Aether has mass

On Dec 29, 6:43*pm, mpc755 wrote:
On Dec 29, 9:26*pm, Brad Guth wrote:



In other words, you still got nothing other than aether parrot speak.

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is displaced by matter. Displaced aether pushes back and exerts
inward pressure toward 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 a well defined trajectory
which takes it through one slit while the associated wave in the
aether passes through both.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups..dcs.st-and.ac.uk/...ein_ether.html

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable"

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.

'The Third Book of Opticks (1718) by Isaac Newton' http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.u...ized/NATP00051

"Qu. 21. Is not this Medium much rarer within the dense Bodies of the
Sun, Stars, Planets and Comets, than in the empty celestial Spaces
between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not
grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of
those great Bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the
Bodies; every Body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the
Medium towards the rarer? ..."

Newton is referring to the state of displacement of the aether. The
aether does not have a variable density. However, Newton was correct;
displaced aether is the cause of gravity.

'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge' http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011...U_Voyager.html

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like
cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity
of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar
space is compacting it."

It is not the particles of matter which exist in quantities less than
in any vacuum artifically created on Earth which are pushing back and
exerting inward pressure toward the solar system.

It is the aether, which the particles of matter exist in, which is the
interstellar medium. It is the aether which is displaced by the matter
the solar system consists of which is pushing back and exerting inward
pressure toward the solar system.

'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.

"For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant,
forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which
may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity."

A particle is a moving singularity which 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.

'Surprise! IBEX Finds No Bow ‘Shock’ Outside our Solar System' http://www.universetoday.com/95094/s...no-bow-shock-o...

'“While bow shocks certainly exist ahead of many other stars, we’re
finding that our Sun’s interaction doesn’t reach the critical
threshold to form a shock,” said Dr. David McComas, principal
investigator of the IBEX mission, “so a wave is a more accurate
depiction of what’s happening ahead of our heliosphere — much like the
wave made by the bow of a boat as it glides through the water.”'

The wave ahead of our heliosphere is an aether displacement wave. This
is evidence of a moving 'particle', the solar system, having an
associated aether wave.

'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_featur...

"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view
of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two
galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is
somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the
water."

The 'pond' consists of aether. The moving 'particles' are the galaxy
clusters. The ripple is an aether displacement wave. The ripple is a
gravitational wave. This is also evidence of a moving 'particle', the
galaxy clusters, having an associated aether wave.

'Giant black hole kicked out of home galaxy' http://www.astronomy.com/en/News-Obs.../Giant%20black...

"But these new data support the idea that gravitational waves —
ripples in the fabric of space first predicted by Albert Einstein but
never detected directly — can exert an extremely powerful force."

The fabric of space is the aether.

Gravitational waves are ripples in the aether.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double
slit experiment; the aether.

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.

They are both aether displacement waves.

'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a
sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies' http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...004.1475v1.pdf

"Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential
in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic
field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very
closely."

The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether.
The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under
water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and
the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the
water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the
lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from
the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of
the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by
the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to
remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The
submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The
state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains
the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is
not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what
is occurring physically in nature as the galaxy clusters move through
and displace the aether.

'Milky Way's halo more squished than spherical' http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34735679...science-space/...

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether. The
matter which would form the Milky Way was moving as it displaced the
aether. The aether displaced perpendicular to the major direction of
motion became the majority force of the displaced aether and forced
the matter into the disk. This resulted in the angular momentum of the
matter. It is the aether which is displaced outward relative to the
plane of the angular momentum which exerts force toward the center of
the Milky Way. This force, along with the state of displacement of the
aether as determined by the angular momentum of the Milky Way, forced
the matter closer together which resulted in the displaced aether
looking like a squished beach ball. Aether displacement explains how
the Milky Way was created, how the disk and halo formed and why the
rotational speed can not be accounted for by the mass of the matter of
the Milky Way itself.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein' http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
of the electromagnetic field"

The electromagnetic field is a state of the aether. Particles of
matter are condensations of aether.

'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.
EINSTEINhttp://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."

