There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Two times happening together
Next: NOW ????????????
From: mpc755 on 29 Mar 2010 12:36 On Mar 29, 12:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 29, 9:11 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Mar 28, 12:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: The Law of the Conservation of energy > > simply says that the "Energy IN must = the Energy OUT." > > > The energy of a closed system is the sum of several terms, each being > energy of different types, kinetic energy being one of them. > > This conservation is an experimental observation -- the way we know it > is conserved is by explicitly adding up those terms in the sum and > seeing whether the sum is constant regardless of internal > interactions. > The interaction of aether and matter is a closed system. The energy required to displace the aether is returned as the aether 'displaces back'. 'Frictionless supersolid a step closer' http://www.physorg.com/news185201084.html "Superfluidity and superconductivity cause particles to move without friction. Koos Gubbels investigated under what conditions such particles keep moving endlessly without losing energy, like a swimmer who takes one mighty stroke and then keeps gliding forever along the swimming pool." In the analogy the swimmer is any body and the water is the aether. Just as the swimmer displaces the water, whether the swimmer is at rest with respect to the water, or not, a body displaces the aether, whether the body is at rest with respect to the aether, or not. In the analogy the moving swimmer creates a displacement wave in the water. A moving body creates a displacement wave in the aether. 'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum medium and the inertial motion of particles' http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0701/0701155.pdf "Abstract: The similarity between the energy spectra of relativistic particles and that of quasi-particles in super-conductivity BCS theory makes us conjecture that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as the ground state of the background field is a super fluid medium, and the rest mass of a relativistic particle is like the energy gap of a quasi-particle. This conjecture is strongly supported by the results of our following investigation: a particle moving through the vacuum medium at a speed less than the speed of light in vacuum, though interacting with the vacuum medium, never feels friction force and thus undergoes a frictionless and inertial motion." A particle in the super fluid medium displaces the super fluid medium, whether the particle is at rest with respect to the super fluid medium, or not. A moving particle creates a displacement wave in the super fluid medium. A particle in the aether displaces the aether, whether the particle is at rest with respect to the aether, or not. The particle could be an individual nucleus. A moving particle creates a displacement wave in the aether. Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. You must have missed this post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie "This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any moving particle or object had an associated wave." 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle." "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is located." de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of the wave. In AD, the external field is the aether. In a double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits the available slits. For example, in the image on the right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experi... There are waves propagating both the red and blue paths towards D0. One of the downgraded photon 'particles' is traveling either the red or blue path towards D0. The lens causes the waves to create interference which alters the direction the particle travels. One set of downgraded photons is creating one of the interference patterns at D0 and the other set of downgraded photons is creating the other. It's all very easy to understand once you realize 'delayed-choice', 'quantum eraser', and the future determining the past is simply misinterpreting what is occurring in nature. In the image on the right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experi... When the downgraded photon pair are created, in order for there to be conservation of momentum, the original photons momentum is maintained. This means the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. We will describe one of the photons as being the 'up' photon and the other photon as being the 'down' photon. One of the downgraded photons travels either the red or blue path towards D0 and the other photon travels either the red or blue path towards the prism. There are physical waves in the aether propagating both the red and blue paths. The aether waves propagating towards D0 interact with the lens and create interference prior to reaching D0. The aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels prior to reaching D0. There are actually two interference patterns being created at D0. One associated with the 'up' photons when they arrive at D0 and the other interference pattern associated with the 'down' photons when they arrive at D0. Both 'up' and 'down' photons are reflected by BSa and arrive at D3. Since there is a single path towards D3 there is nothing for the wave in the aether to interfere with and there is no interference pattern and since it is not determined if it is an 'up' or 'down' photon being detected at D3 there is no way to distinguish between the photons arriving at D0 which interference pattern each photon belongs to. The same for photons reflected by BSb and