The Aether Part 2
jdawe
If it were it would break the dual opposing way of the universe.
We would have 3 physical things:
Energy
or
Matter
or
Aether.
Therefore aether = non-physical.
So what non-physical 'nothing' or 'thing' is aether ?
Mitch: " aether = time ".
--------------------------------------------------------------
There are only 2 opposing things in this universe a physical thing and
a non-physical thing:
Mass
or
Time
There are only 2 opposing states those 2 opposing physical\non-
physical things can be in:
In Motion
or
At Rest
When mass\time is In Motion it generates physical\non-physical
attraction.
When mass\time is At Rest it generates physical\non-physical
repulsion.
---------------------------------------------------
Within mass are our 2 opposing physical things:
Energy
or
Matter
Within time are our 2 opposing non-physical things:
Future
or
Past
Within In Motion or At Rest both energy\matter or future\past move in
only 2 opposing ways:
Linear
or
Circular
Within Linear or Circular movement energy\matter or future\past can go
in only 2 opposing ways:
Forward
or
Reverse
--------------------------------------------
-Josh.
PS:
Special thanks to Mitch for his aether = time.
mpc755
> The aether cannot be 'physical'.
>
> If it were it would break the dual opposing way of the universe.
>
> We would have 3 physical things:
>
> Energy
>
> or
>
> Matter
>
> or
>
> Aether.
>
> Therefore aether = non-physical.
>
A=Mc^2 where A is aether and M is matter. Matter transitioning to
aether is energy.
jdawe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Matter transitions into energy.
or
Energy transitions into matter.
There is no inbetween.
E = ~M
or
M = ~E
Where
E = Energy.
M = Matter.
-Josh.
BURT
The aether is immaterial. It is time. If time wasn't physical it would
not belong in physics.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
What is energy? What happens to the mass of the matter when it
transitions to energy?
Nothing occurs to the mass. The matter transitions to aether. The
effect the transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is
energy.
mpc755
But an immaterial aether does? The aether is uncompressed matter.
jdawe
>
> - Show quoted text -
If aether\time is physical please provide me with a physical sample.
You cannot have:
Physical
without
Non-Physical
or
Non-Physical
without
Physical
-Josh.
BURT
Energy is in point of infinitely small flowing. It is infinitely dense
immaterial. Quantitatively it is C squared multiplied by Gamma. Or
rest mass plus flow energy.
Aether is flowing over it giving it its marching orders. Aether is
point 1/infinity size.
Finite density energy surrounding is not mass and does not weigh.
These are the two energies in the aether. And the aether is in them.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
Physics is the study of physical behaviors in nature. There is no such
thing as non-physical in physics. If you want to discuss non-physical
behaviors you should post to a quantum 'physics' forum because they
believe in all sorts of non-physical behaviors which have nothing to
do with physics (i.e. instantaneous action at a distance,
entanglement, delayed choice, quantum eraser, and whatever non-
physical nonsense they misinterpret the observed behaviors in a double
slit experiment as).
mpc755
Energy is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the
surrounding aether and matter.
jdawe
> Aether is flowing over it giving it its marching orders. Aether is
> point 1/infinity size.
You can either have flow:
Over ( around )
or
Through
although aether is non-physical therefore it cannot have physical
flow.
> Finite density energy surrounding is not mass and does not weigh.
Mass =
energy
or
matter.
Whether or not the mass weighs ( is in an attraction field or
repulsion field of other energy\matter ) does not matter.
> These are the two energies in the aether.
Within energy\matter there are 2 opposing forms energy\matter can
take.
-Josh.
jdawe
>
> - Show quoted text -
you cannot study only one way of an opposing way universe.
Both:
physical
or
non-physical
study are equally required for maximum progression.
-Josh.
mpc755
Not in physics. Physics IS the study of the physical.
jdawe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Therefore you are saying:
Matter
or
Aether
are 2 opposing forces.
Matter is the inverse of aether. Aether is the inverse of matter.
--------------------
Matter turns into energy.
or
Energy turns into matter.
Energy is therefore the inverse of matter.
Matter is therefore the inverse of energy.
-Josh.
jdawe
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am not studying physics ( physical ).
I am studying:
The
physical
or
non-physical
way of the universe.
If you don't like it then feel free to not read my posts.
-Josh.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
The atom and light are but aether/energy forms influenced by God's
primary chain of order in the immaterial flow.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
Aether and matter are different states of the same stuff. Matter is
compressed aether. When matter decompresses and expands into aether
there is an increase in volume. This increase in volume and the effect
it has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy.
mpc755
You are bringing in spiritualism way too early into the conversation.
We need to figure everything else out and when we have figured
everything else out we can discuss how something comes from nothing.
mpc755
There is no such thing as non-physical in the universe when discussing
physics.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
no. Unfication is togetherness not sameness.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, macro...@yahoo.com says...
When matter transitions into aether, the matter is physically
decompressing and becoming aether. When you pop a balloon what happens
to the air which was compressed within the balloon? It becomes
decompressed, but it is the same air. When you pop the balloon and the
air hits your face, that is energy, but its the same air.
KONCHOK.PENDAY
mpc755 [<mpc...@gmail.com] wrote:
[...big snip...]
> Aether and matter are different states of the same stuff.
YES,
> Matter is compressed aether.
YES!
And HOW that happens
is very interesting!
*ONLY* RADO HAS
FIGURED IT OUT!
> When matter decompresses and expands into aether
> there is an increase in volume.
OK.
> This increase in volume and the effect
> it has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy.
OK.
YOU DO HAVE A CLUE!
NOW READ RADO!
FIND OUT HOW RIGHT YOU ARE!
BY FAR the BEST book on physics EVER written:
=============================================
AETHRO-KINEMATICS IS THE MAIN RADO TEXT
It�s 527 pages of tightly-reasoned analysis
by the greatest physicist of all time!
http://net-prophet.net/rado-ak/aethro_3.pdf
=============================================
NO BULLSHIT!
I GUARANTEE IT!
JUST HARD-NOSED
SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY!
It�s also the best
history of physics
ever written!
Even better than
Richard McKeon!
But Rado perfectly
illustrates both
McKeon�s analysis
AND PREDICTIONS!
HIS �LEAST PARTICLES�
ANALYSIS IS ONE OF MCKEON�S
FOUR PRIMARY MODES OF THOUGHT!
THE ONE THAT PERFECTLY
HEXPLAINS AND CONSTRUCTS
THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.
THAT�S A BIG
DOUBLE WOW-WOW!
CAUTION: *NOT* FOR
the faint of heart!
May be dangerous to
preconceived prejudices!
Steve�s site is:
http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/
My intro to Steve�s work is:
http://net-prophet.net/nobul/rado/rado.htm
See �05* AETHER PHYSICS� in the
right-hand column of my blog at:
http://net-prophet.net/blog/
AND the �PHYSICS� CATEGORY
in the left-hand column!
Also see the �AETHER PHYSICS� TOPIC
under the �2-FORUMS� in the blog PAGES.
That�s the reading list for now,
but �Aethro-dynamics� will be
released ANY DAY NOW!
O
--- )
\
NEWSGROUPS:
alt.ucp,alt.conspiracy,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
PERMALINK: http://net-prophet.net/blog/?p=1459
BURT
There is non-physical light.
Mitch Raemsch
Sam Wormley
Why is the conversion factor c^2 ?
mpc755
My guess is it is related to the inverse square law. Something to do
with matter converting to aether at c in three dimensions.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Energy comes out of the atom.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
Yes, when the matter which is the atom transitions to aether, the
increase in volume the aether occupies and the effect the transition
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
The core of energy in the atom is point energy. Aether flows over
point energy.
Mitch Raemsch
Sam Wormley
What do you mean, "your guess"? I thought you had worked out
your aether theory and derived this equation A = Mc^2.
c^2 doesn't have anything to do with Newton's inverse square
law. Her is how Einstein derived his relationship between Energy
and Mass, E = mc^2 .
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
KONCHOK.PENDAY
> mpc755 wrote:
>> On Nov 18, 10:51 pm,
Sam Wormley [swor...@mchsi.com] wrote:
>>> mpc755 wrote:
>
>>>> A=Mc^2 where A is aether and M is matter.
>>>> Matter transitioning to
>>>> aether is energy.
YES!
YOU GOT IT!
AND THE
CONVERSE
IS THIS:
=====================
AETHER TRANSITIONING
TO MATTER IS GRAVITY!
=====================
=======================
GRAVITY = CONDENSATION!
=======================
[DON'T READ RADO UNTIL
YOU ARE SURE YOU WANT
TO UNDERSTAND THE
UNIVERSE ITSELF!]
>>> Why is the conversion factor c^2 ?
>>
>> My guess is it is related to the inverse square law. Something to do
>> with matter converting to aether at c in three dimensions.
===============================
CLOSE, BUT EXACTLY BACKWARDS.
AETHER CONDENSING INTO MATTER
INSIDE HOT PLANETS AND STARS
CAUSES A LOW PRESSURE SINK
VORTEX SUCTION WE CALL GRAVITY!
===============================
> What do you mean, "your guess"? I thought you had worked out
> your aether theory and derived this equation A = Mc^2.
NO MATTER, STEVE WORKED IT OUT!
READ RADO!
O
--- )
\
NEWSGROUPS:
alt.ucp,alt.conspiracy,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
PERMALINK: http://net-prophet.net/blog/?p=1463
mpc755
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as
aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands at 'c' in three
dimensional space and it has everything to do with Newton's inverse
square law.
mpc755
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as
aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands at 'c' in three
dimensions and has everything to do with Newton's inverse square law.
mpc755
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as
aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands at 'c' in three
dimensions and has everything to do with Newton's inverse square law.
The reason for the guess is it could be a matter of volume. Aether may
occupy c^2 more three dimensional space than matter, but I'm guessing
it has more to do with the rate of propagation of the transition.
mpc755
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as
aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands at 'c' in three
dimensions and has everything to do with Newton's inverse square law.
