Riedt’s antigamma and MMX

[Peter Riedt]

Riedt’s antigamma and MMX

In 1887, Michelson and Morley tested the existence of the ether with two light beams expecting them to interfere in the apparatus used. According to M&M, the light path length of beam A was 2D*(1+vv/cc) or 22.00000022m and the light path length of beam B was 2D*sqrt(1+cc/vv) or 22.00000011m. The difference D*(vv/cc) of 0.00000011m (D=11m,v=30000m/sec) should have produced interference rings but did not and Michelson and Morley concluded that there was no ether. There are at least four ways to explain the failure of the experiment but whatever explanation has been or will be advanced, MMX cannot detect the ether or establish physical relationships.

Explanation 1. Lorentz defended the existence of the ether and suggested that the light paths of the two beams were equalised by a contraction of the longer light path of beam A by 0.00000011m according to the formula L’=L/gamma where L = 22.00000022m and gamma = 1/sqrt(1-vv/cc) = 1.000000005.

Explanation 2. The Lorentz gamma formula can be replaced by the Riedt antigamma formula L’=L/antigamma where L = 22.00000011m and antigamma = 1/sqrt(1+vv/cc) = 0.999999995. If the light path length of beam B is divided by antigamma, it will expand beam B to 22.00000022m, equal in length to beam A.

Another approach is to equalise the transit times of beam A and B by varying the speed of light over beam A or B by the gamma or antigamma factors respectively but leaving the light path lengths unchanged.

The values for c, c’ and c’’ are (if v=30000m/sec)
c = 300000000m/sec (i.e. nominal speed of light)
c’ = 299999998.5m/sec (i.e. gamma speed = c/gamma)
c’’ = 300000001.5m/sec (i.e. antigamma speed = c/antigamma)

Explanation 3. Dividing the light path length of beam A by c obtains a transit time of
0.000000073333334066666700sec (22.00000022m/300000000m/sec)
and dividing the light path length of beam B by the slower c’ obtains a transit time also as
0.000000073333334066666700sec (22.00000011m/299999998.5m/sec).

Explanation 4. Dividing the light path length of beam A by the faster c’’ obtains a transit time of
0.000000073333333700000000sec (22.00000022m/300000001.5m/sec)
and dividing the light path length of beam B by c obtains a transit time also of
0.000000073333333700000000sec (22.00000011m/300000000m/sec).

The null effect of the Michelson&Morley experiment (MMX) can be explained by two gamma and two antigamma solutions. Two of the solutions equalise the light path length of the two beams and the other two equalise the transit times. Which of the four is logically correct? None. All can be mathematically substantiated but the real solution is entirely different. I will disclose it in the future.

Peter Riedt

[Koobee Wublee]

On Oct 3, 12:11 am, Peter Riedt <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> In 1887, Michelson and Morley tested the existence of the
> ether with two light beams expecting them to interfere in
> the apparatus used. According to M&M, the light path length
> of beam A was 2D*(1+vv/cc) or 22.00000022m and the light path
> length of beam B was 2D*sqrt(1+cc/vv) or 22.00000011m. The
> difference D*(vv/cc) of 0.00000011m (D=11m,v=30000m/sec) should
> have produced interference rings but did not and Michelson and
> Morley concluded that there was no ether.

The “no Aether” interpretation to the null results of the MMX happened
way after the experiment was performed by the next generation of self-
styled physicists not M & M. <shrug>

> There are at least four ways to explain the failure of the
> experiment but whatever explanation has been or will be advanced,
> MMX cannot detect the ether or establish physical relationships.