arrive at D4. Photons which pass through BSa and are reflected by BSc and arrive at D1 are either 'up' or 'down' photons but not both. If 'up' photons arrive at D1 then 'down' photons arrive at D2. The opposite occurs for photons which pass through BSb. Photons which pass through BSa and pass through BSb and arrive at D1 are all either 'up' or 'down' photons. If all 'up' photons arrive at D1 then all 'down' photons arrive at D2. Since the physical waves in the aether traveling both the red and blue paths are combined prior to D1 and D2 the aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels. Since all 'up' photons arrive at one of the detectors and all 'down' photons arrive at the other an interference pattern is created which reflects back to the interference both sets of photons are creating at D0. Figures 3 and 4 here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9903/9903047v1.pdf Show the interference pattern of the 'up' and 'down' photons. If you were to combine the two images and add the peaks together and add the valleys together you would have the interference pattern of the original photon. This is evidence the downgraded photon pair maintain the original photons momentum and have opposite angular momentums. Nothing is erased. There is no delayed choice. Physical waves in the aether are traveling both the red and blue paths and when the paths are combined the waves create interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels. Experiments which are evidence of Aether Displacement: Experiment #1: Instead of having a single beam splitter BSc have two beam splitters BSca and BScb. Have the photons reflected by mirror Ma interact with BSca and have the photons reflected by mirror Mb interact with BScb. Do not combine the red and blue paths. Have additional detectors D1a, D2a, D1b, and D2b. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BSca be detected at D1a and D2a. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BScb be detected at D1b and D2b. If you compare the photons detected at D1a and D1b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. If you compare the photons detected at D2a and D2b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. What is occurring is all 'up' photons are being detected at one pair of detectors, for example D1a and D1b, and all 'down' photons are being detected at the other pair of detectors, for example D2a and D2b. Interference patterns do not even need to be created in order to 'go back' and determine the interference patterns created at D0. Experiment #2: Alter the experiment. When the downgraded photon pair are created, have each photon interact with its own double slit apparatus. Have detectors at one of the exits for each double slit apparatus. When a photon is detected at one of the exits, in AD, the photon's aether wave still exists and is propagating along the path exiting the other slit. When a photon is not detected at one of the exits, the photon 'particle' along with its associated aether wave exits the other slit. Combine the path the aether wave the detected photon is propagating along with the path of the other photon and its associated aether wave. An interference pattern will still be created. This shows the aether wave of a detected photon still exists and is able to create interference with the aether wave of another photon, altering the direction the photon 'particle' travels. Your inability to physically explain the following is evidence you feign hypothesis: - The future determining the past - Virtual particles which exist out of nothing - Conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair - A C-60 molecule can enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum. - Matter causes physical space to be 'unflat' but not move The following are the most correct physical explanations to date: - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - The aether displaced by the matter which are the plates extends past the other plate. The pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the plates forces the plates together - Conservation of momentum does apply to a downgraded photon pair. When a photon is detected its wave collapses which determines its spin. In order for the original photons momentum to be conserved, the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - Physical space is displaced by matter. Aether is displaced by matter.
From: spudnik on 29 Mar 2010 17:39 what shows is rather strict Einsteinmania, the complete or deliberate ignorance of plasma in Universe, per Alfven et al. antimatter e.g. anyway, there are no photons, with the sole exception of at the detection of them by the device/retina, wherein the wave is absorbed or "collapsed," and convereted to some other format. it is the same with Newton's silly corpusles, EPR "problem" dysappears in the wave conception ... but, not, if you consider it a la de Broglie! > Alter the experiment. When the downgraded photon pair are created, > have each photon interact with its own double slit apparatus. Have > detectors at one of the exits for each double slit apparatus. When a > photon is detected at one of the exits, in AD, the photon's aether > wave still exists and is propagating along the path exiting the other > slit. When a photon is not detected at one of the exits, the photon > 'particle' along with its associated aether wave exits the other slit. > Combine the path the aether wave the detected photon is propagating > along with the path of the other photon and its associated aether > wave. An interference pattern will still be created. This shows the > aether wave of a detected photon still exists and is able to create > interference with the aether wave of another photon, altering the > direction the photon 'particle' ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - thus: Leibniz, "*vis viva*." > > Einstein's E = mc2 is derived from Newtonian Mechanics. thus quoth: So, if we accept Clerselier's arguments, as almost every scientifically educated person today would have to admit he does, Fermat's Principle of Least Time is an absurdity. And yet it is true, and stands as one of the foundations of all our knowledge of nature. From it came the work of Leibniz and the Bernoullis on the cycloid and the non-algebraic curves, which were the heart of the development of the calculus. Fresnel's developments of the wave theory are based on it, and so everything we know of the electromagnetic spectrum, and so forth. thus: Bell Epoque d'EPR, seems to be taken with the idee fixe, that the "quantum of light" has to be a massive point of no dimensions -- just polarities & frequency/period. no rocks o'light, "period." > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory > >http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ thus: neat idea; how'd it be tested, if possible, or is it just S & FS? > Possibly our universe has an event horizon that's keeping us from thus: when I first began doing "thus ****," is used "thus quoth" for others and "thus spake" for myself -- for about a day. possibly in part due to contamination by archimedeanplutonianism. > thus, thus, thus...? thus: what a crock; there is *nothing* about light (or, one simple thing) that is pertinent to a corpuscular theory; Young et al completely rid us of that theory, which also had that denser media had faster light). maybe it is an unconsidered acceptance that "quantum" means "particle," your other Einstein's rock from the train; gah!... come on: there are no photons, there are no Rocks of Light. thus: I think, therefore Eisntein wasn't as great as he is depicted in the Department of Einsteinmania/The Musical Dept. > impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: mpc755 on 29 Mar 2010 17:48 On Mar 29, 5:39 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > what shows is rather strict Einsteinmania, > the complete or deliberate ignorance of plasma > in Universe, per Alfven et al. > http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cosmology/alfven.html "[Alfven] argued that there could be a magnetic field pervading the entire galaxy if plasma was spread throughout the galaxy. This plasma could carry the electrical currents that would then create the galactic magnetic field." Replace 'plasma' with 'aether' above. "a magnetic field pervading the entire galaxy if [aether] was spread throughout the galaxy. This [aether] could carry the electrical currents that would then create the galactic magnetic field." > antimatter e.g. anyway, > there are no photons, with the sole exception > of at the detection of them by the device/retina, > wherein the wave is absorbed or "collapsed," and > convereted to some other format. it is the same > with Newton's silly corpusles, EPR "problem" dysappears > in the wave conception ... but, not, if > you consider it a la de Broglie! > Consider the very small region of the wave which consists of the 'particle' to be the area of the wave which has the capability of collapsing and being detected as a 'particle'. As the photon propagates it is a directed/pointed wave. It is the directed/pointed area of the wave which allows for the collapse and detection as a particle. The directed/pointed portion of the wave is a very small region of the wave. > > Alter the experiment. When the downgraded photon pair are created, > > have each photon interact with its own double slit apparatus. Have > > detectors at one of the exits for each double slit apparatus. When a > > photon is detected at one of the exits, in AD, the photon's aether > > wave still exists and is propagating along the path exiting the other > > slit. When a photon is not detected at one of the exits, the photon > > 'particle' along with its associated aether wave exits the other slit. > > Combine the path the aether wave the detected photon is propagating > > along with the path of the other photon and its associated aether > > wave. An interference pattern will still be created. This shows the > > aether wave of a detected photon still exists and is able to create > > interference with the aether wave of another photon, altering the > > direction the photon 'particle' ... > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > thus: > Leibniz, "*vis viva*." > > > > Einstein's E = mc2 is derived from Newtonian Mechanics. > > thus quoth: > So, if we accept Clerselier's arguments, as almost every > scientifically educated person today would have to admit he does, > Fermat's Principle of Least Time is an absurdity. And yet it is true, > and stands as one of the foundations of all our knowledge of nature. > From it came the work of Leibniz and the Bernoullis on the cycloid and > the non-algebraic curves, which were the heart of the development of > the calculus. Fresnel's developments of the wave theory are based on > it, and so everything we know of the electromagnetic spectrum, and so > forth. > > thus: > Bell Epoque d'EPR, seems to be taken with the idee fixe, > that the "quantum of light" has to be a massive point > of no dimensions -- just polarities & frequency/period. > > no rocks o'light, "period." > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory > > >http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ > > thus: > neat idea; how'd it be tested, if possible, or > is it just S & FS? > > > Possibly our universe has an event horizon that's keeping us from > > thus: > when I first began doing "thus ****," > is used "thus quoth" for others and "thus spake" > for myself -- for about a day. possibly in part due > to contamination by archimedeanplutonianism. > > > thus, thus, thus...? > > thus: > what a crock; there is *nothing* about light (or, > one simple thing) that is pertinent to a corpuscular theory; > Young et al completely rid us of that theory, > which also had that denser media had faster light). > maybe it is an unconsidered acceptance > that "quantum" means "particle," > your other Einstein's rock from the train; gah!... come on: > there are no photons, there are no Rocks of Light. > > thus: > I think, therefore Eisntein wasn't as great as he is depicted > in the Department of Einsteinmania/The Musical Dept. > > > impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com
