Aether has mass

On Nov 15, 12:48*pm, mpc755 wrote:
On Nov 15, 3:45*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On Nov 15, 12:10*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Nov 15, 3:05*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Nov 15, 11:29*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Nov 15, 2:12*pm, Painius wrote:

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:26:35 -0500, HVAC wrote:
On 11/14/2012 2:11 PM, Painius wrote:

It is amazing you can make up magical particles which magically flow
toward the Earth and magically transition from mass to energy and back
again but you can't understand how physically detecting the a particle
can turn the associated wave in the aether into chop.

lol! *It is you, Mike, who proffers effect without cause. *So it is
you who make up the magic of an aether that causes gravity merely by
being displaced by matter. *Without a pressure/force behind that
aether, then it operates on fairy wings.

Good...So finally we all agree that ether doesn't exist at all..

There is no reason to accept that there is no spatial medium. Einstein
merely pointed out that his equations, his theories of relativity,
would work with or without an "ether". *Other physicists, who never
really liked the idea of an ether, misinterpreted Einstein to mean
that there is no ether, and they ran with that. *As I said before,
physics threw the baby out with the bathwater.

The bathwater was the static, stationary ether that had been accepted
by science for more than two-hundred years. *The "throwing out" began
with the null result of the MMX, and further similar experiments
seemed to support the MMX result. *All those experiments were designed
TO DETECT A STATIONARY LUMINIFEROUS AETHER. *They were *not* designed
to rule out every possible kind of spatial medium.

So what, then, was the "baby"? *It was the *challenge*, Harlow, the
challenge to find the nature of the spatial medium, and what the
spatial medium was made of. *Mike has his ideas about the "aether". He
has put together his very own context of the writings and ideas of
scientists, and he copies and pastes that context every chance he
gets. *Oc and I, along with the help of AA, Bert, Brad, even Saul and
H gar, and one or two others who gave us magnificent argument, have
come up with our own idea of what comprises the spatial medium. *But
those ideas are just possibilities. *The problem is that few trained
scientists want to risk their credibility to reopen the challenge, to
resuscitate the "baby".

And yet, several mysteries still prevail. *As Mike has pointed out,
some of those mysteries can be easily solved under the proposal of a
spatial medium or "aether". *But those enigmas will continue to
intrigue science until that old challenge is recognized, and someone
comes forward to meet that challenge and, yes, perhaps even get a
Nobel in physics for his or her efforts.

My days will soon be over. *I think it would be neat to come back in
forty or fifty years just to see where science has led us on the
refinements of Einstein's theories. *Space is not just "space". *Space
is not just an empty vacuum. *Space is composed of "something", and
"dark matter" might be proof of that. *And the movement of the spatial
medium may very well be the "forceful" cause of gravity.

I truly hope that the following leads somewhere...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/112789079/...n-of-phase-Dop...

That interferometer gear appears to show that there is some sort of
spatial "wind", and that the dynamic spatial medium is strongest as it
comes straight down out of the sky, a vertical "flow" of space into
the Earth, into us, and into all particles of matter. *If this is
shown to be true, then it will once again revolutionize physics..

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Let science limit your knowledge, but not your imagination."

You are so close to understanding what actually occurs physically in
nature to cause gravity.

There is not a physical 'flow' of particles toward the Earth causing
there to be gravity.

What is mistaken for a physical 'flow' is the force associated with
the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
the Earth.

And yet this same aether isn't pushing inward or outward from within
empty atoms?

Exactly how much inward force is aether applying inside of the mostly
empty atom?

Displace aether pushes inward toward all particles of matter. The
aether displaced by the Earth is pushing back and exerting inward
pressure all the way to the center of the Earth.

That's good to know, but as also applied to atoms?

Are you asking if aether displaced by the particles of matter an atom
consists of is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the
atom allow the atom to be an atom? Are you asking if molecular bonds
are caused by the aether displaced by the particles of matter the
molecules consist of which is pushing back and exerting inward
pressure toward the molecules themselves? Maybe.

