Eric Gisse Arrested

[Koobee Wublee]

Is this the same Eric Gisse the college dropout?

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/04/former-employee-arrested-charged-with-rooting-2700-hostgator-servers/

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/20/13 6:16 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Is this the same Eric Gisse the college dropout [who earned a physics degree]?
>
> http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/04/former-employee-arrested-charged-with-rooting-2700-hostgator-servers/
>

Remember, Koobee -- Innocent until proven guilty!

[Koobee Wublee]

On May 20, 4:30 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/20/13 6:16 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Is this the same Eric Gisse the college dropout [who

> > never earned a college degree]?

>
> > http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/04/former-employee-arrested-charged-with-rooting-2700-hostgator-servers/
>
> Remember, Koobee -- Innocent until proven guilty!

So, this is indeed the same Eric Gisse the college dropout. Yes, he
is innocent until proven guilty, but good luck with that one. Fvcking
amazing! <shrug>

[Sam Wormley]

Nope, Eric G. Gisse (the accused) is not the Eric A. Gisse (who often
pointed out your flaws in relativity theory).

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/20/13 6:16 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> Is this the same Eric Gisse the college dropout?
>
> http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/04/former-employee-arrested-charged-with-rooting-2700-hostgator-servers/
>

Nope, Eric G. Gisse (the accused) is not the Eric A. Gisse (who often

pointed out Koobee flaws in physics arguments).

[Y]

On May 21, 9:16 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is this the same Eric Gisse the college dropout?
>

> http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/04/former-employee-arrested-char...

True. Far out. Suck it up.

-y

[Koobee Wublee]

According to the following, it is the same Eric Gisse the college
dropout.

http://www.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=1&searchform=name&qc=Fairbanks&qf=Eric&qn=Gisse&qs=AK

Where does Sam get his bullshit from? <shrug>

[benj]

Figures. I knew nobody posting here was/is smart enough to get arrested
for spitting on the sidewalk let alone hacking a backdoor into a server
farm. And that especially goes for you Sammy.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/20/13 6:41 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Our Eric *graduated* from the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Class
of 2009 · Physics & Mathematics · Fairbanks, Alaska.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/20/13 7:22 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

I stand corrected... However we all must assume innocence until,
otherwise, proven guilty. May you not serve on a jury if you
don't believe that.

[Koobee Wublee]

On May 20, 6:04 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/20/13 7:22 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On May 20, 4:51 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 5/20/13 6:16 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> > > > Is this the same Eric Gisse the college dropout?
>
> > > > http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/04/former-employee-arrested-charged-with-rooting-2700-hostgator-servers/
>
> > > Nope, Eric G. Gisse (the accused) is not the Eric A. Gisse (who often
> > > pointed out Koobee flaws in physics arguments).
>
> > According to the following, it is the same Eric Gisse the college
> > dropout.
>
> > http://www.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=1&searchform=name&qc=Fairbanks&qf=Eric&qn=Gisse&qs=AK
>
> > Where does Sam get his bullshit from? <shrug>
>
> I stand corrected...

Sam also stands corrected on all the bullshit about relativity he
tried to peddle. <shrug>

> However we all must assume innocence until,
> otherwise, proven guilty.

That is correct, and Koobee Wublee will stand by Eric Gisse the
college dropout until he is proven guilty. <shrug>

> May you not serve on a jury if you
> don't believe that.

Koobee Wublee’s profession is the last choice for the court to be
selected as juries. It is proven time after time that Koobee Wublee
just stood in standby mode without being called which is very fine
with Koobee Wublee. <shrug> <shrug>

Eric Gisse’s alleged stunt would not be noticed 10 or 15 years, but
with the age of Wireshark which is free, he has no fvcking chance
today. <shrug>

http://www.wireshark.org

This episode demonstrates how Orwellian philosophy is thoroughly
indoctrinated in all self-styled physicists.

** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING
** DECEIT IS VALIDATION
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FICTION IS THEORY
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** WORSHIP IS STUDY
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** ARROGANCE IS SAGE
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM
** CONSPIRACY IS PEER
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** CONTRADICTION IS INMATERIAL
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

<shrug>

[benj]

Sorry Sammy, but that was OLD America. Today, you are guilty and have to
prove yourself innocent. Well, that is if you actually are being charged
with something. Today we hold people without charges indefinitely. We doan
need no stinkin' jury! It's traditional. Brought to us by the same folks
who came up with the AGW scam you promote endlessly.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b71e7b5c-f14e-4403...@vx13g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

==================================

Isn’t Gisse still peddling relativity under a pseudonym?

Fatso had a pic on facebook when it was new and cited

Wormley as a friend.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

 

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:27:43 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee
<koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 20, 6:04 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/20/13 7:22 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

>> > Where does Sam get his bullshit from? <shrug>
>>
>> I stand corrected...
>
>Sam also stands corrected on all the bullshit about relativity he
>tried to peddle. <shrug>
>
>> However we all must assume innocence until,
>> otherwise, proven guilty.
>
>That is correct, and Koobee Wublee will stand by Eric Gisse the
>college dropout until he is proven guilty. <shrug>
>
>> May you not serve on a jury if you
>> don't believe that.
>
>Koobee Wublee�s profession is the last choice for the court to be
>selected as juries. It is proven time after time that Koobee Wublee
>just stood in standby mode without being called which is very fine
>with Koobee Wublee. <shrug> <shrug>
>
>Eric Gisse�s alleged stunt would not be noticed 10 or 15 years, but
>with the age of Wireshark which is free, he has no fvcking chance
>today. <shrug>
>
>http://www.wireshark.org

Since Einstein's own criminal mentality was depraved enough to even make
clocks deliberately lie, it would be no surprise if every one of his
supporters ended up in the nick.

[Koobee Wublee]

On May 21, 3:55 pm, Andro wrote:

> Isn’t Gisse still peddling relativity under a pseudonym?

Which pseudonym is that?

> Fatso had a pic on facebook when it was new and cited
> Wormley as a friend.

Figures. Dead beats usually belong to each other. When is Andro
joining these geeks? <shrug>

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
news:7fc73da8-d59d-4ba8...@ys5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

=====================================
Andro: where is the evidence for aether?
Kinky Wobbly geek's answer: "It must be."

Lord Androcles is a scientist; a geek is someone that has
blind faith in one speed of light only, like all relativists and
aetherialists. I do not wish to join you and your geeks, Kinky.

[Koobee Wublee]

On May 21, 10:47 pm, Andro the geek wrote:

> Andro: where is the evidence for aether?
> Kinky Wobbly geek's answer: "It must be."
>
> Lord Androcles is a scientist; a geek is someone that has
> blind faith in one speed of light only, like all relativists and
> aetherialists. I do not wish to join you and your geeks, Kinky.

Andro the geek got that wrong. A better play is to emphasize the fact
that Andro, Wilson, and all Einstein Dingleberries blatantly deny the
Aether. They are all in bed together. <shrug>

The absolute frame of reference must exist to satisfy the null results
of the MMX. One of the infinite transforms, that satisfy the null
results of the MMX and predict the existence of the absolute frame of
reference, is Larmor’s transform. Under the very special circumstance
where both the observers are moving in parallel, the mathematics of
the absolute frame of reference vanishes. Only through this special
condition, the Lorentz transform was born. <shrug>

So a better play is:

Andro the geek: Hey, Aether does not exist.

Eric Gisse the college dropout: I don’t believe in the Aether
either. So, let’s go to bed, Andro.

Sam Wormley the secretary of occult: Wait for me.

<shrug>

Wilson can join you geeks too. After all, you geeks all share the
same common trait of denying the Aether. <shrug>

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 00:16:01 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee
<koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 21, 10:47 pm, Andro the geek wrote:
>
>> Andro: where is the evidence for aether?
>> Kinky Wobbly geek's answer: "It must be."
>>
>> Lord Androcles is a scientist; a geek is someone that has
>> blind faith in one speed of light only, like all relativists and
>> aetherialists. I do not wish to join you and your geeks, Kinky.
>
>Andro the geek got that wrong. A better play is to emphasize the fact
>that Andro, Wilson, and all Einstein Dingleberries blatantly deny the
>Aether. They are all in bed together. <shrug>
>
>The absolute frame of reference must exist to satisfy the null results
>of the MMX.

Now that is a stupid statement. The null result is obviously due to the fact
that light is ballistic.

