A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Aether has mass



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #821  
Old December 11th 12, 01:43 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,alt.astronomy,alt.atheism,sci.astro
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Aether has mass

On Dec 10, 8:55*am, Painius wrote:
On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 17:33:23 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth









wrote:
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.


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.


Brad, if a truck were moving straight toward you, would you get out of
its way? or would you wait for a better observation method?

Einstein proved mathematically, and Compton proved empirically that
photons have momentum, which means that they must be in motion, they
must move. *If that's not objective proof enough for you, consider
yourself a majority of one.

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


Except there's still no objective proof that an original generated
photon is the one and the exact same photon, along with its
singularity particle that has no volume and no measurable mass, is
that which arrives at any given destination (be it near or extremely
far, far away).

Do you have a photon mass?

Does a very bright photon weigh the same as a very dim photon of the
exact same spectrum?

Do you have any method of tracking a singular photon, thereby making
dead certain that nothing of itself is ever getting replicated along
the way?

Perhaps the word aether should be replaced with CM(cosmic matrix), as
that which conducts photons whenever sufficient ordinary matter
doesn't exist, such as within the IGM on average hosting but at most
one highly charged hydrogen or helium ion/atom per m3.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth
Venus”,GuthVenus
“GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...18595926178146
  #822  
Old December 11th 12, 02:47 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,alt.astronomy,alt.atheism,sci.astro
G=EMC^2[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,655
Default Aether has mass

On Dec 11, 12:18*am, benj wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:16:47 -0800, Linuxgal wrote:
Painius wrote:
So how do you think that waves of light impart momentum? *And what do
you think they "wave"?


E=MC^2, right? * It's like getting smacked by a teensy BB. * The
electric fields wave the magnetic fields, and verse vice-a.


The amount of ignorance in this thread absolutely defies conceptions.

Not E=MC^2 but G=EMC^2. Treebert is VERY clever! Light is not one
particle (Treeb is smarter than Newton AND Einstein!) Light particles
come in pairs with a wiggly-wave hooked between them! Treeb claims this
idea as his own but he stole it from my "Wood is Good" theory.

And while we are pointing out gross errors, allow me to note that
electric and magnetic fields DO NOT "create each other" no matter what
you've read in Wikipedia.


Elect ic and magnetic a e two sides to the same coin. I am wise and
out lived both. TeBet
  #824  
Old December 11th 12, 10:24 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,alt.astronomy,alt.atheism,sci.astro
benj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Aether has mass

On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 04:19:06 -0800, Linuxgal wrote:

benj wrote:
And while we are pointing out gross errors, allow me to note that
electric and magnetic fields DO NOT "create each other" no matter what
you've read in Wikipedia.


They do too. That's why there's a reverse-biased diode across the coil
of relays in the better-designed circuits. When the magnetic field of
the relay collapses it creates a backwards transient electrical surge
and the diode neutralizes it before the juice goes out and ****s up the
switching logic.


Completely false, Linuxgal. The voltage surge has nothing to do with any
magnetic field. It is the falling current in the coil that creates the E
field which creates the voltage that creates the current that the diode
shorts out.

I told you not to believe Wormley or Wikipedia.
  #825  
Old December 11th 12, 10:58 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,alt.astronomy,alt.atheism,sci.astro
Brian E. Clark[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Aether has mass

In article ,
says...

I have no time for such foolishness. I'm busy watching Jerry Springer.
Today: Strippers vs. Housewives.. Who Wins?


That's a trick question: some housewives are strippers.

--
-----------
Brian E. Clark

  #827  
Old December 12th 12, 03:03 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,alt.astronomy,alt.atheism,sci.astro
Linuxgal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Aether has mass

benj wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 04:19:06 -0800, Linuxgal wrote:

benj wrote:
And while we are pointing out gross errors, allow me to note that
electric and magnetic fields DO NOT "create each other" no matter what
you've read in Wikipedia.

