Re: Aether has mass

[Painius]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:55:22 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 27, 10:35 am, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 07:12:14 -0800 (PST), mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 27, 9:59 am, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Well, no, not exactly.
>>
>> >>    ". . . according to a kind of induction law . . ."
>>
>> >> The backreaction is compared to an inductive "back EMF" or the
>> >> electromotive force that opposes the voltage of a circuit.  So they
>> >> are saying that space does not react instantly to the motion of
>> >> objects moving through it due to this proposed backreaction.
>>
>> >> That is pure boloney, of course, because space not only reacts
>> >> instantly to the movement of physical objects through it, space flows
>> >> into those objects at a speed determined by an object's mass.  We call
>> >> that speed "escape velocity", which is precisely equal to the speed at
>> >> which space flows into the object.
>>
>> >> Space flows into an object constantly and with a uniform pressure over
>> >> the object's entire surface area.  This is to rejuvenate the nuclear
>> >> forces of each and every atom that composes the object.  A fortunate
>> >> byproduct of this flow of space into objects is what is called
>> >> "gravitation" or "gravity".
>>
>> >The following article describes the aether as that which produces
>> >resistance to acceleration and is responsible for the increase in mass
>> >of an object with velocity.
>>
>> >'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and
>> >fluidic inertia'
>> >http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611
>>
>> >"It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid
>> >produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an
>> >increase of mass with velocity. ... The interaction between the
>> >particle and the entrained space flow gives rise to the observed
>> >properties of inertia and the relativistic increase of mass. ...
>> >Accordingly, in this framework the non resistance of a particle in
>> >uniform motion through an ideal fluid (D’Alembert’s paradox)
>> >corresponds to Newton’s first law. The law of inertia suggests that
>> >the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with
>> >the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."
>>
>> >The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the
>> >mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is
>> >displaced by the object.
>>
>> Yes, the increased mass must come from somewhere -- it doesn't just
>> magically form as velocity increases.  Where else can it come from but
>> the surrounding space?  Scientists are beginning to grasp this, to
>> take hold of it and shake it to see what falls off.
>>
>> The truly comedic thing is their dogmatic inability to name it!  They
>> hesitate to give the spatial medium a new name, because it already has
>> a name from classical physics, the "aether".  BUT NOOooo!  That word
>> can't be used due to the hideous negative connotations.
>>
>> Silly sometimes, that thing called science.
>
>They could call it a God fart, as representing the dark matter of his
>holy flatulence which surrounds and invades throughout everything.


LOL ! Spatial medium = dark matter = surrounds and invades all things
= Christian deity passing gas.

Good one, Brad.


--
Happy Holidays!
and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"When most people run the other way, courage runs toward danger."

[HVAC]

On 12/27/2012 10:49 PM, Painius wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:06:18 -0500, HVAC<hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>
>> On 12/27/2012 1:35 PM, Painius wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, the increased mass must come from somewhere -- it doesn't just
>>> magically form as velocity increases.
>>
>>

>> That's part of your problem...You believe in magic.
>
>
> No, I believe that many people believe in magic, which makes them easy
> marks. Fact is, every single instance of "magic" I've encountered in
> my lifetime was explainable, and therefore was not really magic.


So, you accept on 'FAITH' that there is no magic?

Or do you believe in magic yet also NOT believe in magic?



--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg

[HVAC]

On 12/27/2012 11:31 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>>
>> They could call it a God fart, as representing the dark matter of his
>> holy flatulence which surrounds and invades throughout everything.
>
>
> LOL ! Spatial medium = dark matter = surrounds and invades all things
> = Christian deity passing gas.
>
> Good one, Brad.

PLEASE do not encourage Goth in his bizarre and disturbing
anal/fecal fetish.

[benj]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 00:06:53 -0500, HVAC wrote:
> On 12/27/2012 10:49 PM, Painius wrote:

>> No, I believe that many people believe in magic, which makes them easy
>> marks. Fact is, every single instance of "magic" I've encountered in
>> my lifetime was explainable, and therefore was not really magic.

> So, you accept on 'FAITH' that there is no magic?
>
> Or do you believe in magic yet also NOT believe in magic?

"3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic."

Arthur C. Clarke's Laws of prediction.



Gosh, ACDC, you really don't get around much for a guy who says he knows
everything.

[Painius]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 00:09:48 -0500, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 12/27/2012 11:31 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> They could call it a God fart, as representing the dark matter of his
>>> holy flatulence which surrounds and invades throughout everything.
>>
>>
>> LOL ! Spatial medium = dark matter = surrounds and invades all things
>> = Christian deity passing gas.
>>
>> Good one, Brad.
>
>
>PLEASE do not encourage Goth in his bizarre and disturbing
>anal/fecal fetish.

Harlow, you bring it up more than he does.

What's that tell you, spicecake?

[HVAC]

On 12/28/2012 12:35 AM, benj wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 00:06:53 -0500, HVAC wrote:
>> On 12/27/2012 10:49 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>>> No, I believe that many people believe in magic, which makes them easy
>>> marks. Fact is, every single instance of "magic" I've encountered in
>>> my lifetime was explainable, and therefore was not really magic.
>
>> So, you accept on 'FAITH' that there is no magic?
>>
>> Or do you believe in magic yet also NOT believe in magic?
>
>
>
> "3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
> magic."
>
> Arthur C. Clarke's Laws of prediction.

Clarke was a homosexual pedophile.

[HVAC]

On 12/28/2012 3:17 AM, Painius wrote:
>
>>> LOL ! Spatial medium = dark matter = surrounds and invades all things
>>> = Christian deity passing gas.
>>>
>>> Good one, Brad.
>>
>>
>> PLEASE do not encourage Goth in his bizarre and disturbing
>> anal/fecal fetish.
>
>
> Harlow, you bring it up more than he does.
>
> What's that tell you, spicecake?

It tells me that I am the only one here who cares about the mental
health of the members of this group.


I'm a fucking saint.

[Linuxgal]

HVAC wrote:
> Clarke was a homosexual pedophile.

Arthur Clarke admitted to a sexual experience with the same gender,
which just makes him remarkably honest. Youth explores it's growing
powers in many different ways. The concept "Lesbian Until Graduation"
comes to my mind.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

al...@cleanposts.com
http://www.cleanposts.com/

[Brad Guth]

Harlow simply desires to discredit everyone to the fullest extent,
just so that his pathetic existence of being a worthless scum-sucking
ZNR oligarch doesn't seem so terrible.

[HVAC]

On 12/28/2012 5:18 PM, Linuxgal wrote:
> HVAC wrote:
>> Clarke was a homosexual pedophile.
>
> Arthur Clarke admitted to a sexual experience with the same gender,
> which just makes him remarkably honest. Youth explores it's growing
> powers in many different ways. The concept "Lesbian Until Graduation"
> comes to my mind.

I have absolutely no idea what "Lesbian Until Graduation" means.

Sounds dirty tho....I like it.

[Linuxgal]

HVAC wrote:
> On 12/28/2012 5:18 PM, Linuxgal wrote:
>> HVAC wrote:
>>> Clarke was a homosexual pedophile.
>>
>> Arthur Clarke admitted to a sexual experience with the same gender,
>> which just makes him remarkably honest. Youth explores it's growing
>> powers in many different ways. The concept "Lesbian Until Graduation"
>> comes to my mind.
>
> I have absolutely no idea what "Lesbian Until Graduation" means.

Boys can really mess up a girl's academic situation, especially if the
condom breaks. Meanwhile, girls are, like, already right there in the dorm.

[benj]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 14:18:10 -0800, Linuxgal wrote:

> HVAC wrote:
>> Clarke was a homosexual pedophile.
>
> Arthur Clarke admitted to a sexual experience with the same gender,
> which just makes him remarkably honest. Youth explores it's growing
> powers in many different ways. The concept "Lesbian Until Graduation"
> comes to my mind.

