rwjefferson

hubris Suppose instead you might be wrong and wrong again. Suppose there might be at least some open minded students and moderators seeking simple truth. Suppose Newton and Bernoulli and Einstein are right all along after all. Suppose force is inertial pressure differential and curvature of space is only relatively equivalent. Suppose your own mainstream science dogma forgot to tell you so. Suppose you missed the scientific revolution. quantum.gravity.101 Well curvature as the same as force does not predict weakly interactive massive quantum particles or the accelerated spin of galaxies or the accelerated drag on pioneering spacecraft or the accelerated expansion of the universe or how airplanes fly up side down. I like how inertial pressure differential does; but that's another string and thread. a galaxy is a beautiful thing to see I also like the distortion of earth's atomsphere by the eye of a cyclone thingy; a terrible beauty at beast. keep your mind open and your feet grounded; in the spirit of peace ron That a baryon might not feel the passage of a singular lepton, does not mean the least of particles feels not a baryon's passage at distance square.

who will lead the weigh I like that your own honest responses show you might be potentially smarter than the current undercover moderator charged with preventing the hijacking of your own particular OP thread. def: bang~entropy the universe expands by inertial energy and levity and collapses by gravity time is only relatively constant Are you familiar with the three laws that demonstrate Newton's first rule holds true? Have you heard Einstein disproves Newton's second rule? Time is only relatively constant. Place a drain in the ocean. No matter how fast or far away you might try to row; you and your dingy are still drawn toward lower pressure. Remember that quantum particles are only weakly interactive and thus more likely to pass through or by baryons. Remember that quantum particles are subject to gravity and accelerate toward greater mass. If only there were an easy scale or way to measure the drag of wimpy particles accelerating through you toward relative greater earth mass. peace ron .007: get back to your post having a good conversation with the OP is not even relatively close to the same as hijacking

space is held up by inertia and energy Space consists of quantum particles. The space around earth consists of baryonic particles. The low pressure in the eye of a hurricane distorts earth's atmosphere. What happens if you drill into relative infinite vacuum pressure? Each singular point of mass distorts quantum spacetime like low pressure distorts earth's atomsphere. What happens as sound encounters the sonic horizon barrier? peace ron brainstorming is a trait of open minds

dogma sows confusion Yes. The last time I checked and according to logic; if at least one part of an or question holds true, the right answer is yes. Yes. You have every right and reason to be confused and yes; it is always better to be too-open-minded than to be severely-closed-minded. Yes. The last time I checked this is the Classical Physics Forum. Classical Newton and Bernoulli clearly state force is inertial pressure differential. The conjecture that curvature (warp) is the same as force belongs in the Relativity if not the Pseudoscience Forum. Do you know how to distill the inertial and gravitational properties of baryonic particles to the weakly inertial and gravitational properties of quantum particles? What do you know of relatively infinite vacuum energy of 'empty' space? peace ron

exactly Newton's three laws constitute Newton's first rule. Newton's first rule is stated in verse as inertial differential forces mass acceleration. Yes, Newton's first rule holds true. No. Newton's second and third rules do not hold true (by better measure). Newton's second rule states time flows at a constant rate. Einstein sees the velocity of time dragging as velocity through space speeds up. peace ron too much learning is a dangerous thing; too much learning blinds the mind to simple truth

The gestation of Isaac is a beautiful model of two amorphous galaxies spiraling together to make a singular vortex. Remember that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. Start with your best atmospheric models and then reduce the vertical dimension to a singular point spinning up. Distill the inertial and gravitational properties of baryonic particles to the weakly inertial and gravitational properties of quantum particles. peace dr. ron def: vortex the tango of newton in verse bernoulli

Does force equal mass acceleration?