The null results of the MMX should not be construed as no Aether.
Experiments, proper interpretations, and analyses must be further
performed to conclude so. Historically, nothing occurred after the
MMX. It was jumped into conclusions without further experimental
supports, liberally interpretations of existing experimental data, and
blatant fudging of mathematics involved in which the self-styled
physicists show no professional ethics. <shrug>

> [variations on the Lorentz-FitzGerald length contraction snipped]

Any of these variations on the Lorentz-FitzGerald length contraction
could explain the null results of the MMX without evoking the
constancy in the speed of light. These length contractions allowed
the two-way measured speed of light to be the average the two ways,
and because the nature of the null results, the speed of light is
construed to be constant. <shrug>

> The null effect of the Michelson&Morley experiment (MMX) can
> be explained by two gamma and two antigamma solutions. Two of the
> solutions equalise the light path length of the two beams and the
> other two equalise the transit times. Which of the four is logically
> correct? None. All can be mathematically substantiated but the real
> solution is entirely different. I will disclose it in the future.

However, it is a modified version of the Lorentz-FitzGerald length
contraction that is accepted as Special Relativity through more
mathematical fudgings. The tell-tale sign from the man-made laws of
physics known as Special Relativity is the embarrassing manifestation
to the twins’ paradox. <shrug>

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d5f02113-5478-4ae2...@k13g2000pbq.googlegroups.com...

The null results of the MMX should not be construed as no Aether.

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

The null result of a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow

should not be construed as no leprechauns.

 http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_368/1235253257j3hYeR.jpg

Like aether, leprechauns MUST exist or there would be no rainbows.

Kinky Wobbly must exist or there would be no idiots.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[mpc755]

On Oct 3, 12:53 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
<LordAndroc...@October2012.org> wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:d5f02113-5478-4ae2...@k13g2000pbq.googlegroups.com...

The state of the aether connected to and neighboring the Earth is the
state of displacement of the aether.

The state of displacement of the aether remains the same, or almost
the same, throughout the Earth's rotation about its access and orbit
of the Sun.

This is the reason for the near-null MMX result.

[Big Dog]

On 10/3/2012 2:11 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Riedt�s antigamma and MMX

>
>
> The null effect of the Michelson&Morley experiment (MMX) can be explained by two gamma and two antigamma solutions.
> Two of the solutions equalise the light path length of the two beams and the other two equalise the transit times.
> Which of the four is logically correct? None. All can be mathematically substantiated but the real solution is
> entirely different. I will disclose it in the future.

There are LOTS and LOTS of models that satisfy the results of any given
single experiment. Contrary to what you may have heard, at the time of
the MMX it wasn't a simple choice between two and only two theories and
the result singled one out as the only viable theory remaining.

Relativity is supported not because of the MMX, but because of literally
scores of different experiments, all of which test different behaviors.
Different models can be applied to all these test cases, and some of
models make the same predictions as relativity in some cases and not in
other cases. So it takes ALL the experiments together to see which one
is the survivor. One experiment rules out on model, and another
experiment rules out a different model.

[mpc755]

On Oct 3, 1:53 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/3/2012 2:11 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>

> > Riedt’s antigamma and MMX

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable" - Albert Einstein

[Big Dog]

On 10/3/2012 12:54 PM, mpc755 wrote:
> On Oct 3, 1:53 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/3/2012 2:11 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>

>>> Riedt�s antigamma and MMX

I didn't say a single thing about ether. I don't know why you felt
compelled to bring it up.

[mpc755]

On Oct 3, 2:00 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/3/2012 12:54 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 3, 1:53 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/3/2012 2:11 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>

> >>> Riedt’s antigamma and MMX

You mentioned relativity. Relativity is an ether theory.

[Y]

On 3 Oct, 17:11, Peter Riedt <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Riedt’s antigamma and MMX
>
> In 1887, Michelson and Morley tested the existence of the ether

All they needed was a kite. If space were comprised of an intermediate
matter, (an aether) the Earth (with it's great speed) would be faced
with an aether wind, like an open train carriage.

Lorentz may have at one point or another theorised about an aether,
however he strongly aborted such concepts.