We are sure it would, HVAC, sure it would.

[Don Martin]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 20:02:35 -0800, Linuxgal <al...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:

>HVAC wrote:
>> On 12/28/2012 5:18 PM, Linuxgal wrote:
>>> HVAC wrote:
>>>> Clarke was a homosexual pedophile.
>>>
>>> Arthur Clarke admitted to a sexual experience with the same gender,
>>> which just makes him remarkably honest. Youth explores it's growing
>>> powers in many different ways. The concept "Lesbian Until Graduation"
>>> comes to my mind.
>>
>> I have absolutely no idea what "Lesbian Until Graduation" means.
>
>Boys can really mess up a girl's academic situation, especially if the
>condom breaks. Meanwhile, girls are, like, already right there in the dorm.

And they all know the topography.

--

aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[Painius]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 20:28:43 -0500, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 12/28/2012 5:18 PM, Linuxgal wrote:
>> HVAC wrote:
>>> Clarke was a homosexual pedophile.
>>
>> Arthur Clarke admitted to a sexual experience with the same gender,
>> which just makes him remarkably honest. Youth explores it's growing
>> powers in many different ways. The concept "Lesbian Until Graduation"
>> comes to my mind.
>
>
>I have absolutely no idea what "Lesbian Until Graduation" means.
>
>Sounds dirty tho....I like it.

So much for a deductive, scientific mind on your part, Harlow.

LUG just implies that girls are much more likely to "experiment" with
their sexuality during high school and college than boys are.

Some of them discover that they are indeed lesbians. Most find out
that they are actually "straight as an arrow".

Since nearly all boys are afraid to test their sexuality, most of them
end up in lives that are straight, whether they're truly straight or
gay. Further, the vast majority of male homosexuals don't even
realize that they're gay. They spend their lives in hopeless
homophobia. Of course, you're very familiar with that, aren't you
Harlow? Describes you to a "T". LMBO !

[HVAC]

On 12/30/2012 4:47 PM, Painius wrote:
>
> Good, Mike, you came out and said that the scientifically found yet
> still mysterious "dark matter" is the spatial medium itself. I agree
> with you, for what it's worth, and have been saying it for years.
>
> The reason, well two reasons, that dark matter cannot be sensed "up
> close" is that 1) scientists are still very hung up and extremely
> hypersensitized by the idea of "officially" admitting any substance at
> all to the medium of spacetime, and 2) even if scientists would "come
> around", we still don't possess the technology required to sense or
> measure the "mass" of space.
>
> Since dark matter is indeed spacetime, and since there is no need for,
> and no such thing as, "dark energy", then it is safe to say that dark
> matter composes nearly all of the mass and energy in the Universe. The
> approximate distribution would be as follows...


What is funny is that Painus believe in these things without any
evidence, yet he ranks on those who believe in god.

Also funny is how Painus believes in so many false things that when
someone disagrees with his (ahem) science, he then claims that it is
THEY who know nothing about science. This is what happens when you
proceed from a false premise.

Painus has not a clue about scientific methodology.

He relies on superstition and magic.

[HVAC]

On 12/30/2012 5:10 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>
> The kind of matter that we know of, stars, planets, etc., is an
> "extension" of Einstein's spacetime, which is made of the same exact
> stuff, only it's so minute that it cannot yet be sensed by our
> instruments.


So we cannot observe ether either experimentally or observationally,
it does not factor into any equations nor calculations...Yet *you*
believe in it?

You are a religious freak.

[Painius]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:21:37 -0500, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 12/30/2012 4:47 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>> Good, Mike, you came out and said that the scientifically found yet
>> still mysterious "dark matter" is the spatial medium itself. I agree
>> with you, for what it's worth, and have been saying it for years.
>>
>> The reason, well two reasons, that dark matter cannot be sensed "up
>> close" is that 1) scientists are still very hung up and extremely
>> hypersensitized by the idea of "officially" admitting any substance at
>> all to the medium of spacetime, and 2) even if scientists would "come
>> around", we still don't possess the technology required to sense or
>> measure the "mass" of space.
>>
>> Since dark matter is indeed spacetime, and since there is no need for,
>> and no such thing as, "dark energy", then it is safe to say that dark
>> matter composes nearly all of the mass and energy in the Universe. The
>> approximate distribution would be as follows...
>
>
>What is funny is that Painus believe in these things without any
>evidence, yet he ranks on those who believe in god.
>
>Also funny is how Painus believes in so many false things that when
>someone disagrees with his (ahem) science, he then claims that it is
>THEY who know nothing about science. This is what happens when you
>proceed from a false premise.
>
>Painus has not a clue about scientific methodology.
>
>He relies on superstition and magic.

And since you rely upon evasion and misleading, that makes us even.

The *really* funny thing is that you fool no one. Everyone in all the
groups in the header knows you by now, Harlow. Your words are, as
Einstein might say, taken _cum grano salis_.

lmao!

--
Happy Holidays!
and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

"A society of sheep will beget a government of wolves."

[Painius]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:21:23 -0500, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 12/30/2012 5:10 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>
>> The kind of matter that we know of, stars, planets, etc., is an
>> "extension" of Einstein's spacetime, which is made of the same exact
>> stuff, only it's so minute that it cannot yet be sensed by our
>> instruments.
>
>
>So we cannot observe ether either experimentally or observationally,
>it does not factor into any equations nor calculations...Yet *you*
>believe in it?
>
>You are a religious freak.

Yes it is true that the medium of space cannot be sensed empirically,
strictly speaking. However, gravitation represents a major case of
its observed effect. And it is also true that gravitational ether
does indeed show itself in the equations of Albert Einstein. He could
prove its existence mathematically, and spent much of his life in the
attempt to prove its existence empirically.

As a so-called (self-proclaimed) astrophysicist, you should have known
that, Harlow. Have you already reached the point where you've
"forgotten more than the rest of us will ever know"? lol!

[benj]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:21:37 -0500, HVAC wrote:

> What is funny is that Painus believe in these things without any
> evidence, yet he ranks on those who believe in god.
>
> Also funny is how Painus believes in so many false things that when
> someone disagrees with his (ahem) science, he then claims that it is
> THEY who know nothing about science. This is what happens when you
> proceed from a false premise.
>
> Painus has not a clue about scientific methodology.
>
> He relies on superstition and magic.

Says the guy who believes Global Warming, Cosmology and infinity are all
real things! I figure it's a very short step to ghosts.

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 19:43:21 GMT, benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in
alt.atheism:

Are you proud of your ignorance? Do you worship it?

[HVAC]

On 12/31/2012 12:55 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>> Painus has not a clue about scientific methodology.
>>
>> He relies on superstition and magic.
>
>
> And since you rely upon evasion and misleading, that makes us even.
>
> The *really* funny thing is that you fool no one. Everyone in all the
> groups in the header knows you by now, Harlow.

You discovered this fact using telepathy, or have you beem in contact
with "Everyone in all the groups in the header" ?

[HVAC]

On 12/31/2012 2:43 PM, benj wrote:
>
>> Painus has not a clue about scientific methodology.
>>
>> He relies on superstition and magic.
>
> Says the guy who believes Global Warming, Cosmology and infinity are all
> real things! I figure it's a very short step to ghosts.

No. Ghosts are your gig. But you've far to slimy to be honest and call
them ghosts. No, you prefer some gay term like 'non-physical entities'
or some such shit. It's like Painus and his belief in god which he,
much like you, are ashamed to admit. So he comes up with a diversion by
claiming that atheists are actually believers. It makes no sense at all,
but it distracts people from the fact that he is a believer.

[HVAC]

On 12/31/2012 1:02 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>> So we cannot observe ether either experimentally or observationally,
>> it does not factor into any equations nor calculations...Yet *you*
>> believe in it?
>>
>> You are a religious freak.
>
>
> Yes it is true that the medium of space cannot be sensed empirically,
> strictly speaking.

