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: glird on 24 Dec 2009 18:18 On Dec 23, 1:16 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote a rather long message. Please excuse me, Paul, for waiting until tomorrow to answer it. Too weary, now. Merry Christmas to all, on this or any other newsgroup or even on none. glird
From: Autymn D. C. on 25 Dec 2009 03:53 On Dec 23, 5:33 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 7:01 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > The force is found by Coulomb's law. Uh huh, and...?
From: Autymn D. C. on 25 Dec 2009 04:00 data are
From: Autymn D. C. on 25 Dec 2009 05:07 On Dec 23, 10:16 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > that there is a HUGE difference between mathematically correct > > equations and our interpretation of what the equations are saying > > about the things their symbols represent. > > On that I will agree... But for physics mathematically correct > equations must also resolve to the proper dimensional units and should > not contain fudge factors (like the Magnetic Moment Anomally). If > there exists a discrepency between measuremnent and theory (as was the > case there) and the measurements is proven to be correct, then nature > is telling you something. What! that is, is the interpretation > part... I thenk the Lamb shift is a outspring of entropy, as each level is equiparted in three dimensions by a series of two-dimensional orbitals; sometimes there are fewer polarizations which show up as a wider arm in one axis. > > Btw, Paul, thank you for your attitude and your patience with me. > > If only everyone could behave and show even a monocum of proper social modicum > Back to your statement F = ma, for example, m = {rho}V but can also be > resolved as [(dm/dt)/v]A where v is a velocity and A a cross-sectional > area. Thus a force can be generated if there exists a dv/dx. As for eh? -Aut
From: mpc755 on 25 Dec 2009 08:40
On Dec 25, 3:53 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Dec 23, 5:33 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 23, 7:01 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > The force is found by Coulomb's law. > > Uh huh, and...? And you are not finding the density, you are finding the aether pressure. |