Aether Displacement is the most correct physical unified theory to date
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 6 Dec 2009 21:02 On Dec 2, 1:16 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 1, 10:05 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 30, 10:40 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 30, 6:01 am, mpc755 wrote: > > > >< glird, > > > The denser the local material is per volume, the stronger the > > > reactive aether pressure will be. > > > > Yes. > > > >< The displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates in the aether exists prior to the C-60 molecule entering a slit.> > > > Yes. (The molecule travels far slower than the wave, which travels > > > in air at c.) > > > ><The aether displacement wave created by the C-60 molecule enters available slits. The observed behaviors of a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule is more a > > > function of the moving C-60 molecule having an associated aether > > > displacement wave and this wave enters available slits than it is the > > > C-60 molecule affecting the material which separates the slits. > > > > Yes; BUT the molecule also affects the material filling the slit and > > > that of the wall. In effect, the wall becomes asymmetrically charged. > > > It is stronger on one side of the slit and the walls than in and on > > > the other. > > > Although that has a negligible affect on subsequent wave systems, it > > > has a measurable affect on the relatively slow moving molecules that > > > subsequently traverse each slit. THAT'S what causes the resulting > > > pattern that appears in such experiments. > > > glird > > I disagree with the last sentence. The C-60 molecule interacting with > > the single slit could be shown to be incorrect by placing a barrier in > > front of one of the slits. Send the C-60 molecule multiple times > > through the unblocked slit. Then switch which slit is blocked and re- > > execute the test so the C-60 molecule enters and exits the other slit, > > which is now unblocked, multiple times. There will not be an > > interference pattern because the displacement wave was not allowed to > > physically enter and exit the available slits, create interference, > > and alter the direction the C-60 molecule travels. > > The distance the slits are apart will effect the pattern. > > The red and blue lines in the image on the right here represents the > > paths the photon wave travels:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experi... > > The photon wave is physically traveling the available paths and when > > the red and blue paths are combined, interference occurs, altering the > > direction the photon 'particle' travels. This is misinterpreted as > > something is being erased. > > Something similar is occurring when a C-60 molecule is used in a > > double slit experiment. The displacement wave the C-60 molecule > > creates in the aether physically enters and exits the available slits, > > creating interference, altering the direction the C-60 molecule > > travels. This is functionally the same as a boat and its bow wave. If > > there is only a single slit the bow wave the boat is creating will not > > greatly alter the direction the boat is traveling upon exiting the > > slit. If there are multiple slits, the bow wave enters and exits the > > multiple slits. The bow waves exiting the slits the boat does not > > travel through will cross out ahead of the boat's path and interfere > > with the bow waves exiting the other slits, including the bow wave > > riding out ahead of and along with the boat through the slit the boat > > travels through, and alter the direction the boat travels. > You may be right. :-) > glird There is no right or wrong. Only correct and incorrect. Right and wrong are final. Correct and incorrect can change as experimental evidence is re-evaluated (like delayed choice experiments better interpreted as physical waves in the aether traveling available paths). What we need is evidence of physical waves in the aether traveling available paths. We need a modified version of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment Where the downgraded mirror-image photons interact in such a way that the aether wave of one photon (not containing the photon 'particle') interacts with the aether wave of the other photon (containing the photon 'particle') and an interference pattern occurs. What has to happen is the photon 'particle' of one of the photons needs to be detected and the photon 'particle' of the other photon needs not to be detected. The photon aether wave of the detected photon and the photon aether wave (along with the photon 'particle') of the other photon are combined. An interference pattern should still be created in this scenario. I know of no way QM could account for this because after the one photon 'particle' is detected, that is it. There is no associated aether wave and the other photon 'particle' has nothing to interfere with so an interference pattern should not be created. Now of course, since QM is very incorrect, something will be made up about delayed choice or erasers or some other such nonsense. But, this experiment will be more evidence of physical waves in the aether traveling available paths. Choosing to believe a moving C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, enters, travels through, and exits multiple slits simultaneously without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum, is a more correct physical description of the observed behaviors of C-60 molecules in a double slit experiment vs. the moving C-60 molecule creates a displacement wave in the aether is incorrect. Choosing to believe a C-60 molecule will enter a single slit or multiple slits depending upon detectors being placed at the exits to the slits in the future (while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s)) is a more correct physical description of the observed behaviors of a C-60 molecule in a double slit experiment vs. the moving C-60 molecule creates a displacement wave in the aether is incorrect. Aether Displacement was originally called Spacial Displacement. The spelling of Spacial was intentional to denote it was space that was being displaced. But then it was confusing to discuss the 'stuff of space' which was physically being displaced vs. three dimensional space and since the 'stuff of space' is most often referred to as ether, or aether, the name was changed.
From: Huang on 6 Dec 2009 21:51 > Choosing to believe a moving C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, > enters, travels through, and exits multiple slits simultaneously > without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in > momentum, is a more correct physical description of the observed > behaviors of C-60 molecules in a double slit experiment vs. the moving > C-60 molecule creates a displacement wave in the aether is incorrect. It requires no energy because no chemical bonds are broken, nor are they reformed after passing through the slit. It is a quantum phenomena and is trivial. NON-TRIVIAL reactions may require or release energy - trivial ones DO NOT. But in any case, there is no chemical reaction. The molecule may be regarded as a wave. It may be regarded as a particle. It is indeterminate whether it is one or the other, until you pose a question in such a way that it FORCES THE ANSWER to be formatted as one or the other. it is all very obvious. If I tell you to "give me a random number", you dont have any idea whether I want discrete or continuous output. My question is ambiguous. If I change the question "give me a random integer" or "give me a random real", then I have modified the question signifigantly. That is what wave particle duality is all about. It is DIRT SIMPLE.
From: mpc755 on 6 Dec 2009 22:19 On Dec 6, 9:51 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Choosing to believe a moving C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, > > enters, travels through, and exits multiple slits simultaneously > > without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in > > momentum, is a more correct physical description of the observed > > behaviors of C-60 molecules in a double slit experiment vs. the moving > > C-60 molecule creates a displacement wave in the aether is incorrect. > > It requires no energy because no chemical bonds are broken, nor are > they reformed after passing through the slit. It is a quantum > phenomena and is trivial. > Saying it is a 'quantum phenomena' is saying its magic. > NON-TRIVIAL reactions may require or release energy - trivial ones DO > NOT. But in any case, there is no chemical reaction. > > The molecule may be regarded as a wave. It may be regarded as a > particle. It is indeterminate whether it is one or the other, until > you pose a question in such a way that it FORCES THE ANSWER to be > formatted as one or the other. > The molecule is not a wave. The molecule is a particle, always. > it is all very obvious. > > If I tell you to "give me a random number", you dont have any idea > whether I want discrete or continuous output. My question is > ambiguous. If I change the question "give me a random integer" or > "give me a random real", then I have modified the question > signifigantly. That is what wave particle duality is all about. It is > DIRT SIMPLE. If a double slit experiment is performed with a boat and the boat creates an interference pattern on the shore, is the boat a wave or does water exist?
From: BURT on 6 Dec 2009 22:40 On Dec 6, 5:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 6, 3:38 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 6, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > My interpretation of modeling is mathematics. Mathematics is the judge > > > and jury as to the validity of a theory. But, mathematics is not > > > nature. I have not heard of magnitudes before but my guess as to what > > > you are implying is the 'magnitude' that something is a wave vs. the > > > 'magnitude' something is a particle. But I disagree completely with a > > > C-60 molecule being a wave at any magnitude. > > > > Now, if you want to re-interpret magnitude to include aether, then you > > > might have something. 'Dimension' is a mathematical construct, not > > > nature. The aether is necessary. The aether is physical. The aether is > > > required in order to have a more correct physical description of > > > nature. > > > > If a double slit experiment is performed with a boat and the boat > > > creates an interference pattern on the shore, is the boat a wave or > > > does water exist? > > > > A double slit experiment performed with C-60 molecules is evidence of > > > the existence of aether.- Hide quoted text - > > > A magnitude is a very simple idea. 5 liters, 20 centimeters, 6 miles, > > 2,000 watts...etc . These are all magnitudes. > > > What I was referring to above was magnitudes of length. Quantities of > > dimension measured as length. If you have 10 meters which exists, and > > one meter which does not exist, you can compose them to obtain an > > existentially indeterminate length of magnitude 11, which has expected > > length 10. > > > Any probabilistic problem can be reworded in terms of existential > > indeterminacy and conservation of existential potential. > > > Yes....all of these procedures are trivial. They have to be. > > Triviality is inherent to QM. > > A sentence like "existentially indeterminate length of magnitude 11, > which has expected length 10" is nonsense. Same for one meter of > length which does not exist. This is all due to the nonsense required > in QM. QM requires all of this nonsense because it doesn't understand > a moving body has an associated aether wave. Once you understand > aether exists and is responsible for the wave portion of the observed > behaviors in the double slit experiment, the nonsense goes away. I > think QM is very, very, incorrect in how it describes nature. In > Aether Displacement all of the nonsense goes away. When a double slit > experiment is performed with a C-60 molecule, there is a moving C-60 > molecule and the displacement wave it creates in the aether. There is > a particle AND a wave. The particle and the wave are separate entities > working as one. > > Let's back up a minute. > > Answer the following: > > If a double slit experiment is performed with a boat and the boat > creates an interference pattern on the shore, is the boat a wave or > does water exist?