Aether has mass

On Dec 13, 10:53Â*am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 13, 7:36Â*am, mpc755 wrote:









On Dec 13, 10:18Â*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 13, 5:45Â*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 13, 2:27Â*am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:

Young's experiment was two pinholes;
more pinholes gives a more-complicated Moire' Â*pattern,
of constructive & destructive "interference of waves -- not
of massless, 0d rocks of light in Newton's untheory!"

it is true, that one can try to model the waves with lots & lots
of little "point-particle quanta," but I doubt that this is ever done
in practice. Â*teh waves work quite well with "atoms."

neither little rocks nor aether is required.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.

But it's still not the aether displacement form of gravity unless it's
the imperceptible photon mass itself that represents gravity.

The following article describes a 'back reaction' associated with the
"fluidic" nature of space itself. This is the displaced aether
'displacing back'.

'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and
Inertial Backreaction'http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458

"We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a
kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide
further evidence of the “fluidic� nature of space itself."

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of
a solid, a supersolid, which is described in the article as the
'fluidic' nature of space itself. The 'back-reaction' described in the
article is the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward
pressure toward the matter.

The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid
resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused
by pressure (or vorticity).

'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old
Cosmological Constant Problem'http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955

"One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to
decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of
gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational
Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory
along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests
of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in
this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity."

The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by
aether toward matter.

'The aether-modified gravity and the G ̈del metric'http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5654v2

"As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53−αg,6a2 so, it is positive
if αg 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One
notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily
recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval αg 15
corresponds to the usual matter."

The following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is
the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.

'From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum'http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.1155

"The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new
form of matter. This is the real substance"

This is all good stuff to know about, except it needs some mainstream
support that you can’t seem to attract without the gauntlet of
considerable naysayism that most here in Usenet/newsgroups are good at
delivering.

Personally I can not connect the dots of how aether displacement is
gravity, so there has to be something more to help us understand how
this all-inclusive form of gravity works, especially in the subatomic
realm of atoms that are mostly empty.

When you place a bowling ball into a tank of water the water is
displaced by the bowling ball. When you take the bowling ball out of
the water the water fills-in where the bowling ball had been. This is
evidence the water was pushing back and exerting inward pressure
toward the bowling ball. One of the differences between water and the
aether is the aether is, or behaves similar to. a supersolid.

On Dec 12, 1:01*pm, mpc755 wrote:
On Dec 12, 3:40*pm, " wrote:

On Dec 11, 2:20*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 11, 5:06*pm, " wrote:

* Please explain the operation of the Forward "mass
detector" (rotating cruciform gravity gradiometer" using your
assertions.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...830002134_1983...

* Mark L. Fergerson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_..._Mass_Detector

* I didn't cite Wikipedia, I cited an actual paper by Forward. I asked
you to explain the operation of the detector itself. Too complicated
for you?

I explained

You explained nothing; you merely repeated your assertions. You
obviously didn't even glance at the paper and have no idea how the
detector is constructed or what it does.

Read the paper and try again.

Stop parroting your assertions and explain the operation of the
detector.


Mark L. Fergerson

On Dec 12, 7:07*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
Forward's device was no-doubt devised
with ordinary electromagnetic principles.

You don't know what you're talking about. Read the paper. It's based
on GR and it works.


Mark L. Fergerson

On Dec 13, 1:25*pm, " wrote:
On Dec 12, 1:01*pm, mpc755 wrote:









On Dec 12, 3:40*pm, " wrote:

On Dec 11, 2:20*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 11, 5:06*pm, " wrote:

* Please explain the operation of the Forward "mass
detector" (rotating cruciform gravity gradiometer" using your
assertions.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...830002134_1983...

* Mark L. Fergerson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_..._Mass_Detector

* I didn't cite Wikipedia, I cited an actual paper by Forward. I asked
you to explain the operation of the detector itself. Too complicated
for you?
I explained

* You explained nothing; you merely repeated your assertions. You
obviously didn't even glance at the paper and have no idea how the
detector is constructed or what it does.

* Read the paper and try again.

