Re: Aether Displacement
foolsrushin
> On Jan 8, 11:32 am, Aetherist <TheAether...@best.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 06:57:27 -0800 (PST), "mpc...@gmail.com" <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Jan 8, 2:52 am, john291208 <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
> > >> On Jan 8, 1:43 am, john291208 <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Jan 8, 12:25 am, Aetherist <TheAether...@best.net> wrote:
>
> > >> > > On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:26:43 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > >"mpc...@gmail.com" wrote:
>
> > >> > > >> On Jan 5, 9:43 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
> > >> > > >> > "mpc...@gmail.com" wrote:
>
> > >> > > >> > [snip]
>
> > >> > > >> > > Bullets have mass. How does a massless particle travel through a void?
>
> > >> > > >> > > It doesn't. It requires a medium and the medium is aether.
>
> > >> > > >> > What does having/not having mass have to do with traveling/not traveling
> > >> > > >> > through a void?
>
> > >> > > >> > --
> > >> > > >> > Paul Hovnanian mailto:P...@Hovnanian.com
> > >> > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > >> > Deja fubar: The feeling that you've made the same mistake before.
>
> > >> > > >> To me, there are only two ways for something to have momentum:
>
> > >> > > >> 1. The object has mass and can have momentum and since it has mass it
> > >> > > >> can exist on its own and does not require a medium in order for it to
> > >> > > >> maintain its momentum.
> > >> > > >> 2. The object is a wave, or a burst, that travels through a medium.
>
> > >> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Momentum_in_electromagnetism
>
> > >> > > >> How can something without mass exist in a void (i.e. exist in
> > >> > > >> nothing), let alone travel through it?
>
> > >> > > >What is mass? You might think you know, in the classical physics sense.
> > >> > > >But until you can explain what it is, its your job to answer the
> > >> > > >question 'how can something have mass'. Void or no void.
>
> > >> > > Mass is the quantity of matter which is determined from its weight
> > >> > > (gravitational mass), or, from Newton's second law (inertial mass),
> > >> > > i.e. related to the definitions of force and acceleration. Hence it
> > >> > > defines both the concepts of inertia and gravity.
>
> > >> > > It may not be a fundamental property, but, instead, a by-product of
> > >> > > simple changes states of momentum of the quantum entities we conceive
> > >> > > of as 'matter'.
>
> > >> Energy moving through the aether creates the standing waves known as
> > >> light and matter. Matter is a standing wave that (obviously) stands
> > >> still.
> > >> Light is a standing wave that (surprisingly) travels at c.
>
> > >> The aether is a spherical fish bowl full of marbles and each marble
> > >> is a spherical fish bowl.
>
> > >> You can never make anything simpler because at every point
> > >> everything is infinitely complex.
>
> > >> You recognize that everything is self, and so you are selfish.
>
> > >> john
> > >> galaxy model
>
> > >I like Einstein's definition even though I'm not 100% sure about the
> > >idea of motion not being able to be applied to it. Even if motion
> > >cannot be applied to the aether, that doesn't mean it cannot be
> > >displaced. The concept of aether displacement is different than the
> > >idea of motion not being applied to the aether which I take to mean
> > >the aether cannot flow.
>
> > One has to wonder why you demand that it must be displaced. Maxwell,
> > Kelvin, Helmholtz and most other aetherists both classical and modern
> > (like Dirac) would argue otherwise. Aether is the constitute of
> > everything, including matter. It is simply different states of that
> > underlying substrate. If for some pyschological reason one doesn't
> > like the term aether use the term sub-space in its place :)
>
> > >"But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
> > >characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may
> > >be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
>
> > If you wanted to track the individual parts (molecules) of a volume
> > of air it is beyond any known means of doing so. We deal with it
> > in the same manner as aether, namely using known basic properties
> > of these parts in bulk, a.k.a. Continuum Mechanics and hydrodynamical
> > equations/expressions. And these have bulit-in limitations becoming
> > increasingly less accurate as one approaches the scale of the particles
> > mean-free length.
>
> I like the term aether.
>
> I consider aether to be the basic building block of all forms of
> matter.
>
> In that regards aether can be considered to be matter.
>
> The aether has mass.
>
> If we consider the earth and its interaction with the aether, a
> physical point of the earth's mass cannot exist in the same area of
> three dimensional space as a physical point of mass of the aether.
