Aether has mass

"Brad Guth" wrote:
-- Cavedon mpc755 wrote:
--- Painius wrote:
snip gargantuan load of Aetherical crap

hanson wrote:
So Brad, have you sensed, estimated or calculated
any numerical value for the "Cavedon-Aether mass"
after he posted the equation of "A = mc^2"?

Did Cavy's "A = mc^2"which now rivals Einstein's
stolen "E= mc^2" and begets "A = E", help you in
any way to come up with a size determination for A?





is

which
will "displace the former one, doesn't it or does it

On Nov 16, 11:32*am, mpc755 wrote:
On Nov 16, 2:26*pm, Brad Guth wrote:











There is no evidence of a 'before' the Universal jet we exist in.
That's not to say there wasn't a before the Universal jet, just that
there is no evidence of it.

There is no evidence of a jet opposite the Universal jet we exist in.
That's not to say there isn't an opposite jet, just that there is no
evidence of it.

There is no evidence of other Universal jets. That's not to say there
aren't other Universal jets, just that there is no evidence of them.

And I stay away from saying the aether flows. I say the aether is
emitted into the Universal jet. There is no evidence aether is capable
of flowing, just that there is no evidence of it.

And yet you insist that everything is created and/or as having been
formed by aether (including gravity).

Aether is DISPLACED by particles of matter. Displaced aether pushes
back and exerts inward pressure toward matter.

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

Einstein defined motion in terms of the aether as the aether does not
consist of individual particles which can be tracked through time. I
interpret this to mean it is unlikely we will be able to detect a
physical flow to the aether.

Displacement is different than flow.

In other words, aether is everything imaginable and entirely replaces
old and modern physics as we know it, because molecular gravity
doesn't exist (replaced by only the push or compression force of
aether). Are you absolutely certain of this?

On Nov 16, 5:37*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 16, 11:32*am, mpc755 wrote:









On Nov 16, 2:26*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

There is no evidence of a 'before' the Universal jet we exist in.
That's not to say there wasn't a before the Universal jet, just that
there is no evidence of it.

There is no evidence of a jet opposite the Universal jet we exist in.

On Nov 16, 2:18*pm, mpc755 wrote:
On Nov 16, 5:10*pm, Painius wrote:









On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:03:34 -0800 (PST), mpc755
wrote:

On Nov 16, 1:01 pm, HVAC wrote:
On 11/16/2012 12:39 PM, mpc755 wrote:

If you ever want to stop being so ignorant and understand why there is
a Universal spin about a preferred axis then understand the following.

The Universe is a larger version of a black hole polar jet. There is
directionality to the movement of the matter in the Universe which not
only can't be explained by the big bang, it refutes the big bang.
There is directionality to the motion of the matter in the Universe
because the Universe is a larger version of a black hole polar jet..

Ether is gay.

'Was the universe born spinning?'
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688

"The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a
preferred axis"

The Universe is a larger version of a black hole polar jet. There is
directionality to the movement of the matter in the Universe which not
only can't be explained by the big bang, it refutes the big bang.
There is directionality to the motion of the matter in the Universe
because the Universe is a larger version of a black hole polar jet.

The odd thing about that study is that it was done from one
perspective, that of our planet. *If done from another perspective,
one would get a different answer, because the galaxies that spin one
way from here might spin the opposite way from a different
perspective.

If you have trouble understanding this, just ask yourself which way
the planets revolve around the Sun. *If your point of view is from
high above Earth's North pole, then the planets go CCW, but if your
point of view is from high above the South pole, then the planets
revolve CW.

So it is impossible to get a universal meaning for left-handedness and
right-handedness from just one perspective when it comes to galaxy
rotations.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Let science limit your knowledge, but not your imagination."

http://www.universetoday.com/wp-cont.../h_jet_schemat...

Did you happen to notice there were two jets depicted? (one for our
universe and the other for accommodating that other universe)

What's your best guess or swag as to the original mother BH mass?