* Stop parroting your assertions and explain the operation of the
detector.

* Mark L. Fergerson

You explained nothing; you merely repeated your previous post. You
obviously don't understand such simple things as gravity and what
occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.

Read the following and try again.

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by matter.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
matter is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

On 12/13/12 12/13/12 - 10:20 AM, mpc755 wrote:
When you place a bowling ball into a tank of water the water is
displaced by the bowling ball. When you take the bowling ball out of
the water the water fills-in where the bowling ball had been. This is
evidence the water was pushing back and exerting inward pressure
toward the bowling ball. One of the differences between water and the
aether is the aether is, or behaves similar to. a supersolid.

If the aether behaved that way, and also has mass, then as a planet moved
relative to the local aether, it would require energy to push the aether around
it (i.,e. change the "displaced aether" due to its changed position). That
energy would have to come from the kinetic energy of the planet, and would cause
it to fall into the sun.

This is not observed. Your rather vague notions about aether are DOA.

BTW the experimenters that initially claimed evidence for
supersolid helium have retracted that claim. There is grave
doubt that any supersolid actually exists. You claim "aether
is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid" is, of course, not
evidence.


Tom Roberts

On Dec 13, 1:29*pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 12/13/12 12/13/12 - 10:20 AM, mpc755 wrote:

When you place a bowling ball into a tank of water the water is
displaced by the bowling ball. When you take the bowling ball out of
the water the water fills-in where the bowling ball had been. This is
evidence the water was pushing back and exerting inward pressure
toward the bowling ball. One of the differences between water and the
aether is the aether is, or behaves similar to. a supersolid.

If the aether behaved that way, and also has mass, then as a planet moved
relative to the local aether, it would require energy to push the aether around
it (i.,e. change the "displaced aether" due to its changed position). That
energy would have to come from the kinetic energy of the planet, and would cause
it to fall into the sun.

This is not observed. Your rather vague notions about aether are DOA.

* * * * BTW the experimenters that initially claimed evidence for
* * * * supersolid helium have retracted that claim. There is grave
* * * * doubt that any supersolid actually exists. You claim "aether
* * * * is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid" is, of course, not
* * * * evidence.

Tom Roberts

Are you able to understand a bowling ball rolled through a superfluid
will roll forever through the superfluid? Are you able to understand
the bowling ball requires energy to displace the superfluid?

What you are unable to understand is the superfluid returns to the
bowling ball the same amount of energy as the superfluid fills-in
where the bowling ball had been and 'displaces back'.

On Dec 13, 10:29*am, mpc755 wrote:
On Dec 13, 1:25*pm, " wrote:

On Dec 12, 1:01*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 12, 3:40*pm, " wrote:

On Dec 11, 2:20*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 11, 5:06*pm, " wrote:

* Please explain the operation of the Forward "mass
detector" (rotating cruciform gravity gradiometer" using your
assertions.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...830002134_1983...

* Mark L. Fergerson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_..._Mass_Detector

* I didn't cite Wikipedia, I cited an actual paper by Forward. I asked
you to explain the operation of the detector itself. Too complicated
for you?
I explained

* You explained nothing; you merely repeated your assertions. You
obviously didn't even glance at the paper and have no idea how the
detector is constructed or what it does.

* Read the paper and try again.

* Stop parroting your assertions and explain the operation of the
detector.

You explained nothing; you merely repeated your previous post.

I didn't claim to have explained anything.

You claim to have a complete explanation for all of the phenomena of
gravitation, an explanation more extensive and predictive than general
relativity, which was the basis for the design of Forward's detector.

(His detector is not a theoretical device or even a mere laboratory
curiosity; it is in current use in many places on Earth and has been
flown on satellites to measure very precisely the Moon's gravitational
field, finding the well-known "mascons" that produce local
irregularities in its gravitational field.)

I asked *you* for an explanation of how Forward's detector works
according to your assertions. I even said "please".

If your assertions are so powerful as to explain gravitation, you
should have no trouble at all.

Please read the paper, observe the construction and function of the
detector, and explain how it "really" works according to your
assertions.


