What is the disagreement to aether?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: 4-vector dot A = invariant => A is a 4-vector?
Next: Capacitance theory of gravity - interesting theory
From: mpc755 on 23 Feb 2010 17:34 On Feb 23, 5:01 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 23, 1:52 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 23, 4:46 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 23, 1:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 23, 4:32 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 23, 12:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 3:24 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 11:27 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 2:10 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear mpc755: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 9:39 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 11:34 am,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 1:59 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 4:15 pm,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 2:12 am, funkenstein <luke.s...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 3:20 pm,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 9:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aether (the only one that survives experiment) has > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no observables, no way to disprove it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I saw a Frank Wilcek lecture recently which was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quite good. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He talked at length about the physics going on in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vacuum. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He proposes that we don't talk about "the aether" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but instead use "the grid". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Might as well call it "The Matrix" for all the > > > > > > > > > > > > > sense it makes. It does not allow us to > > > > > > > > > > > > > discern "absolute motion", the "physics of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > vacuum" is the same now as it was billions of > > > > > > > > > > > > > years ago, so it behaves *exactly* like > > > > > > > > > > > > > spacetime. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not accept then that it arises from the > > > > > > > > > > > > > source of these properties, namely the matter > > > > > > > > > > > > > and energy in this Universe? Wasting > > > > > > > > > > > > > breath / thought on an 18th century crutch is > > > > > > > > > > > > > just that, a waste. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to know what *I* think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think of the aether as a pressure- like the > > > > > > > > > > > > pressure that fish feel when they are in a 45 > > > > > > > > > > > > gallon tank. We are all fish living in a > > > > > > > > > > > > certain medium. That's why its' difficult to > > > > > > > > > > > > measure- if not impossible. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then it has no discernable properties. And > > > > > > > > > > > unlike the tank analogy, reveals no "drag" > > > > > > > > > > > as we move through it. So clearly this model > > > > > > > > > > > provides you nothing good, except "feelings" > > > > > > > > > > > like you understand things that *no Man* > > > > > > > > > > > understands. > > > > > > > > > > > There is no 'drag' in a frictionless superfluid. > > > > > > > > > > And such fails to describe the motion / "wave nature" of light. > > > > > > > > > Waves are able to propagate through a frictionless superfluid. > > > > > > > > > A particle moving through a frictionless superfluid is able to created > > > > > > > > a displacement wave in the superfluid. > > > > > > > > > > > If you remove the matter from the superfluid > > > > > > > > > > then there is no 'drag' in a frictionless > > > > > > > > > > aether. > > > > > > > > > > So you'd have the light move through a completely empty Universe, > > > > > > > > > parallel to our own, entirely unaffected by matter. You don't get to > > > > > > > > > describe gravitational lensing, diffraction, or "index of refraction". > > > > > > > > > "the state of the former is at every place determined by connections > > > > > > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" - > > > > > > > > Albert Einstein > > > > > > > > > The state of the aether determined by its connections with the matter > > > > > > > > and the state of the aether occurs for the connections between matter > > > > > > > > and a frictionless aether. > > > > > > > > > You are confusing pressure with friction. > > > > > > > > > Matter applies pressure towards the aether when matter displaces the > > > > > > > > aether. The aether applies pressure towards the matter as it > > > > > > > > 'displaces back'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a well established principle that > > > > > > > > > > > > says that nothing can travel faster than c, > > > > > > > > > > > > like a fish that can only travel so fast in > > > > > > > > > > > > water. > > > > > > > > > > > > Except