> Is there such a thing as 'non-physical' properties?
> > If they are physical properties the 'space' physically
> > exists, correct?
> Of course space exists.
> > If 'space' physically exists then space physically
> > occupies three dimensional space, correct?
> No. Space *is* 4 dimensional space.
So, is the three dimensional space unoccupied by particles of matter
an empty void incapable of supporting physical properties or does
three dimensional space support physical properties.
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:37:46 -0500, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:
>On 11/18/2012 3:50 PM, Painius wrote:
>>> The spatial extension is the state of displacement of the aether.
>> You call that "stuff" aether. I call that "stuff" the SPED. You say
>> the stuff displaces matter. I say the stuff flows into matter. You
>> say that the displacement of matter by the aether "is gravity". I say
>> that the flow of space into matter is the "cause of gravity".
>> We're not that far off from each other, I think, but there *are* some
>> significant differences in our conclusions. I don't expect to change
>> your mind, and you probably don't expect to change my mind. Both your
>> and my conclusions are considered by physics to be far off the
>> mainstream viewpoint on this subject. So we should probably just
>> accept each other's conclusions as controversial and quite possibly
>> close approximations of reality. Of course, Mike, that's all up to
>> you.
>Painus, Mike is a deeply disturbed individual who suffers from (among >other things) OCD. By encouraging him, you only make his condition worse.
>PS- There is no such thing as ether either.
Well, Harlow, now it appears that you sport a psych degree, in
addition to all your other collegiate accomplishments? Mike may seem
a little disturbed, but he's not a ko0k. He's just another of us
[tinu] who has his own ideas about the nature of space, gravity, the
enigmas of the double-slit results, and so on.
So he's a bit of a dreamer? so what? You don't have to take your
inability to think outside the box out on him, do you?
Wouldn't that would be gay? -- Yes -- very, very gay.
<bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 19, 4:21 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 12:45 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Message received and rejected, only because the OCD messenger is
>> > acting as though no other science or physics counts with any regard to
>> > gravity that seems to be clearly observed and measured as associated
>> > with ordinary matter and otherwise not with aether.
>> > If aether has such minimal density and only represents a great deal of
>> > mass because of its supersolid volume being so much greater than the
>> > volume of what our universe has to offer, then perhaps local gravity
>> > isn't so much aether as it is from the weak molecular and strong
>> > atomic force related.
>> > Your inability to qualify and/or quantify the aether gravity theory is
>> > not my fault, nor is my acceptance required for you to continue. You
>> > should start a personal Google Group, and then manage it to suit how
>> > you think is best. If your Google Group on aether is any good, it'll
>> > attract the attention of others that you seem to be asking for.
>> > Meanwhile, with or without aether (or gravity), life as we know it
>> > must continue.
>> Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.
>> Why don't you read some of the following articles.
>> 'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and
>> Inertial Backreaction'http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458
>> "We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a
>> kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide
>> further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself."
>> The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of
>> a solid, a supersolid, which is described in the article as the
>> 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The 'back-reaction' described in the
>> article is the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward
>> pressure toward the matter.
>> The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid
>> resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused
>> by pressure (or vorticity).
>> 'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old
>> Cosmological Constant Problem'http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955
>> "One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to
>> decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of
>> gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational
>> Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory
>> along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests
>> of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in
>> this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity."
>> The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by
>> aether toward matter.
>> "As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53??g,6a2 so, it is positive
>> if ?g < 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One
>> notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily
>> recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval ?g < 15
>> corresponds to the usual matter."
>> The following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is
>> the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.
>> "the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the
>> Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of
>> the presence of the background field"
>Why do you and other of your aether gang need my approval?
>Simply because reactions of ordinary mass create lensing and movement
>indicates displacements, I'm not convinced that aether is the one and
>only grand unification to gravity. This personal stance doesn't mean
>that I can't be convinced by something other than your repetitious
>parrot speak.
>Just identifying the existence of aether is by itself truly
>remarkable. But, is aether inside of atoms?
Yes, the spatial medium flows into every atom it encounters. That is
it's goal, it's aim. Energetic space, when it gets to the nucleus of
every atom, rejuvenates the forces of the atom. This is an ongoing
process and never stops.
Gravitation is actually a welcome side effect of that continuous
process. As space enters our bodies, some of it goes directly into
each and every one of our atoms to rejuvenate their nuclear forces.