'Strictly speaking'?

We cannot observe ether either experimentally or observationally. PERIOD

> However, gravitation represents a major case of
> its observed effect.

Hogwash. And the absolute worst type of science.

> And it is also true that gravitational ether
> does indeed show itself in the equations of Albert Einstein.

Only if the reader is a kook like you.

> He could
> prove its existence mathematically

Only to a kook.

> and spent much of his life in the
> attempt to prove its existence empirically.

And how did *THAT* work out for him, hello.

> As a so-called (self-proclaimed) astrophysicist, you should have known
> that, Harlow.

I make no proclamations.

> Have you already reached the point where you've
> "forgotten more than the rest of us will ever know"? lol!

Definitely so in your case, son.

[Painius]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 16:31:22 -0500, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 12/31/2012 12:55 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>> Painus has not a clue about scientific methodology.
>>>
>>> He relies on superstition and magic.
>>
>>
>> And since you rely upon evasion and misleading, that makes us even.
>>
>> The *really* funny thing is that you fool no one. Everyone in all the
>> groups in the header knows you by now, Harlow.
>
>
>You discovered this fact using telepathy, or have you beem in contact
>with "Everyone in all the groups in the header" ?

That's classified, ol' chum! lmbo!

--
Happy Holidays!
and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

"The future is much like the past and present, only more expensive."

[Painius]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 16:39:11 -0500, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 12/31/2012 2:43 PM, benj wrote:
>>
>>> Painus has not a clue about scientific methodology.
>>>
>>> He relies on superstition and magic.
>>
>> Says the guy who believes Global Warming, Cosmology and infinity are all
>> real things! I figure it's a very short step to ghosts.
>
>
>No. Ghosts are your gig. But you've far to slimy to be honest and call
>them ghosts. No, you prefer some gay term like 'non-physical entities'
>or some such shit. It's like Painus and his belief in god which he,
>much like you, are ashamed to admit. So he comes up with a diversion by
>claiming that atheists are actually believers. It makes no sense at all,
>but it distracts people from the fact that he is a believer.

If distraction were *really* my purpose, then it "certain"ly doesn't
seem to work too well. Maybe I should find another tack? Yeah, maybe
I'll remind you and others that I do not consider atheists to be
believers. As you happen to mention, that's complete nonsense
concocted by none other than...

YOU, Harlow. You get things wrong so often and consistently that it's
hard to believe that you don't do it with malice aforethought. That's
okay. I'm a big boy. I can take a little malice on your part. The
only thing I'm ashamed to admit is that I keep responding to you and
feeding your trollectomies of those poor blind sheep in alt.atheism. I
guess I hope that most of them have more sense than either you or I
give them credit for. < yuk >

Keep searching for that objective evidence, now. It's the only way to
be sure, innit?

--
Happy Holidays!
and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

"The problem with people who have no vices is their annoying virtues."

[Painius]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 16:52:29 -0500, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 12/31/2012 1:02 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>> So we cannot observe ether either experimentally or observationally,
>>> it does not factor into any equations nor calculations...Yet *you*
>>> believe in it?
>>>
>>> You are a religious freak.
>>
>>
>> Yes it is true that the medium of space cannot be sensed empirically,
>> strictly speaking.
>
>'Strictly speaking'?
>
>We cannot observe ether either experimentally or observationally. PERIOD

Yes, as I said, strictly speaking that is true. And yes, I can see
that you've started your period; you don't have to advertise it and
broadcast it to the entire world. < heh >

>> However, gravitation represents a major case of
>> its observed effect.
>
>
>Hogwash. And the absolute worst type of science.

Tell it to Einstein. It was his idea. I just agree with him.

>> And it is also true that gravitational ether
>> does indeed show itself in the equations of Albert Einstein.
>
>
>Only if the reader is a kook like you.

Again, tell it to Einstein, Harlow. Have you ever actually read
anything he wrote? He does sometimes write over your head, I know,
but continued research can help with that.

Ah, that's right, I forgot. You're only a faux scientist and have no
clue as to how to research. So you stand on the sideline of life and
holler "KOOK -- KOOK" while the rest of us continue to look into the
physics of Einstein's gravitational ether.

>> He could
>> prove its existence mathematically
>
>
>Only to a kook.

Must be lotsa us ko0ks out there, eh?

>> and spent much of his life in the
>> attempt to prove its existence empirically.
>
>
>And how did *THAT* work out for him, hello.

He made some inroads, as might be expected. But the technology of his
day had not caught up to his math. Still hasn't, for that matter.

>> As a so-called (self-proclaimed) astrophysicist, you should have known
>> that, Harlow.
>
>
>I make no proclamations.

You make no sense.

>> Have you already reached the point where you've
>> "forgotten more than the rest of us will ever know"? lol!
>
>
>Definitely so in your case, son.

Riiiight.

--
Happy Holidays!
and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

[benj]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 13:46:33 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 19:43:21 GMT, benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in

>>> Painus has not a clue about scientific methodology.
>>>
>>> He relies on superstition and magic.
>>
>>Says the guy who believes Global Warming, Cosmology and infinity are all
>>real things! I figure it's a very short step to ghosts.
>
> Are you proud of your ignorance? Do you worship it?

Are you even aware of how pervasive yours is?

[benj]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 16:39:11 -0500, HVAC wrote:

> On 12/31/2012 2:43 PM, benj wrote:

>> Says the guy who believes Global Warming, Cosmology and infinity are
>> all real things! I figure it's a very short step to ghosts.

> No. Ghosts are your gig. But you've far to slimy to be honest and call
> them ghosts. No, you prefer some gay term like 'non-physical entities'
> or some such shit. It's like Painus and his belief in god which he,
> much like you, are ashamed to admit. So he comes up with a diversion by
> claiming that atheists are actually believers. It makes no sense at all,
> but it distracts people from the fact that he is a believer.

Science is not about, "belief". If you were what you pretend to be, you'd
know that. But I'm surprised that my terminology would give a first class
"wordsmith", such as yourself, any pause. We already proved Santa Claus
exists, (and you ran away with your tail between your legs) so how bad do
you want to look?

[HVAC]

On 12/31/2012 9:11 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>>> The *really* funny thing is that you fool no one. Everyone in all the
>>> groups in the header knows you by now, Harlow.
>>
>>
>> You discovered this fact using telepathy, or have you beem in contact
>> with "Everyone in all the groups in the header" ?
>
>
> That's classified, ol' chum! lmbo!

Understood. I will ask no more questions along these lines.

[HVAC]

On 12/31/2012 9:27 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>> No. Ghosts are your gig. But you've far to slimy to be honest and call
>> them ghosts. No, you prefer some gay term like 'non-physical entities'
>> or some such shit. It's like Painus and his belief in god which he,
>> much like you, are ashamed to admit. So he comes up with a diversion by
>> claiming that atheists are actually believers. It makes no sense at all,
>> but it distracts people from the fact that he is a believer.
>
>
> If distraction were *really* my purpose, then it "certain"ly doesn't
> seem to work too well.

Only because *I* will never let it go. I know you don't believe this,
but I do this as a service to you. I believe that someday you will drop
this veil of belief and take a quantum leap forward in your journey to
become a true thinking human being.

You're welcome

> YOU, Harlow. You get things wrong so often and consistently that it's
> hard to believe that you don't do it with malice aforethought. That's
> okay. I'm a big boy. I can take a little malice on your part.

Some day you will understand my brand of 'tough love'. As I have stated
before, some teach with a scalpel... I use a chainsaw and dynamite.

