Prev: How can the MMx math be corrected?
Next: The center of space
From: mpc755 on 19 Apr 2010 21:30
On Apr 19, 8:54 pm, "CENTRINO" <n...(a)ninelandia.com> wrote:
> Thanks
>
> What if given a descompossing mass, (a star or a sample of U or Pu):
>
> E=mC2=radiation+increment of inertia(kinetic energy) ----->
> radiation+expansion----->radiation+decrement of
> gravity ------>radiation+decrement of the defformation of space-time, etc,
> etc ....
>
> Einstein: "If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia
> between the emitting and absorbing bodies".
>
> Just trying to explain ever increasing expanssion given the fact of constant
> conversion from the stelar mass intoto some some other forms of energy.
>

Please bottom post. It is much easier to read and follow a thread when
responses are at the bottom.

Well, if Aether Displacement wasn't too modern a theory for you, the
following probably will be.

The universe is not expanding.

The Big Bang is more of a Big Ongoing.

The universe is, or the local universe is in, a jet stream.

If you rotate the following image in order for Quantum Fluctuations to
be at the bottom then the image is of a pressure cooker:

http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html

The following are images which could represent the universe, or the
local universe:

http://www.feandft.com/BlackHole.jpg

http://huntersofthecloud.com/images/HuntersofTheCloudmagfield.gif

The blue disc separating the two jet streams in the former image and
the gray area in the latter image are the Rindler Horizon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates#Geodesics

Note: Aether Displacement and the above are not accepted by mainstream
physics, yet.

> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> escribió en el mensajenews:4de5c5a7-8523-41da-a980-6cdd3797caa2(a)n3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 19, 6:37 pm, "CENTRINO" <n...(a)ninelandia.com> wrote:
>
> > The fact among others that universe is expanding and its expansion is
> > accelerating
>
> > ¿Could it be due the ever decreasing mass ?
>
> > Stars are contineously burning mass, so mass decreases, and so does
> gravity.
>
> > Loss of mass should not be for free, perhaps it has a double effect: mass
> > turns into difuse radiation ... and ... expansion becouse of constant
> > decrement of gravity.
>
> > ¿Has it been taken into account in usual theories?
>
> In Aether Displacement (AD), aether and matter are different states of
> the same material.
>
> In AD, Matter is compressed aether and aether is uncompressed matter.
>
> In AD, a modern theory, mass is conserved.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.

From: YBM on 19 Apr 2010 21:34
mpc755 wrote:
> Note: Aether Displacement and the above are not accepted by mainstream
> physics, yet.

Note: "mpc755" is a nut and a crank.
From: mpc755 on 19 Apr 2010 21:39
On Apr 19, 8:54 pm, "CENTRINO" <n...(a)ninelandia.com> wrote:
> Thanks
>
> What if given a descompossing mass, (a star or a sample of U or Pu):
>
> E=mC2=radiation+increment of inertia(kinetic energy) ----->
> radiation+expansion----->radiation+decrement of
> gravity ------>radiation+decrement of the defformation of space-time, etc,
> etc ....
>
> Einstein: "If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia
> between the emitting and absorbing bodies".
>
> Just trying to explain ever increasing expanssion given the fact of constant
> conversion from the stelar mass intoto some some other forms of energy.
>

Please bottom post. It is much easier to read and follow a thread when
responses are at the bottom.

It's obvious you did not read the post because mass does not convert
to energy.

In Aether Displacement, mass is conserved.

Since it seems you believe mass converts to energy, which is a common
misunderstanding accepted by 'mainstream' physics based upon outdated
theories, there is no point in further correspondence, but I will
leave you with the following:

The universe is not expanding.

The Big Bang is more of a Big Ongoing.

The universe is, or the local universe is in, a jet stream.

If you rotate the following image in order for Quantum Fluctuations to
be at the bottom then the image is of a pressure cooker:

http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html

The following are images which could represent the universe, or the
local universe:

http://www.feandft.com/BlackHole.jpg

http://huntersofthecloud.com/images/HuntersofTheCloudmagfield.gif

The blue disc separating the two jet streams in the former image and
the gray area in the latter image are the Rindler Horizon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates#Geodesics

Note: Aether Displacement and the above are not accepted by mainstream
physics, yet.

> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> escribió en el mensajenews:4de5c5a7-8523-41da-a980-6cdd3797caa2(a)n3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 19, 6:37 pm, "CENTRINO" <n...(a)ninelandia.com> wrote:
>
> > The fact among others that universe is expanding and its expansion is
> > accelerating
>
> > ¿Could it be due the ever decreasing mass ?
>
> > Stars are contineously burning mass, so mass decreases, and so does
> gravity.
>
> > Loss of mass should not be for free, perhaps it has a double effect: mass
> > turns into difuse radiation ... and ... expansion becouse of constant
> > decrement of gravity.
>
> > ¿Has it been taken into account in usual theories?
>
> In Aether Displacement (AD), aether and matter are different states of
> the same material.
>
> In AD, Matter is compressed aether and aether is uncompressed matter.
>
> In AD, a modern theory, mass is conserved.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
From: dlzc on 19 Apr 2010 21:54
Dear CENTRINO:

On Apr 19, 6:07 pm, "CENTRINO" <n...(a)ninelandia.com> wrote:
> Thanks dlzc
>
> >The "stellar activity" appears to be roughly
> >constant, but expansion and acceleration of
> >expansion has not been.
>
> Well, what I mean is that constant loss off
> mass of universe has a consequence

Sure. But energy also contributes to spacetime curvature, and the
rate of "mass loss" or "mass conversion" does not correlate to periods
of near stagnation, or accelerated expansion.

> E=mC2, but it does not imply that all that
> energy produced by the loss off universal
> mass, mut be converted exclusivelly into
> radiation, What I am propposing is that
> E=mC2=radiated energy+kinetic energy, hence
> expanssion.

Expansion is clearly not any sort of kinetic motion. It is a change
in the properties of spacetime, between all objects embeded in it.
Like saltwater taffy stretching away...

> And due the constant lost of mass a a decrement
> of gravity and a decrement of space-time defformation.

Maybe, but your constant supply ends up being a non-constant expansion
*how*?

David A. Smith
From: BURT on 19 Apr 2010 22:15
On Apr 19, 6:54 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> Dear CENTRINO:
>
> On Apr 19, 6:07 pm, "CENTRINO" <n...(a)ninelandia.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks dlzc
>
> > >The "stellar activity" appears to be roughly
> > >constant, but expansion and acceleration of
> > >expansion has not been.
>
> > Well, what I mean is that constant loss off
> > mass of universe has a consequence
>
> Sure.  But energy also contributes to spacetime curvature, and the
> rate of "mass loss" or "mass conversion" does not correlate to periods
> of near stagnation, or accelerated expansion.
>
> > E=mC2, but it does not imply that all that
> > energy produced by the loss off universal
> > mass, mut be converted exclusivelly into
> > radiation, What I am propposing is that
> > E=mC2=radiated energy+kinetic energy, hence
> > expanssion.
>
> Expansion is clearly not any sort of kinetic motion.  It is a change
> in the properties of spacetime, between all objects embeded in it.
> Like saltwater taffy stretching away...
>
> > And due the constant lost of mass a a decrement
> > of gravity and a decrement of space-time defformation.
>
> Maybe, but your constant supply ends up being a non-constant expansion
> *how*?
>
> David A. Smith

Light has no gravity of its own. Gravity is dropping for a star.

Mitch Raemsch
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: How can the MMx math be corrected?
Next: The center of space