On Nov 16, 2:44*pm, mpc755 wrote:
On Nov 16, 5:37*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On Nov 16, 11:32*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Nov 16, 2:26*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

There is no evidence of a 'before' the Universal jet we exist in.
That's not to say there wasn't a before the Universal jet, just that
there is no evidence of it.

There is no evidence of a jet opposite the Universal jet we exist in.
That's not to say there isn't an opposite jet, just that there is no
evidence of it.

There is no evidence of other Universal jets. That's not to say there
aren't other Universal jets, just that there is no evidence of them.

And I stay away from saying the aether flows. I say the aether is
emitted into the Universal jet. There is no evidence aether is capable
of flowing, just that there is no evidence of it.

And yet you insist that everything is created and/or as having been
formed by aether (including gravity).

Aether is DISPLACED by particles of matter. Displaced aether pushes
back and exerts inward pressure toward matter.

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

Einstein defined motion in terms of the aether as the aether does not
consist of individual particles which can be tracked through time. I
interpret this to mean it is unlikely we will be able to detect a
physical flow to the aether.

Displacement is different than flow.

In other words, aether is everything imaginable and entirely replaces
old and modern physics as we know it, because molecular gravity
doesn't exist (replaced by only the push or compression force of
aether). *Are you absolutely certain of this?

Aether displacement does not replace existing physics. It explains
existing physics.

What Einstein referred to as curved spacetime is the state of
displacement of the aether.

What de Broglie referred to as the pilot-wave is the associated wave
in the aether.

At least thus far it's only creating more questions than answers,
although some of your interpretations do seem to fill the void of what
our universe is filled or displaced with, besides known molecular
stuff and rogue/nomad unbound particles of mass (aka electrons,
positrons and possibly the nonzero mass of photons).

On Nov 16, 5:52*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 16, 2:18*pm, mpc755 wrote:









On Nov 16, 5:10*pm, Painius wrote:

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:03:34 -0800 (PST), mpc755
wrote:

On Nov 16, 1:01 pm, HVAC wrote:
On 11/16/2012 12:39 PM, mpc755 wrote:

If you ever want to stop being so ignorant and understand why there is
a Universal spin about a preferred axis then understand the following.

The Universe is a larger version of a black hole polar jet. There is
directionality to the movement of the matter in the Universe which not
only can't be explained by the big bang, it refutes the big bang..
There is directionality to the motion of the matter in the Universe
because the Universe is a larger version of a black hole polar jet.

Ether is gay.

'Was the universe born spinning?'
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688

"The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a
preferred axis"

The Universe is a larger version of a black hole polar jet. There is
directionality to the movement of the matter in the Universe which not
only can't be explained by the big bang, it refutes the big bang.
There is directionality to the motion of the matter in the Universe
because the Universe is a larger version of a black hole polar jet.

The odd thing about that study is that it was done from one
perspective, that of our planet. *If done from another perspective,
one would get a different answer, because the galaxies that spin one
way from here might spin the opposite way from a different
perspective.

If you have trouble understanding this, just ask yourself which way
the planets revolve around the Sun. *If your point of view is from
high above Earth's North pole, then the planets go CCW, but if your
point of view is from high above the South pole, then the planets
revolve CW.

So it is impossible to get a universal meaning for left-handedness and
right-handedness from just one perspective when it comes to galaxy
rotations.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Let science limit your knowledge, but not your imagination."

http://www.universetoday.com/wp-cont.../h_jet_schemat...

Did you happen to notice there were two jets depicted? (one for our
universe and the other for accommodating that other universe)


How did I know you were going to post that?

What's your best guess or swag as to the original mother BH mass?

There is no evidence of a 'before' the Universal jet.

On Nov 16, 5:59*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 16, 2:44*pm, mpc755 wrote:









On Nov 16, 5:37*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Nov 16, 11:32*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Nov 16, 2:26*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

There is no evidence of a 'before' the Universal jet we exist in.

On Nov 16, 2:59*pm, mpc755 wrote:
On Nov 16, 5:52*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

Did you happen to notice there were two jets depicted? (one for our
universe and the other for accommodating that other universe)

How did I know you were going to post that?

