Aether has mass

On 12/26/2012 8:47 PM, Painius wrote:

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.


Gentlemen, gentlemen...Some decorum please. I will act as an impartial
arbitrator and settle your dispute.

Let's all agree that ether is completely false and utterly ****ing gay.

All agree? Sounds good.





--
"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 Wed, 26 Dec 2012 17:20:10 -0800, Linuxgal
wrote:

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.


Now why would I do that? Here's why...

The material on Mike, Andre and Clerk hold as basics of
electromagnetism. They mostly apply to circuits of wire, inductors
and so forth. You and I *were* discussing light and what it might be
waving as it radiates through spacetime. Remember the questions?

I asked, "So how do you think that waves of light impart momentum? And
what do you think they 'wave'?"

Your initial response was, "E=MC^2, right? It's like getting smacked
by a teensy BB. The electric fields wave the magnetic fields, and
verse vice-a."

My antenna theory kicked in, and I saw the "electric fields" as
polarized in sync with the antenna (vertically polarized antenna
produces a vertically polarized e field) and "magnetic fields" as
polarized 90 degrees out (vertically polarized antenna produces a
horizontally polarized magnetic, or "h", field). So my response to
you went, "Different polarizations would dictate otherwise. Both the
e and the h must wave something else besides each other.

You then asked for equations and I pointed you in that direction. Now
you feel that you've solved it all by telling me I ignore the basic
laws of electricity. Frankly, I think you're pulling my chain. If
you really don't have any idea how waves of light impart momentum or
what they "wave", then why don't you just say so? No harm, no fowl.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure


--
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 17:20:10 -0800, Linuxgal wrote:

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.

Sorry Linuxgal, but Faraday's law (or Maxwell's equation in usual form)
are not causal. EMFs are NOT caused by a changing magnetic field. They
are caused by changing currents as are the accompanying magnetic fields.

Hence E and H do NOT "create each other" even though it's widely believed
on the basis of ASSUMING that Maxwell's equation for the Curl of E is
causal. It is not. Note that E fields can be generated outside a toriod
where there are no B fields. If you invoke the flux inside the toroid
then you are invoking the long discredited "action at a distance"
theories.

I know Wikipedia still says E and H fields create each other, but like so
many others here, they support establishment dogma even when it's
provably wrong.

On 12/26/2012 8:13 PM, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:57:56 -0500, wrote:

. . .

Painus is alright. . . .


Are you sure you're not being misquoted?


I think someone slipped me a roofie, obviously.





--
"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

benj wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 17:20:10 -0800, Linuxgal wrote:

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.
Sorry Linuxgal, but Faraday's law (or Maxwell's equation in usual form)
are not causal. EMFs are NOT caused by a changing magnetic field. They
are caused by changing currents as are the accompanying magnetic fields.

Gosh, then I suppose we get our electric power by pure ****ing magic
rather than coils of wire rotating in a magnetic field.

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


http://www.cleanposts.com/

On Dec 26, 8:47*pm, Painius wrote:

'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.


'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.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:47:55 -0800 (PST), mpc755
wrote:

On Dec 26, 8:47*pm, Painius wrote:

'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.


'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.


Well, no, not exactly.

". . . according to a kind of induction law . . ."

The backreaction is compared to an inductive "back EMF" or the
electromotive force that opposes the voltage of a circuit. So they
are saying that space does not react instantly to the motion of
objects moving through it due to this proposed backreaction.

That is pure boloney, of course, because space not only reacts
instantly to the movement of physical objects through it, space flows
into those objects at a speed determined by an object's mass. We call
that speed "escape velocity", which is precisely equal to the speed at
which space flows into the object.

Space flows into an object constantly and with a uniform pressure over
the object's entire surface area. This is to rejuvenate the nuclear
forces of each and every atom that composes the object. A fortunate
byproduct of this flow of space into objects is what is called
"gravitation" or "gravity".


--
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 Dec 27, 9:59*am, Painius wrote:

Well, no, not exactly.

* *". . . according to a kind of induction law . . ."

The backreaction is compared to an inductive "back EMF" or the
electromotive force that opposes the voltage of a circuit. *So they
are saying that space does not react instantly to the motion of
objects moving through it due to this proposed backreaction.

That is pure boloney, of course, because space not only reacts
instantly to the movement of physical objects through it, space flows
into those objects at a speed determined by an object's mass. *We call
that speed "escape velocity", which is precisely equal to the speed at
which space flows into the object.

Space flows into an object constantly and with a uniform pressure over
the object's entire surface area. *This is to rejuvenate the nuclear
forces of each and every atom that composes the object. *A fortunate
byproduct of this flow of space into objects is what is called
"gravitation" or "gravity".


The following article describes the aether as that which produces
resistance to acceleration and is responsible for the increase in mass
of an object with velocity.

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

"It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid
produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an
increase of mass with velocity. ... The interaction between the
particle and the entrained space flow gives rise to the observed
properties of inertia and the relativistic increase of mass. ...
Accordingly, in this framework the non resistance of a particle in
uniform motion through an ideal fluid (D’Alembert’s paradox)
corresponds to Newton’s first law. The law of inertia suggests that
the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with
the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the
mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is
displaced by the object.

On Dec 27, 7:12*am, mpc755 wrote:
On Dec 27, 9:59*am, Painius wrote:







Well, no, not exactly.

* *". . . according to a kind of induction law . . ."

The backreaction is compared to an inductive "back EMF" or the
electromotive force that opposes the voltage of a circuit. *So they
are saying that space does not react instantly to the motion of
objects moving through it due to this proposed backreaction.

That is pure boloney, of course, because space not only reacts
instantly to the movement of physical objects through it, space flows
into those objects at a speed determined by an object's mass. *We call
that speed "escape velocity", which is precisely equal to the speed at
which space flows into the object.

Space flows into an object constantly and with a uniform pressure over
the object's entire surface area. *This is to rejuvenate the nuclear
forces of each and every atom that composes the object. *A fortunate
byproduct of this flow of space into objects is what is called
"gravitation" or "gravity".

The following article describes the aether as that which produces
resistance to acceleration and is responsible for the increase in mass
of an object with velocity.

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

"It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid
produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an
increase of mass with velocity. ... The interaction between the
particle and the entrained space flow gives rise to the observed
properties of inertia and the relativistic increase of mass. ...
Accordingly, in this framework the non resistance of a particle in
uniform motion through an ideal fluid (D’Alembert’s paradox)
corresponds to Newton’s first law. The law of inertia suggests that
the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with
the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the
mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is
displaced by the object.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Those carefully chosen words still do not help define what amount of
equivalent density aether represents, as opposed to the collective
forces of gravity and the reduced outward flow of solar wind.

On 12/27/2012 9:59 AM, Painius wrote:

Space flows into an object constantly and with a uniform pressure over
the object's entire surface area. This is to rejuvenate the nuclear
forces of each and every atom that composes the object. A fortunate
byproduct of this flow of space into objects is what is called
"gravitation" or "gravity".


Gay





--
"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