The vast majority of that energetic space goes right on down through
us and into the Earth. That's what causes gravity and keeps our feet
on the ground in a manner similar to the wind blowing through the
sails of a windmill.
Then space continues on through the Earth, leaving behind some of
itself to enter each and every atom of the Earth to rejuvenate those
atoms. When it reaches the center of the Earth, space dissipates.
There is just enough space that enters Earth to rejuvenate all the
atoms of this planet, from the atmospheric gases, down to us, down to
the hot stuff at the center of the Earth.
That, in fact, is the very nature of Einstein's "spatial extension",
where physical objects are not IN SPACE, they are SPATIALLY
EXTENDED.
> Yes, the spatial medium flows into every atom it encounters. That is
> it's goal, it's aim. Energetic space, when it gets to the nucleus of
> every atom, rejuvenates the forces of the atom. This is an ongoing
> process and never stops.
> Gravitation is actually a welcome side effect of that continuous
> process. As space enters our bodies, some of it goes directly into
> each and every one of our atoms to rejuvenate their nuclear forces.
> The vast majority of that energetic space goes right on down through
> us and into the Earth. That's what causes gravity and keeps our feet
> on the ground in a manner similar to the wind blowing through the
> sails of a windmill.
> Then space continues on through the Earth, leaving behind some of
> itself to enter each and every atom of the Earth to rejuvenate those
> atoms. When it reaches the center of the Earth, space dissipates.
> There is just enough space that enters Earth to rejuvenate all the
> atoms of this planet, from the atmospheric gases, down to us, down to
> the hot stuff at the center of the Earth.
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:43:37 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 19, 4:21 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 19, 12:45 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Message received and rejected, only because the OCD messenger is
> >> > acting as though no other science or physics counts with any regard to
> >> > gravity that seems to be clearly observed and measured as associated
> >> > with ordinary matter and otherwise not with aether.
> >> > If aether has such minimal density and only represents a great deal of
> >> > mass because of its supersolid volume being so much greater than the
> >> > volume of what our universe has to offer, then perhaps local gravity
> >> > isn't so much aether as it is from the weak molecular and strong
> >> > atomic force related.
> >> > Your inability to qualify and/or quantify the aether gravity theory is
> >> > not my fault, nor is my acceptance required for you to continue. You
> >> > should start a personal Google Group, and then manage it to suit how
> >> > you think is best. If your Google Group on aether is any good, it'll
> >> > attract the attention of others that you seem to be asking for.
> >> > Meanwhile, with or without aether (or gravity), life as we know it
> >> > must continue.
> >> Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.
> >> Why don't you read some of the following articles.
> >> 'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and
> >> Inertial Backreaction'http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458
> >> "We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a
> >> kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide
> >> further evidence of the fluidic nature of space itself."
> >> The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of
> >> a solid, a supersolid, which is described in the article as the
> >> 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The 'back-reaction' described in the
> >> article is the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward
> >> pressure toward the matter.
> >> The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid
> >> resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused
> >> by pressure (or vorticity).
> >> 'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old
> >> Cosmological Constant Problem'http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955
> >> "One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to
> >> decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of
> >> gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational
> >> Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory
> >> along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests
> >> of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in
> >> this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity."
> >> The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by
> >> aether toward matter.
> >> "As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53??g,6a2 so, it is positive
> >> if ?g < 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One
> >> notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily
> >> recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval ?g < 15
> >> corresponds to the usual matter."
> >> The following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is
> >> the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.
> >> "the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the
> >> Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of aether because of
> >> the presence of the background field"
> >Why do you and other of your aether gang need my approval?
> >Simply because reactions of ordinary mass create lensing and movement
> >indicates displacements, I'm not convinced that aether is the one and
> >only grand unification to gravity. This personal stance doesn't mean
> >that I can't be convinced by something other than your repetitious
> >parrot speak.
> >Just identifying the existence of aether is by itself truly
> >remarkable. But, is aether inside of atoms?
> Yes, the spatial medium flows into every atom it encounters. That is
> it's goal, it's aim. Energetic space, when it gets to the nucleus of
> every atom, rejuvenates the forces of the atom. This is an ongoing
> process and never stops.
> Gravitation is actually a welcome side effect of that continuous
> process. As space enters our bodies, some of it goes directly into
> each and every one of our atoms to rejuvenate their nuclear forces.
> The vast majority of that energetic space goes right on down through
> us and into the Earth. That's what causes gravity and keeps our feet
> on the ground in a manner similar to the wind blowing through the
> sails of a windmill.
> Then space continues on through the Earth, leaving behind some of
> itself to enter each and every atom of the Earth to rejuvenate those
> atoms. When it reaches the center of the Earth, space dissipates.
> There is just enough space that enters Earth to rejuvenate all the
> atoms of this planet, from the atmospheric gases, down to us, down to
> the hot stuff at the center of the Earth.
> That, in fact, is the very nature of Einstein's "spatial extension",
> where physical objects are not IN SPACE, they are SPATIALLY
> EXTENDED.
Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by matter. Displaced aether pushes back
and exerts inward pressure toward matter.
Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
matter is gravity.
Objects are spatially extended because they exist in and displace the
aether.
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:52:02 -0500, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:
>On 11/18/2012 6:09 PM, Painius wrote:
>> When the idea of a spatial medium once more is taken seriously by
>> astrophysics
>It IS taken seriously by me and my fellow astrophysicists.
>We call it 'space'. Space has properties.
>Those who claim 'ether', like you do, do so for various >religious/paranormal/sci-fi reasons.
Harlow, you're a crude, rude and tatooed dude. Everybody who reads
you knows by now that you ain't got what it takes to be a scientist of
any kind. So you have no "fellow astrophysicists".
Space has properties, yes, and there are many of those that remain
unknown because the true astrophysicists of this world are still
diligently at work in an effort to solve the mysteries of space, as
alluded to by Einstein and many others.
I do not claim an "ether". The idea of a static, stationary ether or
aether is archaic and was rightfully flushed in the early 20th
century. What I do claim is a dynamic spatial medium that flows into
galaxies, into Suns, into planets, even into us [tinu] with the
express goal to constantly rejuvenate each and every atom of matter.
Gravitation is just a welcome byproduct of that continuous process.
So please leave your god and your religion out of science discussions.
It makes you sound extremely boorish. lmfao!
>On Nov 19, 8:53 am, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:
>> On 11/19/2012 8:12 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>> >>> When the idea of a spatial medium once more is taken seriously by
>> >>> astrophysics
>> >> It IS taken seriously by me and my fellow astrophysicists.
>> >> We call it 'space'. Space has properties.
>> >> Those who claim 'ether', like you do, do so for various
>> >> religious/paranormal/sci-fi reasons.
>> > One of the properties is that it is physically displaced by the
>> > objects which exist in it.
>> > Displaced 'space' pushing back toward matter is gravity.
>> Seek help for your OCD. Good luck!
>You said, 'space' has properties. They are physical properties,
>correct? If they are physical properties the 'space' physically
>exists, correct? If 'space' physically exists then space physically
>occupies three dimensional space, correct? If 'space' physically
>occupies three dimensional space then 'space' is physically displaced
>by the objects which exist in it, correct?
Yes, Mike, all of that is correct. However space's displacement of
and by matter does not generate nearly enough force to be responsible
for gravitation.
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:16:20 -0800 (PST), mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Nov 19, 8:53 am, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:
> >> On 11/19/2012 8:12 AM, mpc755 wrote:
> >> >>> When the idea of a spatial medium once more is taken seriously by
> >> >>> astrophysics
> >> >> It IS taken seriously by me and my fellow astrophysicists.
> >> >> We call it 'space'. Space has properties.
> >> >> Those who claim 'ether', like you do, do so for various
> >> >> religious/paranormal/sci-fi reasons.
> >> > One of the properties is that it is physically displaced by the
> >> > objects which exist in it.
> >> > Displaced 'space' pushing back toward matter is gravity.
> >> Seek help for your OCD. Good luck!
> >You said, 'space' has properties. They are physical properties,
> >correct? If they are physical properties the 'space' physically
> >exists, correct? If 'space' physically exists then space physically
> >occupies three dimensional space, correct? If 'space' physically
> >occupies three dimensional space then 'space' is physically displaced
> >by the objects which exist in it, correct?
> Yes, Mike, all of that is correct. However space's displacement of
> and by matter does not generate nearly enough force to be responsible
> for gravitation.
You should read some of the following articles where gravity is
described as a pressure exerted by the aether.
"We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a
kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide
further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself."