welcome to my wormhole.013 I accept your challenge. I raise my own amateurish philosophy of science against the best B.S. piled higher by others marked like you. I challenge you to fold your power to silence with one last insulting post. I challenge you to do your best to decipher and answer my questions with kind and well reasoned responses. I will do the same for you. I am the OP at least of this particular thread. Does inertial differential force mass acceleration? .007: Please see that this thread is not hijacked. Please admonish all posters to cite the first word in context that escapes their native language starting with 'does'. Welcome to the science revolution. Thanks ItS the last cub scout a good teacher learns from all students

welcome to my wormhole.010 don't believe everything Authority tells you so def: uncool spouting off without a clue def: ignorance judging and condemning self evident truth as speculation welcome to the science revolution.101 the force of all and everything Has aether been disproved? No. 'Luminiferous' Aether is a 'mythical' bitch. Michelson and Morley Merely prove 'strawman' aether does not exist. Michelson and Morley do not disprove space might consist of weakly interactive massive quantum particles. Were Michelson and Morley even looking in the right direction? Yes - if they meant to be tilting at strawman speculation. No - not if they wanted to measure the the wimpy aether wind. Is force inertial differential? Yes. Inertial differential forces mass acceleration. Inertial differential creates fluent wind from static airmass. Inertial differential between fingertips and keys records my tongue and otherwise amuses me. Inertial differential is the force that lifts wings. Inertial differential is... ...the list goes on and on as far as I can see. Is curvature? No. Curvature is not force. Curvature is not inertial differential. It is not a dome of firmament that separates heaven from flatland earth. Stars are not little lights embedded in a crystal sphere spinning around stationary earth. Centripetal does not counter centrifugal force. Planets do not wander epicycle upon epicycle upon epicycle ad infinitum. Curvature of wing is not the force of levity. Curvature of space is not the force of gravity. Tensors do not curve space. Thus the burden lies still with you. Name a state of force that is not also consistent with inertial differential. Name curve that alone forces mass acceleration. ItS peace r~ none can enlighten the willfully blind least of all me

compliment your selves with ignorance Yes. That's why I am here. Now do your best to answer my questions... ...or forever hold your tongue ItS the last cub scout (before the hostile takeover) r~ I can no more prove elementary physics to you than I can prove elementary evolution to creationists.

I know why you do not want my questions answered. elementary physics.101 force is inertial differential curvature is not Is force inertial differential? Is curvature? welcome to my wormhole.009 I can no more prove elementary physics to you than I can prove elementary evolution to creationists. ItS peace d.r.jekyll when does honest become willful ignorance

relative inertial pressure differential.101 When is air fluent? When is wind static? Name an 'anomaly' or 'aberration' that is not consistent with fluent aether. Explain. in the spirit of peace ron P.S. that I might ask a question does not mean I do not know the answer

there is coherence in chaos for those that know the cipher how to construct and maintain a dogmatic strawman.008 - define aether by a property not held by wind - demonstrate earth does not move through static aether - dictate aether is therefore disproved - bury self evident observation as speculation sorry No. Earth and you do not move through static aether. Aether is fluent; aether moves toward center of mass. The best way to measure drag is with a scale. Which words do you not understand? peace ron

welcome to my wormhole.006&7 meet me here ~ron

How many directions might the relative headwind blow? welcome to my wormhole.007 bernoulli predicts lower pressure over top spin wind blows east/west-north/south Are there any other vectors the relative headwind might blow? peace ron hints look up, look down, look at my thumb which way does the eye of a cyclone levitate might aether flow through each and all and every singular one of us that my tongue marks you senseless tells more of you

I see through your cloak def: drag the retarding force acting on matter attacking a fluent and vice versa def: fluent any and all physical media at least to the enlightened def: aether the quantum particles that constitute space syns: wimpy dark matter stand on a scale and look up naked There is no need to calculate viscid friction of media to measure drag. Drag and gravitational acceleration share the same scale of inertial measure according to newton and wgt.et al like I said before in other words Like I said before, it is not speculation that aether has not been disproved because M&M were looking in the wrong direction. bonus question If inertial spacecraft are found to be dragging by 8.74±1.33×10−10 m/s2 ; what is the calculated impedance of the wimpy aether wind? ItS peace r~

drag is drag by any other name def: drag the retarding force acting on matter moving through a fluent How do you measure drag? please answer the question ItS peace r~ that you only know what Authority tells you so does not mean I am speculating