The reason for the guess is it could be a matter of volume. Aether may
occupy c^2 more three dimensional space than matter, but I'm guessing
it has more to do with the rate of propagation of the transition.
I realize you have somehow been able to convince yourself of the
ridiculous nonsense that mass becomes energy. I also realize you are
like most others on this forum who have mistaken mathematics for
nature. Mass does not become energy. Mass is not created nor
destroyed. Energy is the effect mass transitioning from one state to
another has on its surroundings.
mpc755
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as
aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands at 'c' in three
dimensions and has everything to do with Newton's inverse square law.
The reason for the guess is it could be a matter of volume. Aether may
occupy c^2 more three dimensional space than matter, but I'm guessing
it has more to do with the rate of propagation of the transition.
I realize you have somehow been able to convince yourself of the
ridiculous nonsense that matter becomes energy. I also realize you are
like most others on this forum who have mistaken mathematics for
nature. Matter does not become energy. Matter is not created nor
destroyed. Energy is the effect matter transitioning from one state to
mpc755
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as
aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands at 'c' in three
dimensions and has everything to do with Newton's inverse square law.
The reason for the guess is it could be a matter of volume. Aether may
occupy c^2 more three dimensional space than matter, but I'm guessing
it has more to do with the rate of propagation of the transition.
I realize you have somehow been able to convince yourself of the
ridiculous nonsense that matter becomes energy. I also realize you are
like most others on this forum who have mistaken mathematics for
nature. Matter does not become energy. Matter is not created nor
destroyed. The physical effects of matter transitioning from one state
to another is energy.
Uncle Al
>
> The aether cannot be 'physical'.
http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
<http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
No aether
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
No Lorentz violation
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Tad
But what if matter is just different states of ether. And its all flowing
tohether. Surely then it would be detectable but it would still exist.
If sub-atomic particles were just standing-waves or cyclones made of ether
then how could you possibley detect the stuff theyre made from as we
ourselves are made from it! This also fits with Heisenberg\Planck and gives
is some idea of the granularity of the ether.
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4B0565D4...@hate.spam.net...
Tad
At least by any kind Michelson-Morley style interferometer set-up, as the
aparatus itself (just like everyhting else) is made from ether!
"Tad" <ta...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:m4vNm.6922$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
mpc755
> All of these theories assume that the ether is something seperate to matter.
> But what if matter is just different states of ether. And its all flowing
>
> If sub-atomic particles were just standing-waves or cyclones made of ether
> then how could you possibley detect the stuff theyre made from as we
> ourselves are made from it! This also fits with Heisenberg\Planck and gives
> is some idea of the granularity of the ether.
>
> aparatus itself (just like everyhting else) is made from ether!
Yes, aether is matter in a different state, matter's base state. And
yes, sub-atomic particles are easiest to conceptualize as spinning
compressed aether.
Granularity of the aether reminds me of the discussions of if a photon
is a particle when at rest. There is no way to know. It is
unmeasurable. When a photon is detected, what is being detected is a
quantum of aether.
The MMX experiments did not find the 'aether wind' which they were
looking for because the aether is entrained by the Earth. As Einstein
said, there is a connectedness between matter and the aether. The
analogy I use for this is to think of a bowling ball with a million
tiny holes drilled throughout it. You put the bowling ball into a tank
of water. The bowling ball now has water throughout it, but its matter
still displaces the rest of the water which no longer exists where the
matter which is the bowling ball does. Now spin the bowling ball. The
water becomes entrained by the bowling ball. On the surface of the
bowling ball, the difference in the speed at which the bowling ball
surface rotates and the connect to aether rotates will be
undetectable, or very difficult to detect.
Einstein also talks about the state of the aether and the state of the
neighboring aether is due to the aethers connectedness to matter.
In a double slit experiment where the particle is moving, the state of
the aether due to this connectedness is the creation of an aether
displacement wave. It is the aether displacement wave which enters and
exits both slits in a double slit experiment while the particle enters
and exits a single slit. If you place detectors at the exits to the
slits, the particle will be detected exiting a single slit. If no
detectors, the aether displacement wave exits both slits ahead of and
along with the particle, creates interference, which alters the
direction the particle travels.
Androcles
"Tad" <ta...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:m4vNm.6922$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
All of you cranks ASSUME too much.
mpc755
wrote:
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed is assuming too much?
KONCHOK.PENDAY
> On Nov 20, 11:06 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
> wrote:
>> "Tad" <ta...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:m4vNm.6922$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> > All of these theories assume that the ether is something seperate
>>
>> All of you cranks ASSUME too much.
MOSTLY, THIS IS TRUE!
> Matter cannot be created nor destroyed is assuming too much?
ABSOLUTELY!
MATTER IS CREATED
AND DESTROYED
ALL THE TIME!
READ RADO!
O
--- )
\
NEWSGROUPS:
alt.ucp,alt.conspiracy,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
PERMALINK: http://net-prophet.net/blog/?p=1471
glird
> On Nov 19, 12:24 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > A=Mc^2 where A is aether and M is matter.
> > Matter transitioning to aether is energy.
>
> or
> Energy transitions into matter.
>
> There is no inbetween.
>
> E = ~M
> or
> M = ~E
> Where E = Energy. M = Matter.
>
> -Josh.
There is a far fetched way to allow that energy and matter could be
interconvertible; but in present terms it is impossible.
In almost all present equations, the m represents the weight - in
grams - of an object rather than its "mass" - which denotes "a
quantity of matter" whether or not it has any weight.
glird
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mass is infinitely concentrated C^2Gamma energy. It responds to
gravity. The less dense energy of force bond surrounds mass point
particle. This is Electric bond energy and Strong bond energy. These
do not weigh. And the differnce has been measured. Once unbonded
outside the atom they are heavier.
Mitch Raemsch
glird
> Energy is the effect matter transitioning to
>aether has on the surrounding aether and matter.
Although that is true if matter is atomic and aether is the
continuous form of the same material out of which atoms are made, the
word "energy" includes far more than that.
glird
BURT
No. Aether is the higher form not energy. This is my message.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
Not when discussing E=mc^2. When discussing E=mc^2, and:
'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A.
EINSTEIN'
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
In the above statement, the mass of the body diminishes, but the
matter associated with the mass of the body that diminishes doesn't
disappear. It doesn't cease to exist. It still exists, as aether. The
effect the matter associated with the diminished mass transitioning to
aether has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy.
BURT
Light motion is fastest but it has no energy of flow. This can be
proved. If it did all light would have a constant energy that is
kinetic. All light would have the energy of the C constant in the
aether. This is clearly not the case. But its real energy is in its
frequency or its waving in time-aether.
Mitch Raemsch
glird
>
> Physics IS the study of the physical.
Alas no, mpc. As of now, Physics is the study of equations that
quantify relations between numerical quantities we obtained by
measuring things; regardless of the fact that physicists neither know
nor care what the things so measured physically are.
The study of the physical realities our equations treat is
"Metaphysics"; so named by the ancient Greek philosophers who listed
it under "Philosophy" and above "Physics" in the categories of things
that humans study.
glird
mpc755
I guess I should have said physics should be the study of the
physical.
Physicists care about the underlying physical reality of nature.
Unfortunately, they are mathematicians first and foremost who are
unable to understand the difference between mathematics and nature.
Physicists see E=mc^2 and see the 'E' on one side off the equation and
'm' on the other and conclude energy is mass, or mass becomes energy,
without the slightest understanding of how screwed up the very concept
of that is.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Infinitely dense energy is mass C^2Gamma. It weighs. Finite density
does not. It is field with a small range. The magentic field aether
also has a range and no energy of its own but it gives and takes
energy from energy by effecting its motion-flow.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Applying mathmatics to physics too soon was what happened to Einstein
and it was a mistake to follow what math did with his theory. Math
connected space and time as dimension. Time fills space and is thus
three dimensional. There is only one higher dimension. And it is
spatial. Cosmology will call it hypersphere when I am through.
M<itch Raemsch
mpc755
I should have added that the problem in physics isn't going to change
any time soon when physicists insist a wave function probability is a
physical description of nature. It has 'function' and 'probability' in
it! And when told there is a physical aether displacement wave in a
double slit experiment they refuse to believe in aether, thinking
'function' and 'probability' are better representative of nature. It's
ridiculous.
mpc755
I should have added that the problem in physics isn't going to change
any time soon when physicists insist a wave function probability is a
physical description of nature. When told there is a physical aether
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're the screw up. Energy comes out of matter in the aether and the
aether is in it in quantity.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
I think what you meant to say is, in E=mc^c, the effect matter
transitioning to aether has on the surrounding aether and matter is
energy.
KONCHOK.PENDAY
mpc755 [mpc...@gmail.com] wrote:
> On Nov 22, 10:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 22, 9:54 pm, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 18, 9:49 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>>
>> > > Physics IS the study of the physical.
>>
>> > Alas no, mpc. As of now, Physics is the study of equations that
>> > quantify relations between numerical quantities we obtained by
>> > measuring things; regardless of the fact that physicists neither
>> > know nor care what the things so measured physically are.
At least MATHEMATICIANS THINK
that's what physics actually is!
>> > The study of the physical realities our equations treat is
>> > "Metaphysics"; so named by the ancient Greek philosophers who
>> > listed it under "Philosophy" and above "Physics" in the categories
>> > of things that humans study.
>>
>> > glird
>>
>> I guess I should have said physics should be the study of the
>> physical.
>>
>> Physicists care about the underlying physical reality of nature.
>> Unfortunately, they are mathematicians first and foremost who are
This is unfortunately very true!
But that does NOT make them physicists!
THEY JUST *THINK* THEY ARE PHYSICISTS!
>> unable to understand the difference between mathematics and nature.
>> Physicists see E=mc^2 and see the 'E' on one side off the equation
>> and 'm' on the other and conclude energy is mass, or mass becomes
>> energy, without the slightest understanding of how screwed up the
>> very concept of that is.
