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: mpc755 on 16 Dec 2009 12:05 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'. Take for example the Sun. Let's say the Sun does not exist for a second and there is aether where the Sun 'should be'. Now we put the Sun back into its location in three dimensional space. The matter which is the Sun is displacing the aether which would otherwise exist where the Sun is. There is aether between the nuclei of the atoms which is the matter which is the Sun, but the aether which would exist where the nuclei has been displaced and this aether displaces the neighboring aether, which displaces the neighboring aether, and so on. Eventually the aether is displaced which exists outside of the matter which is the Sun. This is the 'most displaced' aether. This 'most displaced' aether displaces the neighboring aether, which is slightly less displaced, which displaces the neighboring aether, which is slightly less displaced, and so on... What you refer to as the 'density' of the uncompressed matter (aether), is better described as the pressure exerted back towards the matter which is displacing the aether. The more displaced the aether is from its 'rest position' the more pressure it exerts back towards its 'rest position'. There is no need to add the property of 'density' to the state of the displaced uncompressed matter (aether).
From: mpc755 on 16 Dec 2009 12:18 On Dec 16, 11:50 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 15, 10:08 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 15, 11:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 16, 12:03 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 15, 10:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 15, 10:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 10:29 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 9:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 13, 8:21 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wave-Particle Duality is explained. The moving particle creates a displacement wave in the substance of space. > > > > > > > > > > > >< So - why do interference patterns disappear after you ask "which way"?? > > > > > > > > > > > What happened to the displacement wave ? Where did it go? > > > > > > > > > > Asking "which way" seems to destroy the interference pattern, and > > > > > > > > > > therefore the waves. Why would that happen? > > > > > > > > > > I have an explanation, but I don't think that you read it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please post it; and do so under a new posting. (This one is getting > > > > > > > > > > so long that it's a nuisance to wait for the "newer" bunches of 25 > > > > > > > > > > each to get to the one(s) worth reading.) > > > > > > > > > > "AetherDisplacement Rebuttal" > > > > > > > > > > mpc755 tried to explain WP Duality in terms ofaetherwaves, but > > > > > > > > > cannot explain what happens to the wave when we ask "which way" and > > > > > > > > > interference patterns diasppear. Where did the wave go ? > > > > > > > > > > The answer to this problem is that space is neither continuous nor > > > > > > > > > discrete, but indeterminately either one or the other. It is > > > > > > > > > indeterminate whether it is continuous or discrete. > > > > > > > > > > How can that be ? Consider 2 lengths A and B. A is existent, B is > > > > > > > > > nonexistent. > > > > > > > > > Let A be eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee > > > > > > > > > Let B be nnnnnnnnnn > > > > > > > > > > If you compose them into a single length, there is no way to know > > > > > > > > > where the nnnnnnnnnn is located. It's position is indeterminate. You > > > > > > > > > can rearrange things so that the composition of A and B is either > > > > > > > > > continuous or discrete, and because nnnnnnnnnn is nonexistent the > > > > > > > > > distinction between continuity and discreteness becomes trivial. > > > > > > > > > > We must assume that particles are composed of bent space - just like > > > > > > > > > gravity in GR. Then, it becomes very obvious why the WP Duality is > > > > > > > > > perfectly sensible. > > > > > > > > > > If one asks "which way" in a given context, then nature returns an > > > > > > > > > answer in the format that you had requested - it is discretized. If > > > > > > > > > you dont ask which way, then space will be forced to behave as if > > > > > > > > > continuous and you will observe interference patterns. > > > > > > > > > > But the only way to make LENGTH behave that way is by composing the > > > > > > > > > existent with the nonexistent. Length cannot be made to behave that > > > > > > > > > way by any other means (that I am aware of). > > > > > > > > > Someone might want to discuss AD on this thread, might as well be me. > > > > > > > > >Aetheris an elastic medium and does not rest when displaced. It > > > > > > > > pushes back. When matter displaces theaether, the pressure theaether > > > > > > > > exerts back towards the matter is gravity. > > > > > > > > > When a C-60 molecule is used in a double slit experiment, the > > > > > > > > displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates in theaetherenters and > > > > > > > > exits multiple slits while the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single > > > > > > > > slit. > > > > > > > > > The moving particle creates a displacement wave in the substance of > > > > > > > > space directly in front of the path it is traveling. The particle > > > > > > > > cannot be detected without detecting the displacement wave. Detecting > > > > > > > > 'which way' means detecting the particle. Detecting the particle means > > > > > > > > detecting the displacement wave. > > > > > > > > > Detecting 'which way' turns the displacement wave into chop.. > > > > > > > > > Detecting 'which way' destroys the displacement wave. > > > > > > > > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > > > > > > > > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > > > > > > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > > > > > > > > diminishes by L/c2." > > > > > > > > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > > > > > > > > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > > > > > > > >aether. As the matter transitions toaetherit expands. The effect > > > > > > > > this expansion has on the surroundingaether > > > > > > > > and matter is energy.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > OK - I will play. Please explain what this means: > > > > > > > > > Detecting 'which way' turns the displacement wave into chop.. > > > > > > > > What is a chop ? > > > > > > >http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:gVcSko056rYJ:www.lanelinestoshore... > > > > > > > "To facilitate our discussion, let's differentiate between two common > > > > > > types of rough water: Waves and chop. > > > > > > Waves travel in one direction - head-on, from your back, or from one- > > > > > > side. You either swim up and over them or > > > > > > you swim through them. Chop is many small waves coming from no > > > > > > discernible direction. (Look in your washing machine the next time > > > > > > it's on wash cycle)" > > > > > > Chop will knock a boat around, but since chop waves are random, won't > > > > > knock it off course like a wave can. With chop, the boat is as likely > > > > > to get knocked to the right as it does to the left. > > > > > > If you place detectors at the exits to the slits in a double slit > > > > > experiment performed with a C-60 molecule, when the displacement wave > > > > > exits both slits it is turned into chop. When the C-60 molecule exits > > > > > a slit, it will get knocked around by the chop, but it will not be > > > > > thrown off course as if there were no detectors at the exits to the > > > > > slits. If there are no detectors at the exits to the slits the > > > > > displacement wave exits the slits and creates interference. The waves > > > > > associated with the interference are able to alter the direction the > > > > > boat is traveling. Since the waves will cancel each other out > > > > > depending upon how they interact (the peak of one wave and the trough > > > > > of another), there will be places where the boat will not be 'pushed' > > > > > ashore. Same thing for a C-60 molecule. There will be places on the > > > > > screen where the C-60 molecule will not be detected because the > > > > > interference created by the displacement waves is unable to move the > > > > > C-60 molecule to these locations. That is why executing a particle is > > > > > able to create an interference pattern in a double slit experiment > > > > > when particle after particle is allowed to interact with its > > > > > displacement wave. And that is why detecting 'which way' allows the > > > > > particle to continue on in its path.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > A chop ? You're serious ? > > > > Yes. Did you understand what the definition of chop is? It is a bunch > > > of small random waves. That is what happens to the displacement wave > > > when you detect the particle. Think of a wave that is going to go > > > under a pier. The pillars under the pier are going to destroy the > > > wave. The pillars turn the wave into chop. > > > > That is what happens to the displacement wave the moving particle > > > creates in the substance of space when you detect the particle.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Well, I think you could also call that noise. But I think that the > > interaction between a wave and a stationary barrier is pretty well > > understood. Waves do not typically disintegrate into uniform noise > > after encountering a barrier, it would have to be a pretty specially > > constructed obstacle to get that effect dont ya thiink ? > > But there are no 'stationary' barriers. All are made up of atomic > 'particles' each in turn is moving, vibrating, and thus, their fields > do likewise. These fields in turn extend into the spaces surrounding > the 'barrier' and will in turn interact with any EM based phenomena > coming under their influence. > > > It's not a bad idea, I'll give you credit for that. But I just dont > > think that the wave mechanics would support it. Just guessing. > > Ask yourself what would happen if you lined a wall slit with allot of > speakers and created a resonance within the slit. Then fired a, in > turn, > vibrating very light weight ball thru the slit. Will its path be > affected??? > > This IS! like what you have with the slits of ordinary material > objects... It's path will be effected, but the effect will be random and it will still behave as a particle exiting a single slit. A particle on a random trajectory through a single slit without speakers and a particle on a random trajectory through a single slit with speaker is still going to wind up in the same general location on the screen where it is detected. Yes, this IS! like what you have with the slit of ordinary material. But, if a displacement wave is traveling through both slits in a double slit experiment, the displacement wave and the 'noise' will interact, but after the interaction ends (the displacement wave exits the slits), you still have a cohesive displacement wave in the substance of space. The displacement waves are still able to interact and create interference and alter the direction the particle travels. The 'noise' does not destroy the displacement wave. The 'noise' are waves and the displacement waves are waves and the waves interact and then continue on. This is different than the detection of 'which way'. The detection of 'which way' is a physical detection. The particle is being physically detected which means there is a physical (non-wave) interaction with the displacement wave which turns the displacement wave into chop.