I was asking; Does aether cause the atom to form and function as it
does?

On Nov 15, 2:38*pm, mpc755 wrote:
On Nov 15, 4:36*pm, HVAC wrote:









On 11/15/2012 3:48 PM, mpc755 wrote:

That's good to know, but as also applied to atoms?

Are you asking if aether displaced by the particles of matter an atom
consists of is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the
atom allow the atom to be an atom? Are you asking if molecular bonds
are caused by the aether displaced by the particles of matter the
molecules consist of which is pushing back and exerting inward
pressure toward the molecules themselves? Maybe.

So we'll just take the weak and strong nuclear forces and chuck them out
the window? *Brilliant! *Who needs them anyway?

"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

What does Sheldon Cooper have to say about aether?

On Nov 15, 6:59*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 15, 12:41*pm, Painius wrote:









On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:29:54 -0800 (PST), mpc755
wrote:

On Nov 15, 2:12 pm, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:26:35 -0500, HVAC wrote:
On 11/14/2012 2:11 PM, Painius wrote:

It is amazing you can make up magical particles which magically flow
toward the Earth and magically transition from mass to energy and back
again but you can't understand how physically detecting the a particle
can turn the associated wave in the aether into chop.

lol! It is you, Mike, who proffers effect without cause. So it is
you who make up the magic of an aether that causes gravity merely by
being displaced by matter. Without a pressure/force behind that
aether, then it operates on fairy wings.

Good...So finally we all agree that ether doesn't exist at all.

There is no reason to accept that there is no spatial medium. Einstein
merely pointed out that his equations, his theories of relativity,
would work with or without an "ether". Other physicists, who never
really liked the idea of an ether, misinterpreted Einstein to mean
that there is no ether, and they ran with that. As I said before,
physics threw the baby out with the bathwater.

The bathwater was the static, stationary ether that had been accepted
by science for more than two-hundred years. The "throwing out" began
with the null result of the MMX, and further similar experiments
seemed to support the MMX result. All those experiments were designed
TO DETECT A STATIONARY LUMINIFEROUS AETHER. They were *not* designed
to rule out every possible kind of spatial medium.

So what, then, was the "baby"? It was the *challenge*, Harlow, the
challenge to find the nature of the spatial medium, and what the
spatial medium was made of. Mike has his ideas about the "aether". He
has put together his very own context of the writings and ideas of
scientists, and he copies and pastes that context every chance he
gets. Oc and I, along with the help of AA, Bert, Brad, even Saul and
H gar, and one or two others who gave us magnificent argument, have
come up with our own idea of what comprises the spatial medium. But
those ideas are just possibilities. The problem is that few trained
scientists want to risk their credibility to reopen the challenge, to
resuscitate the "baby".

And yet, several mysteries still prevail. As Mike has pointed out,
some of those mysteries can be easily solved under the proposal of a
spatial medium or "aether". But those enigmas will continue to
intrigue science until that old challenge is recognized, and someone
comes forward to meet that challenge and, yes, perhaps even get a
Nobel in physics for his or her efforts.

My days will soon be over. I think it would be neat to come back in
forty or fifty years just to see where science has led us on the
refinements of Einstein's theories. Space is not just "space". Space
is not just an empty vacuum. Space is composed of "something", and
"dark matter" might be proof of that. And the movement of the spatial
medium may very well be the "forceful" cause of gravity.

I truly hope that the following leads somewhere...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/112789079/...n-of-phase-Dop....

That interferometer gear appears to show that there is some sort of
spatial "wind", and that the dynamic spatial medium is strongest as it
comes straight down out of the sky, a vertical "flow" of space into
the Earth, into us, and into all particles of matter. If this is
shown to be true, then it will once again revolutionize physics.

You are so close to understanding what actually occurs physically in
nature to cause gravity.

There is not a physical 'flow' of particles toward the Earth causing
there to be gravity.

What is mistaken for a physical 'flow' is the force associated with
the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
the Earth.

Did you not propose that aether has mass?

