New 'Double Slit' Experiment Skirts Uncertainty Principle
Sam Wormley
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-experiment-skirts-uncertainty-principle
"Steinberg's group sent photons one by one through a double slit by
using a beam splitter and two lengths of fibre-optic cable. Then they
used an electronic detector to measure the positions of photons at some
distance away from the slits, and a calcite crystal in front of the
detector to change the polarization of the photon, and allow them to
make a very rough estimate of each photon's momentum from that change.
Average trajectory
"By measuring the momentum of many photons, the researchers were able to
work out the average momentum of the photons at each detector. They then
moved the crystal progressively further away from the slits, and so by
"connecting the dots" were able to trace out the average trajectories of
the photons. They did this while still recording an interference pattern
at each detector position".
Ken S. Tucker
> New 'Double Slit' Experiment Skirts Uncertainty Principle
>
>
> "Steinberg's group sent photons one by one through a double slit by
> using a beam splitter and two lengths of fibre-optic cable. Then they
> used an electronic detector to measure the positions of photons at some
> distance away from the slits, and a calcite crystal in front of the
> detector to change the polarization of the photon, and allow them to
> make a very rough estimate of each photon's momentum from that change.
>
> Average trajectory
>
> "By measuring the momentum of many photons, the researchers were able to
> work out the average momentum of the photons at each detector. They then
> moved the crystal progressively further away from the slits, and so by
> "connecting the dots" were able to trace out the average trajectories of
> the photons. They did this while still recording an interference pattern
> at each detector position".
>
Have you ever sent a laser light beam through a single slit?
Did you observe 'apparent' interference
Ken
Y.Porat
> New 'Double Slit' Experiment Skirts Uncertainty Principle
>
>
> "Steinberg's group sent photons one by one through a double slit by
> using a beam splitter and two lengths of fibre-optic cable. Then they
> used an electronic detector to measure the positions of photons at some
> distance away from the slits, and a calcite crystal in front of the
> detector to change the polarization of the photon, and allow them to
> make a very rough estimate of each photon's momentum from that change.
>
> Average trajectory
>
> "By measuring the momentum of many photons, the researchers were able to
> work out the average momentum of the photons at each detector. They then
> moved the crystal progressively further away from the slits, and so by
> "connecting the dots" were able to trace out the average trajectories of
> the photons. They did this while still recording an interference pattern
> at each detector position".
>
--------------------------
Bravo !!!!
bravo idiot parrots !!
i prved long ago that
E-hf
IS NOT THE FORMULA OF A SIBGLE PHOTON!!
it is a huge bundle pf single photons
MUCH MOREOVER
I DEFINED THE MASS OF THE REAL SINGL EPHOOTN TO BE
about
exp-90 kilograms !!
got it idiots ??
if it is rigth
THE RERAL SINGLE PHOTON
WILL NEVER BE DETECTED
OR MEASURED !!
got it idiot s parrots ??
and that is quite one of my many
COPYRIGHTS THAT ARE WELL DOCUMENTED
see just a little example mythread
'A better new definition of the real single photon
even including a simple home experiment
to prove that
E=hf
is not the right formula for the real single photon
iow
as is for us and may be even forever
THE REAL SINGLE PHOTON WILL NEVER BE AVAILABLE FOR US !!!
yet what better could i do while i am surrounded by
armies of morons and crooks ??!!
btw
it can be considered as a prediction
to all my findings and theories !!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
mpc755
> On Jun 3, 6:32 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > New 'Double Slit' Experiment Skirts Uncertainty Principle
>
> >http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-expe...
>
> > "Steinberg's group sent photons one by one through a double slit by
> > using a beam splitter and two lengths of fibre-optic cable. Then they
> > used an electronic detector to measure the positions of photons at some
> > distance away from the slits, and a calcite crystal in front of the
> > detector to change the polarization of the photon, and allow them to
> > make a very rough estimate of each photon's momentum from that change.
>
> > Average trajectory
>
> > "By measuring the momentum of many photons, the researchers were able to
> > work out the average momentum of the photons at each detector. They then
> > moved the crystal progressively further away from the slits, and so by
> > "connecting the dots" were able to trace out the average trajectories of
> > the photons. They did this while still recording an interference pattern
> > at each detector position".
>
> > See:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-expe...
>
> --------------------------
> Bravo !!!!
>
"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
both slits. The traditional interpretation of quantum mechanics, known
as the Copenhagen interpretation, dismisses the notion of
trajectories, and maintains that it is meaningless to ask what value a
variable, such as momentum, has if that's not what is being measured."
A moving particle has an associated aether wave. In a double slit
experiment the particle travels a single path and enters and exits a
single slit. It is the associated aether wave which enters and exits
both slits. The associated aether wave creates wave interference upon
exiting the slits. As the particle exits a single slit, the direction
it travels is altered by the interference it encounters. Detecting the
particle causes there to be a loss of coherence, in the above
experiment the loss of coherence is not great enough for there not to
be an interference pattern.
Y.Porat
> On Jun 3, 4:52 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 6:32 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > New 'Double Slit' Experiment Skirts Uncertainty Principle
>
> > >http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-expe...
>
> > > "Steinberg's group sent photons one by one through a double slit by
> > > using a beam splitter and two lengths of fibre-optic cable. Then they
> > > used an electronic detector to measure the positions of photons at some
> > > distance away from the slits, and a calcite crystal in front of the
> > > detector to change the polarization of the photon, and allow them to
> > > make a very rough estimate of each photon's momentum from that change.
>
> > > Average trajectory
>
> > > "By measuring the momentum of many photons, the researchers were able to
> > > work out the average momentum of the photons at each detector. They then
> > > moved the crystal progressively further away from the slits, and so by
> > > "connecting the dots" were able to trace out the average trajectories of
> > > the photons. They did this while still recording an interference pattern
> > > at each detector position".
>
> > > See:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-expe...
>
> > --------------------------
> > Bravo !!!!
>
>
> "Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
> unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
> theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
> takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
> both slits. The traditional interpretation of quantum mechanics, known
> as the Copenhagen interpretation, dismisses the notion of
> trajectories, and maintains that it is meaningless to ask what value a
> variable, such as momentum, has if that's not what is being measured."
>
> A moving particle has an associated aether wave. In a double slit
> experiment the particle travels a single path and enters and exits a
> single slit. It is the associated aether wave which enters and exits
> both slits. The associated aether wave creates wave interference upon
> exiting the slits. As the particle exits a single slit, the direction
> it travels is altered by the interference it encounters. Detecting the
> particle causes there to be a loss of coherence, in the above
> experiment the loss of coherence is not great enough for there not to
> be an interference pattern.
-----------------
it is not an aether wave idiot
it is a whole bunch if
SINGLE PHOTONS
i am much more specific than your
abstract vague description
my description of it is
it is composed of a huge nmner of single photons-(nothing more no
witches on brooms )
that are mach smaller energy and mass than E=hf
it is composed of a huge number of single photons that each of them
has the mass of about
exp -90 kilograms mass
)the exact figure is in my past threads
that are documented years before )
multiply it by c^2
and you will geti ts Energy
make the calculation of
hf /c
while hf is multiplied by Planck time
and you will get its Momentum of a single photon there say msf
(Momentum of single photon)
divide
your MEASURE at the experiment
with that
momentum(of a single photon)
AND YOU WILL FIND
HOW MANY ''SINGLE PHOTONS''
MADE THAT MEASURED MOMENTUM!
A HUGE NUMBER !!!
the number of single photons you will get
will be*** linearly*** with the the amount of momentum -you will
measure in the above experiment
ntw
no relativistic and no schmelativistic mass
just one mass -- the only one
(NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS-
NO REAL PHYSICS !!))
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
Jan Panteltje
<mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in
<a18a478e-fa99-4658...@v31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>:
>> > See:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-=
>expe...
>>
>> --------------------------
>> Bravo !!!!
>
>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-experime=
>nt-skirts-uncertainty-principle
It is very nice they did this, and we now see De Broglie's ideas verified.
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
Especially fun at page 21, where he mentions the ether by name.
It is sad that in the SciAm article that fruitcake David Deutsch still tries to creep under the carpet,
and pushes his believes that the earth is flat and the sun orbits the earth so to speak,
an other math masturbationist.
As we now finally see a break through in the world of 'peers', and break throughs
always happen in the times of huge wars (what will follow for using the right theory
will spin off many nice things I am sure), we should now expect WW 3 shortly (couple of years).
Correlation.
herbert glazier
All particles travel in pairs. A quanta of light can go through 1
million holes at once. Reality is as big as virus and buckyballs they
also can create the interference pattern. Twin e4xperiment proves wave
view of light is reality. Thus the photoelectric effect gives photon
its particle feature."wave-particle duality" is reality. Reality is
very tricky in the quantum realm TreBert
mpc755
> On a sunny day (Fri, 3 Jun 2011 04:01:14 -0700 (PDT)) it happened mpc755
> <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> >> > See:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-=
> >expe...
>
> >> --------------------------
> >> Bravo !!!!
>
> >nt-skirts-uncertainty-principle
>
> It is very nice they did this, and we now see De Broglie's ideas verified.
> http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
>
> Especially fun at page 21, where he mentions the ether by name.
>
I do not see a direct mention of ether anywhere in the article. There
is, however, an analogy.
"Finally, the particle’s motion is the combination of a regular motion
defined by the guidance formula, with a random motion of Brownian
character. A simple comparison explains the possibility of such a
superposition of motions. Consider a fluid’s hydrodynamical flow. If
placed on the surface of the fluid, a granule will move along with it.
If this granule is massive enough, so that the action of collisions
with the fluid’s individual molecules has no visible effects, it will
follow the lines of the hydrodynamical current flow, which may be
compared with the guidance trajectories. But if the granule’s mass is
small enough, its motion will constantly be perturbed by individual
collisions with the fluid’s molecules. It will move according to both
the regular motion following a current line of the general flow, and
the Brownian motion, which will force it to switch constantly from one
current line to another. An image is thus obtained of a random
motion’s superposition over the regular motion, similar to the one
advanced for a particle."
Since the aether is, or behaves similar to, a frictionless superfluid
with properties of a solid it is easy to conceptualize de Broglie's
fluid as the aether.
Jan Panteltje
<mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in
<fc024d65-df1a-46b7...@v31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>:
>> http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
>>
>> Especially fun at page 21, where he mentions the ether by name.
>>
>
>I do not see a direct mention of ether anywhere in the article. There
>is, however, an analogy.
>
>"Finally, the particle s motion is the combination of a regular motion
>defined by the guidance formula, with a random motion of Brownian
>character. A simple comparison explains the possibility of such a
>superposition of motions. Consider a fluid s hydrodynamical flow. If
>placed on the surface of the fluid, a granule will move along with it.
>If this granule is massive enough, so that the action of collisions
>with the fluid s individual molecules has no visible effects, it will
>follow the lines of the hydrodynamical current flow, which may be
>compared with the guidance trajectories. But if the granule s mass is
>small enough, its motion will constantly be perturbed by individual
>collisions with the fluid s molecules. It will move according to both
>the regular motion following a current line of the general flow, and
>the Brownian motion, which will force it to switch constantly from one
>current line to another. An image is thus obtained of a random
>motion s superposition over the regular motion, similar to the one
>advanced for a particle."
Yes, you are right, he does not use that word, my error, but pure politics,
He says on page 22:
However, in the case of a particle which does not appear as subjected
to perturbations, such as an electron in a hydrogen atom, what could
be the origin of these assumed perturbations ?
To answer this question,
any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous "ener-
getic contact" with a hidden medium,
which constitutes a concealed
thermostat. This hypothesis was brought forward some fifteen years ago
by Bohm and Vigier [6], who named this invisible thermostat the "sub-
quantum medium". As a further assumption, the particle is considered
as continuously exchanging energy and momentum with such a hidden
thermostat. These exchanges would happen regularly, in a well defined
manner, if the guided motion existed alone, but a random energy ex-
change is superposed, which has a fluctuation character of well known
kind in statistical thermodynamics.
Now you can call it 'subquantum medium', but then 'sub'
only stands for sumething beyond current detection,
but whatever form it may have, it *IS* a medium, an ether,
but perhaps more comple than 'water molecules' to a boat, etc.