-y

[Peter Riedt]

KW, Michelson and Morley had some thoughts on the ether. After their interferometer experiment, they concluded that there was no ether and therefore no ether wind. They report the experiment in the American Journal of Science (VOL. XXXIV No. 203 of November, 1887) and write:

‘It appears, from all that precedes, reasonably certain that if there be any relative motion between the earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be small; quite small enough entirely to refute Fresnel's explanation of aberration. Stokes has given a theory of aberration which assumes the ether at the earth's surface to be at rest with regard to the latter, and only requires in addition that the relative velocity have a potential; but Lorentz shows that these conditions are incompatible. Lorentz then proposes a modification which combines some ideas of Stokes and Fresnel, and assumes the existence of a potential, together with Fresnel's coefficient. If now it were legitimate to conclude from the present work that the ether is at rest with regard to the earth's surface, according to Lorentz there could not be a velocity potential, and his own theory also falls.’

Peter Riedt

[mpc755]

On Oct 4, 8:57 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> KW, Michelson and Morley had some thoughts on the ether. After their interferometer experiment,  they concluded that there was no ether and therefore no ether wind. They report the experiment in the American Journal of Science (VOL. XXXIV No. 203 of November, 1887) and write:
>

> ‘It appears, from all that precedes, reasonably certain that if there be any relative motion between the earth and the luminiferNeither he nor Michelson ever considered that these null results disproved the hypothesis of the existence of "luminiferous aether""ous ether, it must be small; quite small enough entirely to refute Fresnel's explanation of aberration. Stokes has given a theory of aberration which assumes the ether at the earth's surface to be at rest with regard to the latter, and only requires in addition that the relative velocity have a potential; but Lorentz shows that these conditions are incompatible. Lorentz then proposes a modification which combines some ideas of Stokes and Fresnel, and assumes the existence of a potential, together with Fresnel's coefficient. If now it were legitimate to conclude from the present work that the ether is at rest with regard to the earth's surface, according to Lorentz there could not be a velocity potential, and his own theory also falls.’
>
> Peter Riedt

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

"Neither he nor Michelson ever considered that these null results
disproved the hypothesis of the existence of "luminiferous aether""

Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space.

Aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid.

Einstein's curved spacetime is displaced aether.

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

[Peter Riedt]

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 8:40:03 PM UTC+8, Y wrote:
> On 3 Oct, 17:11, Peter Riedt <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Riedt’s antigamma and MMX
>
>

> All they needed was a kite. If space were comprised of an intermediate
>
> matter, (an aether) the Earth (with it's great speed) would be faced
>
> with an aether wind, like an open train carriage.
>

> -y

Y, The logic of MMX required an ether wind. It was not detected.

Peter Riedt

[space...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 12:11:47 AM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Riedt’s antigamma and MMX

Negative Gamma math does not exist...
There is no negative motion or force of gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

[mpc755]

That does not imply no ether. That means there is not a stationary
ether the Earth moves through.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable"

"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 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.

What Einstein referred to as 'curved spacetime' is the state of

[space...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 6:56:44 PM UTC-7, mpc755 wrote:
> On Oct 5, 8:10 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, October 4, 2012 8:40:03 PM UTC+8, Y wrote:
>
> > > On 3 Oct, 17:11, Peter Riedt <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > Riedt’s antigamma and MMX
>
> >
>
> > > All they needed was a kite. If space were comprised of an intermediate
>
> >
>
> > > matter, (an aether) the Earth (with it's great speed) would be faced
>
> >
>
> > > with an aether wind, like an open train carriage.
>
> >
>
> > > -y
>
> >
>
> > Y, The logic of MMX required an ether wind. It was not detected.

The aether wind would float through always
since there is no absolute rest.

We can detect our own motion but not dimensionalities
opposite through us.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Peter Riedt]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 9:56:44 AM UTC+8, mpc755 wrote:> That does not imply no ether. That means there is not a stationary

>
> ether the Earth moves through.
>
>
>
> 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
>
> http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
>
>
>
> "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
>
> unthinkable"
>

MPC, Einstein was correct insofar as he accepted the existence of the ether. However, MMX did not and cannot detect the ether or an ether wind. This was understood by Lorentz who gave contraction as the reason why the ether, in which he believed, could not be found. The real reason why MMX could not get hold of the elusive ether is much simpler but the experiment has been used to stupidly claim that if the ether did not obey Michelson's logic, it did not exist.