The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of
a solid, a supersolid, which is described in the article as the
'fluidic' nature of space itself. The 'back-reaction' described in the
article is the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward
pressure toward the matter.
The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid
resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused
by pressure (or vorticity).
'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old
Cosmological Constant Problem'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955
"One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to
decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of
gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational
Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory
along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests
of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in
this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity."
The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by
aether toward matter.
"As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53−αg,6a2 so, it is positive
if αg < 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One
notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily
recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval αg < 15
corresponds to the usual matter."
The following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is
the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.
"the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the
Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of
the presence of the background field"
>> It IS taken seriously by me and my fellow astrophysicists.
>> We call it 'space'. Space has properties.
>> Those who claim 'ether', like you do, do so for various
>> religious/paranormal/sci-fi reasons.
> Harlow, you're a crude, rude and tatooed dude.
Thank you.
> Everybody who reads
> you knows by now that you ain't got what it takes to be a scientist of
> any kind.
Ah...So now you speak for 'everyone'? I thought that was BJ's job.
> So you have no "fellow astrophysicists".
Since I am now retired, I suppose you are correct.
> Space has properties, yes, and there are many of those that remain
> unknown because the true astrophysicists of this world are still
> diligently at work in an effort to solve the mysteries of space, as
> alluded to by Einstein and many others.
But we sure as fuck ain't working on anything with the word 'ether' in it. We leave that up to you religious freaks.
> >> It IS taken seriously by me and my fellow astrophysicists.
> >> We call it 'space'. Space has properties.
> >> Those who claim 'ether', like you do, do so for various
> >> religious/paranormal/sci-fi reasons.
> > Harlow, you're a crude, rude and tatooed dude.
> Thank you.
> > Everybody who reads
> > you knows by now that you ain't got what it takes to be a scientist of
> > any kind.
> Ah...So now you speak for 'everyone'? I thought that was BJ's job.
> > So you have no "fellow astrophysicists".
> Since I am now retired, I suppose you are correct.
> > Space has properties, yes, and there are many of those that remain
> > unknown because the true astrophysicists of this world are still
> > diligently at work in an effort to solve the mysteries of space, as
> > alluded to by Einstein and many others.
> But we sure as fuck ain't working on anything with the word 'ether' in
> it. We leave that up to you religious freaks.
Does the 'empty' space between the Earth and the Moon support physical
properties?
> On Nov 19, 9:43 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 4:21 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 19, 12:45 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Message received and rejected, only because the OCD messenger is
> > > > acting as though no other science or physics counts with any regard to
> > > > gravity that seems to be clearly observed and measured as associated
> > > > with ordinary matter and otherwise not with aether.
> > > > If aether has such minimal density and only represents a great deal of
> > > > mass because of its supersolid volume being so much greater than the
> > > > volume of what our universe has to offer, then perhaps local gravity
> > > > isn't so much aether as it is from the weak molecular and strong
> > > > atomic force related.
> > > > Your inability to qualify and/or quantify the aether gravity theory is
> > > > not my fault, nor is my acceptance required for you to continue. You
> > > > should start a personal Google Group, and then manage it to suit how
> > > > you think is best. If your Google Group on aether is any good, it'll
> > > > attract the attention of others that you seem to be asking for.
> > > > Meanwhile, with or without aether (or gravity), life as we know it
> > > > must continue.
> > > Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.
> > > Why don't you read some of the following articles.
> > > 'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and
> > > Inertial Backreaction'http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458
> > > "We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a
> > > kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide
> > > further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself."
> > > The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of
> > > a solid, a supersolid, which is described in the article as the
> > > 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The 'back-reaction' described in the
> > > article is the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward
> > > pressure toward the matter.
> > > The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid
> > > resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused
> > > by pressure (or vorticity).
> > > 'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old
> > > Cosmological Constant Problem'http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955
> > > "One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to
> > > decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of
> > > gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational
> > > Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory
> > > along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests
> > > of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in
> > > this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity."
> > > The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by
> > > aether toward matter.
> > > "As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53−αg,6a2 so, it is positive
> > > if αg < 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One
> > > notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily
> > > recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval αg < 15
> > > corresponds to the usual matter."
> > > The following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is
> > > the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.
> > > "the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the
> > > Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of
> > > the presence of the background field"
> > Why do you and other of your aether gang need my approval?