[HVAC]

On 1/1/2013 2:17 AM, benj wrote:
>
>> No. Ghosts are your gig. But you've far to slimy to be honest and call
>> them ghosts. No, you prefer some gay term like 'non-physical entities'
>> or some such shit. It's like Painus and his belief in god which he,
>> much like you, are ashamed to admit. So he comes up with a diversion by
>> claiming that atheists are actually believers. It makes no sense at all,
>> but it distracts people from the fact that he is a believer.
>
> Science is not about, "belief".

So why do YOU believe in god, ghosts and ether?
They all have zero evidence. Why do you believe?

Is my question unfair? Perhaps that is the case.

But why do *I* have no problem NOT believing such nonsense?

[HVAC]

On 12/31/2012 9:40 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>> We cannot observe ether either experimentally or observationally. PERIOD
>
>
> Yes, as I said, strictly speaking that is true.

Apology accepted.

>>> However, gravitation represents a major case of
>>> its observed effect.
>>
>>
>> Hogwash. And the absolute worst type of science.
>
>
> Tell it to Einstein. It was his idea. I just agree with him.

You can't hornswoggle me. You misinterpret Einstein and then try to use
your fucked-up version as reality. Sorry, that dog ain't a gonna hunt.

>>> And it is also true that gravitational ether
>>> does indeed show itself in the equations of Albert Einstein.
>>
>>
>> Only if the reader is a kook like you.
>
>
> Again, tell it to Einstein, Harlow.

You believe in ghosts...YOU talk to him.

> Ah, that's right, I forgot. You're only a faux scientist and have no
> clue as to how to research. So you stand on the sideline of life and
> holler "KOOK -- KOOK" while the rest of us continue to look into the
> physics of Einstein's gravitational ether.

Kook.

>>> and spent much of his life in the
>>> attempt to prove its existence empirically.
>>
>>
>> And how did *THAT* work out for him, hello.
>
>
> He made some inroads, as might be expected. But the technology of his
> day had not caught up to his math. Still hasn't, for that matter.

But yet you prattle on as if ether is real. It's not.

Get over it.

[mpc755]

On Jan 1, 9:50 am, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <sfi4e85l81a04irjhs3tk6jp06h2ctg...@4ax.com>,

>
>  Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >We cannot observe ether either experimentally or observationally. PERIOD
>
> > Yes, as I said, strictly speaking that is true.  And yes, I can see
>

> Then it is a religious question.
>
> --
> My name is Indigo Montoya. \\        Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> You flamed my father.       \'         At least I can stay in character.
> Prepare to be spanked.     //               When you look into the void,
> Stop posting that!        `/  the void looks into you, and fulfills you.

It is a question of choosing to understand what occurs physically in
nature.

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 through a single slit and
the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 07:12:56 GMT, benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in
alt.atheism:

Since you choose to deny that humans are affecting the climate, why
don't you show us how the scientists are wrong.

[Linuxgal]

mpc755 wrote:
> Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
> Aether is physically displaced by matter.

I heard that about a century ago they put people who were on the
threshold of death upon giant scales to see how much their soul weighed
when it departed. Perhaps you could duplicate their apparatus to obtain
measurements of the mass of your aether.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

al...@cleanposts.com
http://www.cleanposts.com/

[mpc755]

The incompressible fluid described in the following article is the
gravitational aether.

'Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking
Entropy'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4176

"But why an incompressible fluid? The reason comes from an attempt to
solve the (old) cosmological constant problem, which is arguably the
most puzzling aspect of coupling gravity to relativistic quantum
mechanics [13]. Given that the natural expectation value for the
vacuum of the standard model of particle physics is ∼ 60 orders of
magnitude heavier than the gravitational measurements of vacuum
density, it is reasonable to entertain an alternative theory of
gravity where the standard model vacuum decouples from gravity. Such a
theory could be realized by coupling gravity to the traceless part of
the quantum mechanical energy-momentum tensor. However, the
consistency/covariance of gravitational field equations then requires
introducing an auxiliary fluid, the so-called gravitational aether
[14]. The simplest model for gravitational aether is an incompressible
fluid (with vanishing energy density, but non-vanishing pressure),
which is currently consistent with all cosmological, astrophysical,
and precision tests of gravity [15, 16]:

__3__
32πGN Gμν = Tμν − Tα gμν + Tμν ,
Tμν = p (uμ uν + gμν ), T μν;ν = 0,

where GN is Newton’s constant, Tμν is the matter energy momentum
tensor and Tμν is the incompressible gravitational aether fluid. In
vacuum, the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

The following article describes a 'back reaction' associated with the
"fluidic" nature of space itself. This is the displaced aether
'displacing back'.

'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 that which produces
resistance to acceleration and is responsible for the increase in mass
of an object with velocity.

'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and
fluidic inertia'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611

"It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid
produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an
increase of mass with velocity. ... The interaction between the
particle and the entrained space flow gives rise to the observed
properties of inertia and the relativistic increase of mass. ...
Accordingly, in this framework the non resistance of a particle in
uniform motion through an ideal fluid (D’Alembert’s paradox)
corresponds to Newton’s first law. The law of inertia suggests that
the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with
the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the
mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is
displaced by the object.

[HVAC]

On 1/1/2013 9:46 AM, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue wrote:

> In article<kbusgr$i1q$1...@hvac.motzarella.org>, HVAC<hv...@physisist.net> wrote:
>
>> They all have zero evidence. Why do you believe?
>

> What is your evidence that reality is objective?



Who the fuck asked YOU, asshole?

[mpc755]

On Jan 1, 10:22 am, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <d87357b2-e88d-4242-96d8-ce5ab19d0...@i1g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 9:50 am, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue
> > <chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article <sfi4e85l81a04irjhs3tk6jp06h2ctg...@4ax.com>,
>
> > >  Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > >We cannot observe ether either experimentally or observationally. PERIOD
>
> > > > Yes, as I said, strictly speaking that is true.  And yes, I can see
>
> > > Then it is a religious question.
>
> > > --
> > > My name is Indigo Montoya. \\        Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> > > You flamed my father.       \'         At least I can stay in character.
> > > Prepare to be spanked.     //               When you look into the void,
> > > Stop posting that!        `/  the void looks into you, and fulfills you.
>
> > It is a question of choosing to understand what occurs physically in
> > nature.
>
> > Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
> > Aether is physically displaced by matter.
>

> If you cannot observe or measure it, all these are statements of faith, not
> observation. Science is restricted to what can be observed.

>
> --
> My name is Indigo Montoya. \\        Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> You flamed my father.       \'         At least I can stay in character.
> Prepare to be spanked.     //               When you look into the void,
> Stop posting that!        `/  the void looks into you, and fulfills you.

What occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment is
observed because aether waves.

[Mahipal]

On Jan 1, 9:50 am, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <sfi4e85l81a04irjhs3tk6jp06h2ctg...@4ax.com>,
>
>  Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:

> > >We cannot observe ether either experimentally or observationally. PERIOD
>
> > Yes, as I said, strictly speaking that is true.  And yes, I can see
>

> Then it is a religious question.

No it is not any religions' religious question. There's no reason that
any question is either Science or it's Religion. This mythical two
sided argumentative coin does not exist.

> --
> My name is Indigo Montoya. \\        Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> You flamed my father.       \'         At least I can stay in character.
> Prepare to be spanked.     //               When you look into the void,
> Stop posting that!        `/  the void looks into you, and fulfills you.

Enjo(y)... Cheers!
--
Mahipal, pronounced "My Pal" or "Maple" leads to... Maple Loops.

http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/

[benj]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 09:40:44 -0500, HVAC wrote:

> On 1/1/2013 2:17 AM, benj wrote:

>> Science is not about, "belief".
>
>
> So why do YOU believe in god, ghosts and ether?
> They all have zero evidence. Why do you believe?
>
> Is my question unfair? Perhaps that is the case.
>
> But why do *I* have no problem NOT believing such nonsense?

