There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: Paul Stowe on 28 Mar 2010 16:13 On Mar 28, 11:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 28, 12:49 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I don't follow. There are fields, which are physical entities, that > > > stand in Maxwell's equations. Yet this is a correlation? Between what > > > things? > > > What you call Fields are processes and are certasinly not > > fundamental. > > Processes? They carry momentum, Yup, why? > angular momentum, Yup, why? > energy, etc., Yup... > much like baseballs do. But somehow this is lost on you... No it isn't... But those 'fields' aren't magical, there is a distinct reason that there is both 'magnetic' and 'electric' 'fields' and it ain't just because our equations tells me so! > > The four forces are, in fact, just different aspects of > > a single thing, call it force if you like. If one is truly looking > > for unification it should be obvious that it should resolve to such. > > Electroweak unification does not absorb the electromagnetic field and > the weak field into one field or one force. Perhaps you need a little > better understanding of what unification means. What's lost on you is the fact that the underlying processes give rise to the distinctiveness. It sucks to be you... > > If you cannot understand this from your version then it should be > > clear that that version is only a weak correlation. > > > > > Much of modern > > > > physics lacks any actual phsical foundations. > > > > Yes, apparently since Newton! > > > Not so, read Whittaker's work. > > > > What is this "modern physics" of which you speak? And at what point > > > was the physics WITH physical foundations? > > > The philosophy taken since ~ 1920... > > Newton was not alive in 1920. So what? > > > > Pay attention, this is > > > > the very last time I will answer you in this area, a physical theory > > > > must be derivable from primitive elements > > > > "Primitive elements"? What does this term mean? Fields are primitive > > > elements, no? > > > No, certainly not... > > > > If not, then what properties do "primitive elements" have that these > > > do not? > > > Momentum, energy, volume and unique existence. IOW, they are > > physically 'real'. > > Fields carry energy and momentum. I have no idea what you mean by > "unique existence. Finally, volume is a property of *composite* > objects only, and the volume is determined by the nature of the > *interaction* between constituents, not by the size of the > constituents themselves. Think about this for a minute and I'm sure > you'll see what I mean. So you believe. The constitutes that compose the 'fields' carry the momentum and have volume and spacing between themselves. And no, volume need not be composed of composite objects. > But getting back to basics, I wonder why you chose these properties > and why you believe they are essential to "primitive elements". Did > you just pick them out of a hat? Your lack of understanding and comprehension seems so vast as to make it impossible to explain this to you with this forum. Simply put, form follows from function(s). > > > I'm really just trying to get an unambiguous, unveiled description by > > > you on what you think a physical theory necessarily has. > > > You've gotten it many times now. It's not my problem that you cannot > > remember that fact. > > It sure took a while for you to spout it out again here, didn't it? > And we seem to have some unresolved questions about your "primitive > elements". Why did I need to then, unless your long term memory is flawed? > > > If you believe that primitive elements are necessarily material bodies > > > that have mass and volume, then just come out and say it. Of course, I > > > will ask you what on earth gives you the idea that all physical > > > explanations MUST be reliant on primitive elements that are material > > > bodies that have mass and volume... > > > Mass is an emergent quantity. A byproduct of momentum. > > Interesting. Photons have momentum. They do not have mass. Sound carries momentum but has no rest mass either... > > > > that LEADS to the > > > > equations. A good example of such model is Maxwell's and LeSage's. > > > > Both leads to the final equations FROM! first principle primitive > > > > elements. > > > > > > I am asking you a very specific question. > > > > > In order for a theory -- any theory -- to be classed as a physical > > > > > explanation, there would be certain elements in that theory that would > > > > > warrant it being called a physical explanation. What are those > > > > > elements? And specifically which of those elements are missing in the > > > > > description that I gave above? > > > > > Yeah, one should be able to eplain the process WITHOUT the need for > > > > mathematics. The mathematics quantifies and fills in the specific > > > > details. > > > > And I did that with the an explanation of the curvature of spacetime > > > -- no math at all -- and yet you rejected it. > > > It was BS. > > That's what you say, but it seems to satisfy all the requirements > you've laid out, except for not being explained in terms of "primitive > elements" with the dubious properties you mention. It does not explain how those paths or lines become curved by matter or energy. Even the rubber sheet analogy requires 'gravity' to dimple the sheet and the elastic properties of the sheet