Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: Inertial on 31 Dec 2009 22:47 "glird" <glird(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:3c2a4877-01fd-4f46-bcc2-4cbc37dbdf87(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > > > HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! Likewise.
From: Y.Porat on 1 Jan 2010 08:57 On Dec 31 2009, 9:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 31, 2:00 pm, PD the *collective* body > > of experimental evidence that determines which theory is the most > > successful. Choosing one experiment that permits both explanations and > > then insisting that only your favorite is the favored one is > > scientific fraud. > > > > > However, > > > > relativity does not rest on the MMX as its sole experimental support. > > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > > > The state of the aether is its state of displacement and entrainment. > > > > > You need to check what other experimental work has been done to test > > > > not only relativity, but other models that are consistent with a > > > > subset of the data that relativity also matches. > > > > The problem is that relativity is the only model so far that > > > > accurately predicts ALL the experimental results. > > > > Yes, but it is not a physical explanation. > > > It is perfectly physical. You perhaps have a disagreement with > > physicists about what "physical" means. > > > > Time is a concept. SR (and > > > its incorrect train gedanken) and GR are mathematical theories > > > No, they are PHYSICAL theories. > > SR, GR, and QM are not physical explanations of nature. They are > mathematical representations of nature. > > Your dogma makes you insist a 'wave function probability' is nature. > > > > describing the aether pressure > > Since SR and GR dispense with aether as something that exerts pressure > > on anything, it is difficult to say that SR and GR describe aether > > pressure. Now, it's plain that AD is a theory that describes aether > > pressure, but AD doesn't have anything to do with SR and GR, does it? > > AD is a physical representation of SR, GR, and QM, but again, your > dogma doesn't allow you to understand anything but what you have been > indoctrinated into believing. > > You will never understand time is a concept and a 'wave function > probability' is not nature. --------------------------- i fully agree with your last sentence !!! 2 if you will replace your' Aether pressure' with **Circlon pressure** i will be with you !!! ATB Y.Porat -----------------------------------
From: mpc755 on 1 Jan 2010 08:59 On Dec 31 2009, 8:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 31, 7:36 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > de Broglie's proof that every object has a frequency, > > is pretty much coherent with "how am I measuring this thing?" > > > to say that an eectron, atom or molecule of C_2n will behave > > in a wavy manner, is strcitly bound to the appareatus that can measure > > that > > -- is tuned to detect such a frequency. that is, if > > water can "wave" through a breakwater, why can't C_60 wave > > through a breakfullerene? > > Because the water is not "waving". It is the aether contained within > the H2O molecules which is doing the waving. > And because if you place detectors at the exits to the slits you do not find 100% of the wave exiting a single slit. A water wave doesn't magically exit a single slit if you place detectors at the exits to the slits while the water wave is in the slits. For the analogy of water to be appropriate in terms of describing a C-60 molecule and the double slit experiment, you need a boat creating a bow (i.e. displacement) wave in the water. The boat is always detected exiting a single slit because it always enters and exits a single slit. It is the bow wave the boat creates in the water which enters and exits multiple slits. Just like the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit and it is the displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates in the aether which enters and exits multiple slits. Just like placing buoys at the exits to the slits in order to detect the boat causes the bow wave to be turned into chop (decoherence) and the direction the boat is traveling will not be altered, detecting the C-60 molecule causes the coherence of the displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates in the aether to be destoryed (decoherence) and the direction the C-60 molecule travels is not altered. Just like not having buoys at the exits to the slits allows the boats bow wave to exit the slits and create interference and alter the direction the boat travels, not have detectors at the exits to the slits in a double slit experiment performed with a C-60 molecule allows the displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates in the aether to exit multiple slits, create interference, and alter the direction the C-60 molecule travels. > > when doing electron diffraction through a crystal, > > to obtain it's crystallographic pattern, > > do you have to rely on the "particle nature" of an electron > > -- what ever that is? > > > do we always have to conform to Galileo's atomic heresy? > > > (this is a lot of fun, but > > I really have to get teh **** out of here .-) > > > > The one where a C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, can enter, > > > travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without > > > requiring energy, releasing energy or having a change in momentum > > > because you designated it a wave. > > > thus: > > yes, but Alfven was using, itself (plasma), > > to propogate EM -- and the Alfven waves -- > > not some "undefined principle" of aether. there > > is nothing wrong with undefineds in axiomatic development, but > > that isn't necessary, today, with "atoms." > > > > "Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) (magnetofluiddynamics or hydromagnetics) > > > is the academic discipline which studies the dynamics of electrically > > > conducting fluids. Examples of such fluids include plasmas, liquid > > > metals, and salt water. The word magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) is derived > > > from magneto- meaning magnetic field, and hydro- meaning liquid, and - > > > dynamics meaning movement. The field of MHD was initiated by Hannes > > > Alfvén[1], for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970.. > > > The idea of MHD is that magnetic fields can induce currents in a > > > moving conductive fluid, which create forces on the fluid, and also > > > change the magnetic field itself." > > > thus: > > there is no vacuum for the red to shift in, although > > Alfven had postulated that only matter-antimatter annhialation > > was the only possible source of energy to expand Universe -- > > I just read! > > > --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why?http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf > > --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How? > >