I never said I believed in god, ghosts, or ether. YOU have said that I do
over and over. I presume you are using your super-powers to get this
knowledge of my beliefs.

I just posted irrefutable evidence for "aether" and you ignored it.
Obviously you are just a cult member not interested in any actual
discussion, but only furthering your weird beliefs (AGW, cosmology,
infinity, etc.)

[mpc755]

The Big Bang is religious dogma. Whatever nonsense is made up to
explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment
which is not the particle traveling through a single slit and the
associated wave passing through both is religious dogma.

"Physics" has been based on religious dogma for the past 100 years.

[HVAC]

On 1/1/2013 12:12 PM, benj wrote:
>
>> So why do YOU believe in god, ghosts and ether?
>> They all have zero evidence. Why do you believe?
>>
>> Is my question unfair? Perhaps that is the case.
>>
>> But why do *I* have no problem NOT believing such nonsense?
>
> I never said I believed in god, ghosts, or ether. YOU have said that I do
> over and over. I presume you are using your super-powers to get this
> knowledge of my beliefs.

If you want to settle this, all you need do is categorically deny your
belief in these myths. Until you do, I will maintain that you DO
believe in them. Fair?

[HVAC]

On 1/1/2013 12:04 PM, Mahipal wrote:
>
>>>> We cannot observe ether either experimentally or observationally. PERIOD
>>
>>> Yes, as I said, strictly speaking that is true. And yes, I can see
>>
>> Then it is a religious question.
>
> No it is not any religions' religious question. There's no reason that
> any question is either Science or it's Religion. This mythical two
> sided argumentative coin does not exist.

Look, Haji...Hop on you flying carpet and fly away like a shit bird.

[Mahipal]

Galileo, under house arrest or no, on Earth... "yet it moves."

It says on She's a Witch's posts:

"Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Jan 8, 10:22 am)."

Why 6? For on the 7th day someone had to rest or reset?!

Does that note imply follow up posts will also be removed from
archive(s)? Why post anything if you do not want it to be retained?
Obviously, unless archives delete all followups, it's a wasted
request.

The hand having writ, moves on...

[mpc755]

Physics today is under at least as much religious control as it was at
the time of Galileo. The only difference now is the religious control
is by physicists themselves.

There is zero evidence of a Big Bang. The only reason to believe in a
Big Bang is religious faith itself.

There is zero evidence of something other than the particle traveling
through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passing
through both in a double slit experiment. The only reason to believe
something else occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment
is religious faith itself.

[Mahipal]

On Jan 1, 1:09 pm, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:
> On 1/1/2013 12:04 PM, Mahipal wrote:
>
>
>
> >>>> We cannot observe ether either experimentally or observationally. PERIOD
>
> >>> Yes, as I said, strictly speaking that is true.  And yes, I can see
>
> >> Then it is a religious question.
>
> > No it is not any religions' religious question. There's no reason that
> > any question is either Science or it's Religion. This mythical two
> > sided argumentative coin does not exist.
>
> Look, Haji...Hop on you flying carpet and fly away like a shit bird.

Haji's wavy flying carpet dreams lead directly to aero-planes.

First of all, you HVAC deleted all the attributions of who wrote what,
when, and why in this thread.

Second, learn to killfile individuals you are unable to comprehend.
That means individuals like me Maji Haji or Jiji.

It's Usenet and killfiles are a tool for you to use.

[Brad Guth]

Then indeed photon waves are not actually anything at all, because of
the zero volume and zero mass of the quantum singularity of any photon
particle that doesn't seem to actually travel anywhere other than
within its current wavelength, that's not associated with anything
else other than the surrounding aether.

At any given time, how many cosmic all-inclusive photons currently
exist per atom?

Obviously in the aether outflow beginning there were zero photons per
atom, whereas nowadays there's at least 1e100 photons per atom,
because the atomic mass of our expanding universe is not increasing
but the vast number of photons always has been exponentially
increasing.

[Brad Guth]

It's also much cheaper to utilize K-12 indoctrination rather than
actual education, as how else will the mostly Semitic oligarchs keep
getting away with their usual mainstream skulduggery while keeping
their 0.1% or smaller cult/mafia upper caste strangle-hold upon the
rest of us serving as their minions.

[Mahipal]

These are very difficult times, circa 2013, for free thought. The
Science provided technology to the self-proclaimed -- eager to enforce
their own one and only one brand of brain washings -- watchers is a
frightful irony.

> There is zero evidence of a Big Bang. The only reason to believe in a
> Big Bang is religious faith itself.

Projecting pre-conceived notions onto pre-existing reality is not a
reasoned way to understand the Universe as, our Home that, it is.
Physics is not about invention, it's about discovery. It's extremely
improbable that there's anything new in the building blocks of this
here one and only one Universe. Humans, all the few billions of them,
projecting different maps upon the one universal territory does not
alter its foundations, if any.

> There is zero evidence of something other than the particle traveling
> through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passing
> through both in a double slit experiment. The only reason to believe
> something else occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment
> is religious faith itself.

I was, had to be, destiny and all that crap, studying the significance
of The Da Vinci Code recently. Quite entertaining. I went from
graphical ambigrams to meaningful anagrams of AETHER.

Watch, here comes HVAC with some more happy gay thoughts... posting in
seconds 10, 9, 8, ...

Sorry, serious topics always force me to jokes... to pretend to be
funny... better to feign than to do entirely without... it's my way...
so... how exactly much do the first few obvious anagrams of aether
weigh? Let's see... eat ate her tea... good thing I prefer the
scotch...

[mpc755]

On Jan 1, 4:05 pm, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <eed2a650-fdb9-4dd8-b917-60fa187fc...@k6g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  Mahipal <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Haji's wavy flying carpet dreams lead directly to aero-planes.
>

> Dreams are not technology. They might inspire technology, but dreams themselves
> are just dreams. The consequence of Michaelson-Morley was not to prove that
> ether does not exist, but its existence or nonexistence was undecidable. Whether
> certain properties should be ascribed to a vacuum or ascribed to an undetectable
> fluid filling a vacuum is undecidable. However we can observe, and create,
> vacuums, so we know they exist. Why add another layer of complexity with a
> undetectable fluid?
>
> When you can come up with an observable result that can be most easily explained
> with ether, great. Until then it is religion, not science.

>
> --
> My name is Indigo Montoya. \\        Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> You flamed my father.       \'         At least I can stay in character.
> Prepare to be spanked.     //               When you look into the void,
> Stop posting that!        `/  the void looks into you, and fulfills you.

Then explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit
experiment. Can't, can you?

Not unless you invoke ridiculous absurd nonsense about particles which
don't exist until detected, or particles which travel an infinite
number of paths simultaneously, or particles which exist in many-
worlds simultaneously.

All in order to remain in denial of understand the aether waves.

[Mahipal]

On Jan 1, 4:05 pm, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue

<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <eed2a650-fdb9-4dd8-b917-60fa187fc...@k6g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  Mahipal <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Haji's wavy flying carpet dreams lead directly to aero-planes.

Please, do Usenet Readers a favor and not ever take responses,
especially one-liners out of context. Peace.

> Dreams are not technology. They might inspire technology, but dreams themselves
> are just dreams. The consequence of Michaelson-Morley was not to prove that
> ether does not exist, but its existence or nonexistence was undecidable. Whether
> certain properties should be ascribed to a vacuum or ascribed to an undetectable
> fluid filling a vacuum is undecidable. However we can observe, and create,
> vacuums, so we know they exist. Why add another layer of complexity with a
> undetectable fluid?

MMX proved no such expectation. The only vacuum that exists is in the
minds of aliased Usenet posters and faceless Twitterers. Squared duh.

Dreams are inspiration. In fact, dreams are technology too since
humans have physical brains that sleep periodically.

> When you can come up with an observable result that can be most easily explained
> with ether, great. Until then it is religion, not science.

