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 15:45 On Mar 1, 2:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 1, 3:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 1, 2:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 1, 2:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 1, 1:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 1, 1:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 1, 9:19 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > How do you KNOW it does that? What's your test? All you have is your > > > > assertion that it does. I can assert all day long that there is ice > > > > under the sand in the Sahara, but unless I tell you how I would prove > > > > that, all it is is a blank and worthless assertion. Same for you. > > > > > > For example, saying a photon is absorbed. What does that mean in terms > > > > > of what occurs physically in nature? > > > > > It means the photon runs into a fermion and delivers its momentum, > > > > energy, and angular momentum. Having done that, the photon disappears, > > > > and the impacted fermion has its own momentum, energy, and angular > > > > momentum altered as a result. > > > > > This is not difficult to understand physically. It's a very simple > > > > picture. > > > > > > 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 saying here is, "No one has explained this to me in a way > > > > that I can understand, and so there must not be a decent explanation, > > > > and so I'll make up a wholly different explanation because at least I > > > > can understand that." > > > > > > What you are incapable of doing is describing what is > > > > > occurring physically in nature beyond making statements. > > > > > Of course I can. But you've never asked. All you've ever said is loop > > > > over this short series of ridiculous statements: > > > > 1. What you describe is not a physical description of nature. > > > > 2. What you describe is absurd and not believable. > > > > 3. AD is the correct description of nature. > > > > > NOWHERE have you ever just sucked it up and ASKED about how photons > > > > work. > > > > Why would I want to ask a question of someone who chooses to believe > > > in the absurd nonsense of the future determining the past? > > > Well, you can't complain about not knowing the physical explanation of > > photons if you don't ask for it, can you? > > You realize you are the only person on this forum who chooses to > believe the future determines the past, correct? Nonsense. You do realize that I'm about the only trained physicist who responds to you at all in this forum, correct? If you want to find out what physicists think, get off this forum and start reading books. Then you'll find out. > And you are so full > of absurd nonsense you think you should be asked questions about > nature. > > > > > > My definition of a photon is more correct than any other. > > > You say it is more correct than the one than the present explanation > > of how photons work, but you don't know the present explanation of how > > photons work. How can what you say be more correct than something you > > know nothing about, except by blind assertion? > > Because anyone who chooses to believe the future determines the past > is unqualified to speak to anything having to do with physics. Aha. So if you don't believe it, it's wrong? This is an excellent way to avoid learning anything. > > > It just boils your blood to ask a question, doesn't it? Asking > > questions makes you feel stupid, and you've felt stupid your whole > > life, so you'll be damned if you're going to ask a question. > > Not at all. I am always willing to ask a question when I do not > understand something. How about photons and heat? Understand them? You were almost asking questions about them earlier. Almost. > It just so happens I understand a moving C-60 > molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > You know you have an emotional problem, right? > > > > The photon > > > is a directed/pointed wave in the aether which when detected collapses > > > into a quantum of mather. > > > > When the quantum of mather is detected in the material which is the > > > human body the mather decompresses. The physical effect of this > > > decompression on the neighboring mather is heat. > > > > > > There was a > > > > > photon and now there is no longer a photon so the photon is > > > > > 'absorbed'. After the photon is 'absorbed' there is 'heat', so 'heat > > > > > radiates'. > > > > > I certainly didn't say that. I don't know where you got this stuff. > > > > > When you can stop just making stuff up and start asking simple > > > > questions, you'll get answers. > > > > > > All your 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. > >
From: mpc755 on 1 Mar 2010 16:09 On Mar 1, 3:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 1, 2:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 1, 3:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 1, 2:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 1, 2:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 1, 1:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 1, 1:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 1, 9:19 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > How do you KNOW it does that? What's your test? All you have is your > > > > > assertion that it does. I can assert all day long that there is ice > > > > > under the sand in the Sahara, but unless I tell you how I would prove > > > > > that, all it is is a blank and worthless assertion. Same for you. > > > > > > > For example, saying a photon is