#151
|
|||
|
|||
Aether has mass
"Brad Guth" wrote:
-- Cavedon mpc755 wrote: --- Painius wrote: snip gargantuan load of Aetherical crap hanson wrote: So Brad, have you sensed, estimated or calculated any numerical value for the "Cavedon-Aether mass" after he posted the equation of "A = mc^2"? Did Cavy's "A = mc^2"which now rivals Einstein's stolen "E= mc^2" and begets "A = E", help you in any way to come up with a size determination for A? is which will "displace the former one, doesn't it or does it |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Aether has mass
On Nov 16, 11:32*am, mpc755 wrote:
On Nov 16, 2:26*pm, Brad Guth wrote: There is no evidence of a 'before' the Universal jet we exist in. That's not to say there wasn't a before the Universal jet, just that there is no evidence of it. There is no evidence of a jet opposite the Universal jet we exist in. That's not to say there isn't an opposite jet, just that there is no evidence of it. There is no evidence of other Universal jets. That's not to say there aren't other Universal jets, just that there is no evidence of them. And I stay away from saying the aether flows. I say the aether is emitted into the Universal jet. There is no evidence aether is capable of flowing, just that there is no evidence of it. And yet you insist that everything is created and/or as having been formed by aether (including gravity). Aether is DISPLACED by particles of matter. Displaced aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward matter. Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity. Einstein defined motion in terms of the aether as the aether does not consist of individual particles which can be tracked through time. I interpret this to mean it is unlikely we will be able to detect a physical flow to the aether. Displacement is different than flow. In other words, aether is everything imaginable and entirely replaces old and modern physics as we know it, because molecular gravity doesn't exist (replaced by only the push or compression force of aether). Are you absolutely certain of this? |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
Aether has mass
On Nov 16, 5:37*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 16, 11:32*am, mpc755 wrote: On Nov 16, 2:26*pm, Brad Guth wrote: There is no evidence of a 'before' the Universal jet we exist in. That's not to say there wasn't a before the Universal jet, just that there is no evidence of it. There is no evidence of a jet opposite the Universal jet we exist in. |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
Aether has mass
On Nov 16, 2:18*pm, mpc755 wrote:
On Nov 16, 5:10*pm, Painius wrote: On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:03:34 -0800 (PST), mpc755 wrote: On Nov 16, 1:01 pm, HVAC wrote: On 11/16/2012 12:39 PM, mpc755 wrote: If you ever want to stop being so ignorant and understand why there is a Universal spin about a preferred axis then understand the following. The Universe is a larger version of a black hole polar jet. There is directionality to the movement of the matter in the Universe which not only can't be explained by the big bang, it refutes the big bang. There is directionality to the motion of the matter in the Universe because the Universe is a larger version of a black hole polar jet.. Ether is gay. '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 is a larger version of a black hole polar jet. There is directionality to the movement of the matter in the Universe which not only can't be explained by the big bang, it refutes the big bang. There is directionality to the motion of the matter in the Universe because the Universe is a larger version of a black hole polar jet. The odd thing about that study is that it was done from one perspective, that of our planet. *If done from another perspective, one would get a different answer, because the galaxies that spin one way from here might spin the opposite way from a different perspective. If you have trouble understanding this, just ask yourself which way the planets revolve around the Sun. *If your point of view is from high above Earth's North pole, then the planets go CCW, but if your point of view is from high above the South pole, then the planets revolve CW. So it is impossible to get a universal meaning for left-handedness and right-handedness from just one perspective when it comes to galaxy rotations. -- Indelibly yours, Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ "Let science limit your knowledge, but not your imagination." http://www.universetoday.com/wp-cont.../h_jet_schemat... Did you happen to notice there were two jets depicted? (one for our universe and the other for accommodating that other universe) What's your best guess or swag as to the original mother BH mass? |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
Aether has mass
On Nov 16, 2:44*pm, mpc755 wrote:
