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: Michael Moroney on 26 Feb 2010 09:35 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >Your analogy is more correct than you realize. I know it is. I just wish you'd quit hijacking it with your "mather" foolishness. Once again, the ice is rest mass, or energy in the form of physical matter (E=mc^2). The liquid is other forms of energy, kinetic, gravitational, electromagnetic etc. The total contents is the total system energy that gravity acts upon, and in many ways the total contents acts just like matter. For example, gravity bends light/photons (pure liquid in my model) even though there is zero rest mass (no ice). An electron accelerated to 511 kEv acts as if its mass was twice the rest mass of an electron when you consider its momentum, inertia or whatever (if a stationary electron was equivalent to 100g of ice, the moving electron has 100g ice (the electron itself) and 100g liquid water (its KE) in the glass. If such an electron encounters a positron with the same KE moving in the opposite direction, you may get 4 solid particles from the collision (2 e+ and 2 e-), one pair formed from the KE. Or a bunch of photons. Your "mather" and "aether" blathering doesn't predict any solutions that QM with its mass-energy equivalence can't handle. As a "theory" it is useless. If you want to make your "mather" mean anything at all, you'll have to come up with an experiment where your "mather"/"aether" ideas predict pone thing, and QM with its ME equivelence predicts something completely different, and then do it (have it done) to see which is corrent.
From: mpc755 on 26 Feb 2010 10:34 On Feb 26, 9:35 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >Your analogy is more correct than you realize. > > I know it is. I just wish you'd quit hijacking it with your "mather" > foolishness. > > Once again, the ice is rest mass, The ice in you analogy is matter. > or energy in the form of physical > matter (E=mc^2). The liquid is other forms of energy, kinetic, > gravitational, electromagnetic etc. The liquid in you analogy is aether. The physical effects of the aether, such as the pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity, are forms of energy. > The total contents is the total > system energy that gravity acts upon, and in many ways the total contents > acts just like matter. Because the total amount of mass in existence does not change. > For example, gravity bends light/photons (pure > liquid in my model) even though there is zero rest mass (no ice). > An electron accelerated to 511 kEv acts as if its mass was twice the > rest mass of an electron when you consider its momentum, inertia or > whatever (if a stationary electron was equivalent to 100g of ice, the > moving electron has 100g ice (the electron itself) and 100g liquid > water (its KE) in the glass. The electron acts as if it has twice the mass because its momentum allows it to apply more pressure. > If such an electron encounters a positron > with the same KE moving in the opposite direction, you may get 4 solid > particles from the collision (2 e+ and 2 e-), one pair formed from the > KE. Or a bunch of photons. > > Your "mather" and "aether" blathering doesn't predict any solutions > that QM with its mass-energy equivalence can't handle. As a "theory" > it is useless. > > If you want to make your "mather" mean anything at all, you'll have to > come up with an experiment where your "mather"/"aether" ideas predict > pone thing, and QM with its ME equivelence predicts something completely > different, and then do it (have it done) to see which is corrent. In AD, matter and aether are different states of mather. What AD does which QM does not, is explain what occurs physically in nature in order for there to be energy.
From: PD on 26 Feb 2010 13:34 On Feb 26, 9:34 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > The total contents is the total > > system energy that gravity acts upon, and in many ways the total contents > > acts just like matter. > > Because the total amount of mass in existence does not change. > And where did this statement become obviously correct? How do you KNOW?
From: mpc755 on 26 Feb 2010 14:11 On Feb 26, 1:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 26, 9:34 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > The total contents is the total > > > system energy that gravity acts upon, and in many ways the total contents > > > acts just like matter. > > > Because the total amount of mass in existence does not change. > > And where did this statement become obviously correct? How do you > KNOW? If mass 'converts' to energy then you need to account for the lack of there being less mass in existence, not the other way around. The fact that AD accounts for the mass and energy means it is more correct. In E=mc^2 when mass 'converts' to energy what occurs physically in nature is the mather transitions from matter to aether. The physical effects caused by the increase in volume of the mather as it transitions from matter to aether is energy. The H20 analogy is accurate. I stayed away from it because H20 liquid is more dense than ice. The physical effects caused by the H20 transitioning from ice to water is energy.
From: PD on 26 Feb 2010 14:23
On Feb 26, 1:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 26, 1:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 26, 9:34 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > The total contents is the total > > > > system energy that gravity acts upon, and in many ways the total contents > > > > acts just like matter. > > > > Because the total amount of mass in existence does not change. > > > And where did this statement become obviously correct? How do you > > KNOW? > > If mass 'converts' to energy then you need to account for the lack of > there being less mass in existence, not the other way around. Why? You don't have to account for there being fewer dinosaurs in existence. You don't have to account for there being less neutrons in beta decay. Why do you think the amount of mass in the universe does not change? Other than the fact that you think it SHOULD be, I mean. > > The fact that AD accounts for the mass and energy means it is more > correct. > No, it is only more correct if mass is expected to stay the same. But you haven't said why you expect that. |