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I used to think that aether was the substance of the universe. I now think there are three substances. First is what everyone sees and models and that is energy flow and phenomenon. The second is aether which is the ordering element of the universe. It orders energy flow and it flows over and through matter and light. Then there is the substance of space or geometry wherein togetherness the aether and energy is. This is my Unified Theory. Ather and energy together are time. Time fills space. So Unification is ultimatly Two things together time and space but that togetherness is one substance and Einstein called that continuity. Einstein's first Unification is the last. Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 6 Dec 2009 22:45
On Dec 6, 7:40 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 6, 5:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 6, 3:38 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 6, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > My interpretation of modeling is mathematics. Mathematics is the judge > > > > and jury as to the validity of a theory. But, mathematics is not > > > > nature. I have not heard of magnitudes before but my guess as to what > > > > you are implying is the 'magnitude' that something is a wave vs. the > > > > 'magnitude' something is a particle. But I disagree completely with a > > > > C-60 molecule being a wave at any magnitude. > > > > > Now, if you want to re-interpret magnitude to include aether, then you > > > > might have something. 'Dimension' is a mathematical construct, not > > > > nature. The aether is necessary. The aether is physical. The aether is > > > > required in order to have a more correct physical description of > > > > nature. > > > > > If a double slit experiment is performed with a boat and the boat > > > > creates an interference pattern on the shore, is the boat a wave or > > > > does water exist? > > > > > A double slit experiment performed with C-60 molecules is evidence of > > > > the existence of aether.- Hide quoted text - > > > > A magnitude is a very simple idea. 5 liters, 20 centimeters, 6 miles, > > > 2,000 watts...etc . These are all magnitudes. > > > > What I was referring to above was magnitudes of length. Quantities of > > > dimension measured as length. If you have 10 meters which exists, and > > > one meter which does not exist, you can compose them to obtain an > > > existentially indeterminate length of magnitude 11, which has expected > > > length 10. > > > > Any probabilistic problem can be reworded in terms of existential > > > indeterminacy and conservation of existential potential. > > > > Yes....all of these procedures are trivial. They have to be. > > > Triviality is inherent to QM. > > > A sentence like "existentially indeterminate length of magnitude 11, > > which has expected length 10" is nonsense. Same for one meter of > > length which does not exist. This is all due to the nonsense required > > in QM. QM requires all of this nonsense because it doesn't understand > > a moving body has an associated aether wave. Once you understand > > aether exists and is responsible for the wave portion of the observed > > behaviors in the double slit experiment, the nonsense goes away. I > > think QM is very, very, incorrect in how it describes nature. In > > Aether Displacement all of the nonsense goes away. When a double slit > > experiment is performed with a C-60 molecule, there is a moving C-60 > > molecule and the displacement wave it creates in the aether. There is > > a particle AND a wave. The particle and the wave are separate entities > > working as one. > > > Let's back up a minute. > > > Answer the following: > > > If a double slit experiment is performed with a boat and the boat > > creates an interference pattern on the shore, is the boat a wave or > > does water exist?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I used to think that aether was the substance of the universe. I now > think there are three substances. First is what everyone sees and > models and that is energy flow and phenomenon. The second is aether > which is the ordering element of the universe. It orders energy flow > and it flows over and through matter and light. Then there is the > substance of space or geometry wherein togetherness the aether and > energy is. > > This is my Unified Theory. Ather and energy together are time. Time > fills space. So Unification is ultimatly Two things together time and > space but that togetherness is one substance and Einstein called that > continuity. Einstein's first Unification is the last. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Also time is where flowing aether and energy is. Light and matter have their own times. There are two times in the universe. Mitch Raemsch |