The mass of the body does diminish. However, the matter which no
longer exists as part of the body has not vanished; it still exists,
as aether. Matter evaporates into aether. As matter evaporates into
aether it expands into neighboring places; which is energy. Mass is
conserved.

When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The
evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.

The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the state of
the aether in which it exists. In terms of general relativity, the
greater the mass per volume of the matter the greater the displacement
of the aether, the greater the force exerted toward and throughout the
atomic clock by the displaced aether the slower the atomic clock
ticks. In terms of special relativity, the faster a clock moves
through the aether the more aether the clock displaces the more force
the displaced aether exerts toward and throughout the atomic clock the
slower the clock ticks.

Curved spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether.

'Was the universe born spinning?' http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688

"The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a
preferred axis"

The Universe spins around a preferred axis because the Universe is, or
the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet; a larger version of a
black hole polar jet.

'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe' http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...10/10-023.html

"The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our
solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion
is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed
outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule
out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right
now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the
clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said."

The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or
the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet.

The following is an image analogous of the Universal jet.

http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html

The reason for the 'expansion' of the universe is the continual
emission of aether into the Universal jet. Three dimensional space
associated with the Universe itself is not expanding. What we see in
our telescopes is the matter associated with the Universe moving
outward and away from the Universal jet emission point. In the image
above, '1st Stars' is where aether condenses into matter.

Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.

It's not the Big Bang; it's the Big Ongoing.

In other words, you still got nothing other than aether parrot speak
of whatever others think is out there.

The Aether Lens:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap111221.html
The foreground galaxy (LRG-3-757) is either a truly massive
composition of an extremely super-large and massive galaxy, or that of
representing a galactic cluster of at least ten to a hundred or more
fairly massive galaxies, that which their tightly combined mass
distorts our extremely distant perspective as having morphed their
surrounding aether, as reformulated into an enormous lens of something
more than a couple million ly diameter, as well as offering an
illumination boost of at least 10:1 of the background galaxy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lensshoe_hubble.jpg
http://www.spacetelescope.org/static.../potw1151a.jpg

The required galactic mass for accomplishing such a terrific IGM or
aether lens might have to be at least a hundred times that of either
our Milky Way or Andromeda. So, is it the cosmic distortion of the
IGM that offers less than 1 particle/m3, or is it a quantum distortion
of time, or is this the morphed aether as having been displaced by the
enormous galactic cluster that’s blocking our view of the other bluish
background galaxy?

How much does our galaxy lens compared to LRG-3-757?
10%
1%
.1%

BTW; has anyone PhotoShop reverse engineered what that background
galaxy might look like?

"Olrik" wrote in message ...

Le 2012-12-27 18:48, benj a écrit :
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:37:41 -0800, Linuxgal wrote:

benj wrote:

Sorry Linuxgal, but Faraday's law (or Maxwell's equation in usual form)
are not causal. EMFs are NOT caused by a changing magnetic field. They
are caused by changing currents as are the accompanying magnetic
fields.

Gosh, then I suppose we get our electric power by pure ****ing magic
rather than coils of wire rotating in a magnetic field.

Excellent insight, Linuxgal, but you'll notice above I was not talking
about Lorentz motional E fields. I was talking about "electrokinetic" E
fields. Note there are three types of E fields with totally different
properties: Electrostatic, Electrokinetic, and Lorentz. Obviously our
electric power comes from the last one. However, it's distributed by
transformers which utilize Electrokinetic fields.

I'm confident you haven't a clue what the **** I'm talking about, right?

What you're talking about is not important unless you can improve on
current things. Can you do that? Could you produce more electricity than
is available now?

================================================== ======
What the moron is saying is the transformer has no moving parts, whereas the
generator does. To him the iron core of the transformer and its magnetic
field plays no part in the process.
To him there is a huge difference between a moving magnetic field and a
growing or shrinking one, so it is his precious aether that drives the
voltage in the secondary winding. The best thing to do is killfile the
cretin, he'll never learn.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 03:01:17 -0000, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway" wrote:

"Olrik" wrote in message ...