And now you seem to say that the aether's mass would not be moved
under the pressure? *What does it do under pressure? *Just "sit
there"?

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Let science limit your knowledge, but not your imagination."

According to mpc755, there’s an ongoing aether jet flow that’s
potentially c^2 more vast than our molecular universe, and it’s either
represented by a superfluid or supersolid kind stealth 2D quantum
string like element that somehow represents 96% of the volumetric mass
which can not be directly detected or otherwise quantified by existing
technology.

The Earth-moon L1 would offer an ideal vacuum location for aether
physics, offering at least 1e-18 bar(1e-13 pascals or 7.5e-16 torr)
that by rights should be mostly aether, and yet our NASA and the very
best of their “right stuff” can’t seem to manage to even accomplish
that much for us.

You completely mixing up the conversations. The jet refers the the
Universal jet we exist in. I said nothing about strings.

Let's keep the conversation to gravity.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward PRESSURE toward
matter IS gravity.

On Nov 15, 7:03*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 15, 12:48*pm, mpc755 wrote:









On Nov 15, 3:45*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Nov 15, 12:10*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Nov 15, 3:05*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Nov 15, 11:29*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Nov 15, 2:12*pm, Painius wrote:

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:26:35 -0500, HVAC wrote:
On 11/14/2012 2:11 PM, Painius wrote:

It is amazing you can make up magical particles which magically flow
toward the Earth and magically transition from mass to energy and back
again but you can't understand how physically detecting the a particle
can turn the associated wave in the aether into chop.

lol! *It is you, Mike, who proffers effect without cause.. *So it is
you who make up the magic of an aether that causes gravity merely by
being displaced by matter. *Without a pressure/force behind that
aether, then it operates on fairy wings.

Good...So finally we all agree that ether doesn't exist at all.

There is no reason to accept that there is no spatial medium. Einstein
merely pointed out that his equations, his theories of relativity,
would work with or without an "ether". *Other physicists, who never
really liked the idea of an ether, misinterpreted Einstein to mean
that there is no ether, and they ran with that. *As I said before,
physics threw the baby out with the bathwater.

The bathwater was the static, stationary ether that had been accepted
by science for more than two-hundred years. *The "throwing out" began
with the null result of the MMX, and further similar experiments
seemed to support the MMX result. *All those experiments were designed
TO DETECT A STATIONARY LUMINIFEROUS AETHER. *They were *not* designed
to rule out every possible kind of spatial medium.

So what, then, was the "baby"? *It was the *challenge*, Harlow, the
challenge to find the nature of the spatial medium, and what the
spatial medium was made of. *Mike has his ideas about the "aether". He
has put together his very own context of the writings and ideas of
scientists, and he copies and pastes that context every chance he
gets. *Oc and I, along with the help of AA, Bert, Brad, even Saul and
H gar, and one or two others who gave us magnificent argument, have
come up with our own idea of what comprises the spatial medium. *But
those ideas are just possibilities. *The problem is that few trained
scientists want to risk their credibility to reopen the challenge, to
resuscitate the "baby".

And yet, several mysteries still prevail. *As Mike has pointed out,
some of those mysteries can be easily solved under the proposal of a
spatial medium or "aether". *But those enigmas will continue to
intrigue science until that old challenge is recognized, and someone
comes forward to meet that challenge and, yes, perhaps even get a
Nobel in physics for his or her efforts.

My days will soon be over. *I think it would be neat to come back in
forty or fifty years just to see where science has led us on the
refinements of Einstein's theories. *Space is not just "space". *Space
is not just an empty vacuum. *Space is composed of "something", and
"dark matter" might be proof of that. *And the movement of the spatial
medium may very well be the "forceful" cause of gravity.

I truly hope that the following leads somewhere...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/112789079/...n-of-phase-Dop...

That interferometer gear appears to show that there is some sort of
spatial "wind", and that the dynamic spatial medium is strongest as it
comes straight down out of the sky, a vertical "flow" of space into
the Earth, into us, and into all particles of matter. *If this is
shown to be true, then it will once again revolutionize physics.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Let science limit your knowledge, but not your imagination."

