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 24 Feb 2010 17:29 On Feb 24, 5:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 24, 4:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 24, 5:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 24, 4:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 24, 4:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 3:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:29 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 3:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 1:51 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 11:15 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 11:49 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >The electron's entire mass is not converted to energy. The electron's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >entire mass is converted to aether. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The mass-energy of annihilating electrons/positrons becomes photons and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their energy, not "aether". Two or three of them. When you get two > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > photons from low-energy annihilations, they are at 511 kEv each. This is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how PET scanners work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Idiot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mass of electron: 9.10938215(45)×10-31 kg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mass of photon: 0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Wikipedia) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the electron is 'annihilated' there is not less mass in existence > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes you say such a patently stupid thing like that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some of the energy is detected as photons (i.e. quanta of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aether). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After the 'annihilation' of an electron there is still the same amount > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of mass in existence in nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There, you said that obviously stupid thing again! Why do you repeat > > > > > > > > > > > > > stupid things? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matter and aether are different states of the same material. In terms > > > > > > > > > > > > of E=mc^2 it is the matter transitioning to aether and the expansion > > > > > > > > > > > > in volume associated with the transition which is energy. > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't ask you to repeat the same stupid thing again. I asked you, > > > > > > > > > > > WHY do you repeat obviously stupid things? Please note, we are talking > > > > > > > > > > > about YOU, and YOUR motives. > > > > > > > > > > Ah, so you DON'T KNOW WHY you repeat obviously stupid things, but you > > > > > > > > > do it anyway. > > > > > > > > > Do you find this sort of behavior leads to bad consequences? Like > > > > > > > > > electroshock therapy? > > > > > > > > Since you like Einstein quotations, try this one: "Insanity: doing the > > > > > > > same thing over and over again and expecting different results." > > > > > > Thank you for acknowledging your insanity. We've known this to be the > > > > > case for some time, but it's nice to see that you are aware of it, > > > > > too. When's your next session with the therapist? > > > > Nothing like having the last word, especially when it is insane and > > > repetitive babbling. > > I'm having fun. You've hit your head on the wall now a half-dozen > times, just because I asked you to. > Matter and aether are different states of the same material. In terms of E=mc^2 it is the matter transitioning to aether and the expansion in volume associated with the transition which is energy. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. The energy given off in nuclear fission and fusion reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the matter and aether in neighboring places. The mass still exists in nature after an electron is 'annihilated'. The matter which was the mass still exists, as aether. The mistake is directly equating energy with mass and thinking mass 'converts' to energy in nature: 511 kEv /c² = 9.10938215(45)*10-31 kg What occurs physically in nature is more correctly described as the mass of the electron, 9.10938215(45)*10-31 kg, expands in three dimensional space as it transitions from matter to aether. The physical effects this increase in volume has on the surrounding matter and aether is 511 kEv /c² of energy.