What's your best guess or swag as to the original mother BH mass?

There is no evidence of a 'before' the Universal jet.

So you get to pretend that all this aether via the magic universal jet
from the nonexistent mother black hole simply materialized from
nothingness.

Are you going all churchy or faith-based mystic on us?

I hope you're not going to start telling us that this universal jet of
aether is only 4000 years old.

On Nov 16, 6:09*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 16, 2:59*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Nov 16, 5:52*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

Did you happen to notice there were two jets depicted? (one for our
universe and the other for accommodating that other universe)

How did I know you were going to post that?

What's your best guess or swag as to the original mother BH mass?

There is no evidence of a 'before' the Universal jet.

So you get to pretend that all this aether via the magic universal jet
from the nonexistent mother black hole simply materialized from
nothingness.

Are you going all churchy or faith-based mystic on us?

I hope you're not going to start telling us that this universal jet of
aether is only 4000 years old.

There is no evidence of a 'before' the Universal jet. If there is no
evidence of a 'before' the Universal jet then there is no evidence to
suggest what was 'before' the Universal jet, or if there was a
'before' the Universal jet.

On Nov 16, 3:00*pm, mpc755 wrote:
On Nov 16, 5:59*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On Nov 16, 2:44*pm, mpc755 wrote:

On Nov 16, 5:37*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Nov 16, 11:32*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Nov 16, 2:26*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

There is no evidence of a 'before' the Universal jet we exist in.
That's not to say there wasn't a before the Universal jet, just that
there is no evidence of it.

There is no evidence of a jet opposite the Universal jet we exist in.
That's not to say there isn't an opposite jet, just that there is no
evidence of it.

There is no evidence of other Universal jets. That's not to say there
aren't other Universal jets, just that there is no evidence of them.

And I stay away from saying the aether flows. I say the aether is
emitted into the Universal jet. There is no evidence aether is capable
of flowing, just that there is no evidence of it.

And yet you insist that everything is created and/or as having been
formed by aether (including gravity).

Aether is DISPLACED by particles of matter. Displaced aether pushes
back and exerts inward pressure toward matter.

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

Einstein defined motion in terms of the aether as the aether does not
consist of individual particles which can be tracked through time.. I
interpret this to mean it is unlikely we will be able to detect a
physical flow to the aether.

Displacement is different than flow.

In other words, aether is everything imaginable and entirely replaces
old and modern physics as we know it, because molecular gravity
doesn't exist (replaced by only the push or compression force of
aether). *Are you absolutely certain of this?

Aether displacement does not replace existing physics. It explains
existing physics.

What Einstein referred to as curved spacetime is the state of
displacement of the aether.

What de Broglie referred to as the pilot-wave is the associated wave
in the aether.

At least thus far it's only creating more questions than answers,
although some of your interpretations do seem to fill the void of what
our universe is filled or displaced with, besides known molecular
stuff and rogue/nomad unbound particles of mass (aka electrons,
positrons and possibly the nonzero mass of photons).

It's explaining what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity.
It's explaining what occurs physically in nature in a double slit
experiment.

Then physics understood what occurs physically in nature for such
simple stuff as gravity and what occurs physically in nature in a
double slit experiment and could move on.

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 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.

Sadly it(aether) is not explaining gravity, although it is giving us
food for thought on whatever gravity might otherwise involve or
interact with besides molecular mass or them pesky stray/nomad
particles of atomic mass.

There is no 3D particle associated with any photon or aether wave, and
what we perceive as a photon particle is at best a 2D quantum
entangled something or another that vanishes as soon as it gets
detected, and at best it still can't be confirmed has having traveled
anywhere (other than at most within a given wavelength).

Aether has a ways to go before it can be mainstream classified as
something objectively proven to exist. In the meantime, you've got a
lot of followup research to either accomplish or at least do a better
analogy job at telling us what aether is or isn't without using so
much parrot speak.

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth
Venus”,GuthVenus

“GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...18595926178146