Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 4 Jan 2010 22:39 On Jan 4, 10:27 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > mmm-hm, 1920. by the way, > there is an old fluff-over in the Moving Bodies paper, but > I don't know if you can find it on the larouchepub.com sites, > concerning the homopolar generator. anyway, along > with not answering about "the" vacuum (and the "photon"), > you have yet to pose the very need of aether, at all, Aether Displacement and the associated aether pressure is the physical explanation for gravity. A moving object or particle has an associated aether wave is the physical explanation for the observed behaviors of the double slit experiment performed with C-60 molecules. I think we should just agree to disagree because it doesn't seem we are getting anywhere. You have said several times I have not posed the very need for aether when Aether Displacement explains gravity and the double slit experiment with C-60 molecules. Aether Displacement is the most correct physical unified theory to date. If you want to discuss how you think Aether Displacement is incorrect that is one thing, but to simply reply that I have not proposed the very need for aether is completely missing the point. > instead of "just the atoms" and their degree of separation, > viz-a-vu Fizeau -- mentioned in the talk. (and, as stated, > Einstien was just wrong, circa 1920, about light > not being a transverse wave in a fluid, > such as air or water or "vacuum" -- although > plasma may not have all of the usual properties > of those Earth fluids; it's still hydrodynamical, > "magnetohydrodynamical." and, that term, basically, > subsumes everything that you reflexively dump > into the nebulous "movable aether feast." > > maybe, you should coin a new name for it, > taht says exactly what its property(s) is (are); > I vote, at this moment, for "entrainspielstuff" -- > de entrain!... de entrain! > > > 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies'http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/origins/On-t... > > > "The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be > > superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require > > an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, > > nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which > > electromagnetic processes take place." > > > Einstein is not saying aether is superfluous. Einstein is saying an > > "absolutely stationary space' is superfluous. > > If Einstein had realized light travels at 'c' relative to the aether > > he could have abandoned the train gedanken and allowed the idea of > > motion to be applied to the aether. > > thus: > the Riemann hypothesis may be an aberration, but > you have to explain, why or what that is, so that > we can see "what it all means" -- > meaning centuries of mathematical proving grounds > of "verifiably important problems." > > thus: > that's an interesting anomaly; > how does it relate to the heliopause & so on?... and, > what is it about aether that causes it to entrain -- > is that it's sole property?... well, > doctor Einstein's essay seems quite confuzed > about the electromegnetic properties of matter, but > that was a while before our standard textbookoid concepts > were put out from the Texas Schoolbook Suppository. > > > entrained aether ending around the orbit of Uranus being the reason > > for the Pioneer Effect is analogous to your insistence in flying > > thus: > do you have the date of the essay by doctor Einstein?... it seems > that > you are agreeing with him "insofar as," but not really > with his penultimate conclusion -- that is, > whenver he was concluding, what is sufficiently subtle as > to be not totally apparent, without further thought. also, > he is giving a lot of credit to Lorentz, who may > be more responsible, after all, for the time-space crack-up > than doctor Minkowski; can you say, > Most useless formalism of Century 20.1? > > however, the real problem is your persistent use > -- with whomever else from the past & future -- > of the the concept of vacuum, as Pascal first thought of it, > which is really, strictly relative or active (as in, > That giant sucking sound, you hear, when you're trying > to read this ****). > > >http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why?http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf > --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How?http://larouchepub.com/other/2009/3650rice_racist.html > --The Riemannian Space of the Nucleus, What?http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon... > --In perpetuity clause in healthcare bill, Where?
From: spudnik on 4 Jan 2010 22:39 it's just some useless say-so, that you repeat for no good reason; or, what was your particular reason, at that moment-being? > Please don't top-post .. its poor newsgroup etiquette thus: thanks, dood. > http://www.amperefitz.com/get-the-most.htm --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why? http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How? http://larouchepub.com/other/2009/3650rice_racist.html --The Riemannian Space of the Nucleus, What? http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdf --In perpetuity clause in healthcare bill, Where?