to cause the effect. Your so-called explanation was devoid of any type of such explanations. > > > > > If you cannot LIST the fundamental elements that ANY theory must have > > > > > for you to consider it a physical explanation, then I guess it's > > > > > obvious that YOU don't know what you mean by the term "physical > > > > > explanation". > > > > > I cannot help you poor memory Peter, maybe you need to be tested for > > > > dementia... > > > > > > > > By fundamental elements, I expect you to answer with adjectives and > > > > > > > nouns, not questions. Having open questions is one thing, but having > > > > > > > open questions would not make my explanation not a physical > > > > > > > explanation. A physical explanation won't answer all possible open > > > > > > > questions. Since you claim my explanation is not a physical one, then > > > > > > > you owe me some clear accounting of what you think a physical > > > > > > > explanation MUST have. > > > > > > > Fundamental means just what the 'word' is defined to mean, do you > > > > > > understand English? Especially, given you nationality Peter... > > > > > > Peter? Who's Peter? And I think we agree on what "fundamental" means. > > > > > What are the fundamental elements of a physical theory, Paul? > > > > > You, Peter Draper of the Draper Family... > > > > That's not my name. > > > Then what is it? > > Why is it important to you? It seems to be important enough that you > will guess wrongly about it. Why? Maybe I like to know whom I'm talking to. > > > > > That's not right, Paul. Every discipline has jargon where the words > > > > > mean something other than common usage as listed in the dictionary. > > > > > That's why the terms are so carefully defined in textbooks, sometimes > > > > > repeatedly with refinements at successive iterations. This is in true > > > > > in music and law as well as physics. It's just a reality. Not a basis > > > > > for complaint. > > > > > Good, give us an example for Law... > > > > Sure. Take the word "competent". > > > And how is its meaning uniquely different in the legal profession? > > Want to take this question to a law discussion group? > You could also ask Ste here in the group about legal jargon. > Are you denying that various disciplines have jargon with specialized > meanings for terms that are also in use in common usage with different > meanings? Like what? Sure specialized fields have specialized terms but, they are specific terms to that field. Give an example of a usurped meaning. > > > > > > Something I think you'll never understand, true understanding, Pun > > > > > > intended, sadly... > > > > > > Since you cannot answer the question, Paul, it would be reasonable for > > > > > any reader to conclude that you don't know the answer to it, either. > > > > > Well at least I've derived several new physical relationships from the > > > > modeling I've done. Like the LeSage drag equation, the terms of G, > > > > Boltzman's constant, ... etc. > > > > But you still cannot answer this very basic question. > > > I have answered, you don't like the answer, forget I answered, but my > > answer leads to more new physical aspects that your pathetic system > > does. > > "More physical aspects". I wonder what on earth that means. > Does it generate quantitative predictions that distinguish your model > from prevailing models, in such a way that it can be tested > experimentally? Yes, as an example, elemental charge (e) can be described in terms of Planck's constant (h), permitivitty (z), permeability (u) as, e = (1/2pi)Sqrt(h[Sqrt(z/3u)]) = 1.6038E-19 -- (a linear harmonic oscillator) IF we use z & u of free space. However, if we use the actual z and u of Earth's atmosphere where the dielectric constant of air is ~1.0006 and magnetic suceptability is ~1.004 then z & u are of the fourth root Sqrt(sqrt(z/3u)) then (1.0006/1.004)^0.25 = 0.999152 thus 1.6038 reduces to ~1.602 and I cannot get closer with the uncertainties of k & x of air... BUT! this predicts that the actual value of elemental charge is related cto the bulk EM properties of the matter that contains it. This explains both the existence of galvanic potentials and predicts that, if you measured e in something like Xe gas its value would be measured slightly different based upon the actual k & x properties of the Xe. Moreover, if you use my version of e when calculating the electron's magnetic moment you don't need the MMA correction. This is but one example of both a new relationship and unique prediction of several I've found, like the Pioneer drag equation. Paul Stowe
From: mpc755 on 28 Mar 2010 17:16 On Mar 28, 4:13 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 28, 11:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > That's what you say, but it seems to satisfy all the requirements > > you've laid out, except for not being explained in terms of "primitive > > elements" with the dubious properties you mention. > > It does not explain how those paths or lines become curved by matter > or energy. Even the rubber sheet analogy requires 'gravity' to dimple > the sheet and the elastic properties of the sheet to cause the > effect. Your so-called explanation was devoid of any type of such > explanations. > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. Aether is displaced by matter. Displacement creates pressure. Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter.