>One of the infinite transforms, that satisfy the null

>results of the MMX and predict the existance of the absolute frame of

>reference, is Larmor�s transform. Under the very special circumstance
>where both the observers are moving in parallel, the mathematics of
>the absolute frame of reference vanishes. Only through this special
>condition, the Lorentz transform was born. <shrug>
>
>So a better play is:
>
>Andro the geek: Hey, Aether does not exist.

Andro is worse than a geek. He is a senile old drunk who is professionally
jealous because my variable star program make his primitive little toy look
like a kindergarten primer.

>Eric Gisse the college dropout: I don�t believe in the Aether
>either. So, let�s go to bed, Andro.
>
>Sam Wormley the secretary of occult: Wait for me.
>
><shrug>
>
>Wilson can join you geeks too. After all, you geeks all share the
>same common trait of denying the Aether. <shrug>

Now be fair Koobee, at least I have agreed that aether theory would be
credible if an aether existed. My theory also accepts that 'aetherlike
regions' might exist around large masses and that 'fields' themsleves are
actually made of the stuff. I deny the existence of a single absolute aether
though. The whole idea is silly...and, besids, where would it end?


Henry Wilson DSc.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Koobee Wublee the blind fuckwit geek" wrote in message
news:8b2745be-d985-473e...@yb1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

On May 21, 10:47 pm, Andro the geek wrote:

> Andro: where is the evidence for aether?
> Kinky Wobbly geek's answer: "It must be."
>
> Lord Androcles is a scientist; a geek is someone that has
> blind faith in one speed of light only, like all relativists and
> aetherialists. I do not wish to join you and your geeks, Kinky.

Andro the geek got that wrong.

============================
I'm not interested in your insults, you crazy cunt.
Arsehole geeks like Kinky Wobbly only throw insults, they never talk
science.

Kinky Wobbly the fuckwit's only answer is "there must be", but this
light curve which the fuckwit geek won't study says there can't be.
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif

Ignore it, you are no scientist.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message

news:8b2745be-d985-473e...@yb1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

The absolute frame of reference must exist to satisfy the null results
of the MMX.

===================================================

MMX is perfectly satisfied by the light source being a fixed
distance from the screen and beam splitter and produces a
null result regardless of attitude or motion, no absolute FoR
needed, no aether needed.

As I said, all the crazed geek Kinky Wobbly can do is say "must".

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/22/13 5:44 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> Now that is a stupid statement. The null result is obviously due to the fact
> that light is ballistic.

Wrong again Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge!

[space...@gmail.com]

That man seemed to be a comon crimnal to me.

Mitchell Raemsch; you can't get away with anything at all...

[hanson]

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote"

>
>
Andro the geek wrote:
Andro: where is the evidence for aether?
Kinky Wobbly geek's answer: "It must be."
>

Lord Androcles (self-parising) is a scientist; but a

geek is someone that has blind faith in one speed
of light only, like all relativists and > aetherialists.
I do not wish to join you and your geeks, Kinky.
>

Koobee wrote:
Andro the geek got that wrong. A better play is to
emphasize the fact that Andro, Wilson, and all
Einstein Dingleberries blatantly deny the Aether.
They are all in bed together. <shrug>

The absolute frame of reference must exist to satisfy
the null results of the MMX. One of the infinite transforms,
that satisfy the null results of the MMX and predict the
existence of the absolute frame of reference, is

Larmor�s transform1897:
-------- x' = x - vt
-------- y' = y
-------- z' = z
-------- t = t' - gamma^2 * vx/c^2

>
Under the very special circumstance where both the
observers are moving in parallel, the mathematics of
the absolute frame of reference vanishes. Only through

this special condition, the 1892 Lorentz transform was born.
-------- x' = gamma x
-------- y' = y
-------- z' = z
-------- t = t' - gamma^2 * vx/c^2

<shrug>
>
So a better play is:

=== Andro the geek: Hey, Aether does not exist.
== Eric Gisse the college dropout: I don�t believe in
the Aether either. So, let�s go to bed, Andro.
= Sam Wormley the secretary of occult: Wait for me.

<shrug>
Wilson can join you geeks too. After all, you geeks
all share the same common trait of denying the Aether.
<shrug>
>

hanson wrote:
Good Show. KW-Play 227, act 4, scene 3.... ahahahaha.
>
Maybe Andro, who claims to own a Math PhD, will see your
(KW's) intent with/by the transform expressions I have
inserted above. The difference is simply
-------- x - vt = gamma x
which DOES insinuate that there is a ponderable quantum
existence present that is not detectable by the MMX, due to
the fleeting mass density of said difference, which however
can be numerically quantified from other considerations
to be in the order of an Aether density
-------- rho_A = ~ 10^( - 150) gr/cm^3.
>
Of course, given the heuristic state of the art in metrology,
we can see that we are still many, many orders of magnitude
away from measuring a density of 10^( - 150) gr/cm^3,
which explains why the Aether has not been measured,
But this NOT say at all that "there is no Aether",
ergo:
== Some see the Aether, others don't believe it ==
>
This controversial aether issue has a historic corollary:
Aetherophobes cannot see that the Aether issues are
just like the situation was when Science faced it with/over
the existence of Atoms.
>
Since antiquity humans suspected for all kind of reasons
that Atoms must exist, but they had no proof for it, yet they
went on happily down their merry ways without the
(measured) proof for the atoms' existence.
>
Drum roll!... The existence of Atoms was only measured
& accepted by the establishment when Perrin got his Nobel
prize for it in 1926 (twenty six).
That's only 86 year's ago! ... which was when the technology
to measure Atoms became available.
>
So, to look for the debut of the Aether measurement anytime
soon, I am afraid will have to wait till the state of the art in
metrology will be able to measure matter densities of
10^(-150) gr/cm^3, which is many, many orders shy of what
we can do now...and will most likely not arrive during the
earthly residence of the current Promoters or Deniers. Pity...

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"hanson" wrote in message news:knjllm$cev$1...@dont-email.me...

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote"
>
>
Andro the geek wrote:
Andro: where is the evidence for aether?
Kinky Wobbly geek's answer: "It must be."
>
Lord Androcles (self-parising) is a scientist; but a
geek is someone that has blind faith in one speed
of light only, like all relativists and > aetherialists.
I do not wish to join you and your geeks, Kinky.
>
Koobee wrote:
Andro the geek got that wrong. A better play is to
emphasize the fact that Andro, Wilson, and all
Einstein Dingleberries blatantly deny the Aether.
They are all in bed together. <shrug>

The absolute frame of reference must exist to satisfy
the null results of the MMX. One of the infinite transforms,
that satisfy the null results of the MMX and predict the
existence of the absolute frame of reference, is

Larmor’s transform1897:

-------- x' = x - vt
-------- y' = y
-------- z' = z
-------- t = t' - gamma^2 * vx/c^2
>
Under the very special circumstance where both the
observers are moving in parallel, the mathematics of
the absolute frame of reference vanishes. Only through
this special condition, the 1892 Lorentz transform was born.
-------- x' = gamma x
-------- y' = y
-------- z' = z
-------- t = t' - gamma^2 * vx/c^2
<shrug>
>
So a better play is:
=== Andro the geek: Hey, Aether does not exist.

== Eric Gisse the college dropout: I don’t believe in
the Aether either. So, let’s go to bed, Andro.

==================================
Way off the subject.
Kinky Wobbly's plea was MMX needs an absolute stationary FoR.

"The absolute frame of reference must exist to satisfy

the null results of the MMX. " - KW

Here is the real thing, and unless the Earth is the centre
of the universe and stationary there is no such animal as
as an absolute FoR.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEryiOKkrc

So, to look for the debut of the Easter Bunny's chocolate egg

anytime soon, I am afraid will have to wait till the state of the

art in metrology will be able to measure chocolate densities of

10^(-150) gr/cm^3, which is many, many orders shy of what
we can do now...and will most likely not arrive during the

earthly residence of the current Promoters or Deniers. Pity, you
fucking idiot.

[John Gogo]

On May 22, 7:32 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
<LordAndroc...@May2013.edu> wrote:
> "hanson"  wrote in messagenews:knjllm$cev$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote"

> as an absolute FoR.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEryiOKkrc

>
> So, to look for the debut of the Easter Bunny's chocolate egg
> anytime soon, I am afraid will have to wait till the state of the
> art in metrology will be able to measure chocolate densities of
> 10^(-150) gr/cm^3, which is many, many orders shy of what
> we can do now...and will most likely not arrive  during the
> earthly residence of the current Promoters or Deniers. Pity, you
> fucking idiot.
>
> -- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
> Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
> When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
> cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

I view this in three ways. The ways of relativity and Einstein, the
ways of the antiquity of science in the belief of the aether, and the
way that I believe- that optics is capable of capturing instantaneous
results through a view- based on maximum visual acuity- and all other
phenomena which is based on cause and effect (at the limit of the
ability of our senses) is measured (movement) as relative.

