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: mpc755 on 4 Jul 2010 13:18 On Jul 4, 12:18 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > The "Geometrical interpretation of E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled and/or > sphered", produces a "standing spherical wave", with exact dimensions > of electron. It demonstrate how (E=hf) turns to (E=mc^2) at high end > of the "EM spectrum", which can also be called the "enery/matter" > spectrum, as it shows a wave turning into a particle, A wave does not turn into a particle. A wave is not material. A wave is a disturbance which propagates in a material. A wave is a change in state of a material. A wave is energy. Energy is not material. Energy is a change in state of a material. > "Lorentz > Contraction" of EM wave, turn to "space-time curvature", of EM waves, > which is also "Special Relativity", turning to "General Relativity", > as "c^2" is revealed to = "G" as both are "L/T^2" and "c^2" is the > ultimate "L/T^2" and also = to "h/2pi/2", merging with "Quantum > Machanics" as this is also the exact measure of quantum particle = > "c^2" = "G" = "h/2pi/2" > > (c^2 = G = h/2pi/2) (E=mc^2) = (F=mv^2) on quantum level > > THIS IS THE DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN "SPECIAL RELATIVITY" "QUANTUM > MACHANICS" and "GRAVITY" > > Push back of space is direct logical extension of "Geometrical > interpretation of E=mc^2", because as it shows that waves and > particles form from energy Particles do not form from energy. Energy is not material. Particles are material. > pushing against light barrier, which is > space itself, Space itself, or the material of space is aether. > light barrier or space, pushes back on waves and > particles, with force of F=mv^2 = to "mass/energy", of wave or > particle measured as, E=hf/c^2, E=m/c^2 or E=mc^2. > Aether is displaced by matter. Aether is not at rest when displaced. Aether 'displaces back'. The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. The pressure exerted by the displaced aether towards the matter is energy. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. Energy is not material. Energy is a change in state of a material. > And so F=mv^2 of wave or particle is directly proportional to E=hf/c^2 > or E=mc^2 of particle > > If I have direct logical connection between "Geometrical > interpretation of E=mc^2", and "space pushing back on mass/energy in > direct proportion to its quantity, you should be able to see it also. > I do see it. I see it more correctly than you do. You are still unable to understand energy is not material. Aether is displaced by matter. Aether is displaced based on mass per volume. The more massive an object is per volume the less aether the object contains the more aether the object displaces. The more aether the object displaces the more pressure exerted by the displaced aether towards the object. The pressure exerted by the displaced aether towards the object is energy. Energy is not material. Aether and matter are material. Energy is a change in state of a material. > Otherwise the difference in our ideas seem to be choice of words. > Once you understand energy is not a material this conversation can move forward. Once you understand energy is a change in state of a material this conversation can move forward. Until you understand this you are too incorrect for this conversation to move forward.
From: cjcountess on 4 Jul 2010 15:17 How can someone sound so intelegent and not understand the simplest thing? Well I guess that's a physicist for you. If you understand the "Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2" you understand that energy and matter "ARE" the same thing. Matter or rest mass is energy at "c^2", which is energy in circular and or spherical rotation at, "cx2pi" and angular momentum "h/2pi" for circle, "h/2pi/ 2", for sphere, making 2 rotations at 90 angle, to complet 1 wave cycle, making it spin 1/2 particle. The most famous equation in the world "E=mc^2", by the most famous scientist, "Albert Einstein", tells us that energy and matter are equal and related through conversiion factor "c^2". Experiments show that they are interchangable as creation and inialation experiments demonstrate Geometricaly, E=mc^2 shows that energy creates matter when it moves in circular and or spherical rotation. Just what is so hard to understand about that? You said that you understand the "Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2" better than I, the inventor of this theory, but you cannot see that matter is created from energy, and that energy is material, and that it all ties in with space pushing back on matter, in direct proportion to the mass of object. If small mass gets caught up in the push of space on large mass, small mass is pushed toward large mass, by F=Mv^2=GMm/r^2 I understand it very well and derived it from "Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2" long before I even here your version,and I am giving yo credit for understanding the space pushing aspect of it but the energy matter connection is what brings it all together. Conrad J Countess
From: mpc755 on 4 Jul 2010 17:23 On Jul 4, 3:17 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > How can someone sound so intelegent and not understand the simplest > thing? Well I guess that's a physicist for you. > > If you understand the "Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2" you > understand that energy and matter "ARE" the same thing. You are mistaking a mathematical construct for what occurs physically in nature. What you are doing is no different than stating a probability represents what occurs physically in nature. There is a relationship between mass and 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 neighboring aether and matter is energy. Mass is material. Energy is not material. Energy is a change in the state of mass. > Matter or rest > mass is energy at "c^2", which is energy in circular and or spherical > rotation at, "cx2pi" and angular momentum "h/2pi" for