From: Timo Nieminen on 28 Mar 2010 21:40 On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, Paul Stowe wrote: > On Mar 25, 4:39 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, PaulStowewrote: > > > On Mar 24, 7:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 23, 10:34 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > That depends on what you think MUST always be involved in "how that > > > > > > happens". What do you think has to be there for you to recognize it as > > > > > > a "how that occurs"? > > > > > > > I happen to agree with Newton on that one... > > > > > > And you believe his position is what, exactly? Please be absolutely > > > > specific. > > > > If you can't be specific, perhaps it has not occurred to you that even > > > > YOU don't know what you're looking for? > > > > > That you cannot provide a physical theory with only a mathematical > > > correlational expression, thus his famous quote "Hypothesis Non- > > > Fingo"! It's plain stupid to think otherwise. > > > > Newton explicity said that the mathematical model is enough. From the > > Motte/Cajori translation: > > > > "In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the > > phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus it was > > that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of > > bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered. And > > to us it is enough that gravity does really exist; and act according to > > the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for > > all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our Sea." > > Hi Timo, its been a long time... > > As to your comment above, yes, please note 'this philosophy' which can > be also interpreted as in 'this case'. And sure, it's enought to get > by with for the time being. If that is, in fact the goal then all of > science might as well be a religion with fundamental 'beliefs' forming > its foundation. Note that this extract from the Scholium comes immediately after the extract I quoted below; "this philosophy" is "experimental philosophy". More below. > > More than that, Newton explcitly stated that stories spun about the > > "physical" causes - tales of mechanism in the Cartesian style - have no > > place in physics: > > > > But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those > > properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for > > whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an > > hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of > > occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental > > philosophy. > > I think the key term here is the word experimental. In that context > I agree, data is data and should not be laden with speculations. Thus > my fundamental disagreement with Tom Robert's claim that one cannot, > possibly, do an experiment without first having a theory in which to > frame it. Faraday's experiments are a great example of this. But, > that is not what I'm talking about here. Newton's "experimental philosophy" means "physics". IIRC, this was his first major published use of the term, and it looks like part of his program to establish "experimental philosophy" as a synonym for "natural philosophy", thereby excluding Cartesianist science from being science. This is discussed in Alan E. Shapiro, Newton's "experimental philosophy", Early Science and Medicine 9(3), 185-217 (2004) (and the text of a talk which appears to be the ancestor of this paper is readily found by googling the title). Shapiro quotes Newton: "Experimental Philosophy reduces Phaenomena to general Rules & looks upon the Rules to be general when they hold generally in Phaenomena.... Hypothetical Philosophy consists in imaginary explications of things & imaginary arguments for or against such explications, or against the arguments of Experimental Philosophers founded upon Induction. The first sort of Philosophy is followed by me, the latter too much by Cartes, Leibnitz & some others." (From Newton to Cotes, 28 March 1713, Newton, The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, ed., H. W. Turnbull, J. F. Scott, A. Rupert Hall, and Laura Tilling, 7 vols. (Cambridge, 1959-77), 5: 398-399.) The modern usage of "experiment", in a strict and restricted philosophical sense, is not the same as it was for Newton, or in his time, when, more or less, we had "experiment" = "experience", including pure observation, modern experiment in the strict sense, and lots of stuff in-between. In the strict modern usage, Tom Roberts is entirely correct, since an experiment is performed to reject one of two theories. "Experiment" is used in a much broader sense, even today, and such loose usage is closer to that of Newton's time. The idea of data divorced from theory (not at all the same as free from speculation) is very Baconian. See Salomon's House in Bacon's "New Atlantis" Not the idea of a research institute, but the details of the methodology - an attempt at describing theory-free observation and application of such data (it isn't theory free). But, back to the main point: > > So, Newton says that the mathematical model is enough, and Newton says > > that Cartesian-style "explanations" of causes are not physics. Was Newton > > stupid? He clearly thought otherwise. > > Correlations are useful, fruitful and point to understanding. But, if > he or you believe(d) that correlations are enough then then you think > reversed 'engineering' not fundamental understanding is sufficient. > And I, and I think other find such philosophy a poor excuse for > science. "Enough" for further progress to be made. If it's the best that can be done (at least for the visible future), does one proceed in the