Aether has mass

On 12/27/2012 8:37 AM, Linuxgal wrote:
benj wrote:

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.


BJ believes that god causes the electrons to flow.



--
"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 Dec 27, 11:11Â*am, Brad Guth wrote:

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.

If you wanted to know the answer to your question you would read the
following articles.

'Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking
Entropy'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4176

"But why an incompressible fluid? The reason comes from an attempt to
solve the (old) cosmological constant problem, which is arguably the
most puzzling aspect of coupling gravity to relativistic quantum
mechanics [13]. Given that the natural expectation value for the
vacuum of the standard model of particle physics is ∼ 60 orders of
magnitude heavier than the gravitational measurements of vacuum
density, it is reasonable to entertain an alternative theory of
gravity where the standard model vacuum decouples from gravity. Such a
theory could be realized by coupling gravity to the traceless part of
the quantum mechanical energy-momentum tensor. However, the
consistency/covariance of gravitational field equations then requires
introducing an auxiliary fluid, the so-called gravitational aether
[14]. The simplest model for gravitational aether is an incompressible
fluid (with vanishing energy density, but non-vanishing pressure),
which is currently consistent with all cosmological, astrophysical,
and precision tests of gravity [15, 16]:

__3__
32πGN Gμν = Tμν − Tα gμν + Tμν ,
Tμν = p (uμ uν + gμν ), T μν;ν = 0,

where GN is Newton’s constant, Tμν is the matter energy momentum
tensor and Tμν is the incompressible gravitational aether fluid. In
vacuum, the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

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 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.

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−αg,6a2 so, it is positive
if αg 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 αg 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"

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:55:43 -0500, HVAC wrote:

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


Happy to see you've come out of the closet, Harlow!

Good 4U -- Good 4U! lol!


--
Happy Holidays!
and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"When most people run the other way, courage runs toward danger."

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 07:12:14 -0800 (PST), 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.


Yes, the increased mass must come from somewhere -- it doesn't just
magically form as velocity increases. Where else can it come from but
the surrounding space? Scientists are beginning to grasp this, to
take hold of it and shake it to see what falls off.

The truly comedic thing is their dogmatic inability to name it! They
hesitate to give the spatial medium a new name, because it already has
a name from classical physics, the "aether". BUT NOOooo! That word
can't be used due to the hideous negative connotations.

Silly sometimes, that thing called science.


--
Happy Holidays!
and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"When most people run the other way, courage runs toward danger."

On Dec 27, 1:35*pm, Painius wrote:

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.

Yes, the increased mass must come from somewhere -- it doesn't just
magically form as velocity increases. *Where else can it come from but
the surrounding space? *Scientists are beginning to grasp this, to
take hold of it and shake it to see what falls off.

The truly comedic thing is their dogmatic inability to name it! *They
hesitate to give the spatial medium a new name, because it already has
a name from classical physics, the "aether". *BUT NOOooo! *That word
can't be used due to the hideous negative connotations.

Silly sometimes, that thing called science.


The ripple created when galaxy clusters collide is a gravitational
wave. The ripple is an aether displacement wave.

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by matter. There is no such thing as
non-baryonic dark matter. Matter moves through and displaces the
aether.

Galaxy clusters move through and displace the aether.

'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hu...g_feature.html

"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view
of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two
galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is
somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the
water."

The 'pond' consists of aether. The analogy are two boats which pass by
each other very closely. Their bow waves slosh back and forth and
create a ripple in the water.

The offset between the light lensing through the space neighboring
galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters themselves is caused by the
galaxy clusters moving through and displacing the aether. The analogy
is a submarine moving through the water. The state of the water
connected to and neighboring the submarine stays the same as the
submarine moves through and displaces the water.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

The Milky Way's halo is what is referred to as the curvature of
spacetime.

The geometrical representation of gravity as curved spacetime
physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the
aether.

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

'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.

"For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant,
forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which
may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity."

A particle is a moving singularity which 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.

"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

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation
of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space
and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time
intervals in the physical sense." - Albert Einstein

The relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the ether which
propagates light referred to by Einstein.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double
slit experiment; the aether.

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave. Both are
waves in the aether.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:11:54 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
wrote:

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.

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.


Well, Brad, those are tricky subjects. Mike's two main ideas are
that:

1) displacement of the spatial medium by a physical object is the
primary cause of gravitational pressure upon the object, and

2) in a double-slit experiment the particle goes through one slit
while its associated spatial-medium wave goes through the second slit,
which results in an interference pattern on a nearby screen.

