A realistic Aether Model that explains Inertia via SPIN.

[rdo...@mail.com]

Subj: A realistic Aether Model that explains Inertia via SPIN.


The model offers possible explanations for the Universe's most fundamental
properties, such as some of the missing mass of the Universe, Pair Production,
and the energy density of "empty space".

The model could also explain Fermion SPIN and all Inertia as caused by
two monopoles revolving around a common axis.

Empty space's energy density, of a Mev per fm^3, compresses nuclei together in
a "Strong Force" manner and could be the origin of the ZPE.

See the paper at:

http://mister-computer.net/5space/Monopoles.htm


--
Regards from RD at "rdo....@mister-computer.net"

--
Regards from RD at "rdo....@mister-computer.net"

[G=EMC^2]

On May 15, 8:56 am, rdo...@mail.com wrote:
> Subj: A realistic Aether Model that explains Inertia via SPIN.
>
> The model offers possible explanations for the Universe's most fundamental
> properties, such as some of the missing mass of the Universe, Pair Production,
> and the energy density of "empty space".
>
> The model could also explain Fermion SPIN and all Inertia as caused by
> two monopoles revolving around a common axis.
>
> Empty space's energy density, of a Mev per fm^3, compresses nuclei together in
> a "Strong Force" manner and could be the origin of the ZPE.
>
> See the paper at:
>
>    http://mister-computer.net/5space/Monopoles.htm
>
> --

>  Regards from RD at "rdo.me...@mister-computer.net"
>
> --
>  Regards from RD at "rdo.me...@mister-computer.net"

My "Spin is in theory" shows how spin creates a form of inertia(Motion
= Inertia. Kicker is inertia and gravity are the same thing.,and I
have yet to explain how spin action gives attraction over distance. I
have been working on that for 68 years. TreBert

[holog]

consider the cause for "spin", a wirl pool , a vacuum or
concentration of force, its the boundary layer between a high and low
density, if a higher density creates a vacuum from removal of energy a
vacuum is formed over time, the lower density must compensate, and is
attracted in to the the lower pressure, the spin is a result of the
coriolis effect.

holog

[franklinhu]

On May 15, 5:56 am, rdo...@mail.com wrote:
> Subj: A realistic Aether Model that explains Inertia via SPIN.
>
> The model offers possible explanations for the Universe's most fundamental
> properties, such as some of the missing mass of the Universe, Pair Production,
> and the energy density of "empty space".
>
> The model could also explain Fermion SPIN and all Inertia as caused by
> two monopoles revolving around a common axis.
>
> Empty space's energy density, of a Mev per fm^3, compresses nuclei together in
> a "Strong Force" manner and could be the origin of the ZPE.
>
> See the paper at:
>
>    http://mister-computer.net/5space/Monopoles.htm
>
> --

>  Regards from RD at "rdo.me...@mister-computer.net"
>
> --
>  Regards from RD at "rdo.me...@mister-computer.net"

Your article states:

"All fermion particles would consist of two SPINing Monopoles, each
having half the mass of particle.

eg. The proton would consist of two SPINing opposite Monopoles of 469
Mev each;

Either one of a Proton's interior solid Monopole pair, could be
interpreted
as a Quark particle in the 1968 SLAC collision experiments.

the anti-proton would SPIN in the opposite direction of the Proton.

Single Monopoles in isolation would not exist due to always being
paired with its opposite.

In addition, since these nodes are the mechanism of Maxwell's
equations,
their internal nature would not have conventional E&M characteristics;
if any at all.

-------------------------------

If correct, this model could explain the origins of Inertia, Spin,
Pair-Production, Electric and Magnetic fields and Static-electricty."

Huh?? How do monopoles explain all of these things? You don't explain
anything. If you want an explanation for these things, try my website:

http://franklinhu.com/theory.html

Now, this "explains" inertia:

All space is filled with dipoles made out of positron/electron pairs
(poselectrons).

These pairs are attracted to one another and line up head to tail.

To move a particle through this matrix, it takes energy to separate
the poselectrons. The amount of energy is what we refer to as 'mass'.

As the particle passes the first set of poselectrons, they form back
together like two magnets which squeeze the particle forward.

Thus, the energy the particle used to separate the poselectron
particles is given back to the particle as kinetic energy which then
causes the process to repeat.

It is this repeating process of transferring energy into the
poselectron matrix and giving it back that keeps the particle in
motion once it is given an initial energy to move it.

See, now that explains inertia, not spinning monopoles which I can't
see doing anything.

fhuinertia

[bjacoby]

On 6/12/2012 1:47 AM, franklinhu wrote:

> If correct, this model could explain the origins of Inertia, Spin,
> Pair-Production, Electric and Magnetic fields and Static-electricty."
>
> Huh?? How do monopoles explain all of these things? You don't explain
> anything. If you want an explanation for these things, try my website:
>
> http://franklinhu.com/theory.html
>
> Now, this "explains" inertia:
>
> All space is filled with dipoles made out of positron/electron pairs
> (poselectrons).
>
> These pairs are attracted to one another and line up head to tail.

Huh?? This is proposed as a "theory of Everything" but cantains grave
philosophical errors right at the start.

And that would be WHAT ARE electrons and positrons? In a proper Aether
theory the differences between these two things MUST relate to something
in the ONE aether that must somehow make up ALL things! Why must this be
true? Because if two things are DIFFERENT that implies some finer
structure that create the differences. Not until one gets down to ONE
thing (aether) does such finer structures disappear.

Thus a space filled an e/p does not qualify.