Newtonian fashion, or discard that approach as "not enough"? It's clear that more is wanted, at least by many physicists, other scientists, and non-scientists. Witness the intellectual investment in the various interpretations of quantum mechanics. Also witness the progress that has resulted from these interpretations. Do we understand the "why" of quantum mechanics, what it "really means"? No. In this sense, it isn't complete. It's obviously enough to provide a basis for a great deal of further progress, both in quantum mechanics itself, and other fields making use of it. It's enough for practical engineering. That you - and others - want more does not make it "not enough". The Newtonianisation of electrical and magnetic theory by Aepinus is a superb example of the progress that can be made by being willing to work with "enough", and being prepared to ignore Cartesian would-be-burdens. There's a nice discussion in the English translation of his book. -- Timo
From: mpc755 on 28 Mar 2010 23:06 On Mar 28, 9:40 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, Paul Stowe wrote: > > On Mar 25, 4:39 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, PaulStowewrote: > > > > On Mar 24, 7:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 23, 10:34 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > That depends on what you think MUST always be involved in "how that > > > > > > > happens". What do you think has to be there for you to recognize it as > > > > > > > a "how that occurs"? > > > > > > > I happen to agree with Newton on that one... > > > > > > And you believe his position is what, exactly? Please be absolutely > > > > > specific. > > > > > If you can't be specific, perhaps it has not occurred to you that even > > > > > YOU don't know what you're looking for? > > > > > That you cannot provide a physical theory with only a mathematical > > > > correlational expression, thus his famous quote "Hypothesis Non- > > > > Fingo"! It's plain stupid to think otherwise. > > > > Newton explicity said that the mathematical model is enough. From the > > > Motte/Cajori translation: > > > > "In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the > > > phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus it was > > > that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of > > > bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered. And > > > to us it is enough that gravity does really exist; and act according to > > > the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for > > > all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our Sea." > > > Hi Timo, its been a long time... > > > As to your comment above, yes, please note 'this philosophy' which can > > be also interpreted as in 'this case'. And sure, it's enought to get > > by with for the time being. If that is, in fact the goal then all of > > science might as well be a religion with fundamental 'beliefs' forming > > its foundation. > > Note that this extract from the Scholium comes immediately after the > extract I quoted below; "this philosophy" is "experimental philosophy". > More below. > > > > > > More than that, Newton explcitly stated that stories spun about the > > > "physical" causes - tales of mechanism in the Cartesian style - have no > > > place in physics: > > > > But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those > > > properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for > > > whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an > > > hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of > > > occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental > > > philosophy. > > > I think the key term here is the word experimental. In that context > > I agree, data is data and should not be laden with speculations. Thus > > my fundamental disagreement with Tom Robert's claim that one cannot, > > possibly, do an experiment without first having a theory in which to > > frame it. Faraday's experiments are a great example of this. But, > > that is not what I'm talking about here. > > Newton's "experimental philosophy" means "physics". IIRC, this was his > first major published use of the term, and it looks like part of his > program to establish "experimental philosophy" as a synonym for "natural > philosophy", thereby excluding Cartesianist science from being science. > > This is discussed in Alan E. Shapiro, Newton's "experimental philosophy", > Early Science and Medicine 9(3), 185-217 (2004) (and the text of a talk > which appears to be the ancestor of this paper is readily found by > googling the title). Shapiro quotes Newton: > > "Experimental Philosophy reduces Phaenomena to general Rules & looks > upon the Rules to be general when they hold generally in Phaenomena.... > Hypothetical Philosophy consists in imaginary explications of things & > imaginary arguments for or against such explications, or against the > arguments of Experimental Philosophers founded upon Induction. The first > sort of Philosophy is followed by me, the latter too much by Cartes, > Leibnitz & some others." > > (From Newton to Cotes, 28 March 1713, Newton, The Correspondence of Isaac > Newton, ed., H. W. Turnbull, J. F. Scott, A. Rupert Hall, and Laura > Tilling, 7 vols. (Cambridge, 1959-77), 5: 398-399.) > > The modern usage of "experiment", in a strict and restricted philosophical > sense, is not the same as it was for Newton, or in his time, when, more or > less, we had "experiment" = "experience", including pure observation, > modern experiment in the strict sense, and lots of stuff in-between. In > the strict modern usage, Tom Roberts is entirely correct, since an > experiment is performed to reject one of two