Le 2012-12-27 18:48, benj a écrit :
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:37:41 -0800, Linuxgal wrote:

benj wrote:

Sorry Linuxgal, but Faraday's law (or Maxwell's equation in usual form)
are not causal. EMFs are NOT caused by a changing magnetic field. They
are caused by changing currents as are the accompanying magnetic
fields.

Gosh, then I suppose we get our electric power by pure ****ing magic
rather than coils of wire rotating in a magnetic field.

Excellent insight, Linuxgal, but you'll notice above I was not talking
about Lorentz motional E fields. I was talking about "electrokinetic" E
fields. Note there are three types of E fields with totally different
properties: Electrostatic, Electrokinetic, and Lorentz. Obviously our
electric power comes from the last one. However, it's distributed by
transformers which utilize Electrokinetic fields.

I'm confident you haven't a clue what the **** I'm talking about, right?

What you're talking about is not important unless you can improve on
current things. Can you do that? Could you produce more electricity than
is available now?

================================================= =======
What the moron is saying is the transformer has no moving parts, whereas the
generator does. To him the iron core of the transformer and its magnetic
field plays no part in the process.
To him there is a huge difference between a moving magnetic field and a
growing or shrinking one, so it is his precious aether that drives the
voltage in the secondary winding. The best thing to do is killfile the
cretin, he'll never learn.


Even "cretins" are allowed their opinions, however misled or
misleading they may be. It is you who is suspect, since you obviously
advocate killfiling, which is not only cowardly but also a hideous and
rather sickly form of censorious censorship.

Other than that, you're probably a very nice wussie. Have a very nice
day!


--
Happy Holidays!
and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"When most people run the other way, courage runs toward danger."

On Dec 30, 1:30*pm, Painius wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 03:01:17 -0000, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of









Medway" wrote:
"Olrik" *wrote in ...

Le 2012-12-27 18:48, benj a écrit :
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:37:41 -0800, Linuxgal wrote:

benj wrote:

Sorry Linuxgal, but Faraday's law (or Maxwell's equation in usual form)
are not causal. EMFs are NOT caused by a changing magnetic field. They
are caused by changing currents as are the accompanying magnetic
fields.

Gosh, then I suppose we get our electric power by pure ****ing magic
rather than coils of wire rotating in a magnetic field.

Excellent insight, Linuxgal, but you'll notice above I was not talking
about Lorentz motional E fields. I was talking about "electrokinetic" E
fields. Note there are three types of E fields with totally different
properties: Electrostatic, Electrokinetic, and Lorentz. Obviously our
electric power comes from the last one. However, it's distributed by
transformers which utilize Electrokinetic fields.

I'm confident you haven't a clue what the **** I'm talking about, right?

What you're talking about is not important unless you can improve on
current things. Can you do that? Could you produce more electricity than
is available now?

================================================= =======
What the moron is saying is the transformer has no moving parts, whereas the
generator does. To him the iron core of the transformer and its magnetic
field plays no part in the process.
To him there is a huge difference between a moving magnetic field and a
growing or shrinking one, so it is his precious aether that drives the
voltage in the secondary winding. The best thing to do is killfile the
cretin, he'll never learn.

Even "cretins" are allowed their opinions, however misled or
misleading they may be. *It is you who is suspect, since you obviously
advocate killfiling, which is not only cowardly but also a hideous and
rather sickly form of censorious censorship.

Other than that, you're probably a very nice wussie. *Have a very nice
day!

--
Happy Holidays!
* and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"When most people run the other way, courage runs toward danger."

If Lord Androcles has run out of sand to stick his head into, then
perhaps all that's left is the method of killfiling anyone that has an
honest opinion that's any different than Lord Androcles.

Obviously some of our resident FUD-masters that topic/author stalk for
sport, as such require a great deal more sand than others.

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:26:54 -0800 (PST), mpc755
wrote:

On Dec 28, 8:14*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

You can't possibly specify aether has mass, because there's still no
replicated science in support of such aether mass.


The following articles describe what is presently postulated as dark
matter is aether. Meaning, aether has mass.

