Aether Displacement is the most correct physical unified theory to date
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 7 Dec 2009 19:42 On Dec 7, 7:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 7, 4:28 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 7, 7:12 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 7, 4:09 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 7, 6:52 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 7, 3:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 7, 6:13 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 7, 3:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 7, 5:35 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 'Dimension' is mathematics, not nature. > > > > > > > > > > This is absurd. Dimension is part of the continuity of everything. > > > > > > > > > Dimension has direction. Up down,right left,front back > > > > > > > > > If you think in terms of dimension you only have 6 directions in > > > > > > > > > space. > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > Dimension displaced by a moving body forms a wave doesn't cut-it. > > > > > > > > > Aether displaced by a moving body forms a wave. > > > > > > > > Did you know you are talking to yourself? > > > > > > > I was responding to your reply of my post.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > But you are making up stuff about what is in your head. I cannot make > > > > > hide not hair of it. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > Do you understand if the bow wave of a boat enters and exits two > > > > slits, when the bow wave exits both slits, the waves will interfere > > > > with each other? > > > > > When a double slit experiment is performed with a C-60 molecule, the > > > > displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates in the aether enters and > > > > exits multiple slits and when the waves exit the slits they interfere > > > > with each other. > > > > > This interference alters the direction the C-60 molecule is traveling. > > > > > Do you understand the above? > > > > > You don't have to agree with it, but do you understand it? > > > > > If you understand it but don't agree with it, you can stop posting on > > > > this thread because the displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates in > > > > the aether is fundamental to Aether Displacement. > > > > > If you don't understand it, what is it you do not understand?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Understanding abounds here. > > > Great, you understand Aether Displacement. > > > This means you realize in Aether Displacement, a statement like > > "aether flows over energy" is nonsense. > > > This means you realize in Aether Displacement, the following is a > > better description of energy: > > > '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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > How does light go in and out of matter? Light propagates relative to the aether at 'c'. Aether is uncompressed matter.
From: BURT on 7 Dec 2009 20:23 On Dec 7, 4:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 7, 7:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 7, 4:28 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 7, 7:12 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 7, 4:09 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 7, 6:52 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 7, 3:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 7, 6:13 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 7, 3:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 7, 5:35 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Dimension' is mathematics, not nature. > > > > > > > > > > > This is absurd. Dimension is part of the continuity of everything. > > > > > > > > > > Dimension has direction. Up down,right left,front back > > > > > > > > > > If you think in terms of dimension you only have 6 directions in > > > > > > > > > > space. > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > Dimension displaced by a moving body forms a wave doesn't cut-it. > > > > > > > > > > Aether displaced by a moving body forms a wave. > > > > > > > > > Did you know you are talking to yourself? > > > > > > > > I was responding to your reply of my post.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > But you are making up stuff about what is in your head. I cannot make > > > > > > hide not hair of it. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > Do you understand if the bow wave of a boat enters and exits two > > > > > slits, when the bow wave exits both slits, the waves will interfere > > > > > with each other? > > > > > > When a double slit experiment is performed with a C-60 molecule, the > > > > > displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates in the aether enters and > > > > > exits multiple slits and when the waves exit the slits they interfere > > > > > with each other. > > > > > > This interference alters the direction the C-60 molecule is traveling. > > > > > > Do you understand the above? > > > > > > You don't have to agree with it, but do you understand it? > > > > > > If you understand it but don't agree with it, you can stop posting on > > > > > this thread because the displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates in > > > > > the aether is fundamental to Aether Displacement. > > > > > > If you don't understand it, what is it you do not understand?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Understanding abounds here. > > > > Great, you understand Aether Displacement. > > > > This means you realize in Aether Displacement, a statement like > > > "aether flows over energy" is nonsense. > > > > This means you realize in Aether Displacement, the following is a > > > better description of energy: > > > > '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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > How does light go in and out of matter? > > Light propagates relative to the aether at 'c'. Aether is uncompressed > matter.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I see you avoided the question.
