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 16:20 On Dec 10, 4:05 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > 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? Because 'displaced' allows for the most correct physical unified theory to date: Aether Displacement. 'Displaced' allows for a physical explanation of what is occurring with C-60 molecule in a double slit experiment. The C-60 molecule creates a displacement wave in the aether and it is this displacement wave which enters and exits multiple slits while the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. > 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. ] Correct. But you can never know if a 'more correct' theory is yet to be discovered. It is the same thing as saying 'a' unified theory vs. 'the' unified theory. There is only one 100% correct unified theory (aka 'THE' Unified Theory), but we will never know if the currently accepted unified theory is 'a' unified theory or 'the' unified theory. That is why it is important to discuss these things in terms of 'a' unified theory (instead of 'the' unified theory) and 'more correct' (instead of right) in order to leave the door open for possible better explanations of the physical nature of nature.
From: BURT on 10 Dec 2009 16:38 On Dec 10, 1:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 10, 4:05 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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? > > Because 'displaced' allows for the most correct physical unified > theory to date: Aether Displacement. 'Displaced' allows for a physical > explanation of what is occurring with C-60 molecule in a double slit > experiment. The C-60 molecule creates a displacement wave in the > aether and it is this displacement wave which enters and exits > multiple slits while the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a > single slit. > > > 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. ] > > Correct. But you can never know if a 'more correct' theory is yet to > be discovered. It is the same thing as saying 'a' unified theory vs. > 'the' unified theory. There is only one 100% correct unified theory > (aka 'THE' Unified Theory), but we will never know if the currently > accepted unified theory is 'a' unified theory or 'the' unified theory. > That is why it is important to discuss these things in terms of 'a' > unified theory (instead of 'the' unified theory) and 'more > correct' (instead of right) in order to leave the door open for > possible better explanations of the physical nature of nature.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - How big is your displacement wave? How far does it extend in gravity? I claim I have the Unified theory just to show you you are a hypocrite. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 10 Dec 2009 16:42 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. So, the Sun is 'curving' something. The Sun is 'curving' something physical. The Sun is 'curving' some kind of stuff. Aether, quantum foam, plenum,... are all labels placed on the 'stuff of space'. Yes, aether has a lot of baggage, but it is what it is. And 'displaced' is a better concept than 'curved'. 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, 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 is space filled with aether, and the strength of the field is the displacement of the aether from its rest position. Aether Displacement: The most correct physical unified theory to date.
From: glird on 10 Dec 2009 16:54 On Dec 8, 11:29 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >< You cannot treat space as if it were a traditional fluid and just wash your hands of it. There is a deeper riddle to it and it will not behave the way you want it to, for the same reason that you dont seem to understand the WP Duality, space will not behave like hydraulic fluid.> What is that reason? ><Consider this. [1] "Any probabilistic problem from traditional mathematics can be restated in terms of existential indeterminacy and conservation." From that statement you may regard the Schrödinger Wave Equation as a PDF which describes NOT MERELY the probability of finding an electron in a given region of space, BUT ALSO it may be regarded as in fact describing the very bending of space itself. > If you read Schrödinger's article again you will find ... Time out!! While searching for a specific sentence I wrote somewhere in one of my books re SCHROEDINGER's meaning of the probability "phi", I came across the following things, in W2: ________________________________ From "The World of the Atom": "It may be noted that when Schrödinger introduced his wave equation, he had no idea of the physical significance of the wave function (the quantity [psi]) that his equation governs. He remarked that 'in the case of waves which are to replace in our thought the motion of the electron, there must also be some quantity p subject to a wave equation like equation (10), though we cannot yet tell the physical meaning of p.' It is all the more remarkable that this reasoning by analogy guided Schrödinger to a correct wave equation when we consider the complexity of the problem involved and that the ultimate correct interpretation of the wave function brought into consideration some of the most subtle concepts of modern physics. Furthermore, the complex nature of the wave function (consisting of both a real and an imaginary part) must at first have been somewhat puzzling, if not disturbing." In 1905 Einstein wrote: "In calculating the entropy by molecular theoretic methods the word 'probability' is often given a meaning which does not correspond to the definition of probability as it is given in the calculus of probability. In particular, 'cases of equal probability' are often determined hypothetically in situations where the applied theoretical pictures are definite enough to