absorbed. What does that mean in terms > > > > > > of what occurs physically in nature? > > > > > > It means the photon runs into a fermion and delivers its momentum, > > > > > energy, and angular momentum. Having done that, the photon disappears, > > > > > and the impacted fermion has its own momentum, energy, and angular > > > > > momentum altered as a result. > > > > > > This is not difficult to understand physically. It's a very simple > > > > > picture. > > > > > > > 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 saying here is, "No one has explained this to me in a way > > > > > that I can understand, and so there must not be a decent explanation, > > > > > and so I'll make up a wholly different explanation because at least I > > > > > can understand that." > > > > > > > What you are incapable of doing is describing what is > > > > > > occurring physically in nature beyond making statements. > > > > > > Of course I can. But you've never asked. All you've ever said is loop > > > > > over this short series of ridiculous statements: > > > > > 1. What you describe is not a physical description of nature. > > > > > 2. What you describe is absurd and not believable. > > > > > 3. AD is the correct description of nature. > > > > > > NOWHERE have you ever just sucked it up and ASKED about how photons > > > > > work. > > > > > Why would I want to ask a question of someone who chooses to believe > > > > in the absurd nonsense of the future determining the past? > > > > Well, you can't complain about not knowing the physical explanation of > > > photons if you don't ask for it, can you? > > > You realize you are the only person on this forum who chooses to > > believe the future determines the past, correct? > > Nonsense. You do realize that I'm about the only trained physicist who > responds to you at all in this forum, correct? > I do realize you have to choose to believe in the future determines the past in order to support a failed theory. > If you want to find out what physicists think, get off this forum and > start reading books. Then you'll find out. > The ones where the future determines the past? What section are those books in, science fiction? > > And you are so full > > of absurd nonsense you think you should be asked questions about > > nature. > > > > > My definition of a photon is more correct than any other. > > > > You say it is more correct than the one than the present explanation > > > of how photons work, but you don't know the present explanation of how > > > photons work. How can what you say be more correct than something you > > > know nothing about, except by blind assertion? > > > Because anyone who chooses to believe the future determines the past > > is unqualified to speak to anything having to do with physics. > > Aha. So if you don't believe it, it's wrong? > This is an excellent way to avoid learning anything. > You would think if you were correct and there were others who supported your 'theory' which requires the future to determine the past there would be at least one other person on this forum who would be willing to state they also choose to believe the future determines the past. It is simply amazing how full of yourself you are when all you really offer is a bunch of absurd nonsense having nothing to do with the physics of nature. I choose believe a moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. I choose to believe when a photon is detected what occurs physically in nature is the aether wave collapses when detected into a quantum of mather. When a photon interacts with the material which is the human body the quantum of mather expands in three dimensional space as it transitions to aether and the physical effects this expansion has on the neighboring mather generates heat. > > > > > It just boils your blood to ask a question, doesn't it? Asking > > > questions makes you feel stupid, and you've felt stupid your whole > > > life, so you'll be damned if you're going to ask a question. > > > Not at all. I am always willing to ask a question when I do not > > understand something. > > How about photons and heat? Understand them? You were almost asking > questions about them earlier. Almost. > > > It just so happens I understand a moving C-60 > > molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > You know you have an emotional problem, right? > > > > > The photon > > > > is a directed/pointed wave in the aether which when detected collapses > > > > into a quantum of mather. > > > > > When the quantum of mather is detected in the material which is the > > > > human body the mather decompresses. The physical effect of this > > > > decompression on the neighboring mather is heat. > > > > > > > There was a > > > > > > photon and now there is no longer a photon so the photon is > > > > > > 'absorbed'. After the photon is 'absorbed' there is 'heat', so 'heat > > > > > > radiates'. > > > > > > I certainly didn't say that. I don't know where you got this stuff. > > > > > > When you can stop just making stuff up and start asking simple > > > > > questions, you'll get answers. > > > > > > > All your 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. > >