[Koobee Wublee]

On May 22, 4:55 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote"

> Andro the geek wrote:
>
> Andro: where is the evidence for aether?
> Kinky Wobbly geek's answer: "It must be."
>
> Lord Androcles (self-parising) is a scientist; but a
> geek is someone that has blind faith in one speed
> of light only, like all relativists and > aetherialists.
> I do not wish to join you and your geeks, Kinky.
>
> Koobee wrote:
>
> Andro the geek got that wrong. A better play is to
> emphasize the fact that Andro, Wilson, and all
> Einstein Dingleberries blatantly deny the Aether.
> They are all in bed together. <shrug>
>
> The absolute frame of reference must exist to satisfy
> the null results of the MMX. One of the infinite transforms,
> that satisfy the null results of the MMX and predict the
> existence of the absolute frame of reference, is

> Larmor s transform1897:

> -------- x' = x - vt
> -------- y' = y
> -------- z' = z
> -------- t = t' - gamma^2 * vx/c^2

Larmor’s transform is:

** dt’ = (dt + v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dx’ = (dx + v dt) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dy’ = dy
** dz’ = dz

That is exactly the same as the Lorentz transform except v must be the
absolute velocity of the unprimed frame, and the primed frame must be
the absolute frame of reference.

When relating two observers, you need two such transforms. When the
two observers are moving in parallel against the absolute frame of
reference, the transforms become the following. If the two observers
are not moving in parallel, the transforms below are not valid.

** dt’ = (dt1 + v1 dx1 / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v1^2 / c^2)
** dt’ = (dt2 + v2 dx2 / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v2^2 / c^2)

** dx’ = (dx1 + v1 dt1) / sqrt(1 – v1^2 / c^2)
** dx’ = (dx2 + v2 dt2) / sqrt(1 – v2^2 / c^2)

** dy’ = dy1
** dy’ = dy2

** dz’ = dz1
** dz’ = dz2

Then, mathematically, it is rather trivial to show the Lorentz
transform below as Poincare first did.

** dt1 = (dt2 + v12 dx1 / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)
** dx1 = (dx2 + v12 dt1) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)
** dy1 = dy2
** dz1 = dz2

Where

** v12 = (v2 – v1) / (1 – v1 v2 / c2)
** The absolute frame of reference vanishes.

Again, the Lorentz transform is only possible when the two observers
are moving in parallel. If not, the Lorentz transform is not valid.
<shrug>

> Under the very special circumstance where both the
> observers are moving in parallel, the mathematics of
> the absolute frame of reference vanishes. Only through
> this special condition, the 1892 Lorentz transform was born.
> -------- x' = gamma x
> -------- y' = y
> -------- z' = z
> -------- t = t' - gamma^2 * vx/c^2
> <shrug>

Let’s get the time frame right. Voigt presented the Voigt transform
below in 1887 not referencing to the MMX of 1887 but Michelson’s solo
experiment in 1881 by postulating a constancy in the speed of light.

** dt’ = dt + v dx / c^2
** dx’ = dx + v dt
** dy’ = dy sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dz’ = dz sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

Where

** v = Absolute velocity of the unprimed frame
** The primed frame is the absolute frame of reference.

Larmor’s transform was presented in 1898, and the Lorentz transform
was published by Poincare in 1905. In between the years, Lorentz
published the infinite transforms including the Voigt and Larmor’s
transforms that established the existence of the absolute frame of
reference.

<shrug>

[Koobee Wublee]

On May 22, 5:32 pm, Andro the geek wrote:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEryiOKkrc

Interesting experiment. If the model of spacetime geometry is valid,
this experiment falsifies the Schwarzschild metric. The simplest
metrics the experiment supports that satisfy Newtonian law of gravity
are the following where the curvature of space is isotropically
symmetric, but the Schwarzschild metric is not. <shrug>

** c^2 (1 – 2 U) dt^2 – f(U) (dr^2 + r^2 dO^2)

Or

** c^2 dt^2 / (1 + 2 U) - f(U) (dr^2 + r^2 dO^2)

Where

** U = G M / c^2 / r
** f(U) = Function of U where f(0) = 1
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2

Of course, these two spacetime geometries above do not satisfy as
solutions to the field equations.

<shrug>

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message

news:3baac57e-b101-427c...@qc10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

Larmor’s transform was presented in 1898, and the Lorentz transform
was published by Poincare in 1905. In between the years, Lorentz
published the infinite transforms including the Voigt and Larmor’s
transforms that established the existence of the absolute frame of
reference.

<shrug>

===================================
Kinky Wobbly keeps his head firmly up his arse by ignoring
variable stars and recurrent novae. The speed of light is c+v,
Nature doesn't care about his wishful thinking.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Koobee Wublee the cretin" wrote in message
news:9b324e2a-421a-43e3...@a15g2000pbu.googlegroups.com...

On May 22, 5:32 pm, Andro the geek wrote:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEryiOKkrc

Interesting experiment. If the model of spacetime geometry is valid,

==============================================
It isn't, so whatever you write following is irrelevant. <SHRUG>
IF the Easter Bunny lays chocolate eggs...

[hanson]

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com>

concluded for now, & wrote:
>
Andro the geek wrote:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEryiOKkrc>

>
KW wrote:
Interesting experiment. If the model of spacetime

geometry is valid, this experiment falsifies the
Schwarzschild metric. The simplest metrics the
experiment supports that satisfy Newtonian law
of gravity are the following where the curvature of
space is isotropically symmetric, but the Schwarzschild
metric is not. <shrug>

** c^2 (1 � 2 U) dt^2 � f(U) (dr^2 + dO^2)
Or
** c^2 dt^2 / (1 + 2 U) - f(U) (dr^2 + dO^2)

Where
** U = G M / c^2 / r
** f(U) = Function of U where f(0) = 1
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
>
Of course, these two spacetime geometries above do

not satisfy as solutions to the field equations. <shrug>

>
The absolute frame of reference must exist to satisfy
the null results of the MMX. One of the infinite transforms,
that satisfy the null results of the MMX and predict the
existence of the absolute frame of reference, is

Larmor�s transform:
** dt� = (dt + v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 � v^2 / c^2)
** dx� = (dx + v dt) / sqrt(1 � v^2 / c^2)
** dy� = dy
** dz� = dz

That is exactly the same as the Lorentz transform
except v must be the absolute velocity of the
unprimed frame, and the primed frame must be
the absolute frame of reference.

When relating two observers you need two such
transforms. .. etc.. Then, mathematically, it is
rather trivial to show that the Lorentz transform

The absolute frame of reference vanishes.
Again, the Lorentz transform is only possible when

the two observers are moving in parallel. If not, then

the Lorentz transform is not valid.
>

Only through this special condition, the Lorentz
transform was born, yje following time frame.

Voigt presented the Voigt transform below in 1887

not referencing to the MMX of 1887 but Michelson�s

solo experiment in 1881 by postulating a constancy
in the speed of light.

** dt� = dt + v dx / c^2
** dx� = dx + v dt
** dy� = dy sqrt(1 � v^2 / c^2)
** dz� = dz sqrt(1 � v^2 / c^2)

Where
** v = Absolute velocity of the unprimed frame
** The primed frame is the absolute frame of reference.
>

hanson wrote:
Having condensed your post to its essentials, do you,
KW, think that Andro will buy it now, ignoring the fact
that he made a side step cha-cha and fled into GR
while you discussed the foundations of SR?...
>
.. and now Andro floats out into deep space to "variable
stars and recurrent novae" in trying to show that there
is no aether... ahahahhahaha.. ROTFLMAO... hahaha....
>
Andro is so profoundly aethero-allergic & aethero-phobic
that he does anything to deny its (even potential) existence.
Andro reminds me of the folks who howled, rattled & rolled,
till 1929, that: "Atoms do not exist. Atoms are not needed",
since Atoms were not measured till then (Perrin Nobel)...
ahahaha....

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"hanson" wrote in message news:knkhv1$q9j$1...@dont-email.me...

Andro is so profoundly aethero-allergic & aethero-phobic
that he does anything to deny its (even potential) existence.
Andro reminds me of the folks who howled, rattled & rolled,
till 1929, that: "Atoms do not exist. Atoms are not needed",
since Atoms were not measured till then (Perrin Nobel)...
ahahaha....

=============================================
hanson is so profoundly Easter Bunny-allergic & bunny-phobic

that he does anything to deny its (even potential) existence.

hanson reminds me of the folks who howled, rattled & rolled,
till 1881, that: "Easter Bunnies do not exist. Easter Bunnies
are not needed", since chocolate eggs were not measured till
then (Nestle Cadbury) ...

[hanson]

.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHHA...

Embarrassed and incompetent to understand KW's
argument, Andro then suggested to floats out into
deep space to "variable stars and recurrent novae",
OR
to get "Easter Bunny's chocolate eggs from Nestle
Cadbury, to show that there is no aether...
ahahahahahaha.. ROTFLMAO... hahaha....

>
Andro is so profoundly aethero-allergic & aethero-phobic
that he does anything to deny its (even potential) existence.
Andro reminds me of the folks who howled, rattled & rolled,
till 1929, that: "Atoms do not exist. Atoms are not needed",
since Atoms were not measured till then (Perrin Nobel)...
ahahaha....
>

PS:
Andro, you splendid old geezer, listen. How is your
physical and mental condition these days?
>
Last you reported that you were in pain and suffered
from your arthritic and broken ankle, aortal aneurysm,
and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but that
you take advantage of the NHS and the disability living-
allowance by living in the UK, where you also became
religious, saying: "And whether or not it is clear to you,
be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to
be, strive to be happy."
>
Andro, you should focus & concentrate on your last line.
Your Easter Bunny's chocolate eggs from Nestle, and/or
your flights to variable stars and recurrent novae", seem
to make you unhappy. Pity.
>
So, Andro strive to understand the existence of the Aether...
and your sorry condition will ameliorate.
Andro, I wish you all the best, & I thank you for the
laughs. Take care, Andro, & strive to be happy.
ahahahaha ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

[hanson]

.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHHA...
>
>
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com>

concluded for now, & wrote:
>
Andro the geek wrote:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEryiOKkrc>
>
KW wrote:
Interesting experiment. If the model of spacetime
geometry is valid, this experiment falsifies the
Schwarzschild metric. The simplest metrics the
experiment supports that satisfy Newtonian law
of gravity are the following where the curvature of
space is isotropically symmetric, but the Schwarzschild
metric is not. <shrug>
** c^2 (1 � 2 U) dt^2 � f(U) (dr^2 + dO^2)
Or
** c^2 dt^2 / (1 + 2 U) - f(U) (dr^2 + dO^2)
Where
** U = G M / c^2 / r
** f(U) = Function of U where f(0) = 1
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
>
Of course, these two spacetime geometries above do

not satisfy as solutions to the field equations. <shrug>

>
The absolute frame of reference must exist to satisfy
the null results of the MMX. One of the infinite transforms,
that satisfy the null results of the MMX and predict the
existence of the absolute frame of reference, is

Larmor�s transform:
** dt� = (dt + v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 � v^2 / c^2)
** dx� = (dx + v dt) / sqrt(1 � v^2 / c^2)
** dy� = dy

** dz� = dz

That is exactly the same as the Lorentz transform
except v must be the absolute velocity of the
unprimed frame, and the primed frame must be
the absolute frame of reference.

When relating two observers you need two such
transforms. .. etc.. Then, mathematically, it is
rather trivial to show that the Lorentz transform

The absolute frame of reference vanishes.
Again, the Lorentz transform is only possible when

the two observers are moving in parallel. If not, then

the Lorentz transform is not valid.
>

Only through this special condition, the Lorentz
transform was born, yje following time frame.

Voigt presented the Voigt transform below in 1887

not referencing to the MMX of 1887 but Michelson�s

solo experiment in 1881 by postulating a constancy
in the speed of light.

** dt� = dt + v dx / c^2
** dx� = dx + v dt
** dy� = dy sqrt(1 � v^2 / c^2)

** dz� = dz sqrt(1 � v^2 / c^2)

Where
** v = Absolute velocity of the unprimed frame
** The primed frame is the absolute frame of reference.
>

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"hanson" wrote in message news:knl84f$cdi$1...@dont-email.me...

.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHHA...
>
>
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com>
concluded for now, & wrote:
>
Andro the geek wrote:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEryiOKkrc>
>
KW wrote:
Interesting experiment. If the model of spacetime
geometry is valid, this experiment falsifies the
Schwarzschild metric. The simplest metrics the
experiment supports that satisfy Newtonian law
of gravity are the following where the curvature of
space is isotropically symmetric, but the Schwarzschild
metric is not. <shrug>

** c^2 (1 – 2 U) dt^2 – f(U) (dr^2 + dO^2)

Or
** c^2 dt^2 / (1 + 2 U) - f(U) (dr^2 + dO^2)
Where
** U = G M / c^2 / r
** f(U) = Function of U where f(0) = 1
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
>
Of course, these two spacetime geometries above do
not satisfy as solutions to the field equations. <shrug>
>
The absolute frame of reference must exist to satisfy
the null results of the MMX. One of the infinite transforms,
that satisfy the null results of the MMX and predict the
existence of the absolute frame of reference, is

Larmor’s transform:

** dt’ = (dt + v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dx’ = (dx + v dt) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dy’ = dy

** dz’ = dz

That is exactly the same as the Lorentz transform
except v must be the absolute velocity of the
unprimed frame, and the primed frame must be
the absolute frame of reference.

When relating two observers you need two such
transforms. .. etc.. Then, mathematically, it is
rather trivial to show that the Lorentz transform
The absolute frame of reference vanishes.
Again, the Lorentz transform is only possible when
the two observers are moving in parallel. If not, then
the Lorentz transform is not valid.
>
Only through this special condition, the Lorentz
transform was born, yje following time frame.
Voigt presented the Voigt transform below in 1887

not referencing to the MMX of 1887 but Michelson’s

solo experiment in 1881 by postulating a constancy
in the speed of light.

** dt’ = dt + v dx / c^2
** dx’ = dx + v dt
** dy’ = dy sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

** dz’ = dz sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

=========================================
Question: Does the Easter Bunny cackle louder than
the old hen hanson when laying chocolate eggs?

Strive to understand, old hen, that when stars move in
ellipses and obey Kepler's laws the speed of light varies
as they move away and toward us, and that when slow
light is overtaken by fast light they appear to vary in
brightness. All your wishes, best or otherwise, cannot
make aether or Easter Bunnies do that. Thank yourself
for the laughs, the joke is on you and Kinky Wobbly with
his glorious "must be".
Bwahahahahahahahaha!

[hanson]

.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHHA...
>
>
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com>
concluded for now, & wrote:
>
Andro the geek wrote:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEryiOKkrc>
>
KW wrote:
Interesting experiment. If the model of spacetime
geometry is valid, this experiment falsifies the
Schwarzschild metric. The simplest metrics the
experiment supports that satisfy Newtonian law
of gravity are the following where the curvature of
space is isotropically symmetric, but the Schwarzschild
metric is not. <shrug>

** c^2 (1 � 2 U) dt^2 � f(U) (dr^2 + dO^2)

Or
** c^2 dt^2 / (1 + 2 U) - f(U) (dr^2 + dO^2)
Where
** U = G M / c^2 / r
** f(U) = Function of U where f(0) = 1
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
>
Of course, these two spacetime geometries above do
not satisfy as solutions to the field equations. <shrug>
>
The absolute frame of reference must exist to satisfy
the null results of the MMX. One of the infinite transforms,
that satisfy the null results of the MMX and predict the
existence of the absolute frame of reference, is

Larmor�s transform:
** dt� = (dt + v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 � v^2 / c^2)
** dx� = (dx + v dt) / sqrt(1 � v^2 / c^2)
** dy� = dy

** dz� = dz

That is exactly the same as the Lorentz transform
except v must be the absolute velocity of the
unprimed frame, and the primed frame must be
the absolute frame of reference.

When relating two observers you need two such
transforms. .. etc.. Then, mathematically, it is
rather trivial to show that the Lorentz transform
The absolute frame of reference vanishes.
Again, the Lorentz transform is only possible when
the two observers are moving in parallel. If not, then
the Lorentz transform is not valid.
>
Only through this special condition, the Lorentz
transform was born, yje following time frame.
Voigt presented the Voigt transform below in 1887

not referencing to the MMX of 1887 but Michelson�s

solo experiment in 1881 by postulating a constancy
in the speed of light.