permit a deduction instead of the hypothetical method. I shall demonstrate in another separate paper that in dealing with thermal processes we can manage completely with the so-called 'statistical probability' and hope thereby to overcome a logical difficulty which still stands in the way of carrying out the Boltzmann principle. Here, however, we shall concern ourselves only with its general formulation and its application to quite special cases. de Broglie wrote, "The use of configuration space becomes indispensable when one wishes to make use of Jacobi's theorem in the dynamics of systems. Interpreted in physical terms, this theory has as its essential goal the grouping of the possible motions in the problem at hand in such a way that, in each group, all of the possible motions correspond to all of the rays of a single wave of propagation. It is obvious that if all the corpuscles in motion are represented [as individual, independent inertial particles randomly moving] in physical space it is impossible to establish such a correspondence ... ." Our theorists approach all experimental data with the kinetic particle theory etched deep within their brains. They continue thinking "kinetic atomic theory" and don't see that their very own equations have written that the theory does not hold. Our pre- programmed theorists don't hear the equations' plaintive wail, "independent particles won't allow us to apply!!" Our theorists don't speak in terms of physical things, any more; and can't tell us what the symbols in their equations physically denote, any more. The orbic 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.} The picture and its legend, below, is from "The Origin of the Chemical Elements" by R. J. Taylor; Wykeham Publications (London) Ltd. London; 1972; pg 74. It shows a reaction cross-section; in which it should be noted that a "scattering cross-section measures the probability" of an event. {The picture can't be pasted into an internet posting.} "Fig. 31. Reaction cross-section. A particle A is projected towards a target B. The number of reactions is the same as if the particle reacted with all the target particles in a cylinder of cross-sectional area F centered on itself." There are two things relevant to our exposition here. First, a neutron of width A is directed through a target supposedly consisting of separate and discrete equally small particles spread over a relatively wide volume. Nevertheless, "the number of reactions is the same as if the particle reacted with all target particles" at the same instant, just as though they all were "in a cylinder of cross- sectional area A centered on itself". Second, this is a "probability" event. The relevance to our story is this: First, since all these target particles are bound together into an overriding configuration, hitting one of them does hit them all. {When you hit one molecule of a billiard ball you hit them all = = = oops, I mean, you hit all one of them = = oops, all one of it. Darned brain- program! {I never said it would be easy!!}} Second, we are approaching a study of the inner physical essence of the quantum and photon. You are being conditioned to easily accept the concepts required by the coming explanations of how and why "probability" and "entropy" apply within individual units (insofar as they may be considered as "individuals") as well as in the continuum made of them. As we saw, the boundaries of the component cells of solid and liquid continua are, at the very least, touching. There are no vacuum-spaces between such units. The vibrations, then, emit from a continuous surface, not from separate atoms. [Atoms can be separated from each other by an intervening vacuum filled with relatively unstructured ether that is not part of the shell layer of local atoms, other than in a shared way that maintains the form of such atoms. In a dilute gas, that is what happens. In a shallow way, then, we _can_ consider "individual" atoms and molecules even though they could not exist without the compensating pressure exerted on them by the field and even though the field is therefore somewhat of a part of each such atom. {Once you understand that no atom or molecule can exist as a single particle in an empty void, a slight loosening of our strict semantics may be tolerable.}] Even so, the pattern of vibration at any given point is the summation of the influences of all environmental team mates upon that given point. Accordingly, just as with a sound wave, the patterns of emission will be complicated. They will radiate, once initiated, according to Maxwell's laws. They therefore, spread out in concentric circles from any initiating point; just as Huygens drew. ________________________________ > > Whether we use Schroedinger Wave Equation to describe location of > electrons, or bending of space, this is your choice to make. BOTH are > true. > > Must I do everything myself in this place ? I'll finish this after I find the sentence I was searching for. I think it's in The Anpheon, or maybe Tor 1... glird
From: BURT on 10 Dec 2009 17:50
On Dec 10, 1:42 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. > > So, the Sun is 'curving' something. The Sun is 'curving' something > physical. The Sun is 'curving' some kind of stuff. > > Aether, quantum foam, plenum,... are all labels placed on the 'stuff > of space'. > > Yes, aether has a lot of baggage, but it is what it is. > > And 'displaced' is a better concept than 'curved'. > > 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, 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 is space filled with aether, and the strength of > the field is the displacement of the aether from its rest position. So the strength of gravity is in aether's motion after it leaves its rest position?? Where is the aethers rest position? Mitch Raemsch > > Aether Displacement: The most correct physical unified theory to date. |