Aether has mass

On Dec 4, 5:17*am, mpc755 wrote:
On Dec 4, 12:38*am, Brad Guth wrote:









On Dec 3, 6:12*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 3, 8:58*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 3, 2:43*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 3, 5:36*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 3, 1:19*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 3, 4:09*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 3, 12:29*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 3, 3:15*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 3, 11:47*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 3, 2:16*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

Wikipedia allows as much as you can offer, although making it stick as
a front page theory or new interpretation rather than as a cranky rant
sort of back page notation or link to an external page, is what takes
persistence and a little help from your friends. *Do you have any
friends?

You should read the Wikipedia rules. They don't post new theories.

Aether displaced by matter relating relativity and quantum mechanics
is a new correct understanding of the physics of nature.

You can create your very own Wikipedia page on this aether topic.

Then eventually you can go back into other existing pages and edit a
few of those to include a link to your personal Wikipedia page devoted
to aether the way you interpret it.

Once you have been proven as a reasonably good guy (usually this
process takes a few weeks of yourself being positive and constructive
to others), Wikipedia rules should allow you to directly edit other
preexisting pages or topics. *Of course having an insider friend would
make everything go much smoother.

Do you have any such friends?

If I create my own Wikipedia page having to do with aether
displacement the page will be removed because aether displacement is a
new theory and Wikipedia does not allow new theories to be posted on
Wikipedia.

Then place it as a novel idea or alternative notion that is supported
by the research of all those other guys you keep harping about. *In
other words, don't even bother to call it a new theory or even an
improved one, but simply imply that it's an ongoing scientific
interpretation of whatever's out there and that it could be
responsible for gravity via its displacement. *You seem to have
sufficient collaborating research that isn't entirely bogus to start
with, so that alone makes your version of aether into a valid
Wikipedia page, or at least worthy of becoming a footnote as an
alternative to the existing theories.

Of course aether could be simply loads of positrons, helium and those
pesky photons with no place special to go. *But that's just my swag at
it.

Wikipedia does not allow new theories to be posted. Aether
displacement is a new theory. Therefore, it will not be allowed to be
posted on Wikipedia.

Actually it's a very old theory, and what little there is of it does
exist in Wikipedia.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_...cal_element%29

Just add your new and improved version to the pile, and be happy.

Create a Wikipedia account, log in and edit or contribute whatever
without intentionally ****ing everyone off. *You seem to be a nice
enough person, so they shouldn't automatically reject nor otherwise
banish whatever you have to share.

Aether displacement is a new theory.

But in order to get that message across, you'll have to step on a few
thousand toes.

Can't you even manage to create your own webpage or private Google
Group that only you get to manage?

Physics will eventually decide correctly understanding what occurs
physically in nature is important in physics.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents
and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with
it." / Max Planck

There is evidence non-baryonic dark matter is not anchored to matter.
This means mater moves through and displaces the aether.

So, when is that interpretation getting into any of our K-12
textbooks?

You are aware that not 0.1% of educated Americans even know about
these public Usenet/newsgroups, and perhaps only 0.1% of those that
know of these public newsgroups ever bother to contribute or interact
by way of reading our stuff and offering feedback. That gets these
Usenet/newsgroups down to an active audience or classroom of 300 out
of 300 million, and the rest of the world is at least ten fold worse
off.

Don't you think we should at least try to fix that problem first?

The Google Groups+ version of accessing Usenet/newsgroups and for
creating personal newsgroups to suit, offers a number of interactive
communications and publication solutions at little or no cost to those
of us smart enough to tie their own shoelaces.