From: mpc755 on 16 Dec 2009 12:31 On Dec 16, 12:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > But there are no 'stationary' barriers. All are made up of atomic > > 'particles' each in turn is moving, vibrating, and thus, their fields > > do likewise. These fields in turn extend into the spaces surrounding > > the 'barrier' and will in turn interact with any EM based phenomena > > coming under their influence. > > > > It's not a bad idea, I'll give you credit for that. But I just dont > > > think that the wave mechanics would support it. Just guessing. > > > Ask yourself what would happen if you lined a wall slit with allot of > > speakers and created a resonance within the slit. Then fired a, in > > turn, > > vibrating very light weight ball thru the slit. Will its path be > > affected??? > > > This IS! like what you have with the slits of ordinary material > > objects... > > It's path will be effected, but the effect will be random and it will > still behave as a particle exiting a single slit. A particle on a > random trajectory through a single slit without speakers and a > particle on a random trajectory through a single slit with speaker is > still going to wind up in the same general location on the screen > where it is detected. > > Yes, this IS! like what you have with the slit of ordinary material. > > But, if a displacement wave is traveling through both slits in a > double slit experiment, the displacement wave and the 'noise' will > interact, but after the interaction ends (the displacement wave exits > the slits), you still have a cohesive displacement wave in the > substance of space. The displacement waves are still able to interact > and create interference and alter the direction the particle travels. > The 'noise' does not destroy the displacement wave. The 'noise' are > waves and the displacement waves are waves and the waves interact and > then continue on. > > This is different than the detection of 'which way'. The detection of > 'which way' is a physical detection. The particle is being physically > detected which means there is a physical (non-wave) interaction with > the displacement wave which turns the displacement wave into chop. Even if waves are used to detect 'which way' the detection of the particle is going to destroy the cohesion of the particles interaction with its displacement wave. That's why the 'more' the particle is detected, the less of an interference pattern is created because the 'more' the particle is detected, the more the interaction and cohesion between the particle and its displacement wave is destroyed.
From: mpc755 on 16 Dec 2009 13:32 On Dec 16, 12:05 pm, 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'. > > Take for example the Sun. Let's say the Sun does not exist for a > second and there is aether where the Sun 'should be'. Now we put the > Sun back into its location in three dimensional space. The matter > which is the Sun is displacing the aether which would otherwise exist > where the Sun is. There is aether between the nuclei of the atoms > which is the matter which is the Sun, but the aether which would exist > where the nuclei has been displaced and this aether displaces the > neighboring aether, which displaces the neighboring aether, and so on. > > Eventually the aether is displaced which exists outside of the matter > which is the Sun. This is the 'most displaced' aether. This 'most > displaced' aether displaces the neighboring aether, which is slightly > less displaced, which displaces the neighboring aether, which is > slightly less displaced, and so on... > > What you refer to as the 'density' of the uncompressed matter > (aether), is better described as the pressure exerted back towards the > matter which is displacing the aether. The more displaced the aether > is from its 'rest position' the more pressure it exerts back towards > its 'rest position'. > > There is no need to add the property of 'density' to the state of the > displaced uncompressed matter (aether). Should have ended with: At this time, there is no need to add the property of 'density' to the state of the displaced uncompressed matter (aether).
From: BURT on 16 Dec 2009 16:15
On Dec 16, 10:32 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 16, 12:05 pm, 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'. > > > Take for example the Sun. Let's say the Sun does not exist for a > > second and there is aether where the Sun 'should be'. Now we put the > > Sun back into its location in three dimensional space. The matter > > which is the Sun is displacing the aether which would otherwise exist > > where the Sun is. There is aether between the nuclei of the atoms > > which is the matter which is the Sun, but the aether which would exist > > where the nuclei has been displaced and this aether displaces the > > neighboring aether, which displaces the neighboring aether, and so on. > > > Eventually the aether is displaced which exists outside of the matter > > which is the Sun. This is the 'most displaced' aether. This 'most > > displaced' aether displaces the neighboring aether, which is slightly > > less displaced, which displaces the neighboring aether, which is > > slightly less displaced, and so on... > > > What you refer to as the 'density' of the uncompressed matter > > (aether), is better described as the pressure exerted back towards the > > matter which is displacing the aether. The more displaced the aether > > is from its 'rest position' the more pressure it exerts back towards > > its 'rest position'. > > > There is no need to add the property of 'density' to the state of the > > displaced uncompressed matter (aether). > > Should have ended with: > > At this time, there is no need to add the property of 'density' to the > state of the displaced uncompressed matter (aether).- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There is finite density energy in bond. It is Strong and Electric and applies to light. Mitch Raemsch |