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 21:38 On Dec 10, 9:23 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 10, 4:20 pm, mpc755 wrote:> On Dec 10, 4:05 pm, glird 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 physical. The Sun is 'curving' > some kind of stuff. ... > And 'displaced' is a better concept than 'curved'. >>> > > ><< 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. > > > That's irrelevant. Let me rephrase the question: > Instead of saying > "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 say > "The amount by which each co-ordinate line (u, v w) is _displaced_ > represents the amount of density change per successive point in space, > regardless of whether the matter it maps is particulate or not" > how is that "a better concept"? > > Btw, mpc, while contemplating the ramifications of your remark, "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", it > occurred to me that you hadn't answered either of my two questions > that followed your statement, "I also prefer to stay away from using > the term 'density' when discussing displaced aether. " > I will repeat them now: > "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?" > > Here is another question: If "matter and aether are different forms > of the same stuff", then how can 'the density of matter" be variable > if -- as implied by your comments -- that of the aether is not? > > Btw, if you ARE contemplating an _incompressible_ aether while > allowing that "matter" is made of it, then that is similar to H. > Lorentz's ether theory; which - though I disagree with it, I found to > be 'logically' irrefutable, once you allow that human senses give > false witness, thus cannot be believed. > (Given that, though, then the present belief that human logic can't > be trusted is also logically irrefutable; and so is its idiotic > refrain, "the human mind is incapable of ever understanding physical > reality_whateverTHATmeans". > > glird It makes no sense to say a C-60 molecule curves aether as it heads towards the slits in a double slit experiment. The C-60 molecule displaces aether as it heads towards the slits in a double slit experiment. Does a moving boat curve the water in front of its bow or does a moving boat displace the water in front of its bow. The density of matter can be variable because the nuclei of the atoms that make up the matter can displace more aether. Again, if you have a lead Jupiter and the real Jupiter, the nuclei of the lead Jupiter occupy more three dimensional space per volume than the nuclei of the atoms which make up the real Jupiter. There is less aether between the nuclei of the lead Jupiter than there is between the nuclei of the real Jupiter. Aether exists where matter does not. Yes, aether and matter are the same stuff, but I prefer the definition of matter to be the nuclei of atoms and the three dimensional space they occupy and the aether to be the stuff that exists everywhere the nuclei of atoms do not (excluding a discussion of neutron stars and black holes at this point). So, beside black holes, there is matter (mostly consisting of the nuclei of atoms) and aether (which fills the spaces between the nuclei of the atoms). So, the larger the nuclei of atoms and the closer they are together in three dimensional space, the less aether there exists between the nuclei of the atoms and the denser the matter is. The smaller the nuclei of atoms are and the further apart from one another they are the less dense the matter is and the more aether which exists between the nuclei.
From: BURT on 10 Dec 2009 21:53 On Dec 10, 6:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 10, 8:59 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 10, 4:16 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 10, 5:50 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > 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: > > > > > > So the strength of gravity is in aether's motion after it leaves its > > > > rest position?? > > > > Not in its motion. But in its state of displacement. Motion may be a > > > part of it, but the main concept is simply that matter displaces > > > matter and the displaced matter is not at rest. > > > > The best example of this is the Moon. The Moon can be considered to be > > > 'floating' in the Earth's entrained aether. Think of a ball floating > > > down a river. The ball will be moving slightly slower than the river > > > itself. The water will be carrying the ball along. This is what is > > > occurring to the Moon. But the moon, even if it is almost at rest in > > > terms of its motion relative to the aether it exists in, is still > > > displacing the aether it is connected to which displaces the > > > neighboring aether. This displaced aether is pushing back towards the > > > moon in an attempt to return to a state of rest. > > > > Another example of this in order to not confuse the entrained aether > > > of a planet with the displaced aether of the planet pushing back, > > > consider the moons of Jupiter. The inner moons exist with Jupiter's > > > entrained aether. The outer moons of Jupiter 'fell out of' Jupiter's > > > entrained aether, but still exist in Jupiter's displaced aether which > > > is pushing back towards Jupiter, keeping all of Jupiter's moon in > > > orbit around Jupiter. > > > > Here is a good animation of Jupiter's moons: > > > >http://janus.astro.umd.edu/SolarSystems/ > > > > Select Jupiter. Use the '+' to drill down and see the inner moons. Use > > > the '-' to expand the view and see the outer moons. The inner moons > > > are contained with Jupiter's entrained aether. The outer moons 'fell > > > out of' Jupiter's entrained aether and orbit Jupiter in the opposite > > > direction. But all of Jupiter's moon exist with Jupiter's displaced > > > aether which is pushing back towards Jupiter. > > > > > Where is the aethers rest position? > > > > Everything is moving relative to everything else. There is no true > > > rest position. > > > > > > Aether Displacement: The most correct physical unified theory to date.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > So slow aether is your answer? > > > Mitch Raemsch > > You are making it very difficult to give the benefit of the doubt to > in this 'conversation'. As you can tell from my post above, I made a > decent effort of answering your questions. If the best you can do in > your response is "So slow aether is your answer?" which is completely > missing the point, I am going to have to stop 'conversing' with you.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I believe that you are confused. So I see that you would want me to be. There is no relativity of rest for aether flow. There is no rest point for the aether. > > > > > 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. You are contradicting yourself when assuming both. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 10 Dec 2009 21:56 On Dec 10, 9:53 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 10, 6:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 10, 8:59 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 10, 4:16 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 10, 5:50 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > So the strength of gravity is in aether's motion after it leaves its > > > > > rest position?? > > > > > Not in its motion. But in its state of displacement. Motion may be a > > > > part of it, but the main concept is simply that matter displaces > > > > matter and the displaced matter is not at rest. > > > > > The best example of this is the Moon. The Moon can be considered to be > > > > 'floating' in the Earth's entrained aether. Think of a ball floating > > > > down a river. The ball will be moving slightly slower than the river > > > > itself. The water will be carrying the ball along. This is what is > > > > occurring to the Moon. But the moon, even if it is almost at rest in > > > > terms of its motion relative to the aether it exists in, is still > > > > displacing the aether it is connected to which displaces the > > > > neighboring aether. This displaced aether is pushing back towards the > > > > moon in an attempt to return to a state of rest. > > > > > Another example of this in order to not confuse the entrained aether > > > > of a planet with the displaced aether of the planet pushing back, > > > > consider the moons of Jupiter. The inner moons exist with Jupiter's > > > > entrained aether. The outer moons of Jupiter 'fell out of' Jupiter's > > > > entrained aether, but still exist in Jupiter's displaced aether which > > > > is pushing back towards Jupiter, keeping all of Jupiter's moon in > > > > orbit around Jupiter. > > > > > Here is a good animation of Jupiter's moons: > > > > >http://janus.astro.umd.edu/SolarSystems/ > > > > > Select Jupiter. Use the '+' to drill down and see the inner moons. Use > > > > the '-' to expand the view and see the outer moons. The inner moons > > > > are contained with Jupiter's entrained aether. The outer moons 'fell > > > > out of' Jupiter's entrained aether and orbit Jupiter in the opposite > > > > direction. But all of Jupiter's moon exist with Jupiter's displaced > > > > aether which is pushing back towards Jupiter. > > > > > > Where is the aethers rest position? > > > > > Everything is moving relative to everything else. There is no true > > > > rest position. > > > > > > > Aether Displacement: The most correct physical unified theory to date.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > So slow aether is your answer? > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > You are making it very difficult to give the benefit of the doubt to > > in this 'conversation'. As you can tell from my post above, I made a > > decent effort of answering your questions. If the best you can do in > > your response is "So slow aether is your answer?" which is completely > > missing the point, I am going to have to stop 'conversing' with you.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I believe that you are confused. So I see that you would want me to > be. > There is no relativity of rest for aether flow. There is no rest point > for the aether. > > > > > > > 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. > > You are contradicting yourself when assuming both. > > Mitch Raemsch Take care.
From: mpc755 on 10 Dec 2009 22:00 On Dec 10, 9:23 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 10, 4:20 pm, mpc755 wrote:> On Dec 10, 4:05 pm, glird 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 physical. The Sun is 'curving' > some kind of stuff. ... > And 'displaced' is a better concept than 'curved'. >>> > > ><< 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. > > > That's irrelevant. Let me rephrase the question: > Instead of saying > "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 say > "The amount by which each co-ordinate line (u, v w) is _displaced_ > represents the amount of density change per successive point in space, > regardless of whether the matter it maps is particulate or not" > how is that "a better concept"? > > Btw, mpc, while contemplating the ramifications of your remark, "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", it > occurred to me that you hadn't answered either of my two questions > that followed your statement, "I also prefer to stay away from using > the term 'density' when discussing displaced aether. " > I will repeat them now: > "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?" > > Here is another question: If "matter and aether are different forms > of the same stuff", then how can 'the density of matter" be variable > if -- as implied by your comments -- that of the aether is not? > > Btw, if you ARE contemplating an _incompressible_ aether while > allowing that "matter" is made of it, then that is similar to H. > Lorentz's ether theory; which - though I disagree with it, I found to > be 'logically' irrefutable, once you allow that human senses give > false witness, thus cannot be believed. > (Given that, though, then the present belief that human logic can't > be trusted is also logically irrefutable; and so is its idiotic > refrain, "the human mind is incapable of ever understanding physical > reality_whateverTHATmeans". > > glird It makes no sense to say a C-60 molecule curves aether as it heads towards the slits in a double slit experiment. The C-60 molecule displaces aether as it heads towards the slits in a double slit experiment. Does a moving boat curve the water in front of its bow or does a moving boat displace the water in front of its bow. The density of matter can be variable because the nuclei of the atoms that make up the matter can displace more aether. Again, if you have a lead Jupiter and the real Jupiter, the nuclei of the lead Jupiter occupy more three dimensional space per volume than the nuclei of the atoms which make up the real Jupiter. There is less aether between the nuclei of the lead Jupiter than there is between the nuclei of the real Jupiter. Aether exists where matter does not. Yes, aether and matter are the same stuff, but I prefer the definition of matter to be the nuclei of atoms and the three dimensional space they occupy and the aether to be the stuff that exists everywhere the nuclei of atoms do not (excluding a discussion of neutron stars and black holes at this point). So, beside black holes, there is matter (mostly consisting of the nuclei of atoms) and aether (which fills the spaces between the nuclei of the atoms). So, the larger the nuclei of atoms and the closer they are together in three dimensional space, the less aether there exists between the nuclei of the atoms and the denser the matter is. The smaller the nuclei of atoms are and the further apart from one another they are the less dense the matter is and the more aether which exists between the nuclei. Now, when light bends around the Sun, I prefer to consider the light to be bending due to the displacement of the aether. The aether closest to the surface of the Sun is displaced the most and the neighboring aether is less displaced, and the neighboring aether to that aether is less displaced, and so on. There does not need to be a 'density' of the aether involved in terms of its ability to bend light and to have increased gravitational effects. It just needs to be a matter of the amount of displacement which becomes an amount of pressure against the displacement. But, aether is compressed into matter. There is a difference between the states of matter, the density of matter, and the density of the aether. The density of matter is the amount of, or lack of, aether which exists between the nuclei of the atoms which is the matter. Matter can be compressed and uncompressed (aether). But, I would prefer not to apply the property of density to aether.
From: NoEinstein on 10 Dec 2009 22:25
On Dec 8, 7:05 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> > Gravity, indeed, relates to what > >> > happens with the ether > > 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. if anything, the presence of one mass displacing aether would push > the other object away, not bring them closer. Dear Inertial: Any two objects in space that are above absolute zero temperature will exchange radiant energy. That replaces the energy on the facing sides that is constantly being lost through radiation. But it doesn't replace the energy being lost on the opposing sides. Because the opposing sides are deficient in energy, the ether pressure pushes on the opposing sides more than on the facing sides causing the two objects to move closer together. Ether flow of this nature is closely analogous to weather systems of highs and lows. The most wind goes where the pressure is the lowest. The ether "wind" effectively pushes the objects together! NoEinstein |