BUT MATTER BECOMES ENERGY ALL THE TIME!
FIRES BURN.
STARS SHINE.
ATOM BOMBS GO BOOM!
*WHERE* DOES THE
ENERGY COME FROM?
> I should have added that the problem in physics isn't going to change
> any time soon when physicists insist a wave function probability is a
> physical description of nature. It has 'function' and 'probability' in
> it!
YES. ANYONE WHO TELLS YOU A "PARTICLE"
IS JUST A "COLLAPSED WAVE FUNCTION" OR A
"PROBABILITY VECTOR" IS SIMPLY BARKING MAD!
> And when told there is a physical aether displacement wave in a
> double slit experiment they refuse to believe in aether, thinking
> 'function' and 'probability' are better representative of nature. It's
> ridiculous.
YES IT IS!
But where do you get
this weird idea that
matter can never
become energy?
READ RADO!
O
--- )
\
NEWSGROUPS:
alt.ucp,alt.conspiracy,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
PERMALINK: http://net-prophet.net/blog/?p=1495
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Space flow is flowing over energy.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
BURT
Energy is a lower concept than the aether. Point energy is infinitely
dense and infinitely small in size. Aether point flows over it
ordering it in time flow.
Mitch Raemsch
KONCHOK.PENDAY
BURT [macro...@yahoo.com] wrote:
.......BIG SNIP..............
>> > > > You're the screw up. Energy comes out of matter in the aether
>> > > > and the aether is in it in quantity.
>>
>> > > > Mitch Raemsch
YES.
>> > > I think what you meant to say is, in E=mc^c, the effect matter
>> > > transitioning to aether has on the surrounding aether and matter
>> > > is energy.-
YES.
>> > Space flow is flowing over energy.
>>
>> > Mitch Raemsch
????
>> I think what you meant to say is, in E=mc^c, the effect matter
>> transitioning to aether has on the surrounding aether and matter is
>> energy.
YES.
> Energy is a lower concept than the aether.
YES.
ENERGY IS A
FORM OF AETHER.
SO IS "MATTER".
AETHER DOES
BOTH TRICKS!
> Point energy is infinitely dense
> and infinitely small in size.
I DON'T BUY
EITHER OF THOSE!
THAT IS MERELY
A MATHEMATICAL
ABSTRACTION.
NO THING IS
INFINITELY
*ANYTHING*,
BIG OR SMALL!
THOSE ARE JUST
HALLUCINATIONS!
GOTTA LOOK QUICK!
YOU JUST MISSED IT!
Rado wild-guesses the aethrons
to be a ?million? PER ELECTRON.
They have a small finite size
and a mass of one aethron.
That's your smallest
common component.
The ELECTRON is the smallest and
fundamental COMPOSITE PARTICLE.
THAT'S YOUR TOOL KIT
TO BUILD THE UNIVERSE!
> Aether point flows over it
> ordering it in time flow.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
????
YOU GUYS HAVE SOME BIG CLUES!
JUST BEING AETHERISTS
LEAPS YOU HUGELY AHEAD!
THAT'S THE *RIGHT* ANSWER!
BUT YOU *CAN'T* UNDERSTAND
THE UNIVERSE ITSELF UNTIL
YOU READ RADO!
HE'S THE *ONLY* ONE
WHO FIGURED IT OUT!
With the clues of Gallileo, Kepler, DeCartes, Faraday
and Maxwell, he perfects the aether theory!
FORGET EVERYONE FROM
MAXWELL TO RADO!
THEY HAD
*NO* CLUE!
THEY ARE ALL
LOST LOSERS!
IT'S ALL
NAUSEATING
NONSENSE!
GET THE
*FREE*
CLUES!
READ RADO!
O
--- )
\
NEWSGROUPS:
alt.ucp,alt.conspiracy,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
PERMALINK: http://net-prophet.net/blog/?p=1498
mpc755
Energy, at least in E=mc^2, is the effect matter transitioning to
aether has on the surrounding aether and matter.
Szczepan Bialek
"BURT" <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote
news:084f2c01-f0c5-482f...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 22, 6:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 9:24 pm, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> > On Nov 18, 9:39 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
>> > > Energy is the effect matter transitioning to
> > >aether has on the surrounding aether and matter.
>
>> > Although that is true if matter is atomic and aether is the
> > continuous form of the same material out of which atoms are made, the
> > word "energy" includes far more than that.
>
>> > glird
>
>> Not when discussing E=mc^2. When discussing E=mc^2, and:
>
>> 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A.
> EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
>
>> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> diminishes by L/c2."
>
>> In the above statement, the mass of the body diminishes, but the
> matter associated with the mass of the body that diminishes doesn't
> disappear. It doesn't cease to exist. It still exists, as aether. The
> effect the matter associated with the diminished mass transitioning to
> aether has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy.
>Light motion is fastest but it has no energy of flow.
Each real wave transports the mass. This is proved.
It means that the Sun produces the aether. But where and how the aether is
reworked into mass I do not know.
>This can be proved. If it did all light would have a constant energy that
>is
kinetic. All light would have the energy of the C constant in the
aether. This is clearly not the case. But its real energy is in its
frequency or its waving in time-aether.
Some people try to describe waves with a math. To do this they must assume
many simplifications. But the result is the math.
In physics even one simplification is not allowed.
S*
mpc755
> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrotenews:084f2c01-f0c5-482f...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 22, 6:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 22, 9:24 pm, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Nov 18, 9:39 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> >> > > Energy is the effect matter transitioning to
> > > >aether has on the surrounding aether and matter.
>
> >> > Although that is true if matter is atomic and aether is the
> > > continuous form of the same material out of which atoms are made, the
> > > word "energy" includes far more than that.
>
> >> > glird
>
> >> Not when discussing E=mc^2. When discussing E=mc^2, and:
>
> >> 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A.
> > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
>
> >> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> > diminishes by L/c2."
>
> >> In the above statement, the mass of the body diminishes, but the
> > matter associated with the mass of the body that diminishes doesn't
> > disappear. It doesn't cease to exist. It still exists, as aether. The
> > effect the matter associated with the diminished mass transitioning to
> > aether has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy.
> >Light motion is fastest but it has no energy of flow.
>
> Each real wave transports the mass. This is proved.
> It means that the Sun produces the aether. But where and how the aether is
> reworked into mass I do not know.
>
The Sun produces the aether wave. When the aether wave is detected,
what is occurring is the aether wave 'collapses' and is detected as a
quantum of aether.
KONCHOK.PENDAY
Szczepan Bialek [sz.b...@wp.pl] wrote:
> "BURT" <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote
news:084f2c01-f0c5-482f...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 22, 6:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 22, 9:24 pm, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > On Nov 18, 9:39 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>>
>>> > > Energy is the effect matter transitioning to
>> > >aether has on the surrounding aether and matter.
OK.
>>> > Although that is true if matter is atomic and aether is the
>> > continuous form of the same material out of which atoms are made,
>> > the word "energy" includes far more than that.
OK.
>>> > glird
>>
>>> Not when discussing E=mc^2. When discussing E=mc^2, and:
>>
>>> 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A.
>> EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
>>
>>> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
>> diminishes by L/c2."
>>
>>> In the above statement, the mass of the body diminishes, but the
>> matter associated with the mass of the body that diminishes doesn't
>> disappear. It doesn't cease to exist. It still exists, as aether. The
>> effect the matter associated with the diminished mass transitioning
>> to aether has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy.
OK.
>>Light motion is fastest but it has no energy of flow.
???? Then how does it create effects?
> Each real wave transports the mass.
YES, LIGHT HAS MASS AND MOMENTUM.
> This is proved.
YES.
> It means that the Sun produces the aether.
NOT AT ALL!
YOU HAVE IT
BACKWARDS!
THE SUN IS MADE
OUT OF AETHER!
JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE!
> But where and how the aether is
> reworked into mass I do not know.
IN EVERY COSMIC BODY!
THE SUN CREATES ITS OWN MASS
OUT OF THE "INHALED" AETHER.
WHICH PRODUCES THE SINK-VORTEX
SUCTION WE CALL "GRAVITY"!
>> This can be proved. If it did all light would have a constant energy
>> that is kinetic. All light would have the energy of the C constant
>> in the aether. This is clearly not the case. But its real energy is
>> in its frequency or its waving in time-aether.
????
> Some people try to describe waves with a math.
> To do this they must assume many simplifications.
> But the result is the math.
FREE CLUE:
MATH IS NOT PHYSICS!
> In physics even one simplification is not allowed.
> S*
YES!
YOU SIMPLY NEED
TO READ RADO!
HE'LL FIX YOU
RIGHT UP!
O
--- )
\
NEWSGROUPS:
alt.ucp,alt.conspiracy,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
PERMALINK: http://net-prophet.net/blog/?p=1503
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The atom is part immaterial aether. It thus is also an aether form.
Energy is released by the order of the Aether.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
A material atom, which I interpret to mean nucleus, is immaterial?
The aether between the nuclei of atoms is matter in its base state,
and as such it is material.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Aether is inbetween energy forms light and atom in space.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
Aether and matter is the same stuff in different states of existence.
Matter is compressed aether. When matter decompresses to aether, the
expanding matter's effect on the surrounding aether and matter is
energy.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
The principle of sameness is wrong.
Mitch Raemsch
Szczepan Bialek
"KONCHOK.PENDAY" <K...@net-prophet.net> napisal w wiadomosci
news:heessb$qsu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Above you wrote: "With the clues of Gallileo, Kepler, DeCartes, Faraday
and Maxwell, he perfects the aether theory!
FORGET EVERYONE FROM
MAXWELL TO RADO!"
Maxwell assumed that the electricty is a massless, incompressible fluid. The
best Etherist was Helmholtz. He was much better in the whirls, waves,
acoustic and the rest than somebody.
Does Rado analyse Helmholtz works?
S*
>
> HE'LL FIX YOU
> RIGHT UP!
