Aether Displacement Rebuttal
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: CERN is your potential killer. I’ll send my last 100 baxes to that CERN worker, who will destroy the LHC.
Next: Confirm or deny
From: Inertial on 23 Dec 2009 06:53 "Autymn D. C." <lysdexia(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:b38be9ac-a9dc-4374-9c12-6c1099b6b4d3(a)g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 23, 3:34 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in >> messagenews:92c4b5cb-6f3f-4aaa-84ef-3d9437864186(a)x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Dec 14, 9:08 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> That is why such a length is not mathematics, and it is not nonsense. >> >> It is on the boundary inbetween these things. It is conjectural. >> >> >> You have >> >> Truth, Conjecture, and Nonsense. >> >> >> Truth corresponds to mathematics >> >> Conjecture corresponds to the existentially indeterminate >> >> Nonsense corresponds to things which are strictly nonexistent. >> >> > There is no truth. There is trust and troth, that which is trowed. >> > And there are truthe and sooth. Mathematics don't deal with truthe; >> > theory does. Canonics deal with sooth. A "truth table" is a misnomer >> > by dolts who can't English. >> >> Like you. Your archaic spelling, and atrocious grammar, are no longer >> valid >> in modern English. You make think you are being 'clever', but really >> you're >> appearing silly. > > My grammar is starksful? Your grammar, speech, and spell are awful > and you don't know anything about English. You're a smartarse showoff who is not impressing anyone. Get a life.
From: Autymn D. C. on 23 Dec 2009 07:01 On Dec 16, 9:05 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 16, 11:46 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > On Dec 16, 9:10 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >< Since we are talking about the substance of space, > > > > please answer my question: Do you consider "the substance of space" > > compressible or incompressible? If the former, do you think it is > > TOTALLY uncompressed when in space, as compared to when it's in > > "matter"? > > > glird > > Yes, I think matter is TOTALLY uncompressed when it is uncompressed. > > But that is not the main issue here. It may be the main issue for you, > but I think it loses the bigger picture. > > Properties should not be added to matter, or uncompressed matter > (aether), unless absolutely necessary and I do not see a requirement > for there to be the property of 'density' applied to uncompressed > matter (aether). > > I think all that is needed is the property of the aether to not be at > rest when displaced and the more displaced the aether is from its > state of rest the more pressure it exerts back towards its 'place of > rest'. There is no substanse in roomhead; stuff is in a field when in roomhead. The field and body are coincident, so the field (or æther) is dependent on a elèctròn or other mote; its density is found by Coulomb's law.
From: Autymn D. C. on 23 Dec 2009 07:23 On Dec 23, 3:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > You're a smartarse showoff who is not impressing anyone. Get a life. You can't prove anything. Get another life?
From: mpc755 on 23 Dec 2009 12:23 On Dec 23, 12:12 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 11:53 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 13, 11:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Dec 23 mpc wrote: > > > >< I have tried to avoid it up to now, but since the faster an object > > > moves with respect to the aether, the more aether pressure there is > > exerted on the object, it looks like the contraction is physical. > > > > Why avoid that true statement? > > I was hoping Lorentz was incorrect. Just like time is a concept and > doesn't 'change' because a clock 'ticks' slower, I was thinking > Lorentz might have made the same mistake with length contraction. What > I do think Lorentz is incorrect about is the relativity of length > contraction. Length contraction is due to the objects speed relative > to the aether, not another object. > > There is the 'famous' carriage in a garage scenario. The carriage is > physically being contracted because it is moving with respect to the > aether and the faster the carriage moves with respect to the aether > the more aether it displaces the more aether there is pushing back > against the carriage. When the carriage enters the garage, it will > physically fit, but as it slows down it displaces less and less aether > and there is continually less aether pressure against the carriage and > the carriage physically expands. > > It doesn't matter if there are Observers watching this occur or not. > And if the garage is at rest with respect to the aether, it doesn't matter what the Observer on the carriage sees or doesn't see, the garage does not physically length contract. > > > > >< The density of the aether itself has not changed. The density of > > the > > stuff occupying three dimensional space where the stuff consists of > > H2O molecules and aether is denser.