Aether has mass

On 12/14/2012 10:28 AM, mpc755 wrote:

That doesn't mean the fundamental force associated with what keeps
particles of matter together isn't their displacement of the aether.


Hey, MP3...Have you ever seen a ghost?




--
"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 14, 10:47Â*am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 14, 7:28Â*am, mpc755 wrote:









On Dec 14, 9:51Â*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 14, 6:22Â*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 14, 1:14Â*am, Brad Guth wrote:

I understand aether displacement (even as a supersolid).

Aether displacement as the cause or force of gravity, not so much..

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 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"

None of that nails down what gravity is. Â*Instead we have only those
swags of subjective interpretations to go by, and of course we always
have you. Â*We already know that gravity offers practically nothing to
the subatomic realm where other forces are the primary binding cause
and/or interaction of what holds atoms together.

That doesn't mean the fundamental force associated with what keeps
particles of matter together isn't their displacement of the aether.

The atomic and larger scale of essentially keeping particles together
seems to be well enough understood, although aether could still play
an important roll.


It's not understood at all. There are things called weak and strong
forces but no one knows what causes the forces to exist. Look at the
absurd nonsense of 'gluons'.

On Dec 14, 6:22*am, mpc755 wrote:
On Dec 14, 2:28*am, " wrote:









On Dec 13, 1:05*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 13, 3:47*pm, " wrote:

On Dec 13, 10:29*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 13, 1:25*pm, " wrote:

On Dec 12, 1:01*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 12, 3:40*pm, " wrote:

On Dec 11, 2:20*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 11, 5:06*pm, " wrote:

* Please explain the operation of the Forward "mass
detector" (rotating cruciform gravity gradiometer" using your
assertions.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...830002134_1983...

* Mark L. Fergerson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_..._Mass_Detector

* I didn't cite Wikipedia, I cited an actual paper by Forward. I asked
you to explain the operation of the detector itself. Too complicated
for you?
I explained

* You explained nothing; you merely repeated your assertions. You
obviously didn't even glance at the paper and have no idea how the
detector is constructed or what it does.

* Read the paper and try again.

* Stop parroting your assertions and explain the operation of the
detector.

You explained nothing; you merely repeated your previous post.

* I didn't claim to have explained anything.

* You claim to have a complete explanation for all of the phenomena of
gravitation, an explanation more extensive and predictive than general
relativity, which was the basis for the design of Forward's detector.

On 12/14/2012 2:03 PM, wrote:

So, you still haven't read the following

Yes I have, over and over and over.

It means nothing since it makes no testable predictions that are
differentiable from current science. You have gone out of your way to
make sure of that; it's a difference that makes no difference.

Since you are apparently unwilling to make the effort to examine
Forward's device and *test* your assertions against it, I must
conclude that you do not have the courage of your convictions.


Mark, I concluded a while back that MP3 has deep seated physiological
problems. Obviously the OCD is out of control and he should be medicated





--
"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 14, 2:03*pm, " wrote:

* Yes I have, over and over and over.

* It means nothing since it makes no testable predictions that are
differentiable from current science. You have gone out of your way to
make sure of that; it's a difference that makes no difference.

* Since you are apparently unwilling to make the effort to examine
Forward's device and *test* your assertions against it, I must
conclude that you do not have the courage of your convictions.

* Mark L. Fergerson

The state of mainstream physics, understanding what occurs physically
in nature which causes gravity and the observed behaviors in a double
slit experiment means nothing.

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by matter.

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 through a single slit and
the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

On Dec 14, 5:14Â*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 13, 8:20Â*am, mpc755 wrote:









On Dec 13, 10:53Â*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 13, 7:36Â*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 13, 10:18Â*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 13, 5:45Â*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 13, 2:27Â*am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:

Young's experiment was two pinholes;
more pinholes gives a more-complicated Moire' Â*pattern,
of constructive & destructive "interference of waves -- not
of massless, 0d rocks of light in Newton's untheory!"

it is true, that one can try to model the waves with lots & lots
of little "point-particle quanta," but I doubt that this is ever done
in practice. Â*teh waves work quite well with "atoms."

neither little rocks nor aether is required.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.

But it's still not the aether displacement form of gravity unless it's
the imperceptible photon mass itself that represents gravity.

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 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"

This is all good stuff to know about, except it needs some mainstream
support that you can’t seem to attract without the gauntlet of
considerable naysayism that most here in Usenet/newsgroups are good at
delivering.

Personally I can not connect the dots of how aether displacement is
gravity, so there has to be something more to help us understand how
this all-inclusive form of gravity works, especially in the subatomic
realm of atoms that are mostly empty.

When you place a bowling ball into a tank of water the water is
displaced by the bowling ball. When you take the bowling ball out of
the water the water fills-in where the bowling ball had been. This is
evidence the water was pushing back and exerting inward pressure
toward the bowling ball. One of the differences between water and the
aether is the aether is, or behaves similar to. a supersolid.

I understand aether displacement (even as a supersolid).

Aether displacement as the cause or force of gravity, not so much.


If you immerse a ball in a fluid, the fluid exerts pressure on the
surface of the ball. I think this is what he means ?

-y

congradulation, I think.

The analogy is a boat double slit experiment. In a boat double slit
experiment the boat travels through a single slit and the bow wave
passes through both.

thus:
why do most earthscientists believe in "global" warming, Geoffery
-- what is the God-am question!?

thus:
it is not unlike the problem for optical density
of clouds, but that doesn't negate the essential thing ...

NOT have a perfect surface for reflection
Light absorption/reflection varies with the "chop"

thus:
it may simply be an artifact of Newton's "theory" of light,
not of Young's experimental apparatus.

No one has ever modulated a signal at one end and
affected the other end.

thus:
there are technically no "fossilized" fuels; I mean,
just say, No, thank you, Geoffery -- I have no idea whatsoever
what the category of the question is; thank you.

On Dec 14, 3:11Â*pm, Y wrote:
On Dec 14, 5:14Â*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On Dec 13, 8:20Â*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 13, 10:53Â*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 13, 7:36Â*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 13, 10:18Â*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 13, 5:45Â*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 13, 2:27Â*am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:

Young's experiment was two pinholes;
more pinholes gives a more-complicated Moire' Â*pattern,
of constructive & destructive "interference of waves -- not
of massless, 0d rocks of light in Newton's untheory!"

it is true, that one can try to model the waves with lots & lots
of little "point-particle quanta," but I doubt that this is ever done
in practice. Â*teh waves work quite well with "atoms."

neither little rocks nor aether is required.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.

But it's still not the aether displacement form of gravity unless it's
the imperceptible photon mass itself that represents gravity.

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 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"

This is all good stuff to know about, except it needs some mainstream
support that you can’t seem to attract without the gauntlet of
considerable naysayism that most here in Usenet/newsgroups are good at
delivering.

Personally I can not connect the dots of how aether displacement is
gravity, so there has to be something more to help us understand how
this all-inclusive form of gravity works, especially in the subatomic
realm of atoms that are mostly empty.

When you place a bowling ball into a tank of water the water is
displaced by the bowling ball. When you take the bowling ball out of
the water the water fills-in where the bowling ball had been. This is
evidence the water was pushing back and exerting inward pressure
toward the bowling ball. One of the differences between water and the
aether is the aether is, or behaves similar to. a supersolid.

I understand aether displacement (even as a supersolid).

Aether displacement as the cause or force of gravity, not so much.

If you immerse a ball in a fluid, the fluid exerts pressure on the
surface of the ball. I think this is what he means ?

-y

Or, how about the ball of greater density is the one that's exerting
pressure against the superfluid aether.

On Dec 15, 12:27Â*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 14, 3:11Â*pm, Y wrote:









On Dec 14, 5:14Â*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 13, 8:20Â*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 13, 10:53Â*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 13, 7:36Â*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 13, 10:18Â*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 13, 5:45Â*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 13, 2:27Â*am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:

Young's experiment was two pinholes;
more pinholes gives a more-complicated Moire' Â*pattern,
of constructive & destructive "interference of waves -- not
of massless, 0d rocks of light in Newton's untheory!"

it is true, that one can try to model the waves with lots & lots
of little "point-particle quanta," but I doubt that this is ever done
in practice. Â*teh waves work quite well with "atoms."

neither little rocks nor aether is required.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.

But it's still not the aether displacement form of gravity unless it's
the imperceptible photon mass itself that represents gravity.

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 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"

This is all good stuff to know about, except it needs some mainstream
support that you can’t seem to attract without the gauntlet of
considerable naysayism that most here in Usenet/newsgroups are good at
delivering.

Personally I can not connect the dots of how aether displacement is
gravity, so there has to be something more to help us understand how
this all-inclusive form of gravity works, especially in the subatomic
realm of atoms that are mostly empty.

When you place a bowling ball into a tank of water the water is
displaced by the bowling ball. When you take the bowling ball out of
the water the water fills-in where the bowling ball had been. This is
evidence the water was pushing back and exerting inward pressure
toward the bowling ball. One of the differences between water and the
aether is the aether is, or behaves similar to. a supersolid.

I understand aether displacement (even as a supersolid).

Aether displacement as the cause or force of gravity, not so much.

If you immerse a ball in a fluid, the fluid exerts pressure on the
surface of the ball. I think this is what he means ?

-y

Or, how about the ball of greater density is the one that's exerting
pressure against the superfluid aether.

Or that too...

Doesn't explain the difference between Earth's gravity and moon's
gravity. One would expect a displaced Aether to exert the same
pressure on an object regardless of size.

-y

On Dec 14, 6:11Â*pm, Y wrote:
On Dec 14, 5:14Â*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On Dec 13, 8:20Â*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 13, 10:53Â*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 13, 7:36Â*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 13, 10:18Â*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 13, 5:45Â*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Dec 13, 2:27Â*am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:

Young's experiment was two pinholes;
more pinholes gives a more-complicated Moire' Â*pattern,
of constructive & destructive "interference of waves -- not
of massless, 0d rocks of light in Newton's untheory!"

it is true, that one can try to model the waves with lots & lots
of little "point-particle quanta," but I doubt that this is ever done
in practice. Â*teh waves work quite well with "atoms."

neither little rocks nor aether is required.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.

But it's still not the aether displacement form of gravity unless it's
the imperceptible photon mass itself that represents gravity.

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 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"

This is all good stuff to know about, except it needs some mainstream
support that you can’t seem to attract without the gauntlet of
considerable naysayism that most here in Usenet/newsgroups are good at
delivering.

Personally I can not connect the dots of how aether displacement is
gravity, so there has to be something more to help us understand how
this all-inclusive form of gravity works, especially in the subatomic
realm of atoms that are mostly empty.

When you place a bowling ball into a tank of water the water is
displaced by the bowling ball. When you take the bowling ball out of
the water the water fills-in where the bowling ball had been. This is
evidence the water was pushing back and exerting inward pressure
toward the bowling ball. One of the differences between water and the
aether is the aether is, or behaves similar to. a supersolid.

I understand aether displacement (even as a supersolid).

Aether displacement as the cause or force of gravity, not so much.

If you immerse a ball in a fluid, the fluid exerts pressure on the
surface of the ball. I think this is what he means ?

-y

Aether is displaced by particles of matter. Aether exists everywhere
particles of matter do not, including the spaces within matter.

Aether displaced by matter pushes back and exerts inward pressure
toward and throughout an object.