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: PD on 11 Dec 2009 17:08 On Dec 11, 3:56 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > On Dec 11, 4:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 11, 2:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 11, 3:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 11, 2:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 11, 3:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 11, 12:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 11, 12:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 11, 11:21 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 11, 11:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 11, 10:07 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Magnetic and electric fields are waves in the aether. > > > > > > > > > > > If you have a refrigerator magnet laying on the kitchen counter, the > > > > > > > > > > magnetic field is a constant and nothing about that field moves. How > > > > > > > > > > is this a wave in the aether? > > > > > > > > > > The magnet on the counter is no different than the aether wave a C-60 > > > > > > > > > molecule creates in a double slit experiment. Just like the C-60 > > > > > > > > > molecule creates a displacement wave in the aether, the electrons all > > > > > > > > > moving in unison in the magnet create an aether vortex. > > > > > > > > > > > If you run a plastic comb through your hair and lay it on the counter > > > > > > > > > > right on top of the refrigerator magnet, the electric field is a > > > > > > > > > > constant and nothing about that field moves. How is this a wave in the > > > > > > > > > > aether? > > > > > > > > > > > At a particular place on the surface of the counter, the electric and > > > > > > > > > > magnetic fields have different strengths and different directions. > > > > > > > > > > What is the direction and magnitude of the displacement of the aether > > > > > > > > > > at that place? > > > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > > > Its the same thing as multiple waves interacting. The waves could be > > > > > > > > > cumulative or the waves could cancel each other out. > > > > > > > > > No sir. Wave superposition applies only to waves of the same sort: two > > > > > > > > water waves, two sound waves, two light waves. When that happens at a > > > > > > > > particular point, you can't tell how much of the displacement at that > > > > > > > > point is due to one wave and how much is due to the other -- you can > > > > > > > > only measure the sum. > > > > > > > > > But in the cases that I mentioned, you can measure each of the fields > > > > > > > > SEPARATELY where they overlap. They do not superpose (they do not > > > > > > > > constructively or destructively interfere). > > > > > > > > > How can you account for the SEPARATELY MEASURABLE fields (electric, > > > > > > > > magnetic, gravitational, strong nuclear, weak nuclear) at a given spot > > > > > > > > in space? > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle > > > > > > > > "In physics, Maxwell's equations imply that the (possibly time- > > > > > > > varying) distributions of charges and currents are related to the > > > > > > > electric and magnetic fields by a linear transformation. Thus, the > > > > > > > superposition principle can be used to simplify the computation of > > > > > > > fields which arise from given charge and current distribution.." > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations > > > > > > > > "In 1864, Maxwell derived the electromagnetic wave equation by linking > > > > > > > the displacement current to the time-varying electric field that is > > > > > > > associated with electromagnetic induction. This is described in his A > > > > > > > Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, where he wrote: > > > > > > > > "The agreement of the results seems to show that light and > > > > > > > magnetism are affections of the same substance, and that light is an > > > > > > > electromagnetic disturbance propagated through the field according to > > > > > > > electromagnetic laws." [note 1] > > > > > > > > The extension to displacement current applies in the pure vacuum. This > > > > > > > has been interpreted by some to mean that a changing electric field > > > > > > > can produce a magnetic field, and vice-versa. Under this > > > > > > > interpretation it follows that even with no electric charges or > > > > > > > currents present, it is possible to have stable, self-perpetuating > > > > > > > waves of oscillating electric and magnetic fields, with each field > > > > > > > driving the other. The physical parameters of transverse elasticity > > > > > > > and density, which Maxwell used to calculate the speed of these > > > > > > > electromagnetic waves, have been replaced by two easily-measurable > > > > > > > physical constants, the electric constant and the magnetic constant." > > > > > > > > Displacement Current = Aether Displacement. > > > > > > > While I applaud your willingness to try to correct your ignorance by > > > > > > looking things up in Wikipedia, it would help if you knew a little > > > > > > more about what you're talking about. The statement about > > > > > > superposition of electromagnetic fields from charges and currents is > > > > > > talking about the superposition of the *same* kind of field due to > > > > > > multiple sources (charges and currents). > > > > > > > I mentioned to you that the *same* region of space will have > > > > > > *different* kinds of fields -- say, electric and gravitational -- > > > > > > present. These can be static fields, not waves. Please account for the > > > > > > presence of TWO different kinds of fields in the same location due to > > > > > > THE displacement of THE aether from ITS rest position. > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > You are misinterpreting the following: > > > > > > "Under this interpretation it follows that even with no electric > > > > > charges or currents present, it is possible to have stable, self- > > > > > perpetuating waves of oscillating electric and magnetic fields, with > > > > > each field driving the other." > > > > > > See the part about "WAVES of electric AND magnetic fields, with each > > > > > field driving the other." > > > > > Yes, there CAN be electromagnetic waves. But there can be fields that > > > > are NOT waves. Static fields are generated all the time. This is why I > > > > mentioned the statically charged plastic comb sitting on a > > > > refrigerator magnet on your kitchen counter. No waves present. But > > > > fields -- distinct fields -- there nonetheless. Not to mention the > > > > gravitational field present in the same spot. > > > > > How can all those fields be accounted for by THE displacement of THE > > > > aether from ITS rest position? > > > > > PD > > > > Static electricity still consists of waves in the aether, they are > > > just not all in sync simultaneously. > > > > 'Static Electricity'http://science.howstuffworks.com/vdg1.htm > > > > "The term "static" in this case is deceptive, because it implies "no > > > motion," when in reality it is very common and necessary for charge > > > imbalances to flow. The spark you feel when you touch a door knob is > > > an example of such flow." > > > Oh dear. Again, I applaud your attempt to learn basic science, but it > > would help enormously if you didn't try to do it on your own and > > unguided. > > > A static electric field where there is no charge flow is not the same > > thing as "static electricity" where there IS charge flow, as in the > > sparks between your finger and the dog's nose. > > > I realize that it must be frustrating to not be figure it out without > > always running into things that aren't so simple. If it were simple > > for people to figure out science by reading Wikipedia articles, MPC, > > there would be no need for university classes and degree programs in > > the subjects. But there is, and for good reason.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Paul: Just as you can't build a strong box out of rotten wood, you > can't win an argument with an opponent who knows nothing. > > MPC: Aether dispolacement is an attempt to explain the behavior of > everything without knowing how everything behaves. You have not made > any progress in the last year. We'll see if you make any by next > December. Well said.
From: mpc755 on 11 Dec 2009 17:10 On Dec 11, 4:56 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > Paul: Just as you can't build a strong box out of rotten wood, you > can't win an argument with an opponent who knows nothing. > > MPC: Aether dispolacement is an attempt to explain the behavior of > everything without knowing how everything behaves. You have not made > any progress in the last year. We'll see if you make any by next > December. http://science.jrank.org/pages/7195/Virtual-Particles.html 'Virtual particles are subatomic particles that form out of "nothing"' Exactly how does a virtual particle form from nothing? Exactly how does a C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without releasing energy, requiring energy, or having a change in momentum? Exactly how is a C-60 molecule able to enter one slit or multiple slits depending upon detectors being placed at the exits to the slits, or not, in the future (while the C-60 molecule is in the slits)? Virtual particles do not exist and the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit.
From: PD on 11 Dec 2009 17:18 On Dec 11, 4:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 11, 4:56 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > > Paul: Just as you can't build a strong box out of rotten wood, you > > can't win an argument with an opponent who knows nothing. > > > MPC: Aether dispolacement is an attempt to explain the behavior of > > everything without knowing how everything behaves. You have not made > > any progress in the last year. We'll see if you make any by next > > December. > > http://science.jrank.org/pages/7195/Virtual-Particles.html > 'Virtual particles are subatomic particles that form out of "nothing"' > > Exactly how does a virtual particle form from nothing? > > Exactly how does a C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, enter, > travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without > releasing energy, requiring energy, or having a change in momentum? > > Exactly how is a C-60 molecule able to enter one slit or multiple > slits depending upon detectors being placed at the exits to the slits, > or not, in the future (while the C-60 molecule is in the slits)? > > Virtual particles do not exist and the C-60 molecule always enters and > exits a single slit. If you want answers to these questions, MPC, you need an education. So far, trying to educate yourself by browsing on the web about what "static electricity" means is not cutting it in terms of quality or efficacy. If you put yourself in the hands of a teacher, you'd find out exactly "exactly how" these things come to be. But I can imagine your terror of failure and overwhelming sensation of inadequacy, and how it makes putting yourself in that position just an inconceivable proposition. Nothing I can do about it. Only you can fix that. PD
From: mpc755 on 11 Dec 2009 17:25 On Dec 11, 5:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 11, 4:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 11, 4:56 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > Paul: Just as you can't build a strong box out of rotten wood, you > > > can't win an argument with an opponent who knows nothing. > > > > MPC: Aether dispolacement is an attempt to explain the behavior of > > > everything without knowing how everything behaves. You have not made > > > any progress in the last year. We'll see if you make any by next > > > December. > > >http://science.jrank.org/pages/7195/Virtual-Particles.html > > 'Virtual particles are subatomic particles that form out of "nothing"' > > > Exactly how does a virtual particle form from nothing? > > > Exactly how does a C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, enter, > > travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without > > releasing energy, requiring energy, or having a change in momentum? > > > Exactly how is a C-60 molecule able to enter one slit or multiple > > slits depending upon detectors being placed at the exits to the slits, > > or not, in the future (while the C-60 molecule is in the slits)? > > > Virtual particles do not exist and the C-60 molecule always enters and > > exits a single slit. > > If you want answers to these questions, MPC, you need an education. So > far, trying to educate yourself by browsing on the web about what > "static electricity" means is not cutting it in terms of quality or > efficacy. > > If you put yourself in the hands of a teacher, you'd find out exactly > "exactly how" these things come to be. > > But I can imagine your terror of failure and overwhelming sensation of > inadequacy, and how it makes putting yourself in that position just an > inconceivable proposition. Nothing I can do about it. Only you can fix > that. > > PD The last sentence in my post is the correct answer.
From: Androcles on 11 Dec 2009 17:49
"Uncle Ben" <ben(a)greenba.com> wrote in message news:37250ab7-4ed5-4a55-af10-8d75fbc852ff(a)f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On Dec 11, 4:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 11, 2:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 11, 3:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 11, 2:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 11, 3:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 11, 12:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 11, 12:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 11, 11:21 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 11, 11:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 11, 10:07 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Magnetic and electric fields are waves in the aether. > > > > > > > > > > If you have a refrigerator magnet laying on the kitchen > > > > > > > > > counter, the > > > > > > > > > magnetic field is a constant and nothing about that field > > > > > > > > > moves. How > > > > > > > > > is this a wave in the aether? > > > > > > > > > The magnet on the counter is no different than the aether > > > > > > > > wave a C-60 > > > > > > > > molecule creates in a double slit experiment. Just like the > > > > > > > > C-60 > > > > > > > > molecule creates a displacement wave in the aether, the > > > > > > > > electrons all > > > > > > > > moving in unison in the magnet create an aether vortex. > > > > > > > > > > If you run a plastic comb through your hair and lay it on > > > > > > > > > the counter > > > > > > > > > right on top of the refrigerator magnet, the electric > > > > > > > > > field is a > > > > > > > > > constant and nothing about that field moves. How is this a > > > > > > > > > wave in the > > > > > > > > > aether? > > > > > > > > > > At a particular place on the surface of the counter, the > > > > > > > > > electric and > > > > > > > > > magnetic fields have different strengths and different > > > > > > > > > directions. > > > > > > > > > What is the direction and magnitude of the displacement of > > > > > > > > > the aether > > > > > > > > > at that place? > > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > > Its the same thing as multiple waves interacting. The waves > > > > > > > > could be > > > > > > > > cumulative or the waves could cancel each other out. > > > > > > > > No sir. Wave superposition applies only to waves of the same > > > > > > > sort: two > > > > > > > water waves, two sound waves, two light waves. When that > > > > > > > happens at a > > > > > > > particular point, you can't tell how much of the displacement > > > > > > > at that > > > > > > > point is due to one wave and how much is due to the other -- > > > > > > > you can > > > > > > > only measure the sum. > > > > > > > > But in the cases that I mentioned, you can measure each of the > > > > > > > fields > > > > > > > SEPARATELY where they overlap. They do not superpose (they do > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > constructively or destructively interfere). > > > > > > > > How can you account for the SEPARATELY MEASURABLE fields > > > > > > > (electric, > > > > > > > magnetic, gravitational, strong nuclear, weak nuclear) at a > > > > > > > given spot > > > > > > > in space? > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle > > > > > > > "In physics, Maxwell's equations imply that the (possibly time- > > > > > > varying) distributions of charges and currents are related to > > > > > > the > > > > > > electric and magnetic fields by a linear transformation. Thus, > > > > > > the > > > > > > superposition principle can be used to simplify the computation > > > > > > of > > > > > > fields which arise from given charge and current distribution." > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations > > > > > > > "In 1864, Maxwell derived the electromagnetic wave equation by > > > > > > linking > > > > > > the displacement current to the time-varying electric field that > > > > > > is > > > > > > associated with electromagnetic induction. This is described in > > > > > > his A > > > > > > Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, where he wrote: > > > > > > > "The agreement of the results seems to show that light and > > > > > > magnetism are affections of the same substance, and that light > > > > > > is an > > > > > > electromagnetic disturbance propagated through the field > > > > > > according to > > > > > > electromagnetic laws." [note 1] > > > > > > > The extension to displacement current applies in the pure > > > > > > vacuum. This > > > > > > has been interpreted by some to mean that a changing electric > > > > > > field > > > > > > can produce a magnetic field, and vice-versa. Under this > > > > > > interpretation it follows that even with no electric charges or > > > > > > currents present, it is possible to have stable, > > > > > > self-perpetuating > > > > > > waves of oscillating electric and magnetic fields, with each > > > > > > field > > > > > > driving the other. The physical parameters of transverse > > > > > > elasticity > > > > > > and density, which Maxwell used to calculate the speed of these > > > > > > electromagnetic waves, have been replaced by two > > > > > > easily-measurable > > > > > > physical constants, the electric constant and the magnetic > > > > > > constant." > > > > > > > Displacement Current = Aether Displacement. > > > > > > While I applaud your willingness to try to correct your ignorance > > > > > by > > > > > looking things up in Wikipedia, it would help if you knew a little > > > > > more about what you're talking about. The statement about > > > > > superposition of electromagnetic fields from charges and currents > > > > > is > > > > > talking about the superposition of the *same* kind of field due to > > > > > multiple sources (charges and currents). > > > > > > I mentioned to you that the *same* region of space will have > > > > > *different* kinds of fields -- say, electric and gravitational -- > > > > > present. These can be static fields, not waves. Please account for > > > > > the > > > > > presence of TWO different kinds of fields in the same location due > > > > > to > > > > > THE displacement of THE aether from ITS rest position. > > > > > > PD > > > > > You are misinterpreting the following: > > > > > "Under this interpretation it follows that even with no electric > > > > charges or currents present, it is possible to have stable, self- > > > > perpetuating waves of oscillating electric and magnetic fields, with > > > > each field driving the other." > > > > > See the part about "WAVES of electric AND magnetic fields, with each > > > > field driving the other." > > > > Yes, there CAN be electromagnetic waves. But there can be fields that > > > are NOT waves. Static fields are generated all the time. This is why I > > > mentioned the statically charged plastic comb sitting on a > > > refrigerator magnet on your kitchen counter. No waves present. But > > > fields -- distinct fields -- there nonetheless. Not to mention the > > > gravitational field present in the same spot. > > > > How can all those fields be accounted for by THE displacement of THE > > > aether from ITS rest position? > > > > PD > > > Static electricity still consists of waves in the aether, they are > > just not all in sync simultaneously. > > > 'Static Electricity'http://science.howstuffworks.com/vdg1.htm > > > "The term "static" in this case is deceptive, because it implies "no > > motion," when in reality it is very common and necessary for charge > > imbalances to flow. The spark you feel when you touch a door knob is > > an example of such flow." > > Oh dear. Again, I applaud your attempt to learn basic science, but it > would help enormously if you didn't try to do it on your own and > unguided. > > A static electric field where there is no charge flow is not the same > thing as "static electricity" where there IS charge flow, as in the > sparks between your finger and the dog's nose. > > I realize that it must be frustrating to not be figure it out without > always running into things that aren't so simple. If it were simple > for people to figure out science by reading Wikipedia articles, MPC, > there would be no need for university classes and degree programs in > the subjects. But there is, and for good reason.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Paul: Just as you can't build a strong box out of rotten wood, you can't win an argument with an opponent who knows nothing. ========================================== Bonehead: you can't win an argument, you know nothing. MPC: Aether dispolacement ================================== Do you mean aether dis-police-ment, Bonehead? The aether police have been disbanded, Michelson didn't like artificial speed limits on light. |