Aether Displacement is the most correct physical unified theory to date
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Anitmatter in Thunderbolts??
Next: Why Pendulum as a clock do not shows, what General Theory of Relativity predicts?
From: mpc755 on 10 Dec 2009 10:08 On Dec 10, 9:51 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 9, 11:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > When discussing the concept of the Sun 'curving' 'spacetime', what is > > being curved? It cannot be three dimensional space because the Sun now > > occupies that three dimensional space and in terms of three > > dimensional space, nothing has changed. > > Empty space is comprised of the dimensions of Length and Time. That is > what exists physically when you have a region of empty space. > Dimension is curved, distorted, bent - by GR. > > Minkowski space. It is dimension, and it is physical. > > > A "field" in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with > > aether, and the strength of the field can be visualized as the > > displacement of the aether from its rest position. > > > Aether Displacement: The most correct physical unified theory to date. > > A field can describe many things, including the potential to exist. > Consider a PDF, and consider that it describes an existential > potential. The PDF can evolve over time pretty easily - and that is > how you model space as if it were a fluid. > > BUT !! > > You must remember from GR you have this thing called equivalence. If > you are accelerating in a rocket, or if you are stationary in a > gravitational field - these are equivalent. > > The SAME exact thing happens in QM - in my opinion. > Schroedinger wave equation may be regarded as giving the probability > of finding a particle in a given region. OR it may also be regarded as > modelling the bending of space. These too are equivalent, and for the > same reasons that you have equivalence in GR. > > That is the way space behaves. 'Displaced' is a better term when describing the 'bending' or 'curving' of space. And 'aether' is a better term when describing what is being displaced because 'space' (as in three dimensional space) is a mathematical construct. Matter physically displaces the aether. 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense." Therefore: A "field" in physics is space filled with aether, and the strength of the field is the displacement of the aether from its rest position.
From: glird on 10 Dec 2009 14:23 On Dec 9, 1:51 pm, mpc755 wrote: > On Dec 9, 12:46 pm, glird wrote: > > On Dec 8, 7:05 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > >> > Gravity, indeed, relates to what happens with the ether. > Inertial: > >< So why, if there are two masses sitting in space, does the 'aether' make them accelerate toward each other. But if there is one object, it just sits there. > glird: >< It isn't the aether per se that causes that to happen, it is the density gradient IN and OF the aether that causes an accelerative force to arise INSIDE of each embedded body. > Addendum: The direction of the net force is toward the cause of the gradient, so it there is only one object it WOULD just sit at the center of its own grad d. > >< If anything, the presence of one mass displacing aether would push the other object away, not bring them closer. > >< In my terms, "the aether" denotes the continuous aspect of the material in a given space; whether or not it is homogeneous and even if discrete particles are present as parts of that one continuous field. The presence of one particle DOES displace some of the material that would otherwise have been there, and the displacement wave WOULD push two particles apart. But that has nothing to do with gravity. > mpc: I prefer the concept of what we consider to be the Sun to end where the matter (i.e. non-aether matter) of the Sun ends. > Please read my definition of "the aether" again. It means that there IS no "non-aether matter"! For the record, mpc, do you believe that the aether is a different kind of matter than ordinary stuff? (I don't.) mpc: Again, if you have a bowling ball with a million tiny wholes drilled throughout it and you put it in a tube of water and you spin it, water exists throughout the bowling ball but we consider the bowling ball to be the matter which is not the water. > Although the bowling ball and the water are indeed different portions of matter, they are made of the SAME KIND of matter. mpc: The Sun is creating a displacement wave (i.e. gravity wave) but this wave is not going to push the planets away from the Sun. The Sun's displaced aether which extends to the edge of the solar system and is pushing back is gravity. We disagree, there. mpc: I also prefer to stay away from using the term 'density' when discussing displaced aether. > Do you believe the aether is incompressible? (I don't.) If you agree that it IS compressible, then how can it be compressed without changing its density? mpc: For now at least, we are better off just discussing Aether Displacement in terms of pressure. > I can't do that, mpc; because I know what causes the aether to exert pressure and how an unbalanced pressure causes the local density to change, and how THAT causes a net force to arise in local particles. However, if you'd rather discuss how displaced aether is caused by or causes pressure, and how that causes masses to be attracted toward the source of the aether that's displaced, I will read your postings with interest. mpc: When the bowling ball is placed into the tank of water, the water is displaced. The water exerts a pressure back towards the bowling ball but we do not discuss the 'density' of the water. > The pressure exerted by the water is due to, but does not cause, gravity. Because a bowling ball is denser than water, it weighs more per unit volume thus will sink. As it does, it displaces a volume of water that is identical to its own volume. If the ball was made of wood, it would be less dense than water, per unit volume, and would float. As it does, it would displace a volume of water whose weight would be identical to its own. Without considering the 'density', mpc, please explain how the weight of a given volume of matter can be variable in a given g-field. mpc: There has always been a pressure (pun intended) to add in the property of density, but the less properties we apply to the aether the better and the property the aether does require at this point is to not be at rest when displaced and to be matter when compressed. > As it is written: "Defective semantics caused the ignorance pervading theoretical physics even more than its own defective mathematics." In my terms, the ether IS matter and matter IS the aether, and matter and aether are one and the same whether locally at rest or not and regardless of its density --- oops ... regardless of how much or if it is compressed. glird
From: mpc755 on 10 Dec 2009 15:52 On Dec 10, 2:23 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 9, 1:51 pm, mpc755 wrote:> On Dec 9, 12:46 pm, glird wrote: > > > On Dec 8, 7:05 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > >> > Gravity, indeed, relates to what happens with the ether. > > Inertial: > >< So why, if there are two masses sitting in space, does > the 'aether' make them accelerate toward each other. But if there is > one object, it just sits there. > > glird: >< It isn't the aether per se that causes that to happen, it is > the density gradient IN and OF the aether that causes an accelerative > force to arise INSIDE of each embedded body. > > > Addendum: The direction of the net force is toward the cause of the > gradient, so it there is only one object it WOULD just sit at the > center of its own grad d. > > > >< If anything, the presence of one mass displacing aether would push the other object away, not bring them closer. > > >< In my terms, "the aether" denotes the continuous aspect of the material in a given space; whether or not it is homogeneous and even if discrete particles are present as parts of that one continuous field. > > The presence of one particle DOES displace some of the material that > would otherwise have been there, and the displacement wave WOULD push > two particles apart. But that has nothing to do with gravity. > > > mpc: I prefer the concept of what we consider to be the Sun to end > where the matter (i.e. non-aether matter) of the Sun ends. > > > Please read my definition of "the aether" again. It means that there > IS no "non-aether matter"! What I meant by 'non-aether matter' is the matter which is its base state. The matter which is called aether. > For the record, mpc, do you believe that the aether is a different > kind of matter than ordinary stuff? (I don't.) > As I have said repeatedly on this and other threads, matter and aether are different forms of the same stuff. Aether is matter in its base state. Matter is compressed aether and aether is uncompressed matter. They are the same stuff. > mpc: Again, if you have a bowling ball with a million tiny wholes > drilled throughout it and you put it in a tube of water and you spin > it, water exists throughout the bowling ball but we consider the > bowling ball to be the matter which is not the water. > > > Although the bowling ball and the water are indeed different > portions of matter, they are made of the SAME KIND of matter. > Yes. I was thinking of going with a round ball of ice with a million holes drilled throughout it and put the ball of ice into a tank of water and spin the 'ice ball'. What is considered the 'ice ball' does not include the liquid water it exists in. But the ice ball and the liquid water are the same stuff. > mpc: The Sun is creating a displacement wave (i.e. gravity wave) but > this wave is not going to push the planets away from the Sun. The > Sun's displaced aether which extends to the edge of the solar system > and is pushing back is gravity. > > We disagree, there. > > mpc: I also prefer to stay away from using the term 'density' when > discussing displaced aether. > > > Do you believe the aether is incompressible? (I don't.) > If you agree that it IS compressible, then how can it be compressed > without changing its density? > I believe compressed aether is matter. I also believe matter in its base state is aether. Again, just to be clear, matter and aether are different forms of the same stuff. In terms of matter and aether, matter is obviously much denser than aether. But I prefer not to assume there are different degrees in the density of matter between aether (uncompressed matter) and matter (compressed aether). I prefer to think of water being denser than ice due to the water molecules which exist in the water and ice, not that the aether which is entrained by the water molecules is denser than aether entrained in the ice. > mpc: For now at least, we are better off just discussing Aether > Displacement in terms of pressure. > > > I can't do that, mpc; because I know what causes the aether to exert > pressure and how an unbalanced pressure causes the local density to > change, and how THAT causes a net force to arise in local particles. > However, if you'd rather discuss how displaced aether is caused by or > causes pressure, and how that causes masses to be attracted toward the > source of the aether that's displaced, I will read your postings with > interest. > > mpc: When the bowling ball is placed into the tank of water, the water > is displaced. The water exerts a pressure back towards the bowling > ball but we do not discuss the 'density' of the water. > > > The pressure exerted by the water is due to, but does not cause, > gravity. Because a bowling ball is denser than water, it weighs more > per unit volume thus will sink. As it does, it displaces a volume of > water that is identical to its own volume. If the ball was made of > wood, it would be less dense than water, per unit volume, and would > float. As it does, it would displace a volume of water whose weight > would be identical to its own. > Without considering the 'density', mpc, please explain how the weight > of a given volume of matter can be variable in a given g-field. > OK. I hope we are beyond the point where I have to continually explain to you the difference in my definitions of aether and matter. For, hopefully, the last time, aether and matter are the same stuff. Aether is matter in its base state. Aether is uncompressed matter. That being said... I think you are confusing my concept