Speaking of Motion Mountain, I followed with interest the section on
Gravitomagnetism (page 283).

Since, as reported, this effect has been detected, then, and this is not
to be taken lightly, once again the same fallacy that I have illustrated
numerous times in the past has found another place to insert itself. If
for any vanishingly small interval of time an extended mass is
considered as two sets of particles in motion along a given axis in
opposite directions, then it must follow that the gravitostatic
interaction is at least in part originated from the gravitomagnetic
interaction of the moving sets within the masses. Given sufficiently
large relative speeds of the particles, the entire gravitational
interaction can be accounted for as 'just' a gravitomagnetic effect.

Now we have a perfect analogy to the interaction of charged spheres, in
that the magnetic interaction of the axial charge sets within the
sphere's material can not only account entirely for the electrostatic
interaction, but Coulomb's law is in fact derivable from this premise.
For that derivation see:

http://www.cswnet.com/~rper

Thus not only is classical electromagnetism incorrect for failing to
account for this most basic of observations, but it seems that modern
gravitational theory suffers from 'exactly' the same flaw in reasoning.

Superposition, when taken in conjunction with the reality that extended
objects are non-objects except wrt the human mind, well that's really
all there is to it. If you can't put two and two together then damn you
to incoherent hell. Consistency and reality have in common that they
both reside in the finer details.

Richard Perry

Richard wrote:

Speaking of Motion Mountain, I followed with interest the section on
Gravitomagnetism (page 283).

Since, as reported, this effect has been detected, then, and this is not
to be taken lightly, once again the same fallacy that I have illustrated
numerous times in the past has found another place to insert itself. If
for any vanishingly small interval of time an extended mass is
considered as two sets of particles in motion along a given axis in
opposite directions, then it must follow that the gravitostatic
interaction is at least in part originated from the gravitomagnetic
interaction of the moving sets within the masses. Given sufficiently
large relative speeds of the particles, the entire gravitational
interaction can be accounted for as 'just' a gravitomagnetic effect.

Now we have a perfect analogy to the interaction of charged spheres, in
that the magnetic interaction of the axial charge sets within the
sphere's material can not only account entirely for the electrostatic
interaction, but Coulomb's law is in fact derivable from this premise.
For that derivation see:

http://www.cswnet.com/~rper

Thus not only is classical electromagnetism incorrect for failing to
account for this most basic of observations, but it seems that modern
gravitational theory suffers from 'exactly' the same flaw in reasoning.

Superposition, when taken in conjunction with the reality that extended
objects are non-objects except wrt the human mind, well that's really
all there is to it. If you can't put two and two together then damn you
to incoherent hell. Consistency and reality have in common that they
both reside in the finer details.

Richard Perry

See: http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/19...t/pnu295-2.htm
http://www.aip.org/physnews/graphics/html/gravmag.htm

Crank Inforemation
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...author%3APerry

Sam Wormley wrote:

Richard wrote:

Speaking of Motion Mountain, I followed with interest the section on
Gravitomagnetism (page 283).

Since, as reported, this effect has been detected, then, and this is not
to be taken lightly, once again the same fallacy that I have illustrated
numerous times in the past has found another place to insert itself. If
for any vanishingly small interval of time an extended mass is
considered as two sets of particles in motion along a given axis in
opposite directions, then it must follow that the gravitostatic
interaction is at least in part originated from the gravitomagnetic
interaction of the moving sets within the masses. Given sufficiently
large relative speeds of the particles, the entire gravitational
interaction can be accounted for as 'just' a gravitomagnetic effect.

Now we have a perfect analogy to the interaction of charged spheres, in
that the magnetic interaction of the axial charge sets within the
sphere's material can not only account entirely for the electrostatic
interaction, but Coulomb's law is in fact derivable from this premise.
For that derivation see:

http://www.cswnet.com/~rper

Thus not only is classical electromagnetism incorrect for failing to
account for this most basic of observations, but it seems that modern
gravitational theory suffers from 'exactly' the same flaw in reasoning.

Superposition, when taken in conjunction with the reality that extended
objects are non-objects except wrt the human mind, well that's really
all there is to it. If you can't put two and two together then damn you
to incoherent hell. Consistency and reality have in common that they
both reside in the finer details.

Richard Perry

See: http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/19...t/pnu295-2.htm
http://www.aip.org/physnews/graphics/html/gravmag.htm

Yes Sam, nice pictures.
1) There are no ****ing black holes
2) The speed of the fundamental particles of which the Earth is composed
is exactly the same as the speed of the fundamental particles of any
other mass, including your black ****ing holes.
3) I suppose they only considered the rotational speed of the Earth

Damn you to incoherent hell Sam, you belong there.

Richard Perry

"Richard" wrote in message ...

Sam Wormley wrote:

[snip]


See: http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/19...t/pnu295-2.htm
http://www.aip.org/physnews/graphics/html/gravmag.htm

Yes Sam, nice pictures.
1) There are no ****ing black holes
2) The speed of the fundamental particles of which the Earth is composed
is exactly the same as the speed of the fundamental particles of any
other mass, including your black ****ing holes.
3) I suppose they only considered the rotational speed of the Earth

Damn you to incoherent hell Sam, you belong there.

Strong line of argumentation. Very compelling.

Dirk Vdm

Richard wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

Richard wrote:

Speaking of Motion Mountain, I followed with interest the section on
Gravitomagnetism (page 283).

Since, as reported, this effect has been detected, then, and this is not
to be taken lightly, once again the same fallacy that I have illustrated
numerous times in the past has found another place to insert itself. If
for any vanishingly small interval of time an extended mass is
considered as two sets of particles in motion along a given axis in
opposite directions, then it must follow that the gravitostatic
interaction is at least in part originated from the gravitomagnetic
interaction of the moving sets within the masses. Given sufficiently
large relative speeds of the particles, the entire gravitational
interaction can be accounted for as 'just' a gravitomagnetic effect.

Now we have a perfect analogy to the interaction of charged spheres, in
that the magnetic interaction of the axial charge sets within the
sphere's material can not only account entirely for the electrostatic
interaction, but Coulomb's law is in fact derivable from this premise.
For that derivation see:

http://www.cswnet.com/~rper

Thus not only is classical electromagnetism incorrect for failing to
account for this most basic of observations, but it seems that modern
gravitational theory suffers from 'exactly' the same flaw in reasoning.

Superposition, when taken in conjunction with the reality that extended
objects are non-objects except wrt the human mind, well that's really
all there is to it. If you can't put two and two together then damn you
to incoherent hell. Consistency and reality have in common that they
both reside in the finer details.

Richard Perry

See: http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/19...t/pnu295-2.htm
http://www.aip.org/physnews/graphics/html/gravmag.htm

Yes Sam, nice pictures.
1) There are no ****ing black holes
2) The speed of the fundamental particles of which the Earth is composed
is exactly the same as the speed of the fundamental particles of any
other mass, including your black ****ing holes.
3) I suppose they only considered the rotational speed of the Earth

Damn you to incoherent hell Sam, you belong there.

Richard Perry

Perhaps, since as it would seem, your best and brightest cannot seem to
actually put two and two together, then let me spell it out in detail
for you.

The magnetic interaction is not an interaction of broken down micrometer
sized cubes of static material that share the motion of the their
neighboring cubes. As the cubes are broken down to the size of
fundamental particles the average speed of the particles represented by
those cubes is approximately c, the speed of light, i.e. these cubes are
all in motion wrt each other with a speed of approximately c, even
though the larger 'static' cube that they help to constitute may be
perfectly at rest. Any two of these dynamic micro-cubes will undergo a
magnetic interaction with each other whether or not the larger cube of
which they are associated may at rest. Thus, though the Earth's surface
may be described as moving at approximately 1000 mph, this is not the
speed associated with the gravitomagnetic interaction that will occur
between that surface and some other, that speed will rather be
c+v for Eastbound fundamental particles, and
c-v for westbound fundamental particles. Both of these being rms.
speeds.

Now look again at the derivation of Coulomb's law in this light, though
the above analysis is provided in that derivation also.

Once again, if you can't put two and two together then you might as well
put your own name at the top of the crank list. I already have you
there, because you absolutely deserve that honor based upon the merit of
your logical argumentation. Spaceman has it all over you in the common
sense dept.

Richard Perry

http://www.cswnet.com/~rper

"Richard" wrote in message ...

[snip]

Once again, if you can't put two and two together then you might as well
put your own name at the top of the crank list. I already have you
there, because you absolutely deserve that honor based upon the merit of
your logical argumentation. Spaceman has it all over you in the common
sense dept.

No doubt about that:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/Peanut.html

And something similar in the sense of humour dept:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...nseHumour.html

and there is much much much much more...

Dirk Vdm

"Richard" wrote in message
...

1) There are no ****ing black holes

And your scientific evidence that there are NOT any black holes out
there is....?

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"Richard" wrote in message ...

[snip]

Once again, if you can't put two and two together then you might as well
put your own name at the top of the crank list. I already have you
there, because you absolutely deserve that honor based upon the merit of
your logical argumentation. Spaceman has it all over you in the common
sense dept.

No doubt about that:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/Peanut.html

And something similar in the sense of humour dept:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...nseHumour.html

and there is much much much much more...

Dirk Vdm

Nobody's prefect

"Richard" wrote in message
...

The magnetic interaction is not an interaction of broken down
micrometer
sized cubes of static material that share the motion of the their

Are they salt or pepper cubes? Do they become cube jerkey when they
enter a black hole?

MorituriMax wrote:

"Richard" wrote in message
...

1) There are no ****ing black holes

And your scientific evidence that there are NOT any black holes out
there is....?

On the contrary, there is no 'scientific' evidence in favor, they were
pulled straight out of the ass. You can't even get classical physics
right, and yet you feel competent to expound on cosmological models.
When you finally get the loose ends tied up, then maybe you can gain
some credibility in this domain, but until then you're just fantasizing.

Black hole theory is unstable, and therefore it is not scientific, by
definition.

Richard Perry