Aether Displacement
in [Physics]
|
Prev: A Convenient Falsehood: Global Warming Is a Hoax*
Next: * Iarnrod Hates US * the proven usenet kook makes HUGE stinking turd pile in newsgroups by hating peace and worshipping war criminals Bush and Cheney
From: mpc755 on 26 May 2010 07:22 On May 26, 12:46 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > check-out Alfven's plasma physics/cosmology. > > the article did not refer to relativistic photons, > however, which are "massless," hence "momentumless," > unless you insist upon plugging them into an equation > that assigng the energy to momentum, > which is an absurdity; divide by zero? > Photons are massless because they most likely propagate as a wave where the 'particle' occupies a very small region of the wave itself. Even if a photon travels as a "rock o'light" it would still be considered to be massless because it would be a quantum of mæther. If a photon travels as a quantum of mæther then what would you weigh it with to determine it was not massless? That is not to say I think a photon travels as a quantum of mæther, just that it would still be considered to be massless because it would be a quantum of mæther traveling through the mæther. > the medium is just space, which ins't a vacuum; > there is no absolute vacuum; is there? > Aether has mass. Aether is mæther in its base state. > > I am not saying photon propagates as a particle, > > just refuting your statement about the medium and > > /or the particle having to be massless. > > thusNso: > for the last time, > quaternions is basically a "3D movie" for one point; if you'll notice, > the sophistry of some of the spacetimers, > where they say that spacetime is like a flipbook -- > exactly! > > there is more than one kind of homogenous spatial > (4D points), but that is without time; > maybe Kaluza's thing is just 4D homog. plus time. > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com
From: mpc755 on 26 May 2010 18:22 On May 26, 6:18 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > > <http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf> > No aether > Looks like you have not finally realized your continual post of the link to the following article undermines the very point you are trying to make. The main point of the article is the need to understand the nature of quintessence. Something which is easily understood in Aether Displacement. http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf "If future searches for Lorentz invariance and time-dependent fundamental constants bring positive results, they may prove that the universe contains a long-wavelength degree of freedom and point toward the nature of quintessence. Then the variation of fundamental constants and apparently Lorentz-violating spin precessions might be completely demystified: They could both follow from the conventional physics of an interacting scalar field." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_field "A scalar field associates a numerical value to every point in a space or space-time. Examples used in physics include ... the pressure distribution in a fluid ..." 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. The scalar field is the pressure distribution in the aether. The pressure distribution is caused by the displacement of the aether by the matter. The pressure distribution is the pressure exerted by the displaced aether towards the 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. In a double slit experiment the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit because the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit. A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. It is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits multiple slits. The wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether wave and there is no interference. It can not be known exactly where the photon 'particle' resides within the associated wave without detection. However, the photon 'particle' occupies a very small region of the photon wave and travels a single path. The photon 'particle' always enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment. It is the photon wave which enters and exits both slits. The photon wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the 'particle' travels. Detecting the 'particle' causes decoherence of the associated wave and there is no interference.
