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: PD on 1 Mar 2010 09:44 On Feb 27, 8:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 27, 8:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 27, 7:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Why would you say that? Of course it does. > > When you make statements like the above, how do you KNOW that it's > > true? > > A photon as a directed/pointed wave which when detected collapses into > a quantum of mather is more correct than saying 'mass-less energy > converts to mass'. How do you KNOW it's more correct? Other than just because you want it to be? > > > Other than the fact that you think it SHOULD be, I mean. > > Stating 'mass-less energy converts to mass' is meaningless. Why? It makes perfect sense. Why don't you understand it? > It does > not describe what occurs physically in nature. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > And when you say it does not, how do you KNOW? > > Matter and aether being different states of mather and mather > transitioning from matter to aether and the expansion in volume which > occurs during this transitioning and the physical effects of this > transition is energy is more correct than saying 'mass converts to > energy'. > > > > > > > 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 1 Mar 2010 10:19 On Mar 1, 9:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 27, 8:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 27, 8:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 27, 7:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Why would you say that? Of course it does. > > > When you make statements like the above, how do you KNOW that it's > > > true? > > > A photon as a directed/pointed wave which when detected collapses into > > a quantum of mather is more correct than saying 'mass-less energy > > converts to mass'. > > How do you KNOW it's more correct? Other than just because you want it > to be? > A photon as a directed/pointed wave which when detected collapses into a quantum of mather is a physical description of a photon. > > > > > Other than the fact that you think it SHOULD be, I mean. > > > Stating 'mass-less energy converts to mass' is meaningless. > > Why? It makes perfect sense. Why don't you understand it? > It only makes sense to those who are unwilling or are unable to understand what a physical description of nature is. > > It does > > not describe what occurs physically in nature. > > > > > 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. > > > > And when you say it does not, how do you KNOW? > > > Matter and aether being different states of mather and mather > > transitioning from matter to aether and the expansion in volume which > > occurs during this transitioning and the physical effects of this > > transition is energy is more correct than saying 'mass converts to > > energy'. > > > > > > 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 1 Mar 2010 10:48 On Mar 1, 10:19 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 1, 9:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 27, 8:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 27, 8:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 27, 7:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > Why would you say that? Of course it does. > > > > When you make statements like the above, how do you KNOW that it's > > > > true? > > > > A photon as a directed/pointed wave which when detected collapses into > > > a quantum of mather is more correct than saying 'mass-less energy > > > converts to mass'. > > > How do you KNOW it's more correct? Other than just because you want it > > to be? > > A photon as a directed/pointed wave which when detected collapses into > a quantum of mather is a physical description of a photon. > > > > > > > Other than the fact that you think it SHOULD be, I mean. > > > > Stating 'mass-less energy converts to mass' is meaningless. > > > Why? It makes perfect sense. Why don't you understand it? > > It only makes sense to those who are unwilling or are unable to > understand what a physical description of nature is. > > > > It does > > > not describe what occurs physically in nature. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > And when you say it does not, how do you KNOW? > > > > Matter and aether being different states of mather and mather > > > transitioning from matter to aether and the expansion in volume which > > > occurs during this transitioning and the physical effects of this > > > transition is energy is more correct than saying 'mass converts to > > > energy'. > > > > > > > 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. > > Here is another example you will not understand. The poster responded with 'Heat is radiated by photons'. What is physically occurring in nature to cause 'heat' to exist and to be radiated? None of that is answered with meaningless statements like 'Absorbed photon'. What does the photon physically exist as in order for it to be absorbed? What we get from the poster is a meaningless 'Absorbed photon causes heat to be radiated'. That is not a description of what occurs physically in nature. I realize you cannot understand the point I am trying to make because you are conceptually deficient but the fact remains a statement such as 'An absorbed photon causes heat to be radiated' does not explain what occurs physically in nature. > Heat is radiated by photons in the infrared and longer wavelenths > from human bodies. > Absorbed photon - Responses of retinal rods to single photons > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1281447/ The photon aether wave which compresses into a quantum of mather does not continue to exist as a quantum of mather after interacting with the material which is our brains/retina. The quantum of mather decompresses back to aether. This expansion of the quantum of mather is given off by our bodies as heat. Heat is the physical effect the mather expanding into aether has on the neighboring mather. This heat is not only given off as an expansion of the mather in three dimensional space but the waves associated with the expansion. AD explains what occurs physically in nature in order for heat to be radiated by a photon interacting with the human body.