And that kills Einstein's 'we do not need the ether', (or any other medium by a name).
Y.Porat
> On a sunny day (Fri, 3 Jun 2011 05:11:27 -0700 (PDT)) it happened mpc755
> <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in
---------------------
No Aether and no Scmaether
just a big number of photons
and now since you mathematicians like formulas
i will try to formulate what i just said above before
==================================
n = M( x pho times c /(divided by) h times PT)
==================================
explanation :
n
is the ** number of single photons** that made the
above measured photon Momentum
M x pho
the photon *Momentum* you measured in the above experiment
c
no need to explain
h
no need to explain
PT is the Planck time !!
--------------------------------------------
hope i did it correct
(ie correct even according to myself (:-)
---------------------------------------------------------
copyright
Yehiel Porat
3/6/2011
----------------------------------
mpc755
> On a sunny day (Fri, 3 Jun 2011 05:11:27 -0700 (PDT)) it happened mpc755
> <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in
Einstein was all about the ether. What Einstein did not agree with was
the immobile ether of Lorentz.
Einstein's 'First Paper' is all about the aether.
Einstein's 'First Paper'
http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf
"The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the
elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely
proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable"
Jan Panteltje
<mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in
<cb3f8790-342c-44a1...@e21g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>:
>Einstein was all about the ether. What Einstein did not agree with was
>the immobile ether of Lorentz.
>
>Einstein's 'First Paper' is all about the aether.
Einstein has made some many statements in his life,
that for sure at one time he was right.
Just like somebody asks: how much is 3+5, and Einstein
would have answered
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0
And then his devotees say "See... he mentioned 8, he was soooo right again."
Even Newton knew something is neeed to mediate the force of gravity,
the idiot Einstein troied and died without one.
mpc755
> On a sunny day (Fri, 3 Jun 2011 06:32:04 -0700 (PDT)) it happened mpc755
> <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> >Einstein was all about the ether. What Einstein did not agree with was
> >the immobile ether of Lorentz.
>
> >Einstein's 'First Paper' is all about the aether.
>
> Einstein has made some many statements in his life,
> that for sure at one time he was right.
> Just like somebody asks: how much is 3+5, and Einstein
> would have answered
> 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0
> And then his devotees say "See... he mentioned 8, he was soooo right again."
>
> Even Newton knew something is neeed to mediate the force of gravity,
> the idiot Einstein troied and died without one.
The main quote which is misinterpreted as Einstein not being in favor
of an ether is the following:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Ether_%28physics%29
'In his 1905 paper Einstein refers to the ether only once:
The introduction of a "luminiferous aether" will prove to be
superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require
an "absolutely stationary space" provided with special properties, nor
assign a velocity vector to a point of the empty space in which
electromagnetic processes take place.'
What Einstein is saying is superfluous is not aether in and of itself
but aether defined as an "absolutely stationary space". What Einstein
is saying is incorrect is the ether of Lorentz.
Let's not get sidetracked. The following article is evidence a moving
particle has an associated wave. We are both in agreement the
associated wave is an aether wave.
Y.Porat
----------------
(:-)
------------------------
Y.Porat
> On a sunny day (Fri, 3 Jun 2011 06:32:04 -0700 (PDT)) it happened mpc755
> <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> >Einstein was all about the ether. What Einstein did not agree with was
> >the immobile ether of Lorentz.
>
> >Einstein's 'First Paper' is all about the aether.
>
> Einstein has made some many statements in his life,
> that for sure at one time he was right.
> Just like somebody asks: how much is 3+5, and Einstein
> would have answered
> 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0
> And then his devotees say "See... he mentioned 8, he was soooo right again."
>
> Even Newton knew something is neeed to mediate the force of gravity,
> the idiot Einstein troied and died without one.
------------
what mediates the force of gravity is
'Gravitons' ( still undiscovered and undefined )!!
i agree that it is **not** curved space
forcess are a property of mass
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS
BTW
why do you erase the Particle ng
are you against particles doing force
ie
marshmallow doing it
if you agree that your Aether has mass
then it has mass and not consist of being
discrete particles ??
just remember the Quantum concept !!
(started talking about its mass only following me ..)