'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3753

"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark
Matter and Dark Energy in our universe."

"mass of the aether"

'Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.5168

"the model obtained here gets closer to the aether theory of , which
is shown therein to be an alternative to the cold dark matter."

'Unified model for dark matter and quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610135

"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the
universe using superfluid aether is compatible."

'Vainshtein mechanism in Gauss-Bonnet gravity and Galileon aether'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.1892

"the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the
Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of
the presence of the background field"

'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum
medium and the inertial motion of particles'
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0701155

"In this paper we shall show that the relativistic physical vacuum
medium as a ubiquitous back ground field is a super fluid medium."

In the following article the faster the object moves through the super-
fluid ideal relativistic ether from general relativity the greater the
relativistic mass of the object.


Good, Mike, you came out and said that the scientifically found yet
still mysterious "dark matter" is the spatial medium itself. I agree
with you, for what it's worth, and have been saying it for years.

The reason, well two reasons, that dark matter cannot be sensed "up
close" is that 1) scientists are still very hung up and extremely
hypersensitized by the idea of "officially" admitting any substance at
all to the medium of spacetime, and 2) even if scientists would "come
around", we still don't possess the technology required to sense or
measure the "mass" of space.

Since dark matter is indeed spacetime, and since there is no need for,
and no such thing as, "dark energy", then it is safe to say that dark
matter composes nearly all of the mass and energy in the Universe. The
approximate distribution would be as follows...

0.4% = stars, etc.
3.6% = intergalactic gas
96% = space/dark matter


--
Happy Holidays!
and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"When most people run the other way, courage runs toward danger."

On Dec 30, 1:47*pm, Painius wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:26:54 -0800 (PST), mpc755
wrote:









On Dec 28, 8:14*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

You can't possibly specify aether has mass, because there's still no
replicated science in support of such aether mass.

The following articles describe what is presently postulated as dark
matter is aether. Meaning, aether has mass.

'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3753

"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark
Matter and Dark Energy in our universe."

"mass of the aether"

'Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.5168

"the model obtained here gets closer to the aether theory of , which
is shown therein to be an alternative to the cold dark matter."

'Unified model for dark matter and quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610135

"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the
universe using superfluid aether is compatible."

'Vainshtein mechanism in Gauss-Bonnet gravity and Galileon aether'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.1892

"the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the
Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of
the presence of the background field"

'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum
medium and the inertial motion of particles'
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0701155

"In this paper we shall show that the relativistic physical vacuum
medium as a ubiquitous back ground field is a super fluid medium."

In the following article the faster the object moves through the super-
fluid ideal relativistic ether from general relativity the greater the
relativistic mass of the object.

Good, Mike, you came out and said that the scientifically found yet
still mysterious "dark matter" is the spatial medium itself. *I agree
with you, for what it's worth, and have been saying it for years.

The reason, well two reasons, that dark matter cannot be sensed "up
close" is that 1) *scientists are still very hung up and extremely
hypersensitized by the idea of "officially" admitting any substance at
all to the medium of spacetime, and 2) *even if scientists would "come
around", we still don't possess the technology required to sense or
measure the "mass" of space.

Since dark matter is indeed spacetime, and since there is no need for,
and no such thing as, "dark energy", then it is safe to say that dark
matter composes nearly all of the mass and energy in the Universe. The
approximate distribution would be as follows...

0.4% = stars, etc.
3.6% = intergalactic gas
96% = space/dark matter

--
Happy Holidays!
* and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"When most people run the other way, courage runs toward danger."

And there's nothing wrong in giving that 96% a proper name, like
aether.

BTW; I happen to think the IGM and ISM combined is measurably worth a
lot more than 3.6%, and that perhaps aether is worth at most 50%.