From: PD on 1 Mar 2010 13:52 On Mar 1, 9:19 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 1, 9:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 27, 8:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 27, 8:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 27, 7:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > Why would you say that? Of course it does. > > > > When you make statements like the above, how do you KNOW that it's > > > > true? > > > > A photon as a directed/pointed wave which when detected collapses into > > > a quantum of mather is more correct than saying 'mass-less energy > > > converts to mass'. > > > How do you KNOW it's more correct? Other than just because you want it > > to be? > > A photon as a directed/pointed wave which when detected collapses into > a quantum of mather is a physical description of a photon. > > > > > > > Other than the fact that you think it SHOULD be, I mean. > > > > Stating 'mass-less energy converts to mass' is meaningless. > > > Why? It makes perfect sense. Why don't you understand it? > > It only makes sense to those who are unwilling or are unable to > understand what a physical description of nature is. So it's a physical description if it makes sense to you and it's not if it doesn't? Ah. Nice psychosis. > > > > It does > > > not describe what occurs physically in nature. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > And when you say it does not, how do you KNOW? > > > > Matter and aether being different states of mather and mather > > > transitioning from matter to aether and the expansion in volume which > > > occurs during this transitioning and the physical effects of this > > > transition is energy is more correct than saying 'mass converts to > > > energy'. > > > > > > > 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 1 Mar 2010 13:59
On Mar 1, 1:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Stating 'mass-less energy converts to mass' is meaningless. > > > > Why? It makes perfect sense. Why don't you understand it? > > > It only makes sense to those who are unwilling or are unable to > > understand what a physical description of nature is. > > So it's a physical description if it makes sense to you and it's not > if it doesn't? > > Ah. Nice psychosis. > It is a physical description because it describes what occurs physically in nature. For example, saying a photon is absorbed. What does that mean in terms of what occurs physically in nature? Another example is the photon being absorbed causes heat to radiate. What physically occurs in nature for the absorption of a photon, which you are unable to describe in physical terms beyond the 'photon is absorbed' statement causes 'heat', which you cannot describe beyond the 'heat is radiated' statement. What you are incapable of doing is describing what is occurring physically in nature beyond making statements. All you statements do is mimic results. Your statements do not explain what occurs physically in nature. Here is another example you will not understand. The poster responded with 'Heat is radiated by photons'. What is physically occurring in nature to cause 'heat' to exist and to be radiated? None of that is answered with meaningless statements like 'Absorbed photon'. What does the photon physically exist as in order for it to be absorbed? What we get from the poster is a meaningless 'Absorbed photon causes heat to be radiated'. That is not a description of what occurs physically in nature. I realize you cannot understand the point I am trying to make because you are conceptually deficient but the fact remains a statement such as 'An absorbed photon causes heat to be radiated' does not explain what occurs physically in nature. > Heat is radiated by photons in the infrared and longer wavelenths > from human bodies. > Absorbed photon - Responses of retinal rods to single photons > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1281447/ The photon aether wave which compresses into a quantum of mather does not continue to exist as a quantum of mather after interacting with the material which is our brains/retina. The quantum of mather decompresses back to aether. This expansion of the quantum of mather is given off by our bodies as heat. Heat is the physical effect the mather expanding into aether has on the neighboring mather. This heat is not only given off as an expansion of the mather in three dimensional space but the waves associated with the expansion. AD explains what occurs physically in nature in order for heat to be radiated by a photon interacting with the human body. |