Aether has mass

On 12/26/2012 1:13 PM, benj wrote:


You are a disloyal cocksucker.

Oh my! We are full of hate today, aren't we?

"We"? Yes. I unleash and dump all my hatred here on people like you,
while I am gentle, caring and kind to those I care about.








--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. �亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg

On 12/26/2012 1:19 PM, benj wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 07:59:41 -0500, HVAC wrote:

Each and every day, BJ, you prove how kooky you are.

God, ghosts, ether...And now aliens.

The 4 horsemen of the kook apocalypse.

And you think people will believe you just because, well, you SAY SO?


But of course. Everyone knows that I am a pillar of the usenet community


HVAC your credibility is minimal here.


"And you think people will believe you just because, well, you SAY SO?"


Everybody (well except maybe
Painius and Guth) is on to your sham.


Painus is alright. And I will always have the back of anyone who went
over the pond with me. Goth is just a flat out psychotic and should be
locked up and studied like a new form of fungi.


So tell us again how you believe in
global warming when there is no temperature rise


I agree with 90% of the scientists who study such things that the global
temperatures are rising. You have some ****ed up, paranoid agenda that
blinds you. You hatred for America has turned you into
a buffoon.







--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. �亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg

On 12/26/2012 1:47 PM, benj wrote:

You need to "believe" more. HVAC does. He believes in:

BJ... You're really coming unglued. Calm down or I'm gonna have to mace you.


Anthropogenic global warming

The planet is warming. Check.


cosmology

The study of the universe. Check.


Evolution by chance


Selection by adaptability. Check.


Morality, ethics and Honesty are "fairytales"


Disagree. Check


Man as the only advanced sentient life in the entire universe


Check.


Lack of any unknown phenomena


Wait... If it's unknown, how the **** can there be a lack of it?

And how can it be phenomenal?

Check.


Government infallibility


In my work. Check.


His own Omniscience


Check Check


and of course, his own omnipotence.


Checkmate.





--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. �亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:35:01 -0800, Linuxgal
wrote:

Painius wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:16:47 -0800,
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.

Different polarizations would dictate otherwise. Both the e and the h
must wave something else besides each other.

Well, let's see your equations and we'll try to figure out where Maxwell
went awry. You DO have equations, don't you?


Well, the last time I saw those equations and their accompanying
illustrations was in a schoolbook on antenna theory. You might try
there. Admittedly, even though I was very strong overall in
electronics, antenna theory was never one of my strong points. So
maybe you're right. It's just that it's difficult for me to visualize
how two fields, the electric (e) and the magnetic (h) fields, which
are perpendicular to each other and which technically do not actually
"move" can possibly wave each other.

Fields themselves are not actually in motion unless the antenna
rotates, either physically or virtually (electronic). Energy within
the fields is in motion, as in "radiation", but the fields themselves
do not usually and technically "move". So the radiation within a
field does the actual "waving". Are you saying that the electrical
radiation within the e field waves the magnetic radiation within the h
field and vice versa?


--
Happy Holidays!
and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Astronomy compels us to look upward and leads us from this world to
another."

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:57:56 -0500, HVAC wrote:

I agree with 90% of the scientists who study such things that the global
temperatures are rising. You have some ****ed up, paranoid agenda that
blinds you. You hatred for America has turned you into a buffoon.

Typical attack dog. Have you been taking those geezer classes from
Wormley? He always thinks science is done by democratic vote too. You
really are ignorant, you know. Bluster really can't hide that
evolutionary fact.

I believe in truth, justice and the American Way and somehow that really
****s with your neofascist mind. I think you really DO actually love big
brother!

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:57:56 -0500, HVAC wrote:

. . .

Painus is alright. . . .


Are you sure you're not being misquoted?

LMBO !


--
Happy Holidays!
and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Astronomy compels us to look upward and leads us from this world to
another."

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:16:19 -0500, HVAC wrote:

On 12/26/2012 1:47 PM, benj wrote:

You need to "believe" more. HVAC does. He believes in:

BJ... You're really coming unglued. Calm down or I'm gonna have to mace
you.

Last I saw YOU were the one having a bad trip and coming unglued. Just
think nice thoughts like killing gooks and we'll talk you down!

====
Anthropogenic global warming

The planet is warming. Check.


cosmology

The study of the universe. Check.


Evolution by chance


Selection by adaptability. Check.


Morality, ethics and Honesty are "fairytales"


Disagree. Check


Man as the only advanced sentient life in the entire universe


Check.


Lack of any unknown phenomena


Wait... If it's unknown, how the **** can there be a lack of it?

And how can it be phenomenal?

Check.


Government infallibility


In my work. Check.


His own Omniscience


Check Check


and of course, his own omnipotence.


Checkmate.

So obviously you agree that you are the kook I said you were and you
believe in all these untenable ideas. No wonder you are high all the
time.

Painius wrote:

It's just that it's difficult for me to visualize
how two fields, the electric (e) and the magnetic (h) fields, which
are perpendicular to each other and which technically do not actually
"move" can possibly wave each other.

No wonder we have a problem. You are ignoring Faraday's Law and
Ampere's Law with Maxwell's correction.

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


http://www.cleanposts.com/

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 05:22:09 -0800 (PST), mpc755
wrote:

On Dec 20, 12:46*am, Painius wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:45:11 -0800 (PST), Y
wrote:

On Dec 15, 12:27*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 14, 3:11*pm, Y wrote:

On Dec 14, 5:14*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 13, 8:20*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 13, 10:53*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 13, 7:36*am, mpc755 wrote:

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

On Dec 13, 5:45*am, mpc755 wrote:

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

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

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

neither little rocks nor aether is required.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand aether displacement (even as a supersolid).

Aether displacement as the cause or force of gravity, not so much.

If you immerse a ball in a fluid, the fluid exerts pressure on the
surface of the ball. I think this is what he means ?

-y

Or, how about the ball of greater density is the one that's exerting
pressure against the superfluid aether.

Or that too...

Doesn't explain the difference between Earth's gravity and moon's
gravity. One would expect a displaced Aether to exert the same
pressure on an object regardless of size.

-y

Also, if the physical object is in motion through the aether, would
one expect the pressure exerted on the object by the displaced aether
to be essentially uniform over the entire surface of the object?

'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and
fluidic inertia'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611

"This means that the particle will be subject to a perfect pressure
recovery at the rear that will equal the pressure rise at the front,
resulting in zero net drag."

This is what I refer to as the displaced aether 'displacing back'.
There is no loss of energy in the interaction of the particle and the
aether. Whatever energy the particle requires to displace the aether
the aether returns to the object as the aether 'displaces back'.


That is non-applicable, Mike. The words you extract are for an ideal,
perfect situation where velocity does not change. In the real world
there is acceleration -- either speed changes, or direction changes,
or both. When there is acceleration, then all bets are off. The
pressure drops at the rear will not equal the pressure rises at the
front. So simple displacement of the aether is not enough to explain
the uniform gravitational pressures on accelerating physical objects
in space.


--
Happy Holidays!
and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Astronomy compels us to look upward and leads us from this world to
another."

On 12/26/2012 8:47 PM, Painius wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 05:22:09 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Dec 20, 12:46 am, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:45:11 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Dec 15, 12:27 pm, Brad wrote:
On Dec 14, 3:11 pm, wrote:

On Dec 14, 5:14 pm, Brad wrote:

On Dec 13, 8:20 am, wrote:

On Dec 13, 10:53 am, Brad wrote:

On Dec 13, 7:36 am, wrote:

On Dec 13, 10:18 am, Brad wrote:

On Dec 13, 5:45 am, wrote:

On Dec 13, 2:27 am,
wrote:

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

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

neither little rocks nor aether is required.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand aether displacement (even as a supersolid).

Aether displacement as the cause or force of gravity, not so much.

If you immerse a ball in a fluid, the fluid exerts pressure on the
surface of the ball. I think this is what he means ?

-y

Or, how about the ball of greater density is the one that's exerting
pressure against the superfluid aether.

Or that too...

Doesn't explain the difference between Earth's gravity and moon's
gravity. One would expect a displaced Aether to exert the same
pressure on an object regardless of size.

-y

Also, if the physical object is in motion through the aether, would
one expect the pressure exerted on the object by the displaced aether
to be essentially uniform over the entire surface of the object?

'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and
fluidic inertia'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611

"This means that the particle will be subject to a perfect pressure
recovery at the rear that will equal the pressure rise at the front,
resulting in zero net drag."

This is what I refer to as the displaced aether 'displacing back'.
There is no loss of energy in the interaction of the particle and the
aether. Whatever energy the particle requires to displace the aether
the aether returns to the object as the aether 'displaces back'.


That is non-applicable, Mike. The words you extract are for an ideal,
perfect situation where velocity does not change. In the real world
there is acceleration -- either speed changes, or direction changes,
or both. When there is acceleration, then all bets are off. The
pressure drops at the rear will not equal the pressure rises at the
front. So simple displacement of the aether is not enough to explain
the uniform gravitational pressures on accelerating physical objects
in space.




--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. �亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg