From: mpc755 on
On Dec 7, 9:46 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 3:50 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >  In what follows, I will place numbers like this {#} to indicate
> > things I will comment on.
>
> > On Dec 6, 3:38 pm, Huang wrote:> On Dec 6, 2:14 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > ... ... ... ...
> > Huang:  Choosing to believe a moving C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected
> > atoms,
> > enters, travels through, and exits multiple slits simultaneously {1}
> > without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in
> > momentum, is a more correct physical description of the observed
> > behaviors of C-60 molecules in a double slit experiment vs. the moving
> > C-60 molecule creates a displacement wave in the aether is incorrect.
> > {2} C60 is neither wave nor particle. {3} It is indeterminate whether
> > it is one or the other. {4} If you ASK "which way" then nature will
> > tell you, simply because you modified the very nature of the
> > experiment by asking such a question in the first place. It behaves
> > like a particle {3} because that is the FORMAT of the output required
> > by the question "which way?"  If you do NOT ask which way, then it
> > behaves like a wave.  The experiments and the evidence has been
> > repeated thousands of times in labs all over the world. C60 is not a
> > wave, and is not a particle.  It is indeterminately either one or the
> > other. {5} And if you ask a certain way, you will get a corresponding
> > output.
> >   The only way to model this sensibly is by using a composition of
> > existent magnitudes and nonexistent magnitudes. THAT makes sense where
> > nothing else can. {6}>
>
> > 1.  How can one molecule be in two different places at the same
> > instant?
>
> Very easily.
> Consider existent length and represent it as :
> eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
> Consider nonexistent length and represent it as :
> nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
>
> If you compose some eeeeeeeee with some nnnnnnnnnn you get something
> like this:
>
> [1]  eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee nnn
>
> or possibly
>
> [2]  nnn eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
>
> or possibly
>
> [3]  eeeeeeee nnn eeeeeeeeee
>
> Recalling that nnn is nonexistent, we can see very clearly that [1]
> [2] and [3] are all equal in the eyes of mathematics, and the position
> of the nnn is stricticly, perfectly and precisely "Indeterminate".
>
> So, if particles are composed of such little chunks of deformed
> dimension, they can have this property that they may "appear" to be in
> two places at once. In reality, the position of the particle is
> indeterminate for the very reasons that I explained. These "particles"
> that you speak of are nothing more then deformations of space,
> composed of nothing more than length and time.
>
> > 2.  If (as Einstein did) we substitute "empty space" for "aether",
> > would you still deny that a moving particle creates a wave system?
> > 3. Define "particle"!!
> > 4. Until you define "particle" that is a meaningless sentence.
> > 5. The word "indeterminately" is superfluous and may be misleading.
>
> Indeterminacy is not superfluous, merely misunderstood. You've been
> lied to. Your university sold you a clunker, it runs but gets lousy
> mileage.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Huang: ...  Consider two magnitudes a and b, a exists and has
> > magnitude 10, b does not exist and has magnitude 1. {1} Now compose
> > these magnitudes. You will notice a couple of things right away:
> >  [1] It is indeterminate {"indeterminate" is entirely different from
> > "not determined", which means "not specified"} whether the combined
> > magnitude is continuous or discrete.
> >  [2] It is indeterminate whether you multiplied or added these things
> > a and b.
> >  [3] This situation is exactly analogous to a probabilistic problem
> > from orthodox mathematics, just worded differently.  {SO differently
> > worded as to be totally unrelated.}
> >  [4] Provides a mechanism for modeling things like wave-particle
> > duality. {2}
> >  [5] Provides a mechanism for modeling dark matter, gravity, and all
> > kinds of things. {2}
> >  [6] Provides a way to say that determinacy is equivalent to
> > indeterminacy. {3}
> >  [7] Explains the fundamental essence of mathematics as a kind of
> > absolute truth, Nonexistence is absolute falsehood and is singular,
> > and in the middle you have conjecture. Truth, falsehood, and
> > conjecture in the middle. It all fits very nicely.
> > [8] I could go on, and on, and on....
> >   Look at it this way. I ask you to get a random quantity of rope from
> > a bag, you cannot see inside the nag. You don't know if the pieces in
> > the bag are discrete chunks, or a continuous spool.  Now let it be
> > indeterminate {unknown}whether the rope is continuous or discrete. If
> > I ASK how may pieces, then your answer MUST be discrete output and the
> > rope behaved discretely. {4} If I DO NOT ask how many pieces, then the
> > output is forced to be continuous by default and you MUST produce a
> > continuous random chunk of rope and the rope must behave as if
> > continuous. {5} Wave particle duality is no different. Quit beating
> > yourself up - the problem is solved. {6}>
>
> > 1. Clarification: b has an unmeasured magnitude of 1.
> > 2. Please show us the mechanism.
> > 3. Saying that "determinacy is equivalent to indeterminacy" -- which
> > you just did -- doesn't make it true.
> > 4.  Why "MUST" my reply behave as you say it must?
> > 5.  In what way must a "chunk of rope" that is 1 foot long behave the
> > same as a continuous rope that is 100 feet long?
>
> For one very simple reason - unless you specify that you are asking
> for continuous or discrete chunks of rope it remains undetermined. If
> I tell you to bring me a fruit then it is indeterminate whether I
> meant bananas or oranges. If I say "how long and yellow is the fruit"
> then I have altered the output a priori and I would expect a banana.

In Aether Displacement, the C-60 molecule does not appear to be in two
places simultaneously.

In Aether Displacement, in a double slit experiment, the C-60 molecule
is on on a deterministic path, just like the boat in the water is.
When you 'ask' 'which way' all that occurs is the displacement wave is
turned into chop (decoherence) and there is no interference.

If you could figure out the mathematical model that works for both
gravity waves and the observed behaviors of a double slit experiment
with C-60 molecules, that would be a mathematical model that would
unify classical and quantum physics.

But if you are going to go on about 'indeterminate' stuff, you are
completely missing the point of Aether Displacement.

Is the position of the boat in the water 'indeterminate'? Of course
not. Neither is the position of the C-60 molecule in a double slit
experiment. Detecting the particle alters the outcome of the
experiment because it physically turns the displacement wave in the
aether into chop (decoherence). Detecting the C-60 molecule physically
alters the experiment. If you place buoys at the exits to the slits in
the double slit experiment and the buoys turn the bow wave into chop
and the boat does not alter course, nothing is 'indeterminate'.
From: glird on
On Dec 7, 5:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 4:50 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
glird wrote: To me, "the aether" (ether) is just a word denoting the
continuous aspect of a space-filling COMPRESSIBLE matter out of which
particles (and waves) are fashioned. As such, there is no aether
other than matter itself, which is the only conducting medium for
light.
[({Since light goes everywhere, matter is everywhere; so there is no
such thing as an "empty space".})]

mpc replied: Yes, aether and matter are different forms of the same
stuff. {1} I just think we have enough to deal with without having to
discuss 'empty' space-filling stuff as 'uncompressed matter'. {2}
When you make yourself a drink that you want to be cold, do you put
'frozen water' into your glass, or do you put ice into your glass?
Yes, they are both labels for the same stuff, but we call it ice for
convenience. We call 'uncompressed matter' aether for convenience.
{3}