> Something has to give. Something has to be displaced.
>
> I think the fact that aetherists do not understand that the aether is
> displaced by the objects that exist in it is the reason aether gets
> such a bad rap.
>
> It makes absolutely no sense to me that the MM Experiment was looking
> for the aether wind. The only way for an aether wind to exist is if
> the aether were massless which it isn't if it is a form of matter.
> Also, if the aether were massless, that means it is nothing, it is non-
> existent.
>
> If the aether is a different state of matter and has mass, how can it
> not be displaced?
>
> Aether Displacement explains the observed behaviors in the Double Slit
> Experiment perfectly.
>
> I think the idea of the aether consisting of parts implies friction
> which rules out momentum.
>
> The aether as a singleton can be displaced and offset any lose of
> momentum when it "back-fills" because as a singleton it has an
> "elastic" type property. As it is displaced it gains energy which it
> returns to the objects momentum as it returns to a state of rest.
Amazing discussion, yet Bell's Theorem? Add a dimension and you are
knocking on your own door and let yourself in - and not just now.
Really upper dimensional stuff might be bizzare, to say the least, and
would need a lot more energy to manifest itself.
Thin, silly beings attempted to abduct a farmer by lifting him up into
their craft, then danced about for a bit when they could not lift him
up.
He reported that they seemed to have lost the plot, 'possibly weighed
an ounce'.
Another lot asked , 'What is the time here?'.
Do I know what it means? No! But I think we are possibly dealing with
an advanced version of the
--
foolsrushin.
mpc...@gmail.com
Seems like the hidden variable is aether displacement.
spudnik
you're going to say "it's a singleton -- yeah;
that's what it is!" well, OK;
what spin does it partake of -- is it a fermion?
I know, there are those of you who'd jump
on the answer, "weellll, if there's only one?" -- and
so would I, myself & what's-his-name; me, not just so as
to fall into the Many Universes default; except,
when I'm "@Nancago.edU of." -- death to the triangle!
any way, SF is a very notable quank, iff
you listen to Art Bell et sequentia Al Nouri;
is his first name really Albert?... does Bell parlay
of distance at a spooky action, huge media conglome?
did Copernicus expose Ptolemy's hoax?... and, if not,
how'd you know that it was wrong --
did you know that the sky is round?
> - Hide quoted text -
Though I don't necessarily accept his ETH ( an assumption, a
bitgroundless, only nuts, no nuts and bolts), Stanton T. Friedman
showshow to treat debunkers - wit and humour! GBS would have loved him!
He'd have been a welcome guest at Ayot St. Lawrence, Shaw's
home,adding extra wit and merriment to the place.A lot of people here
would have given Copernicus a bad time,
> - Show quoted text -
spudnik
it's Aethermann!
thus:
I think it is fairly safe to say,
Man could always count *with* coconuts;
just don't hang-out underneath even one!
> man could not even count coconuts, and there are many open questions
thus:
truly, they were the most-obvious-ever-Druids-award kind
of Druids, but that doesn't mean, they were really fake, and
lots of kids have used better-quality 2-by-9s;
farmers are good businessmen, two. D&D,
not the world's greatest carpenters!
> I will guess that Wookiepoopya has no rational explanation
> for cropcircles, other than "Doug and Dave
> with *a tiny pile* of 2by9s."
thus:
groovier than a pile of rocks,
just by comparison with the Face and Genitals ... a-hem;
Stranger in "a" Strange Land territory.
thus:
dood was totally quanta; I mean, if
you're going to say "it's a singleton -- yeah;
that's what it is!" well, OK;
what spin does it partake of -- is it a fermion?...
I know, there are those of you who'd jump
on the answer, "weellll, if there's only one?" -- and
so would I, myself & what's-his-name; me, not just so as
to not fall into the Many Universes default; except,
when I'm "@Nancago.edU of." -- death to the triangle!...
any way, Stanton F. is higher than a pile of rocks, iff
you listen to Art Bell et sequentia Al Nouri;
is his first name really Albert?... does Bell parlay
of distance at a spooky action, huge media conglome,
semiotic highway signage?... oh, my;
they are actually better than cropcircles, if
you can just get the slant on the "correct side;"
even a mobius strip has at least one!
thus: