Light is the unified form of the universe
in [Physics]
|
From: BURT on 26 May 2010 00:38 On May 25, 9:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 25, 11:47 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 25, 8:40 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 25, 11:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 8:33 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 25, 11:29 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 25, 8:12 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > In article <ad93061a-0a3a-4786-88ee-d6aceb43583d@ > > > > > > > 34g2000prs.googlegroups.com>, macromi...(a)yahoo.com says... > > > > > > > > > On May 25, 6:55 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > so, if A=mcc, where does the "creates energy" come into it?... > > > > > > > > > don't you see, where you've stuck yourself, a blythe conundrum > > > > > > > > > of wordage? > > > > > > > > > > thus quoth: > > > > > > > > > The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is > > > > > > > > > energy. > > > > > > > > > Mæther decompressing creates energy. > > > > > > > > > Mass is conserved. > > > > > > > > > > thusNso: > > > > > > > > > wait a second; now, you're saying light can't have > > > > > > > > > both electrical & magnetical components?... sort of like, > > > > > > > > > the general confusion over mathematical duality, > > > > > > > > > where you can't actually use both of the pair > > > > > > > > > *at the same time*, unless it is a "two-column proof" > > > > > > > > > a la Pascal. > > > > > > > > > > a more proper statment would be, like, > > > > > > > > > a photon is a boson, not neccesarily a momentumless, > > > > > > > > > no-dimensional point of light, and mainly because > > > > > > > > > young et al showed taht all of the essential properties are wavy. > > > > > > > > > > so, if light is the one thing that might not really be a particle, > > > > > > > > > what is one thing that mightnot really be a wave? > > > > > > > > > > > Light is always a dual wave. The proof that light is not a particle > > > > > > > > > > lies in the fact that it has to be in either one of those waves but > > > > > > > > > > not both. > > > > > > > > > > --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- except no other!http://wlym.com > > > > > > > > > Mpc hijacked Einstein's E=mc Squared! > > > > > > > > Not hijacked, leveraged in order to explain what the energy is in > > > > > > > E=mc^2. > > > > > > > > A=Mc^2, where A is aether and 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. > > > > > > > > The matter expanding in volume as it transitions to aether physically > > > > > > > affects the neighboring aether and matter. This physical effect is > > > > > > > energy.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > No. You hiujacked it to use for your vanity. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > I am explaining how mass is conserved in E=mc^2. 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. > > > > > > '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. > > > > > > The matter expanding in volume as it transitions to aether physically > > > > > affects the neighboring aether and matter. This physical effect is > > > > > energy.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > I don't believe you. You are vain. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > I have the most correct explanation of what occurs physically in > > > nature in terms of E=mc^2, to date. > > > > I am explaining how mass is conserved in E=mc^2. 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.. > > > > '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. > > > > The matter expanding in volume as it transitions to aether physically > > > affects the neighboring aether and matter. This physical effect is > > > energy.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > You invent ways of saying you are more correct than everyone. But you > > are fooling yourself that way. There is no such thing. And if your > > theory is wrong in one way it is wrong period. > > > You are also a vain person putting yourself above others in science > > when that is not what you were created to be. You need to face God. > > Puting off the correction of yourself is why you are in trouble. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > I am saying I am more correct than everyone else when discussing > E=mc^2 in terms of what occurs physically in nature because I am more > correct. > > I have the most correct explanation of what occurs physically in > nature in terms of E=mc^2, to date. > > I am explaining how mass is conserved in E=mc^2. > > '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 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There is no such thing as a most correct theory. If it is wrong in any way it is of course wrong. Aether flow is completely correct. That is a different story. You misuse the aether concept. Even though it is real you misrepresent it. I can tell you what it really is. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 26 May 2010 07:28 On May 26, 12:38 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 25, 9:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 11:47 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 25, 8:40 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 11:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 25, 8:33 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 25, 11:29 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 25, 8:12 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > In article <ad93061a-0a3a-4786-88ee-d6aceb43583d@ > > > > > > > > 34g2000prs.googlegroups.com>, macromi...(a)yahoo.com says... > > > > > > > > > > On May 25, 6:55 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > so, if A=mcc, where does the "creates energy" come into it?... > > > > > > > > > > don't you see, where you've stuck yourself, a blythe conundrum > > > > > > > > > > of wordage? > > > > > > > > > > > thus quoth: > > > > > > > > > > The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is > > > > > > > > > > energy. > > > > > > > > > > Mæther decompressing creates energy. > > > > > > > > > > Mass is conserved. > > > > > > > > > > > thusNso: > > > > > > > > > > wait a second; now, you're saying light can't have > > > > > > > > > > both electrical & magnetical components?... sort of like, > > > > > > > > > > the general confusion over mathematical duality, > > > > > > > > > > where you can't actually use both of the pair > > > > > > > > > > *at the same time*, unless it is a "two-column proof" > > > > > > > > > > a la Pascal. > > > > > > > > > > > a more proper statment would be, like, > > > > > > > > > > a photon is a boson, not neccesarily a momentumless, > > > > > > > > > > no-dimensional point of light, and mainly because > > > > > > > > > > young et al showed taht all of the essential properties are wavy. > > > > > > > > > > > so, if light is the one thing that might not really be a particle, > > > > > > > > > > what is one thing that mightnot really be a wave? > > > > > > > > > > > > Light is always a dual wave. The proof that light is not a particle > > > > > > > > > > > lies in the fact that it has to be in either one of those waves but > > > > > > > > > > > not both. > > > > > > > > > > > --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- except no other!http://wlym.com > > > > > > > > > > Mpc hijacked Einstein's E=mc Squared! > > > > > > > > > Not hijacked, leveraged in order to explain what the energy is in > > > > > > > > E=mc^2. > > > > > > > > > A=Mc^2, where A is aether and 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. > > > > > > > > > The matter expanding in volume as it transitions to aether physically > > > > > > > > affects the neighboring aether and matter. This physical effect is > > > > > > > > energy.