> > Simply because reactions of ordinary mass create lensing and movement
> > indicates displacements, I'm not convinced that aether is the one and
> > only grand unification to gravity. This personal stance doesn't mean
> > that I can't be convinced by something other than your repetitious
> > parrot speak.
> > Just identifying the existence of aether is by itself truly
> > remarkable. But, is aether inside of atoms?
> Aether exists everywhere particles of matter do not, including the
> spaces within atoms.
> Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.
Sorry, I don't have another cracker for you.
Do you have any new research or that of your own science to offer?
> I do not claim an "ether". The idea of a static, stationary ether or
> aether is archaic and was rightfully flushed in the early 20th
> century. What I do claim is a dynamic spatial medium that flows into
> galaxies, into Suns, into planets, even into us [tinu] with the
> express goal to constantly rejuvenate each and every atom of matter.
> Gravitation is just a welcome byproduct of that continuous process.
>On Nov 18, 6:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 18, 5:58 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 18:39:53 -0800 (PST), mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >On Nov 17, 4:49 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > >> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:10:55 -0800 (PST), mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >> >On Nov 17, 2:46 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > >> >> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 05:17:37 -0800 (PST), mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com>
>> > >> >> wrote:
>> > >> >> > . . .
>> > >> >> >I call the displacement of the aether by particles of matter
>> > >> >> >displacement.
>> > >> >> One more time...
>> > >> >> You yourself stated that displacement is not movement, correct?
>> > >> >> Then I stated that, while displacement is not movement, displacement
>> > >> >> *causes* movement.
>> > >> >> I asked you what do you call that movement. I did NOT ask you what
>> > >> >> you call the displacement, which is a different thing altogether. I
>> > >> >> asked you what you call the M O V E M E N T of the aether!
>> > >> >> NOT the "displacement" of the aether - the MOVEMENT of the aether -
>> > >> >> what do you call the movement of the aether.
>> > >> >> Please address the MOVEMENT of the aether, not the displacement of it.
>> > >> >The particle displaces the aether. The aether displaces the particle.
>> > >> >It is the particle that moved.
>> > >> Why?
>> > >Because the particle is displaced by the aether.
>> > That doesn't quite follow from what you said before. You have said
>> > that the particle is both "displaced by" and "displaces" the aether.
>> > So by what reasoning do you conclude that ONLY the particle would
>> > move?
>> > --
>> > Indelibly yours,
>> > Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ >> > "When you act more sensibly than others, they'll call it 'luck'."
>> "Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two
>> entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory
>> surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the
>> course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance -
>> we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water
>> alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for
>> tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental
>> impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were
>> observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it
>> varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water
>> consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise
>> it as a medium."
>> if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of
>> the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have
>> no ground for the assumption that gravity is caused by movable
>> particles.
>> if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of
>> the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have
>> no ground for the assumption that water flows.
>if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of
>the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have
>no ground for the assumption that gravity is caused by movable
>particles.
>if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of
>the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have
>no ground for the assumption that aether flows.
if, in fact the pressure of space is constant, as seen by the constant
speed of light and other electromagnetic radiation through the Solar
system, we should have no ground for the assumption that the constant
pressure of space on physical objects that move through it and
displace it causes gravity -- especially when one considers that the
force of gravity is **different** for each physical object of
**different** mass.
> >> > >> >> > . . .
> >> > >> >> >I call the displacement of the aether by particles of matter
> >> > >> >> >displacement.
> >> > >> >> One more time...
> >> > >> >> You yourself stated that displacement is not movement, correct?
> >> > >> >> Then I stated that, while displacement is not movement, displacement
> >> > >> >> *causes* movement.
> >> > >> >> I asked you what do you call that movement. I did NOT ask you what
> >> > >> >> you call the displacement, which is a different thing altogether. I
> >> > >> >> asked you what you call the M O V E M E N T of the aether!
> >> > >> >> NOT the "displacement" of the aether - the MOVEMENT of the aether -
> >> > >> >> what do you call the movement of the aether.
> >> > >> >> Please address the MOVEMENT of the aether, not the displacement of it.
> >> > >> >The particle displaces the aether. The aether displaces the particle.
> >> > >> >It is the particle that moved.
> >> > >> Why?
> >> > >Because the particle is displaced by the aether.
> >> > That doesn't quite follow from what you said before. You have said
> >> > that the particle is both "displaced by" and "displaces" the aether.
