Light is the unified form of the universe
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 26 May 2010 22:50 On May 26, 10:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 26, 8:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 26, 5:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 26, 8:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 26, 2:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 26, 5:25 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > You are the one self proclaiming most correctedness. What are you > > > > > > going to do when someone goes ahead of you in thruth and finds a more > > > > > > objective theory? > > > > > > > How long will you last then? > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > That is the whole point of science. It is supposed to evolve. That is > > > > > why I continually say most correct, to date. > > > > > > 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.. > > > > > Aether is displaced by matter. > > > > > The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. > > > > > The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the aether. > > > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. > > > > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > > > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring > > > > > places, ...disregarding the causes which condition its state" - Albert > > > > > Einstein > > > > > > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the > > > > > matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the > > > > > aether's state of displacement. > > > > > But what is your point about claiming to be better than everyone? > > > > What does that have to do with science? > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > I never claimed any such thing. > > > Yes you have. You are self rightious about your science. According to > > you it is superior. I challenge you on that. This is a case of you > > needing to be right and thus you will be doubted and that is right. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory, to date. > > 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. > Aether is displaced by matter. > The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. > The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the aether. > Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring > places, ...disregarding the causes which condition its state" - Albert > Einstein > > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the > matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the > aether's state of displacement. Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory, to date. 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. Aether is displaced by matter. The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the aether. Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...disregarding the causes which condition its state" - Albert Einstein The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state of displacement. A C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit. The aether wave enters and exits multiple slits. The aether 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 aether wave and there is not 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. Mass does not convert to energy. Matter converts to aether. As the mæther transitions from matter to aether it increases in volume. The physical effect the increase in volume has on the neighboring matter and aether is energy. Mass is conserved.
From: mpc755 on 26 May 2010 22:55 On May 26, 8:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 26, 5:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 26, 8:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 26, 2:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 26, 5:25 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > You are the one self proclaiming most correctedness. What are you > > > > > going to do when someone goes ahead of you in thruth and finds a more > > > > > objective theory? > > > > > > How long will you last then? > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > That is the whole point of science. It is supposed to evolve. That is > > > > why I continually say most correct, to date. > > > > > 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. > > > > Aether is displaced by matter. > > > > The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. > > > > The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the aether. > > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. > > > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring > > > > places, ...disregarding the causes which condition its state" - Albert > > > > Einstein > > > > > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the > > > > matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the > > > > aether's state of displacement. > > > > But what is your point about claiming to be better than everyone? > > > What does that have to do with science? > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > I never claimed any such thing. > > Yes you have. You are self rightious about your science. According to > you it is superior. I challenge you on that. This is a case of you > needing to be right and thus you will be doubted and that is right. > > Mitch Raemsch > Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory, to date. 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. Aether is displaced by matter. The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the aether. Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...disregarding the causes which condition its state" - Albert Einstein The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state of displacement. A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit. The aether wave enters and exits multiple slits. The aether 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 aether wave and there is not 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. Mass does not convert to energy. Matter converts to aether. As the mæther transitions from matter to aether it increases in volume. The physical effect the increase in volume has on the neighboring matter and aether is energy. Mass is conserved.
From: G. L. Bradford on 27 May 2010 03:57 "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:cc22f448-965e-4675-8fe5-569bdbb43527(a)u7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com... On May 26, 1:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 26, 12:30 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 26, 11:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 26, 10:37 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Physics is the study of what occurs physically in nature. Physics is > > > > the "physics of nature". > > > > One of the best ways to illustrate that you have no idea what you're > > > talking about is to use self-referential sentences like the above. It > > > merely shows that you have no idea what you even mean in your own mind > > > what "physical" means. You can't characterize what "physical" means, > > > and so you end up with sentences like, "You know... physical. Physics > > > is about the stuff that's... physical. And about what physically > > > occurs. Yeah, that physical stuff." > > > > PD > > > For those who are intuitive, defining physics as the 'physics of > > nature' is easily understood. For you I will define it further, > > physics is understanding what occurs physically in nature. > > Ah, so let's capture that, shall we? "Self-referential sentences are > perfectly understandable to those who are intuitive. For those who are > not intuitive, uttering another self-referential statement is the only > recourse." > > Here's some fun then: Define "physical" without the use of "physics", > "physical", "physically" or any other form of the word "physical" in > the definition of "physical". Can you do that? I will answer that question as soon as you answer the following: Explain how what you choose to believe occurs physically in nature: - The future determining the past ======================= "The future determining the past": You have a flat tire. You plan to drive the car tomorrow. You fix the flat today. Tomorrow arrives and you drive the car. GLB =======================