1. Pardon me for having omitted a bit of my definition. Here is the
definition given on page 1 of The Universe:
"The spaces within and between particles are always full of
compressible matter, the ether. (As used herein, the word 'ether'
denotes a continuous material, whether or not there are particles in
it.)"
2. Being bodily compressible, there is no such thing as "uncompressed
matter" either. Even in a vacuum, which is a space with no particles
in it, the density of its material is variable everywhere. However,
because of the basic property I call "ontropy" (i.e. matter resists
compression increasingly weaker as its density decreases), the speed
of em waves approaches a maximum of c in any material. (As experiments
have shown, if the material medium is compressed sufficiently, light
will move only a few feet per second even in a vacuum chamber.)
3. It might be convenient but it is utterly misleading. It implies
that there are two different KINDS of matter, one being compressible
and the other incompressible.
Indeed, the kinetic atomic theory -- that matter is made of ultimate
particles separated by empty spaces -- is based on the latter
implication, which became the secret premise on which present science
was founded. (Although atoms and subatomic particles do exist, the
kinetic atomic theory - that ALL matter is made of them, is false. So
is most of theoretical physics.)
About 40 pages later The Universe says:
"In summary, Maxwell said,
There is an aethereal material medium filling space and permeating
bodies. ... It has a real density which is modified in some way by the
presence of gross matter in it.
Unfortunately, after discussing the electrical and magnetic
properties of the ether Maxwell said, 'It is true that -- the
properties -- are not so much altered -- as to allow us to suppose
that the dense medium (gross matter) does anything more than merely
modify the motion of the ether.' He was stuck with ether as a
generically different kind of matter than atomic matter. He was
saddled with the kinetic atomic theory, whether he realized it or not.
{The program runs very deep.}"

SO deep that even though you may not mean it that way, if you say
"We call 'uncompressed matter' aether" most people will think you are
talking about a kind of matter that is entirely different from the
"ponderable" matter we are familiar with via direct sensory
experience.

glird
From: mpc755 on
On Dec 7, 10:17 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 5:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 7, 4:50 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> glird wrote: To me, "the aether" (ether) is just a word denoting the
>
> continuous aspect of a space-filling COMPRESSIBLE matter out of which
> particles (and waves) are fashioned.  As such, there is no aether
> other than matter itself, which is the only conducting medium for
> light.
>  [({Since light goes everywhere, matter is everywhere; so there is no
> such thing as an "empty space".})]
>
> mpc replied: Yes, aether and matter are different forms of the same
> stuff. {1} I just think we have enough to deal with without having to
> discuss 'empty' space-filling stuff as 'uncompressed matter'. {2}
>   When you make yourself a drink that you want to be cold, do you put
> 'frozen water' into your glass, or do you put ice into your glass?
> Yes, they are both labels for the same stuff, but we call it ice for
> convenience. We call 'uncompressed matter' aether for convenience.
> {3}
>
> 1.  Pardon me for having omitted a bit of my definition. Here is the
> definition given on page 1 of The Universe:
>   "The spaces within and between particles are always full of
> compressible matter, the ether. (As used herein, the word 'ether'
> denotes a continuous material, whether or not there are particles in
> it.)"
> 2. Being bodily compressible, there is no such thing as "uncompressed
> matter" either.  Even in a vacuum, which is a space with no particles
> in it, the density of its material is variable everywhere. However,
> because of the basic property I call "ontropy" (i.e. matter resists
> compression increasingly weaker as its density decreases), the speed
> of em waves approaches a maximum of c in any material. (As experiments
> have shown, if the material medium is compressed sufficiently, light
> will move only a few feet per second even in a vacuum chamber.)
> 3. It might be convenient but it is utterly misleading.  It implies
> that there are two different KINDS of matter, one being compressible
> and the other incompressible.
>  Indeed, the kinetic atomic theory -- that matter is made of ultimate
> particles separated by empty spaces -- is based on the latter
> implication, which became the secret premise on which present science
> was founded. (Although atoms and subatomic particles do exist, the
> kinetic atomic theory - that ALL matter is made of them, is false.  So
> is most of theoretical physics.)
>   About 40 pages later The Universe says:
>  "In summary, Maxwell said,
>  There is an aethereal material medium filling space and permeating
> bodies. ... It has a real density which is modified in some way by the
> presence of gross matter in it.
>  Unfortunately, after discussing the electrical and magnetic
> properties of the ether Maxwell said, 'It is true that -- the
> properties -- are not so much altered -- as to allow us to suppose
> that the dense medium (gross matter) does anything more than merely
> modify the motion of the ether.' He was stuck with ether as a
> generically different kind of matter than atomic matter. He was
> saddled with the kinetic atomic theory, whether he realized it or not.
> {The program runs very deep.}"
>
>   SO deep that even though you may not mean it that way, if you say
> "We call 'uncompressed matter' aether" most people will think you are
> talking about a kind of matter that is entirely different from the
> "ponderable" matter we are familiar with via direct sensory
> experience.
>
> glird