>
> BY FAR the BEST book on physics EVER written:
> =============================================
> AETHRO-KINEMATICS IS THE MAIN RADO TEXT
> It�s 527 pages of tightly-reasoned analysis
> by the greatest physicist of all time!
> http://net-prophet.net/rado-ak/aethro_3.pdf
> =============================================
>
> NO BULLSHIT!
> I GUARANTEE IT!
> JUST HARD-NOSED
> SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY!
>
> It�s also the best
> history of physics
> ever written!
>
> Even better than
> Richard McKeon!
>
> But Rado perfectly
> illustrates both
> McKeon�s analysis
> AND PREDICTIONS!
>
> HIS �LEAST PARTICLES�
> ANALYSIS IS ONE OF MCKEON�S
> FOUR PRIMARY MODES OF THOUGHT!
>
> THE ONE THAT PERFECTLY
> HEXPLAINS AND CONSTRUCTS
> THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.
>
> THAT�S A BIG
> DOUBLE WOW-WOW!
>
> CAUTION: *NOT* FOR
> the faint of heart!
> May be dangerous to
> preconceived prejudices!
>
> Steve�s site is:
> http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/
>
> My intro to Steve�s work is:
> http://net-prophet.net/nobul/rado/rado.htm
>
> See �05* AETHER PHYSICS� in the
> right-hand column of my blog at:
> http://net-prophet.net/blog/
> AND the �PHYSICS� CATEGORY
> in the left-hand column!
>
> Also see the �AETHER PHYSICS� TOPIC
> under the �2-FORUMS� in the blog PAGES.
>
> That�s the reading list for now,
> but �Aethro-dynamics� will be
mpc755
Matter is compressed aether. Aether is matter in its base form.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as
aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands at 'c' in three
dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether
and matter is energy.
KONCHOK.PENDAY
>
> "KONCHOK.PENDAY" <K...@net-prophet.net> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:heessb$qsu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:29:58 +0100,
>> Szczepan Bialek [sz.b...@wp.pl] wrote:
>>
>> > "BURT" <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
news:084f2c01-f0c5-482f...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Nov 22, 6:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 22, 9:24 pm, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> > On Nov 18, 9:39 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> > > Energy is the effect matter transitioning to
>> >> > >aether has on the surrounding aether and matter.
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> >>> > Although that is true if matter is atomic and aether is the
>> >> > continuous form of the same material out of which atoms are made,
>> >> > the word "energy" includes far more than that.
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> >>> > glird
>> >>
>> >>> Not when discussing E=mc^2. When discussing E=mc^2, and:
>> >>
>> >>> 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A.
>> >> EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
>> >>
>> >>> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
>> >> diminishes by L/c2."
>> >>
>> >>> In the above statement, the mass of the body diminishes, but the
>> >> matter associated with the mass of the body that diminishes doesn't
>> >> disappear. It doesn't cease to exist. It still exists, as aether. The
>> >> effect the matter associated with the diminished mass transitioning
>> >> to aether has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy.
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> >>Light motion is fastest but it has no energy of flow.
>>
>> ???? Then how does it create effects?
>>
>> > Each real wave transports the mass.
>>
>> YES, LIGHT HAS MASS AND MOMENTUM.
>>
>> > This is proved.
>>
>> YES.
>>
>> > It means that the Sun produces the aether.
>>
>> NOT AT ALL!
>>
>> YOU HAVE IT
>> BACKWARDS!
>>
>> THE SUN IS MADE
>> OUT OF AETHER!
>>
>> JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE!
>>
>> > But where and how the aether is
>> > reworked into mass I do not know.
>>
>> IN EVERY COSMIC BODY!
>>
>> THE SUN CREATES ITS OWN MASS
>> OUT OF THE "INHALED" AETHER.
>> WHICH PRODUCES THE SINK-VORTEX
>> SUCTION WE CALL "GRAVITY"!
>>
>> >> This can be proved. If it did all light would have a constant energy
>> >> that is kinetic. All light would have the energy of the C constant
>> >> in the aether. This is clearly not the case. But its real energy is
>> >> in its frequency or its waving in time-aether.
>>
>> ????
>>
>> > Some people try to describe waves with a math.
>> > To do this they must assume many simplifications.
>> > But the result is the math.
>>
>> FREE CLUE:
>> MATH IS NOT PHYSICS!
>>
>> > In physics even one simplification is not allowed.
>> > S*
>>
>> YES!
>>
>> YOU SIMPLY NEED
>> TO READ RADO!
Szczepan Bialek replies:
> Above you wrote: "With the clues of Gallileo, Kepler, DeCartes,
> Faraday and Maxwell, he perfects the aether theory!
YES. That's not an exclusive list,
but some of the high points.
He mentions almost everybody.
Thanks for replying!
You noticed I was
saying something!
> FORGET EVERYONE FROM
> MAXWELL TO RADO!"
>
> Maxwell assumed that the electricty is a massless,
> incompressible fluid.
OK. That's not true,
but he was an aetherist,
despite some errors!
I believe the electron was
discovered after Maxwell.
> The best Etherist was Helmholtz.
Good for him!
That may very well have
been true, PRE-RADO!
> He was much better in the whirls, waves,
> acoustic and the rest than somebody.
RADO IS BIG ON MAPS, CHARTS
AND ILLUSTRATIONS! HE PINS
IT *ALL* DOWN EXACTLY SO
YOU CAN *VISUALIZE* WHAT
EVERY AETHERON IS DOING!
HE'S GOT THE WHOLE STREAM-BED
OF UNIVERSAL FLOW ON HIS MAP!
IT SOUNDS LIKE IF
YOU LIKE HELMHOLTZ
YOU WILL LOVE RADO!
> Does Rado analyse Helmholtz works?
> S*
There may be a passing reference
I have forgotten, but he doesn't
go into detail. However he meticulously
analyses the whirls and waves so you
know exactly what is happening.
===============
HE FIGURED OUT
THE WHOLE GAME!
===============
I DON'T THINK YOU
WILL BE DISAPPOINTED!
AND HE LEFT THE PHYSICS
OF THE NUCLEUS FOR YOU
TO TO FILL IN WITH HIS
AETHRO-KINEMATIC UNDERSTANDING!
BETTER GET BUSY!
*YOUR* NOBEL PRIZE
STILL NEEDS SOME WORK!
THE NEUTRON IS UNSTABLE
OUTSIDE OF THE NUCLEUS
AND DECAYS IN A FEW MINUTES.
BUT INSIDE THE NUCLEUS
IT IS APPARENTLY STABLE.
WHY IS THAT?
I THINK IT'S A FUNCTION OF
BOUNDARY CURRENTS AROUND THE
NUCLEUS WHICH CAPTURE LOST
AETHER AND REDISTRIBUTE IT
WHERE NEEDED WITHIN THE NUCLEUS
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
YOUR ANSWER MIGHT
BE A NOBEL PRIZE!
BUT YOU GOTTA
READ RADO TO GET
YOUR BRAIN WORKING
ON THE PROBLEM FIRST!
*HE* CRACKED THE CODE!
O
--- )
\
NEWSGROUPS:
alt.ucp,alt.conspiracy,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
PERMALINK: http://net-prophet.net/blog/?p=1515
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Energy is together with the aether. Sometimes they are one but not all
the time. This is for time-energy when falling in gravity.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
'Falling in gravity' is the effect the displaced aether has pushing on
objects. That is why objects fall at 32ft/s^2. There is increasingly
more displaced aether pushing the object 'down' as it continues to
'fall'.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Space flow pushes from the inside.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
So aether collects in gravity? Should it not flow faster? and create
faster time in the strength of gravity?
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
Aether becomes entrained by massive objects. There is a connectedness
to the Earth and the Aether. You can consider the Moon to be
'floating' in the Earth's aether vortex. But, the entrained aether is
not responsible for gravity. Jupiter's outer moons orbit in the
opposite direction of its inner moons. The outer moons 'fell out of'
Jupiter's aether whirlpool but remain in orbit due to Jupiter's
displaced aether which is pushing back.
Here is a video of a hurricane. Near the end of the video (around the
0:50 mark), the clouds to the right of the hurricane appear to start
going in the opposite direction as the hurricane's rotation. Now, if
there were enough pressure (i.e. pushing back) towards the hurricane,
the clouds would continue to rotate around the eye of the hurricane in
the opposite direction of the inner clouds. This is what is occurring
with Jupiter and its satellites:
KONCHOK.PENDAY
> Aether becomes entrained by massive objects.
YES!
IT IS ABSORBED OR INHALED
BY MASSIVE OBJECTS, AND
CONVERTED INTO MATTER!
THAT'S WHY THERE IS ALWAYS
A BIG LUMP AT THE BOTTOM
OF A GRAVITY WELL!
THIS SINK-VORTEX SUCTION
IS WHAT WE CALL GRAVITY!
> There is a connectedness
> to the Earth and the Aether.
YES! AND EVERYTHING ELSE!
> You can consider the Moon to be
> 'floating' in the Earth's aether vortex.
NO. *FREE FALLING* IN THAT VORTEX!
GRAVITY DOES NOT FLOAT OBJECTS!
IT MAKES THEM FALL!
> But, the entrained aether is
> not responsible for gravity.
YOU NEED TO
RETHINK THAT!
THE AETHER FLOW
*IS* GRAVITY!
IT'S STUNNINGLY OBVIOUS
WHEN YOU FINALLY READ RADO!
> Jupiter's outer moons orbit in the
> opposite direction of its inner moons.
SO THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY
*CAPTURED* MOONS, NOT
INDIGENOUS ONES!
> The outer moons 'fell out of'
> Jupiter's aether whirlpool but
> remain in orbit due to Jupiter's
> displaced aether which is pushing back.
HOW CAN YOU "FALL OUT" OF GRAVITY!
THE ONLY WAY TO FALL IS
*IN* OR *DOWN*, NEVER UP!
