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 26 Feb 2010 14:25 On Feb 26, 2:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > If mass converted to energy then there would be no mass. > > > > 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.
From: PD on 26 Feb 2010 14:28 On Feb 26, 1:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 26, 2:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > If mass converted to energy then there would be no mass. Why would you say that? Energy also converts back into mass. Neither one of them is expected to remain the same. They fluctuate back and forth into each other all the time, but not always at equal rates. You really have to get out of the habit of just making statements you THINK are true and demanding that they MUST be true. First you should ask yourself WHY you think those statements are true. > > > > > > 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. > >
From: Michael Moroney on 26 Feb 2010 21:51 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >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. Already accounted for. Mass is simply a form of energy. E=mc^2. If chemical energy becomes electromagnetic energy, nobody asks why chemical energy wasn't conserved. Same with rest mass as a form of energy. We already know rest mass isn't a constant. Measure the mass of an electron Measure the mass of a positron. Combine them. Measure the mass of the resulting photons. Notice the "before" and "after" masses are not the same. But notice that the "before" and "after" energy (using E=mc^2) *are* the same. >The fact that AD accounts for the mass and energy means it is more >correct. How can it possibly be more correct than explaining why the "before" and "after" energies are the same, thus overall energy is conserved? >The H20 analogy is accurate. Well, it would be if you didn't keep twisting and abusing it in ways that simply don't apply.
From: mpc755 on 27 Feb 2010 20:10 On Feb 26, 2:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 26, 1:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 26, 2:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > If mass converted to energy then there would be no mass. > > Why would you say that? Energy also converts back into mass. Mass-less energy does not convert back to mass. The universe consists of mather. Mather has mass. The two basic forms of mather we are familiar with are as matter and aether. Matter is compressed mather and aether is uncompressed mather. When mather converts from matter to aether the physical effect the increase in volume of the mather has as it transitions from matter to aether on the neighboring mather is energy. > Neither > one of them is expected to remain the same. They fluctuate back and > forth into each other all the time, but not always at equal rates. > Mass does not fluctuate back to mass-less energy and mass-less energy does not fluctuate back to mass. This is just more of the absurd nonsense you choose to believe in. > You really have to get out of the habit of just making statements you > THINK are true and demanding that they MUST be true. First you should > ask yourself WHY you think those statements are true. > The physical effect mather has on the neighboring mather as it transitions from matter to aether is more correct than mass 'converts to' energy and energy 'converts to' aether. A moving C-60 molecule having an associated aether displacement wave and the C-60 molecule entering and exiting a single slit while the aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits is more correct than the future determines the past. > > > > > > 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. > >
From: mpc755 on 27 Feb 2010 20:13
On Feb 26, 9:51 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >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. > > Already accounted for. Mass is simply a form of energy. How does mass 'convert to' mass-less energy? How does mass-less energy 'convert to' mass? Matter and aether are different forms of mather. Matter is compressed mather and aether is uncompressed mather. When mather transitions from matter to aether the mather increases in volume. The physical effect this increase in volume has on the neighboring mather is energy. > E=mc^2. > If chemical energy becomes electromagnetic energy, nobody asks why > chemical energy wasn't conserved. Same with rest mass as a form of > energy. > > We already know rest mass isn't a constant. Measure the mass of an > electron Measure the mass of a positron. Combine them. Measure the mass > of the resulting photons. Notice the "before" and "after" masses are not > the same. But notice that the "before" and "after" energy (using E=mc^2) > *are* the same. > > >The fact that AD accounts for the mass and energy means it is more > >correct. > > How can it possibly be more correct than explaining why the "before" > and "after" energies are the same, thus overall energy is conserved? > > >The H20 analogy is accurate. > > Well, it would be if you didn't keep twisting and abusing it in ways > that simply don't apply. |