Aether Displacement is the most correct physical unified theory to date
in [Physics]
|
From: BURT on 6 Dec 2009 23:53 On Dec 6, 7:55 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 6, 10:40 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 - > > <snip> > > > This is my Unified Theory. > > Great. Why don't you start your own thread and see what kind of > responses you get for your Unified Theory. This thread is titled > Aether Displacement.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Why do you mock what I share? Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 7 Dec 2009 08:44 On Dec 6, 11:53 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 6, 7:55 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 6, 10:40 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 - > > > <snip> > > > > This is my Unified Theory. > > > Great. Why don't you start your own thread and see what kind of > > responses you get for your Unified Theory. This thread is titled > > Aether Displacement.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Why do you mock what I share? > > Mitch Raemsch I am not mocking you, but most of your posts add no value to the topic. You repeatedly post "aether flows over energy" and similar posts. In this thread, when matter transitions into aether, the expansion matter undergoes transitioning into aether and the effect this increase in volume has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. No matter how many times I try and explain to you the focus on energy in this thread is the expansion of matter when it transitions to aether your response will be "aether flows over energy". No, aether does not flow over energy. Energy is not a physical entity. Energy is an action. Energy is what occurs when physical things happen. Energy is the label we place on physical behaviors. Energy is the result of physical actions. Aether does not flow over energy. Not in this thread anyways. I do not know how to explain it more clearly than the following: '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.
From: Huang on 7 Dec 2009 08:47 On Dec 6, 10:53 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 6, 7:55 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 6, 10:40 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 - > > > <snip> > > > > This is my Unified Theory. > > > Great. Why don't you start your own thread and see what kind of > > responses you get for your Unified Theory. This thread is titled > > Aether Displacement.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Why do you mock what I share? > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - OK then, lets say that aether is being displaced. Here are some questions. [1] Can you quantify the displacement ? Can you put numbers on it ? [2] Can you do an experiment to prove aether displacement in your lab which I can reproduce in my lab ? [3] Can you explain why aether would exist at all, in the aftermath of MichelsonMorelyExperiment ? [4] Is your model falsifiable ?
From: mpc755 on 7 Dec 2009 08:53 On Dec 6, 11:20 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 6, 9:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > That is where you are not just wrong, you are in fact very wrong. > > > > 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? > > Completely different situation. I would call this the fallacy of bad > analogies. > Incorrect. Exactly the same situation. If a double slit experiment is performed with a C-60 molecule and the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern on the screen, is the C-60 molecule a wave or does aether exist? Detectors will, or won't, be placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). If detectors are placed at the exits to the slits the instant before the C-60 molecule exits, the C-60 molecule will always be detected exiting a single slit. If detectors are removed at the last instant before the C-60 molecule exits the slits, interference occurs. What is your explanation to the above? Are you one of those who chooses to believe the C-60 molecule enters one slit or multiple slits depending upon what is going to occur in the future? In Aether Displacement, the C-60 molecule is always a particle and it always enters and exits a single slit while the displacement wave it creates in the aether enters and exits multiple slits. > > 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 .... > > The sentence "existentially indeterminate length of magnitude 11, > which has expected length 10" is perfectly, and thoroughly sensible. > The only thing it suffers from is teh fact that it is inherently > trivial, but as it turns out triviality is not such an evil thing and > the apporach is both sensible and indeed useful. > > What I would like to see is hot you can make mathematical sense of > aether, after Michaelson-Morely completely blew that out of the water, > (perhaps if only temporariliy but nevertheless). The Michelson-Morley experiment is evidence of an entrained aether. 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" The connectedness between matter and the aether is what causes the aether to be entrained by the matter which is the Earth. The connectedness and the associated entrainment is not the reason for gravity. The aether not being at rest when displaced is the reason for gravity. Drill a million tiny holes into a bowling ball and put the bowling ball into a tank of water and spin the bowling ball. The water becomes entrained by the bowling ball.
From: mpc755 on 7 Dec 2009 09:08
On Dec 7, 8:47 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 6, 10:53 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 6, 7:55 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 6, 10:40 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 - > > > > <snip> > > > > > This is my Unified Theory. > > > > Great. Why don't you start your own thread and see what kind of > > > responses you get for your Unified Theory. This thread is titled > > > Aether Displacement.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Why do you mock what I share? > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > OK then, lets say that aether is being displaced. Here are some > questions. > > [1] Can you quantify the displacement ? Can you put numbers on it ? > Aether is displaced by mass per volume. Consider mass to be the amount of not-at-rest aether. > [2] Can you do an experiment to prove aether displacement in your lab > which I can reproduce in my lab ? > In Aether Displacement, the wave associated with a photon travels available paths and the photon 'particle' travels a single path. Here is an image of a photon I like: http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/foton.gif Think of the tip/point of the photon physically traveling a single path, like a particle does, and think of the photon wave physically traveling multiple paths, like a wave does. The photon 'particle' can only be detected along a single path. Modify this experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment Make it so the 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. > [3] Can you explain why aether would exist at all, in the aftermath of > MichelsonMorelyExperiment ? > Aether entrainment. > [4] Is your model falsifiable ? The experiment described above would be evidence against Aether Displacement. I would need to know what is occurring exactly in the experiment before concluding it is evidence against Aether Displacement. Since the downgraded photon pair are exact opposites they would have to be combined in such a way that their waves do not cancel each other out. If the waves cancel each other out, then there is no interference. One of the photons needs to go through a beam splitter while the other photon needs to be reflected by the same beam splitter in order for their waves not to cancel and for an interference pattern to be formed. |