2b) Mike further states that when a detector is placed near one of
the slits, it causes an effect that he likens to the wake of a boat
that disrupts a water wave as it travels toward the shore. I don't
know -- perhaps the main wave of the spatial medium reflects off of
the detector, which might cause a secondary wave that disrupts the
main wave. The resulting interference might then cancel out the main
wave and the interference pattern on the screen, as well.


As for #1 above, I do not agree that mere spatial displacement by a
physical body that is accelerating through spacetime produces a
powerful enough pressure nor a uniform enough pressure to result in
gravitational pressure on the surface of the object. Having said
that, let me be quick to say that I both cheer and encourage Mike in
his pursuit of a cause for gravity. In this light my disagreement
with him is irrelevant. To me, the important thing is that his ideas
represent forward and creative thinking.

#2 above is a different story. It's the first stab at an explanation
for what happens in the double-slit experiment that actually makes
sense to me. No mainstreamer that I know of has come this close to a
feasible explanation for why an interference pattern appears on the
screen. So it strongly seems that Mike is "right on" where this is
concerned.

I also cheer Mike for #2b above. After giving his explanation much
thought, it has begun to make sense to me. Something is interfering
with the main spatial wave when a sensor is placed near one of the
slits, and it might just be a reflected wave off the sensor that does
the job. Again, no mainstreamer has yet to come up with a plausible
explanation for this puzzling state of affairs. Good for Mike to be
able to visualize a possible explanation and descriptive analogy.


Brad, you said you want to be able to "define what amount of
equivalent density aether represents, as opposed to the collective
forces of gravity and the reduced outward flow of solar wind."

You may remember oc's take on this, which as you know was actually
Gordon Wolter's idea set. As far as the Sun and Solar system is
concerned, the density of space is highest at the outer fringe of our
system. As space flows toward the Sun, some of it is snatched up,
mainly by the planets and also by the many smaller objects like dwarf
planets and asteroids. By far, most of it heads toward the Sun, and
space becomes less and less dense as it comes nearer and nearer to a
physical object. The density of space in the Solar system will be
lowest very near the surface of the Sun and within the Sun.

As space plunges into a physical object, it causes the phenomenon
called "gravity". The object performs like a vortex or whirlpool, and
space gets "sucked in" to the object. Remember that Einstein wrote
that physical objects are not "in space", but instead are "spatially
extended". So both space and physical objects are made essentially of
the same "stuff".

As for the Solar wind, that represents a relatively tiny amount of
matter that, through the powerful, outward-pushing force of the Sun's
enormous nuclear-fusion engine, is able to "win" against gravity and
is radiated out into the Solar system. The concept we call "buoyancy"
may also have a hand in the movement of the particles in the Solar
wind outward, out and away from the Sun. However, the stream of tiny
charged particles, mostly electrons and protons, is propelled to the
greatest extent by the particles' high kinetic energies and the high
temperature (10^6 degrees Kelvin) of the Sun's corona.


--
Happy Holidays!
and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"When most people run the other way, courage runs toward danger."

On Dec 27, 3:20*pm, Painius wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:11:54 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth









wrote:
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.

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.

Well, Brad, those are tricky subjects. *Mike's two main ideas are
that:

1) *displacement of the spatial medium by a physical object is the
primary cause of gravitational pressure upon the object, and

2) *in a double-slit experiment the particle goes through one slit
while its associated spatial-medium wave goes through the second slit,
which results in an interference pattern on a nearby screen.

2b) *Mike further states that when a detector is placed near one of
the slits, it causes an effect that he likens to the wake of a boat
that disrupts a water wave as it travels toward the shore. *I don't
know -- perhaps the main wave of the spatial medium reflects off of
the detector, which might cause a secondary wave that disrupts the
main wave. *The resulting interference might then cancel out the main
wave and the interference pattern on the screen, as well.

As for #1 above, I do not agree that mere spatial displacement by a
physical body that is accelerating through spacetime produces a
powerful enough pressure nor a uniform enough pressure to result in
gravitational pressure on the surface of the object. *Having said
that, let me be quick to say that I both cheer and encourage Mike in
his pursuit of a cause for gravity. *In this light my disagreement
with him is irrelevant. *To me, the important thing is that his ideas
represent forward and creative thinking.

#2 above is a different story. *It's the first stab at an explanation
for what happens in the double-slit experiment that actually makes
sense to me. *No mainstreamer that I know of has come this close to a
feasible explanation for why an interference pattern appears on the
screen. *So it strongly seems that Mike is "right on" where this is
concerned.

I also cheer Mike for #2b above. *After giving his explanation much
thought, it has begun to make sense to me. *Something is interfering
with the main spatial wave when a sensor is placed near one of the
slits, and it might just be a reflected wave off the sensor that does
the job. *Again, no mainstreamer has yet to come up with a plausible
explanation for this puzzling state of affairs. *Good for Mike to be
able to visualize a possible explanation and descriptive analogy.