> Here is a video of a hurricane. Near the end of the video (around the
> 0:50 mark), the clouds to the right of the hurricane appear to start
> going in the opposite direction as the hurricane's rotation. Now, if
> there were enough pressure (i.e. pushing back) towards the hurricane,
> the clouds would continue to rotate around the eye of the hurricane in
> the opposite direction of the inner clouds. This is what is occurring
> with Jupiter and its satellites:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SLXYRJnYm0
BUT THAT'S NOT PART OF THE HURRICANE!
WIND BLOWS IN ALL DIRECTIONS!
YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND PHYSICS,
UNTIL YOU HAVE READ RADO!
HE'S THE *ONLY* ONE
TO FIGURE IT OUT YET!
YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF
THE CRITICAL CLUES,
BUT YOU HAVEN'T YET
ASSEMBLED THEM TO
MAKE THE BIG PICTURE!
BE KIND TO YOUR BRAIN!
READ RADO!
BY FAR the BEST book on physics EVER written:
=============================================
AETHRO-KINEMATICS IS THE MAIN RADO TEXT
It�s 527 pages of tightly-reasoned analysis
by the greatest physicist of all time!
http://net-prophet.net/rado-ak/aethro_3.pdf
=============================================
NO BULLSHIT!
I GUARANTEE IT!
JUST HARD-NOSED
SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY!
It�s also the best
history of physics
ever written!
Even better than
Richard McKeon!
But Rado perfectly
illustrates both
McKeon�s analysis
AND PREDICTIONS!
HIS �LEAST PARTICLES�
ANALYSIS IS ONE OF MCKEON�S
FOUR PRIMARY MODES OF THOUGHT!
THE ONE THAT PERFECTLY
HEXPLAINS AND CONSTRUCTS
THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.
THAT�S A BIG
DOUBLE WOW-WOW!
CAUTION: *NOT* FOR
the faint of heart!
May be dangerous to
preconceived prejudices!
Steve�s site is:
http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/
My intro to Steve�s work is:
http://net-prophet.net/nobul/rado/rado.htm
See �05* AETHER PHYSICS� in the
right-hand column of my blog at:
http://net-prophet.net/blog/
AND the �PHYSICS� CATEGORY
in the left-hand column!
Also see the �AETHER PHYSICS� TOPIC
under the �2-FORUMS� in the blog PAGES.
That�s the reading list for now,
but �Aethro-dynamics� will be
released ANY DAY NOW!
O
--- )
\
NEWSGROUPS:
alt.ucp,alt.conspiracy,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
PERMALINK: http://net-prophet.net/blog/?p=1520
Szczepan Bia�ek
"KONCHOK.PENDAY" <K...@net-prophet.net> wrote
news:hehc5o$4vn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:16:42 +0100, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>
> Szczepan Bialek replies:
> > Above you wrote: "With the clues of Gallileo, Kepler, DeCartes,
> > Faraday and Maxwell, he perfects the aether theory!
>
> YES. That's not an exclusive list,
> but some of the high points.
> He mentions almost everybody.
>
> Thanks for replying!
> You noticed I was
> saying something!
>
> > FORGET EVERYONE FROM
> > MAXWELL TO RADO!"
> >
> > Maxwell assumed that the electricty is a massless,
> > incompressible fluid.
>
> OK. That's not true,
> but he was an aetherist,
> despite some errors!
>
> I believe the electron was
> discovered after Maxwell.
The name. It was discovered by Faraday, Ampere discovered that electricity
repel in the wire (longitudinal force).
>
> > The best Etherist was Helmholtz.
>
> Good for him!
>
> That may very well have
> been true, PRE-RADO!
>
> > He was much better in the whirls, waves,
> > acoustic and the rest than somebody.
>
> RADO IS BIG ON MAPS, CHARTS
> AND ILLUSTRATIONS! HE PINS
> IT *ALL* DOWN EXACTLY SO
> YOU CAN *VISUALIZE* WHAT
> EVERY AETHERON IS DOING!
>
> HE'S GOT THE WHOLE STREAM-BED
> OF UNIVERSAL FLOW ON HIS MAP!
>
> IT SOUNDS LIKE IF
> YOU LIKE HELMHOLTZ
> YOU WILL LOVE RADO!
I came across Rodo 4 years ago. About Helmholtz I found this yesterday:
http://www.wbabin.net/science/dinu7.pdf
Nobel prize is for teachers. Scientists work in secret laboratories and do
not publish.
I took a glance at it 4 years ago. Steve's aether is like ideal gas. Up to
now many analysed gas, liquid and solids analogy. In solids no place for
magnetic whirl.
I try to read the significant ideas collected by Ionel DINU:
http://www.wbabin.net/science/dinu7.pdf
It would be interesting to ask Ionel about Rodo's ideas. Could you ask him?
S*
>
> My intro to Steve's work is:
> http://net-prophet.net/nobul/rado/rado.htm
>
> See "05* AETHER PHYSICS" in the
> right-hand column of my blog at:
> http://net-prophet.net/blog/
> AND the "PHYSICS" CATEGORY
> in the left-hand column!
>
> Also see the "AETHER PHYSICS" TOPIC
> under the "2-FORUMS" in the blog PAGES.
>
> That's the reading list for now,
> but "Aethro-dynamics" will be
> released ANY DAY NOW!
>
>
KONCHOK.PENDAY
FANTASTIC!
YOU ARE WAY AHEAD
OF THE NEWSGROUP!
> About Helmholtz I found this yesterday:
> http://www.wbabin.net/science/dinu7.pdf
FANTASTIC!
Aether theory was already
quite advanced in the mid-1800's!
RADO FINALLY PUT
THE LOST PIECES
BACK TOGETHER AGAIN!
OK!
BUT WILL YOU SELL ME
A FREE ENERGY MACHINE?
FANTASTIC!
WHAT HAPPENED?
> Steve's aether is like ideal gas.
YES!
EXACTLY!
BUT MADE OF AETHRONS, NOT ATOMS!
> Up to now many analysed gas, liquid and solids analogy.
YES!
> In solids no place for magnetic whirl.
????
DON'T FOLLOW.
MOST MAGNETS ARE SOLID!
HOW CAN THAT WORK?
> I try to read the significant ideas collected by Ionel DINU:
FANTASTIC!
I BELIEVE THE BEST
SUMMARY NOW IS RADO!
> http://www.wbabin.net/science/dinu7.pdf
> It would be interesting to ask Ionel about Rodo's ideas.
I AGREE!
> Could you ask him?
SURE!
NOW AWAITING
A REPLY!
> S*
My intro to Steve's work is:
http://net-prophet.net/nobul/rado/rado.htm
See "05* AETHER PHYSICS" in the
right-hand column of my blog at:
http://net-prophet.net/blog/
AND the "PHYSICS" CATEGORY
in the left-hand column!
Also see the "AETHER PHYSICS" TOPIC
under the "2-FORUMS" in the blog PAGES.
That's the reading list for now,
but "Aethro-dynamics" will be
released ANY DAY NOW!
NEWSGROUPS:
alt.ucp,alt.conspiracy,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
PERMALINK: http://net-prophet.net/blog/?p=1524
Szczepan Bialek
"KONCHOK.PENDAY" <K...@net-prophet.net> wrote
news:hek2ol$u35$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:09:59 +0100,
> Szczepan Bia�ek [sz.b...@wp.pl] wrote:
>
> > >>
> >>
> >> Steve's site is:
> >> http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/
> >
> > I took a glance at it 4 years ago.
>
> FANTASTIC!
>
> WHAT HAPPENED?
>
> > Steve's aether is like ideal gas.
>
> YES!
>
> EXACTLY!
>
> BUT MADE OF AETHRONS, NOT ATOMS!
>
> > Up to now many analysed gas, liquid and solids analogy.
>
> YES!
>
> > In solids no place for magnetic whirl.
>
> ????
In solids only the oscilations (also rotational) are possible.
>
> DON'T FOLLOW.
>
> MOST MAGNETS ARE SOLID!
>
> HOW CAN THAT WORK?
I mean solid aether.
>
> > I try to read the significant ideas collected by Ionel DINU:
>
> FANTASTIC!
>
> I BELIEVE THE BEST
> SUMMARY NOW IS RADO!
The first was the solid aether with longitudinal waves. Next the jelly
(Stokes). Next many proposed gas and liquid (there are necessary permament
vibrations). Next Maxwell proposed the solid with the transverse waves. What
is the Rado's aether like?
What the waves are? (longitudinal or transversal)
> > http://www.wbabin.net/science/dinu7.pdf
>
> > It would be interesting to ask Ionel about Rodo's ideas.
>
> I AGREE!
>
> > Could you ask him?
>
> SURE!
>
> NOW AWAITING
> A REPLY!
Me too.
S*
KONCHOK.PENDAY
Szczepan Bialek [sz.b...@wp.pl] wrote:
>
> "KONCHOK.PENDAY" <K...@net-prophet.net> wrote
> news:hek2ol$u35$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:09:59 +0100,
>> Szczepan Bia�ek [sz.b...@wp.pl] wrote:
>>
>> > >>
> > >>
>> >> Steve's site is:
>> >> http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/
>> >
>> > I took a glance at it 4 years ago.
>>
>> FANTASTIC!
>>
>> WHAT HAPPENED?
>>
>> > Steve's aether is like ideal gas.
>>
>> YES!
>>
>> EXACTLY!
>>
>> BUT MADE OF AETHRONS, NOT ATOMS!
>>
>> > Up to now many analysed gas, liquid and solids analogy.
>>
>> YES!
>>
>> > In solids no place for magnetic whirl.
>>
>> ????
>
> In solids only the oscilations (also rotational) are possible.
I BELIEVE THERE IS
PLENTY OF ROOM FOR AETHER!
>> DON'T FOLLOW.
>>
>> MOST MAGNETS ARE SOLID!
>>
>> HOW CAN THAT WORK?
>
> I mean solid aether.
OK. EVERYTHING
SOLID *IS* AETHER!
>> > I try to read the significant ideas collected by Ionel DINU:
>>
>> FANTASTIC!
