Aether has mass

On Dec 9, 8:09*am, mpc755 wrote:
On Dec 9, 10:38*am, Brad Guth wrote:









On Dec 9, 7:26*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 9, 10:21*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 9, 7:12*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 9, 9:59*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 8, 10:17*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 9, 1:11*am, Brad Guth wrote:

You have two dice. They are exact opposites. If you roll one and it is
a 6 the other is going to be a 1. One is a 5 the other a 2. One is a 4
the other a 3.

So, when you roll the dice and one shows up as a 5 you know the other
one is going to be a 2. The dice are not entangled. There is no tunnel
or wormhole between them. They are created as exact opposites and will
be detected with 'opposite' numbers.

That's a silly analogy that doesn't make any sense as to the science
accomplishments of photon entanglement.

That's because you are unable to understand there is no such thing as
photon entanglement.

That's only because you and others can't seem to objectively prove
that individual photons actually travel.

That's only because you are incapable of understanding photons move.
Then show us the objective proof that an individual photon and its
phantom particle moves through aether from its source to whatever
target. If nothing else, you'll be the first.



A photon that travels in order to displace aether can not possibly be
in two places at the exact same time. *However, an established beam of
many trillions upon trillions of individual photons, in that each does
not actually have to move but can otherwise be entangled in order to
match the original spin, seems to be the case.

When a downconverted photon pair are created there are two photons.
They are both created from an original photon. In order for there to
be conservation of momentum of the two downconverted photons they are
created as exact opposites.

And those two photons added back together always equal the original
photon that still isn't proven to have traveled anywhere.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_helium-4
*Helium at 2.17 K becomes a superfluid with or w/o aether.

They equal the original photon because they are exact opposites. They
equal the original photon because they have exact opposite spins. They
equal the original photon because they have exact opposite
polarizations. They equal the original photon because they have exact
opposite angular momentums.
But still they are not the same photons by any objective
interpretations of such.


That's why they are always detected with the spins they are.

They are exact opposites due to conservation of momentum of the
original photon.
The original photon that never moved a nm in any direction (other than
having existed within its wavelength), that is unless you can
demonstrate objectively otherwise.

On Dec 9, 2:10*am, mpc755 wrote:
On Dec 9, 1:57*am, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"









wrote:
"benj" *wrote in ...
On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 21:44:32 -0800, mpc755 wrote:

The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary
space the Earth moves through. The aether is not an absolutely
stationary space. Aether is displaced by matter.
Binje wrote:

Exactly correct.

============================================Androc les writes:

Exactly absolute proof of no aether. Turbulence in any such mechanical
aether caused by matter displacement would change the apparent position
of the stars, especially turbulent aether displacement caused by the
nearby Moon.
Flogging the skeleton of a horse that's been dead for over 100 years
won't lead it to water or make it think.
mpc775 = Exactly absolute ancient idiot.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory
of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium
when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such
medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative
connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association
with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped
of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most
physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually
says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading
the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic
symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time
relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began
showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure
similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent
studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand
that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian
emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but
can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a
part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day
by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this
because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics,
endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation
of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space
and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time
intervals in the physical sense." - Albert Einstein

The relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the ether which
propagates light referred to by Einstein

Without space energy + gravity there could never be a big bang. That
is the heart of my "Concave & Convex Theory. We live in a spacetime
when both are almost equal In the micro realm concave is the
stronger,by a factor of a trillion,trillion. TeBet

On Dec 9, 12:40*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 9, 8:09*am, mpc755 wrote:







On Dec 9, 10:38*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 9, 7:26*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 9, 10:21*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 9, 7:12*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 9, 9:59*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 8, 10:17*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 9, 1:11*am, Brad Guth wrote:

You have two dice. They are exact opposites. If you roll one and it is
a 6 the other is going to be a 1. One is a 5 the other a 2. One is a 4
the other a 3.

So, when you roll the dice and one shows up as a 5 you know the other
one is going to be a 2. The dice are not entangled. There is no tunnel
or wormhole between them. They are created as exact opposites and will
be detected with 'opposite' numbers.

That's a silly analogy that doesn't make any sense as to the science
accomplishments of photon entanglement.

That's because you are unable to understand there is no such thing as
photon entanglement.

That's only because you and others can't seem to objectively prove
that individual photons actually travel.

That's only because you are incapable of understanding photons move.

Then show us the objective proof that an individual photon and its
phantom particle moves through aether from its source to whatever
target. *If nothing else, you'll be the first.


Something moves from the Sun to your eye. That something travels
through a single slit in a double slit experiment. This means the
something which moves has properties of a singularity.

On 12/9/2012 1:14 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:

Without space energy + gravity there could never be a big bang. That
is the heart of my "Concave& Convex Theory. We live in a spacetime
when both are almost equal In the micro realm concave is the
stronger,by a factor of a trillion,trillion. TeBet


Is that an exact ratio, or are you rounding it off?






--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. �亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg

On Dec 9, 10:30*am, mpc755 wrote:
On Dec 9, 12:40*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On Dec 9, 8:09*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 9, 10:38*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 9, 7:26*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 9, 10:21*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 9, 7:12*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 9, 9:59*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 8, 10:17*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 9, 1:11*am, Brad Guth wrote:

You have two dice. They are exact opposites. If you roll one and it is
a 6 the other is going to be a 1. One is a 5 the other a 2. One is a 4
the other a 3.

So, when you roll the dice and one shows up as a 5 you know the other
one is going to be a 2. The dice are not entangled. There is no tunnel
or wormhole between them. They are created as exact opposites and will
be detected with 'opposite' numbers.

That's a silly analogy that doesn't make any sense as to the science
accomplishments of photon entanglement.

That's because you are unable to understand there is no such thing as
photon entanglement.

That's only because you and others can't seem to objectively prove
that individual photons actually travel.

That's only because you are incapable of understanding photons move.

Then show us the objective proof that an individual photon and its
phantom particle moves through aether from its source to whatever
target. *If nothing else, you'll be the first.

Something moves from the Sun to your eye. That something travels
through a single slit in a double slit experiment. This means the
something which moves has properties of a singularity.

And yet you and all others can't objectively prove that any original
singular photon and its phantom particle actually travels anywhere, as
in all by itself. Why is that?

The solar wind that can exceed 1000 km/sec moves physical 3D stuff
away from our sun. The phantom particle of your displaced aether
conducted photon has no 3D volume and thus represents no particle
mass. Can you give us a 2D photon mass?

On Dec 9, 2:28*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 9, 10:30*am, mpc755 wrote:









On Dec 9, 12:40*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 9, 8:09*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 9, 10:38*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 9, 7:26*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 9, 10:21*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 9, 7:12*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 9, 9:59*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 8, 10:17*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 9, 1:11*am, Brad Guth wrote:

You have two dice. They are exact opposites. If you roll one and it is
a 6 the other is going to be a 1. One is a 5 the other a 2. One is a 4
the other a 3.

So, when you roll the dice and one shows up as a 5 you know the other
one is going to be a 2. The dice are not entangled. There is no tunnel
or wormhole between them. They are created as exact opposites and will
be detected with 'opposite' numbers.

That's a silly analogy that doesn't make any sense as to the science
accomplishments of photon entanglement.

That's because you are unable to understand there is no such thing as
photon entanglement.

That's only because you and others can't seem to objectively prove
that individual photons actually travel.

That's only because you are incapable of understanding photons move..

Then show us the objective proof that an individual photon and its
phantom particle moves through aether from its source to whatever
target. *If nothing else, you'll be the first.

Something moves from the Sun to your eye. That something travels
through a single slit in a double slit experiment. This means the
something which moves has properties of a singularity.

And yet you and all others can't objectively prove that any original
singular photon and its phantom particle actually travels anywhere, as
in all by itself. *Why is that?

The solar wind that can exceed 1000 km/sec moves physical 3D stuff
away from our sun. *The phantom particle of your displaced aether
conducted photon has no 3D volume and thus represents no particle
mass. *Can you give us a 2D photon mass?

The moving singularity which passes through a single slit in a double
slit experiment is the photon particle. The associated wave is a wave
in the aether.

On Dec 9, 11:54*am, mpc755 wrote:
On Dec 9, 2:28*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On Dec 9, 10:30*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 9, 12:40*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 9, 8:09*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 9, 10:38*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 9, 7:26*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 9, 10:21*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 9, 7:12*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 9, 9:59*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 8, 10:17*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 9, 1:11*am, Brad Guth wrote:

You have two dice. They are exact opposites. If you roll one and it is
a 6 the other is going to be a 1. One is a 5 the other a 2. One is a 4
the other a 3.

So, when you roll the dice and one shows up as a 5 you know the other
one is going to be a 2. The dice are not entangled. There is no tunnel
or wormhole between them. They are created as exact opposites and will
be detected with 'opposite' numbers.

That's a silly analogy that doesn't make any sense as to the science
accomplishments of photon entanglement.

That's because you are unable to understand there is no such thing as
photon entanglement.

That's only because you and others can't seem to objectively prove
that individual photons actually travel.

That's only because you are incapable of understanding photons move.

Then show us the objective proof that an individual photon and its
phantom particle moves through aether from its source to whatever
target. *If nothing else, you'll be the first.

Something moves from the Sun to your eye. That something travels
through a single slit in a double slit experiment. This means the
something which moves has properties of a singularity.

And yet you and all others can't objectively prove that any original
singular photon and its phantom particle actually travels anywhere, as
in all by itself. *Why is that?

The solar wind that can exceed 1000 km/sec moves physical 3D stuff
away from our sun. *The phantom particle of your displaced aether
conducted photon has no 3D volume and thus represents no particle
mass. *Can you give us a 2D photon mass?

The moving singularity which passes through a single slit in a double
slit experiment is the photon particle. The associated wave is a wave
in the aether.

So, how much does this phantom singularity particle of zero volume
weigh?

On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 11:28:57 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
wrote:

. . .

And yet you and all others can't objectively prove that any original
singular photon and its phantom particle actually travels anywhere, as
in all by itself. Why is that? . . .


It took me awhile, Brad, because I was rather intrigued by your idea
that there was no objective evidence of photon motion, and I finally
found that evidence in the following article...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

As you already know, Albert Einstein proposed in 1905 that light
*moved* in discreet packets of energy that were called "quanta"
(singular "quantum"). His idea solved a good deal of anomalies in
physics, and for that he received the Nobel prize in physics in 1921.

During that sixteen-year period, there was a lot of resistance from
physicists who still greatly favored the wave makeup of light.
Einstein had proved mathematically that photons moved as individual
particles and had the property of *momentum". But the math proof was
not enough.

Arthur Compton performed an experiment in 1923 that's described in the
article linked to above, and he received the Nobel for it in 1927.
Compton's experiment supported Einstein's math and was performed by
others to confirm the result. Following that experimental proof,
physicists were convinced of the particle nature of light, and that
light quanta (photons) possessed the property of momentum.

As you should agree, anything that has "momentum" moves. Without
momentum there can be no movement. When anything moves, it then must
possess the property of momentum. And any kind of object that has
momentum must be in motion.

Einstein proposed that light particles had momentum, and Compton
proved Einstein correct with experimental evidence.


--
Happy Holidays!
and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"DISCOVERY: An accident meeting a prepared mind."

On Dec 9, 7:36*pm, Painius wrote:
On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 11:28:57 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

wrote:
. . .
And yet you and all others can't objectively prove that any original
singular photon and its phantom particle actually travels anywhere, as
in all by itself. *Why is that? . . .

It took me awhile, Brad, because I was rather intrigued by your idea
that there was no objective evidence of photon motion, and I finally
found that evidence in the following article...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

As you already know, Albert Einstein proposed in 1905 that light
*moved* in discreet packets of energy that were called "quanta"
(singular "quantum"). *His idea solved a good deal of anomalies in
physics, and for that he received the Nobel prize in physics in 1921.

During that sixteen-year period, there was a lot of resistance from
physicists who still greatly favored the wave makeup of light.
Einstein had proved mathematically that photons moved as individual
particles and had the property of *momentum". *But the math proof was
not enough.

Arthur Compton performed an experiment in 1923 that's described in the
article linked to above, and he received the Nobel for it in 1927.
Compton's experiment supported Einstein's math and was performed by
others to confirm the result. *Following that experimental proof,
physicists were convinced of the particle nature of light, and that
light quanta (photons) possessed the property of momentum.

As you should agree, anything that has "momentum" moves. *Without
momentum there can be no movement. *When anything moves, it then must
possess the property of momentum. * And any kind of object that has
momentum must be in motion.

Einstein proposed that light particles had momentum, and Compton
proved Einstein correct with experimental evidence.

--
Happy Holidays!
* and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"DISCOVERY: *An accident meeting a prepared mind."

The link between gravity and the photon is the graviton. If Einstein
proposed that light particles had momentum, IMO he was predicting a
virtual mass or center of a light particle that always exists at some
stage between gravity and the photon. In this "in between" stage
gravitons convert to (-) and (+) color charge and magnetic color. The
color charge and magnetic color are part of electromagnetic energy,
which then forms the spectrum of symmetric opposition between matter
and anti-matter.

What Compton was measuring in terms of momentum, were gravitons
entering into the quadrupolarized structure of the photon with
gravitational force. The resultant mass of the photon increases (in
terms of its energy), while the graviton vanishes. This increase in
energy of the photon was mistakenly taken to equal the photons mass,
and had nothing to do with gravitons being absorbed.

On Dec 9, 4:36*pm, Painius wrote:
On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 11:28:57 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

wrote:
. . .
And yet you and all others can't objectively prove that any original
singular photon and its phantom particle actually travels anywhere, as
in all by itself. *Why is that? . . .

It took me awhile, Brad, because I was rather intrigued by your idea
that there was no objective evidence of photon motion, and I finally
found that evidence in the following article...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

As you already know, Albert Einstein proposed in 1905 that light
*moved* in discreet packets of energy that were called "quanta"
(singular "quantum"). *His idea solved a good deal of anomalies in
physics, and for that he received the Nobel prize in physics in 1921.

During that sixteen-year period, there was a lot of resistance from
physicists who still greatly favored the wave makeup of light.
Einstein had proved mathematically that photons moved as individual
particles and had the property of *momentum". *But the math proof was
not enough.

Arthur Compton performed an experiment in 1923 that's described in the
article linked to above, and he received the Nobel for it in 1927.
Compton's experiment supported Einstein's math and was performed by
others to confirm the result. *Following that experimental proof,
physicists were convinced of the particle nature of light, and that
light quanta (photons) possessed the property of momentum.

As you should agree, anything that has "momentum" moves. *Without
momentum there can be no movement. *When anything moves, it then must
possess the property of momentum. * And any kind of object that has
momentum must be in motion.

Einstein proposed that light particles had momentum, and Compton
proved Einstein correct with experimental evidence.

--
Happy Holidays!
* and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"DISCOVERY: *An accident meeting a prepared mind."

Phantom singularity particle momentum within their individual
wavelength is well enough understood.

Now all we need is to follow one singular originating photon in order
to make darn certain that it's only the original photon and not of any
replicated copies arriving at or reflecting off point B.

The trillion frame per second camera still can't mange to do this, but
perhaps a better observation method will soon materialize, that will
give us the objective proof.