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > No. You hiujacked it to use for your vanity. > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > I am explaining how mass is conserved in E=mc^2. 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. > > > > > > > '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. > > > > > > > The matter expanding in volume as it transitions to aether physically > > > > > > affects the neighboring aether and matter. This physical effect is > > > > > > energy.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > I don't believe you. You are vain. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > I have the most correct explanation of what occurs physically in > > > > nature in terms of E=mc^2, to date. > > > > > I am explaining how mass is conserved in E=mc^2. 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. > > > > > '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. > > > > > The matter expanding in volume as it transitions to aether physically > > > > affects the neighboring aether and matter. This physical effect is > > > > energy.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > You invent ways of saying you are more correct than everyone. But you > > > are fooling yourself that way. There is no such thing. And if your > > > theory is wrong in one way it is wrong period. > > > > You are also a vain person putting yourself above others in science > > > when that is not what you were created to be. You need to face God. > > > Puting off the correction of yourself is why you are in trouble. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > I am saying I am more correct than everyone else when discussing > > E=mc^2 in terms of what occurs physically in nature because I am more > > correct. > > > I have the most correct explanation of what occurs physically in > > nature in terms of E=mc^2, to date. > > > I am explaining how mass is conserved in E=mc^2. > > > '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 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > There is no such thing as a most correct theory. If it is wrong in any > way it is of course wrong. Aether Displacement has not been shown to be incorrect in any way, to date. Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory, to date. > > Aether flow is completely correct. That is a different story. > You misuse the aether concept. Even though it is real you misrepresent > it. I can tell you what it really is. > > Mitch Raemsch Aether and matter are different states of the same material. The material is mæther. Mæther has mass. Aether is uncompressed mæther and matter is compressed mæther. Aether is displaced by matter. Displacement creates pressure. Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. Aether and matter have mass. '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. A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter. 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 07:37 On May 26, 4:33 am, zookumar yelubandi <zooku...(a)yahoo.ca> wrote: > > As far as guesses go, I like what another poster had to offer on the > topic. Makes intuitive sense to me. For example, that light is made of > stuff called "maether". Matter and aether. Compressed vs decompressed > forms. Particle vs wave. > > Uncle Zook. My preferred concept of a photon is that it propagates as a wave through the aether (decompressed) and is detected as a quantum of mæther (compressed). The ability of the wave to be detected as a quantum of mæther occupies a very small region of the wave itself. In a double slit experiment the photon wave enters and exits both slits. The photon 'particle' enters and exits a single slit. The photon wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels. Detecting the photon 'particle' causes decoherence of the photon wave and there is no interference. If detectors are placed at the exits to the slits the photon 'particle' is always detected exiting a single slit because the photon 'particle' always enters and exits a single slit.
From: PD on 26 May 2010 09:22 On May 25, 8:45 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 25, 6:31 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 4:34 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 25, 2:30 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. This is why you can't > > > > > see stars during the daytime, even though they are there just as they > > > > > are at night. This is also why your eyes have to get adapted to the > > > > > dark before you can see anything. > > > > > 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, especially: > > > > > > > > > > > "Light collapsing into ... particle". > > > > > --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- accept no other!http://wlym.com > > > > Albert Einstein said in the 1930's that he could not reconcile what he > > > won the nobel prize for. He could not reconcile a light wave with a > > > particle. Light is not a particle. > > > Is too.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Light is always a dual wave. Well let's see... > The proof that light is not a particle > lies in the fact that it has to be in either one of those waves but > not both. Interesting "fact" you put out there. What on earth makes you think this is so? > And the truth is that it doesn't work. > > Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 26 May 2010 11:22
On May 26, 7:37 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 26, 4:33 am, zookumar yelubandi <zooku...(a)yahoo.ca> wrote: > > > > > As far as guesses go, I like what another poster had to offer on the > > topic. Makes intuitive sense to me. For example, that light is made of > > stuff called "maether". Matter and aether. Compressed vs decompressed > > forms. Particle vs wave. > > > Uncle Zook. > > My preferred concept of a photon is that it propagates as a wave > through the aether (decompressed) and is detected as a quantum of > mæther (compressed). The ability of the wave to be detected as a > quantum of mæther occupies a very small region of the wave itself. > > In a double slit experiment the photon wave enters and exits both > slits. The photon 'particle' enters and exits a single slit. The > photon wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters > the direction the photon 'particle' travels. Detecting the photon > 'particle' causes decoherence of the photon wave and there is no > interference. If detectors are placed at the exits to the slits the > photon 'particle' is always detected exiting a single slit because the > photon 'particle' always enters and exits a single slit. Now that you have an understanding of mæther, the next logical step is to understand the intuitiveness of mæther when understanding what occurs physically in nature in terms of E=mc^2. Mæther has mass. Aether and matter have mass. Aether and matter are different states of mæther. 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. 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. |