Religion, Science, and nothing at all else? How quaint.

Some of the mole Scientists demeaning Religions, and the others of you
mole Religionists demeaning Science, need to STFU. Science and
Religion are not at war. Deal with it.

Where's the either or coin of only Religion or Science?! Got link to
image of coin? If someone creates and posts a youtube video, after
this Jan 1, 2013 request, it does not count and is inadmissible as
evidence. Duh.

> --
> My name is Indigo Montoya. \\        Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> You flamed my father.       \'         At least I can stay in character.
> Prepare to be spanked.     //               When you look into the void,
> Stop posting that!        `/  the void looks into you, and fulfills you.

[Brad Guth]

On Jan 1, 1:29 pm, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <e5c8d47f-1c10-4e29-acdd-856e3d1a3...@w8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

>  Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Then indeed photon waves are not actually anything at all, because of
> > the zero volume and zero mass of the quantum singularity of any photon
> > particle that doesn't seem to actually travel anywhere other than
> > within its current wavelength, that's not associated with anything
> > else other than the surrounding aether.
>

> Well.....that is a nice pile of gibberish.

>
> --
> My name is Indigo Montoya. \\        Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> You flamed my father.       \'         At least I can stay in character.
> Prepare to be spanked.     //               When you look into the void,
> Stop posting that!        `/  the void looks into you, and fulfills you.

In other words, you got nothing that explains gravity or photon waves.

[HVAC]

On 1/1/2013 4:13 PM, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue wrote:
>
> The Big Bang was one of many explanations for the observed expanding universe.
> It was the only explanation for the expanding universe and the universal
> background microwave radiation. It doesn't explain the observed accelerating
> expansion, but nothing else does either.


A property of space is that it expands. It's as simple as that.


> Your alternative hypothesis to QM with more accurate prediction is..... (Show
> your math.)


He will submit links to kooky ether web sites.

[HVAC]

On 1/1/2013 4:30 PM, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue wrote:
>
>> Who the fuck asked YOU, asshole?
>

> So you're saying you hav zero evidence. Why do you believe?


My apologies. Those kind words were intended for someone else.

[Brad Guth]

On Jan 1, 2:27 pm, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <8df80f97-01d2-4deb-a081-90f4a755a...@u19g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

>  Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 1:29 pm, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue
> > <chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <e5c8d47f-1c10-4e29-acdd-856e3d1a3...@w8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > >  Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Then indeed photon waves are not actually anything at all, because of
> > > > the zero volume and zero mass of the quantum singularity of any photon
> > > > particle that doesn't seem to actually travel anywhere other than
> > > > within its current wavelength, that's not associated with anything
> > > > else other than the surrounding aether.
>
> > > Well.....that is a nice pile of gibberish.
>
> > > --
> > > My name is Indigo Montoya. \\        Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> > > You flamed my father.       \'         At least I can stay in character.
> > > Prepare to be spanked.     //               When you look into the void,
> > > Stop posting that!        `/  the void looks into you, and fulfills you.
>
> > In other words, you got nothing that explains gravity or photon waves.
>

> I'm not interested in explaining them.

>
> --
> My name is Indigo Montoya. \\        Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> You flamed my father.       \'         At least I can stay in character.
> Prepare to be spanked.     //               When you look into the void,
> Stop posting that!        `/  the void looks into you, and fulfills you.

As long as you have absolutely nothing positive nor constructive to
ever share with any Usenet/newsgroup topic, then why don't stick with
at least using your real name?

[mpc755]

On Jan 1, 4:13 pm, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <146bd0e6-0fbf-40b9-899d-dd7dd1778...@a15g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The Big Bang is religious dogma. Whatever nonsense is made up to
> > explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment
> > which is not the particle traveling through a single slit and the
> > associated wave passing through both is religious dogma.
>

> The Big Bang was one of many explanations for the observed expanding universe.
> It was the only explanation for the expanding universe and the universal
> background microwave radiation. It doesn't explain the observed accelerating
> expansion, but nothing else does either.
>

> Your alternative hypothesis to QM with more accurate prediction is..... (Show
> your math.)
>

> Science is based on certain beliefs about the universe. Unless you conform to
> those beliefs, you aren't doing science.

>
> --
> My name is Indigo Montoya. \\        Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> You flamed my father.       \'         At least I can stay in character.
> Prepare to be spanked.     //               When you look into the void,
> Stop posting that!        `/  the void looks into you, and fulfills you.

The spin about a preferred axis and directionality of galaxy clusters
refute the Big Bang.

'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]

On Jan 1, 4:21 pm, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <af1972da-164d-4c00-8f2c-2baad285a...@a8g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment is
> > observed because aether waves.
>

> What occurs is that QM makes very accurate predictions without dealing with
> existence or nonexistence of ether.

>
> --
> My name is Indigo Montoya. \\        Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> You flamed my father.       \'         At least I can stay in character.
> Prepare to be spanked.     //               When you look into the void,
> Stop posting that!        `/  the void looks into you, and fulfills you.

Predictions are not explanations as to what occurs physically in
nature.

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

"Such is, in its main lines, the present state of the Wave mechanics
interpretation by the double-solution theory, and its thermodynamical
extension. I think that when this interpretation is further
elaborated, extended, and eventually modified in some of its aspects,
it will lead to a better understanding of the true coexistence of
waves and particles about which actual Quantum mechanics only gives
statistical information, often correct, but in my opinion incomplete."

In Wave mechanics there is a physical particle and a physical wave in
wave-particle duality. In a double slit experiment the particle
travels through a single slit and the associated wave passes through
both.

The wave is an aether displacement wave.

[mpc755]

On Jan 1, 5:31 pm, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <c5abc850-055f-472b-9edd-cba93f1cc...@n9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Then explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit
> > experiment. Can't, can you?
>

> Why should I want to explain it? QM provides an accurate substrate for my
> profession. Can you provide a better substrate?
>
> Unlike you I don't need to create wild speculation. I can say I don't know and
> be satisified with that.
>

What for you is wild speculation is for more intuitively obvious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path
which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the aether
passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates
wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction
it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave
piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Detecting the particle
strongly exiting a single slit turns the associated aether wave into
chop. The aether waves exiting the slits interact with the detectors
and become many short waves with irregular motion. The waves are
disorganized. There is no wave interference. The particle pitches and
rolls through the chop. The particle gets knocked around by the chop
and it no longer creates an interference pattern.

[mpc755]

On Jan 1, 7:50 pm, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <98c0a1fc-50d8-4c82-ac9e-c820b7ef2...@k6g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory -
>

> Do you understand an 'interpretation' is a speculation?

>
> --
> My name is Indigo Montoya. \\        Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> You flamed my father.       \'         At least I can stay in character.
> Prepare to be spanked.     //               When you look into the void,
> Stop posting that!        `/  the void looks into you, and fulfills you.

Do you understand there is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter?
Do you understand particles of matter move through and displace the
aether?

[benj]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 13:06:03 -0500, HVAC wrote:

> On 1/1/2013 12:12 PM, benj wrote:
>>
>>> So why do YOU believe in god, ghosts and ether?
>>> They all have zero evidence. Why do you believe?
>>>
>>> Is my question unfair? Perhaps that is the case.
>>>
>>> But why do *I* have no problem NOT believing such nonsense?
>>
>> I never said I believed in god, ghosts, or ether. YOU have said that I
>> do over and over. I presume you are using your super-powers to get this
>> knowledge of my beliefs.
>
>
> If you want to settle this, all you need do is categorically deny your
> belief in these myths. Until you do, I will maintain that you DO
> believe in them. Fair?

"Settle it?" I don't operate on your terms. I have no problems with what
I believe, only you do. You've never been fair in your life. That would
be anti-evolutionary. Only the SMARTEST animals win.