From: BURT on 1 Mar 2010 16:13 On Mar 1, 7:19 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Bond energy goes back into mass. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 1 Mar 2010 16:17 On Mar 1, 3:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 1, 2:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 1, 3:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 1, 2:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 1, 2:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 1, 1:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 1, 1:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 1, 9:19 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > How do you KNOW it does that? What's your test? All you have is your > > > > > assertion that it does. I can assert all day long that there is ice > > > > > under the sand in the Sahara, but unless I tell you how I would prove > > > > > that, all it is is a blank and worthless assertion. Same for you. > > > > > > > For example, saying a photon is absorbed. What does that mean in terms > > > > > > of what occurs physically in nature? > > > > > > It means the photon runs into a fermion and delivers its momentum, > > > > > energy, and angular momentum. Having done that, the photon disappears, > > > > > and the impacted fermion has its own momentum, energy, and angular > > > > > momentum altered as a result. > > > > > > This is not difficult to understand physically. It's a very simple > > > > > picture. > > > > > > > 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 saying here is, "No one has explained this to me in a way > > > > > that I can understand, and so there must not be a decent explanation, > > > > > and so I'll make up a wholly different explanation because at least I > > > > > can understand that." > > > > > > > What you are incapable of doing is describing what is > > > > > > occurring physically in nature beyond making statements. > > > > > > Of course I can. But you've never asked. All you've ever said is loop > > > > > over this short series of ridiculous statements: > > > > > 1. What you describe is not a physical description of nature. > > > > > 2. What you describe is absurd and not believable. > > > > > 3. AD is the correct description of nature. > > > > > > NOWHERE have you ever just sucked it up and ASKED about how photons > > > > > work. > > > > > Why would I want to ask a question of someone who chooses to believe > > > > in the absurd nonsense of the future determining the past? > > > > Well, you can't complain about not knowing the physical explanation of > > > photons if you don't ask for it, can you? > > > You realize you are the only person on this forum who chooses to > > believe the future determines the past, correct? > > Nonsense. You do realize that I'm about the only trained physicist who > responds to you at all in this forum, correct? > I do realize you have to choose to believe in the future determines the past in order to support a failed theory. > If you want to find out what physicists think, get off this forum and > start reading books. Then you'll find out. > > > And you are so full > > of absurd nonsense you think you should be asked questions about > > nature. > > > > > My definition of a photon is more correct than any other. > > > > You say it is more correct than the one than the present explanation > > > of how photons work, but you don't know the present explanation of how > > > photons work. How can what you say be more correct than something you > > > know nothing about, except by blind assertion? > > > Because anyone who chooses to believe the future determines the past > > is unqualified to speak to anything having to do with physics. > > Aha. So if you don't believe it, it's wrong? > This is an excellent way to avoid learning anything. > You would think if you were correct and there were others who supported your 'theory' which requires the future to determine the past there would be at least one other person on this forum who would be willing to state they also choose to believe the future determines the past. > > > > > It just boils your blood to ask a question, doesn't it? Asking > > > questions makes you feel stupid, and you've felt stupid your whole > > > life, so you'll be damned if you're going to ask a question. > > > Not at all. I am always willing to ask a question when I do not > > understand something. > > How about photons and heat? Understand them? You were almost asking > questions about them earlier. Almost. > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. When a photon is detected what occurs physically in nature is the aether wave collapses when detected into a quantum of mather. When a photon interacts with the material which is the human body the quantum of mather expands in three dimensional space as it transitions to aether and the physical effects this expansion has on the neighboring mather generates heat. > > It just so happens I understand a moving C-60 > > molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > You know you have an emotional problem, right? > > > > > The photon > > > > is a directed/pointed wave in the aether which when detected collapses > > > > into a quantum of mather. > > > > > When the quantum of mather is detected in the material which is the > > > > human body the mather decompresses. The physical effect of this > > > > decompression on the neighboring mather is heat. > > > > > > > There was a > > > > > > photon and now there is no longer a photon so the photon is > > > > > > 'absorbed'. After the photon is 'absorbed' there is 'heat', so 'heat > > > > > > radiates'. > > > > > > I certainly didn't say that. I don't know where you got this stuff. > > > > > > When you can stop just making stuff up and start asking simple > > > > > questions, you'll get answers. > > > > > > > All your 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. > >
From: BURT on 1 Mar 2010 16:20
On Mar 1, 7:19 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There is wave and shell aether for the atom. Mitch Raemsch |