From: mpc755 on 1 Jan 2010 09:16 On Jan 1, 8:57 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 31 2009, 9:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 31, 2:00 pm, PD the *collective* body > > > of experimental evidence that determines which theory is the most > > > successful. Choosing one experiment that permits both explanations and > > > then insisting that only your favorite is the favored one is > > > scientific fraud. > > > > > > However, > > > > > relativity does not rest on the MMX as its sole experimental support. > > > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > > > > The state of the aether is its state of displacement and entrainment. > > > > > > You need to check what other experimental work has been done to test > > > > > not only relativity, but other models that are consistent with a > > > > > subset of the data that relativity also matches. > > > > > The problem is that relativity is the only model so far that > > > > > accurately predicts ALL the experimental results. > > > > > Yes, but it is not a physical explanation. > > > > It is perfectly physical. You perhaps have a disagreement with > > > physicists about what "physical" means. > > > > > Time is a concept. SR (and > > > > its incorrect train gedanken) and GR are mathematical theories > > > > No, they are PHYSICAL theories. > > > SR, GR, and QM are not physical explanations of nature. They are > > mathematical representations of nature. > > > Your dogma makes you insist a 'wave function probability' is nature. > > > > > describing the aether pressure > > > Since SR and GR dispense with aether as something that exerts pressure > > > on anything, it is difficult to say that SR and GR describe aether > > > pressure. Now, it's plain that AD is a theory that describes aether > > > pressure, but AD doesn't have anything to do with SR and GR, does it? > > > AD is a physical representation of SR, GR, and QM, but again, your > > dogma doesn't allow you to understand anything but what you have been > > indoctrinated into believing. > > > You will never understand time is a concept and a 'wave function > > probability' is not nature. > > --------------------------- > i fully agree with your last sentence !!! > > 2 > if you will replace your' Aether pressure' with > **Circlon pressure** i will be with you !!! > > ATB > Y.Porat > ----------------------------------- If by Circlon Pressure you are referring to: http://www.circlon-theory.com/index.html Then I have to disagree with you. 'Their' explanation of gravity: http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/gravitation.html seems too different than what I am describing. In terms of the apple falling on Newton's head, the AD explanation of this is the matter which is the apple displaces the aether which would otherwise exist where the apple is and the Earth displaces the aether which would otherwise exist where the matter which is the Earth is. The apple displaces the aether to infinity, but it is like dropping a bowling ball into the ocean. Where does the bowling ball 'stop' displacing the ocean? When the apple breaks free from the tree, the aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth and the aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by the apple push the Earth and the apple towards one another, but for all practical purposes, it is only the aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth that is pushing the apple towards the Earth.
From: mpc755 on 1 Jan 2010 09:30
On Jan 1, 9:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 1, 8:57 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 31 2009, 9:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 31, 2:00 pm, PD the *collective* body > > > > of experimental evidence that determines which theory is the most > > > > successful. Choosing one experiment that permits both explanations and > > > > then insisting that only your favorite is the favored one is > > > > scientific fraud. > > > > > > > However, > > > > > > relativity does not rest on the MMX as its sole experimental support. > > > > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > > > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > > > > > The state of the aether is its state of displacement and entrainment. > > > > > > > You need to check what other experimental work has been done to test > > > > > > not only relativity, but other models that are consistent with a > > > > > > subset of the data that relativity also matches. > > > > > > The problem is that relativity is the only model so far that > > > > > > accurately predicts ALL the experimental results. > > > > > > Yes, but it is not a physical explanation. > > > > > It is perfectly physical. You perhaps have a disagreement with > > > > physicists about what "physical" means. > > > > > > Time is a concept. SR (and > > > > > its incorrect train gedanken) and GR are mathematical theories > > > > > No, they are PHYSICAL theories. > > > > SR, GR, and QM are not physical explanations of nature. They are > > > mathematical representations of nature. > > > > Your dogma makes you insist a 'wave function probability' is nature. > > > > > > describing the aether pressure > > > > Since SR and GR dispense with aether as something that exerts pressure > > > > on anything, it is difficult to say that SR and GR describe aether > > > > pressure. Now, it's plain that AD is a theory that describes aether > > > > pressure, but AD doesn't have anything to do with SR and GR, does it? > > > > AD is a physical representation of SR, GR, and QM, but again, your > > > dogma doesn't allow you to understand anything but what you have been > > > indoctrinated into believing. > > > > You will never understand time is a concept and a 'wave function > > > probability' is not nature. > > > --------------------------- > > i fully agree with your last sentence !!! > > > 2 > > if you will replace your' Aether pressure' with > > **Circlon pressure** i will be with you !!! > > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > ----------------------------------- > > If by Circlon Pressure you are referring to: > > http://www.circlon-theory.com/index.html > > Then I have to disagree with you. 'Their' explanation of gravity: > > http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/gravitation.html > > seems too different than what I am describing. > > In terms of the apple falling on Newton's head, the AD explanation of > this is the matter which is the apple displaces the aether which would > otherwise exist where the apple is and the Earth displaces the aether > which would otherwise exist where the matter which is the Earth is. > The apple displaces the aether to infinity, but it is like dropping a > bowling ball into the ocean. Where does the bowling ball 'stop' > displacing the ocean? > > When the apple breaks free from the tree, the aether pressure > associated with the aether displaced by the Earth and the aether > pressure associated with the aether displaced by the apple push the > Earth and the apple towards one another, but for all practical > purposes, it is only the aether pressure associated with the aether > displaced by the Earth that is pushing the apple towards the Earth. I need to think about this some more, but Aether Pressure may be similar to a Hydrostatic Pressure, except aether exists throughout the matter which is the body: http://www.extremescience.com/DeepestOcean.htm "When you get into the ocean (or any body of water) and you start diving down from the surface, the deeper you dive the more water is over the top of you. The more gallons of water you put between you and the surface of the ocean, the greater the pressure is on your body because of the weight of the water over the top of you. This pressure is called hydrostatic pressure." Since aether is uncompressed matter and matter is compressed aether, the aether has mass. |