A better theory would be space filled with ONE substance (aether) and if
we wish to understand inertia, let us presume that aether is FILLED with
traveling waves of all frequencies and directions flowing around that in
turn create standing waves, but these "standing" waves are not simply
standing still, they also are moving with a host of velocities from zero
(laboratory reference frame)to maximum (speed of light).

Now a particle of matter (subatomic particle) which we can regard as a
bit of "frozen" aether is influenced by these waves. When traveling
along it is essence "locks" on to a similar standing wave which is also
moving at it's given velocity. Hence things in motion tend to STAY in
motion. But to CHANGE velocity, one must force the particle to unlock
from the current standing wave and lock on to a NEW standing wave of
higher or lower velocity. This requires that force be supplied to either
speed or slow the particle to lock it onto the new wave. This is what is
termed "inertia". How much force is needed to produce a given
acceleration is calibrated by a coefficient of proportionality we term
"mass" of the particle. And that is determined by not only how many
particles there are in a given aggregation, but also by the "atomic"
coefficient of each atomic member.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

How does spin align in its infinite degrees of freedom?

[G=EMC^2]

The aether has a force wave that reaches every part of the cosmos It
can create or destroy. This spacetime its in its creative state.
TreBert

[franklinhu]

On Jun 12, 4:42 pm, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 6/12/2012 1:47 AM, franklinhu wrote:
>
> > If correct, this model could explain the origins of Inertia, Spin,
> > Pair-Production, Electric and Magnetic fields and Static-electricty."
>
> > Huh?? How do monopoles explain all of these things? You don't explain
> > anything. If you want an explanation for these things, try my website:
>
> >http://franklinhu.com/theory.html
>
> > Now, this "explains" inertia:
>
> > All space is filled with dipoles made out of positron/electron pairs
> > (poselectrons).
>
> > These pairs are attracted to one another and line up head to tail.
>
> Huh??  This is proposed as a "theory of Everything" but cantains grave
> philosophical errors right at the start.
>
> And that would be WHAT ARE electrons and positrons? In a proper Aether
> theory the differences between these two things MUST relate to something
> in the ONE aether that must somehow make up ALL things! Why must this be
> true? Because if two things are DIFFERENT that implies some finer
> structure that create the differences. Not until one gets down to ONE
> thing (aether) does such finer structures disappear.

Electrons and positrons are the only fundamental particle in the
universe and the aether is made out of these fundamental particles. So
the relation of the "these two things" to something in the "one
aether" is that the aether is composed of positrons/electrons. All
other mass is also composed of positrons and electrons. You seem to
imply that the aether must be made out of some other fundamental
particle, but that is simply unnecesary.

Futhermore, your theory fails to describe what the aether particle is
or its properties or how it gets the energy to sustain all these
infinite standing waves. If your theory is to have any credibility,
you are going to have to explain what your aether is made out of and
its relation to ordinary mass and how to find it.

Notice how I have fully defined the composition of the aether in terms
that we already know exist. There is no philisophical problem. I start
with things we know exist and build upon that. I don't have to
postulate anything like "standing waves" to get the behavior of mass
and inertia. The problem with postulating stuff like standing waves is
that we don't know these things exist, we have never observed such
waves experimentally in space and there is little hope of creating
such an experiment. You might as well say "fariy dust" is what causes
inertia. You are building castles in the air. On the other hand, we
know that positrons and electrons do defintely exist and we know their
properties. An aether composed of positron/electron dipoles should be
calculatable and be found experimentally.

So what is better, a theory based on "fariy dust standing waves" or
one based on particles and properties (positrons/electrons and the
electrostatic force) we know exist?

Although, I congratulate you on even coming up with a possible
candidate theory for inertia - I haven't heard of any before.

[mpc755]

Einstein defined motion as applied to the aether as the aether does
not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked
through time. I interpret this to mean it can not be known if aether
consists of particles or not.

I believe you are limiting your ability to understand the aether by
insisting it consists of particles.

In the following, Einstein is describing the aether as being analogous
to water where there is "no ground for the assumption that water
consists of movable particles".

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

"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."

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the
matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places is the state
of displacement of the aether.

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by 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 a well defined path which
takes it through one slit while the associated aether wave passes
through both.

There is plenty of evidence of aether waves.

'Surprise! IBEX Finds No Bow ‘Shock’ Outside our Solar System'
http://www.universetoday.com/95094/surprise-ibex-finds-no-bow-shock-outside-our-solar-system/

'“While bow shocks certainly exist ahead of many other stars, we’re
finding that our Sun’s interaction doesn’t reach the critical
threshold to form a shock,” said Dr. David McComas, principal
investigator of the IBEX mission, “so a wave is a more accurate
depiction of what’s happening ahead of our heliosphere — much like the
wave made by the bow of a boat as it glides through the water.”'

The wave ahead of our heliosphere is an aether displacement wave. This
is evidence of a moving 'particle', the solar system, having an
associated aether wave.

'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 moving 'particles' are the galaxy
clusters. The ripple is an aether displacement wave. The ripple is a
gravitational wave. This is also evidence of a moving 'particle', the
galaxy clusters, having an associated aether wave.

'Giant black hole kicked out of home galaxy'
http://www.astronomy.com/en/News-Observing/News/2012/06/Giant%20black%20hole%20kicked%20out%20of%20home%20galaxy.aspx

"But these new data support the idea that gravitational waves —
ripples in the fabric of space first predicted by Albert Einstein but
never detected directly — can exert an extremely powerful force."

The fabric of space is the aether.

Gravitational waves are ripples 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.

[mpc755]

On May 15, 12:06 pm, "G=EMC^2" <herbertglazi...@gmail.com> wrote:

If you have been working on it for 68 years and have yet to figure it
out then maybe it is incorrect and it is time to expand your horizon
of understanding what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity?

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html