>>
>> I BELIEVE THE BEST
>> SUMMARY NOW IS RADO!
>
> The first was the solid aether with longitudinal waves. Next the jelly
> (Stokes). Next many proposed gas and liquid (there are necessary
> permament vibrations). Next Maxwell proposed the solid with the
> transverse waves. What is the Rado's aether like?
> What the waves are? (longitudinal or transversal)
I BELIEVE HE'S WITH MAXWELL.
HE DEALS EXPLICITY WITH THAT PROBLEM.
>> > http://www.wbabin.net/science/dinu7.pdf
>>
>> > It would be interesting to ask Ionel about Rodo's ideas.
>>
>> I AGREE!
>>
>> > Could you ask him?
>>
>> SURE!
>>
>> NOW AWAITING
>> A REPLY!
>
> Me too.
> S*
UNFORTUNATELY,
NO REPLY DUE TO
BADDRESS BOUNCED!
READ RADO!
BY FAR the BEST book on physics EVER written:
=============================================
AETHRO-KINEMATICS IS THE MAIN RADO TEXT
It�s 527 pages of tightly-reasoned analysis
by the greatest physicist of all time!
http://net-prophet.net/rado-ak/aethro_3.pdf
=============================================
NO BULLSHIT!
I GUARANTEE IT!
JUST HARD-NOSED
SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY!
It�s also the best
history of physics
ever written!
Even better than
Richard McKeon!
But Rado perfectly
illustrates both
McKeon�s analysis
AND PREDICTIONS!
HIS �LEAST PARTICLES�
ANALYSIS IS ONE OF MCKEON�S
FOUR PRIMARY MODES OF THOUGHT!
THE ONE THAT PERFECTLY
HEXPLAINS AND CONSTRUCTS
THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.
THAT�S A BIG
DOUBLE WOW-WOW!
CAUTION: *NOT* FOR
the faint of heart!
May be dangerous to
preconceived prejudices!
Steve�s site is:
http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/
My intro to Steve�s work is:
http://net-prophet.net/nobul/rado/rado.htm
See �05* AETHER PHYSICS� in the
right-hand column of my blog at:
http://net-prophet.net/blog/
AND the �PHYSICS� CATEGORY
in the left-hand column!
Also see the �AETHER PHYSICS� TOPIC
under the �2-FORUMS� in the blog PAGES.
That�s the reading list for now,
but �Aethro-dynamics� will be
released ANY DAY NOW!
O
--- )
\
NEWSGROUPS:
alt.ucp,alt.conspiracy,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
PERMALINK: http://net-prophet.net/blog/?p=1537
Szczepan Bialek
"KONCHOK.PENDAY" <K...@net-prophet.net> wrote
news:hemh2i$h9t$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:59:52 +0100,
> Szczepan Bialek [sz.b...@wp.pl] wrote:
>
> >
> > The first was the solid aether with longitudinal waves. Next the jelly
> > (Stokes). Next many proposed gas and liquid (there are necessary
> > permament vibrations). Next Maxwell proposed the solid with the
> > transverse waves. What is the Rado's aether like?
> > What the waves are? (longitudinal or transversal)
>
> I BELIEVE HE'S WITH MAXWELL.
> HE DEALS EXPLICITY WITH THAT PROBLEM.
It is not with Maxwell. "Aethro-Kinematics extends and widens Faraday's
ideas. For example, it demonstrates that a perforated pipe with a fan in its
middle creates a similar to a magnetic field. When two such 'fan magnets'
are placed in proximity to each other they behave like ordinary bar-magnets,
exhibiting attraction between unlike poles and repulsion between like poles.
"
"circulation in the surrounding medium" is possible only in an aether like
gas, liquid and jelly.
Maxwell's aether is like solid body. Such is necessary for his transversal
waves. There are the oscillation, stress and strain.
Read Ionel and tell as which idea is simmilar to Rado.
S*
Szczepan Bialek
> Szczepan Bialek [sz.b...@wp.pl] wrote:
>
What is the Rado's aether like?
> > What the waves are? (longitudinal or transversal)
>
> I BELIEVE HE'S WITH MAXWELL.
> HE DEALS EXPLICITY WITH THAT PROBLEM.
Rado wrote "
The philosophical notion that the cosmos is filled by a superfine gas,
called Aether, originates from antiquity. Its mechanical version in
classical physics was introduced by Christian Huygens in order to explain
the transmission of light via compression waves, analogous to the
transmission of sound in air. In this form Aether became the potential
mediator of all mysterious 'action at a distance forces' such as gravity,
magnetism and electricity. In the nineteenth century, the task of science
seemed to be designing suitable fluid dynamical models utilizing Aether to
explain each of those mysterious forces. Faraday and Maxwell nearly
concluded this task with respect to the mysteries of magnetism and
electricity. -- Nevertheless, one attempt to explain the polarization of
light required the transverse oscillation of the transmitting medium, which
could only be possible in a solid substance. This diversity in the models of
Aether became a crucial problem in theoretical physics. Finally, at the turn
of the twentieth century the Special Theory of Relativity discarded the
Aether altogether.
Aethro-Kinematics renders an alternate mechanical solution for the
polarization of light. Thus, it reinstates Faraday and Maxwell's gaseous
model of the Aether and resumes the original task of exploring all 'action
at a distance forces' as fluid dynamical behavior of the all-pervading
Aether. -- In Aethro-Kinematics, Aether is taken as an all-pervading gas at
an ultra-microscopic order of magnitude. The constituents of this medium,
the 'Aethrons', are in constant random motion with perfectly elastic
collisions, analogous to the atoms of an ideal gas. -- This system obeys the
simple laws of the Kinetic Theory of Gases"
>
"Aethro-Kinematics renders an alternate mechanical solution for the
polarization of light"
Is it possible to know that without reading the 527 pages?
S*
KONCHOK.PENDAY
Szczepan Bialek [sz.b...@wp.pl] wrote:
> "KONCHOK.PENDAY" <K...@net-prophet.net> wrote
> news:hemh2i$h9t$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:59:52 +0100,
>> Szczepan Bialek [sz.b...@wp.pl] wrote:
>>
> What is the Rado's aether like?
>> > What the waves are? (longitudinal or transversal)
Thanks for the question!
You are the sharpest in the newsgroup
on the subject of Aether. Your grasp
of the history is truely astonishing!
I'm really excited you are
considering Rado again!
YOU SEEM TO HAVE THE BEST
GRASP OF AETHER HERE,
I BET YOU GET IT!
You've worked out
so much already!
The truth is, I couldn't remember!
I had even forgotten what
transverse and longitudinal are!
It's been almost 15 years since I read it!
I was tracking pretty good at the time,
but most of the details have vanished.
So I gave a fake answer:
>> I BELIEVE HE'S WITH MAXWELL.
>> HE DEALS EXPLICITY WITH THAT PROBLEM.
I remembered him dealing
with it, but I couldn't
remember anything he said!
That embarrassed me, so
I took a few days and
reviewed Chapter 14.
I need to reread the whole thing,
but that took me two months last
time I did it, at ten pages a day,
which I reckon is a full day's work.
IT'S NOT AN EASY READ!
BUT WHEN YOU GET IT,
IT CHANGES EVERYTHING!
[Even if you forget many details,
the core concepts are indelible]
Rado very carefully analyzes
all kinds of wave motions
and demonstrates there is
no such thing as an exclusively
transverse wave. A pressure
wave in aether always has
a longitudinal component.
That changes the analysis
and conclusions significantly!
He reviews diffraction and
polarization and proposes
an aethro-kinematic model.
Pages 275-315
Yes, he answers that question in
chapter 14, stating on page 275.
I suspect however, that by the time you
finish that chapter, you will realize
you need to read the whole thing to
UNDERSTAND THE UNIVERSE ITSELF!
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN
A MIND LIKE STEVE'S!
HE COLLECTS *ALL* THE
PROBLEMS NO ONE ELSE
CAN SOLVE, AND FOR
HIS GRAND FINALE,
HE MAKES THEM
*ALL* DISSAPEAR
IN A CLOUD OF
"HOLY SHIT!"
AETHRO-KINEMATICS IS
THE MOST IMPORTANT
BOOK ON PHYSICS
EVER WRITTEN!
I'm so glad you
are looking at it!
YOU'VE GOT THE
BEST POSSIBLE
BACKGROUND TO
APPRECIATE IT!
O
--- )
\
READ RADO!
O
--- )
\
NEWSGROUPS:
alt.ucp,alt.conspiracy,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
PERMALINK: http://net-prophet.net/blog/?p=1544
Szczepan Bialek
"KONCHOK.PENDAY" <K...@net-prophet.net> wrote
news:hevioc$i7q$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Waves can propagate in the all media. That like gas, like liquid, like jelly
and like solid.
Stokes was the first who chose the like jelly (1845). But some try to find
something different. Maxwell chose the solid, Helmholtz and bierkens the
liquid. The gas was free. Rado chose it.
>In this form
> > Aether became the potential mediator of all mysterious 'action at a
> distance forces' such as
> gravity,
>> magnetism and electricity. In the nineteenth century, the task of
> science
>> seemed to be designing suitable fluid dynamical models utilizing
> Aether to
>> explain each of those mysterious forces. Faraday and Maxwell nearly
>> concluded this task with respect to the mysteries of magnetism and
>> electricity. -- Nevertheless, one attempt to explain the polarization of
>> light required the transverse oscillation of the transmitting medium,
> which
>> could only be possible in a solid substance. This diversity in the
> models of
>> Aether became a crucial problem in theoretical physics. Finally, at
> the turn
>> of the twentieth century the Special Theory of Relativity discarded the
>> Aether altogether.
>> Aethro-Kinematics renders an alternate mechanical solution for the
>> polarization of light. Thus, it reinstates Faraday
Faraday said that in the space are the flows or the stresses. Static
electric field fits better to stresses.
