Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory to date
in [Physics]
|
Prev: PNAC said it "wanted" the 9/11 attacks"
Next: THE ALIENS HAVE LANDED (and, boy, are they pissed)
From: cjcountess on 3 Jul 2010 09:46 On Jul 2, 3:12 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: .. > > '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." > A more complete version taken from your example paper is If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2. The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we are led to the more general conclusion that The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content; if the energy changes by L, the mass changes in the same sense by L/9 × 1020, the energy being measured in ergs, and the mass in grammes. It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy-content The above indicates that energy and mass are equivalent, contridicts your view, and suports mine. > > Until you understand the difference between matter and energy you will > not understand the physics of nature. Until you understand the > difference between mass and energy you will not understand the physics > of nature. > You speak with a tone of confidence and athority which may convince many people that you are correct, but they evidence sugest otherwise. Until you realize that, your theory is only partialy correct Conrad J Countess
From: mpc755 on 3 Jul 2010 09:53 On Jul 3, 9:46 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 3:12 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > . > > > > > '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." > > A more complete version taken from your example paper is > > If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > diminishes > by L/c2. The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes > energy of > radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we are led to the > more general > conclusion that > The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content; if the energy > changes > by L, the mass changes in the same sense by L/9 × 1020, the energy > being > measured in ergs, and the mass in grammes. > It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy-content > > The above indicates that energy and mass are equivalent, contridicts > your view, and suports mine. > What diminishes is the mass of the body. The mass of the body does not convert to energy. The mass of the body still exists. The mass of the body converts to aether. The physical effects of the conversion is energy. You are mistaking material for an effect. Matter converting to aether is the cause. Energy is the effect. > > > > Until you understand the difference between matter and energy you will > > not understand the physics of nature. Until you understand the > > difference between mass and energy you will not understand the physics > > of nature. > > You speak with a tone of confidence and athority which may convince > many people that you are correct, but they evidence sugest otherwise. > > Until you realize that, your theory is only partialy correct > > Conrad J Countess I have always stated Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory to date.
From: mpc755 on 3 Jul 2010 09:55 'Scientists supersize quantum mechanics' http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html "Next, the researchers put the quantum circuit into a superposition of 'push' and 'don't push', and connected it to the paddle. Through a series of careful measurements, they were able to show that the paddle was both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously." The 'push' and 'don't push' cause the associated aether waves. This experiment is evidence of Maxwell's displacement current.
From: PD on 3 Jul 2010 10:02 On Jul 2, 6:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 4:58 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 3:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 2, 3:12 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 2, 9:55 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 30, 7:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > mpc755 > > > > > > I agree with this interpretation of gravity, I just use different > > > > > terms. > > > > > > As I see it, just as matter and aether are different states of the > > > > > same thing, so are energy and matter. > > > > > Energy and matter are not different states of the same thing. Energy > > > > is the physical effect caused by a change in state of mass. > > > > > When you witness a two car accident do you say the material which are > > > > the cars is the same thing as the energy associated with the accident? > > > > When you walk up to the cars do you say, "look at the damage done to > > > > those two energies"? Of course not. You say, "look at the damage done > > > > to those two cars. There was a lot of energy associated with that car > > > > crash." You know there was a lot of energy associated with the car > > > > crash because you witnessed the physical effects. The cars are the > > > > material. The physical effect of the car accident is the energy. The > > > > physical effect caused by a change in state of the material associated > > > > with the accident is energy. > > > > > There is no difference when discussing E=mc^2. > > > > > Energy is not material. Mass is material. Matter and aether are > > > > material. Matter and aether have mass. Mass is conserved. > > > > > '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 neighboring > > > > aether and matter is energy. > > > > > Until you understand the difference between matter and energy you will > > > > not understand the physics of nature. Until you understand the > > > > difference between mass and energy you will not understand the physics > > > > of nature. > > > > > Energy is the physical effect caused by a change in state of mass. > > > > Just as the mass associated with the cars still exists after the > > > energy has dissipated, the mass associated with matter converting to > > > aether exists after the energy has dissipated. > > > Just as mass is conserved so is energy. When matter converts to aether > > it expands in three dimensions. This expansion increases the amount of > > aether in existence. This increase in the amount of aether increases > > the overall aether pressure in existence. > > > The aether is the material. The pressure associated with the aether is > > the energy. > > The energy under discussion in the car accident scenario is their > momentum relative to one another. Babbling will serve no purpose to you except to perpetuate your pretense, which you find somehow self-pleasing. Momentum and energy are two completely separate properties, of entirely different character, entirely different dimensions, and satisfying entirely independent conservation laws. Before you go off trying to dream up a theory of everything, don't you think you would benefit from getting a grip on the basics first? > > Does that energy still exist at the scene of the accident? Within a > certain radius the mass still does. Within a certain radius the energy > also exists. The mass radius and the energy radius are not one in the > same. > > > > > > > > As I see it, m or(rest mass or > > > > > matter) = e or(energy) at (c^2) or at "the speed of light squared", > > > > > which as I see it is (light in circular and or spherical rotation). > > > > > > This is how matter is created from energy. c^2 as (c in the linear > > > > > direction x c in the 90 degree angular direction) = energy with a > > > > > balence of centrifugal /centripital forces, with angular momentum of > > > > > (h/2pi), and wavelength (cx2pi)which gives the rotating enrgy, rest > > > > > mass. > > > > > > As the energy makes 2 rotations at 90 degree angle to complete 1 wave > > > > > cycle, it creates a standing spherical wave of spin1/2, and angular > > > > > momentum of (h/2pi/2). Thus a wave turns into a particle at c^2 > > > > > because it takes on this spherical motion. > > > > > > The stitistical measurement of psi={x,t}^2, being the probability of > > > > > finding the particle "x" at time "t" within the wave, is "100 persent" > > > > > when "x,t" is squared, because the wave turns into a particle by > > > > > aquiring circular and or spherical rotation, and the wave becomes the > > > > > particle. > > > > > That is how I reconcile the stitistical measuemaent with the > > > > > geometrical mearsurement of E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled. > > > > > > That is also how I recocile that energy turns into, and is therefore > > > > > equal to matter at c^2, which is (enrgy in circular and or spherical > > > > > motion, and exactly what turns energy into matter. > > > > > > Conrad J Countess
From: mpc755 on 3 Jul 2010 10:03
'Scientists supersize quantum mechanics' http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html "Next, the researchers put the quantum circuit into a superposition of 'push' and 'don't push', and connected it to the paddle. Through a series of careful measurements, they were able to show that the paddle was both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously." The 'push' and 'don't push' cause the associated aether waves. This experiment is evidence of Maxwell's displacement current. |