you are already forgiven....at least by me def: anti- a prefix meaning “against,” “opposite of,” “antiparticle of,” used in the formation of compound words ( anticline ); used freely in combination with elements of any origin ( antibody; antifreeze; antiknock; antilepton ). def: levity -- opposed to gravity look this up in your funk and wagnall's def: levity the force that opposes gravity syns: antigravity, buoyancy, lift, laughing out loud newton.bernoulli.buddha.et al there is no free lift def (: anti-lift compression, drag, downer, gravitation, entropy,) did you hear a squeal There is no initial movement over ground to impede where the rubber meets the road. Rolling means spin velocity equals forward velocity. V-V=0 toward the bottom side and VxV over the top. Humor me...pretend top spin means the top side attacks the relative headwind faster than the bottom round; backspin is synonymous with anti-topspin. A shiny sphere rolls at high speed across a slippery horizontal boundary. Does bernoulli predict lower pressure over shiny fast rolling balls? No cites please. Use your own good words concisely. btw it's not the angle of attack...it's the angle of departure peace ron

A perfectly smooth ball is rolling down an incline. Does air flow faster over the topside or the bottom? What is your answer? ItS peace rw

you only prove I am right tilting at dogma.101 First, I long ago gleaned your own cite even rigney's. Second, it is relatively easy to insult and cite and silence. It is a slight more difficult to explain lift in your own few best words. Third, people marked like you need to upgrade their dictionary. Levity has shared the same meaning as lift since long before your first edition. Look for an up~grade that clearly states even definitions evolve over infinite time. Forth, I am the OP and author of this particular thread. I will reserve the right to employ the spellings and words and definitions and punctuations that best convey what I see. Please feel free to do the same. welcome to my wormhole.003 http://web.MIT.edu/16.00/www/aec/flight.html What makes no sense at least for me; is how the otherwise intelligent brains at the Massachusetts ∫ing Institute of Technology have not a clue what causes a wing to levitate. The curvature of the wing does not make air flow faster over. Air flowing faster over is not the force that lifts a plane. bang~entropy A wing presses downwards on the relative headwind; fluent baryonic matter presses back upwards. Inertial pressure differential creates lower pressure over a wing; lower pressure over forces acceleration over as per Bernoulli. bernoulli.101 def: bernoulli higher velocity over means lower pressure over and vice versa A perfectly smooth ball is rolling down an incline. Does air flow faster over the topside or the bottom? ItS peace rw

It is my passion to stand against dogma. What makes no sense is how otherwise intelligent people will swallow obvious fallacies because Authority tells them so. If a wing lifts because the upper surface is curved; How does an airplane fly upside down? The curvature of a wing does not determine whether it produces lift. How is it you do not know this? ron

not a clue I know. You don't know how to measure the drag of weakly interactive particles? You don't know how to find out which way massive particles might fall to earth? You don't know how best to wield Maxwell's silver hammer? def: aether the fifth elemental state of matter syn: wimpy meet me here in the spirit of truth rw you do not know what I know

Is curvature the force of levity? def: levity upwards force syn: lift welcome to my wormhole.002

the bigger the gun welcome to my wormhole.001 Dogma dictates aether is by definition not subject to gravity. Dogma dictates m&m proves curvature is force and holes are dense. Dogma snarls it is heretical pseudoscience to hold or defend the theory that space is all so fluent. def: aether the fifth elemental state of matter the quantum particles that constitute space def: aether wind the differential flow of weakly interactive massive particles just askin Observation indicates space is filled with weakly interactive massive quantum particles. How might the drag and direction of wimpy matter be measured here on earth? ItS peace r~

nice gun Pseudoscience is based on false assumptions. Science is enlightened by self-evident observation. Classical physics is based on false assumptions. Dogma dictates aether is not subject to gravity. Thus, dogma dictates that M&M disproves space is filled with weakly interacting massive quantum particles. Yet current observations indicate space is in deed filled with a wimpy aether. Stand on a scale and look up. Release a quanta of weakly interacting massive particles from high overhead. Can the gravitational acceleration of massive particles be measured by doppler confined to looking along horizontal vectors? peace ron