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 17:02 On Mar 1, 3:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 1, 4:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 1, 3:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 1, 4:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 1, 3:17 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 1, 3:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > Not really. > > > > That is more of your inability to see how incorrect you really are. > > > There is not one 'physicist' on this forum willing to state they also > > > choose to believe the future determines the past. > > > Sure there is. > > This is more of your delusional denial. No one believes the future > determines the past other than you. See? This is another one of those blank assertions. I've already told you I'd be happy to point you to numerous books where it is stated by physicists that the future is seen determining the past. That is in black and white, and I can assure you that I'm not going to manufacture a book and plant it in a book store near you to fool you. You're not paranoid delusional, are you? You can also clamp your hands over your ears and say, "No-no-no-no-no- no-no! I won't believe it and you CAN'T MAKE ME!!!" This is of course true. I don't try to convince table legs. > > A moving C-60 molecule has an aether displacement wave. > > > They're just not talking to you. > > Have you figured out how to get physicists to answer that question yes > > or no? > > When people don't talk to you, do you know what they're thinking by > > reading their minds? Or do you just make it up what they think? > > > You make up a lot of things. That's because you're mental. > > > > There is not one non- > > > physicist on this forum willing to state they also choose to believe > > > the future determines the past. > > > And why do the opinions of non-physicists matter on this subject? > > > > No one chooses to believe the future > > > determines the past but you. > > > That's simply wrong. Would you like some book references so you can > > see other people that believe this? Or do they have to come to a loon > > to directly talk to the loon to try to convince the loon, because the > > loon wants it that way? > > > > Do you know why that is? Because the > > > future does not determine the past. > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > When a photon is detected by the material which is the human body it > > > decompresses and the effect this expansion has on the neighboring > > > mather generates heat. > > > > > Considering that you are a loon, most physicists aren't > > > > the least bit interested in talking with you at all. When they do, > > > > they usually engage with you for one or two posts and then give up in > > > > disgust. Personally, I find you perversely amusing, which accounts for > > > > my long (and pointless) conversations with you. > > > > > I don't have any pretense of trying to convince you of something you > > > > are determined not to believe. That would be like teaching algebra to > > > > a table leg. All I'm pointing out to you is that you've got nothing > > > > but assertion behind what you do believe. Even a table leg could > > > > figure that out. > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > See? Can't ask a question. The question almost comes out and then it > > > > just gets lodged in your throat like a chicken bone. Can't do it. It's > > > > a pathological problem. But you know you've got problems, so I don't > > > > have to tell you that. > > > > > > > > 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 21:13 On Mar 1, 5:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 1, 3:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 1, 4:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 1, 3:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 1, 4:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 1, 3:17 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 1, 3:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Not really. > > > > > That is more of your inability to see how incorrect you really are. > > > > There is not one 'physicist' on this forum willing to state they also > > > > choose to believe the future determines the past. > > > > Sure there is. > > > This is more of your delusional denial. No one believes the future > > determines the past other than you. > > See? This is another one of those blank assertions. > Your assertion there are others on this forum willing to state they also choose to believe the future determines the past is not support by the evidence. > I've already told you I'd be happy to point you to numerous books > where it is stated by physicists that the future is seen determining > the past. What you do not realize is the future does not determine the past. I have explained to you why thinking the future determines the past is due to your failed theory. In any experiment where you think the future determines the past all that is occurring physically in nature is the wave is propagating the available paths and the particle travels a single path. If you were conceptually able to understand this then you would realize the future does not determine the past. > That is in black and white, and I can assure you that I'm > not going to manufacture a book and plant it in a book store near you > to fool you. You're not paranoid delusional, are you? > > You can also clamp your hands over your ears and say, "No-no-no-no-no- > no-no! I won't believe it and you CAN'T MAKE ME!!!" This is of course > true. I don't try to convince table legs. > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an aether displacement wave. > > > > They're just not talking to you. > > > Have you figured out how to get physicists to answer that question yes > > > or no? > > > When people don't talk to you, do you know what they're thinking by > > > reading their minds? Or do you just make it up what they think? > > > > You make up a lot of things. That's because you're mental. > > > > > There is not one non- > > > > physicist on this forum willing to state they also choose to believe > > > > the future determines the past. > > > > And why do the opinions of