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:04:32 -0800 (PST), mpc755
wrote:

On Dec 28, 7:50*pm, Painius wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 04:06:04 -0800 (PST), mpc755
wrote:

On Dec 27, 11:49*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 27, 7:16*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 27, 7:36*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

The Aether Lens:
*http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap111221.html
*The foreground galaxy (LRG-3-757) is either a truly massive
composition of an extremely super-large and massive galaxy, or that of
representing a galactic cluster of at least ten to a hundred or more
fairly massive galaxies, that which their tightly combined mass
distorts our extremely distant perspective having morphed their
surrounding aether, as reformulated into an enormous lens of something
more than a couple million ly diameter, as well as offering an
illumination boost of at least 10:1.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lensshoe_hubble.jpg

The required galactic mass for accomplishing such a terrific lens
might have to be a hundred times that of either our Milky Way. *So, is
it the cosmic distortion of time, or is it the morphed aether as
having been displaced by the galactic cluster blocking our view?

The light from the distant blue galaxy is propagating through the
aether displaced by the foreground red galaxy.- Hide quoted text -

Yes, it is propagated through something, and it might as well be
aether, or helium.

Particles of matter exist in the interstellar medium in quantities
less than in any vacuum artificially created on Earth. Particles of
matter are not what light propagates through. Light propagates through
the aether.

"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

When taken out of context this produces "almost" a contradiction.
Einstein had shown that it was unnecessary to postulate an "aether" of
the type that had filled the writings of scientists for 200 years.
We'll call that the "classic aether". *It was static, unchanging and
not in motion in any sense of the word. *On this issue, "the rest is
history", as they say. *Other scientists picked up on what Einstein
had found, and they completely tossed out the classic aether, only to
settle for a spacetime that was made of "nothing" -- nothing at all.
That was not at all what Einstein meant to happen.

Then he continued his study of gravity and began the development of a
"field theory" of gravitation. *Mike, your quotation above was all
about that field theory. *When Einstein wrote about the "ether", he
was not referring to the classic aether of old. *No. *Einstein's
"ether" was what he called the "gravitational field" that he studied
for the rest of his life. *He never developed more than a mathematical
model of this gravitational ether. *He spent the rest of his life
searching to build a body of physical evidence for the "ether". *In
one of his final writings, his Appendix 5 of the 15th edition of his
book _Relativity - The Special and the General Theory_, he urged us
all to,

". . . not desist from pursuing to the end the path of the
relativistic field theory."

That was the "ether" to which Einstein alluded in your above
quotation.

Einstein as a teenager understood the aether has mass.

Einstein's 'First Paper'
http://www.efiko.org/material/Albert...n onymous.pdf

"The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the
elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely
proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."

What Einstein failed to realize is what he was describing was the
state of displacement of the aether.

The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the
elastic forces which cause its propagation, and inversely proportional
to the mass of the aether displaced by these forces.

Einstein said an absolutely stationary space is superfluous. An
absolutely stationary space was the incorrect understanding of the
aether of the time.

'ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein June 30, 1905'
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

"The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be
superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require
an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor
assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
electromagnetic processes take place."

Einstein understood the state of the aether and the state of the
aether in neighboring places is determined by its connections with
matter. Einstein was unable to determined the cause of the condition
of the state of the aether.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...ein_ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.


That is true only if the aether/spatial medium of which you speak has
actually been displaced by a physical object. Einstein was describing
the state of his "spacetime" to be dependent upon it's state in
neighboring places, which means that it was all connected together,
and connected even to physical objects that it both surrounded and
permeated...

". . . physical objects are not 'in space', instead they are
'spatially extended' . . ."

The kind of matter that we know of, stars, planets, etc., is an
"extension" of Einstein's spacetime, which is made of the same exact
stuff, only it's so minute that it cannot yet be sensed by our
instruments.


--
Happy Holidays!
and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"When most people run the other way, courage runs toward danger."

On Dec 30, 4:47*pm, Painius wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:26:54 -0800 (PST), mpc755
wrote:









On Dec 28, 8:14*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

You can't possibly specify aether has mass, because there's still no
replicated science in support of such aether mass.

The following articles describe what is presently postulated as dark
matter is aether. Meaning, aether has mass.

'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3753

"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark
Matter and Dark Energy in our universe."

"mass of the aether"

'Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.5168

"the model obtained here gets closer to the aether theory of , which
is shown therein to be an alternative to the cold dark matter."

'Unified model for dark matter and quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610135

"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the
universe using superfluid aether is compatible."

'Vainshtein mechanism in Gauss-Bonnet gravity and Galileon aether'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.1892

"the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the
Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of
the presence of the background field"

'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum
medium and the inertial motion of particles'
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0701155

"In this paper we shall show that the relativistic physical vacuum
medium as a ubiquitous back ground field is a super fluid medium."

In the following article the faster the object moves through the super-
fluid ideal relativistic ether from general relativity the greater the
relativistic mass of the object.

Good, Mike, you came out and said that the scientifically found yet
still mysterious "dark matter" is the spatial medium itself. *I agree
with you, for what it's worth, and have been saying it for years.

The reason, well two reasons, that dark matter cannot be sensed "up
close" is that 1) *scientists are still very hung up and extremely
hypersensitized by the idea of "officially" admitting any substance at
all to the medium of spacetime, and 2) *even if scientists would "come
around", we still don't possess the technology required to sense or
measure the "mass" of space.

Since dark matter is indeed spacetime, and since there is no need for,
and no such thing as, "dark energy", then it is safe to say that dark
matter composes nearly all of the mass and energy in the Universe. The
approximate distribution would be as follows...

0.4% = stars, etc.
3.6% = intergalactic gas
96% = space/dark matter

--
Happy Holidays!
* and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"When most people run the other way, courage runs toward danger."

I'm not sure what you mean by 'sensed "up close"'.

Aether is sensed "up close" every time a double slit experiment is
performed. It's what waves.

There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Aether has mass.
Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

The Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a larger
version of a black hole polar jet.

Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.

96% = aether.

On Dec 30, 5:10*pm, Painius wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:04:32 -0800 (PST), mpc755
wrote:









On Dec 28, 7:50*pm, Painius wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 04:06:04 -0800 (PST), mpc755
wrote:

On Dec 27, 11:49*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 27, 7:16*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 27, 7:36*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

The Aether Lens:
*http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap111221.html
*The foreground galaxy (LRG-3-757) is either a truly massive
composition of an extremely super-large and massive galaxy, or that of
representing a galactic cluster of at least ten to a hundred or more
fairly massive galaxies, that which their tightly combined mass
distorts our extremely distant perspective having morphed their
surrounding aether, as reformulated into an enormous lens of something
more than a couple million ly diameter, as well as offering an
illumination boost of at least 10:1.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lensshoe_hubble.jpg

The required galactic mass for accomplishing such a terrific lens
might have to be a hundred times that of either our Milky Way. *So, is
it the cosmic distortion of time, or is it the morphed aether as
having been displaced by the galactic cluster blocking our view?

The light from the distant blue galaxy is propagating through the
aether displaced by the foreground red galaxy.- Hide quoted text -

Yes, it is propagated through something, and it might as well be
aether, or helium.

Particles of matter exist in the interstellar medium in quantities
less than in any vacuum artificially created on Earth. Particles of
matter are not what light propagates through. Light propagates through
the aether.

"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

When taken out of context this produces "almost" a contradiction.
Einstein had shown that it was unnecessary to postulate an "aether" of
the type that had filled the writings of scientists for 200 years.
We'll call that the "classic aether". *It was static, unchanging and
not in motion in any sense of the word. *On this issue, "the rest is
history", as they say. *Other scientists picked up on what Einstein
had found, and they completely tossed out the classic aether, only to
settle for a spacetime that was made of "nothing" -- nothing at all.
That was not at all what Einstein meant to happen.

Then he continued his study of gravity and began the development of a
"field theory" of gravitation. *Mike, your quotation above was all
about that field theory. *When Einstein wrote about the "ether", he
was not referring to the classic aether of old. *No. *Einstein's
"ether" was what he called the "gravitational field" that he studied
for the rest of his life. *He never developed more than a mathematical
model of this gravitational ether. *He spent the rest of his life
searching to build a body of physical evidence for the "ether". *In
one of his final writings, his Appendix 5 of the 15th edition of his
book _Relativity - The Special and the General Theory_, he urged us
all to,

". . . not desist from pursuing to the end the path of the
relativistic field theory."

