Aether has mass

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.

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:13:36 -0800 (PST), Father Haskell
wrote:

On Nov 14, 5:10*pm, mpc755 wrote:
On Nov 14, 4:56*pm, HVAC wrote:

On 11/14/2012 4:52 PM, mpc755 wrote:

100% wrong. Ether exists exactly as much as god exists.

Are you able to understand objects interact with a supersolid?

Ether = God.
God does not exist = Ether does not exist.

I'm just smarter and better than you, MP3.

A while back you asked what does ether get you.

It gets you the correct understanding of what occurs physically in
nature to cause gravity and the observed behaviors in a double slit
experiment.

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.

Why did you ask the question if you were just going to remain ignorant
of understanding the answer?

If light is a disturbance in the so-called "ether," why
does its velocity remain constant regardless of that
of the observer?


We know that space, regardless of its nature, has properties. The
constancy of c in vacuo may be due to a constant spatial *pressure*,
which keeps light and other radiation at a constant speed.

However, 2 things...

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.

2) if the speed of electromagnetic radiation is governed by a spatial
property of "pressure", then modern (Einsteinian) physics appears to
have accepted that the spatial pressure is constant throughout the
Universe, because c is constant throughout the Universe. But we
really don't know that's true, do we? 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.


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

On Nov 15, 11:43*am, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:13:36 -0800 (PST), Father Haskell









wrote:
On Nov 14, 5:10 pm, mpc755 wrote:
On Nov 14, 4:56 pm, HVAC wrote:

On 11/14/2012 4:52 PM, mpc755 wrote:

100% wrong. Ether exists exactly as much as god exists.

Are you able to understand objects interact with a supersolid?

Ether = God.
God does not exist = Ether does not exist.

I'm just smarter and better than you, MP3.

A while back you asked what does ether get you.

It gets you the correct understanding of what occurs physically in
nature to cause gravity and the observed behaviors in a double slit
experiment.

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.

Why did you ask the question if you were just going to remain ignorant
of understanding the answer?

If light is a disturbance in the so-called "ether," why
does its velocity remain constant regardless of that
of the observer?

We know that space, regardless of its nature, has properties. *The
constancy of c in vacuo may be due to a constant spatial *pressure*,
which keeps light and other radiation at a constant speed.

However, 2 things...

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.

2) *if the speed of electromagnetic radiation is governed by a spatial
property of "pressure", then modern (Einsteinian) physics appears to
have accepted that the spatial pressure is constant throughout the
Universe, because c is constant throughout the Universe. *But we
really don't know that's true, do we? *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.

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

mpc755 is now going to put that clump of coal in your Christmas
stocking, all because you don't accept his aether exactly as he and a
few others having interpreted it as the physics unification holy
grail.

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:58:43 -0800 (PST), mpc755
wrote:

On Nov 14, 2:11*pm, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:21:10 -0800 (PST), mpc755
wrote:

On Nov 12, 4:35 pm, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 04:11:06 -0800 (PST), mpc755
wrote:

On Nov 12, 2:55 am, Painius wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 16:13:58 -0800 (PST), mpc755
wrote:

On Nov 11, 6:13 pm, Painius wrote:

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
matter is gravity.

Yet, the aether cannot do that on its own. It must have help. There
must be a pressure exerted on the aether. What, in your opinion,
might be the source of that pressure?

Aether exists everywhere particles of matter do not.

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 passes through both.

What, again in your opinion, causes the disappearance of the
interference pattern when a sensor is placed near a slit?

'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.

Fascinating!

What is it about the detection of the particle that turns the
associated aether wave into "chop"? The detector does nothing but
"detect", correct? So how does a device that does nothing but detect
have any affect at all upon the aether wave that's associated with the
particle?

In a boat double slit experiment there are pilings at the exits to the
slits with sensors on them to detect the boat. As the boat exits the
slits the pilings turn the bow wave into chop.

The detection destroys the coherence of the associated wave in the
aether. The detection destroys the coherence between the particle and
its associated wave in the aether.

But where do those "pilings" come from? How does the detection
instrument generate those pilings? How does the detection destroy the
dual coherence you describe? All it happens to be is a detector, an
instrument that merely *receives* information. It's noted that the
detector must somehow do something to destroy the dual coherence, but
precisely how does an instrument that is only there to receive
information have any effect at all upon the particle or the wave?

The detector detects the particle by physically interacting with the
particle. The detector also physically interacts with the associated
wave in the aether. The detector turns the aether wave into chop.

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.


You are unable or unwilling to understand aether existing everywhere
particles of matter do not means there is pressure.


Actually, I do acknowledge that there would be a pressure, somewhat
akin to the air pressure that surrounds, say, a beach ball. I just
can't imagine that relatively small amount of pressure able to contain
the majestic outward-pushing pressure of a huge star. There must be a
more powerful force behind the spatial medium that would exert
forceful pressure upon the "aether", which in turn would exert a
forceful pressure (gravity) upon matter.

Newton was unable to find a reasonable (scientific) cause of gravity,
so he thought it was "God", Einstein thought it was the distortion
(curving) of space by mass, and I don't think either was correct.
Gravity is so much more than a mere "effect". It is a "force" as
Newton thought, but it wasn't and isn't caused by some grandpa in the
sky. It would take an outside force of at least equal proportion to
the forceful outpush of a star to contain the mass of that star.

Your "AETHER'S EVERYWHERE, IT'S EVERYWHERE", just doesn't do it for
me.


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

On Nov 15, 2:59*pm, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:58:43 -0800 (PST), mpc755
wrote:









On Nov 14, 2:11 pm, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:21:10 -0800 (PST), mpc755
wrote:

On Nov 12, 4:35 pm, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 04:11:06 -0800 (PST), mpc755
wrote:

On Nov 12, 2:55 am, Painius wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 16:13:58 -0800 (PST), mpc755
wrote:

On Nov 11, 6:13 pm, Painius wrote:

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
matter is gravity.

Yet, the aether cannot do that on its own. It must have help. There
must be a pressure exerted on the aether. What, in your opinion,
might be the source of that pressure?

Aether exists everywhere particles of matter do not.

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 passes through both.

What, again in your opinion, causes the disappearance of the
interference pattern when a sensor is placed near a slit?

'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.

Fascinating!

What is it about the detection of the particle that turns the
associated aether wave into "chop"? The detector does nothing but
"detect", correct? So how does a device that does nothing but detect
have any affect at all upon the aether wave that's associated with the
particle?

In a boat double slit experiment there are pilings at the exits to the
slits with sensors on them to detect the boat. As the boat exits the
slits the pilings turn the bow wave into chop.

The detection destroys the coherence of the associated wave in the
aether. The detection destroys the coherence between the particle and
its associated wave in the aether.

But where do those "pilings" come from? How does the detection
instrument generate those pilings? How does the detection destroy the
dual coherence you describe? All it happens to be is a detector, an
instrument that merely *receives* information. It's noted that the
detector must somehow do something to destroy the dual coherence, but
precisely how does an instrument that is only there to receive
information have any effect at all upon the particle or the wave?

The detector detects the particle by physically interacting with the
particle. The detector also physically interacts with the associated
wave in the aether. The detector turns the aether wave into chop.

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.

You are unable or unwilling to understand aether existing everywhere
particles of matter do not means there is pressure.

Actually, I do acknowledge that there would be a pressure, somewhat
akin to the air pressure that surrounds, say, a beach ball. *I just
can't imagine that relatively small amount of pressure able to contain
the majestic outward-pushing pressure of a huge star. *There must be a
more powerful force behind the spatial medium that would exert
forceful pressure upon the "aether", which in turn would exert a
forceful pressure (gravity) upon matter.

Newton was unable to find a reasonable (scientific) cause of gravity,
so he thought it was "God", Einstein thought it was the distortion
(curving) of space by mass, and I don't think either was correct.
Gravity is so much more than a mere "effect". *It is a "force" as
Newton thought, but it wasn't and isn't caused by some grandpa in the
sky. *It would take an outside force of at least equal proportion to
the forceful outpush of a star to contain the mass of that star.

Your "AETHER'S EVERYWHERE, IT'S EVERYWHERE", just doesn't do it for
me.

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

"Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass,
crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow
denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of
light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve
lines? ...Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the
Sun, stars, planets and comets, than in the empty celestial space
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

Newton is referring to the state of displacement of the aether.

The aether does not grow denser and denser. The aether is, or behaves
similar to, a supersolid. However, Newton is correct, displaced aether
pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

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?

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.

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


We know that space, regardless of its nature, has properties.


I'm glad that after 2 years of me teaching you that you have come to
accept this as fact.


constancy of c in vacuo may be due to a constant spatial *pressure*,
which keeps light and other radiation at a constant speed.


It is what it is. Accept it.


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.


2) if the speed of electromagnetic radiation is governed by a spatial
property of "pressure"


It's not.


then modern (Einsteinian) physics appears to
have accepted that the spatial pressure is constant throughout the
Universe, because c is constant throughout the Universe. But we
really don't know that's true, do we? 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 see that we still have lots of work to do with you.




--
"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 11/15/2012 2:59 PM, Painius wrote:


Newton was unable to find a reasonable (scientific) cause of gravity,
so he thought it was "God", Einstein thought it was the distortion
(curving) of space by mass, and I don't think either was correct.


Fortunately physics doesn't care about your unfounded opinion.


Gravity is so much more than a mere "effect". It is a "force" as
Newton thought, but it wasn't and isn't caused by some grandpa in the
sky. It would take an outside force of at least equal proportion to
the forceful outpush of a star to contain the mass of that star.


You are wrong. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.00










--
"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 Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:59:02 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
wrote:

On Nov 15, 11:43*am, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:13:36 -0800 (PST), Father Haskell

wrote:
On Nov 14, 5:10 pm, mpc755 wrote:
On Nov 14, 4:56 pm, HVAC wrote:

On 11/14/2012 4:52 PM, mpc755 wrote:

100% wrong. Ether exists exactly as much as god exists.

Are you able to understand objects interact with a supersolid?

Ether = God.
God does not exist = Ether does not exist.

I'm just smarter and better than you, MP3.

A while back you asked what does ether get you.

It gets you the correct understanding of what occurs physically in
nature to cause gravity and the observed behaviors in a double slit
experiment.

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.

Why did you ask the question if you were just going to remain ignorant
of understanding the answer?

If light is a disturbance in the so-called "ether," why
does its velocity remain constant regardless of that
of the observer?

We know that space, regardless of its nature, has properties. *The
constancy of c in vacuo may be due to a constant spatial *pressure*,
which keeps light and other radiation at a constant speed.

However, 2 things...

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.

2) *if the speed of electromagnetic radiation is governed by a spatial
property of "pressure", then modern (Einsteinian) physics appears to
have accepted that the spatial pressure is constant throughout the
Universe, because c is constant throughout the Universe. *But we
really don't know that's true, do we? *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.

mpc755 is now going to put that clump of coal in your Christmas
stocking, all because you don't accept his aether exactly as he and a
few others having interpreted it as the physics unification holy
grail.


And of course Harlow, in his infinite jizzdom, will think of it all as
one big K0oKFiTE! lol!


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