From: zookumar yelubandi on 27 May 2010 05:42 On Thu, 27 May 2010 03:57:38 -0400, G. L. Bradford wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:cc22f448-965e-4675-8fe5-569bdbb43527(a)u7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com... > On May 26, 1:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [...] >> Here's some fun then: Define "physical" without the use of "physics", >> "physical", "physically" or any other form of the word "physical" in >> the definition of "physical". Can you do that? > > I will answer that question as soon as you answer the following: > Explain how what you choose to believe occurs physically in nature: > > - The future determining the past > > ======================= > > "The future determining the past": > > You have a flat tire. You plan to drive the car tomorrow. You fix the flat > today. Tomorrow arrives and you drive the car. > GLB What "occurs" and what "can occur" are entirely different propositions. You have a flat tire. You plan to drive the car tomorrow. You fix the flat today. Your friendly neighborhood delinquent slashes all your tires while the sky is blinking with stars. Tomorrow arrives and you drive the ... wait. Not wanting to damage the wheel bases, you cancel the drive and take a walk in the yellow pages in search of a ratchet and rubber shop. Shop gives you appointment for the next day, the new tomorrow. You cancel car activities for the day and reschedule the drive for the new tomorrow. This example shows how the present (e.g. the discovery of flat tires in the interceding interval between plan to drive and actual drive) determines the future. But if the present determines the future, can it ever determine the past? Translating the present to the further present (e.g. the putative future), we can port the above example to a different time interval, one with terminal points "future" and "further future". And that arrives the question in tow, namely, what does the future determine? Can the future ever determine the past? Or can it *only* determine a further future (e.g. the putative far future) as evidenced in the ported example? A related question: where is your proof that the future can ever determine the past, if that is indeed your assertion? Uncle Zook
From: mpc755 on 27 May 2010 10:00
On May 27, 3:57 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:cc22f448-965e-4675-8fe5-569bdbb43527(a)u7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com... > On May 26, 1:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 26, 12:30 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 26, 11:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 26, 10:37 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Physics is the study of what occurs physically in nature. Physics is > > > > > the "physics of nature". > > > > > One of the best ways to illustrate that you have no idea what you're > > > > talking about is to use self-referential sentences like the above. It > > > > merely shows that you have no idea what you even mean in your own mind > > > > what "physical" means. You can't characterize what "physical" means, > > > > and so you end up with sentences like, "You know... physical. Physics > > > > is about the stuff that's... physical. And about what physically > > > > occurs. Yeah, that physical stuff." > > > > > PD > > > > For those who are intuitive, defining physics as the 'physics of > > > nature' is easily understood. For you I will define it further, > > > physics is understanding what occurs physically in nature. > > > Ah, so let's capture that, shall we? "Self-referential sentences are > > perfectly understandable to those who are intuitive. For those who are > > not intuitive, uttering another self-referential statement is the only > > recourse." > > > Here's some fun then: Define "physical" without the use of "physics", > > "physical", "physically" or any other form of the word "physical" in > > the definition of "physical". Can you do that? > > I will answer that question as soon as you answer the following: > > Explain how what you choose to believe occurs physically in nature: > > - The future determining the past > > ======================= > > "The future determining the past": > > You have a flat tire. You plan to drive the car tomorrow. You fix the flat > today. Tomorrow arrives and you drive the car. > > GLB > > ======================= Incorrect analogy. A correct analogy for the future determining the past is the following. The slits in a double slit experiment are the length it takes the C-60 molecule to travel in one year. The C-60 molecule enters one slit or multiple slits today depending upon detectors being placed at the exits to the slits one year from today. You are driving your car and there are two ways to arrive at your desired destination. Both paths require traveling through a tunnel. It will take you one year to drive through the tunnel. One year from today, the exit to one of the tunnels will be blocked. Somehow, you enter the correct tunnel today. Somehow, you are able to enter the tunnel which will not have its exit blocked one year from today. No matter how many times you enter the tunnel you are always able to enter the tunnel which will not be blocked. How were you able to know which tunnel to enter? You aren't. How is it anything other than luck that you always enter the correct tunnel? It isn't. Any experiment you execute where you enter one tunnel or the other, where it will take you one year to travel through the tunnel, and one of the tunnel exits are block prior to you exiting, you will always find yourself 50% of the time in the blocked tunnel. It is physically impossible for you to always enter the tunnel which will not be blocked. To choose to believe you will always enter the tunnel which will not be blocked is absurd nonsense. It is physically impossible for a C-60 molecule to enter one slit or multiple slits depending upon there being detectors at the exits to the slits when it gets there in the future. To choose to believe a C-60 molecule will enter one slit or multiple slits depending upon their being detectors at the exits to the slits when it gets there in the future is absurd nonsense. The C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit because the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit. The moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The aether wave exits multiple slits and creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the aether wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no interference. |