> >> > So by what reasoning do you conclude that ONLY the particle would
> >> > move?
> >> > --
> >> > Indelibly yours,
> >> > Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ > >> > "When you act more sensibly than others, they'll call it 'luck'."
> >> "Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two
> >> entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory
> >> surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the
> >> course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance -
> >> we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water
> >> alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for
> >> tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental
> >> impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were
> >> observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it
> >> varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water
> >> consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise
> >> it as a medium."
> >> if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of
> >> the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have
> >> no ground for the assumption that gravity is caused by movable
> >> particles.
> >> if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of
> >> the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have
> >> no ground for the assumption that water flows.
> >if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of
> >the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have
> >no ground for the assumption that gravity is caused by movable
> >particles.
> >if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of
> >the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have
> >no ground for the assumption that aether flows.
> if, in fact the pressure of space is constant, as seen by the constant
> speed of light and other electromagnetic radiation through the Solar
> system, we should have no ground for the assumption that the constant
> pressure of space on physical objects that move through it and
> displace it causes gravity -- especially when one considers that the
> force of gravity is **different** for each physical object of
> **different** mass.
Everything is with respect to the state of the aether in which it
exists, including the rate at which atomic clocks tick. This is why
the speed of light is always determined to be 'c'.
The pressure associated with the displaced aether is caused by the
state of displacement of the aether.
"a "field" in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with
interconnected vibrating balls and springs, and the strength of the
field can be visualized as the displacement of a ball from its rest
position"
A 'field' in physics is space filled with aether and the strength of
the field is the displacement of the aether from its rest position.
Each of the plates in the Casimir effect displace the aether. The
displaced aether which exists between the plates is pushing back
toward each of the plates which causes the aether displaced by each of
the plates which exists between the plates to offset. This aether is
more at rest than the aether which is displaced by the plates which
encompasses the plates. The reduced force associated with the aether
which exists between the plates along with the displaced aether which
encompasses the plates which is pushing back and exerting inward
pressure toward the plates causes the plates to be forced together.
What occurs physically in nature in the Casimir effect is the same
phenomenon as gravity.
There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Aether has mass
and physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically
displaced by matter.
Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
matter is gravity.
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:43:37 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 19, 4:21 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 19, 12:45 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Message received and rejected, only because the OCD messenger is
> >> > acting as though no other science or physics counts with any regard to
> >> > gravity that seems to be clearly observed and measured as associated
> >> > with ordinary matter and otherwise not with aether.
> >> > If aether has such minimal density and only represents a great deal of
> >> > mass because of its supersolid volume being so much greater than the
> >> > volume of what our universe has to offer, then perhaps local gravity
> >> > isn't so much aether as it is from the weak molecular and strong
> >> > atomic force related.
> >> > Your inability to qualify and/or quantify the aether gravity theory is
> >> > not my fault, nor is my acceptance required for you to continue. You
> >> > should start a personal Google Group, and then manage it to suit how
> >> > you think is best. If your Google Group on aether is any good, it'll
> >> > attract the attention of others that you seem to be asking for.
> >> > Meanwhile, with or without aether (or gravity), life as we know it
> >> > must continue.
> >> Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.
> >> Why don't you read some of the following articles.
> >> 'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and
> >> Inertial Backreaction'http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458
> >> "We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a
> >> kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide
> >> further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself."
> >> The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of
> >> a solid, a supersolid, which is described in the article as the
> >> 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The 'back-reaction' described in the
> >> article is the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward
> >> pressure toward the matter.
> >> The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid
> >> resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused
> >> by pressure (or vorticity).
> >> 'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old
> >> Cosmological Constant Problem'http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955
> >> "One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to
> >> decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of
> >> gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational
> >> Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory
> >> along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests
> >> of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in
> >> this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity."
> >> The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by
> >> aether toward matter.
> >> "As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53??g,6a2 so, it is positive
> >> if ?g < 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One
> >> notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily
> >> recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval ?g < 15
> >> corresponds to the usual matter."
> >> The following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is
> >> the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.
> >> "the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the
> >> Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of
> >> the presence of the background field"
> >Why do you and other of your aether gang need my approval?
> >Simply because reactions of ordinary mass create lensing and movement
> >indicates displacements, I'm not convinced that aether is the one and
> >only grand unification to gravity. This personal stance doesn't mean
> >that I can't be convinced by something other than your repetitious
> >parrot speak.