They do too. That's why there's a reverse-biased diode across the coil
of relays in the better-designed circuits. When the magnetic field of
the relay collapses it creates a backwards transient electrical surge
and the diode neutralizes it before the juice goes out and ****s up the
switching logic.

Completely false, Linuxgal. The voltage surge has nothing to do with any
magnetic field. It is the falling current in the coil that creates the E
field which creates the voltage that creates the current that the diode
shorts out.


No, when you light up a coil with juice there's this big invisible
magnetic field that balloons out. That's how transformers work, you
know. Changing current in the primary causes the magnetic field to
blossom and retract, and this induces current in the secondary coil. A
relay is like a transformer that's all primary, no secondary. When you
turn off a picked relay, the field collapses, inducing a surge of
electricity, just as I indicated in my previous reply. This can be
verified experimentally with Radio Shack parts.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0
  #828  
Old December 12th 12, 04:02 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,alt.astronomy,alt.atheism,sci.astro
benj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Aether has mass

On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:03:45 -0800, Linuxgal wrote:

No, when you light up a coil with juice there's this big invisible
magnetic field that balloons out. That's how transformers work, you
know. Changing current in the primary causes the magnetic field to
blossom and retract, and this induces current in the secondary coil. A
relay is like a transformer that's all primary, no secondary. When you
turn off a picked relay, the field collapses, inducing a surge of
electricity, just as I indicated in my previous reply. This can be
verified experimentally with Radio Shack parts.


All lies, Linuxgal. Well. sort of lies. It's true that when a current
flows in a wire a big magnetic field goes out. It is NOT true that a
magnetic field is the way transformers work. I would point out that I can
easily build a transformer where the secondary wire is in a region where
NO magnetic field exists! So either you have to admit that the magnetic
field has NOTHING to do with a transformer OR you believe in "action at a
distance". As HVAC would say: DO you BELIEVE in "action at a distance?"
Well, do ya? (I'll bet HVAC does! He even believes in Cosmology!)

I hope you understand Linux better than electromagnetics, because I've
got a couple of questions about installing Snow Leopard on VirtualBox.
  #829  
Old December 12th 12, 02:52 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,alt.astronomy,alt.atheism,sci.astro
HVAC[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 338
Default Aether has mass

On 12/11/2012 10:02 PM, benj wrote:

As HVAC would say: DO you BELIEVE in "action at a distance?"
Well, do ya? (I'll bet HVAC does! He even believes in Cosmology!)



I would never ask such a retarded question.
Anyone that has ever thrown a rock has witnessed action at a distance.







--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. å˜äº®
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg
  #830  
Old December 12th 12, 10:01 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,alt.astronomy,sci.astro
mpc755
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 818
Default Aether has mass

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?

* Mark L. Fergerson


I explained what the detector is detecting. The detector is detecting
the state of displacement of the aether.

I asked you to explain gravity and the observed behaviors in a double
slit experiment. Too complicated for you?

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 through both.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Experimental evidence aether has mass mpc755 Astronomy Misc 4 November 27th 10 02:50 PM
Yes, REAL suspected Black Holes can RiP you APART.!! But NOT in GR gtr Tivity.!! Because in GR Tivity you would be a POiNT ..and if you COULD have a mass, in GR, you would be a POiNT-mass. POiNT-mass CANNOT *STRETCH* with TOP & BOTTOM ROCKETs att brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 0 October 16th 05 08:54 AM
Yes, REAL suspected Black Holes can RiP you APART.!! But NOT in GR gtr Tivity.!! Because in GR Tivity you would be a POiNT ..and if you COULD have a mass, in GR, you would be a POiNT-mass. POiNT-mass CANNOT *STRETCH* with TOP & BOTTOM ROCKETs attache brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 0 October 15th 05 12:22 PM
Causation - A problem with negative mass. Negastive mass implies imaginary mass brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 0 October 1st 05 08:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.