that we can send objects faster than > > > > > > > > > > > the speed of sound in water, and we can alter > > > > > > > > > > > water to make its speed of sound anything we > > > > > > > > > > > like. And quantum effects occur without > > > > > > > > > > > respecting either space or time, so clearly > > > > > > > > > > > defining yet another moderator to achieve c > > > > > > > > > > > merely compounds the problem. > > > > > > > > > > > 'Quantum effects' like a C-60 molecule being > > > > > > > > > > able to create an interference pattern in and > > > > > > > > > > of itself? > > > > > > > > > > But you have said that matter does not propagate. You are now putting > > > > > > > > > the lie to your own words again. > > > > > > > > > Matter travels through the aether. I was just trying to help you clean > > > > > > > > up your misuse of words. Matter travels through the aether. Waves > > > > > > > > propagate through the aether. Light waves propagate at 'c' with > > > > > > > > respect to the aether. > > > > > > > > > > > It is easy to dismiss aether when you choose > > > > > > > > > > to believe in absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > You've worded that wrong. It is easy to dismiss aether *unless* you > > > > > > > > > choose to believe in absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule, a particle of > > > > > > > > > > matter, has an associated aether displacement > > > > > > > > > > wave. > > > > > > > > > > You are on record as saying matter does not propagate. So again you > > > > > > > > > lie. > > > > > > > > > Matter travels through the aether. Waves propagate through the aether. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This well defined limit c, must also define > > > > > > > > > > > > the meaning of the aether- at least locally. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, "aether" clearly only defines limits you > > > > > > > > > > > place on your imagination. Yoda was a > > > > > > > > > > > smarter character than I ever imagined... > > > > > > > > > > > Aether allows our minds to understand the > > > > > > > > > > physics of nature. > > > > > > > > > > It hasn't helped you *at all*. > > > > > > > > > > David A. Smith > > > > > > > > > I understand the observed behaviors in any double slit, delayed > > > > > > > > choice, or quantum eraser experiment are due to the C-60 molecule > > > > > > > > having an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > > > > > > Since you understand how a C-60 molecule is able to create an > > > > > > > > interference pattern in and of itself in a double slit experiment, you > > > > > > > > should have no problem answering the following: > > > > > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) in a double slit experiment. > > > > > > > > Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits the instant prior to > > > > > > > > the C-60 molecule exiting the slit(s). The C-60 molecule is detected > > > > > > > > exiting a single slit. Detectors are placed and removed form the exits > > > > > > > > to the slits the instant prior to the C-60 molecule exiting the > > > > > > > > slit(s). Repeat and the C-60 molecule creates an interference > > > > > > > > pattern. > > > > > > > > > In AD, the moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement > > > > > > > > wave. The aether displacement wave enters and exits the available > > > > > > > > slits while the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit. Placing > > > > > > > > detectors at the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the > > > > > > > > associated aether displacement wave and there is no interference. > > > > > > > > Removing the detectors prior to the C-60 molecule exits the slits > > > > > > > > allows the aether displacement wave to exit the available slits and > > > > > > > > create interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule > > > > > > > > travels.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > Matter flows. > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > Matter flows through the aether. Waves propagate through the aether. > > > > > > Matter flows with respect to the aether pressure. Waves propagate at > > > > > > 'c' with respect to the aether.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Matter waves of the particle moves from their center. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > Moving particles have associated aether displacement waves.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > The wave is part of the particle most of the time. The wave collapses > > > under one condition and that is light at the two holes experiment. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > A 'particle' and its associated aether wave are a 'one something'. > > > - Show quoted text - > > But the wave goes away. You cannot deny the experiment. > > Mitch Raemsch The wave collapses and a particle, as a quantum of aether, is created. It can't be known if the photon 'particle' (i.e. quantum of aether) exists as a self-contained entity when at rest. I also think we would need strong evidence of something propagating faster than 'c' before deciding a photon propagates as a self-contained particle.
From: BURT on 23 Feb 2010 17:39 On Feb 23, 2:34 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 23, 5:01 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 1:52 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 23, 4:46 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 23, 1:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 23, 4:32 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 12:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 3:24 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 11:27 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 2:10 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dear mpc755: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 9:39 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 11:34 am,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 1:59 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 4:15 pm,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 2:12 am, funkenstein <luke.s...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 3:20 pm,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 9:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aether (the only one that survives experiment) has > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no observables, no way to disprove it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I saw a Frank Wilcek lecture recently which was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quite good. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He talked at length about the physics going on in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vacuum. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He proposes that we don't talk about "the aether" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but instead use "the grid". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Might as well call it "The Matrix" for all the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sense it makes. It does not allow us to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discern "absolute motion", the "physics of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vacuum" is the same now as it was billions of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > years ago, so it behaves *exactly* like > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spacetime. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not accept then that it arises from the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > source of these properties, namely the matter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and energy in this Universe? Wasting > > > > > > > > > > > > > > breath / thought on an 18th century crutch is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just that, a waste. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to know what *I* think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think of the aether as a pressure- like the > > > > > > > > > > > > > pressure that fish feel when they are in a 45 > > > > > > > > > > > > > gallon tank. We are all fish living in a > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain medium. That's why its' difficult to > > > > > > > > > > > > > measure- if not impossible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then it has no discernable properties. And > > > > > > > > > > > > unlike the tank analogy, reveals no "drag" > > > > > > > > > > > > as we move through it. So clearly this model > > > > > > > > > > > > provides you nothing good, except "feelings" > > > > > > > > > > > > like you understand things that *no Man* > > > > > > > > > > > > understands. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no 'drag' in a frictionless superfluid. > > > > > > > > > > > And such fails to describe the motion / "wave nature" of light. > > > > > > > > > > Waves are able to propagate through a frictionless superfluid. > > > > > > > > > > A particle moving through a frictionless superfluid is able to created > > > > > > > > > a displacement wave in the superfluid. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you remove the matter from the superfluid > > > > > > > > > > > then there is no 'drag' in a frictionless > > > > > > > > > > > aether. > > > > > > > > > > > So you'd have the light move through a completely empty Universe, > > > > > > > > > > parallel to our own, entirely unaffected by matter. You don't get to > > > > > > > > > > describe gravitational lensing, diffraction, or "index of refraction". > > > > > > > > > > "the state of the former is at every place determined by connections > > > > > > > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" - > > > > > > > > > Albert Einstein > > > > > > > > > > The state of the aether determined by its connections with the matter > > > > > > > > > and the state of the aether occurs for the connections between matter > > > > > > > > > and a frictionless aether. > > > > > > > > > > You are confusing pressure with friction. > > > > > > > > > > Matter applies pressure towards the aether when matter displaces the > > > > > > > > > aether. The aether applies pressure towards the matter as it > > > > > > > > > 'displaces back'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a well established principle that > > > > > > > > > > > > > says that nothing can travel faster than c, > > > > > > > > > > > > > like a fish that can only travel so fast in > > > > > > > > > > > > > water. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Except that we can send objects faster than > > > > > > > > > > > > the speed of sound in water, and we can alter > > > > > > > > > > > > water to make its speed of sound anything we > > > > > > > > > > > > like. And quantum effects occur without > > > > > > > > > > > > respecting either space or time, so clearly > > > > > > > > > > > > defining yet another moderator to achieve c > > > > > > > > > > > > merely compounds the problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Quantum effects' like a C-60 molecule being > > > > > > > > > > > able to create an interference pattern in and > > > > > > > > > > > of itself? > > > > > > > > > > > But you have said that matter does not propagate. You are now putting > > > > > > > > > > the lie to your own words again. > > > > > > > > > > Matter travels through the aether. I was just trying to help you clean > > > > > > > > > up your misuse of words. Matter travels through the aether. Waves > > > > > > > > > propagate through the aether. Light waves propagate at 'c' with > > > > > > > > > respect to the aether. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is easy to dismiss aether when you choose > > > > > > > > > > > to believe in absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > > You've worded that wrong. It is easy to dismiss aether *unless* you > > > > > > > > > > choose to believe in absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule, a particle of > > > > > > > > > > > matter, has an associated aether displacement > > > > > > > > > > > wave. > > > > > > > > > > > You are on record as saying matter does not propagate. So again you > > > > > > > > > > lie. > > > > > > > > > > Matter travels through the aether. Waves propagate through the aether. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This well defined limit c, must also define > > > > > > > > > > > > > the meaning of the aether- at least locally. > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, "aether" clearly only defines limits you > > > > > > > > > > > > place on your imagination. Yoda was a > > > > > > > > > > > > smarter character than I ever imagined... > > > > > > > > > > > > Aether allows our minds to understand the > > > > > > > > > > > physics of nature. > > > > > > > > > > > It hasn't helped you *at all*. > > > > > > > > > > > David A. Smith > > > > > > > > > > I understand the observed behaviors in any double slit, delayed > > > > > > > > > choice, or quantum eraser experiment are due to the C-60 molecule > > > > > > > > > having an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > > > > > > > Since you understand how a C-60 molecule is able to create an > > > > > > > > > interference pattern in and of itself in a double slit experiment, you > > > > > > > > > should have no problem answering the following: > > > > > > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) in a double slit experiment. > > > > > > > > > Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits the instant prior to > > > > > > > > > the C-60 molecule exiting the slit(s). The C-60 molecule is detected > > > > > > > > > exiting a single slit. Detectors are placed and removed form the exits > > > > > > > > > to the slits the instant prior to the C-60 molecule exiting the > > > > > > > > > slit(s). Repeat and the C-60 molecule creates an interference > > > > > > > > > pattern. > > > > > > > > > > In AD, the moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement > > > > > > > > > wave. The aether displacement wave enters and exits the available > > > > > > > > > slits while the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit. Placing > > > > > > > > > detectors at the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the > > > > > > > > > associated aether displacement wave and there is no interference. > > > > > > > > > Removing the detectors prior to the C-60 molecule exits the slits > > > > > > > > > allows the aether displacement wave to exit the available slits and > > > > > > > > > create interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule > > > > > > > > > travels.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > Matter flows. > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > Matter flows through the aether. Waves propagate through the aether. > > > > > > > Matter flows with respect to the aether pressure. Waves propagate at > > > > > > > 'c' with respect to the aether.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > Matter waves of the particle moves from their center. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > Moving particles have associated aether displacement waves.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > The wave is part of the particle most of the time. The wave collapses > > > > under one condition and that is light at the two holes experiment. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > A 'particle' and its associated aether wave are a 'one something'. > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > But the wave goes away. You cannot deny the experiment. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > The wave collapses and a particle, as a quantum of aether, is created. > It can't be known if the photon 'particle' (i.e. quantum of aether) > exists as a self-contained entity when at rest. I also think we ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The electron is always an electron but not always a wave form. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 23 Feb 2010 17:45 On Feb 23, 5:39 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 23, 2:34 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > The electron is always an electron but not always a wave form. > > Mitch Raemsch An electron is not always an electron. What happens when the mass associated with an electron 'converts' to energy? In AD, when the electron converts to aether at rest with respect to the neighboring aether, this transition is energy. The electron is no longer an electron.
From: BURT on 23 Feb 2010 17:53 On Feb 23, 2:45 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 23, 5:39 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 23, 2:34 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > The electron is always an electron but not always a wave form. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > An electron is not always an electron. What happens when the mass > associated with an electron 'converts' to energy? In AD, when the > electron converts to aether at rest with respect to the neighboring > aether, this transition is energy. The electron is no longer an > electron. Please demonstrate that a particle no longer exists. We always see an electron. There is no stateless state. Einstein was right and Niels Bohr wrong all of the way. Mitch Raemsch
From: Sam Wormley on 23 Feb 2010 18:04
On 2/23/10 4:45 PM, mpc755 wrote: > What happens when the mass > associated with an electron 'converts' to energy? What do you mean? Can you generate the corresponding Feynman diagram? |