Peter Riedt

[Koobee Wublee]

The report was about what the author thought of a failure in a
hypothesis. There is specific conclusion that the Aether does not
exist. Michelson was a top-notch experimental physicist, but he was
by no means anyone with super analytical skills. <shrug>

[mpc755]

The MMX did not detect the ether wind because there is no ether wind.
The MMX was looking for a stationary ether the Earth moves through.
There is no such thing as a stationary ether the Earth moves through.

Aether is displaced by matter.

"Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass,
crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow
denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of
light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve
lines? ...Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the
Sun, stars, planets and comets, than in the empty celestial space
between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not
grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of
those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the
bodies; every body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the
medium towards the rarer?" - Newton

Newton is referring to the state of displacement of the aether.

The aether does not grow denser and denser. The aether is, or behaves
similar to, a supersolid. However, Newton is correct, displaced aether
pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

Maxwell's displacement current is a physical displacement of the
aether.

Einstein defined the state of the aether as determined by its

connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring

places.

This is the state of displacement of the aether.

de Broglie described a particle, even isolated, as in energetic
contact with a hidden medium. de Broglie was describing a particle's
displacement of the aether. The displaced aether pushing back and
exerting inward pressure toward the particle is the energetic contact.

Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space. There
is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter not anchored to matter.

Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

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 aether wave through both.

Einstein's curved spacetime is the state of displacement of the
aether.

There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter.

[Peter Riedt]

mpc, I agree and like to add that the ether is also the conveyor of light and other radiation. Without ether, no light and even no universe.

Peter Riedt

[space...@gmail.com]

Where is space? To where is it displaced?

Mitchell Raemsch

[Big Dog]

On 10/7/2012 7:15 AM, mpc755 wrote:

>
> The MMX did not detect the ether wind because there is no ether wind.
> The MMX was looking for a stationary ether the Earth moves through.
> There is no such thing as a stationary ether the Earth moves through.
>
> Aether is displaced by matter.
>

Air is displaced by a car that moves through it.
By holding your hand out the window of a car, you can feel the air wind
that is due to the displacement of the air by the car moving through it.

[mpc755]

And no expansion of the Universe.

'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]

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

If you were holding your hand out a car window which was moving
through a supersolid and the car was moving with constant momentum
then there would be no loss of energy between the car, your hand and
the supersolid. The car would not require your foot to be on the gas
pedal once it reached the speed it was traveling at. The car would
coast forever through the supersolid. Is the car displacing the
supersolid or is the supersolid displacing the car? Both are occurring
with equal force. If you were not looking where you were going you
would not be able to tell if you were moving forward or reverse by the
pressure you felt exerted toward your hand. Both your palm and the
back of your hand would feel the same amount of force as there is no
loss of energy in the interaction of your hand and the supersolid.

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.

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

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is

unthinkable" - Albert Einstein

It is rational to understand there is an ether in general relativity.

If you understand a relativistic ether wave propagates a photon, which
you do, then it is rational to understand the relativistic ether wave
travels through both slits in a double slit experiment.

[Big Dog]

On 10/8/2012 10:48 AM, mpc755 wrote:
> On Oct 8, 11:19 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/7/2012 7:15 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> The MMX did not detect the ether wind because there is no ether wind.
>>> The MMX was looking for a stationary ether the Earth moves through.
>>> There is no such thing as a stationary ether the Earth moves through.
>>
>>> Aether is displaced by matter.
>>
>> Air is displaced by a car that moves through it.
>> By holding your hand out the window of a car, you can feel the air wind
>> that is due to the displacement of the air by the car moving through it.
>
> The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid.
>
> If you were holding your hand out a car window which was moving
> through a supersolid and the car was moving with constant momentum
> then there would be no loss of energy between the car, your hand and
> the supersolid. The car would not require your foot to be on the gas
> pedal once it reached the speed it was traveling at. The car would
> coast forever through the supersolid. Is the car displacing the
> supersolid or is the supersolid displacing the car? Both are occurring
> with equal force.

If there were a force of the supersolid on the car, then the car would
accelerate resulting in a change in momentum.

This is called Newton's 2nd law: Force = dp/dt.

I'm amused at your utter ignorance of basics, and your ridiculous
pretensions otherwise. Amuse me more. Please.

[mpc755]

You aren't even able to understand how superfluids and supersolids
behave.

What do you think occurs as a ball rolls through a superfluid or a
supersolid? The ball displaces the superfluid/supersolid. There is no
friction in the interaction. There is no loss of energy in the
interaction. That does not mean no interaction.

The ball displaces the superfluid/supersolid. The superfluid/
supersolid returns to the ball the same amount of energy to the ball
as the superfluid/supersolid 'displaces back'.

Are we going to have to add the interaction of particles of matter
with a superfluid/supersolid which you understand to be magic?

We already have the future determining the past because you are unable
to understand the relativistic ether wave propagating a photon passes

through both slits in a double slit experiment.

Are we adding a superfluid/supersolid ceases to exist in the path of a
moving ball?

[Big Dog]

No, I'd like for you to demonstrate how YOU understand the interactions
superfluids and supersolids to be consistent with Newton's second law.
As you've described them, the conflict is unresolved, and so I believe
you do not understand it well yourself.

You have interpreted my question to imply that superfluids and
supersolids cease to exist in the vicinity of an embedded ball. I said
no such thing. One can certainly IMAGINE such a case. The question is
whether you understand how that system works in a way compatible with
Newton's second law. I'm fairly convinced you don't have any idea.

[mpc755]

Are you able to understand the ball requires force to displace the
supersolid?

Are you able to understand the supersolid requires the same amount of
force to displace the ball?

Are you able to understand there is no loss or gain of energy in the
interaction of the ball and the supersolid?

[mpc755]

If the supersolid were only to apply a force to the ball the ball
would accelerate.

If only the ball applies a force to the supersolid the ball would slow
down.

Both occur equally simultaneously.

[mpc755]

In other words, Newton's First law applies to the interaction of a
ball and a supersolid just like it applies to the Milky Way moving
through the aether.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

"First law: If an object experiences no net force, then its velocity
is constant: the object is either at rest (if its velocity is zero),
or it moves in a straight line with constant speed (if its velocity is
nonzero)."

Newton's First law does not mean no force. It means no net force.

The ball moves through and displaces the supersolid. The supersolid
displaces the ball. The ball moves forever through the supersolid.
There is no net force in the interaction of the ball and the
supersolid.

The Milky Way moves through and displaces the aether. The aether
displaces the Milky Way. The Milky Way moves forever through the
aether. There is no net force in the interaction of the Milky Way and
the aether.

There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter.

Aether has mass and physically occupies space. Aether is physically
displaced by matter.

What Einstein referred to as curved spacetime is the state of
displacement of the aether.

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

[mpc755]

Are you able to understand what no net force means?

If the car is moving at a constant velocity through a supersolid then
there is no net force on your hand which is sticking out the window.
This means if your eyes are closed and you will not be able to tell
which way the car is traveling based upon the force exerted toward
your hand because the force exerted against your palm is equivalent to
the force exerted toward the back of your hand.

This is what is occurring physically in nature as particles of matter,
be they atoms or galaxies, move through and displace the aether.

Aether has mass and physically occupies space.

A particle of matter displaces the aether. A particle moving through
the aether creates an aether displacement wave. Is the particle
displacing the aether or is the aether displacing the particle? Both
occur equally with the same force. This is what no net force means.

In a double slit experiment the moving particle travels through a

single slit and the associated aether wave through both.

When you get to something as massive as the Milky Way the displaced
aether forms a halo. The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement
of the aether. The Milky Way's halo is what Einstein referred to as
curved spacetime.

The displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
the Milky Way is gravity.

That is why the Milky Way rotation can not be accounted for by the
mass of the matter in the Milky Way.

The relativistic mass of the Milky Way is the mass of the matter in
the Milky Way and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring
the Milky Way which is displaced by the Milky Way.