On Nov 16, 5:37*pm, Brad Guth wrote: On Nov 16, 11:32*am, mpc755 wrote: On Nov 16, 2:26*pm, Brad Guth wrote: There is no evidence of a 'before' the Universal jet we exist in. That's not to say there wasn't a before the Universal jet, just that there is no evidence of it. There is no evidence of a jet opposite the Universal jet we exist in. That's not to say there isn't an opposite jet, just that there is no evidence of it. There is no evidence of other Universal jets. That's not to say there aren't other Universal jets, just that there is no evidence of them. And I stay away from saying the aether flows. I say the aether is emitted into the Universal jet. There is no evidence aether is capable of flowing, just that there is no evidence of it. And yet you insist that everything is created and/or as having been formed by aether (including gravity). Aether is DISPLACED by particles of matter. Displaced aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward matter. Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity. Einstein defined motion in terms of the aether as the aether does not consist of individual particles which can be tracked through time. I interpret this to mean it is unlikely we will be able to detect a physical flow to the aether. Displacement is different than flow. In other words, aether is everything imaginable and entirely replaces old and modern physics as we know it, because molecular gravity doesn't exist (replaced by only the push or compression force of aether). *Are you absolutely certain of this? Aether displacement does not replace existing physics. It explains existing physics. What Einstein referred to as curved spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether. What de Broglie referred to as the pilot-wave is the associated wave in the aether. At least thus far it's only creating more questions than answers, although some of your interpretations do seem to fill the void of what our universe is filled or displaced with, besides known molecular stuff and rogue/nomad unbound particles of mass (aka electrons, positrons and possibly the nonzero mass of photons). |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
Aether has mass
On Nov 16, 5:52*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 16, 2:18*pm, mpc755 wrote: On Nov 16, 5:10*pm, Painius wrote: On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:03:34 -0800 (PST), mpc755 wrote: On Nov 16, 1:01 pm, HVAC wrote: On 11/16/2012 12:39 PM, mpc755 wrote: If you ever want to stop being so ignorant and understand why there is a Universal spin about a preferred axis then understand the following. The Universe is a larger version of a black hole polar jet. There is directionality to the movement of the matter in the Universe which not only can't be explained by the big bang, it refutes the big bang.. There is directionality to the motion of the matter in the Universe because the Universe is a larger version of a black hole polar jet. Ether is gay. '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 is a larger version of a black hole polar jet. There is directionality to the movement of the matter in the Universe which not only can't be explained by the big bang, it refutes the big bang. There is directionality to the motion of the matter in the Universe because the Universe is a larger version of a black hole polar jet. The odd thing about that study is that it was done from one perspective, that of our planet. *If done from another perspective, one would get a different answer, because the galaxies that spin one way from here might spin the opposite way from a different perspective. If you have trouble understanding this, just ask yourself which way the planets revolve around the Sun. *If your point of view is from high above Earth's North pole, then the planets go CCW, but if your point of view is from high above the South pole, then the planets revolve CW. So it is impossible to get a universal meaning for left-handedness and right-handedness from just one perspective when it comes to galaxy rotations. -- Indelibly yours, Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ "Let science limit your knowledge, but not your imagination." http://www.universetoday.com/wp-cont.../h_jet_schemat... Did you happen to notice there were two jets depicted? (one for our universe and the other for accommodating that other universe) How did I know you were going to post that? What's your best guess or swag as to the original mother BH mass? There is no evidence of a 'before' the Universal jet. |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
Aether has mass
On Nov 16, 5:59*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 16, 2:44*pm, mpc755 wrote: On Nov 16, 5:37*pm, Brad Guth wrote: On Nov 16, 11:32*am, mpc755 wrote: On Nov 16, 2:26*pm, Brad Guth wrote: There is no evidence of a 'before' the Universal jet we exist in. |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Aether has mass
On Nov 16, 2:59*pm, mpc755 wrote:
On Nov 16, 5:52*pm, Brad Guth wrote: Did you happen to notice there were two jets depicted? (one for our universe and the other for accommodating that other universe) How did I know you were going to post that? What's your best guess or swag as to the original mother BH mass? There is no evidence of a 'before' the Universal jet. So you get to pretend that all this aether via the magic universal jet from the nonexistent mother black hole simply materialized from nothingness. Are you going all churchy or faith-based mystic on us? I hope you're not going to start telling us that this universal jet of aether is only 4000 years old. |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