[benj]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 13:21:43 -0800, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric
China Blue wrote:

> In article
> <af1972da-164d-4c00...@a8g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,

> mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment is
>> observed because aether waves.
>
> What occurs is that QM makes very accurate predictions without dealing
> with existence or nonexistence of ether.

This is false. First off, QM doesn't calculate much because the
calculations are impossibly complex and those that it does calculate are
not "very accurate" but simply expressions of probabilities. Which in
essence makes QM the "science of ignorance".

[benj]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 17:07:53 -0500, HVAC wrote:

> On 1/1/2013 4:30 PM, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue
> wrote:
>>
>>> Who the fuck asked YOU, asshole?
>>
>> So you're saying you hav zero evidence. Why do you believe?
>
>
> My apologies. Those kind words were intended for someone else.

Don't worry, HVAC is retired and slowly loosing it. If he says "who are
you?" Don't worry he'll have a lucid period later on...

[Painius]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 06:46:05 -0800, She's a Witch of Trouble in
Electric China Blue <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <kbusgr$i1q$1...@hvac.motzarella.org>, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:
>
>> They all have zero evidence. Why do you believe?
>
>What is your evidence that reality is objective?


You must be a theist.

It's not "reality" that is "objective". It is the *search* for
reality that absolutely must be objective. Reality is neither
subjective nor objective, because such things as subjectivity and
objectivity refer to the perceptions of satient beings.

Take your theism, for example. To believe in and have faith in a god
or gods is definitely a subjective call. There are no objective facts
in evidence to support such a belief, which defines why your theism is
based upon faith... and faith alone.

That probably doesn't really bother you, because most theistic values
are based upon this faith, based upon your predilection and your
ability to accept an idea without first passing it through the filter
of objectivity.

Atheists do little better. They feel that they are being objective;
they feel like they're being skeptical. And yet, the best answer they
can give to the question, "Why don't you believe in a god or gods?"
goes something like, "Because believers have never, no, not in five
thousand years, been able to show objective proof that their god or
gods exist," (as if theists, who are happy and satisfied with their
faith, have ever even tried). That extremely weak reason is what they
base their future upon. How is that objective?

Atheists rely almost completely on the subjective fact that theists
cannot supply objective evidence for their belief. This blinds
atheists, so they think they're being skeptical. They are unable to
see that everything they use to support their atheism is completely
subjective. So when a theist, or someone like myself who is neither a
theist nor an atheist, challenges their subjectivity, they become
defensive and offer any number of rationalizations to "support" their
atheism.

As a theist, you really should not feel any better, because you have
no way to be certain you are correct than an atheist has. Lack of
certainty means that you are *not* certain, UNcertain, and therefore
you require FAITH to believe. You could be right, and atheists could
be wrong, but it's also very possible that you are wrong, and atheists
are right.

A lack of objective evidence makes it impossible to know for certain
if one is right or wrong. To me, it seems both wise and prudent to
postpone a choice between theism and atheism until and unless
objective facts, one way or the other, are discovered and entered into
evidence.


--
Happy Holidays!
and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"The problem with people who have no vices is their annoying virtues."

[Painius]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 06:50:47 -0800, She's a Witch of Trouble in

Electric China Blue <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <sfi4e85l81a04irjh...@4ax.com>,
> Painius <stars...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >We cannot observe ether either experimentally or observationally. PERIOD
>>
>>
>> Yes, as I said, strictly speaking that is true. And yes, I can see
>
>Then it is a religious question.


Interesting take. You apparently accept that *everything* that is
subjectively perceived (rather than objectively) is religious?

There are many areas in science that are based either on subjective
evidence or on subjective opinions of objective evidence such as
observation and experimentation. Quantum mechanics quickly springs to
mind, as does cosmology and particle physics. Those areas are still
considered to be science, not religion, based primarily on the fact
that the subjective opinions are those of trained scientists.

Down to basics, suppose I walk up to you sporting a red baseball cap.
Suppose you don't like the color red, so your subjective opinion of my
choice of baseball caps would be very low. How does that have
anything at all to do with religion? Just because an idea cannot be
proved either experimentally or observationally, suppose it's just a
theory, or a hypothesis, or even just a proposal, how does that
automatically make it religious?

--
Happy Holidays!
and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

"Be a good listener; your ears will seldom get you in trouble."

[Painius]

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:36:08 -0800 (PST), mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Jan 1, 1:16 pm, Mahipal <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 12:24 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 1, 12:04 pm, Mahipal <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jan 1, 9:50 am, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue
>>
>> > > <chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > In article <sfi4e85l81a04irjhs3tk6jp06h2ctg...@4ax.com>,

>>
>> > > >  Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > > > > >We cannot observe ether either experimentally or observationally. PERIOD
>>
>> > > > > Yes, as I said, strictly speaking that is true.  And yes, I can see
>>
>> > > > Then it is a religious question.
>>

>> > > No it is not any religions' religious question. There's no reason that
>> > > any question is either Science or it's Religion. This mythical two
>> > > sided argumentative coin does not exist.

>>
>> > > > --
>> > > > My name is Indigo Montoya. \\        Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
>> > > > You flamed my father.       \'         At least I can stay in character.
>> > > > Prepare to be spanked.     //               When you look into the void,
>> > > > Stop posting that!        `/  the void looks into you, and fulfills you.
>>

>> > > Enjo(y)... Cheers!
>> > > --
>> > > Mahipal, pronounced "My Pal" or "Maple" leads to... Maple Loops.
>>
>> > >http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/
>>

>> > The Big Bang is religious dogma. Whatever nonsense is made up to
>> > explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment
>> > which is not the particle traveling through a single slit and the
>> > associated wave passing through both is religious dogma.
>>

>> > "Physics" has been based on religious dogma for the past 100 years.
>>
>> Galileo, under house arrest or no, on Earth... "yet it moves."
>>
>> It says on She's a Witch's posts:
>>
>> "Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
>> This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Jan 8, 10:22 am)."
>>
>> Why 6? For on the 7th day someone had to rest or reset?!
>>
>> Does that note imply follow up posts will also be removed from
>> archive(s)? Why post anything if you do not want it to be retained?
>> Obviously, unless archives delete all followups, it's a wasted
>> request.
>>
>> The hand having writ, moves on...

>>
>> Enjo(y)... Cheers!
>> --
>> Mahipal, pronounced "My Pal" or "Maple" leads to... Maple Loops.
>>
>> http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/
>

>Physics today is under at least as much religious control as it was at
>the time of Galileo. The only difference now is the religious control
>is by physicists themselves.
>
>There is zero evidence of a Big Bang. The only reason to believe in a
>Big Bang is religious faith itself.
>
>There is zero evidence of something other than the particle traveling
>through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passing
>through both in a double slit experiment. The only reason to believe
>something else occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment
>is religious faith itself.


Hasty generalization.

[Virgil]

In article <cso7e8lu1o6dta459...@4ax.com>,

Painius <stars...@aol.com> wrote:

> There are many areas in science that are based either on subjective
> evidence or on subjective opinions of objective evidence such as
> observation and experimentation. Quantum mechanics quickly springs to
> mind, as does cosmology and particle physics. Those areas are still
> considered to be science, not religion, based primarily on the fact
> that the subjective opinions are those of trained scientists.

Anyone who thinks that quantum mechanics and quantum field theory are
NOT based on both observation and experimentation is extremely ignorant
of both their history and their methodology. They are sufficiently outre
that no one would accept them unless they were backed up by both massive
amounts of observation and massive amounts of experimentation to the
point that no alternatives were even imaginable.

And Painius seems to have at least enough ignorance of both, if not
considerably more.
--

[Virgil]

In article <72m7e8d1cvlajgddp...@4ax.com>,

Those who swallow everything they are told end up buying a lot of gold
bricks and Brooklyn Bridges.

