Aether Displacement
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 25 May 2010 17:51 On May 25, 2:42 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "case" is every thing, in this context, and > I stand by what I mean by it (a little calculation > of a long time ago, inspired by Bucky saith .-) > > anyway, your say-so is rather nonsensical, since > everyone else comprehends them to be two forms > of the *same* thing, only one of which "has" mass. > > you pretty-much tossed your whole cookie, > by "transforming the equation into maether." > > > Your 'm' refers to mass. That is inaccurate. Both aether and matter > > have mass. Both aether and matter are different states of mæther. > > A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter, or: M=A/c^2. > > Change your lowercase 'm' to an upper case 'M' and you've got it. > > thusNso: > there are lots of effects that are not neccesarily taken > into account by the UNIPCC, such as subsidence of land > due to erosion from agriculture & deforestation (even though > there really is no discernible world-around "rise > of sea level," excepting in computerized simulacra, as > with so much else). > > > How many times do people have to show you that the changes here are > > not "small" like you wish to make them out to be. > > thusNso: > there are plenty of questions, probably most of which've > been answered in the literature. like, given the redshifting > of light through the medium of space (sik), are those shifts > continuous with distance, or just very subtle? > > the whole idea of a rock o'light, aimed at your eye from a star, > doesn't seem absurd if those rocks are aimed everywhere; still, > the particle is not needed, if one accepts that a (spherical) wave > can be a quantum. certainly, it would get rid of the conundrum > of a massless/momentumless & volumeless "point of light" > a la Dubya. > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html > > > Secondly, the sensitivity of a patch on your retina goes down if there > > is stray light coming in from another source. That's how, > > We didn't really go to Moon! > > thusNso: > you have slightly misconstrued. the wave-energy seems > to be adequately tuned to the electromagnetic property > of the atom, and *that* is the "particle" > into which it "collapses," not the quantum-called-photon. > the photon is nothing but a coinage for a unit of light-energy, > as-and-when "detected" by a device or cone of the eye > (the rods & cones are "log-spiral antennae" .-) > nothing in Planck's analysis requires a rock o'light, and > probably not really in Einstein's; so, there. > > > > > > > > > Decide a photon propagates as a wave and is detected as a particle. > > > > > > > > That is what you are suggesting in all of your quotes above, > > > > > > > > "Light collapsing into a particle" e.g.. > > --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- accept no other!http://wlym.com Mass is properly defined as a C squared quantity of energy that is infinitely dense existing as a single infinitely small point or point energy in Einstein's space-time continuum. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 25 May 2010 19:32 On May 25, 5:42 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "case" is every thing, in this context, and > I stand by what I mean by it (a little calculation > of a long time ago, inspired by Bucky saith .-) > > anyway, your say-so is rather nonsensical, since > everyone else comprehends them to be two forms > of the *same* thing, only one of which "has" mass. > > you pretty-much tossed your whole cookie, > by "transforming the equation into maether." > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. The material is mæther. Mæther has mass. Aether and matter have mass. Aether is uncompressed mæther and matter is compressed mæther. The following is easily understood with the equation: A=Mc^2, where A is aether is 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 surrounding aether and matter is energy. Mæther decompressing creates energy. Mass is conserved.
From: YBM on 25 May 2010 19:46 mpc755 wrote: > [usual idiotic spam] X-Complaint-To: groups-abuse(a)google.com
From: mpc755 on 25 May 2010 19:59 On May 25, 7:46 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > mpc755 wrote: > > [usual idiotic spam] > > X-Complaint-To: groups-ab...(a)google.com Aether and matter are different states of the same material. The material is mæther. Aether is displaced by matter. Displacement creates pressure. Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. Mæther has mass. Aether is uncompressed mæther and matter is compressed mæther. '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. Mæther decompressing creates energy. Mass is conserved.
From: YBM on 25 May 2010 20:00
mpc755 wrote: > [usual idiotic spam] X-Complaint-To: groups-abuse(a)google.com |