> > > > Although the second sentence is correct, we disagree on the first > > one. Let's discuss it. > > You say that the aether presses back when displaced. If it remains > > uncondensed, so it density remains constant thus need not be > > considered, then how can even an atom's worth of its volume be > > displaced without displacing ALL the aether in the rest of the > > universe? > > If you think it DOES, but by such trifling amounts per unit distance > > thus per expanding volume, then how do you explain what happens when > > there are 10^16 atoms per c.c. even in a vacuum? > > If I throw a bowling ball into the ocean isn't all of the water in the > ocean displaced? > > If 'density' should be applied to the aether, then so be it. I have > seen no compelling reason for it. > > The main properties associated with the aether are due to its > connections with matter, and the main properties associated with the > connections with matter are the properties of displacement and > entrainment. > > The main property associated with displaced aether is that it is not > at rest. > > When you put a bowling ball into a tank of water, do you discuss the > density of the water or the pressure of the water against the bowling > ball? > > Just like we have moved passed 'aether' vs. 'matter', or at least > tabled it for now, I would prefer to do the same with the 'density' of > aether. > > This is what I want to focus on: > > Light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether. > > An atomic clock 'ticks' with respect to the aether pressure. > > The aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive > objects is gravity. > > When a double slit experiment is performed with a C-60 molecule the > C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the displacement > wave the C-60 molecule creates in the aether travels through multiple > slits. > > Einstein's train gedanken performed with any medium at rest with > respect to the embankment and the light traveling through the medium > travels from A and B to M'. Light travels with respect to the medium. > > Einstein's train gadenken performed with aether at rest with respect > to the embankment and the light traveling through the aether travels > from A and B to M'. Light travels with respect to the aether. > > In the image on the right here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experi... > > There are physical waves in the aether traveling both the blue and red > paths, while a photon 'particle' travels the blue or red path. Where > the blue and red paths are combined in the image, the physical waves > in the aether create interference which alters the direction the > photon 'particle' travels. > > Once there is general acceptance of the above, we can move on. > > > More later. {My wife is impatiently waiting for me to take her > > shopping.} > > > glird > >
From: mpc755 on 23 Dec 2009 08:22
On Dec 22, 5:23 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 17, 1:35 pm, mpc755 wrote:> On Dec 17, 1:16 pm, glird wrote: > > > On Dec 16, 12:05 pm, mpc755 wrote: > ><< On Dec 16, 11:46 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > glird: ><<<< Do you consider "the substance of space" compressible or > incompressible? If the former, do you think it is TOTALLY > uncompressed when in space, as compared to when it's in "matter"? > > mpc: ><<< Yes, I think matter is TOTALLY uncompressed when it is > uncompressed. > > ...> << I asked TWO questions and you answered the second directly but the first only implicitly.> > > mpc: ><Properties should not be added to matter, or uncompressed > matter (aether), unless absolutely necessary and I do not see a > requirement for there to be the property of 'density' applied to > uncompressed matter (aether). > > ... > glird: Evidently you believe that the property of 'density' does not > apply to uncompressed matter (aether) ... > How can the aether be compressible if its density is unchanged? > > > mpc: Because matter has two states. It has its uncompressed state > (aether) and its compressed state. When we discuss the states of > water, we > discuss solid, liquid, and gas. We do not discuss the 'density' of the > water between it being a solid or a liquid. Water is one or the other. > > > > The reason that ice floats in water is because the density of ice is > less than that of water. > Yes. The alignment of the H2O molecules in the aether allow there to be more aether per volume in ice than there is in water, causing the ice to be less dense than the water. > > > WHY is the speed em waves travel in the aether slower when a few atoms are inserted into a space filled with aether? > > > ... This seems similar to asking why does >light travel slower through water than it >does through a vacuum. > > Because the DENSITY of water is much more than that of a vacuum full > of "uncompressed matter" that you call "aether". > > glird |