Brad, you said you want to be able to "define what amount of
equivalent density aether represents, as opposed to the collective
forces of gravity and the reduced outward flow of solar wind."

You may remember oc's take on this, which as you know was actually
Gordon Wolter's idea set. *As far as the Sun and Solar system is
concerned, the density of space is highest at the outer fringe of our
system. *As space flows toward the Sun, some of it is snatched up,
mainly by the planets and also by the many smaller objects like dwarf
planets and asteroids. *By far, most of it heads toward the Sun, and
space becomes less and less dense as it comes nearer and nearer to a
physical object. *The density of space in the Solar system will be
lowest very near the surface of the Sun and within the Sun.

As space plunges into a physical object, it causes the phenomenon
called "gravity". *The object performs like a vortex or whirlpool, and
space gets "sucked in" to the object. *Remember that Einstein wrote
that physical objects are not "in space", but instead are "spatially
extended". *So both space and physical objects are made essentially of
the same "stuff".

As for the Solar wind, that represents a relatively tiny amount of
matter that, through the powerful, outward-pushing force of the Sun's
enormous nuclear-fusion engine, is able to "win" against gravity and
is radiated out into the Solar system. *The concept we call "buoyancy"
may also have a hand in the movement of the particles in the Solar
wind outward, out and away from the Sun. *However, the stream of tiny
charged particles, mostly electrons and protons, is propelled to the
greatest extent by the particles' high kinetic energies and the high
temperature (10^6 degrees Kelvin) of the Sun's corona.

--
Happy Holidays!
* and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"When most people run the other way, courage runs toward danger."

Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity. Even if the
Earth were at rest with respect to the aether the displaced aether
pushing back toward the Earth would still be 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 passes through BOTH.

The aether wave exiting BOTH slits creates wave interference which
alters the direction the particle travels.

Detecting the particle causes the associated wave to be turned into
chop and there is no wave interference.

On 12/27/2012 1:35 PM, Painius wrote:


Yes, the increased mass must come from somewhere -- it doesn't just
magically form as velocity increases.


That's part of your problem...You believe in magic.

And you smell too.







--
"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 Dec 27, 9:28Â*am, mpc755 wrote:
On Dec 27, 11:11Â*am, Brad Guth wrote:











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.

If you wanted to know the answer to your question you would read the
following articles.

'Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking
Entropy'http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4176

"But why an incompressible fluid? The reason comes from an attempt to
solve the (old) cosmological constant problem, which is arguably the
most puzzling aspect of coupling gravity to relativistic quantum
mechanics [13]. Given that the natural expectation value for the
vacuum of the standard model of particle physics is ∼ 60 orders of
magnitude heavier than the gravitational measurements of vacuum
density, it is reasonable to entertain an alternative theory of
gravity where the standard model vacuum decouples from gravity. Such a
theory could be realized by coupling gravity to the traceless part of
the quantum mechanical energy-momentum tensor. However, the
consistency/covariance of gravitational field equations then requires
introducing an auxiliary fluid, the so-called gravitational aether
[14]. The simplest model for gravitational aether is an incompressible
fluid (with vanishing energy density, but non-vanishing pressure),
which is currently consistent with all cosmological, astrophysical,
and precision tests of gravity [15, 16]:

__3__
32πGN Gμν = Tμν − Tα gμν + Tμν ,
Tμν = p (uμ uν + gμν ), T μν;ν = 0,

where GN is Newton’s constant, Tμν is the matter energy momentum
tensor and Tμν is the incompressible gravitational aether fluid.. In
vacuum, the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

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 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.

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−αg,6a2 so, it is positive
if αg 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 αg 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"

Those are each good but complex interpretations, though without a
shred of objective proof or even that of replicated science from
others independent of the aether investment (especially where it's
applied to gravity).

On Dec 27, 10:35*am, Painius wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 07:12:14 -0800 (PST), 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.

Yes, the increased mass must come from somewhere -- it doesn't just
magically form as velocity increases. *Where else can it come from but
the surrounding space? *Scientists are beginning to grasp this, to
take hold of it and shake it to see what falls off.

The truly comedic thing is their dogmatic inability to name it! *They
hesitate to give the spatial medium a new name, because it already has
a name from classical physics, the "aether". *BUT NOOooo! *That word
can't be used due to the hideous negative connotations.

Silly sometimes, that thing called science.

--
Happy Holidays!
* and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"When most people run the other way, courage runs toward danger."

They could call it a God fart, as representing the dark matter of his
holy flatulence which surrounds and invades throughout everything.