Mark L. Fergerson

On Dec 13, 3:47*pm, " wrote:
On Dec 13, 10:29*am, mpc755 wrote:









On Dec 13, 1:25*pm, " wrote:

On Dec 12, 1:01*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 12, 3:40*pm, " wrote:

On Dec 11, 2:20*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 11, 5:06*pm, " wrote:

* Please explain the operation of the Forward "mass
detector" (rotating cruciform gravity gradiometer" using your
assertions.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...830002134_1983...

* Mark L. Fergerson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_..._Mass_Detector

* I didn't cite Wikipedia, I cited an actual paper by Forward. I asked
you to explain the operation of the detector itself. Too complicated
for you?
I explained

* You explained nothing; you merely repeated your assertions. You
obviously didn't even glance at the paper and have no idea how the
detector is constructed or what it does.

* Read the paper and try again.

* Stop parroting your assertions and explain the operation of the
detector.

You explained nothing; you merely repeated your previous post.

* I didn't claim to have explained anything.

* You claim to have a complete explanation for all of the phenomena of
gravitation, an explanation more extensive and predictive than general
relativity, which was the basis for the design of Forward's detector.

* (His detector is not a theoretical device or even a mere laboratory
curiosity; it is in current use in many places on Earth and has been
flown on satellites to measure very precisely the Moon's gravitational
field, finding the well-known "mascons" that produce local
irregularities in its gravitational field.)

* I asked *you* for an explanation of how Forward's detector works
according to your assertions. I even said "please".

* If your assertions are so powerful as to explain gravitation, you
should have no trouble at all.

* Please read the paper, observe the construction and function of the
detector, and explain how it "really" works according to your
assertions.

* Mark L. Fergerson

It works by detecting the state of displacement of the aether.

Please read the following, and explain how you think gravity and the
observed behaviors in a double slit experiment *really* works.

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by matter.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
matter is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

On Dec 14, 8:05*am, mpc755 wrote:
On Dec 13, 3:47*pm, " wrote:









On Dec 13, 10:29*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 13, 1:25*pm, " wrote:

On Dec 12, 1:01*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 12, 3:40*pm, " wrote:

On Dec 11, 2:20*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 11, 5:06*pm, " wrote:

* Please explain the operation of the Forward "mass
detector" (rotating cruciform gravity gradiometer" using your
assertions.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...830002134_1983...

* Mark L. Fergerson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_..._Mass_Detector

* I didn't cite Wikipedia, I cited an actual paper by Forward.. I asked
you to explain the operation of the detector itself. Too complicated
for you?
I explained

* You explained nothing; you merely repeated your assertions. You
obviously didn't even glance at the paper and have no idea how the
detector is constructed or what it does.

* Read the paper and try again.

* Stop parroting your assertions and explain the operation of the
detector.

You explained nothing; you merely repeated your previous post.

* I didn't claim to have explained anything.

* You claim to have a complete explanation for all of the phenomena of
gravitation, an explanation more extensive and predictive than general
relativity, which was the basis for the design of Forward's detector.

* (His detector is not a theoretical device or even a mere laboratory
curiosity; it is in current use in many places on Earth and has been
flown on satellites to measure very precisely the Moon's gravitational
field, finding the well-known "mascons" that produce local
irregularities in its gravitational field.)

* I asked *you* for an explanation of how Forward's detector works
according to your assertions. I even said "please".

* If your assertions are so powerful as to explain gravitation, you
should have no trouble at all.

* Please read the paper, observe the construction and function of the
detector, and explain how it "really" works according to your
assertions.

* Mark L. Fergerson

It works by detecting the state of displacement of the aether.

Please read the following, and explain how you think gravity and the
observed behaviors in a double slit experiment *really* works.

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by matter.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
matter is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

Do you copy and paste this stuff MPC ? Seems a shame to have to write
it out so many times.

-y

On Dec 13, 6:18*pm, Y wrote:

Do you copy and paste this stuff MPC ? Seems a shame to have to write
it out so many times.

-y

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by matter.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
matter is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
the associated wave in the aether passes through both.