>and Maxwell's gaseous
>> model of the Aether and resumes the original task of exploring all
> 'action
>> at a distance forces' as fluid dynamical behavior of the all-pervading
>> Aether. -- In Aethro-Kinematics, Aether is taken as an all-pervading
> gas at
>> an ultra-microscopic order of magnitude. The constituents of this
> medium,
>> the 'Aethrons', are in constant random motion with perfectly elastic
>> collisions, analogous to the atoms of an ideal gas. -- This system
> obeys the
>> simple laws of the Kinetic Theory of Gases"
>>>
>> "Aethro-Kinematics renders an alternate mechanical solution for the
>> polarization of light"
>>
>> Is it possible to know that without reading the 527 pages?
>>
>> S*
>
> Yes, he answers that question in
> chapter 14, stating on page 275.
>
> I suspect however, that by the time you
> finish that chapter, you will realize
> you need to read the whole thing to
> UNDERSTAND THE UNIVERSE ITSELF!
I took a glance at the all 527. Rado is an excellent writer.
But what the aether is like is not important. "No aether" means no aether in
teaching program. Step by step one idea will be the winner. I bet that it be
the jelly like. There are the strsses possible and it can slowly rotate like
whirl around the Sun.
S*
> It�s 527 pages of tightly-reasoned analysis
> by the greatest physicist of all time!
> http://net-prophet.net/rado-ak/aethro_3.pdf
> =============================================
>
> NO BULLSHIT!
> I GUARANTEE IT!
> JUST HARD-NOSED
> SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY!
>
> It�s also the best
> history of physics
> ever written!
>
> Even better than
> Richard McKeon!
>
> But Rado perfectly
> illustrates both
> McKeon�s analysis
> AND PREDICTIONS!
>
> HIS �LEAST PARTICLES�
> ANALYSIS IS ONE OF MCKEON�S
> FOUR PRIMARY MODES OF THOUGHT!
>
> THE ONE THAT PERFECTLY
> HEXPLAINS AND CONSTRUCTS
> THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.
>
> THAT�S A BIG
> DOUBLE WOW-WOW!
>
> CAUTION: *NOT* FOR
> the faint of heart!
> May be dangerous to
> preconceived prejudices!
>
> Steve�s site is:
> http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/
>
> My intro to Steve�s work is:
> http://net-prophet.net/nobul/rado/rado.htm
>
> See �05* AETHER PHYSICS� in the
> right-hand column of my blog at:
> http://net-prophet.net/blog/
> AND the �PHYSICS� CATEGORY
> in the left-hand column!
>
> Also see the �AETHER PHYSICS� TOPIC
> under the �2-FORUMS� in the blog PAGES.
>
> That�s the reading list for now,
> but �Aethro-dynamics� will be
KONCHOK.PENDAY
Szczepan Bialek [sz.b...@wp.pl] wrote:
>>> gas,called Aether, originates from antiquity. Its mechanical
>>> version in classical physics was introduced by Christian Huygens
>>> in order to explain the transmission of light via compression
>>> waves, analogous to the transmission of sound in air.
> Waves can propagate in the all media. That like gas, like liquid,
> like jelly and like solid.
YES!
> Stokes was the first who chose the like jelly (1845). But some
> try to find something different. Maxwell chose the solid,
> Helmholtz and bierkens the liquid. The gas was free. Rado chose it.
YES!
Do you disagree with any of
his arguments or conclusions?
SB:
> I took a glance at the all 527.
FANTASTIC!
Did you disagree with
anything he says?
> Rado is an excellent writer.
I AGREE!
THE BEST PHYSICIST, EVER!
> But what the aether is like is not important.
????
I think it's the
MOST IMPORTANT
thing of all!
>"No aether" means no aether in teaching program.
Sure, the GOVERNMENT will be
the *LAST* to discover aether!
They actively encourage ignorance!
I hope you are NOT looking to them
for your information about physics!
> Step by step one idea will be the winner.
YES! I picked my winner in 1996.
AFTER READING RADO:
I CAN'T FIND ANY MISTAKES!
I CAN'T EVEN FIND ANY MISTAKES
THAT OTHERS HAVE NOTICED!
I HAVE ONE QUESTION:
"WHAT ELSE COULD IT
EVEN *POSSIBLY* BE?"
BUT I HAVE *NO* ANSWERS!
FOR ME, THAT MAKES
IT VERY CLEAR!
> I bet that it be the jelly like.
OK!
I'd love to hear your
disagreements with Rado!
> There are the strsses possible and it can
> slowly rotate like whirl around the Sun.
> S*
YES!
But why can't it be a gas?
Did you find mistakes
in A-K that I missed?
Any criticism from you, I
would take very seriously!
>> PERMALINK: http://net-prophet.net/blog/?p=1555
Szczepan Bia�ek
"KONCHOK.PENDAY" <K...@net-prophet.net> wrote
news:hf18s0$4ql$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:37:46 +0100,
> Szczepan Bialek [sz.b...@wp.pl] wrote:
>
> >>>>
>> I took a glance at the all 527.
>
> FANTASTIC!
>
> Did you disagree with
> anything he says?
>
> > Rado is an excellent writer.
>
> I AGREE!
>
> THE BEST PHYSICIST, EVER!
>
> > But what the aether is like is not important.
>
> ????
The same is with the electricity. In one chapter of a textbook it is like
the incompressible fluid and in the next like the electron gas.
>
> I think it's the
> MOST IMPORTANT
> thing of all!
Yes, but it is not urgent.
>
> >"No aether" means no aether in teaching program.
>
> Sure, the GOVERNMENT will be
> the *LAST* to discover aether!
> They actively encourage ignorance!
They wait for the one idea. Now is the five: like gas, like liquid, like
jelly, like solid and like nothing (no aether).
To much to learn.
>
> I hope you are NOT looking to them
> for your information about physics!
Rulers are fo ruling scientists to find the new ideas.
>
> > Step by step one idea will be the winner.
>
> YES! I picked my winner in 1996.
>
> AFTER READING RADO:
> I CAN'T FIND ANY MISTAKES!
> I CAN'T EVEN FIND ANY MISTAKES
> THAT OTHERS HAVE NOTICED!
>
> I HAVE ONE QUESTION:
> "WHAT ELSE COULD IT
> EVEN *POSSIBLY* BE?"
>
> BUT I HAVE *NO* ANSWERS!
>
> FOR ME, THAT MAKES
> IT VERY CLEAR!
>
> > I bet that it be the jelly like.
>
> OK!
>
> I'd love to hear your
> disagreements with Rado!
All the five ideas are analysed by many.
>
> > There are the strsses possible and it can
> > slowly rotate like whirl around the Sun.
> > S*
>
> YES!
>
> But why can't it be a gas?
In a gas the flows are possible. Static electric field is like the steady
pressure (stresses) gradient. Flows cancel such.
>
> Did you find mistakes
> in A-K that I missed?
In all descriptions some simplifications and assumptions are necessary. It
is not easy to evaluate them. Each theory (idea) is valid for the
assumptions. In the such approach no mistakes at all.
>
> Any criticism from you, I
> would take very seriously!
Only proper experiments can choose the one from the five ideas.
S*
>
KONCHOK.PENDAY
Szczepan Bia�ek [sz.b...@wp.pl] wrote:
Thanks for replying!
I find your viewpoint
quite refreshing!
> "KONCHOK.PENDAY" <K...@net-prophet.net> wrote
> news:hf18s0$4ql$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:37:46 +0100,
>> Szczepan Bialek [sz.b...@wp.pl] wrote:
>>
>> >>>>
>>> I took a glance at the all 527.
>>
>> FANTASTIC!
>>
>> Did you disagree with
>> anything he says?
>>
>> > Rado is an excellent writer.
>>
>> I AGREE!
>>
>> THE BEST PHYSICIST, EVER!
>>
>> > But what the aether is like is not important.
>>
>> ????
>
> The same is with the electricity. In one chapter
> of a textbook it is like the incompressible fluid
> and in the next like the electron gas.
If Rado is fuzzy about that, I missed it.
In general, misconceptions about electricity abound!
Coulomb really fucked up physics with his TWO fluids!
They still can't even define "charge"!
Since Aethro-Kinematics in 1994, Steve has paid
careful attention to charge. In Aethro-dynamics, he
exactingly develops the whole concept of electricty,
including electrostatics. He explains the whole thing
with quite remarkable elegance, including sparks, and
stunningly explains just *EXACTLY WHY* you can take an
X-ray just by unrolling Scotch Library Tape in vacuum!
I have been promising it ANY DAY NOW for weeks already!
The book is DONE! But still lost in amazon.com bureaucracy.
I'll post just as soon as
you can actually buy it!
>> I think it's the
>> MOST IMPORTANT
>> thing of all!
>
> Yes, but it is not urgent.
In the midst of the
unmitigated disaster
that is "physics" today,
the DESPERATE need for
UNDERSTANDING IS NOT
URGENT, BUT CRITICAL!
>> >"No aether" means no aether in teaching program.
>>
>> Sure, the GOVERNMENT will be
>> the *LAST* to discover aether!
>> They actively encourage ignorance!
>
> They wait for the one idea. Now is the five: like gas,
> like liquid, like jelly, like solid and like nothing (no aether).
> To much to learn.
OK!
Isn't the gas the simplest possible?
HOW could the liquid, jelly or solid
aether evolve if not from the simplest?
>> I hope you are NOT looking to them
>> for your information about physics!
>
> Rulers are fo ruling scientists to find the new ideas.
Yes. What pathetic wanks!
>> > Step by step one idea will be the winner.
>>
>> YES! I picked my winner in 1996.
>>
>> AFTER READING RADO:
>> I CAN'T FIND ANY MISTAKES!
>> I CAN'T EVEN FIND ANY MISTAKES
>> THAT OTHERS HAVE NOTICED!
>>
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION:
>> "WHAT ELSE COULD IT
>> EVEN *POSSIBLY* BE?"
>>
>> BUT I HAVE *NO* ANSWERS!
>>
>> FOR ME, THAT MAKES
>> IT VERY CLEAR!