> >Just identifying the existence of aether is by itself truly
> >remarkable. But, is aether inside of atoms?
> Yes, the spatial medium flows into every atom it encounters. That is
> it's goal, it's aim. Energetic space, when it gets to the nucleus of
> every atom, rejuvenates the forces of the atom. This is an ongoing
> process and never stops.
> Gravitation is actually a welcome side effect of that continuous
> process. As space enters our bodies, some of it goes directly into
> each and every one of our atoms to rejuvenate their nuclear forces.
> The vast majority of that energetic space goes right on down through
> us and into the Earth. That's what causes gravity and keeps our feet
> on the ground in a manner similar to the wind blowing through the
> sails of a windmill.
> Then space continues on through the Earth, leaving behind some of
> itself to enter each and every atom of the Earth to rejuvenate those
> atoms. When it reaches the center of the Earth, space dissipates.
> There is just enough space that enters Earth to rejuvenate all the
> atoms of this planet, from the atmospheric gases, down to us, down to
> the hot stuff at the center of the Earth.
> That, in fact, is the very nature of Einstein's "spatial extension",
> where physical objects are not IN SPACE, they are SPATIALLY
> EXTENDED.
Then the empty space within each and every atom has properties,
similar to or the same as aether, and the density of this subatomic or
quantum string like aether substance should represent some logical
kind of mass or possibly antimass.
Aether could in fact be the atomic recharge that makes them immortal,
and as such this aether could definitely have some action/reaction
that either creates gravity or at least reinforces it as somehow
"SPATIALLY EXTENDED".
As far as I know, it's impossible to see or otherwise directly detect
anything that's 2D or quantum string like, regardless of its volume,
density, mass or velocity. However, indirectly via lensing or cosmic
displacement waves seems to give us those perfectly valid clues as to
the existence of aether.
mpc755 doesn't seem to care about any interpretations other than his
own, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, though annoying when his
analogies are not easily followed. mpc755 should have his very own
Google Group, moderated exactly as he thinks best, though obviously
mpc755 can't even seem to post an original Usenet/newsgroup topic, and
what's up with that?
> On Nov 19, 8:38 am, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:43:37 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
> > <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Nov 19, 4:21 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Nov 19, 12:45 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > Message received and rejected, only because the OCD messenger is
> > >> > acting as though no other science or physics counts with any regard to
> > >> > gravity that seems to be clearly observed and measured as associated
> > >> > with ordinary matter and otherwise not with aether.
> > >> > If aether has such minimal density and only represents a great deal of
> > >> > mass because of its supersolid volume being so much greater than the
> > >> > volume of what our universe has to offer, then perhaps local gravity
> > >> > isn't so much aether as it is from the weak molecular and strong
> > >> > atomic force related.
> > >> > Your inability to qualify and/or quantify the aether gravity theory is
> > >> > not my fault, nor is my acceptance required for you to continue. You
> > >> > should start a personal Google Group, and then manage it to suit how
> > >> > you think is best. If your Google Group on aether is any good, it'll
> > >> > attract the attention of others that you seem to be asking for.
> > >> > Meanwhile, with or without aether (or gravity), life as we know it
> > >> > must continue.
> > >> Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.
> > >> Why don't you read some of the following articles.
> > >> 'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and
> > >> Inertial Backreaction'http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458
> > >> "We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a
> > >> kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide
> > >> further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself."
> > >> The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of
> > >> a solid, a supersolid, which is described in the article as the
> > >> 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The 'back-reaction' described in the
> > >> article is the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward
> > >> pressure toward the matter.
> > >> The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid
> > >> resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused
> > >> by pressure (or vorticity).
> > >> 'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old
> > >> Cosmological Constant Problem'http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955
> > >> "One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to
> > >> decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of
> > >> gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational
> > >> Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory
> > >> along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests
> > >> of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in
> > >> this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity."
> > >> The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by
> > >> aether toward matter.
> > >> "As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53??g,6a2 so, it is positive
> > >> if ?g < 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One
> > >> notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily
> > >> recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval ?g < 15
> > >> corresponds to the usual matter."
> > >> The following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is
> > >> the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.
> > >> "the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the
> > >> Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of
> > >> the presence of the background field"
> > >Why do you and other of your aether gang need my approval?