From: spudnik on 28 May 2010 22:38 thank you, The Maetherwocky! > > check-out Alfven's plasma physics/cosmology. > That is not to say I think a photon travels as a quantum of mæther, > just that it would still be considered to be massless because it would > be a quantum of mæther traveling through the mæther. thusNso: yeah; on the net, no-one knows if you're a poesy-talking dog, unless you tell them. > The fierce book that falls upon the shoulder > bringing the weight that stays with reminisce > the present to the future like a binding scroll > to carry is to wrap the tattered edges tightly > in sympathy that we ourselves are frayed with age > we look upon the written lightly; knowing we are also. > automutt.deviantart.com/ thusNso: per my usual, I jumped into the middle of the article, so I probably missed an earlier statement about "the value of polar amplification." well, there has been a very long- running assumption, dumped into GCMs, that the poles would warm more than tropics, with such probably transient effects like floating ice-cover in the Arctic, taken as totems. the problem is with Ahrrenius's 1896 "glass house," and the lack of any common-sense model of an ordinary one, at a particular lattitude (but, he didn't win the first Nobel in a category for that, any way .-)... I mean, insolation is completely differential from equator to poles, taking as the norm "noon on the equinoix," from nothing at the poles, to something at the equator. > These techniques of course, make some assumptions. Firstly, that the > spatio-temporal pattern associated with a particular forcing is > reasonably accurate (though the magnitude of the pattern can be too > large or small without causing a problem). To a large extent this is the > case the stratospheric cooling/tropospheric warming pattern associated > with CO2 increases is well understood, as are the qualitative land vs > ocean/Northern vs. southern/Arctic amplification features. The exact > value of polar amplification though is quite uncertain, though this > affects all the response patterns and so is not a crucial factor. More > problematic are results that indicate that specific forcings might > impact existing regional patterns of variability, like the Arctic > Oscillation or El Niño. In those cases, clearly distinguishing internal > natural variability from the forced change ... > > don't read more » thusNso: that seems rather unlikely, because "orthogonal Hilbert dimensions" etc. are rather abstract. on the other hand, there is nothing arbitrary about 11-dim. objects in W-theory (meaning, What ever), if you consider that no-one bothers to debunk or deny Kaluza's 5D coordination of Maxwell's spacetime stuff (never mind, what Klein decided it "looked like," or Minkowski's slogan about time .-) > Or one could define a consistent set of mutually orthogonal dimensions > with length, time, and momentum, and mass is just some more-or-less thusNso: although global warming is almost entirely a) computerized simulacra, and b) very selective reporting, it seems that the effects we have on landscapes & atmosphere are much larger than could be accounted for, merely by measuring the gasses that are the end result (agricultural turnover of CO2 is much greater than that from cars or electricity e.g.; there may have been no jet stream, before the ivention of jets e.g.). water vapor is far & away the greatest "glass house gas," yet CO2 is the one that is not presewnt in three or four phases in the background, and is #2 (also, as John Muir dyscovered, you can be nearly smothered by it, just by digging a 40' well for your grumpy dad-unit, by hand .-) so, stop Waxman's capNtrade "Last Bailout of W.Street and the City of L.;" institute a tiny, adjustable tax on carbon,instead of "free trade, free beer, free dumb." a combination of nuclear & solar etc. in space, might alleviate some of the needs in here (with or without the Satellevator Synchrogeos, which seems totally unworkable, with or without graphenes). thusNso: well, the textbook method is quite questionable, iff you have access to the original monographs of the dyscoverers. but, what I was going to type, just now, is that *mathematica* is not a program from the Wolframites ("yo, my daddy dyscovered an element!"), but it is four subjects (*quadrivium* in Latin .-)... if Timmy wants to pretend that he can grok it all, de novo, it might take a while. > The response is in any basic textbook. thusNso: I was reading one of Brown's books, and he is pretty-much in the officious opinions of the Second Church of England, Newton, about the "separation of science & religion," the idolization of Galileo (as in, Galileo started the Illuminati, sheesh, the background to the one where he relays the officially unofficial Anglican doctrine about the Chosen (British) People. well-paced, though. > religion. It is fairly clear to me that progress will not lay in the > direction of negating time http://bandtechnology.com thusNso: if the proofs of Bell's inequalities are interpreted to mean that EPR were wrong, then you *should* transmit info faster than lightwaves. a lot of the formalistic "paradox" goes by the wauyside, by not enlisting the rock o'light to impart the "momentum" to the atoms, electromagnetically. maybe, the confusion is not helped, that EPR et al were wedded to that "photon" being a particle. well, if there's is only one thing that can't be a particle -- except in some equatiopnal form with momentum -- it is waves of light in space -- not Pascal's Plenum! never much cared for stuff from Templeton Prize Pop Sci, kind of an Anglican thing, in Philadelphia, as I recall. > For one thing, there's an arbitrary phase factor exp(i*theta) > I think. Rather, it's a probabilistic theory tool. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/mar/17/templeton-quantum-... --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: mpc755 on 29 May 2010 00:09
On May 28, 10:38 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > thank you, The Maetherwocky! > > > > check-out Alfven's plasma physics/cosmology. > > That is not to say I think a photon travels as a quantum of mæther, > > just that it would still be considered to be massless because it would > > be a quantum of mæther traveling through the mæther. > > "Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium." - Albert Einstein 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. In a double slit experiment the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit because the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit. A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. It is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits multiple slits. The wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether wave and there is no interference. '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. Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory, to date. |