From: spudnik on 29 Mar 2010 18:00 yeah, *if* you consider the light "a la de Broglie," you are always going to be stuck with "un photon avec un wave," but that is just sloppy math -- they are conceptual duals, not to be used at the same time, without very acute reasoning. why must we assume that the pioneers were totally comprehensive in their amazing fromulations? the whole idea of using a particle, in place of a wave, has very little to recommend it; it is rather just a linguistic habit, that pesky & rotten Newtonian rock o'light. just the same, your silly attempt to "replace plasma with aether" -- why should Alfven do that, or any one else?.... just give even one reason. > http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cosmology/alfven.html > Replace 'plasma' with 'aether' above. > As the photon propagates it is a directed/pointed wave. It is the > directed/pointed area of the wave which allows for the collapse and > detection as a particle. The directed/pointed portion of the wave is a > very small region of the wave. thus: what shows is rather strict Einsteinmania, the complete or deliberate ignorance of plasma in Universe, per Alfven et al.... antimatter e.g. anyway, there are no photons, with the sole exception of the detection "of" them by the device/retina, wherein the wave is absorbed or "collapsed," and convereted to some other format. like with Newton's corpuscles, the EPR "problem" dysappears in the wave conception ... but, not, if you consider it a la de Broglie! thus: Leibniz, "*vis viva*." > > Einstein's E = mc2 is derived from Newtonian Mechanics. thus quoth: So, if we accept Clerselier's arguments, as almost every scientifically educated person today would have to admit he does, Fermat's Principle of Least Time is an absurdity. And yet it is true, and stands as one of the foundations of all our knowledge of nature. From it came the work of Leibniz and the Bernoullis on the cycloid and the non-algebraic curves, which were the heart of the development of the calculus. Fresnel's developments of the wave theory are based on it, and so everything we know of the electromagnetic spectrum, and so forth. thus: Bell Epoque d'EPR, seems to be taken with the idee fixe, that the "quantum of light" has to be a massive point of no dimensions -- just polarities & frequency/period. no rocks o'light, "period." > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory > >http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ thus: neat idea; how'd it be tested, if possible, or is it just S & FS? > Possibly our universe has an event horizon that's keeping us from thus: when I first began doing "thus ****," is used "thus quoth" for others and "thus spake" for myself -- for about a day. possibly in part due to contamination by archimedeanplutonianism. > thus, thus, thus...? thus: what a crock; there is *nothing* about light (or, one simple thing) that is pertinent to a corpuscular theory; Young et al completely rid us of that theory, which also had that denser media had faster light). maybe it is an unconsidered acceptance that "quantum" means "particle," your other Einstein's rock from the train; gah!... come on: there are no photons, there are no Rocks of Light. thus: I think, therefore Eisntein wasn't as great as he is depicted in the Department of Einsteinmania/The Musical Dept. > impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: mpc755 on 29 Mar 2010 18:11
On Mar 29, 6:00 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > yeah, *if* you consider the light "a la de Broglie," > you are always going to be stuck with "un photon > avec un wave," but that is just sloppy math -- > they are conceptual duals, not to be used > at the same time, without very acute reasoning. why > must we assume that the pioneers were totally comprehensive > in their amazing fromulations? > > the whole idea of using a particle, in place > of a wave, has very little to recommend it; > it is rather just a linguistic habit, > that pesky & rotten Newtonian rock o'light. > > just the same, your silly attempt to "replace plasma > with aether" -- why should Alfven do that, or > any one else?.... just give even one reason. > > >http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cosmology/alfven.html > > Replace 'plasma' with 'aether' above. > > As the photon propagates it is a directed/pointed wave. It is the > > directed/pointed area of the wave which allows for the collapse and > > detection as a particle. The directed/pointed portion of the wave is a > > very small region of the wave. > > thus: > what shows is rather strict Einsteinmania, > the complete or deliberate ignorance of plasma > in Universe, per Alfven et al.... antimatter e.g. anyway, > there are no photons, with the sole exception > of the detection "of" them by the device/retina, > wherein the wave is absorbed or "collapsed," The portion of the photon wave which is absorbed or 'collapses' occupies a very small region of the photon wave and travels a single path. This is what is considered the 'particle'. |