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: GogoJF on 23 Feb 2010 21:35 On Feb 23, 8:15 am, funkenstein <luke.s...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 23, 9:59 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 22, 4:15 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > Dearfunkenstein: > > > > 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. > > > > David A. Smith > > > 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. > > Indeed, in the lectures Wilcek made the same analogy. "It is hard > for a fish to see the ocean, because he is always in it. Only when > you take him out of the ocean can he see the ocean. " Something like > that.. (paraphrased) > > Cheers - But, as a fish, there are noticeable changes. The fish notices that the deeper he goes the higher the pressure. I am sure the fish wonders how light receives him. How the source illuminates all objects around him. How that ball in the sky must be present before this happens.
From: mpc755 on 23 Feb 2010 21:42 On Feb 23, 9:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 23, 6:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 23, 9:10 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 23, 6:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 23, 8:53 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 23, 5:45 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 8:21 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 5:19 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 8:12 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 4:28 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 6:04 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > > What I mean is the following: > > > > > > > > > > > Matter and aether are different states of the same material. Matter is > > > > > > > > > > compressed aether and aether is uncompressed 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. > > > > > > > > > > > Same for an electron. The mass associated with an electron does not > > > > > > > > > > 'convert' to energy. Whatever occurs to an electron to cause it to no > > > > > > > > > > longer exist as an electron the mass associated with the electron > > > > > > > > > > still exists, as aether. As the electron coverts to aether it expands. > > > > > > > > > > The effect this expansion has on the neighboring aether and matter is > > > > > > > > > > energy. > > > > > > > > > > Where are the electrons hiding inbetween? > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > The electron converts to aether. The mass of the electron still > > > > > > > > exists, as aether. In terms of E=mc^2, energy is the effect matter > > > > > > > > (i.e. the electron) has transitioning to aether. When matter > > > > > > > > transitions to aether it increases in volume. The physical effects > > > > > > > > this increase in volume has on the neighboring aether and matter is > > > > > > > > energy. > > > > > > > > > The mass associated with the electron is not hiding, it still exists, > > > > > > > > as aether.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > Yes it is. Stop hiding your electrons. In a bubble chamber they always > > > > > > > exist. > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > >http://www.sprawls.org/ppmi2/ERAD/ > > > > > > > "Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 predicts the amount of energy that > > > > > > could be obtained if an object with a mass, m, were completely > > > > > > converted. In this relationship, c is the speed of light. Although > > > > > > it is not possible with our present technology to convert most objects > > > > > > into energy, certain radioactive materials emit particles, called > > > > > > positrons, that can annihilate electrons. When this happens, the > > > > > > electron's entire mass is converted into energy. According to > > > > > > Einstein's relationship, each electron will yield 510 keV. This > > > > > > energy appears as a photon. The annihilation of positrons and > > > > > > electrons is the basis for positron emission tomography (PET)." > > > > > > > The electron's entire mass is not converted to energy. The electron's > > > > > > entire mass is converted to aether. This conversion of an electron to > > > > > > aether and the increase in the volume associated with this > > > > > > transformation and the effect the transition has on the surrounding > > > > > > aether and matter is energy.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > The stateless state aether model is of course hocus pocus. An electron > > > > > sometimes has no wave. But vice versa is never. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > The point is the electron's mass does not 'convert' to energy. > > > > Mass is already energy of infinite density. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > Mass is not energy. The transition of matter to aether and the > > increase in volume of the matter as it transitions to aether is > > energy. > > I challenge you to refute that mass is C squared infinitely dense > energy of a fundamental point particle. The quantum of space time and > energy are the infinitely small. > > Mitch Raemsch What you are referring to when discussing 'infinitely dense energy' is the energy inherent in matter. There is energy inherent in matter because matter is not in its base state of aether. Matter is compressed aether. Matter contains energy because it is compressed. Where E=mc^2 is misinterpreted is thinking mass converts to energy. The 'm' in E=mc^2 is the mass associated with matter. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. When the matter converts to aether the amount of matter which expands into aether is defined as the body's mass which diminishes. The mass still exists, as aether.
From: GogoJF on 23 Feb 2010 21:43 On Feb 23, 10:34 am, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear GogoJF: > > 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 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. > > > 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... > > David A. Smith Dizc: these "feelings" that I get are ideas. For every good idea that I have, there are hundreds that are bad. When Einstein said "Let light be constant", it was mostly an idea. When Newton said "Let an object be inert", it was mostly an idea. When I come with an idea, and you tell me it is not worth the thought, then I will gladly move onto the next idea. I realize that we do not have all the time in the world to waste. Isn't it true, that we can only work on what we have the time for?
From: Sam Wormley on 23 Feb 2010 23:20 On 2/23/10 6:28 PM, mpc755 wrote: > On Feb 23, 6:04 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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? > > What I mean is the following: > > Matter and aether are different states of the same material. Matter is > compressed aether and aether is uncompressed 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." > We do not observe individual electrons of different masses because they lost some of their mass. The mass is quantized. Your original question was, "What happens when the mass associated with an electron 'converts' to energy"? I am asking you what you mean by that, and can you generate the corresponding Feynman diagram?
From: mpc755 on 23 Feb 2010 23:43
On Feb 23, 11:20 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/23/10 6:28 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > On Feb 23, 6:04 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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? > > > What I mean is the following: > > > Matter and aether are different states of the same material. Matter is > > compressed aether and aether is uncompressed 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." > > We do not observe individual electrons of different masses > because they lost some of their mass. The mass is quantized. > > Your original question was, "What happens when the mass > associated with an electron 'converts' to energy"? I am > asking you what you mean by that, and can you generate the > corresponding Feynman diagram? http://www.sprawls.org/ppmi2/ERAD/ "Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 predicts the amount of energy that could be obtained if an object with a mass, m, were completely converted. In this relationship, c is the speed of light. Although it is not possible with our present technology to convert most objects into energy, certain radioactive materials emit particles, called positrons, that can annihilate electrons. When this happens, the electron's entire mass is converted into energy. According to Einstein's relationship, each electron will yield 510 keV. This energy appears as a photon. The annihilation of positrons and electrons is the basis for positron emission tomography (PET)." The electron's entire mass is not converted to energy. The electron's entire mass is converted to aether. This conversion of an electron to aether and the increase in the volume associated with this transformation and the effect the transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. |