of 'density' as applied to aether and the concept of 'density' as applied to matter. The density of matter per volume is variable. The denser the matter is, the less aether it contains, the more aether it displaces, the more aether pressure there is exerted back towards the center of the matter. Think of Jupiter and think of a Jupiter completely made of lead. The lead Jupiter is denser than the 'real' Jupiter. The lead Jupiter contains less aether. The lead Jupiter displaces more aether. This 'extra' aether exerts more pressure back towards the center of the lead Jupiter than the displaced aether exerts back towards the real Jupiter. > mpc: There has always been a pressure (pun intended) to add in the > property of density, but the less properties we apply to the aether > the better and the property the aether does require at this point is > to not be at rest when displaced and to be matter when compressed. > > > As it is written: "Defective semantics caused the ignorance > pervading theoretical physics even more than its own defective > mathematics." > In my terms, the ether IS matter and matter IS the aether, and > matter and aether are one and the same whether locally at rest or not > and regardless of its density --- oops ... regardless of how much or > if it is compressed. > > glird Yes, aether is matter and matter is aether. But I see the connectedness between the aether and the matter more in terms of what Einstein stated: 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" So, once again, aether is matter and matter is aether. But, matter determines the state of the connected to aether and the state of the aether in neighboring places. The state of the connected to aether is that it is displaced and not at rest because the matter has displaced it. This IS Aether Displacement. This IS gravity. This IS the reason why a moving C-60 molecule creates a displacement wave in the aether, because the C-60 molecule (i.e. the matter) is connected to the aether and the moving C-60 molecule displaces the connected to aether which displaces the neighboring aether. The moving C-60 molecule causes this displaced aether to form a wave and it is this wave in the aether which enters and exits multiple slits in a double slit experiment while the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit.
From: glird on 10 Dec 2009 16:05 On Dec 10, 12:46 am, mpc755 wrote: >< When discussing the concept of the Sun 'curving' 'spacetime', what is being curved? {1} It cannot be three dimensional space because the Sun now occupies that three dimensional space and in terms of three dimensional space, nothing has changed. So, the Sun is 'curving' something. The Sun is 'curving' something physical. The Sun is 'curving' some kind of stuff. {2} Aether, quantum foam, plenum,... are all labels placed on the 'stuff of space'. {3 ;} Yes, aether has a lot of baggage, but it is what it is. {: ;-} And 'displaced' is a better concept than 'curved'. :{ 4} Displaced not only works for 'curved' spacetime, but also works for the observed behaviors of a double slit experiment with C-60 molecules. The moving C-60 molecule displaces aether which forms a wave, just like a boat creates a bow wave in water. 'Casimir Effect'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect "In a simplified view, a "field" in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with interconnected vibrating balls and springs, {MAXWELL's ETHER} and the strength of the field can be visualized as the displacement of a ball from its rest position." Should read: A "field" in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with axextxhxexr compressible matter}, and the strength of the field can be visualized as the dixplacxmxent oxf thxe aextxher frxom ixts rexst pxosxition {local density compared to that in other places}. Aether Displacement: {One of t}he most correct physical unified theor {ies} to date. {5}> 1. The "curvature" of "spacetime" is a graphical way of describing the variable density of space-filling matter, as plotted on a spatial co- ordinate system whose "time" (the indications of the hands of a given clock) is a function of the density per local point. 2. The "stuff" so mapped is the continuous compressible material that fills space everywhere. 3. While searching for things to use in reply to a posting by Huang, I came across and copied this, from What it all is and Why (W2): "The 1965 drawings represent logical consequences of a physical theory. It explains them in terms of moving, pressurized portions of space-filling matter. As of now, the equations of Physics are 'explained' in terms of probability, indeterminacy, entropy, color, charm, truth and beauty, chaos and strings, relativistically curved voids, disembodied fields, quarks for Mr. Mark, strangeness and parity and muons and pions and leptons and hadrons and gluons and mao-ons and photons and quanta and gravitons and phantas and magorics; none of which have any independent physical existence at all.}" 4. The amount by which each co-ordinate line (u, v w) is "curved" represents the amount of density change per successive point in space, regardless of whether the matter it maps is particulate or not. If we use 'displaced' instead of 'curved', how is that a better concept? 5. "The Theory of Reality" and its (unfinished) successor, "The Universe -- both of which condensed and added fine details to "The Anpheon" and "In the beginning there was God" and "What it all is and Why" and even the grandfather of them all, "The Nature of Matter and Energy", 1965 -- were and are and will always be "the most correct" unified theories ever written. [Once a book appears that fully and accurately explains everything that physically exists and how all its mechanisms work, there can never be a "more correct" one written afterwards. ] glird
From: PD on 10 Dec 2009 16:05
On Dec 10, 2:52 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > What I meant by 'non-aether matter' is the matter which is its base > state. The matter which is called aether. > In other words, aether is non-aether matter. What's remarkable is that MPC says this with a straight face. Quite possibly because the medications prevent him from exhibiting facial expressions. |