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: BURT on 11 Dec 2009 19:25 On Dec 11, 2:49 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: > "Uncle Ben" <b...(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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Anybody ever seen virtual atoms? Couldn't a virtual particle be created in the atom? And what about virtual light? Has anybody ever seen this light? Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 11 Dec 2009 19:27 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: BURT on 11 Dec 2009 19:31 On Dec 11, 4:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. We would bump into virtual particles all the time. Speed would slow down and matter would gather their energy from space. Both of these never happen therefore it is proven that virtual particles and quantum fluctuations are disproven. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 11 Dec 2009 19:36 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: mpc755 on 11 Dec 2009 22:16
On Nov 27, 10:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Aether is an elastic medium and does not rest when displaced. It > pushes back. When matter displaces the aether, the pressure the aether > exerts back towards the matter is gravity. > > When a C-60 molecule is used in a double slit experiment, the > displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates in the aether enters and > exits multiple slits while the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single > slit. > > A=Mc^2 where A is aether and M is matter. > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > diminishes by L/c2." > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > and matter is energy. For those who may not be of mediocre mind, ask yourself, is it more likely the C-60 molecule enters one or more slits depending on there being, or not being, detectors at the exits to the slits when it gets there in the future (the detectors are placed, and, or, removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slits) or is it more likely the C-60 molecule creates a displacement wave in the aether and it is the aether wave which enters and exits multiple slits while the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit? |