Scientists demand objective physical evidence, which is perhaps too
strict for everyday use but is warranted on big enough issues, even if
not strictly scientific issues

Thus atheists rightly may demand objective physical evidence on certain
issues, the existence of gods certainly being one of them, before
accepting any such alleged existence.

And, lo and behold, there isn't any!
--

[mpc755]

> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

> "Be a good listener; your ears will seldom get you in trouble."

Just because most of the matter in the Universe is moving away from
each other does not mean there was a Big Bang.

The Universe is, or our local Universe is in, a larger version of a
black hole polar jet.

[Linuxgal]

Virgil wrote:
> Anyone who thinks that quantum mechanics and quantum field theory are
> NOT based on both observation and experimentation is extremely ignorant
> of both their history and their methodology.

Anyone in their garage can verify QED with a laser pointed at a wall and
a vise.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

al...@cleanposts.com
http://www.cleanposts.com/

[mpc755]

On Jan 2, 4:03 am, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article <cso7e8lu1o6dta459govajidjrbbh0s...@4ax.com>,

Explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
Can't, can you?

You can't because you are in denial of the existence of the aether. In
a double slit experiment it is the aether which waves. In a double
slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the
associated wave in the aether passes through both.

[mpc755]

On Jan 2, 4:14 am, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article <72m7e8d1cvlajgddp2auqstd94vvo7q...@4ax.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 06:46:05 -0800, She's a Witch of Trouble in

> > Electric China Blue <chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >In article <kbusgr$i1...@hvac.motzarella.org>, HVAC <h...@physisist.net>

The physical evidence is the particle always enters, travels through
and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment.

[mpc755]

On Jan 2, 6:30 am, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <virgil-794C3A.02035202012...@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM>,

>
>  Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > amounts of observation and massive amounts of experimentation to the
> > point that no alternatives were even imaginable.
>

> QM is incomplete and therefore alternatives are imaginable. QM is currently the
> most accurate current theory for what it covers, but it doesn't cover massive
> objects, accelerating expansion of the universe, the beginning of the universe,
> etc.

>
> --
> My name is Indigo Montoya. \\        Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> You flamed my father.       \'         At least I can stay in character.
> Prepare to be spanked.     //               When you look into the void,
> Stop posting that!        `/  the void looks into you, and fulfills you.

I noticed you still haven't explained what occurs physically in nature
in a double slit exeriment.

QM, other than pilot-wave theory, doesn't cover what occurs physically
in nature in a double slit experiment. Unless you think making up
nonsense is a physical explanation.

[mpc755]

On Jan 2, 7:31 am, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <68222b8f-6380-4cfb-b499-04bd324bf...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I noticed you still haven't explained what occurs physically in nature
> > in a double slit exeriment.
>

> I haven't explained why inertial mass coincides with gravitational mass either.

>
> --
> My name is Indigo Montoya. \\        Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> You flamed my father.       \'         At least I can stay in character.
> Prepare to be spanked.     //               When you look into the void,
> Stop posting that!        `/  the void looks into you, and fulfills you.

There are some people interested in physics who prefer to correctly
understand what occurs physically in nature.

The author of the following article is such a person.

The following article describes the aether as that which produces
resistance to acceleration and is responsible for the increase in mass
of an object with velocity.

'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and
fluidic inertia'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611

"It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid
produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an
increase of mass with velocity. ... The interaction between the
particle and the entrained space flow gives rise to the observed
properties of inertia and the relativistic increase of mass. ...
Accordingly, in this framework the non resistance of a particle in
uniform motion through an ideal fluid (D’Alembert’s paradox)
corresponds to Newton’s first law. The law of inertia suggests that
the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with
the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the
mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is
displaced by the object.

[mpc755]

On Jan 2, 7:32 am, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <fd036afe-acf2-4318-a687-b557d22b3...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The physical evidence is the particle always enters, travels through
> > and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment.
>

> And if you gather that evidence, there is no diffraction.

>
> --
> My name is Indigo Montoya. \\        Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> You flamed my father.       \'         At least I can stay in character.
> Prepare to be spanked.     //               When you look into the void,
> Stop posting that!        `/  the void looks into you, and fulfills you.

If you want to correctly understand what occurs physically in nature
in a double slit experiment then understand the following.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory -

Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path
which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the aether
passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates
wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction
it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave
piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Detecting the particle
strongly exiting a single slit turns the associated aether wave into
chop. The aether waves exiting the slits interact with the detectors
and become many short waves with irregular motion. The waves are
disorganized. There is no wave interference. The particle pitches and
rolls through the chop. The particle gets knocked around by the chop
and it no longer creates an interference pattern.

[mpc755]

On Jan 2, 7:34 am, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <8bff0820-d415-4782-ae91-5e9116c69...@h2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just because most of the matter in the Universe is moving away from
> > each other does not mean there was a Big Bang.
>

> Nor was that considerred conclusive at the time.

>
> > The Universe is, or our local Universe is in, a larger version of a
> > black hole polar jet.
>

> Would that explain the universal microwave background radiation?

>
> --
> My name is Indigo Montoya. \\        Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> You flamed my father.       \'         At least I can stay in character.
> Prepare to be spanked.     //               When you look into the void,
> Stop posting that!        `/  the void looks into you, and fulfills you.

The microwave background radiation is part of an ongoing process.

'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.

[Brad Guth]

However, the BO flow of aether is probably still not gravity, nor is
it capable of replacing conventional gravity. Even at representing
96.5% of the cosmic mass and spread out over a volume that's covering
ten or perhaps a hundred times greater expanse beyond our best
detection, whereas its imperceptible force may exist but it's still
not of sufficient density to dominate or outweigh even the weak force
of local gravity.

The ISM and especially the IGM could be mostly aether, that at most
one or fewer particles per cm3 exist within the ISM, and outside of
galaxies it most likely gets thinned out to an average of perhaps as
little as one particle per m3 outside of those enormous IGM ionized
clouds where greater than 1e6/m3 is more likely. This cosmic IGM of
mostly aether could account for the ongoing expansion of our physical/
molecular universe.

If the undetectable density of the aether flow were equal or greater
than molecular formulated gravity could at least represent the push of
antigravity, or perhaps molecular is the antigravity and aether is the
other.

Is aether antigravity?

[mpc755]

On Jan 2, 10:24 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is aether antigravity?

[Painius]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 23:53:07 -0800, She's a Witch of Trouble in

Electric China Blue <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <72m7e8d1cvlajgddp...@4ax.com>,
> Painius <stars...@aol.com> wrote:
>

>> or gods is definitely a subjective call. There are no objective facts
>> in evidence to support such a belief, which defines why your theism is
>

>How do you have objective facts in a reality that is neither objective nor
>subjective?


Reality is what it is, and there is no such thing as a subjective
reality or an objective reality. There is only reality, plain and
(usually) simple, and there is the scientist's "objective" to discover
what that reality is.

The Earth has, for the last 4.5 Gyrs, revolved around the Sun. That
is the plain and simple reality. From the time of Ptolemy, who proved
mathematically that everything in the sky revolved around the Earth,
until about a hundred years after Galileo was able to show
scientifically that Earth revolved around the Sun, most people had an
incorrect "subjective perspective" regarding that reality. Today,
thanks to several objective facts that were discovered in the last
three centuries, we now sport an "objective perspective" on this
issue.

If your confusion is the result of my wording, then let me strip out
the shortcut...

What I call an "objective fact" is, "in reality", an "objectively
perceived" fact, and this is as opposed to a "subjectively perceived"
fact. So it is possible to have objectively perceived facts in a
reality that is neither objective nor subjective.

Admittedly, my "precision" sucked, because I like to take verbal
shortcuts, so in this case I have been referring to objectively
perceived facts as "objective facts" and subjectively perceived facts
as "subjective facts".

My bad. Thank you for challenging my precision!

--
Happy Holidays!
and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/