From: Huang on 7 Dec 2009 21:46 On Dec 7, 3:50 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > In what follows, I will place numbers like this {#} to indicate > things I will comment on. > > On Dec 6, 3:38 pm, Huang wrote:> On Dec 6, 2:14 pm, mpc755 wrote: > > ... ... ... ... > Huang: Choosing to believe a moving C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected > atoms, > enters, travels through, and exits multiple slits simultaneously {1} > 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. > {2} C60 is neither wave nor particle. {3} It is indeterminate whether > it is one or the other. {4} If you ASK "which way" then nature will > tell you, simply because you modified the very nature of the > experiment by asking such a question in the first place. It behaves > like a particle {3} because that is the FORMAT of the output required > by the question "which way?" If you do NOT ask which way, then it > behaves like a wave. The experiments and the evidence has been > repeated thousands of times in labs all over the world. C60 is not a > wave, and is not a particle. It is indeterminately either one or the > other. {5} And if you ask a certain way, you will get a corresponding > output. > The only way to model this sensibly is by using a composition of > existent magnitudes and nonexistent magnitudes. THAT makes sense where > nothing else can. {6}> > > 1. How can one molecule be in two different places at the same > instant? Very easily. Consider existent length and represent it as : eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Consider nonexistent length and represent it as : nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn If you compose some eeeeeeeee with some nnnnnnnnnn you get something like this: [1] eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee nnn or possibly [2] nnn eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee or possibly [3] eeeeeeee nnn eeeeeeeeee Recalling that nnn is nonexistent, we can see very clearly that [1] [2] and [3] are all equal in the eyes of mathematics, and the position of the nnn is stricticly, perfectly and precisely "Indeterminate". So, if particles are composed of such little chunks of deformed dimension, they can have this property that they may "appear" to be in two places at once. In reality, the position of the particle is indeterminate for the very reasons that I explained. These "particles" that you speak of are nothing more then deformations of space, composed of nothing more than length and time. > 2. If (as Einstein did) we substitute "empty space" for "aether", > would you still deny that a moving particle creates a wave system? > 3. Define "particle"!! > 4. Until you define "particle" that is a meaningless sentence. > 5. The word "indeterminately" is superfluous and may be misleading. Indeterminacy is not superfluous, merely misunderstood. You've been lied to. Your university sold you a clunker, it runs but gets lousy mileage. > > Huang: ... Consider two magnitudes a and b, a exists and has > magnitude 10, b does not exist and has magnitude 1. {1} Now compose > these magnitudes. You will notice a couple of things right away: > [1] It is indeterminate {"indeterminate" is entirely different from > "not determined", which means "not specified"} whether the combined > magnitude is continuous or discrete. > [2] It is indeterminate whether you multiplied or added these things > a and b. > [3] This situation is exactly analogous to a probabilistic problem > from orthodox mathematics, just worded differently. {SO differently > worded as to be totally unrelated.} > [4] Provides a mechanism for modeling things like wave-particle > duality. {2} > [5] Provides a mechanism for modeling dark matter, gravity, and all > kinds of things. {2} > [6] Provides a way to say that determinacy is equivalent to > indeterminacy. {3} > [7] Explains the fundamental essence of mathematics as a kind of > absolute truth, Nonexistence is absolute falsehood and is singular, > and in the middle you have conjecture. Truth, falsehood, and > conjecture in the middle. It all fits very nicely. > [8] I could go on, and on, and on.... > Look at it this way. I ask you to get a random quantity of rope from > a bag, you cannot see inside the nag. You don't know if the pieces in > the bag are discrete chunks, or a continuous spool. Now let it be > indeterminate {unknown}whether the rope is continuous or discrete. If > I ASK how may pieces, then your answer MUST be discrete output and the > rope behaved discretely. {4} If I DO NOT ask how many pieces, then the > output is forced to be continuous by default and you MUST produce a > continuous random chunk of rope and the rope must behave as if > continuous. {5} Wave particle duality is no different. Quit beating > yourself up - the problem is solved. {6}> > > 1. Clarification: b has an unmeasured magnitude of 1. > 2. Please show us the mechanism. > 3. Saying that "determinacy is equivalent to indeterminacy" -- which > you just did -- doesn't make it true. > 4. Why "MUST" my reply behave as you say it must? > 5. In what way must a "chunk of rope" that is 1 foot long behave the > same as a continuous rope that is 100 feet long? For one very simple reason - unless you specify that you are asking for continuous or discrete chunks of rope it remains undetermined. If I tell you to bring me a fruit then it is indeterminate whether I meant bananas or oranges. If I say "how long and yellow is the fruit" then I have altered the output a priori and I would expect a banana.
From: mpc755 on 7 Dec 2009 22:00 On Dec 7, 8:23 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 7, 4:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 7, 7:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 7, 4:28 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 7, 7:12 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 7, 4:09 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 7, 6:52 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 7, 3:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 7, 6:13 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 7, 3:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 7, 5:35 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Dimension' is mathematics, not nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is absurd. Dimension is part of the continuity of everything. > > > > > > > > > > > Dimension has direction. Up down,right left,front back > > > > > > > > > > > If you think in terms of dimension you only have 6 directions in > > > > > > > > > > > space. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > Dimension displaced by a moving body forms a wave doesn't cut-it. > > > > > > > > > > > Aether displaced by a moving body forms a wave. > > > > > > > > > > Did you know you are talking to yourself? > > > > > > > > > I was responding to your reply of my post.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > But you are making up stuff about what is in your head. I cannot make > > > > > > > hide not hair of it. > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > Do you understand if the bow wave of a boat enters and exits two > > > > > > slits, when the bow wave exits both slits, the waves will interfere > > > > > > with each other? > > > > > > > When a double slit experiment is performed with a C-60 molecule, the > > > > > > displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates in the aether enters and > > > > > > exits multiple slits and when the waves exit the slits they interfere > > > > > > with each other. > > > > > > > This interference alters the direction the C-60 molecule is traveling. > > > > > > > Do you understand the above? > > > > > > > You don't have to agree with it, but do you understand it? > > > > > > > If you understand it but don't agree with it, you can stop posting on > > > > > > this thread because the displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates in > > > > > > the aether is fundamental to Aether Displacement. > > > > > > > If you don't understand it, what is it you do not understand?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Understanding abounds here. > > > > > Great, you understand Aether Displacement. > > > > > This means you realize in Aether Displacement, a statement like > > > > "aether flows over energy" is nonsense. > > > > > This means you realize in Aether Displacement, the following is a > > > > better description of energy: > > > > > '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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > How does light go in and out of matter? > > > Light propagates relative to the aether at 'c'. Aether is uncompressed > > matter.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I see you avoided the question. I had no idea what your question was and guess as to what it was you were trying to say. I know this is not going to happen, but I would prefer it if you would stop posting on this thread.
From: mpc755 on 7 Dec 2009 22:08
On Dec 7, 9:46 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 7, 3:50 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > In what follows, I will place numbers like this {#} to indicate > > things I will comment on. > > > On Dec 6, 3:38 pm, Huang wrote:> On Dec 6, 2:14 pm, mpc755 wrote: > > > ... ... ... ... > > Huang: Choosing to believe a moving C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected > > atoms, > > enters, travels through, and exits multiple slits simultaneously {1} > > 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. > > {2} C60 is neither wave nor particle. {3} It is indeterminate whether > > it is one or the other. {4} If you ASK "which way" then nature will > > tell you, simply because you modified the very nature of the > > experiment by asking such a question in the first place. It behaves > > like a particle {3} because that is the FORMAT of the output required > > by the question "which way?" If you do NOT ask which way, then it > > behaves like a wave. The experiments and the evidence has been > > repeated thousands of times in labs all over the world. C60 is not a > > wave, and is not a particle. It is indeterminately either one or the > > other. {5} And if you ask a certain way, you will get a corresponding > > output. > > The only way to model this sensibly is by using a composition of > > existent magnitudes and nonexistent magnitudes. THAT makes sense where > > nothing else can. {6}> > > > 1. How can one molecule be in two different places at the same > > instant? > > Very easily. > Consider existent length and represent it as : > eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee > Consider nonexistent length and represent it as : > nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn > > If you compose some eeeeeeeee with some nnnnnnnnnn you get something > like this: > > [1] eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee nnn > > or possibly > > [2] nnn eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee > > or possibly > > [3] eeeeeeee nnn eeeeeeeeee > > Recalling that nnn is nonexistent, we can see very clearly that [1] > [2] and [3] are all equal in the eyes of mathematics, and the position > of the nnn is stricticly, perfectly and precisely "Indeterminate". > > So, if particles are composed of such little chunks of deformed > dimension, they can have this property that they may "appear" to be in > two places at once. In reality, the position of the particle is > indeterminate for the very reasons that I explained. These "particles" > that you speak of are nothing more then deformations of space, > composed of nothing more than length and time. > > > 2. If (as Einstein did) we substitute "empty space" for "aether", > > would you still deny that a moving particle creates a wave system? > > 3. Define "particle"!! > > 4. Until you define "particle" that is a meaningless sentence. > > 5. The word "indeterminately" is superfluous and may be misleading. > > Indeterminacy is not superfluous, merely misunderstood. You've been > lied to. Your university sold you a clunker, it runs but gets lousy > mileage. > > > > > > > Huang: ... Consider two magnitudes a and b, a exists and has > > magnitude 10, b does not exist and has magnitude 1. {1} Now compose > > these magnitudes. You will notice a couple of things right away: > > [1] It is indeterminate {"indeterminate" is entirely different from > > "not determined", which means "not specified"} whether the combined > > magnitude is continuous or discrete. > > [2] It is indeterminate whether you multiplied or added these things > > a and b. > > [3] This situation is exactly analogous to a probabilistic problem > > from orthodox mathematics, just worded differently. {SO differently > > worded as to be totally unrelated.} > > [4] Provides a mechanism for modeling things like wave-particle > > duality. {2} > > [5] Provides a mechanism for modeling dark matter, gravity, and all > > kinds of things. {2} > > [6] Provides a way to say that determinacy is equivalent to > > indeterminacy. {3} > > [7] Explains the fundamental essence of mathematics as a kind of > > absolute truth, Nonexistence is absolute falsehood and is singular, > > and in the middle you have conjecture. Truth, falsehood, and > > conjecture in the middle. It all fits very nicely. > > [8] I could go on, and on, and on.... > > Look at it this way. I ask you to get a random quantity of rope from > > a bag, you cannot see inside the nag. You don't know if the pieces in > > the bag are discrete chunks, or a continuous spool. Now let it be > > indeterminate {unknown}whether the rope is continuous or discrete. If > > I ASK how may pieces, then your answer MUST be discrete output and the > > rope behaved discretely. {4} If I DO NOT ask how many pieces, then the > > output is forced to be continuous by default and you MUST produce a > > continuous random chunk of rope and the rope must behave as if > > continuous. {5} Wave particle duality is no different. Quit beating > > yourself up - the problem is solved. {6}> > > > 1. Clarification: b has an unmeasured magnitude of 1. > > 2. Please show us the mechanism. > > 3. Saying that "determinacy is equivalent to indeterminacy" -- which > > you just did -- doesn't make it true. > > 4. Why "MUST" my reply behave as you say it must? > > 5. In what way must a "chunk of rope" that is 1 foot long behave the > > same as a continuous rope that is 100 feet long? > > For one very simple reason - unless you specify that you are asking > for continuous or discrete chunks of rope it remains undetermined. If > I tell you to bring me a fruit then it is indeterminate whether I > meant bananas or oranges. If I say "how long and yellow is the fruit" > then I have altered the output a priori and I would expect a banana. In Aether Displacement, the C-60 molecule does not appear to be in two places simultaneously. In Aether Displacement, in a double slit experiment, the C-60 molecule is on on a deterministic path, just like the boat in the water is. When you 'ask' 'which way' all that occurs is the displacement wave is turned into chop (decoherence) and there is no interference. If you could figure out the mathematical model that works for both gravity waves and the observed behaviors of a double slit experiment with C-60 molecules, that would be a mathematical model that would unify classical and quantum physics. But if you are going to go on about 'indeterminate' stuff, you are completely missing the point of Aether Displacement. Is the position of the boat in the water 'indeterminate'? Of course not. Neither is the position of the C-60 molecule in a double slit experiment. Detecting the particle alters the outcome of the experiment because it physically turns the displacement wave in the aether into chop (decoherence). Detecting the C-60 molecule physically alters the experiment. If you place buoys at the exits to the slits in the double slit experiment and the buoys turn the bow wave into chop and the boat does not alter course, nothing is 'indeterminate'. |