>>
>> > I bet that it be the jelly like.
>>
>> OK!
>>
>> I'd love to hear your
>> disagreements with Rado!
> All the five ideas are analysed by many.
OK.
Do you find any
mistakes in Rado?
>> > There are the strsses possible and it can
>> > slowly rotate like whirl around the Sun.
>> > S*
>>
>> YES!
>>
>> But why can't it be a gas?
>
> In a gas the flows are possible.
YES!
And it's the simplest
possible configuration!
> Static electric field is like the steady
> pressure (stresses) gradient. Flows cancel such.
I didn't follow that, but
Steve's exceptionally detailed
treatment of static electricity
in Aethro-dynamics is STUNNING!
>> Did you find mistakes
>> in A-K that I missed?
>
> In all descriptions some simplifications
> and assumptions are necessary. It
> is not easy to evaluate them. Each theory (idea) is valid for the
> assumptions. In the such approach no mistakes at all
OK!
>> Any criticism from you, I
>> would take very seriously!
>
> Only proper experiments can choose the one from the five ideas.
> S*
OK!
Maybe the right experiment for
you is to read Aethro-dynamics
[when it's finally available!]?
I have enormous respect for your
intelligence and scholarship!
I SEE YOU AS A TRUE SCIENTIST
WHO IS AMAZINGLY WELL INFORMED!
I'm so glad Rado
is on your radar!
Thanks for replying!
O
--- )
\
READ RADO!
BY FAR the BEST book on physics EVER written:
=============================================
AETHRO-KINEMATICS IS THE MAIN RADO TEXT
It�s 527 pages of tightly-reasoned analysis
by the greatest physicist of all time!
http://net-prophet.net/rado-ak/aethro_3.pdf
=============================================
NO BULLSHIT!
I GUARANTEE IT!
JUST HARD-NOSED
SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY!
It�s also the best
history of physics
ever written!
Even better than
Richard McKeon!
But Rado perfectly
illustrates both
McKeon�s analysis
AND PREDICTIONS!
HIS �LEAST PARTICLES�
ANALYSIS IS ONE OF MCKEON�S
FOUR PRIMARY MODES OF THOUGHT!
THE ONE THAT PERFECTLY
HEXPLAINS AND CONSTRUCTS
THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.
THAT�S A BIG
DOUBLE WOW-WOW!
CAUTION: *NOT* FOR
the faint of heart!
May be dangerous to
preconceived prejudices!
Steve�s site is:
http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/
My intro to Steve�s work is:
http://net-prophet.net/nobul/rado/rado.htm
See �05* AETHER PHYSICS� in the
right-hand column of my blog at:
http://net-prophet.net/blog/
AND the �PHYSICS� CATEGORY
in the left-hand column!
Also see the �AETHER PHYSICS� TOPIC
under the �2-FORUMS� in the blog PAGES.
That�s the reading list for now,
but �Aethro-dynamics� will be
released ANY DAY NOW!
O
--- )
\
NEWSGROUPS:
alt.ucp,alt.conspiracy,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
PERMALINK: http://net-prophet.net/blog/?p=1559
Szczepan Bialek
"KONCHOK.PENDAY" <K...@net-prophet.net> wrote
news:hf6bvj$ekn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:22:05 +0100,
> Szczepan Bia�ek [sz.b...@wp.pl] wrote:
>
> Thanks for replying!
> I find your viewpoint
> quite refreshing!
>
>> >
> > of a textbook it is like the incompressible fluid
> > and in the next like the electron gas.
>
> If Rado is fuzzy about that, I missed it.
I means a textbook not Rado's book.
>
> In general, misconceptions about electricity abound!
> Coulomb really fucked up physics with his TWO fluids!
> They still can't even define "charge"!
>
> Since Aethro-Kinematics in 1994, Steve has paid
> careful attention to charge. In Aethro-dynamics, he
> exactingly develops the whole concept of electricty,
> including electrostatics. He explains the whole thing
> with quite remarkable elegance, including sparks, and
> stunningly explains just *EXACTLY WHY* you can take an
> X-ray just by unrolling Scotch Library Tape in vacuum!
>
> I have been promising it ANY DAY NOW for weeks already!
> The book is DONE! But still lost in amazon.com bureaucracy.
>
> I'll post just as soon as
> you can actually buy it!
>
> >> I think it's the
> >> MOST IMPORTANT
> >> thing of all!
> >
> > Yes, but it is not urgent.
>
> In the midst of the
> unmitigated disaster
> that is "physics" today,
> the DESPERATE need for
> UNDERSTANDING IS NOT
> URGENT, BUT CRITICAL!
For students is not critical. In secret laboratories know more.
>
> >> >"No aether" means no aether in teaching program.
> >>
> >> Sure, the GOVERNMENT will be
> >> the *LAST* to discover aether!
> >> They actively encourage ignorance!
> >
> > They wait for the one idea. Now is the five: like gas,
> > like liquid, like jelly, like solid and like nothing (no aether).
> > To much to learn.
>
> OK!
>
> Isn't the gas the simplest possible?
> HOW could the liquid, jelly or solid
> aether evolve if not from the simplest?
May be Rado is right.
I took a glance in the page 223 and the next.
Rado wrote that the Faraday lines of force are flow pattern or stresses.
Rado choose flows. So he must explain the circular magnetic field. He did it
but it is very naive.
That who choose the stresses have not such need. The no magnetic field.
> >> Did you find mistakes
> >> in A-K that I missed?
> >
> > In all descriptions some simplifications
> > and assumptions are necessary. It
> > is not easy to evaluate them. Each theory (idea) is valid for the
> > assumptions. In the such approach no mistakes at all
>
> OK!
>
> >> Any criticism from you, I
> >> would take very seriously!
> >
> > Only proper experiments can choose the one from the five ideas.
> > S*
>
> OK!
>
> Maybe the right experiment for
> you is to read Aethro-dynamics
> [when it's finally available!]?
The 527 pages are available: http://net-prophet.net/rado-ak/aethro_3.pdf
>
> I have enormous respect for your
> intelligence and scholarship!
>
> I SEE YOU AS A TRUE SCIENTIST
> WHO IS AMAZINGLY WELL INFORMED!
>
> I'm so glad Rado
> is on your radar!
He was 4 years ago. But I "use" only that: "Aethro-Kinematics uncovers the
fundamental misconception that the Earth moves relative to the Aether and
reinstates Descartes' original theory that the Earth and the planets are
carried within the gigantic Aether-vortex of the Sun.
Since there is no relative motion between the Earth and Aether, the
Michelson-Morley experiments cannot show anything but 'Null-results'
But Stokes know it in 1845 when he discovered that the aether must be jelly
like.
Probably is the only one whirl "the gigantic Aether-vortex of the Sun."
The rest should be explained by the stresses.
S*
> Thanks for replying!
>
glird
>
> Energy, at least in E=mc^2, is the effect matter transitioning to
> aether has on the surrounding aether and matter.
Energy is the ability to do work, in any and all equations. Work is
equal to mass times the distance it is moved. A mass is a quantity of
matter. When an atomic reaction occurs, some of the matter is emitted
along with a huge amount of energy. When that happens, some of the
released material has no weight (it is called "dark matter" for that
an allied reasons, none of which are known by physicists) and the
weight of the remaining material in the products of the reaction has
less weight than efore the reaction happened. The m in e = mc^2
represents the WEIGHT of a given mass, not the quantity of matter in
it either before or after or during a reaction.
That holds good in m_2 = m_1/q, where m_1 is the weight of a mass
when at rest on Earth under standard conditions, m_2 is its weight
when moving at v, q is my symbol for sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), and c is the
speed of light in the very dilute material that fills a vacuum.
Many decades ago I asked a friend who happened to be a mathematics
Professor at Rutger U, the following rhetorical question, "How can the
amount of matter a body possesses depend on who's looking at
it?" (We'd been discussing physic's interpretation of that little
equation as meaning that m_2 denoted the mass
of a given body moving at v RELATIVE TO A GIVEN OBSERVER. Since the
value of v, thus of q, thus of m_2 is a function of v, and THAT
depends on the state of motion of each differently moving observer, my
"question" was actually an argument against the notion that MATTER can
be converted into energy.) That's why i said it was "rhetorical".
It took about another 25 years for me to realize, one day, that the
trouble is that the m in almost all the equations of Physics,
including the above two, is measured in grams of WEIGHT, rather than
in densa - a unit i had invented because there isn't any unit
restricted to the quantity of matter present whether or not it has
weight in a g-field.
glird
mpc755
All matter has mass. Including aether. Another way to think of 'densa'
is the amount of aether the matter is able to displace. When an atomic
reaction occurs, some of the matter transitions to aether, the effects
of which are a huge amount of energy.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not all aether has mass. Mass is not everywhere.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
to the Earth and the Aether. You can consider the Moon to be
'floating' in the Earth's aether vortex. But, the entrained aether is
not responsible for gravity. Jupiter's outer moons orbit in the
opposite direction of its inner moons. The outer moons 'fell out of'
Jupiter's aether whirlpool but remain in orbit due to Jupiter's
displaced aether which is pushing back.
Here is a video of a hurricane. Near the end of the video (around the
BURT
Aether is part of energy in that it flows over it. This is the time
relationship. Energy flows taking aether with it.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
of space directly in front of the path it is traveling. This displaced
aether displaces the neighboring aether which displaces the
neighboring aether, and so on. This displaced aether forms a wave. The
particle cannot be detected without detecting the displacement wave.
Detecting 'which way' means detecting the particle. Detecting the
particle means detecting the displacement wave.
Detecting 'which way' turns the displacement wave into chop.
Detecting 'which way' destroys the displacement wave.
Destroying the displacement wave causes there to be no interference
and the direction the C-60 molecule travels is not altered.
Not detecting 'which way' and the displacement wave exits the slits
and creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule
travels.
BURT
Aether is around the atom. It causes vibration push.
Mitch Raemsch