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 29 Jun 2010 10:45 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
From: cjcountess on 29 Jun 2010 11:01 One more thing According to the geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) and (Quantum Gravity in 3 steps, it is precisely the energy of space that gets compressed into matter, at the frequency / wavelength of c^2, which is 1)c in the linear direction 2)x c in the 90 degree angular direction 3)= c^2 = c in circular and or spherical rotation, as a balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces with angular momentum of h/2pi If amplitude is constant, the wave makes 2 rotations at 90 degree angle to each other to complete 1 wave cycle, making it a standing spherical wave of spin ½ and angular momentum of h/2pi/2. And if it spins counter to its trajectory it will have -1 charge. The Geometrical Interpretation of (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^2 circled) when taken to its logical limit produces the geometry of an electron, and directly collaborates the idea that energy and matter are equal, and interrelated, through conversion factor of c^2. Conrad J Countess
From: mpc755 on 29 Jun 2010 22:28 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 cause by a change in the state of mass there is nothing to discuss. Good luck.
From: mpc755 on 29 Jun 2010 23:59 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.
From: BURT on 30 Jun 2010 00:14
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 |