Matter and aether are the same material substance. What we consider
aether is matter in its base state.
From: BURT on
On Dec 7, 7:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 10:17 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 7, 5:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 7, 4:50 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> > glird wrote: To me, "the aether" (ether) is just a word denoting the
>
> > continuous aspect of a space-filling COMPRESSIBLE matter out of which
> > particles (and waves) are fashioned.  As such, there is no aether
> > other than matter itself, which is the only conducting medium for
> > light.
> >  [({Since light goes everywhere, matter is everywhere; so there is no
> > such thing as an "empty space".})]
>
> > mpc replied: Yes, aether and matter are different forms of the same
> > stuff. {1} I just think we have enough to deal with without having to
> > discuss 'empty' space-filling stuff as 'uncompressed matter'. {2}
> >   When you make yourself a drink that you want to be cold, do you put
> > 'frozen water' into your glass, or do you put ice into your glass?
> > Yes, they are both labels for the same stuff, but we call it ice for
> > convenience. We call 'uncompressed matter' aether for convenience.
> > {3}
>
> > 1.  Pardon me for having omitted a bit of my definition. Here is the
> > definition given on page 1 of The Universe:
> >   "The spaces within and between particles are always full of
> > compressible matter, the ether. (As used herein, the word 'ether'
> > denotes a continuous material, whether or not there are particles in
> > it.)"
> > 2. Being bodily compressible, there is no such thing as "uncompressed
> > matter" either.  Even in a vacuum, which is a space with no particles
> > in it, the density of its material is variable everywhere. However,
> > because of the basic property I call "ontropy" (i.e. matter resists
> > compression increasingly weaker as its density decreases), the speed
> > of em waves approaches a maximum of c in any material. (As experiments
> > have shown, if the material medium is compressed sufficiently, light
> > will move only a few feet per second even in a vacuum chamber.)
> > 3. It might be convenient but it is utterly misleading.  It implies
> > that there are two different KINDS of matter, one being compressible
> > and the other incompressible.
> >  Indeed, the kinetic atomic theory -- that matter is made of ultimate
> > particles separated by empty spaces -- is based on the latter
> > implication, which became the secret premise on which present science
> > was founded. (Although atoms and subatomic particles do exist, the
> > kinetic atomic theory - that ALL matter is made of them, is false.  So
> > is most of theoretical physics.)
> >   About 40 pages later The Universe says:
> >  "In summary, Maxwell said,
> >  There is an aethereal material medium filling space and permeating
> > bodies. ... It has a real density which is modified in some way by the
> > presence of gross matter in it.
> >  Unfortunately, after discussing the electrical and magnetic
> > properties of the ether Maxwell said, 'It is true that -- the
> > properties -- are not so much altered -- as to allow us to suppose
> > that the dense medium (gross matter) does anything more than merely
> > modify the motion of the ether.' He was stuck with ether as a
> > generically different kind of matter than atomic matter. He was
> > saddled with the kinetic atomic theory, whether he realized it or not.
> > {The program runs very deep.}"
>
> >   SO deep that even though you may not mean it that way, if you say
> > "We call 'uncompressed matter' aether" most people will think you are
> > talking about a kind of matter that is entirely different from the
> > "ponderable" matter we are familiar with via direct sensory
> > experience.
>
> > glird
>
> Matter and aether are the same material substance. What we consider
> aether is matter in its base state.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

As Einstein said the aether has to be immaterial.

Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on
On Dec 7, 10:52 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 7:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 7, 10:17 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 7, 5:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 7, 4:50 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > glird wrote: To me, "the aether" (ether) is just a word denoting the
>
> > > continuous aspect of a space-filling COMPRESSIBLE matter out of which
> > > particles (and waves) are fashioned.  As such, there is no aether
> > > other than matter itself, which is the only conducting medium for
> > > light.
> > >  [({Since light goes everywhere, matter is everywhere; so there is no
> > > such thing as an "empty space".})]
>
> > > mpc replied: Yes, aether and matter are different forms of the same
> > > stuff. {1} I just think we have enough to deal with without having to
> > > discuss 'empty' space-filling stuff as 'uncompressed matter'. {2}
> > >   When you make yourself a drink that you want to be cold, do you put
> > > 'frozen water' into your glass, or do you put ice into your glass?
> > > Yes, they are both labels for the same stuff, but we call it ice for
> > > convenience. We call 'uncompressed matter' aether for convenience.
> > > {3}
>
> > > 1.  Pardon me for having omitted a bit of my definition. Here is the
> > > definition given on page 1 of The Universe:
> > >   "The spaces within and between particles are always full of
> > > compressible matter, the ether. (As used herein, the word 'ether'
> > > denotes a continuous material, whether or not there are particles in
> > > it.)"
> > > 2. Being bodily compressible, there is no such thing as "uncompressed
> > > matter" either.  Even in a vacuum, which is a space with no particles
> > > in it, the density of its material is variable everywhere. However,
> > > because of the basic property I call "ontropy" (i.e. matter resists
> > > compression increasingly weaker as its density decreases), the speed
> > > of em waves approaches a maximum of c in any material. (As experiments
> > > have shown, if the material medium is compressed sufficiently, light
> > > will move only a few feet per second even in a vacuum chamber.)
> > > 3. It might be convenient but it is utterly misleading.  It implies
> > > that there are two different KINDS of matter, one being compressible
> > > and the other incompressible.
> > >  Indeed, the kinetic atomic theory -- that matter is made of ultimate
> > > particles separated by empty spaces -- is based on the latter
> > > implication, which became the secret premise on which present science
> > > was founded. (Although atoms and subatomic particles do exist, the
> > > kinetic atomic theory - that ALL matter is made of them, is false.  So
> > > is most of theoretical physics.)
> > >   About 40 pages later The Universe says:
> > >  "In summary, Maxwell said,
> > >  There is an aethereal material medium filling space and permeating
> > > bodies. ... It has a real density which is modified in some way by the
> > > presence of gross matter in it.
> > >  Unfortunately, after discussing the electrical and magnetic
> > > properties of the ether Maxwell said, 'It is true that -- the
> > > properties -- are not so much altered -- as to allow us to suppose
> > > that the dense medium (gross matter) does anything more than merely
> > > modify the motion of the ether.' He was stuck with ether as a
> > > generically different kind of matter than atomic matter. He was
> > > saddled with the kinetic atomic theory, whether he realized it or not..
> > > {The program runs very deep.}"
>
> > >   SO deep that even though you may not mean it that way, if you say
> > > "We call 'uncompressed matter' aether" most people will think you are
> > > talking about a kind of matter that is entirely different from the
> > > "ponderable" matter we are familiar with via direct sensory
> > > experience.
>
> > > glird
>
> > Matter and aether are the same material substance. What we consider
> > aether is matter in its base state.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> As Einstein said the aether has to be immaterial.
>
> Mitch Raemsch

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of
relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that
the state of the former is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"

If Einstein is correct, and the state of the aether is determined by
its connections with matter, how is it not displaced by a moving body?