> > >Simply because reactions of ordinary mass create lensing and movement
> > >indicates displacements, I'm not convinced that aether is the one and
> > >only grand unification to gravity. This personal stance doesn't mean
> > >that I can't be convinced by something other than your repetitious
> > >parrot speak.
> > >Just identifying the existence of aether is by itself truly
> > >remarkable. But, is aether inside of atoms?
> > Yes, the spatial medium flows into every atom it encounters. That is
> > it's goal, it's aim. Energetic space, when it gets to the nucleus of
> > every atom, rejuvenates the forces of the atom. This is an ongoing
> > process and never stops.
> > Gravitation is actually a welcome side effect of that continuous
> > process. As space enters our bodies, some of it goes directly into
> > each and every one of our atoms to rejuvenate their nuclear forces.
> > The vast majority of that energetic space goes right on down through
> > us and into the Earth. That's what causes gravity and keeps our feet
> > on the ground in a manner similar to the wind blowing through the
> > sails of a windmill.
> > Then space continues on through the Earth, leaving behind some of
> > itself to enter each and every atom of the Earth to rejuvenate those
> > atoms. When it reaches the center of the Earth, space dissipates.
> > There is just enough space that enters Earth to rejuvenate all the
> > atoms of this planet, from the atmospheric gases, down to us, down to
> > the hot stuff at the center of the Earth.
> > That, in fact, is the very nature of Einstein's "spatial extension",
> > where physical objects are not IN SPACE, they are SPATIALLY
> > EXTENDED.
> > --
> > Indelibly yours,
> > Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ > > "A quote may flash light into areas where reason shines but dimly."
> Then the empty space within each and every atom has properties,
> similar to or the same as aether, and the density of this subatomic or
> quantum string like aether substance should represent some logical
> kind of mass or possibly antimass.
> Aether could in fact be the atomic recharge that makes them immortal,
> and as such this aether could definitely have some action/reaction
> that either creates gravity or at least reinforces it as somehow
> "SPATIALLY EXTENDED".
> As far as I know, it's impossible to see or otherwise directly detect
> anything that's 2D or quantum string like, regardless of its volume,
> density, mass or velocity. However, indirectly via lensing or cosmic
> displacement waves seems to give us those perfectly valid clues as to
> the existence of aether.
> mpc755 doesn't seem to care about any interpretations other than his
> own, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, though annoying when his
> analogies are not easily followed. mpc755 should have his very own
> Google Group, moderated exactly as he thinks best, though obviously
> mpc755 can't even seem to post an original Usenet/newsgroup topic, and
> what's up with that?
The 'spatial extension' of an object is the state of the aether
connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the
object.
Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:16:20 -0800 (PST), mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Nov 19, 8:53 am, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:
> >> On 11/19/2012 8:12 AM, mpc755 wrote:
> >> >>> When the idea of a spatial medium once more is taken seriously by
> >> >>> astrophysics
> >> >> It IS taken seriously by me and my fellow astrophysicists.
> >> >> We call it 'space'. Space has properties.
> >> >> Those who claim 'ether', like you do, do so for various
> >> >> religious/paranormal/sci-fi reasons.
> >> > One of the properties is that it is physically displaced by the
> >> > objects which exist in it.
> >> > Displaced 'space' pushing back toward matter is gravity.
> >> Seek help for your OCD. Good luck!
> >You said, 'space' has properties. They are physical properties,
> >correct? If they are physical properties the 'space' physically
> >exists, correct? If 'space' physically exists then space physically
> >occupies three dimensional space, correct? If 'space' physically
> >occupies three dimensional space then 'space' is physically displaced
> >by the objects which exist in it, correct?
> Yes, Mike, all of that is correct. However space's displacement of
> and by matter does not generate nearly enough force to be responsible
> for gravitation.
Now you're right back on mpc755's NO FLY list, for having suggested
that gravity and aether are not essentially one and the same.
Don't you know a holy grail of the all-inclusive unified theory of
gravity when you see it? (apparently we're just not smart enough for
the likes of mpc755)
Gravity could be a 2D or 4D kind of spacial extension, although the
arguments and suggested interpretations via the science and analogies
offered by mpc755 are not quite good enough, at least not yet. Of
course you and most others still can't seem to deductively interpret
an image of Venus in any logical fashion that can explain away those
odd geometric patterns at GuthVenus, as being perfectly natural
geology.