From: spudnik on 4 Jan 2010 22:47 so, yeah, that's its only property -- de entrain -- and it doesn't even "solve" gravity?... so, you're replacing the relative vacuum, with a relative aether; yeeha. incidentally, Oberon, husband of Titanya and King of the Fairies, is twirling around Uranus! > The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with > the matter is the aether's state of displacement and entrainment. > > Aether is displaced based on mass. The more massive an object is per > volume, the less aether it contains, the more aether it displaces. > Aether is not at rest when displaced. The aether 'pushes back'. The > aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive > objects is gravity. > > Aether entrainment is not the reason for gravity. If you look at the > satellites of Jupiter here:http://janus.astro.umd.edu/SolarSystems/ > (Select Start-->Jupiter and then use the '+' key to drill down to > Jupiter's inner moons) > You can see the outer moons of Jupiter orbit in the opposite direction > of the inner moons. Jupiter's inner moons exist in Jupiter's entrained > aether. Jupiter's outer moons 'fell out of' Jupiter's entrained aether > (similar to the Pioneer satellites 'falling out of' the Sun's > entrained aether), but all of Jupiter's satellites are under the > effects of the aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by > Jupiter. > > Aether displacement and entrainment are the main properties of the > aether. > > Not sure what is going on with the heliopause. Haven't had a chance to > think about it much yet. --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why? http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How? http://larouchepub.com/other/2009/3650rice_racist.html --The Riemannian Space of the Nucleus, What? http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdf --In perpetuity clause in healthcare bill, Where?
From: mpc755 on 4 Jan 2010 22:52 On Jan 4, 10:47 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > so, yeah, that's its only property -- de entrain -- and > it doesn't even "solve" gravity?... so, Correct. As I have tried to explain to you more than several times now, Aether Entrainment doesn't solve gravity because Aether Displacement and the associated aether pressure is gravity. If you cannot even make it to the step of understanding what I am proposing is Aether Displacement and the associated aether pressure is gravity, I'm done replying to your posts. Take care. > you're replacing the relative vacuum, with a relative aether; > yeeha. > > incidentally, Oberon, husband of Titanya and > King of the Fairies, is twirling around Uranus! > > > > > The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with > > the matter is the aether's state of displacement and entrainment. > > > Aether is displaced based on mass. The more massive an object is per > > volume, the less aether it contains, the more aether it displaces. > > Aether is not at rest when displaced. The aether 'pushes back'. The > > aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive > > objects is gravity. > > > Aether entrainment is not the reason for gravity. If you look at the > > satellites of Jupiter here:http://janus.astro.umd.edu/SolarSystems/ > > (Select Start-->Jupiter and then use the '+' key to drill down to > > Jupiter's inner moons) > > You can see the outer moons of Jupiter orbit in the opposite direction > > of the inner moons. Jupiter's inner moons exist in Jupiter's entrained > > aether. Jupiter's outer moons 'fell out of' Jupiter's entrained aether > > (similar to the Pioneer satellites 'falling out of' the Sun's > > entrained aether), but all of Jupiter's satellites are under the > > effects of the aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by > > Jupiter. > > > Aether displacement and entrainment are the main properties of the > > aether. > > > Not sure what is going on with the heliopause. Haven't had a chance to > > think about it much yet. > > --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why?http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf > --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How?http://larouchepub.com/other/2009/3650rice_racist.html > --The Riemannian Space of the Nucleus, What?http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon... > --In perpetuity clause in healthcare bill, Where?
From: Inertial on 4 Jan 2010 22:57
"spudnik" <Space998(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:5fefc50f-c320-4b8a-8872-8a298f3de83e(a)k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > it's just some useless say-so, > that you repeat for no good reason; or, > what was your particular reason, at that moment-being? > >> Please don't top-post .. its poor newsgroup etiquette > > thus: > thanks, dood. Please don't top-post .. its poor newsgroup etiquette |