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: BURT on 26 Jun 2010 19:50 On Jun 26, 4:40 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 7:34 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 4:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 26, 7:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 26, 4:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 26, 6:55 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 6:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 12:41 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Some forms of matterial energy are massless. > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > 'Material energy' is an incorrect understanding of the physics of > > > > > > > nature. > > > > > > > > 'Material' implies mass. > > > > > > > No. Mass inmplies weight. And light is a weightless form of > > > > > > unconcentrated matterial energy. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > Mass implies material. A light wave is a physical disturbance of the > > > > > material of space. A light wave is a physical displacement of aether.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > The purpose of weight is to detect mass. But somethings are > > > > weightless. Light and matterial bond energy in the atom do not weigh. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > 'Things' have mass. > > > Not light or matterial bond energy. They are massless. The rest yes. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > You are confusing 'energy' with material. You are confused, as are > most, by: > > E=mc^2 > > Mass does not convert to energy. Mass is conserved. Energy is the > physical effect of a change in the state of mass.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Energy is the definition of matterial. The rest are immaterial. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 26 Jun 2010 19:56 On Jun 26, 7:50 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 4:40 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 26, 7:34 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 26, 4:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 26, 7:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 26, 4:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 6:55 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 6:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 12:41 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Some forms of matterial energy are massless. > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > 'Material energy' is an incorrect understanding of the physics of > > > > > > > > nature. > > > > > > > > > 'Material' implies mass. > > > > > > > > No. Mass inmplies weight. And light is a weightless form of > > > > > > > unconcentrated matterial energy. > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > Mass implies material. A light wave is a physical disturbance of the > > > > > > material of space. A light wave is a physical displacement of aether.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > The purpose of weight is to detect mass. But somethings are > > > > > weightless. Light and matterial bond energy in the atom do not weigh. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > 'Things' have mass. > > > > Not light or matterial bond energy. They are massless. The rest yes. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > You are confusing 'energy' with material. You are confused, as are > > most, by: > > > E=mc^2 > > > Mass does not convert to energy. Mass is conserved. Energy is the > > physical effect of a change in the state of mass.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Energy is the definition of matterial. The rest are immaterial. > > Mitch Raemsch Energy is not material. Energy is the physical effect of a change in the state of material. You are confused, as are most, by: E=mc^2 Mass does not convert to energy. Mass is conserved. Energy is the physical effect of a change in the state of mass.
From: mpc755 on 27 Jun 2010 15:47 On Jun 26, 6:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 2:48 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi > > mpc755 > > this is Conrad J Countess > > Regarding your statements > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > > The material is maether. > > Maether has mass. > > Aether and matter have mass. > > Aether is uncompressed maether and matter is compressed maether. > > Aether is displaced by matter. > > The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. > > The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the aether. > > Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. > > > A=Mc^2. > > > Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory to date. > > > I have been saying these same things in different words since 2004, > > on the web. But instead of Aether, I used space as in (S=mc^2). I > > also noted that matter is formed by space energy being compressed > > against the light barrier, and as this happens, space pushes back with > > equal and opposite reaction, corresponding to the mass of the energy > > or object. > > Matter is compressed from energy moving at (c^2), which is energy > > moving at c in the linear direction x c in 90 degree angular > > direction, which = energy in circular and or spherical rotation, as a > > balance of centripetal/centrifugal forces = (E=mc^2) > > If small object gets caught in the push of a larger object, the small > > object will be pushed into the larger one by (F=mv^2), and the same > > force that compresses energy into matter at (E=mc^2), is the same > > force that pushes matter into each other at (F=mv^2). E=mc^2 = F=mv^2 > > on quantum level and macro level. > > You too see the light.. > > > As far as this statement is concerned > > Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory to date. > > Like I said, I too have similar theory which I too think is pretty > > accurate and complete and is probably not in conflict with yours as > > far as I can tell > > > You are on the right track and correct as far as I can tell, so dont > > let people like PD, who does nothing but criticize, without having a > > theory or discovery of his own, distract or discourage you. > > These are people who have failed to come up with anything original on > > their own,.and flail out against you in frustration. > > > Ask PD, what is his theory, he has none, only criticism for us who do, > > He is nothing but an obstructionist. > > > But I do > > see:http://wbabin.net/science/countess.pdf > > > Conrad J Countess > > Hi Conrad, > > I originated a concept I called Spacial Displacement 20 years ago. The > spelling of spacial was intentional to designate it was space which is > displaced by matter. Over time I realized there might be some > confusion as to what was being displaced. Was it three dimensional > space or the material of space which is displaced by matter? It is the > material of space which is displaced by matter. The material of space > is most often referred to as ether or aether. > > 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. > > 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. > > Matter is formed by aether being compressed. > > '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. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. The material is maether. Maether has mass. Since aether is a state of maether it is more correct to say: Matter is formed by maether being compressed.
From: cjcountess on 28 Jun 2010 10:56 The answer doesnt have to be complex to be correct. It can and in this case is simple, and can be presented as an analogy. When one finds the analogy that best fits, one can use the geometry and math that applies as well. The inverse square law, applies to gravity, as well as pressure from displaced water and air. I was surprised to see (E=mc^2), is also analogous to inverse square law, and (F=mv^2), and even more so to see that it directly corresponds to it. The (F=mv^2) of an object, is directly proportional to the (E=mc^2), of that said object. When one sees (E=mc^2) geometrically as (E=mc^circled or sphered), one sees the Lorentz contraction, of EM waves turn to space/time curvature, of EM waves as Special Relativity turns to General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics . Einstein, missed this direct relationship between these, which makes (c^2 = G = h/2pi) and the unification of these 3 grand theories. The complex math of GR is reduced to the simple math of Newtons F=mv^2, while still maintaining that gravity is space/time curvature, instead of unexplained action at a distance. And SR, GR, and QM are unified as c^2, is revealed to be the ultimate v^2 making (E=mc^2) = (F=mv^2) and also making c^2 and v^2 = to G as all are L/T^2, but also = to h/2pi for the circle or h/2pi/2 for the sphere measurements of the same quantum particles . Conrad J Countess
From: mpc755 on 28 Jun 2010 20:21
On Jun 28, 10:56 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > The answer doesnt have to be complex to be correct. It can and in > this case is simple, and can be presented as an analogy. When one > finds the analogy that best fits, one can use the geometry and math > that applies as well. > > The inverse square law, applies to gravity, as well as pressure from > displaced water and air. I was surprised to see (E=mc^2), is also > analogous to inverse square law, and (F=mv^2), and even more so to > see that it directly corresponds to it. > > The (F=mv^2) of an object, is directly proportional to the (E=mc^2), > of that said object. > When one sees (E=mc^2) geometrically as (E=mc^circled or sphered), one > sees the Lorentz contraction, of EM waves turn to space/time > curvature, of EM waves as Special Relativity turns to General > Relativity and Quantum Mechanics . Einstein, missed this direct > relationship between these, which makes (c^2 = G = h/2pi) and the > unification of these 3 grand theories. > > The complex math of GR is reduced to the simple math of Newtons > F=mv^2, while still maintaining that gravity is space/time > curvature, instead of unexplained action at a distance. > And SR, GR, and QM are unified as c^2, is revealed to be the > ultimate v^2 making (E=mc^2) = (F=mv^2) and also making c^2 and > v^2 = to G as all are L/T^2, but also = to h/2pi for the > circle or h/2pi/2 for the sphere measurements of the same quantum > particles . > > Conrad J Countess 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. |