circle, "h/2pi/ > 2", for sphere, making 2 rotations at 90 angle, to complet 1 wave > cycle, making it spin 1/2 particle. > If you were capable of replacing your use of the term 'energy' in the above with 'aether' and understand the reason why you need to do so then this conversation might be able to move forward. As long as you mistake energy for material you will not understand the physics of nature. > The most famous equation in the world "E=mc^2", by the most famous > scientist, "Albert Einstein", tells us that energy and matter are > equal and related through conversiion factor "c^2". Experiments show > that they are interchangable as creation and inialation experiments > demonstrate > Energy and mass are related. Not equal. Energy is the physical effect caused by a change in the state of mass. A change in the state of mass is the cause. Energy is the effect. > Geometricaly, E=mc^2 shows that energy creates matter when it moves in > circular and or spherical rotation. > If you replace E=mc^2 with A=Mc^2 where A is aether and M is matter then this conversation might be able to move forward. > Just what is so hard to understand about that? > I understand energy is not a material. I understand energy is a change in the state of mass. I choose to be more correct. You choose to be incorrect. > You said that you understand the "Geometrical Interpretation of > E=mc^2" better than I, the inventor of this theory, but you cannot see > that matter is created from energy, and that energy is material, and > that it all ties in with space pushing back on matter, in direct > proportion to the mass of object. > Energy is not material. Aether is material. Aether is displaced by matter and not at rest when displaced. The pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter is gravity. The pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter is energy. The material of space pushed back on matter. The pushing back is energy. Cause and effect. Aether displaced by matter and the associated pressure exerted by the displaced aether towards matter is the cause. Gravity is the effect. If were able to understand cause and effect when discussing gravity then this conversation might be able to move forward. > If small mass gets caught up in the push of space on large mass, small > mass is pushed toward large mass, by F=Mv^2=GMm/r^2 > > I understand it very well and derived it from "Geometrical > Interpretation of E=mc^2" long before I even here your version,and I > am giving yo credit for understanding the space pushing aspect of it > but the energy matter connection is what brings it all together. > Discussing E=mc^2 as 'energy matter connection' is correct. Discussing E=mc^2 as a relationship between energy and matter is correct. Stating energy is matter is incorrect. Stating energy is mass is incorrect. Stating energy is material is incorrect. When discussing E=mc^2, 'm' is mass. 'm' represents the material. 'E' is energy. 'E' represents a change in state of the material. '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 material of space increases by L/c2. The mass of the aether increases by L/c2. The energy associated with the material of space increases by L. The energy associated with the aether increases by L. L != L/c2. Mass and energy are not one in the same.
From: cjcountess on 4 Jul 2010 18:39 Well than, there is nothing else to say You are standing fast to your view And I to mine So with that said, let the evidence speak for itself "I Rest My Case" Conrad J Countess
From: Uncle Ben on 4 Jul 2010 21:23
On Jun 24, 7:55 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 24, 7:48 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 24, 4:30 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 23, 5:37 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > > > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > > > >news:8ac7c694-eabd-4b93-9393-5e0bf73e8c48(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Jun 24, 5:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 23, 8:21 am, Mike Cavedon <mikecave...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > > > > > > Just what we need. Another software goon (a QA engineer) trying to do > > > > > physics. > > > > > Can you say "ad hominem"? > > > > ========================================= > > > > Can you list all the pseudonyms you've used? > > > > If this was intended for me then the answer is only this one. I posted > > > while logged into another account by mistake. > > > > "Newton puzzled over action-at-a-distance and developed the > > > mathematics to describe and quantify the behaviour of matter > > > and force. Since then we've made models of matter as protons > > > and neutrons and electrons and forces as electrostatic, magnetic > > > and gravitational. We still don't know how force acts at a distance > > > or what the flubber is that protons and neutrons are made of. > > > Then along comes E = mc^2 and it looks like matter is energy > > > tied into knots." > > > > There are theories out there which discuss matter as being knots of > > > aether. Knots, to me, imply a 'pull'. The analogy is an atom in the > > > middle of your car engine as you drive down the highway. In plenum > > > theory, the nuclei in the middle of your car engine continually exists > > > as different 'portions' of aether. > > > > In Aether Displacement, nuclei are condensed aether which exist in and > > > displace the neighboring aether. The nucleus of an atom displaces the > > > aether which would otherwise exist where the nuclei does. > > > > In terms of Aether Displacement, matter is condensed aether. > > > > '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. > > > You do have aliases you know!!! > > I think aether flow is the best theory. But it doesn't work for > > gravity. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory to date.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Aether Displacement is not even a theory, just a string of claims. If Aether has mass, how much mass does it have? (No answer.) |