You are so close to understanding what actually occurs physically in
nature to cause gravity.

There is not a physical 'flow' of particles toward the Earth causing
there to be gravity.

What is mistaken for a physical 'flow' is the force associated with
the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
the Earth.

And yet this same aether isn't pushing inward or outward from within
empty atoms?

Exactly how much inward force is aether applying inside of the mostly
empty atom?

Displace aether pushes inward toward all particles of matter. The
aether displaced by the Earth is pushing back and exerting inward
pressure all the way to the center of the Earth.

That's good to know, but as also applied to atoms?

Are you asking if aether displaced by the particles of matter an atom
consists of is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the
atom allow the atom to be an atom? Are you asking if molecular bonds
are caused by the aether displaced by the particles of matter the
molecules consist of which is pushing back and exerting inward
pressure toward the molecules themselves? Maybe.

I was asking; *Does aether cause the atom to form and function as it
does?

Particles of matter are condensations of aether.

mpc755 wrote:

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The
“energetic contact” is the state of displacement of the aether.

Naturally, you have cloud chamber photographs to support that word salad.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

HVAC wrote:
On 11/15/2012 2:43 PM, Painius wrote:

1) speed and velocity are two different things, and c is a measure of
speed. It is known that the *velocity* of light will change when it
comes close to a large mass, such as a star. It's speed remains the
same, but its *direction* "bends". And direction is also a component
of "velocity". There is an "acceleration" of light as it nears the
gravity well of a star.


Completely and utterly wrong.


No, Painus is quite right. If you fire a laser beam between the two
halves of a vise, when the halves are wide open, the beam forms a
well-defined spot, but as the halves come very close together, the beam
spreads, because you are defining the photons to a specific location,
and Heisenberg's law says the velocity of the laser light (the vector
sum of speed and direction) must grow uncertain as its position grows
certain. Since the speed of light (a scalar) is constant, the
uncertainty must occur in the direction of the light.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

Painius wrote:

It's possible that the spatial
pressure is fairly constant in our Solar system, but then changes
outside the Solar system enough so that the speed of EM is perhaps
increased, or in effect, "c" is increased. If this is true, then the
stars and galaxies may be a little (or a lot) closer than we presently
accept.

I believe there would be tell-tale signs of a variable "c" in the
spectra of distant light.


--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

On Nov 15, 9:24*pm, linuxgal wrote:
mpc755 wrote:
The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The
energetic contact is the state of displacement of the aether.

Naturally, you have cloud chamber photographs to support that word salad.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory -
Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

“When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was
looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles,
of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in
his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the
physical reality of waves and particles.”

“any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous
“energetic contact” with a hidden medium”

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The
“energetic contact” is the state of displacement of the aether.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.

In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path
which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the aether
passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates
wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction
it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave
piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Detecting the particle
strongly exiting a single slit turns the associated aether wave into
chop. The aether waves exiting the slits interact with the detectors
and become many short waves with irregular motion. The waves are
disorganized. There is no wave interference. The particle pitches and
rolls through the chop. The particle gets knocked around by the chop
and it no longer creates an interference pattern.

mpc755 wrote:

A particle physically displaces the aether.

That must take a certain amount of force. It's a wonder we don't see
the Moon getting closer and closer, as it fights to displace the aether.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

On Nov 15, 9:45*pm, linuxgal wrote:
mpc755 wrote:
A particle physically displaces the aether.

That must take a certain amount of force. *It's a wonder we don't see
the Moon getting closer and closer, as it fights to displace the aether.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid.

The Moon displaces the aether. The aether displaces the Moon. There is
no loss of energy in the interaction of the aether and the Moon.

As an object moves through a supersolid the object displaces the
supersolid. The supersolid returns the same amount of energy to the
object as the supersolid fills-in where the object had been. There is
no loss of energy in the interaction of an object and a supersolid.
That's the definition of a supersolid.