#81
|
|||
|
|||
Aether has mass
On Nov 15, 12:48*pm, mpc755 wrote:
On Nov 15, 3:45*pm, Brad Guth wrote: On Nov 15, 12:10*pm, mpc755 wrote: 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. That's good to know, but as also applied to atoms? Are you asking if aether displaced by the particles of matter an atom consists of is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the atom allow the atom to be an atom? Are you asking if molecular bonds are caused by the aether displaced by the particles of matter the molecules consist of which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the molecules themselves? Maybe. I was asking; Does aether cause the atom to form and function as it does? |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Aether has mass
On Nov 15, 2:38*pm, mpc755 wrote:
On Nov 15, 4:36*pm, HVAC wrote: On 11/15/2012 3:48 PM, mpc755 wrote: That's good to know, but as also applied to atoms? Are you asking if aether displaced by the particles of matter an atom consists of is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the atom allow the atom to be an atom? Are you asking if molecular bonds are caused by the aether displaced by the particles of matter the molecules consist of which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the molecules themselves? Maybe. So we'll just take the weak and strong nuclear forces and chuck them out the window? *Brilliant! *Who needs them anyway? "It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University What does Sheldon Cooper have to say about aether? |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Aether has mass
On Nov 15, 6:59*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 15, 12:41*pm, Painius wrote: On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:29:54 -0800 (PST), 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. 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. Did you not propose that aether has mass? And now you seem to say that the aether's mass would not be moved under the pressure? *What does it do under pressure? *Just "sit there"? -- Indelibly yours, Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ "Let science limit your knowledge, but not your imagination." According to mpc755, there’s an ongoing aether jet flow that’s potentially c^2 more vast than our molecular universe, and it’s either represented by a superfluid or supersolid kind stealth 2D quantum string like element that somehow represents 96% of the volumetric mass which can not be directly detected or otherwise quantified by existing technology. The Earth-moon L1 would offer an ideal vacuum location for aether physics, offering at least 1e-18 bar(1e-13 pascals or 7.5e-16 torr) that by rights should be mostly aether, and yet our NASA and the very best of their “right stuff” can’t seem to manage to even accomplish that much for us. You completely mixing up the conversations. The jet refers the the Universal jet we exist in. I said nothing about strings. Let's keep the conversation to gravity. Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward PRESSURE toward matter IS gravity. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Aether has mass
On Nov 15, 7:03*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 15, 12:48*pm, mpc755 wrote: On Nov 15, 3:45*pm, Brad Guth wrote: On Nov 15, 12:10*pm, mpc755 wrote: 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. That's good to know, but as also applied to atoms? Are you asking if aether displaced by the particles of matter an atom consists of is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the atom allow the atom to be an atom? Are you asking if molecular bonds are caused by the aether displaced by the particles of matter the molecules consist of which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the molecules themselves? Maybe. I was asking; *Does aether cause the atom to form and function as it does? Particles of matter are condensations of aether. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Aether has mass
mpc755 wrote:
The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The “energetic contact” is the state of displacement of the aether. Naturally, you have cloud chamber photographs to support that word salad. -- Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0 |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Aether has mass
HVAC wrote:
On 11/15/2012 2:43 PM, Painius wrote: 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. No, Painus is quite right. If you fire a laser beam between the two halves of a vise, when the halves are wide open, the beam forms a well-defined spot, but as the halves come very close together, the beam spreads, because you are defining the photons to a specific location, and Heisenberg's law says the velocity of the laser light (the vector sum of speed and direction) must grow uncertain as its position grows certain. Since the speed of light (a scalar) is constant, the uncertainty must occur in the direction of the light. -- Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0 |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Aether has mass
Painius wrote:
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 believe there would be tell-tale signs of a variable "c" in the spectra of distant light. -- Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0 |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Aether has mass
On Nov 15, 9:24*pm, linuxgal wrote:
mpc755 wrote: The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The energetic contact is the state of displacement of the aether. Naturally, you have cloud chamber photographs to support that word salad. -- Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0 '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. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Aether has mass
mpc755 wrote:
A particle physically displaces the aether. That must take a certain amount of force. It's a wonder we don't see the Moon getting closer and closer, as it fights to displace the aether. -- Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0 |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Aether has mass
On Nov 15, 9:45*pm, linuxgal wrote:
mpc755 wrote: A particle physically displaces the aether. That must take a certain amount of force. *It's a wonder we don't see the Moon getting closer and closer, as it fights to displace the aether. -- Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0 The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid. The Moon displaces the aether. The aether displaces the Moon. There is no loss of energy in the interaction of the aether and the Moon. As an object moves through a supersolid the object displaces the supersolid. The supersolid returns the same amount of energy to the object as the supersolid fills-in where the object had been. There is no loss of energy in the interaction of an object and a supersolid. That's the definition of a supersolid. |
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 |