That was the "ether" to which Einstein alluded in your above
quotation.

Einstein as a teenager understood the aether has mass.

Einstein's 'First Paper'
http://www.efiko.org/material/Albert...20First%20Pape...

"The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the
elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely
proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."

What Einstein failed to realize is what he was describing was the
state of displacement of the aether.

The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the
elastic forces which cause its propagation, and inversely proportional
to the mass of the aether displaced by these forces.

Einstein said an absolutely stationary space is superfluous. An
absolutely stationary space was the incorrect understanding of the
aether of the time.

'ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein June 30, 1905'
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

"The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be
superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require
an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor
assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
electromagnetic processes take place."

Einstein understood the state of the aether and the state of the
aether in neighboring places is determined by its connections with
matter. Einstein was unable to determined the cause of the condition
of the state of the aether.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...ein_ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.

That is true only if the aether/spatial medium of which you speak has
actually been displaced by a physical object. *Einstein was describing
the state of his "spacetime" to be dependent upon it's state in
neighboring places, which means that it was all connected together,
and connected even to physical objects that it both surrounded and
permeated...

". . . physical objects are not 'in space', instead they are
'spatially extended' . . ."

The kind of matter that we know of, stars, planets, etc., is an
"extension" of Einstein's spacetime, which is made of the same exact
stuff, only it's so minute that it cannot yet be sensed by our
instruments.

--
Happy Holidays!
* and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"When most people run the other way, courage runs toward danger."

The object 'spatially extended' is the object and the aether connected
to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object.

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 14:06:27 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
wrote:

On Dec 30, 1:47*pm, Painius wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:26:54 -0800 (PST), mpc755
wrote:

On Dec 28, 8:14*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

You can't possibly specify aether has mass, because there's still no
replicated science in support of such aether mass.

The following articles describe what is presently postulated as dark
matter is aether. Meaning, aether has mass.

'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3753

"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark
Matter and Dark Energy in our universe."

"mass of the aether"

'Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.5168

"the model obtained here gets closer to the aether theory of , which
is shown therein to be an alternative to the cold dark matter."

'Unified model for dark matter and quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610135

"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the
universe using superfluid aether is compatible."

'Vainshtein mechanism in Gauss-Bonnet gravity and Galileon aether'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.1892

"the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the
Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of
the presence of the background field"

'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum
medium and the inertial motion of particles'
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0701155

"In this paper we shall show that the relativistic physical vacuum
medium as a ubiquitous back ground field is a super fluid medium."

In the following article the faster the object moves through the super-
fluid ideal relativistic ether from general relativity the greater the
relativistic mass of the object.

Good, Mike, you came out and said that the scientifically found yet
still mysterious "dark matter" is the spatial medium itself. *I agree
with you, for what it's worth, and have been saying it for years.

The reason, well two reasons, that dark matter cannot be sensed "up
close" is that 1) *scientists are still very hung up and extremely
hypersensitized by the idea of "officially" admitting any substance at
all to the medium of spacetime, and 2) *even if scientists would "come
around", we still don't possess the technology required to sense or
measure the "mass" of space.

Since dark matter is indeed spacetime, and since there is no need for,
and no such thing as, "dark energy", then it is safe to say that dark
matter composes nearly all of the mass and energy in the Universe. The
approximate distribution would be as follows...

0.4% = stars, etc.
3.6% = intergalactic gas
96% = space/dark matter

And there's nothing wrong in giving that 96% a proper name, like
aether.

BTW; I happen to think the IGM and ISM combined is measurably worth a
lot more than 3.6%, and that perhaps aether is worth at most 50%.


Slight misunderstanding?

That was the gas that is between all the galaxies (intergalactic) that
makes up 3.6% of the entire Universe. That is not "IGM" nor "ISM".
That is GAS that lies BETWEEN all the galaxies.

HTH


--
Happy Holidays!
and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"A society of sheep will beget a government of wolves."