** dt� = dt + v dx / c^2
** dx� = dx + v dt
** dy� = dy sqrt(1 � v^2 / c^2)

** dz� = dz sqrt(1 � v^2 / c^2)

Androcles wrote:
... about Easter Bunny chocolate eggs to vary in
brightness.... but cannot make aether etc.
>
hanson wrote:
Of cousre not, Andro. Strive to be happy.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"hanson" wrote in message news:knlau2$ru3$1...@dont-email.me...

.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHHA...
>
>
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com>
concluded for now, & wrote:
>
Andro the geek wrote:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEryiOKkrc>
>
KW wrote:
Interesting experiment. If the model of spacetime
geometry is valid, this experiment falsifies the
Schwarzschild metric. The simplest metrics the
experiment supports that satisfy Newtonian law
of gravity are the following where the curvature of
space is isotropically symmetric, but the Schwarzschild
metric is not. <shrug>

** c^2 (1 – 2 U) dt^2 – f(U) (dr^2 + dO^2)

Or
** c^2 dt^2 / (1 + 2 U) - f(U) (dr^2 + dO^2)
Where
** U = G M / c^2 / r
** f(U) = Function of U where f(0) = 1
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
>
Of course, these two spacetime geometries above do
not satisfy as solutions to the field equations. <shrug>
>
The absolute frame of reference must exist to satisfy
the null results of the MMX. One of the infinite transforms,
that satisfy the null results of the MMX and predict the
existence of the absolute frame of reference, is

Larmor’s transform:
** dt’ = (dt + v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dx’ = (dx + v dt) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dy’ = dy

** dz’ = dz

That is exactly the same as the Lorentz transform
except v must be the absolute velocity of the
unprimed frame, and the primed frame must be
the absolute frame of reference.

When relating two observers you need two such
transforms. .. etc.. Then, mathematically, it is
rather trivial to show that the Lorentz transform
The absolute frame of reference vanishes.
Again, the Lorentz transform is only possible when
the two observers are moving in parallel. If not, then
the Lorentz transform is not valid.
>
Only through this special condition, the Lorentz
transform was born, yje following time frame.
Voigt presented the Voigt transform below in 1887

not referencing to the MMX of 1887 but Michelson’s

solo experiment in 1881 by postulating a constancy
in the speed of light.

** dt’ = dt + v dx / c^2
** dx’ = dx + v dt
** dy’ = dy sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

** dz’ = dz sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

==================================
What, cackle like an old hen, son?
You forgot to cackle... are you unhappy? Take care, old hen.

[hanson]

Of course not, Andro. Strive to be happy.
>
But instead Andro cackled like an ol' hen,
and remained unhapy.
The aether will make you happy, Andro.

[mpc755]

On May 22, 6:44 am, Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:
> >Wilson can join you geeks too.  After all, you geeks all share the
> >same common trait of denying the Aether.  <shrug>
>
> Now be fair Koobee, at least I have agreed that aether theory would be
> credible if an aether existed. My theory also accepts that 'aetherlike
> regions' might exist around large masses and that 'fields' themsleves are
> actually made of the stuff. I deny the existence of a single absolute aether
> though. The whole idea is silly...and, besids, where would it end?
>
> Henry Wilson DSc.

Where does the Universe end?

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"hanson" wrote in message news:knldvu$dtj$1...@dont-email.me...

=========================================
<YAWN>
Did Uncle Al ever tell you what a dreadful churl you are, chacha?

[hanson]

Androcles, John Parker has become an Aether lover!
cuz>

>
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com>
concluded for now, & wrote:
>
Andro the geek wrote:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEryiOKkrc>
>
KW wrote:
Interesting experiment. If the model of spacetime
geometry is valid, this experiment falsifies the
Schwarzschild metric. The simplest metrics the
experiment supports that satisfy Newtonian law
of gravity are the following where the curvature of
space is isotropically symmetric, but the Schwarzschild
metric is not. <shrug>

** c^2 (1 – 2 U) dt^2 – f(U) (dr^2 + dO^2)

Or
** c^2 dt^2 / (1 + 2 U) - f(U) (dr^2 + dO^2)
Where
** U = G M / c^2 / r
** f(U) = Function of U where f(0) = 1
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
>
Of course, these two spacetime geometries above do
not satisfy as solutions to the field equations. <shrug>
>
The absolute frame of reference must exist to satisfy
the null results of the MMX. One of the infinite transforms,
that satisfy the null results of the MMX and predict the
existence of the absolute frame of reference, is

Larmor’s transform:
** dt’ = (dt + v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dx’ = (dx + v dt) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dy’ = dy
** dz’ = dz

That is exactly the same as the Lorentz transform
except v must be the absolute velocity of the
unprimed frame, and the primed frame must be
the absolute frame of reference.

When relating two observers you need two such
transforms. .. etc.. Then, mathematically, it is
rather trivial to show that the Lorentz transform
The absolute frame of reference vanishes.
Again, the Lorentz transform is only possible when
the two observers are moving in parallel. If not, then
the Lorentz transform is not valid.
>
Only through this special condition, the Lorentz
transform was born, yje following time frame.
Voigt presented the Voigt transform below in 1887

not referencing to the MMX of 1887 but Michelson’s

solo experiment in 1881 by postulating a constancy
in the speed of light.

** dt’ = dt + v dx / c^2
** dx’ = dx + v dt
** dy’ = dy sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dz’ = dz sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

But instead, Andro cackled like an ol' hen,
and remained unhappy, because of the aether.

>
Andro made another chacha & wrote:
Did Uncle Al ever tell you what a dreadful
churl you are, chacha?
>

hanson wrote:
I do not have an Uncle Al.
But you can come out of the closet now Andro,
cuz when you are rational it shows that you
>
# Androcles, John Parker is an Aether lover #
>
So, strive to be happy by you admitting that you:
# Androcles, John Parker is an Aether lover #
>
Once you have the last word, no matter what or
how you say it, you have admitted & shown that
\>
# Androcles, John Parker is an Aether lover #
>
Have the LAST word now, Aether lover John Parker.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

It doesn't. 'Nothing' does not require boundaries.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"hanson" wrote in message news:knm84c$4u7$1...@dont-email.me...

Androcles, John Parker has become an Aether lover!
cuz>

============================

cackling hanson is the same boring shit-stirring fucking idiot
he's always been.
*plonk*
Bwahahahahahaha!

[mpc755]

If the Universe doesn't end then neither does the mass which exists in
it.

Aether and matter have mass.

As far as we know, aether exists everywhere particles of matter do not.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 16:54:24 -0700 (PDT), mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 23, 7:49�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:55:46 -0700 (PDT), mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 22, 6:44 am, Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:
>> >> >Wilson can join you geeks too. After all, you geeks all share the
>> >> >same common trait of denying the Aether. <shrug>
>>
>> >> Now be fair Koobee, at least I have agreed that aether theory would be
>> >> credible if an aether existed. My theory also accepts that 'aetherlike
>> >> regions' might exist around large masses and that 'fields' themsleves are
>> >> actually made of the stuff. I deny the existence of a single absolute aether
>> >> though. The whole idea is silly...and, besids, where would it end?
>>
>> >> Henry Wilson DSc.
>>
>> >Where does the Universe end?
>>
>> It doesn't. 'Nothing' does not require boundaries.
>
>If the Universe doesn't end then neither does the mass which exists in
>it.

Space is measured as the distance between objects. No objects = no space,
ie., 'nothing'.

>Aether and matter have mass.
>
>As far as we know, aether exists everywhere particles of matter do not.

Aether is the stuff fields are made of.
Weak fields = weak aether.
No fields = no aether.
Atoms contain very strong fields and high aether densities.
Maxwell's equations apply in high aether densities which is why light quanta
initially move at c relative to their source.
Photons consist of minute amounts of ejected oscillating aether.

Prove I'm wrong...

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/23/13 7:02 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> Prove I'm wrong...

No need--intuitively obvious.

[hanson]

========================

Androcles, John Parker has become an Aether lover!

========================

But Androcles came out of the closet now,
and was rational for a moment & showed that

>
# Androcles, John Parker is an Aether lover #
>

He strove to be happy and admitted that:

# Androcles, John Parker is an Aether lover #
>

He has had the last word, no matter what or how
he said it, JP has admitted & shown that

>
# Androcles, John Parker is an Aether lover #
>

Aether lover John Parker had the LAST word.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:38:48 -0700, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:

>========================
>Androcles, John Parker has become an Aether lover!

He always was a closet aetherist. That's why he is so envious of my advanced
programming methods and my vast accumulation of evidence in favour of
ballistic light....
...but at least the poor old bugger still has all those bottles to keep his
brain cells ticking over...

>========================

[John Gogo]

I am inclined to agree with you- if we were insistent to include the
term aether- then this how I would try to describe it- most
importantly- that it has human measurable physical limits.

[John Gogo]

Our present day instruments are only capable of doing so much.

[benj]

Right, Sammy, just like AGW, right?

[mpc755]

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory
of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium
when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such
medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative
connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association
with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped
of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most
physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually
says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading
the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic
symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time
relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began
showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure
similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent
studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand
that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian
emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but
can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a
part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day
by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this
because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics,
endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

"If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature
would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. It
could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be
contrary to relativity theory." - Louis de Broglie, Nobel Laureate in
Physics

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation
of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space
and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time
intervals in the physical sense." - Albert Einstein, Nobel Laureate in
Physics

The relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the hidden sub-
quantum medium referred to by de Broglie is the ether which propagates
light referred to by Einstein.

[hanson]

"benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
Sam Wormley wrote:
<something>

Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
Sam, prove I'm wrong...
>>
Sam Wormley wrote:
No need--intuitively obvious.

>
Ben wrote:
Right, Sammy, just like AGW, right?
>

hanson wrote:
Fucken-A-right!.. It's snowing, right now,
end of May 2013, in mamy places in Europe.
But then, that's just the weather and not the
climate, right, Sam?... freezing my ass off.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

>"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
>unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation
>of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space
>and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time
>intervals in the physical sense." - Albert Einstein, Nobel Laureate in
>Physics
>
>The relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the hidden sub-
>quantum medium referred to by de Broglie is the ether which propagates
>light referred to by Einstein.

It isn't. The density of matter and fields in most of space is far too low to
significantly affect the ballistic movement of light except over vast
distances.
I say fields are quantized so that the inverse square law must eventually
break down. At the critical WDT (Wilson Density Threshold) holes of genuine
'nothing' start to appear in space. Below that threshold the holes become
larger as the field density drops.

Having said that, it should be pointed out that space is like a gigantic
turbulent low density gas, in which field density varies over a wide range.
During long distance travel, the speed of all light is progressively reduced
and somewhat unified in any particular direction through interaction with any
stray field it encounters.

Prove I'm wrong...

Henry Wilson DSc.

[mpc755]

On May 24, 5:05 pm, Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:
>
> It isn't. The density of matter and fields in most of space is far too low to
> significantly affect the ballistic movement of light except over vast
> distances.
> I say fields are quantized so that the inverse square law must eventually
> break down. At the critical WDT (Wilson Density Threshold) holes of genuine
> 'nothing' start to appear in space. Below that threshold the holes become
> larger as the field density drops.
>
> Having said that, it should be pointed out that space is like a gigantic
> turbulent low density gas, in which field density varies over a wide range.
> During long distance travel, the speed of all light is progressively reduced
> and somewhat unified in any particular direction through interaction with any
> stray field it encounters.
>
> Prove I'm wrong...
>
> Henry Wilson DSc.

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by particles of matter. Displaced
aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward matter.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
matter is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

aether is nothing but the atoms of free space, apaprently
operating "electromagnetically -- how about that?"

well, deBroglie had no "space science datum" to speak of;
even every single on of Goddards rockets was a crashlanding,
just outside of, y'know, after he moved from Worcester Polytechnic.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:36:50 -0700 (PDT), mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 24, 5:05�pm, Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:
>>
>> It isn't. The density of matter and fields in most of space is far too low to
>> significantly affect the ballistic movement of light except over vast
>> distances.
>> I say fields are quantized so that the inverse square law must eventually
>> break down. At the critical WDT (Wilson Density Threshold) holes of genuine
>> 'nothing' start to appear in space. Below that threshold the holes become
>> larger as the field density drops.
>>
>> Having said that, it should be pointed out that space is like a gigantic
>> turbulent low density gas, in which field density varies over a wide range.
>> During long distance travel, the speed of all light is progressively reduced
>> and somewhat unified in any particular direction through interaction with any
>> stray field it encounters.
>>
>> Prove I'm wrong...
>>
>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>
>Aether has mass.

Yes.

>Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.

Yes.

>Aether is physically displaced by particles of matter.

Nope. particles CONTAIN aether.

>Displaced
>aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward matter.

You seem to think aether is like a fluid.

>Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
>matter is gravity.

...that's an oversimplification.

>A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.

..what does that mean?

>In a
>double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
>the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

Each photon has a cross section. Part of its intrinsic wave goes through each
slit.

[mpc755]

On May 25, 6:08 am, Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:
>
> >Aether is physically displaced by particles of matter.
>
> Nope. particles CONTAIN aether.
>

Particles of matter are condensations of aether, analogous to an ice
cube in a glass of water displaces the water.

> >Displaced
> >aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward matter.
>
> You seem to think aether is like a fluid.
>

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid.

> >Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
> >matter is gravity.
>
> ...that's an oversimplification.
>

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward

matter IS gravity.

> >A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
>
> ..what does that mean?
>

A boat has a bow wave. If you performed a double slit experiment with
a boat the boat travels through a single slit and the bow wave passes
through both.

[benj]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 20:08:25 +1000, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

Not to stick my nose in your fun, but...

>>> Prove I'm wrong...
>>> Henry Wilson DSc.

>>Aether has mass.
>
> Yes.

Yes.

>>Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
>
> Yes.

Yes.

>>Aether is physically displaced by particles of matter.
>
> Nope. particles CONTAIN aether.

Yes AND no! "matter" (protons neturons etc.) is "frozen" aether which
physically displaces super-fluid aether.

>>Displaced aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward matter.
>
> You seem to think aether is like a fluid.

Actually not only a fluid but a super-solid fluid! It's these super-
fluidic/solid properties that have had people confused for so long by
trying to force aether into the box of ordinary gas/fluid/solids.

>>Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter
>>is gravity.
>
> ...that's an oversimplification.

Actually not correct. Gravity is due to massive energy waves permeating
aether in all directions. Mass shields the waves and creates gravity.
It's the old "shadow" theory of gravity. This energy also keeps aether
from "freezing" solid.

>>A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
>
> ..what does that mean?

It means as a boat goes through the water it creates a wave. Now think of
the case where the propagation speed of the boat wave is FASTER than the
boat is traveling. Now the wave the boat creates gets AHEAD of the boat
and can actually influence where the boat travels (trajectory). (Pilot
wave theory)

>>In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit
>>and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.
>
> Each photon has a cross section. Part of its intrinsic wave goes through
> each slit.

Photon "cross section" or "dimensions" proven much smaller than distance
between slits. No evidence of photons splitting in two. (Sorry Treeb)
Observations always show photon going through one or the other slit never
both. So much for photon. But what about it's "intrinsic wave" as you
call it? Well if by that you mean bow wave in aether, well obviously that
CAN go through both slits.

> Prove I'm wrong...

Prove me wrong.

[mpc755]

On May 25, 1:34 pm, benj <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
> >>Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter
> >>is gravity.
>
> > ...that's an oversimplification.
>
> Actually not correct. Gravity is due to massive energy waves permeating
> aether in all directions. Mass shields the waves and creates gravity.
> It's the old "shadow" theory of gravity. This energy also keeps aether
> from "freezing" solid.
>

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward

matter IS gravity.

[benj]

So your theory is that displaced water buy divers in the ocean pushing
back with an inward pressure creates "gravity"? I don't think so.

[mpc755]

If aether waves caused gravity the light waves from the Sun would push
the Earth out of its orbit.

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by particles of matter. Displaced

aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward matter.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
matter is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

My 'aether' is nothing like your all pervading one. Yours must begin and end
somewhere....which is silly...
There is absolutely no evidence that YOUR aether exists at all.

My 'aether' exists only where there are fields because my aether is what
fields are made of. My universe is like a vast turbulent gas, mainly almost
devoid of all matter and fields. Light travels 100% ballistically in the
empty regions but its speed is modified whenever it passes through and
interacts with more concentrated pockets of 'aether'.

My theory works...yours doesn't.

[hanson]

Scientist & Sheep Shagger & "Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote:
-- Michael P. Cavedon, Mental Patient Case #755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
--- Jacoby Benj <be...@iwaynet.net> whom the Mexicans call
"El Yarmulkerillo conveniente" wrote:

>
>
>
Cavedon wrote:
Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward
pressure toward matter is gravity.
>>>

Henry wrote
...that's an oversimplification.