From: BURT on 24 Feb 2010 17:31 On Feb 24, 2:28 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 24, 2:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 5:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 24, 4:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 24, 4:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 3:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:29 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 3:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 1:51 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 11:15 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 11:49 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >The electron's entire mass is not converted to energy. The electron's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >entire mass is converted to aether. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The mass-energy of annihilating electrons/positrons becomes photons and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their energy, not "aether". Two or three of them. When you get two > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > photons from low-energy annihilations, they are at 511 kEv each. This is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how PET scanners work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Idiot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mass of electron: 9.10938215(45)×10-31 kg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mass of photon: 0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Wikipedia) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the electron is 'annihilated' there is not less mass in existence > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes you say such a patently stupid thing like that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some of the energy is detected as photons (i.e. quanta of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aether). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After the 'annihilation' of an electron there is still the same amount > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of mass in existence in nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There, you said that obviously stupid thing again! Why do you repeat > > > > > > > > > > > > > stupid things? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matter and aether are different states of the same material. In terms > > > > > > > > > > > > of E=mc^2 it is the matter transitioning to aether and the expansion > > > > > > > > > > > > in volume associated with the transition which is energy. > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't ask you to repeat the same stupid thing again. I asked you, > > > > > > > > > > > WHY do you repeat obviously stupid things? Please note, we are talking > > > > > > > > > > > about YOU, and YOUR motives. > > > > > > > > > > Ah, so you DON'T KNOW WHY you repeat obviously stupid things, but you > > > > > > > > > do it anyway. > > > > > > > > > Do you find this sort of behavior leads to bad consequences? Like > > > > > > > > > electroshock therapy? > > > > > > > > Since you like Einstein quotations, try this one: "Insanity: doing the > > > > > > > same thing over and over again and expecting different results." > > > > > > Thank you for acknowledging your insanity. We've known this to be the > > > > > case for some time, but it's nice to see that you are aware of it, > > > > > too. When's your next session with the therapist? > > > > Nothing like having the last word, especially when it is insane and > > > repetitive babbling. > > > Matter and aether are different states of the same material. In terms > > of E=mc^2 it is the matter transitioning to aether and the expansion > > in volume associated with the transition which is energy. > > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > > diminishes by L/c2." > > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > > and matter is energy. The energy given off in nuclear fission and > > fusion reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on > > the matter and aether in neighboring places. > > > The mass still exists in nature after an electron is 'annihilated'. > > The matter which was the mass still exists, as aether. > > > The mistake is directly equating energy with mass and thinking mass > > 'converts' to energy in nature: > > > 511 kEv /c² = 9.10938215(45)*10-31 kg > > > What occurs physically in nature is more correctly described as the > > mass of the electron, 9.10938215(45)*10-31 kg, expands in three > > dimensional space as it transitions from matter to aether. The > > physical effects this increase in volume has on the surrounding matter > > and aether is 511 kEv /c² of energy.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I claim to be ahead of Old Einstein. Science is only 400 years old. I > ask what it will be like in a million years? What are your answers > worth by then? > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - He knew the answer to his own question: what is inbetween the atom? Why it is his space-time continuum. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 24 Feb 2010 17:34 On Feb 24, 4:29 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 24, 5:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 24, 4:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 24, 5:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 24, 4:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 24, 4:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 3:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:29 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 3:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 1:51 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 11:15 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 11:49 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >The electron's entire mass is not converted to energy. The electron's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >entire mass is converted to aether. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The mass-energy of annihilating electrons/positrons becomes photons and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their energy, not "aether". Two or three of them. When you get two > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > photons from low-energy annihilations, they are at 511 kEv each. This is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how PET scanners work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Idiot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mass of electron: 9.10938215(45)×10-31 kg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mass of photon: 0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Wikipedia) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the electron is 'annihilated' there is not less mass in existence > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes you say such a patently stupid thing like that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some of the energy is detected as photons (i.e. quanta of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aether). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After the 'annihilation' of an electron there is still the same amount > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of mass in existence in nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There, you said that obviously stupid thing again! Why do you repeat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stupid things? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matter and aether are different states of the same material. In terms > > > > > > > > > > > > > of E=mc^2 it is the matter transitioning to aether and the expansion > > > > > > > > > > > > > in volume associated with the transition which is energy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't ask you to repeat the same stupid thing again. I asked you, > > > > > > > > > > > > WHY do you repeat obviously stupid things? Please note, we are talking > > > > > > > > > > > > about YOU, and YOUR motives. > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, so you DON'T KNOW WHY you repeat obviously stupid things, but you > > > > > > > > > > do it anyway. > > > > > > > > > > Do you find this sort of behavior leads to bad consequences? Like > > > > > > > > > > electroshock therapy? > > > > > > > > > Since you like Einstein quotations, try this one: "Insanity: doing the > > > > > > > > same thing over and over again and expecting different results." > > > > > > > Thank you for acknowledging your insanity. We've known this to be the > > > > > > case for some time, but it's nice to see that you are aware of it, > > > > > > too. When's your next session with the therapist? > > > > > Nothing like having the last word, especially when it is insane and > > > > repetitive babbling. > > > I'm having fun. You've hit your head on the wall now a half-dozen > > times, just because I asked you to. 7 to nothing. Yay! I win! > > Matter and aether are different states of the same material. In terms > of E=mc^2 it is the matter transitioning to aether and the expansion > in volume associated with the transition which is energy. > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > diminishes by L/c2." > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > and matter is energy. The energy given off in nuclear fission and > fusion reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on > the matter and aether in neighboring places. > > The mass still exists in nature after an electron is 'annihilated'. > The matter which was the mass still exists, as aether. > > The mistake is directly equating energy with mass and thinking mass > 'converts' to energy in nature: > > 511 kEv /c² = 9.10938215(45)*10-31 kg > > What occurs physically in nature is more correctly described as the > mass of the electron, 9.10938215(45)*10-31 kg, expands in three > dimensional space as it transitions from matter to aether. The > physical effects this increase in volume has on the surrounding matter > and aether is 511 kEv /c² of energy.
From: mpc755 on 24 Feb 2010 17:36 On Feb 24, 5:28 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 24, 2:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 24, 5:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 24, 4:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 24, 4:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 3:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:29 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 3:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 1:51 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 11:15 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 11:49 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >The electron's entire mass is not converted to energy. The electron's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >entire mass is converted to aether. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The mass-energy of annihilating electrons/positrons becomes photons and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their energy, not "aether". Two or three of them. When you get two > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > photons from low-energy annihilations, they are at 511 kEv each. This is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how PET scanners work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Idiot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mass of electron: 9.10938215(45)×10-31 kg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mass of photon: 0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Wikipedia) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the electron is 'annihilated' there is not less mass in existence > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes you say such a patently stupid thing like that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some of the energy is detected as photons (i.e. quanta of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aether). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After the 'annihilation' of an electron there is still the same amount > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of mass in existence in nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There, you said that obviously stupid thing again! Why do you repeat > > > > > > > > > > > > > stupid things? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matter and aether are different states of the same material. In terms > > > > > > > > > > > > of E=mc^2 it is the matter transitioning to aether and the expansion > > > > > > > > > > > > in volume associated with the transition which is energy. > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't ask you to repeat the same stupid thing again. I asked you, > > > > > > > > > > > WHY do you repeat obviously stupid things? Please note, we are talking > > > > > > > > > > > about YOU, and YOUR motives. > > > > > > > > > > Ah, so you DON'T KNOW WHY you repeat obviously stupid things, but you > > > > > > > > > do it anyway. > > > > > > > > > Do you find this sort of behavior leads to bad consequences? Like > > > > > > > > > electroshock therapy? > > > > > > > > Since you like Einstein quotations, try this one: "Insanity: doing the > > > > > > > same thing over and over again and expecting different results." > > > > > > Thank you for acknowledging your insanity. We've known this to be the > > > > > case for some time, but it's nice to see that you are aware of it, > > > > > too. When's your next session with the therapist? > > > > Nothing like having the last word, especially when it is insane and > > > repetitive babbling. > > > Matter and aether are different states of the same material. In terms > > of E=mc^2 it is the matter transitioning to aether and the expansion > > in volume associated with the transition which is energy. > > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > > diminishes by L/c2." > > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > > and matter is energy. The energy given off in nuclear fission and > > fusion reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on > > the matter and aether in neighboring places. > > > The mass still exists in nature after an electron is 'annihilated'. > > The matter which was the mass still exists, as aether. > > > The mistake is directly equating energy with mass and thinking mass > > 'converts' to energy in nature: > > > 511 kEv /c² = 9.10938215(45)*10-31 kg > > > What occurs physically in nature is more correctly described as the > > mass of the electron, 9.10938215(45)*10-31 kg, expands in three > > dimensional space as it transitions from matter to aether. The > > physical effects this increase in volume has on the surrounding matter > > and aether is 511 kEv /c² of energy.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I claim to be ahead of Old Einstein. Science is only 400 years old. I > ask what it will be like in a million years? What are your answers > worth by then? > > Mitch Raemsch AD is the most correct explanation for gravity, to date. AD is the most correct explanation for the observed behaviors in double slit experiments, to date. AD is the most correct explanation of what occurs physically in E=mc^2, to date. AD is the most correct unified theory, to date.
