.
If radiation is not comprised of particles, then YOU have to tell the crowd WHAT entity underlies radiation in te alternative for the purposes of YOUR theory.
2. Hence, knowledge … 2. Hence, knowledge has nothing to do with the issue at hand (i.e., radiation). This is YOUR presentation, drop. You are telling the jurors that there is ‘something’ YOU call radiation which travels. The onus is on YOU to tell them WHAT this ‘radiation’ thing IS. YOU must make an ASSUMPTION, not say that you don’t know. we are not going to ‘prove’ WHAT radiation IS. We are going to make an ASSUMPTION in order to explain and be understood.
Science deals ONLY … Science deals ONLY with the past. Science ONLY attempts to explain what we have already observed. It is Astrology and the religion of Math Phyz which attempt to predict the future (i.e., knowledge).
Science is about … Science is about explaining and understanding…
explain: The prosecutors version of how or why (in what manner) a consummated event happened; to theorize
understand: To mentally process a series of images; to watch a movie in the ‘mind’; to rationalize or make sense of an explanation; to faithfully absorb and be able to reproduce the prosecutor’s theory in one’s own mind; to acknowledge communication
Explain, we can ONY explain a consummated event.
“You don’t know, … “You don’t know, they don’t know and I certainly do not know. Only a “non-mind” discovery with a telescope or microscope, if you will, will add to our knowledge.”
This issue has NOTHING to do with knowledge!
1. The word ‘science’ comes from ‘scire’ which means ‘to know’. However, Science is not about knowledge.
knowledge/to know: the ability to predict the outcome of an experiment precisely; error-free foretelling
Knowledge ONLY has to do with the future.
Please don’t take … Please don’t take words out of their obvious, if you will, meaning. We must have some words.
Radiation? well, yes, it might not be as we think. You don’t know, they don’t know and I certainly do not know. Only a “non-mind” discovery with a telescope or microscope, if you will, will add to our knowledge.
But, please, don’t scold me or others for simply using the English language to ask questions. These are not trick questions or foolish questions.
You have some good ideas.
Well, I’m looking … Well, I’m looking for anything that will make clear the truth (i.e. science). As far as straight lines go … I think one aims an antenna straight at an object and sees that object.
If everything is on the table; then nothing is on the table.
“EM travels… in a … “EM travels… in a vacuum”
1. Please draw an EM? What does an EM look like? Is it like a rock?
2. Travels IN a vacuum?
Please draw a vacuum. Is this thing like an ocean? Does this EM thingy travel IN ‘a’ vacuum like a fish travels IN a river?
And finally, there … And finally, there is no object that travels ‘straight’ or ‘in a straight line’. For the purposes of Science, straight is an adjective. The correct word is rectilinearly. And for the purposes of Science, a ‘straight line’ is a geometric figure. Perhaps you can walk ON a straight line. Never IN it!
The next thing you … The next thing you should learn is that elecrtomagnetism doesn’t travel. There is no physical object called ‘an’ electromagnetism. If you believe otherwise, pease draw this ‘entity’. People will appreciate seeing this ‘thing’ with their own eyes.
“EM travels in a … “EM travels in a straight line… If IR radiates EM in a straight line”
EM travels? R radiates? Radiates EM? In a straight line? What religion is this that you spread, drop?
In Science, there is no physical object called an IR. If you believe otherwise, please draw this monster you call IR. I’ve never seen one.
Until you do, IR cannot perform any kind of motion such as ‘radiate’. Not in Science!
Therefore, before … Therefore, before we can talk about ‘straight’ and ‘curved’ we need to get YOUR language ‘straight’.
What is this thing … What is this thing you call radiation? Is it like a discrete pebble that TRAVELS from A to B or is it an extended object such as a rope that STRETCHES from A to B?
So let me repeat. The mathematicians say that ‘a’ ray TRAVELS when they probably mean that the bungee cord EXTENDS. Others say that a rock is warped when they actually mean that the rock was DEFLECTED. In the religion of Mathematics they have never realized that there is a qualitative difference between a rock and a bungee cord.
2. Travels in a … 2. Travels in a curve?
‘A’ curve is the edge of an object! In Science, perhaps a rock TRAVELS curvilinearly, but not in ‘a’ curve.
3. Radiation travels?
Oh, that certainly is new to Science!
“What radiation … “What radiation travels in a curve? This will be new to science.”
What will be new to Science is your amusing language.
1. In Science, there is no physical object called ‘a’ radiation. The word radiation is certainly not noun for the purposes of Physics. It belongs strictly in religion.
So I don’t know where you got this ludicrous word. You certainly won’t find it in my posts.
Please be my guest, drop. Draw ‘a’ radiation for me. I’ve never seen one of these critters.
We cannot ignore … We cannot ignore that EM travels in straight lines, if you will, and that all EM travels at the same speed, if you will, in a vacuum. By the way, the EM wave model (so often shown on chalk boards (sort of like the ~ sign) is EXTREMELY misleading especially to young minds.
What? What … What? What radiation travels in a curve? I don’t mean it acts as if or we represent it to be, but I mean give me a name of a radiation that travels in a cure. This will be new to science.
In searching all … In searching all the above 546+ comments I found only 14 occurrences of the word straight (as in all EM travels in a straight line, if you will). If IR radiates EM in a straight line in all directions from each particle of mass then why shouldn’t all EM radiate from magnets (dipoles) in straight lines (but not in all directions?
However, the … However, the mechanisms are different. Pursuant to the rope H, light is simply the torsion of this rope. Electricity is the in situ spinning of a row of merged electron shells (i.e., the electron serpentine). Magnetism is the orthogonal sweeping of the M threads when the serpentine swings them around.
So magnetism is certainly not ‘straight’. The fact that iron filings curve around a magnet also corroborates that this is not a ‘straight line’ EM phenomenon.
2. I think that we … 2. I think that we need to distinguish between light, electricity, and magnetism. They are all electromagnetic phenomena, or at least we lump them as such. (Indeed, I argue that gravity is also an ‘EM’ phenomenon in the limited sense that it invokes EM ropes.)
When the … When the mathematician says that space is warped and that light curves, is he saying that the extended wave was bent or that the discrete particle was deflected?
“Does not all EM … “Does not all EM travel in a straight line?”
1. ‘Straight’ is an ADJECTIVE. In the religion of Math, people use it as an adverb and this throws everbody off. people have no idea whether the mathematician is saying that an extended wave stretches ‘straight’ from the star to Earth or whether the mathematician is saying that a discrete particle is traveling ‘rectilinearly’ from the star to the Earth.
Does not all EM … Does not all EM travel in a straight line?
If so, what of the lines of flux (em, lines of force, force field, force,etc.)?
Why call EM something other than EM?
If IR is radiated in a straight line in all directions doesn’t M do the same?
What is all this talk of lines of flux (em, lines of force, force field, force,etc.)?
Okaaaaayyyy…
… Okaaaaayyyy…
So? What’s your point, jo?