Aether has mass
On Nov 16, 6:09*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 16, 2:59*pm, mpc755 wrote: On Nov 16, 5:52*pm, Brad Guth wrote: Did you happen to notice there were two jets depicted? (one for our universe and the other for accommodating that other universe) How did I know you were going to post that? What's your best guess or swag as to the original mother BH mass? There is no evidence of a 'before' the Universal jet. So you get to pretend that all this aether via the magic universal jet from the nonexistent mother black hole simply materialized from nothingness. Are you going all churchy or faith-based mystic on us? I hope you're not going to start telling us that this universal jet of aether is only 4000 years old. There is no evidence of a 'before' the Universal jet. If there is no evidence of a 'before' the Universal jet then there is no evidence to suggest what was 'before' the Universal jet, or if there was a 'before' the Universal jet. |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
Aether has mass
On Nov 16, 3:00*pm, mpc755 wrote:
On Nov 16, 5:59*pm, Brad Guth wrote: On Nov 16, 2:44*pm, mpc755 wrote: On Nov 16, 5:37*pm, Brad Guth wrote: On Nov 16, 11:32*am, mpc755 wrote: On Nov 16, 2:26*pm, Brad Guth wrote: There is no evidence of a 'before' the Universal jet we exist in. That's not to say there wasn't a before the Universal jet, just that there is no evidence of it. There is no evidence of a jet opposite the Universal jet we exist in. That's not to say there isn't an opposite jet, just that there is no evidence of it. There is no evidence of other Universal jets. That's not to say there aren't other Universal jets, just that there is no evidence of them. And I stay away from saying the aether flows. I say the aether is emitted into the Universal jet. There is no evidence aether is capable of flowing, just that there is no evidence of it. And yet you insist that everything is created and/or as having been formed by aether (including gravity). Aether is DISPLACED by particles of matter. Displaced aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward matter. Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity. Einstein defined motion in terms of the aether as the aether does not consist of individual particles which can be tracked through time.. I interpret this to mean it is unlikely we will be able to detect a physical flow to the aether. Displacement is different than flow. In other words, aether is everything imaginable and entirely replaces old and modern physics as we know it, because molecular gravity doesn't exist (replaced by only the push or compression force of aether). *Are you absolutely certain of this? Aether displacement does not replace existing physics. It explains existing physics. What Einstein referred to as curved spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether. What de Broglie referred to as the pilot-wave is the associated wave in the aether. At least thus far it's only creating more questions than answers, although some of your interpretations do seem to fill the void of what our universe is filled or displaced with, besides known molecular stuff and rogue/nomad unbound particles of mass (aka electrons, positrons and possibly the nonzero mass of photons). It's explaining what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity. It's explaining what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment. Then physics understood what occurs physically in nature for such simple stuff as gravity and what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment and could move on. 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 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. Sadly it(aether) is not explaining gravity, although it is giving us food for thought on whatever gravity might otherwise involve or interact with besides molecular mass or them pesky stray/nomad particles of atomic mass. There is no 3D particle associated with any photon or aether wave, and what we perceive as a photon particle is at best a 2D quantum entangled something or another that vanishes as soon as it gets detected, and at best it still can't be confirmed has having traveled anywhere (other than at most within a given wavelength). Aether has a ways to go before it can be mainstream classified as something objectively proven to exist. In the meantime, you've got a lot of followup research to either accomplish or at least do a better analogy job at telling us what aether is or isn't without using so much parrot speak. https://groups.google.com/forum/m/ http://groups.google.com/groups/search 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 |
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 01:50 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 |