Aether Displacement
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: LHC versus cranks : 1-0
Next: Higgs security
From: spudnik on 25 Apr 2010 17:26 so, you're saying that photons (rocks o'light) are not waves in a medium (or "vacuum"), but is aether, itself?... wow. > 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. thus: there is always some missing mass in any fission or fusion event, taht's the energy; of course, only matter-antimatter reactions approach a complete conversion; true? > Yes, the mass(amount of matter) IS conserved; even if some of it may > have no weight (in grams) after it is released. thus: all "photons" are readily absorbed by the correct tuner, generally a change of orbital of an electron, I suppose; all "photons" "go" at the speed of propogation of lightwaves, depending upon the index of refraction of the medium (given that there is really no vacuum "a la Pascal"). > Can we see or detect any -99.9999%c photons? thus: but, dood, what in Hell do *you* mean, by "aether & matter are different states of the same material" -- why do atoms and electrons & antiatoms need "an other state" of themselves? thus: Skeptics were just another Greek cult under the Roman Empire; Peripatetics, Gnostics, Stoics, Epicureans etc. ad vomitorium. I recall also recently reading that Justice Kennedy had come out for WS in some moot court, but that he later came to Oxford ... most likely, because it serves his oligarchical worldview (or, it was Scalia). I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but I recently found a text that really '"makes the case," once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade, capNtrade e.g.). > On the contrary, others include Justices Scalia, OConnor, > Blackmun and Powell, as the WSJ article noted. Only two current > Justices (Breyer and Kennedy) openly support the Stratford man. thus: what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; his real "proof" is _1599_; the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co..... --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: mpc755 on 25 Apr 2010 17:28 On Apr 25, 5:26 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > so, you're saying that photons (rocks o'light) are not waves > in a medium (or "vacuum"), but is aether, itself?... wow. > > > 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. > > thus: > there is always some missing mass in any fission or > fusion event, taht's the energy; of course, > only matter-antimatter reactions approach a complete conversion; > true? > Mass does not convert to energy. Matter transitions to aether. Matter expands in three dimensional space as it transitions to aether. Matter increases in volume as it transitions to aether. The physical effect this transition has on the neighboring aether and matter is energy. There is no 'missing mass'. The mass which no longer exists as part of the matter has converted to aether. When you watch an atomic bomb explode you are watching the physical effect matter expanding in volume as it transitions to aether has on the neighboring matter and aether: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16heorrfsgY '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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence "The equation E = mc2 indicates that energy always exhibits mass in whatever form the energy takes.[3] It does not imply that mass may be converted to energy, for modern theory holds that neither mass nor energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another. In physics, mass must be differentiated from matter. In cases where matter particles are created or destroyed, the precursors and products retain both the original mass and energy, which is unchanged. Mass energy equivalence also means that mass conservation becomes a restatement of the law of energy conservation, which is the first law of thermodynamics." The products retain the original mass because the product is aether. In E=mc^2, mass is conserved.
From: spudnik on 25 Apr 2010 17:45 so, what happens to the lightwaves (or "photons"), in the matter of this so-called theory -- how do you *explain* electromagnetism vis-a-vu this little linguistic ideal of aether? it could just be a matter of English as a second language, or that you have never made a mathematical proof (viz, "Einstein's proof of the pythagorean th."). or, are you the one, who says, - got it from G-d? > Mass does not convert to energy. Matter transitions to aether. Matter > expands in three dimensional space as it transitions to aether. Matter > increases in volume as it transitions to aether. The physical effect > this transition has on the neighboring aether and matter is energy. > > There is no 'missing mass'. The mass which no longer exists as part of > the matter has converted to aether.
From: mpc755 on 25 Apr 2010 17:58 On Apr 25, 5:45 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > so, what happens to the lightwaves (or "photons"), > in the matter of this so-called theory -- how > do you *explain* electromagnetism vis-a-vu > this little linguistic ideal of aether? > http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/ Quote from Albert A Michelson's lecture circa 1899. "Suppose that an aether strain corresponds to an electric charge, an aether displacement to the electric current, aether vortices to the atoms; if we continue these suppositions, we arrive at what may be one of the grandest generalizations of modern science, namely that all the phenomena of the physical universe are only different manifestations of the various modes of motion of one all-pervading (substance), the aether. The day seems not to distant when the converging lines from many apparently remote regions of thought will meet on some common ground. Then the nature of the atom and the forces called into play in their chemical union, the interactions between these atoms and the non-differentiated aether as manifested in the phenomena of light and electricity , the structure of the molecule, the explanation of cohesion, elasticity and gravitation, all of these will be marshaled into a single compact and consistent body of scientific knowledge." I would modify the statement to read: "all the phenomena of the physical universe are only different manifestations of the various states of one all-pervading (substance), the aether." http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html Albert Einstein: "the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" I would modify the statement to read: The state of the aether as determined by the connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state of displacement. Michelson's "aether displacement to the electric current" and Maxwell's 'displacement current' are the same conceptually. Electromagnetism is a state of the aether's displacement.
From: spudnik on 25 Apr 2010 18:06
I wish, you'd not quote these old farts; any of their experimental work, of course, is fine (but that would exclude Einstein, a noted non-experimenter, although he did do his own patents). in other words, these folks believed in Pascal's perfect vacuum, but this has ne'er been observed; so, forget about it. Like, Dirac's math is fine (and difficult) but it does not justify de Broglie's conception of a guidewave for a useless photon. > "all the phenomena of the physical universe are only different > manifestations of the various states of one all-pervading (substance), > the aether." thus: yeah, but you're are trying to aver that "space is not a void *because* of aether," whereas a vacuum has never been demonstrated, since Paacal (thought that he) discovered it. that is to say, there is only *relative* vacuum, through which waves of light may propogate, just as they do through the (relative vacuum of) air. thus: second-powering has nothing per se to do with the regular tetragon; in "E=mcc," it has more to do with an expanding spherical wavefront (saith Bucky .-)... not a circle, though. |