>>>
El Yarmulkerillo wrote:
Actually not correct. Gravity is due to massive energy
waves permeating aether in all directions. Mass shields
the waves and creates gravity.
It's the old "shadow" theory of gravity. This energy also
keeps aether from "freezing" solid.
>>>
Cavedon wrote:
Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward

pressure toward matter IS gravity.

>>>
El Yarmulkerillo wrote:
So your theory is that displaced water buy divers in
the ocean pushing back with an inward pressure creates
"gravity"? I don't think so.
>>

Cavedon wrote:
If aether waves caused gravity the light waves from the
Sun would push the Earth out of its orbit. Aether has mass.
Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by particles of matter.
Displaced aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure

toward matter, which is gravity.

>>
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement
wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through
a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes
through both.
>

Henry wrote:
My 'aether' is nothing like your all pervading one. Yours must
begin and end somewhere....which is silly...
There is absolutely no evidence that YOUR aether exists at all.
>
My 'aether' exists only where there are fields because my
aether is what fields are made of.
My universe is like a vast turbulent gas, mainly almost
devoid of all matter and fields. Light travels 100% ballistically
in the empty regions but its speed is modified whenever it
passes through and interacts with more concentrated
pockets of 'aether'.
>

My Henry theory works... Cavedon, yours doesn't.
>
hanson wrote:
So Henry, I have not followed your theory, but if it does
what you claim then you have a TOE, wherein c, G, & h
are all turned on. Not like in SR where G & h is missing
and in GR where h is absent. That is remarkable, Henry.
>
Your TOE then simply stipulates that its solutions must
satisfy the product of (G*c*h) which yield an aether density
of ~5*E(-150) gr/cm^3, which I have penciled out in [1]
<http://tinyurl.com/Aether-Properties-Equations>, about
which you asked: "where did you get that from, hanson?"
>
Henry, AFAIAC, all such theorizing is just Gedanken farting
to me without having any practical value. It is very easy &
enjoyable though as a pass-the time-entertainment
So Henry, look how, where and why your aether emerges
in your theory and shows the given values in [1].
You can use any of my tripe even without you referring to me.
Have at it and become famous!
Take care you splendid old fart & thanks for the laughs.
ahahahaha... ahahahanson
>

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

I think it was a rather appropriate question.

>Henry, AFAIAC, all such theorizing is just Gedanken farting
>to me without having any practical value. It is very easy &
>enjoyable though as a pass-the time-entertainment
>So Henry, look how, where and why your aether emerges
>in your theory and shows the given values in [1].
>You can use any of my tripe even without you referring to me.
>Have at it and become famous!

Hanson, old chap, I congratulate you on your exceptional mathematical skills
and appreciate your kind offer.... but unfortunately my use of the word
'aether' was for conveniece only. It is used in my TOE solely to describe 'the
stuff that fields are made of'.
You see, I am of the opinion that an electric field is more than just a name
and a set of equations that describe how it acts on other electric fields.
There is some physics behind is, as well.
Fields are invisible to us because they dont normally emit light and they
don't hit us like a brick wall when we run into them. I feel nothing when I
move my hand past a bar magnet. Why is that...when somebody with a titanium
knee joint might melt if they run past one too quickly!

No Hanson, we are only aware of one mass dimension because that's what we're
made of. There are several....and they don't normally interact in any obvious
way. The point is, fields are made of matter of a dimemsion that is different
from our own.

Prove I'm wrong!

Henry Wilson DSc.

[mpc755]

If you insist the aether must begin and end somewhere then you must
insist the Universe begins and ends somewhere.

> My 'aether' exists only where there are fields because my aether is what
> fields are made of. My universe is like a vast turbulent gas, mainly almost
> devoid of all matter and fields. Light travels 100% ballistically in the
> empty regions but its speed is modified whenever it passes through and
> interacts with more concentrated pockets of 'aether'.
>

Light waves propagate through the aether.

> My theory works...yours doesn't.

[benj]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 05:13:19 -0700, mpc755 wrote:


>> My 'aether' is nothing like your all pervading one. Yours must begin
>> and end somewhere....which is silly...
>> There is absolutely no evidence that YOUR aether exists at all.
>>
>>
> If you insist the aether must begin and end somewhere then you must
> insist the Universe begins and ends somewhere.

Not necessarily. But evidence so far is that Aether does NOT end at the
multidimensional interface to the OUR 3D world. Does it end at the edge
of some other dimension? Who knows? Insufficient data to even guess.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 05:13:19 -0700 (PDT), mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 25, 6:59�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 14:55:30 -0700 (PDT), mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> My 'aether' is nothing like your all pervading one. Yours must begin and end
>> somewhere....which is silly...
>> There is absolutely no evidence that YOUR aether exists at all.
>>
>
>If you insist the aether must begin and end somewhere then you must
>insist the Universe begins and ends somewhere.

'nothing' is not space and therefore has no bounds.
Space is defined by objects and the distances between them.
No objects = 'nothing'.

>> My 'aether' exists only where there are fields because my aether is what
>> fields are made of. My universe is like a vast turbulent gas, mainly almost
>> devoid of all matter and fields. Light travels 100% ballistically in the
>> empty regions but its speed is modified whenever it passes through and
>> interacts with more concentrated pockets of 'aether'.
>>
>
>Light waves propagate through the aether.

Light PARTICLES consist of waves in minute globules of 'aether'.

>> My theory works...yours doesn't.
>
>Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
>Aether is physically displaced by particles of matter. Displaced

>aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward matter..

>Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
>matter is gravity.

Archimedes would not agree.

>A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
>double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
>the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

...nice scifi.....nearly as good as Einstein's...

Henry Wilson DSc.

[mpc755]

'Black hole discharge in massive electrodynamics and black hole
disappearance in massive gravity'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.2665

"the black hole excretes negative energy ‘aether’ and grows."

The Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a larger
version of a black hole polar jet. Dark energy is aether emitted into
the Universal jet.

'Was the universe born spinning?'
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688

"The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a
preferred axis"

The Universe spins around a preferred axis because the Universe is, or
the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet; a larger version of a
black hole polar jet.

'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html

"The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our
solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion
is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed
outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule
out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right
now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the
clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said."

The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or
the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet.

The following is an image analogous of the Universal jet.

http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html

The reason for the 'expansion' of the universe is the continual
emission of aether into the Universal jet. Three dimensional space
associated with the Universe itself is not expanding. What we see in
our telescopes is the matter associated with the Universe moving
outward and away from the Universal jet emission point. In the image
above, '1st Stars' is where aether condenses into matter.

Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.

It's not the Big Bang; it's the Big Ongoing.

[mpc755]

'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 at every place determined by connections with
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.

The Milky Way's halo is what is referred to as the curvature of
spacetime.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

The geometrical representation of gravity as curved spacetime
physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the
aether.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

How long have you been suffering from repetivitivitis?

[hanson]

Scientist & Sheep Shagger & "Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote:
-- Michael P. Cavedon, Mental Patient Case #755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:

--- Jacoby Benj <be...@iwaynet.net> whom the Mexicans call
"El Yarmulkerillo conveniente" wrote:
>
>
>
Cavedon wrote:
Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward
pressure toward matter is gravity.
>>>
Henry wrote
...that's an oversimplification.
>>>
El Yarmulkerillo wrote:
Actually not correct. Gravity is due to massive energy
waves permeating aether in all directions. Mass shields
the waves and creates gravity.
It's the old "shadow" theory of gravity. This energy also
keeps aether from "freezing" solid.
>>>
Cavedon wrote:
Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward
pressure toward matter IS gravity.
>>>
El Yarmulkerillo wrote:
So your theory is that displaced water buy divers in
the ocean pushing back with an inward pressure creates
"gravity"? I don't think so.
>>

Henry wote:

I think it was a rather appropriate question.
>

hanson wrote:
Henry, AFAIAC, all such theorizing is just Gedanken farting
to me without having any practical value. It is very easy &
enjoyable though as a pass-the time-entertainment
So Henry, look how, where and why your aether emerges
in your theory and shows the given values in [1].
You can use any of my tripe even without you referring to me.
Have at it and become famous!

