Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory to date
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity In Words of Four Letters or Less
Next: God, the ant, & Space_Time
From: mpc755 on 30 Jun 2010 00:31 On Jun 30, 12:14 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 29, 8:59 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 29, 10:45 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Hi mpc755 > > > > I pointed out the similarities in our theories to let you know that > > > the idea in general is not new and that I am in agreement with it. > > > That still remains true. But I am not trying to make our ideas clones > > > of each other because we both could miss things that only an > > > individual perspective can give. > > > > I do not see a difference between the material of space and space > > > energy, as I define it, so maybe it is just a matter of definition, > > > and I am not settling on calling it maether, although I understand > > > what you define as maether, and recognize your right to do so. > > > > It seems that you are trying to stake your claim on an idea and the > > > terminology used to describe it, while I think that it is a little > > > premature for that. > > > > You also said that: > > > > I think you are using the term 'energy' incorrectly. Energy is not > > > a material. Energy is an effect. 'Space energy' is not compressed > > > into > > > matter. The material of space is compressed into matter. Aether is > > > compressed into matter. > > > > And > > > > Replace your use of 'Space energy' and 'energy' with aether when > > > discussing what is physically being compressed into matter and we are > > > speaking the same language. > > > > and > > > > Let's agree that it is the material of space, not 'space energy' or > > > energy, which is compressed into matter. > > > If you agree to this then you should be able agree aether and matter > > > are different states of the same material. > > > I have named this material maether. > > > > Like I said, I agree with the general idea that gravity is the result > > > of space pushing back matter that displaces it. > > > I also introduced the idea that this pushing back is equal and > > > opposite, and directly proportional to, the mass, or (E=mc^2) of > > > object, resulting in direct correspondence between (E=mc^2) = > > > (F=mv^2)=(F=Gmm/r^2). > > > > But I do not agree that energy is not the material of space, or that > > > we should call this material maether. > > > > Otherwise we are in agreement in a general sense. > > > > Conrad J Countess > > > Until you realize energy is an effect caused by a change in the state > > of mass you will not understand the physics of nature. > > > Good luck.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > If space is mass would it not be a solid? > > Mitch Raemsch That was the problem with the Michelson-Morley experiment. They were looking for the Earth to be moving with respect to a 'solid' aether. The aether is not a solid. The aether behaves as a frictionless superfluid one-something. The 'one-something' is due to our inability to know if the aether consists of particles which can be separately tracked through time. So no, the aether is no a solid. The aether behaves as a frictionless superfluid 'one something'. 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."
From: mpc755 on 30 Jun 2010 00:34 On Jun 30, 12:31 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 12:14 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 29, 8:59 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 29, 10:45 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi mpc755 > > > > > I pointed out the similarities in our theories to let you know that > > > > the idea in general is not new and that I am in agreement with it. > > > > That still remains true. But I am not trying to make our ideas clones > > > > of each other because we both could miss things that only an > > > > individual perspective can give. > > > > > I do not see a difference between the material of space and space > > > > energy, as I define it, so maybe it is just a matter of definition, > > > > and I am not settling on calling it maether, although I understand > > > > what you define as maether, and recognize your right to do so. > > > > > It seems that you are trying to stake your claim on an idea and the > > > > terminology used to describe it, while I think that it is a little > > > > premature for that. > > > > > You also said that: > > > > > I think you are using the term 'energy' incorrectly. Energy is not > > > > a material. Energy is an effect. 'Space energy' is not compressed > > > > into > > > > matter. The material of space is compressed into matter. Aether is > > > > compressed into matter. > > > > > And > > > > > Replace your use of 'Space energy' and 'energy' with aether when > > > > discussing what is physically being compressed into matter and we are > > > > speaking the same language. > > > > > and > > > > > Let's agree that it is the material of space, not 'space energy' or > > > > energy, which is compressed into matter. > > > > If you agree to this then you should be able agree aether and matter > > > > are different states of the same material. > > > > I have named this material maether. > > > > > Like I said, I agree with the general idea that gravity is the result > > > > of space pushing back matter that displaces it. > > > > I also introduced the idea that this pushing back is equal and > > > > opposite, and directly proportional to, the mass, or (E=mc^2) of > > > > object, resulting in direct correspondence between (E=mc^2) = > > > > (F=mv^2)=(F=Gmm/r^2). > > > > > But I do not agree that energy is not the material of space, or that > > > > we should call this material maether. > > > > > Otherwise we are in agreement in a general sense. > > > > > Conrad J Countess > > > > Until you realize energy is an effect caused by a change in the state > > > of mass you will not understand the physics of nature. > > > > Good luck.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > If space is mass would it not be a solid? > > > Mitch Raemsch > > That was the problem with the Michelson-Morley experiment. They were > looking for the Earth to be moving with respect to a 'solid' aether. > > The aether is not a solid. The aether behaves as a frictionless > superfluid one-something. The 'one-something' is due to our inability > to know if the aether consists of particles which can be separately > tracked through time. > > So no, the aether is no a solid. The aether behaves as a frictionless > superfluid 'one something'. > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > "Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two > entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory > surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the > course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - > we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water > alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for > tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental > impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were > observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it > varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water > consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise > it as a medium." The shape of water varies in time because it is displaced by matter. The shape of aether varies in time because it is displaced by matter.
From: cjcountess on 30 Jun 2010 11:05 Wow mpc755 You speak with such misplaced authority Energy moves things, therefore it must touch things, and as such be material Furthermore, (E=mc^2), tells us that matter and energy are equal, and related through mathematical conversion factor (c^2), although it does not explain how, and that does cause a lot of misunderstanding concerning that equation. But the geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled), that I discovered provides more info than the equation alone, and tells not only that energy and matter are equal, and related by (c^2), but actually shows how. It shows that (c^2) is not just a dimensionless conversion factor of energy to matter but is a real frequency/ wavelength where energy turn to matter because it gets caught in a closed loop rotation. 1) c in the linear direction 2) x c in the 90 degree angular direction 3) = c^2 = in circular motion, as a balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, with angular momentum (h/2pi). If wave makes 2 rotations to complete 1 wave cycle, it has angular momentum (h/2pi/2) and is (spin ½) and if it spins counter to trajectory is has (-1 charge). It has to be more than coincidence that all the attributes of electron emerged from this geometrical description of (E=mc^2). It seems that it would be statistically very improbable fort his to happen if it were not a true and accurate description of the electron, as a result of a true and accurate description of (E=mc^2) Conrad J Countess
From: BURT on 30 Jun 2010 13:40 On Jun 29, 9:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 12:14 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 29, 8:59 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 29, 10:45 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi mpc755 > > > > > I pointed out the similarities in our theories to let you know that > > > > the idea in general is not new and that I am in agreement with it. > > > > That still remains true. But I am not trying to make our ideas clones > > > > of each other because we both could miss things that only an > > > > individual perspective can give. > > > > > I do not see a difference between the material of space and space > > > > energy, as I define it, so maybe it is just a matter of definition, > > > > and I am not settling on calling it maether, although I understand > > > > what you define as maether, and recognize your right to do so. > > > > > It seems that you are trying to stake your claim on an idea and the > > > > terminology used to describe it, while I think that it is a little > > > > premature for that. > > > > > You also said that: > > > > > I think you are using the term 'energy' incorrectly. Energy is not > > > > a material. Energy is an effect. 'Space energy' is not compressed > > > > into > > > > matter. The material of space is compressed into matter. Aether is > > > > compressed into matter. > > > > > And > > > > > Replace your use of 'Space energy' and 'energy' with aether when > > > > discussing what is physically being compressed into matter and we are > > > > speaking the same language. > > > > > and > > > > > Let's agree that it is the material of space, not 'space energy' or > > > > energy, which is compressed into matter. > > > > If you agree to this then you should be able agree aether and matter > > > > are different states of the same material. > > > > I have named this material maether. > > > > > Like I said, I agree with the general idea that gravity is the result > > > > of space pushing back matter that displaces it. > > > > I also introduced the idea that this pushing back is equal and > > > > opposite, and directly proportional to, the mass, or (E=mc^2) of > > > > object, resulting in direct correspondence between (E=mc^2) = > > > > (F=mv^2)=(F=Gmm/r^2). > > > > > But I do not agree that energy is not the material of space, or that > > > > we should call this material maether. > > > > > Otherwise we are in agreement in a general sense. > > > > > Conrad J Countess > > > > Until you realize energy is an effect caused by a change in the state > > > of mass you will not understand the physics of nature. > > > > Good luck.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > If space is mass would it not be a solid? > > > Mitch Raemsch > > That was the problem with the Michelson-Morley experiment. They were > looking for the Earth to be moving with respect to a 'solid' aether. > > The aether is not a solid. The aether behaves as a frictionless > superfluid one-something. The 'one-something' is due to our inability > to know if the aether consists of particles which can be separately > tracked through time. > > So no, the aether is no a solid. The aether behaves as a frictionless > superfluid 'one something'. > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > "Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two > entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory > surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the > course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - > we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water > alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for > tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental > impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were > observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it > varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water > consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise > it as a medium."- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The aether is immaterial. There is time speed math for its flow. MItch Reamsch
From: mpc755 on 30 Jun 2010 19:35
On Jun 30, 11:05 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Wow > > mpc755 > > You speak with such misplaced authority > I understand the difference between energy and mass. Energy is an effect caused by a change in the state of mass. Until you realize this you will not understand the physics of nature. > Energy moves things, therefore it must touch things, and as such be > material > Of course not. It is the change in state of mass which touches and moves things. It is the touching and moving which is energy. > Furthermore, (E=mc^2), tells us that matter and energy are equal, and > related through mathematical conversion factor (c^2), although it does > not explain how, and that does cause a lot of misunderstanding > concerning that equation. > > But the geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled), that > I discovered provides more info than the equation alone, and tells > not only that energy and matter are equal, and related by (c^2), but > actually shows how. It shows that (c^2) is not just a dimensionless > conversion factor of energy to matter but is a real frequency/ > wavelength where energy turn to matter because it gets caught in a > closed loop rotation. > > 1) c in the linear direction > > 2) x c in the 90 degree angular direction > > 3) = c^2 = in circular motion, as a balance of centrifugal and > centripetal forces, with angular momentum (h/2pi). If wave makes 2 > rotations to complete 1 wave cycle, it has angular momentum (h/2pi/2) > and is (spin ½) and if it spins counter to trajectory is has (-1 > charge). > > It has to be more than coincidence that all the attributes of electron > emerged from this geometrical description of (E=mc^2). It seems that > it would be statistically very improbable fort his to happen if it > were not a true and accurate description of the electron, as a result > of a true and accurate description of (E=mc^2) > > Conrad J Countess |