#821
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#823
|
|||
|
|||
Aether has mass
On 12/10/2012 11:30 PM, Brian E. Clark wrote:
In article9v2dncXKOOb58ifNnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@giganews. com, says... If the universe is spinning, then a coriolis effect should result in galaxies having a preferred direction of spin. Seems this Dr. Longo has discovered this to be true. Spinning relative to what? It's spinning relative to the n-membrane aether suffusing the meta-universe in which our universe is embedded, of course. Haven't you ever watched _Beakman's World_? I have no time for such foolishness. I'm busy watching Jerry Springer. Today: Strippers vs. Housewives.. Who Wins? -- "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 |
#824
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Aether has mass
|
#826
|
|||
|
|||
Aether has mass
On 12/11/2012 4:58 PM, Brian E. Clark wrote:
In , 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. Very clever, young man. -- "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 |
#827
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |