The Relationship Between Mass And Energy Defined
mpc755
travel with dark matter. Matter moves through the aether. Aether has
mass.
Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
of the electromagnetic field"
The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.
Matter is condensations of aether.
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' 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."
The mass of the body does diminish; however, the mass of the matter
which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still
exists, as aether.
Matter evaporates into aether.
As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space.
The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and
matter is energy.
Mass is conserved. Energy is conserved.
There is no space, nor any part of three dimensional space, devoid of
mass.
A change in state of that which has mass is energy.
YBM
Amen.
mpc755
> What is presently postulated as dark matter is aether. Matter does not
> travel with dark matter. Matter moves through the aether. Aether has
> mass.
>
> Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
>
> "Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
> of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
> of the electromagnetic field"
>
> The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.
>
> Matter is condensations of aether.
>
> DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.
>
> "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; however, the mass of the matter
> which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still
> exists, as aether.
>
> Matter evaporates into aether.
>
> As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space.
> The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and
> matter is energy.
>
> Mass is conserved. Energy is conserved.
>
> There is no space, nor any part of three dimensional space, devoid of
> mass.
>
> A change in state of that which has mass is energy.
The reason for the offset in the following article is due to the
galaxy clusters moving through the dark matter. The analogy is a
submarine moving through the ocean. There will be an offset between
the submarine itself and the 'gravitational centre' as determined by
measuring light which passes through the water displaced by the
moving submarine.
'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a
sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16739.x/a...
"We compile a sample of 38 galaxy clusters which have both X-ray and
strong lensing observations, and study for each cluster the projected
offset between the dominant component of baryonic matter centre
(measured by X-rays) and the gravitational centre (measured by strong
lensing). Among the total sample, 45 per cent clusters have offsets
[greater than]10 arcsec. The [greater than]10 arcsec separations are
significant, considering the arcsecond precision in the measurement of
the lensing/X-ray centres. This suggests that it might be a common
phenomenon in unrelaxed galaxy clusters that gravitational field is
separated spatially from the dominant component of baryonic matter. It
also has consequences for lensing models of unrelaxed clusters since
the gas mass distribution may differ from the dark matter distribution
and give perturbations to the modelling. Such offsets can be used as a
statistical tool for comparison with the results of Lambda cold dark
matter (ËCDM) simulations and to test the modified dynamics."
Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is
physically displaced by matter.
Curved spacetime is aether physically displaced by matter.
Eric Gisse
> On Mar 25, 1:54 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Have you noticed how the majority of your responses are to yourself?
Is that the behavior of someone who has all his shit together?
mpc755
Do you believe in the existence of dark matter?
mpc755
Can't even answer a basic question.
YBM
>> Do you believe in the existence of dark matter?
>
> Can't even answer a basic question.
Yes, we noticed you can't.
mpc755
Dark matter is aether.
Just answered it.
Now your turn.
Does dark matter exist?
YBM
> On Mar 27, 9:58 am, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
>> mpc755 a wrote:
>>> On Mar 26, 7:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Do you believe in the existence of dark matter?
>>> Can't even answer a basic question.
>> Yes, we noticed you can't.
>
> Dark matter is aether.
>
> Just answered it.
You didn't you just equated a meaningfull term with a meaningless one.
> Now your turn.
>
> Does dark matter exist?
Likely or, alternatively, current models for gravity are to be revised.
Future works both theoretical and experimental will answer this question.
You are a very religious person, science is not, like religion, about
believing or not believing.
mpc755
The experimental evidence has already answered the question. The
offset between the galaxy cluster matter and the 'dark matter' is
evidence the galaxy clusters more through the 'dark matter'. Which
means dark matter is aether. Which means aether has mass. Which means
aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Which means aether
is physically displaced by matter. Which means displaced aether exerts
force towards matter. Which means force exerted towards matter by
aether displaced by matter is gravity.
The experimental and theoretical works have already answered the
question.
PD
> What is presently postulated as dark matter is aether. Matter does not
> travel with dark matter. Matter moves through the aether. Aether has
> mass.
>
> Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
>
> "Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
> of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
> of the electromagnetic field"
>
> The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.
>
> Matter is condensations of aether.
>
> DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.
>
> "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; however, the mass of the matter
> which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still
> exists, as aether.
>
> Matter evaporates into aether.
>
> As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space.
> The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and
> matter is energy.
>
> Mass is conserved. Energy is conserved.
>
> There is no space, nor any part of three dimensional space, devoid of
> mass.
>
> A change in state of that which has mass is energy.
I don't see any quantitative relationship between mass and energy in
any of this.
mpc755
What do you expect from someone who is unable to understand Einstein
uses water as an analogy for ether in the following.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two
entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory
surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the
course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance we
can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters
in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking
the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental
impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were
observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it
varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water
consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise
it as a medium."
PD
So IS there a quantitative relationship between mass and energy in any
of what you wrote or not?
mpc755
So IS Einstein using water as an analogy for ether in the following,
PD
Yes, I suppose so. Now, is there any quantitative relationship between
mass and energy in what you wrote?
>
> 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
>
> "Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two
> entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory
> surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the
> course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance we
> can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters
> in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking
> the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental
> impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were
> observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it
> varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water
> consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise
> it as a medium."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
mpc755
E=mc^2 can be understood as A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter.
As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space.
A=Mc^2 can also be used to interpret the relationship between aether
and matter when discussing the Milky Way's displaced aether. Aether is
displaced based on mass per volume.
'Dark Halo Around Our Galaxy Looks Like Squished Beach Ball'
http://www.space.com/7746-dark-halo-galaxy-squished-beach-ball.html
"Dark matter seems to shroud the remaining visible matter in giant
spheres called haloes."
The Milky Way's halo is displaced aether.
"But the new study found that the Milky Way's halo isn't exactly
spherical, but squished. In fact, its beach-ball form is flattened in
a surprising direction — perpendicular to the galaxy's visible,
pancake-shaped spiral disk."
All of the aether displaced by the matter exerts force towards the
matter. The force exerted towards the matter by the aether displaced
perpendicular to the plane of the galaxy's spiral disk offset. It is
the aether which is displaced outward relative to the plane of the
spiral disk which exerts force towards the center of the galaxy. This
forces the matter closer together which results in the displaced
aether looking like a squished beach ball.
mpc755
Clarification:
Aether is displaced based on the mass of the matter per volume.
PD
You didn't answer my question. What is quantitative relationship
between energy and mass in your theory?
You said in your post that you have redefined the relationship between
energy and mass.
mpc755
It took you weeks to understand Einstein used water as an analogy for
ether, which is not quantitative by the way but an understanding of
what occurs physically in nature. It will probably take you years to
understand aether and matter are different states of the same
material. I doubt you will ever be able to comprehend how aether and
matter being different states of the same material determines the
relationship between mass and energy.
There is no space nor any part of three dimensional space devoid of
PD
It took no such thing. It did take me weeks to choose to respond to
you.
> which is not quantitative by the way but an understanding of
> what occurs physically in nature.
Analogies are not "understandings of what happens in nature".
In science "understanding of what happens in nature" involves
quantitative relationships.
Where is this quantitative relationship between mass and energy that
you claim you have defined? Or are you a liar?
> It will probably take you years to
> understand aether and matter are different states of the same
> material. I doubt you will ever be able to comprehend how aether and
> matter being different states of the same material determines the
> relationship between mass and energy.
>
> There is no space nor any part of three dimensional space devoid of
> mass.
>
> A change in state of that which has mass is energy.- Hide quoted text -
mpc755
Same thing.
> > which is not quantitative by the way but an understanding of
> > what occurs physically in nature.
>
> Analogies are not "understandings of what happens in nature".
> In science "understanding of what happens in nature" involves
> quantitative relationships.
>
> Where is this quantitative relationship between mass and energy that
> you claim you have defined? Or are you a liar?
>
In order to remain ignorant you resort to name calling. How
unoriginal.
There is no space nor any part of three dimensional space devoid of
mass.
A change in state of that which has mass is energy.
When you choose to respond to the correctness of the above, just as
you did with the Einstein's use of water as an analogy for ether, let
me know.
PD
Not at all. Declining to waste my time on you should not be construed
with failing to understand something.
>
> > > which is not quantitative by the way but an understanding of
> > > what occurs physically in nature.
>
> > Analogies are not "understandings of what happens in nature".
> > In science "understanding of what happens in nature" involves
> > quantitative relationships.
>
> > Where is this quantitative relationship between mass and energy that
> > you claim you have defined? Or are you a liar?
>
> In order to remain ignorant you resort to name calling.
You still haven't answered a simple question.
Here is the question again.
Where is this quantitative relationship between mass and energy that
you claim you have defined?
It is natural that when you claim to have done something and someone
asks you to produce what you claim to have done, and you repeatedly
refuse to substantiate the claim, you should expect to be called a
liar.
> How
> unoriginal.
>
> There is no space nor any part of three dimensional space devoid of
> mass.
>
> A change in state of that which has mass is energy.
>
> When you choose to respond to the correctness of the above, just as
> you did with the Einstein's use of water as an analogy for ether, let
> me know.- Hide quoted text -
mpc755
You stated Einstein never used water as an analogy for ether weeks
ago. I pointed it out immediately. As usual your delusional state of
denial kicked in.
>
>
> > > > which is not quantitative by the way but an understanding of
> > > > what occurs physically in nature.
>
> > > Analogies are not "understandings of what happens in nature".
> > > In science "understanding of what happens in nature" involves
> > > quantitative relationships.
>
> > > Where is this quantitative relationship between mass and energy that
> > > you claim you have defined? Or are you a liar?
>
> > In order to remain ignorant you resort to name calling.
>
> You still haven't answered a simple question.
> Here is the question again.
> Where is this quantitative relationship between mass and energy that
> you claim you have defined?
>
> It is natural that when you claim to have done something and someone
> asks you to produce what you claim to have done, and you repeatedly
> refuse to substantiate the claim, you should expect to be called a
> liar.
>
Just as you were in denial for weeks to Einstein's use of water as an
analogy for ether, you will probably exist forever in denial over the
correctness of the following.
Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
There is no space nor any part of space devoid of mass.
PD
And I did not read your "pointed it out immediately" for weeks. Do not
flatter yourself with the illusion that I hover for what you're going
to say next.
> As usual your delusional state of
> denial kicked in.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > which is not quantitative by the way but an understanding of
> > > > > what occurs physically in nature.
>
> > > > Analogies are not "understandings of what happens in nature".
> > > > In science "understanding of what happens in nature" involves
> > > > quantitative relationships.
>
> > > > Where is this quantitative relationship between mass and energy that
> > > > you claim you have defined? Or are you a liar?
>
> > > In order to remain ignorant you resort to name calling.
>
> > You still haven't answered a simple question.
> > Here is the question again.
> > Where is this quantitative relationship between mass and energy that
> > you claim you have defined?
>
> > It is natural that when you claim to have done something and someone
> > asks you to produce what you claim to have done, and you repeatedly
> > refuse to substantiate the claim, you should expect to be called a
> > liar.
As I've just pointed out, you have claimed to have done something and
you have not substantiated that claim.
There is no quantitative relationship between energy and mass in what
you have written here, despite your claim otherwise.
This makes you a liar.
You being a liar is the reason why I find it occasionally worthless to
read anything you say for weeks on end.
>
> Just as you were in denial for weeks to Einstein's use of water as an
> analogy for ether, you will probably exist forever in denial over the
> correctness of the following.
>
> Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> There is no space nor any part of space devoid of mass.
>
> A change in state of that which has mass is energy.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
mpc755
>
> And I did not read your "pointed it out immediately" for weeks.
Bull shit. Your delusional state of denial is such that you deny my
constant pointing out to you that Einstein used water as an analogy
for ether for weeks.
"From: PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:31:18 -0800 (PST)
> If you replace water with ether you will understand Einstein's concept
> of ether:
> if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of
> the space occupied by the [ether] as it varies in time, we should have
> no ground for the assumption that [ether] consists of movable
> particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium.
And this is still accurate.
If you have a problem that needs addressing, get it addressed."
Just because you insist on being in denial of the following does not
make it incorrect.
PD
See you in a few weeks, despicable, pitiable loser.
mpc755
>
> See you in a few weeks, despicable, pitiable loser.
>
Another example from a couple of weeks ago where we corresponded on
the subject of Einstein's use of water as an analogy for ether.
<begin quote>
"From: PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
> It's one thing for you to be unable to understand Einstein uses water
> as an analogy for ether. It is quite another when you are in denial of
> posts you made several minutes ago:
> My post:
> > I have made at least two experimental predictions which will either be
> > shown to be correct, or not.
> Your response:
> You have done no such thing.
This is a problem you have,..."
<end quote>
It is going to take you a lot longer than two weeks to understand the
following:
mpc755
What is presently postulated as dark matter is aether. Matter does not
travel with dark matter. Matter moves through the aether. Aether has
mass.
Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
of the electromagnetic field"
The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.
Matter is condensations of aether.
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' 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."
The mass of the body does diminish; however, the mass of the matter
which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still
exists, as aether.
Matter evaporates into aether.
As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space.
The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and
matter is energy.
Mass is conserved. Energy is conserved.
There is no space, nor any part of space, devoid of mass.