Take care you splendid old fart & thanks for the laughs.
ahahahaha... ahahahanson
>

Henry wrote:
Hanson, old chap, I congratulate you on your exceptional
mathematical skills and appreciate your kind offer....
>
... but unfortunately my use of the word 'aether' was for
conveniece only. It is used in my TOE solely to describe
'the stuff that fields are made of'.
You see, I am of the opinion that an electric field is more
than just a name and a set of equations that describe
how it acts on other electric fields.
There is some physics behind is, as well.
Fields are invisible to us because they dont normally emit
light and they don't hit us like a brick wall when we run
into them. I feel nothing when I move my hand past a bar
magnet. Why is that...when somebody with a titanium
knee joint might melt if they run past one too quickly!
>
No Hanson, we are only aware of one mass dimension
because that's what we're made of. There are several....
and they don't normally interact in any obvious way.
The point is, fields are made of matter of a dimemsion

that is different from our own. ----- Prove I'm wrong!
>
hanson wrote:
Henry, like I said above, "AFAIAC, all such theorizing
is just Gedanken farting", the beauty of which is that
NO Gedanken fart is wrong in the mind of its emitter.
Never. It is a Belief. And Beliefs are always correct to
and in the beholder's mind.
>
Now, Henry, why and for what elusive purposes should
I prove that your or anybody else's brainfarts are wrong?
>
Much better, Henry, celebrate and bask in the warm
breeze of your own beliefs. Hold'em dear and precious,
like pearls that you do not throw before the swine.
>
And enjoy with immense delight that practically everybody
else is too stupid or at least has not been privy to see
the wonders that you have seen.
>
That then is my lengthy answer to your question which
is based on Einstein's notion that
||AE said:|| "they are NOT conditions in which we live;
||AE said:|| they are simply modes in which we think."

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Thanks Hanson old chap. As always you have been a great help. I will do the
same for you any time.

By the way, has ALLARM, the God of Climate Change, sent any good tornadoes
down your way lately?

[mpc755]

On May 26, 5:45 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>
> How long have you been suffering from repetivitivitis?

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.

Aether is physically displaced by matter. There is no such thing as
non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter. Matter moves through and
displaces the aether.

'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like
cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity
of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar
space is compacting it."

It is not the particles of matter which exist in quantities less than
in any vacuum artificially created on Earth which are pushing back and
exerting inward pressure toward the solar system.

It is the aether, which the particles of matter exist in, which is the
interstellar medium. It is the aether which is displaced by the matter
the solar system consists of which is pushing back and exerting inward
pressure toward the solar system.

'Galactic Pile-Up May Point to Mysterious New Dark Force in the
Universe'
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/01/musket-ball-dark-force/

"The reason this is strange is that dark matter is thought to barely
interact with itself. The dark matter should just coast through itself
and move at the same speed as the hardly interacting galaxies.
Instead, it looks like the dark matter is crashing into something —
perhaps itself – and slowing down faster than the galaxies are. But
this would require the dark matter to be able to interact with itself
in a completely new an unexpected way, a “dark force” that affects
only dark matter."

A 'new dark force' is more speculative than understanding space itself
has mass. What is occurring is analogous to the bow waves of two boats
which pass by each other. The aether displaced by the galaxies
interacts and 'piles-up' as the galaxies pass by each other.

'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 at every place determined by connections with
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.

'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html

"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view
of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two
galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is
somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the
water."

The 'pond' consists of aether. The analogy are two boats which pass by
each other very closely. Their bow waves slosh back and forth and
create a ripple in the water.

The Milky Way's halo is what is referred to as the curvature of
spacetime.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

The geometrical representation of gravity as curved spacetime
physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the
aether.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
matter is gravity.

'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a
sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.1475v1.pdf

"Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential
in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic
field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very
closely."

The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether.
The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under
water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and
the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the
water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the
lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from
the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of
the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by
the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to
remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The
submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The
state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains
the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is
not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what
is occurring physically in nature as the galaxy clusters move through
and displace the aether.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory -
Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

“When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was
looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles,
of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in
his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the
physical reality of waves and particles.”

“any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous
“energetic contact” with a hidden medium”

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The
“energetic contact” is the state of displacement of the aether.

"For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant,
forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which
may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity."

A particle is a moving singularity which has an associated aether
displacement wave.

In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path
which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the aether
passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates
wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction
it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave
piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Detecting the particle
strongly exiting a single slit destroys the coherence between the
particle and its associated wave in the aether.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double
slit experiment; the aether.

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave. Both are
waves in the aether.

[greysky]

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
news:1b1456c2-4fd8-413c...@z10g2000pbn.googlegroups.com...

Is this the same Eric Gisse the college dropout?

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/04/former-employee-arrested-charged-with-rooting-2700-hostgator-servers/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It sure sounds like something he would do. It's been a while since I've had
the ... challenge ... of talking with this Sheldon (Big Bang Theory)
wannabee, but I do recall how supremely arrogant and condescending he was.
Just think how god-like he probably felt knowing all those thousands of
servers were his willing slaves. In the end this Sheldon turned out to be
just another Ice King (Finn and Jake, the Adventures of). Yes, if Pride goes
before the fall, Hubris makes the fall easier...

G-

[Koobee Wublee]

On May 26, 8:19 pm, "greysky" <ftls...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" wrote:

> http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/04/former-employee-arrested-charged-with-rooting-2700-hostgator-servers/

> It sure sounds like something he would do. It's been a while since I've had
> the ... challenge ... of talking with this Sheldon (Big Bang Theory)
> wannabee, but I do recall how supremely arrogant and condescending he was.

Sheldon who? Big Bang Theory was a hypothesis of Lemaitre and Gamow,
no? <shrgu>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory

> Just think how god-like he probably felt knowing all those thousands of
> servers were his willing slaves.

With the age of Wireshark which is a free program, he would never get
away with a stunt like that, and Eric Gisse the college dropout should
know that. <shrug>

http://www.wireshark.org

> In the end this Sheldon turned out to be
> just another Ice King (Finn and Jake, the Adventures of).

My kids love Adventure Time. Yes, Eric Gisse the college dropout does
fit the Ice King character when you mention about it. <shrug>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure_Time

> Yes, if Pride goes
> before the fall, Hubris makes the fall easier...

Does anybody know when the trial to convict Eric Gisse the college
dropout is? <shrug>

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Increasing the length wont save you.

[greysky]

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message

news:2d11e710-26c5-4a0f...@ua8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

On May 26, 8:19 pm, "greysky" <ftls...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" wrote:

> http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/04/former-employee-arrested-charged-with-rooting-2700-hostgator-servers/

> It sure sounds like something he would do. It's been a while since I've
> had
> the ... challenge ... of talking with this Sheldon (Big Bang Theory)
> wannabee, but I do recall how supremely arrogant and condescending he was.

Sheldon who? Big Bang Theory was a hypothesis of Lemaitre and Gamow,
no? <shrgu>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory

___________________________________________________________________

Sorry for being unclear. The Big Bang Theory is an american television show,
a situation comedy starring silly caricatures of people who are supposed to
be physicists.
___________________________________________________________________

[mpc755]

'Quantum mechanics rule 'bent' in classic experiment'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13626587

'For his part, Professor Steinberg believes that the result reduces a
limitation not on quantum physics but on physicists themselves. "I
feel like we're starting to pull back a veil on what nature really
is," he said. "The trouble with quantum mechanics is that while we've
learned to calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we've
lost much of our ability to describe what is really happening in any
natural language. I think that this has really hampered our ability to
make progress, to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how new
systems ought to behave."'

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-experiment-skirts-uncertainty-principle

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
both slits."

A particle physically displaces the aether. A moving particle has an

associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the

particle enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated wave in
the aether which passes through both. As the aether wave exits the

slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single
slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference.

This is the wave piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Strongly
detecting the particle causes a loss of coherence between the particle

and its associated wave in the aether.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Where did all that aether come from?

Henry Wilson DSc.

[mpc755]

As far as we know there is no space, nor any part of three dimensional
space, devoid of mass.

Aether and matter have mass.

As far as we know, aether exists everywhere particles of matter do not.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

That's you big mistake.

Atoms are basically made of 'aether' because of their strong fields. There
is no aether where there is no matter...or fields.

[mpc755]

space, devoid of matter and aether.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

You haven't been there to investigate...so don't make wild claims.

[mpc755]

On May 27, 9:44 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>
> You haven't been there to investigate...so don't make wild claims.

A particle is a moving singularity which has an associated aether
displacement wave.

In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path

which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the aether

passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates
wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction
it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave

piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Detecting the particle

strongly exiting a single slit destroys the coherence between the

particle and its associated wave in the aether.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double
slit experiment; the aether.