non-physicists matter on this subject? > > > > > No one chooses to believe the future > > > > determines the past but you. > > > > That's simply wrong. Would you like some book references so you can > > > see other people that believe this? Or do they have to come to a loon > > > to directly talk to the loon to try to convince the loon, because the > > > loon wants it that way? > > > > > Do you know why that is? Because the > > > > future does not determine the past. > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > > When a photon is detected by the material which is the human body it > > > > decompresses and the effect this expansion has on the neighboring > > > > mather generates heat. > > > > > > Considering that you are a loon, most physicists aren't > > > > > the least bit interested in talking with you at all. When they do, > > > > > they usually engage with you for one or two posts and then give up in > > > > > disgust. Personally, I find you perversely amusing, which accounts for > > > > > my long (and pointless) conversations with you. > > > > > > I don't have any pretense of trying to convince you of something you > > > > > are determined not to believe. That would be like teaching algebra to > > > > > a table leg. All I'm pointing out to you is that you've got nothing > > > > > but assertion behind what you do believe. Even a table leg could > > > > > figure that out. > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > See? Can't ask a question. The question almost comes out and then it > > > > > just gets lodged in your throat like a chicken bone. Can't do it. It's > > > > > a pathological problem. But you know you've got problems, so I don't > > > > > have to tell you that. > > > > > > > > > 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 23:36 On Feb 22, 12:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 3:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 12:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 22, 2:58 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:11 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 22, 9:30 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 4:56 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 4:12 am, funkenstein <luke.s...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 3:20 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 9:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Aether (the only one that survives experiment) has no observables, no > > > > > > > > > way to disprove it. > > > > > > > > > > David A. Smith > > > > > > > > > I saw a Frank Wilcek lecture recently which was quite good. > > > > > > > > > He talked at length about the physics going on in vacuum. > > > > > > > > > He proposes that we don't talk about "the aether" but instead use "the > > > > > > > > grid". > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > Grid doesn't cut it. > > > > > > > Hey the grid is material of sort. In my theory it is called the E- > > > > > > Matrix. It is a perfect description of the modern aether. > > > > > > If it's the prefect description of the modern aether then call it > > > > > aether. > > > > > I called my aether the E-Matrix. You can call your aether whatever you > > > > want. > > > > I call the aether, aether. > > > > > > > It gives > > > > > > rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of > > > > > > gravity called DTG.http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > The aether is physical and it is a matter of the > > > > > > > properties we choose to apply to it. > > > > > > > > In AD, the aether is a physical material with mass. Aether is > > > > > > > displaced by matter. Matter and aether are different states of the > > > > > > > same material. Aether is matter in its uncompressed state.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Sometimes more than one word gives the bigger meaning. The grid of the > > infinitely small is also accurate and important. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > Call the aether, aether, and then decide what properties you want to > assign to it, or what you are describing is not the aether. If you are > describing quantum foam then you are describing quantum foam. If you > are describing 'empty' space as a grid and you label the empty space > some sort of 'grid' then you are describing 'empty' space as a grid. > If you want to discuss the aether in terms of a grid then that is > something else entirely. If you are describing the aether then call it > aether.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Aether jumps, flows, pushes and goes solid. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 1 Mar 2010 23:44 On Mar 1, 11:36 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 12:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 22, 3:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 22, 12:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 22, 2:58 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:11 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 9:30 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 4:56 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 4:12 am, funkenstein <luke.s...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 3:20 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 9:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Aether (the only one that survives experiment) has no observables, no > > > > > > > > > > way to disprove it. > > > > > > > > > > > David A. Smith > > > > > > > > > > I saw a Frank Wilcek lecture recently which was quite good. > > > > > > > > > > He talked at length about the physics going on in vacuum. > > > > > > > > > > He proposes that we don't talk about "the aether" but instead use "the > > > > > > > > > grid". > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > Grid doesn't cut it. > > > > > > > > Hey the grid is material of sort. In my theory it is called the E- > > > > > > > Matrix. It is a perfect description of the modern aether. > > > > > > > If it's the prefect description of the modern aether then call it > > > > > > aether. > > > > > > I called my aether the E-Matrix. You can call your aether whatever you > > > > > want. > > > > > I call the aether, aether. > > > > > > > > It gives > > > > > > > rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of > > > > > > > gravity called DTG.http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > The aether is physical and it is a matter of the > > > > > > > > properties we choose to apply to it. > > > > > > > > > In AD, the aether is a physical material with mass. Aether is > > > > > > > > displaced by matter. Matter and aether are different states of the > > > > > > > > same material. Aether is matter in its uncompressed state.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Sometimes more than one word gives the bigger meaning. The grid of the > > > infinitely small is also accurate and important. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > Call the aether, aether, and then decide what properties you want to > > assign to it, or what you are describing is not the aether. If you are > > describing quantum foam then you are describing quantum foam. If you > > are describing 'empty' space as a grid and you label the empty space > > some sort of 'grid' then you are describing 'empty' space as a grid. > > If you want to discuss the aether in terms of a grid then that is > > something else entirely. If you are describing the aether then call it > > aether.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Aether jumps, flows, pushes and goes solid. > > Mitch Raemsch Probably, but there is no way to measure that it does. http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' "[The ether] may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time." "The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity." "But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time." As of this date, I think we should stick with defining the aether as: "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" Since matter and aether are different states of the same material, this means the state of the aether's displacement is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places.
From: BURT on 1 Mar 2010 23:50
On Mar 1, 8:44 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 1, 11:36 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 12:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 22, 3:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 22, 12:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 22, 2:58 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:11 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 9:30 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 4:56 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 4:12 am, funkenstein <luke.s...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 3:20 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 9:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Aether (the only one that survives experiment) has no observables, no > > > > > > > > > > > way to disprove it. > > > > > > > > > > > > David A. Smith > > > > > > > > > > > I saw a Frank Wilcek lecture recently which was quite good. > > > > > > > > > > > He talked at length about the physics going on in vacuum. > > > > > > > > > > > He proposes that we don't talk about "the aether" but instead use "the > > > > > > > > > > grid". > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > Grid doesn't cut it. > > > > > > > > > Hey the grid is material of sort. In my theory it is called the E- > > > > > > > > Matrix. It is a perfect description of the modern aether. > > > > > > > > If it's the prefect description of the modern aether then call it > > > > > > > aether. > > > > > > > I called my aether the E-Matrix. You can call your aether whatever you > > > > > > want. > > > > > > I call the aether, aether. > > > > > > > > > It gives > > > > > > > > rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of > > > > > > > > gravity called DTG.http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > The aether is physical and it is a matter of the > > > > > > > > > properties we choose to apply to it. > > > > > > > > > > In AD, the aether is a physical material with mass. Aether is > > > > > > > > > displaced by matter. Matter and aether are different states of the > > > > > > > > > same material. Aether is matter in its uncompressed state..- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Sometimes more than one word gives the bigger meaning. The grid of the > > > > infinitely small is also accurate and important. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > Call the aether, aether, and then decide what properties you want to > > > assign to it, or what you are describing is not the aether. If you are > > > describing quantum foam then you are describing quantum foam. If you > > > are describing 'empty' space as a grid and you label the empty space > > > some sort of 'grid' then you are describing 'empty' space as a grid. > > > If you want to discuss the aether in terms of a grid then that is > > > something else entirely. If you are describing the aether then call it > > > aether.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Aether jumps, flows, pushes and goes solid. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > Probably, but there is no way to measure that it does. > > http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' > > "[The ether] may not be thought of as consisting of particles which > allow themselves to be separately tracked through time." > > "The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to > consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of > ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of > relativity." > > "But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality > characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may > be tracked through time." > > As of this date, I think we should stick with defining the aether as: > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > Since matter and aether are different states of the same material, > this means the state of the aether's displacement is at every place > determined by connections with the matter and the state of the aether > in neighboring places.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There is a dark side of the atom and light. Mitch Raemsch |