From: mpc755 on 24 Feb 2010 17:38
On Feb 24, 5:31 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 24, 2:28 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 24, 5:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 24, 4:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 24, 4:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 3:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:29 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 3:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 1:51 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 11:15 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 11:49 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >The electron's entire mass is not converted to energy. The electron's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >entire mass is converted to aether. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The mass-energy of annihilating electrons/positrons becomes photons and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their energy, not "aether". Two or three of them. When you get two > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > photons from low-energy annihilations, they are at 511 kEv each. This is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how PET scanners work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Idiot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mass of electron: 9.10938215(45)×10-31 kg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mass of photon: 0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Wikipedia) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the electron is 'annihilated' there is not less mass in existence > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes you say such a patently stupid thing like that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some of the energy is detected as photons (i.e. quanta of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aether). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After the 'annihilation' of an electron there is still the same amount > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of mass in existence in nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There, you said that obviously stupid thing again! Why do you repeat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stupid things? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matter and aether are different states of the same material. In terms > > > > > > > > > > > > > of E=mc^2 it is the matter transitioning to aether and the expansion > > > > > > > > > > > > > in volume associated with the transition which is energy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't ask you to repeat the same stupid thing again. I asked you, > > > > > > > > > > > > WHY do you repeat obviously stupid things? Please note, we are talking > > > > > > > > > > > > about YOU, and YOUR motives. > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, so you DON'T KNOW WHY you repeat obviously stupid things, but you > > > > > > > > > > do it anyway. > > > > > > > > > > Do you find this sort of behavior leads to bad consequences? Like > > > > > > > > > > electroshock therapy? > > > > > > > > > Since you like Einstein quotations, try this one: "Insanity: doing the > > > > > > > > same thing over and over again and expecting different results." > > > > > > > Thank you for acknowledging your insanity. We've known this to be the > > > > > > case for some time, but it's nice to see that you are aware of it, > > > > > > too. When's your next session with the therapist? > > > > > Nothing like having the last word, especially when it is insane and > > > > repetitive babbling. > > > > Matter and aether are different states of the same material. In terms > > > of E=mc^2 it is the matter transitioning to aether and the expansion > > > in volume associated with the transition which is energy. > > > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > > > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > > > diminishes by L/c2." > > > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > > > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > > > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > > > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > > > and matter is energy. The energy given off in nuclear fission and > > > fusion reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on > > > the matter and aether in neighboring places. > > > > The mass still exists in nature after an electron is 'annihilated'. > > > The matter which was the mass still exists, as aether. > > > > The mistake is directly equating energy with mass and thinking mass > > > 'converts' to energy in nature: > > > > 511 kEv /c² = 9.10938215(45)*10-31 kg > > > > What occurs physically in nature is more correctly described as the > > > mass of the electron, 9.10938215(45)*10-31 kg, expands in three > > > dimensional space as it transitions from matter to aether. The > > > physical effects this increase in volume has on the surrounding matter > > > and aether is 511 kEv /c² of energy.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I claim to be ahead of Old Einstein. Science is only 400 years old. I > > ask what it will be like in a million years? What are your answers > > worth by then? > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > He knew the answer to his own question: what is inbetween the atom? > > Why it is his space-time continuum. > > Mitch Raemsch Spacetime is incorrect. The rate at which atomic clocks 'tick' has nothing to do with time. Time is a concept. The rate at which atomic clock's tick is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists. |