theories. "Experiment" is > used in a much broader sense, even today, and such loose usage is closer > to that of Newton's time. > > The idea of data divorced from theory (not at all the same as free from > speculation) is very Baconian. See Salomon's House in Bacon's "New > Atlantis" Not the idea of a research institute, but the details of the > methodology - an attempt at describing theory-free observation and > application of such data (it isn't theory free). > > But, back to the main point: > > > > So, Newton says that the mathematical model is enough, and Newton says > > > that Cartesian-style "explanations" of causes are not physics. Was Newton > > > stupid? He clearly thought otherwise. > > > Correlations are useful, fruitful and point to understanding. But, if > > he or you believe(d) that correlations are enough then then you think > > reversed 'engineering' not fundamental understanding is sufficient. > > And I, and I think other find such philosophy a poor excuse for > > science. > > "Enough" for further progress to be made. If it's the best that can be > done (at least for the visible future), does one proceed in the Newtonian > fashion, or discard that approach as "not enough"? > > It's clear that more is wanted, at least by many physicists, other > scientists, and non-scientists. Witness the intellectual investment in the > various interpretations of quantum mechanics. Also witness the progress > that has resulted from these interpretations. > > Do we understand the "why" of quantum mechanics, what it "really means"? > No. In this sense, it isn't complete. It's obviously enough to provide a > basis for a great deal of further progress, both in quantum mechanics > itself, and other fields making use of it. It's enough for practical > engineering. That you - and others - want more does not make it "not > enough". > It is not enough in that the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is incorrect. 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. In a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule, the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit. > The Newtonianisation of electrical and magnetic theory by Aepinus is a > superb example of the progress that can be made by being willing to work > with "enough", and being prepared to ignore Cartesian would-be-burdens. > There's a nice discussion in the English translation of his book. > > -- > Timo
From: NoEinstein on 29 Mar 2010 09:55
On Mar 28, 7:44 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear mpc755: Since you are unwilling to make your own '+new post' to expound your pet theory of gravity, I have copied what you wrote, below, and have made a post... for you: "An Alternate Theory of Gravity." Search out that post and keep all of your replies, there. Thanks! NoEinstein > > On Mar 28, 6:34 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Mar 27, 2:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Damn, mpc755! PLEASE take your tag-along notions about the mechanism > > of gravity elsewhere! Make your own '+new post' and give your ideas > > about that C-60 crystal, or whatever. I am talking science TRUTHS, > > here; you are trying to substitute your science stupidity. GO AWAY, > > guy! NoEinstein > > Aether is displaced matter. The aether is not at rest when displaced > and 'displaces back'. The 'displacing back' is the pressure the aether > exerts towards the matter. The pressure associated with the aether > displaced by matter is gravity. > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. > > '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. > > Aether is displaced by an individual nucleus. When discussing gravity > as the pressure associated with the aether displaced by matter, what > is being discussed is the aether being displaced by each and every > nucleus which is the matter which is the object. > > A C-60 molecule displaces the aether. > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The > C-60 molecule itself occupies a very small region of the wave. The > C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit in a double slit > experiment. The associated aether displacement wave enters and exits > the available slits. When the aether displacement wave exits the slits > it creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule > travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the > associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and > there is no interference. > > The Casimir Effect is caused by gravity. > > Each and every nucleus which is the matter which is the plate > displaces the aether. The aether displaced by one plate extends past > the other plate. The pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the > plates forces the plates together. > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > by the double solution theory > Louis de BROGLIE'http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > "These are essentially based on the way in which quantities > respectively characterizing the regular v wave and the internal u0 > wave of the particle connect with the neighbourhood of the singular > region. u0 would have to increase very sharply as one penetrates the > singular region." > > This is similar to Einstein's concept of: > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity > by > Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places". > > There is a connectedness between the particle and the neighborhood. > There is a connectedness between the matter and the aether. > > 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. > > '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. > > Aether Displacement is a unified theory. |