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 17:39 On Feb 24, 5:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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: BURT on 24 Feb 2010 17:42 On Feb 24, 2:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - So now space-time has no role in physics mpc? Please depart from me. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 24 Feb 2010 17:47 In article <c0a11028-392b-4141-b0ee-cd45dbd3e739 @y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, macromitch(a)yahoo.com says... > > On Feb 24, 2:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 24, 5:31 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > So now space-time has no role in physics mpc? > > Please depart from me. > > Mitch Raemsch Time is a concept. Atomic clocks 'tick' based on the aether pressure in which it exists. An objects momentum determines the aether pressure on and through the object. The greater the momentum the greater the associated aether pressure. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity. The speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to "result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth "causing the GPS clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day". Combining the pressure associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with respect to the aether and the pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS satellites tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground". (quotes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).
From: BURT on 24 Feb 2010 17:49 On Feb 24, 2:47 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In article <c0a11028-392b-4141-b0ee-cd45dbd3e739 > @y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, macromi...(a)yahoo.com says... > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 24, 5:31 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > So now space-time has no role in physics mpc? > > > Please depart from me. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > Time is a concept. > > Atomic clocks 'tick' based on the aether pressure in which it exists. > > An objects momentum determines the aether pressure on and through the > object. The greater the momentum the greater the associated aether > pressure. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive > objects is gravity. > > The speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to > displace more aether and for that aether to exert more pressure on the > clock in the GPS satellite than the aether pressure associated with a > clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite > clock to "result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure > associated with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure > on the GPS satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth > "causing the GPS clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day". > Combining the pressure associated with the speed at which the GPS > satellite moves with respect to the aether and the pressure associated > with the aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS > satellites tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the > ground". > (quoteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS). You are really an idiot here. A concept is "a concept" according to you? Duh. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 24 Feb 2010 17:57
In article <e8bee191-f7e2-4b91-bdba- 31bcb76f96eb(a)x1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, macromitch(a)yahoo.com says... > > On Feb 24, 2:47 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > In article <c0a11028-392b-4141-b0ee-cd45dbd3e739 > > @y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, macromi...(a)yahoo.com says... > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 24, 5:31 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > So now space-time has no role in physics mpc? > > > > > Please depart from me. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > Time is a concept. > > > > Atomic clocks 'tick' based on the aether pressure in which it exists. > > > > An objects momentum determines the aether pressure on and through the > > object. The greater the momentum the greater the associated aether > > pressure. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive > > objects is gravity. > > > > The speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to > > displace more aether and for that aether to exert more pressure on the > > clock in the GPS satellite than the aether pressure associated with a > > clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite > > clock to "result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure > > associated with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure > > on the GPS satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth > > "causing the GPS clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day". > > Combining the pressure associated with the speed at which the GPS > > satellite moves with respect to the aether and the pressure associated > > with the aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS > > satellites tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the > > ground". > > (quoteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS). > > You are really an idiot here. A concept is "a concept" according to > you? > > Duh. > > Mitch Raemsch Aether is displaced by 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 is based on motion and mass per volume. Motion being the pressure associated with momentum or acceleration and gravity being the pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects. |