[Big Dog]

On 10/8/2012 12:55 PM, mpc755 wrote:

>
> If the supersolid were only to apply a force to the ball the ball
> would accelerate.
>
> If only the ball applies a force to the supersolid the ball would slow
> down.
>
> Both occur equally simultaneously.
>

There. You just demonstrated that you don't have a clue about elementary
first-year mechanics.

And yet you're trying to come up with an aether theory.

Loser.

[mpc755]

So, you don't understand what no net force means.

Not surprising for someone who insists the future determines the past
instead of understanding the relativistic ether wave they know to
exist passes through both slits in a double slit experiment.

[mpc755]

If you were able to understand what no net force means and you weren't
so conceptually deficient you would be able to understand the
following.

If the car is moving at a constant velocity through a supersolid then
there is no net force on your hand which is sticking out the window.
This means if your eyes are closed and you will not be able to tell
which way the car is traveling based upon the force exerted toward
your hand because the force exerted against your palm is equivalent to
the force exerted toward the back of your hand.

This is what is occurring physically in nature as particles of matter,
be they atoms or galaxies, move through and displace the aether.

Aether has mass and physically occupies space.

A particle of matter displaces the aether. A particle moving through
the aether creates an aether displacement wave. Is the particle
displacing the aether or is the aether displacing the particle? Both

occur equally with the same force. This is what no net force means.

In a double slit experiment the moving particle travels through a

single slit and the associated aether wave through both.

[Big Dog]

On 10/9/2012 6:59 AM, mpc755 wrote:
> On Oct 9, 7:56 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/8/2012 12:55 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> If the supersolid were only to apply a force to the ball the ball
>>> would accelerate.
>>
>>> If only the ball applies a force to the supersolid the ball would slow
>>> down.
>>
>>> Both occur equally simultaneously.
>>
>> There. You just demonstrated that you don't have a clue about elementary
>> first-year mechanics.
>>
>> And yet you're trying to come up with an aether theory.
>>
>> Loser.
>
> So, you don't understand what no net force means.

You certainly don't. You're adding the force the supersolid exerts on
the ball to the force the ball exerts on the supersolid to come up with
zero net force? Loser.

[mpc755]

On Oct 9, 11:27 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/9/2012 6:59 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 9, 7:56 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/8/2012 12:55 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> >>> If the supersolid were only to apply a force to the ball the ball
> >>> would accelerate.
>
> >>> If only the ball applies a force to the supersolid the ball would slow
> >>> down.
>
> >>> Both occur equally simultaneously.
>
> >> There. You just demonstrated that you don't have a clue about elementary
> >> first-year mechanics.
>
> >> And yet you're trying to come up with an aether theory.
>
> >> Loser.
>
> > So, you don't understand what no net force means.
>
> You certainly don't. You're adding the force the supersolid exerts on
> the ball to the force the ball exerts on the supersolid to come up with
> zero net force? Loser.
>

If you were able to understand what no net force means and you weren't

conceptually deficient you would be able to understand the following.

If the car is moving at a constant velocity through a supersolid then
there is no net force on your hand which is sticking out the window.

This means if your eyes are closed you will not be able to tell

which way the car is traveling based upon the force exerted toward
your hand because the force exerted against your palm is equivalent to
the force exerted toward the back of your hand.

This is what is occurring physically in nature as particles of matter,
be they atoms or galaxies, move through and displace the aether.

Aether has mass and physically occupies space.

A particle of matter displaces the aether. A particle moving through
the aether creates an aether displacement wave. Is the particle
displacing the aether or is the aether displacing the particle? Both

occur equally with the same force. This is what no net force means.

In a double slit experiment the moving particle travels through a

single slit and the associated aether wave through both.

When you get to something as massive as the Milky Way the displaced
aether forms a halo. The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement
of the aether. The Milky Way's halo is what Einstein referred to as
curved spacetime.

The displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
the Milky Way is gravity.

This is why the Milky Way's rotation can not be accounted for by the