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 26 Jun 2010 14:48 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
From: mpc755 on 26 Jun 2010 18:41 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.
From: Cassidy Furlong on 26 Jun 2010 18:46 I know, each time that I reply to this a) my life gets shorter, and b) your account of googolplex advertizing chits gets bigger. > Thanks for being the first to grasp A=Mc^2 -- ba-doomp! > Where A is aether and M is matter -- badabada-bada-boomp! thus&so: if "peeing" is including loss of organic matter in soils, and erosion thereby promoted, that is two things that would raise the level of the sea, iff it is accruing. thus quoth: Dr. Akasofu: One of the reasons that IARC is established in Alaska, the University of Alaska, is that we can observe climate change much more prominently than the rest of the world. The arctic is very sensitive to climate change because we have so many kinds of ice glaciers, sea ice, permafrostso they are sensitive to a climate change, and they're changing. So I think it's the best place to study climate change, much more so than in the tropics. http://www.larouchepub.com/other/interviews/2007/3419dr_akasofu.html thus&so: SF author D.Brin attests that the relative predictability of weather via computerized simulcara, attests to the soundness of the assumptions of the similar GCMs that are used for climate-a-changing; the latter is really quite rapid! thus&so: another factor is subsidence from erosion; deforestation is probably quite important around glaciers, two. > we also are pumping more water from bucket #2 because of deforestation and desertification. > > > http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full thus&so: I refer to the LAtribcoTimes report of the consortium study, November 2001. we must recall, Gore triggered BvG, by filing the first lawsuit, which overturned the normal, full count (a la Texas' lib-uh-ral rules) ... back in the day, before less than 2/5 of polling kiosks were ATMs. as I recall, I also saw the W.Post version, but not the Miami Herald one. [correction: I saw a byline about the Arkansas results, widely mis-attributed solely to Gore not going to the state to party, in the W.Post, three weeks after the primary election, to the effect that "they musta thought, they was votin' for Lyndon *Johnson*." > http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=239 thus&so: I don't currently drive, but I support the payment of a fee for a Driver's License "ID," because I may want to drive, anyway, at some time, by (say) renting a van (or two Segways, chained-together .-) [NB: Shrubeneggar's footsie with the automobile registration fee, has been a big problem with state funding, beyond all of the other problems (that is, a.k.a. the Cargo Cult .-] anyway, a Voting Rights Act provision (Section 5, the Preclearance Rule) was removed in 2000 -- just in time for Gore to blow both of his feet, off, in electoral collegiate terms; then, they renewed the Act (and the Dems actually brought an amendment to the floor, voted-down, to extend the rule to all states & counties)!! > an ID is required. thus&so: you have given a condition of sufficiency, that words typed aroundhereinat could have been a trigger, but what will show a neccesity, that any one grokked a theorem of Arivaderci Petroleum? thus&so: are not dilation of time and length (in the direction of time-travellin' (sik), directly porportional? thus&so: how many of us'd ever understood a proof of the unfinity of the primes?... well, if not, we'll never get p-adic numbers, or AP-didactical ones, either. anyway, p-adics are cool, when subsumed in Galois theory (or vise-versa .-) thus&so: well, there's phi of me to one o'you; go figure! --the duke of oil! Rationale. In addition to political, economic, and mechanical feasibility, one must consider the environmental consequences of choosing ethanol over gasoline. In par- ticular, the amount of air pollution released in the form of CO2 and other green house gases (GHGs) is a crucial point of interest. In order to model the difference in ethanol and gasoline emissions, it is necessary to calculate the final mass of GHGs (in the case where 10% of the gasoline energy supply has been replaced by ethanol) minus the ini- tial mass (before the 10% replacement was implemented). If the result is negative, the 10% ethanol scenario gives off fewer GHGs; if it is positive, it gives off more. Assumptions and calculations. Our model is based on the following assump- tions: 1. Itisassumedthatnearlyallofthegasolinerequiredfortheproductionofethanol is used in the farming and harvesting stage, while other energy sources (i.e., coal) http://www.maa.org/pubs/cmj47.pdf http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/chapter-8-the-permian-basin-gang/
From: mpc755 on 26 Jun 2010 18:51 On Jun 26, 6:46 pm, Cassidy Furlong <cassidyerin...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for being the first to grasp A=Mc^2 -- ba-doomp! > > Where A is aether and M is matter -- badabada-bada-boomp! > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. The material is maether. Aether is uncompressed maether and matter is compressed maether. A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter. '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 maether is energy.
From: BURT on 26 Jun 2010 18:55
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 |