Y.Porat
------------------------------------
Y.P
------------------------------
Jan Panteltje
<y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in
<fb0335c9-278e-4254...@j28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jun 3, 4:09 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Fri, 3 Jun 2011 06:32:04 -0700 (PDT)) it happened mpc755
>> <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> <cb3f8790-342c-44a1-a854-890175dd1...@e21g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >Einstein was all about the ether. What Einstein did not agree with was
>> >the immobile ether of Lorentz.
>>
>> >Einstein's 'First Paper' is all about the aether.
>>
>> Einstein has made some many statements in his life,
>> that for sure at one time he was right.
>> Just like somebody asks: how much is 3+5, and Einstein
>> would have answered
>> 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0
>> And then his devotees say "See... he mentioned 8, he was soooo right agai=
>n."
>>
>> Even Newton knew something is neeed to mediate the force of gravity,
>> the idiot Einstein troied and died without one.
>
>------------
>what mediates the force of gravity is
>'Gravitons' ( still undiscovered and undefined )!!
>
>i agree that it is **not** curved space
>forcess are a property of mass
>
>NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS
>
>BTW
>why do you erase the Particle ng
>are you against particles doing force
>ie
No, I erased it because I do not read it, actually neither relativity, so that is next to go
(no point arguing with their Einstein religion).
>marshmallow doing it
>if you agree that your Aether has mass
>then it has mass and not consist of being
>discrete particles ??
There is a catch there, if either has mass, then it must be made up of particles,
and what are those particles made up then?
Very small particles? Like galaxies, planets, grains of sand, molecules, atoms, electrons (maybe quarks).
Look the scale differences between each next order (planet to grain of sand to atom).
So there is no end to investigating that in our life time.
I have to laugh at them looking for a 'Higgs',
as if that makes any sense.
Maybe in their math, but that math is so totally f*cked, and raped by
theorists that is is just as easy for them to prove 1=2.
You know, their dogmas are enough to make any sane being throw up.
Look at string theorists, look at the zillions spend in CERN,
look at them building an ITER with every 10 years fusion power more than 20 years further in the future.
Look a the zero results of LIGO.
But sure if there is an ether (medium and for sure there is) it will have some sort of mass
else it could not interact.
But I do not believe in 'photons' as particles either, so that problem for me does not exist,
photon is just Planck's constant multiplied by frequency, and represents the energy needed to
knock an electron from an atom in a detector, it is NOT a particle (Einstein the idiot's idea).
So, anyways, 'what is mass', I had a great idea how the whole thing could work with charge and gravity.
It could just be possible that in a Le Sage system those super fine particles are modulated by entities
such as the electron, that is they pass through it and start rotating (imagine a spiral) for a positive
charge in one way, and for a negative charge the other way.
2 the same spirals push each other away (like 2 the same screws against each other, turn both right
and they want towards each other,turn both left and the repel from each other).
If the Le Sage particles had a speed c it would explain why charge is perceived to move at c.
At the same time it would explain gravity (the Le Sage model), and its connection with charge,
And the EM waves would be carried in the same way by the Le Sage particles,
Of course it is just an idea, but at least one with a mechanical picture you can work out in your mind.
And perhaps it also explains inertia (working against those same randomly left and right rotating Le Sage particles.
Philosophy
>just remember the Quantum concept !!
I think the Copenhagen interpretation is dead, the cat has been run over by an experiment.
I sure hope it did not have any kittens,
Y.Porat
> On a sunny day (Fri, 3 Jun 2011 07:49:33 -0700 (PDT)) it happened "Y.Porat"
> <fb0335c9-278e-4254-bc20-e26f37b89...@j28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>:
i am not asking about those kittens
i ask about your mother aether
as you know
science is about
quantities
quantitative calculations etc
so lets start with basic quantities:
you agree that Aether has mass
so
how many
kilograms of Aether do you have
in one cubic mater of 'empty space '
ie that is not including any particles in it
2
what is the smallest aether physical entity ??
3
please dont erase the particle ng
because it serves me as a aiding store of my threads
unless you are ashamed that your posts
will appear in that particle ng ..... (:-) ....
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
Jan Panteltje
<y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in
<750d6829-329e-4e77...@c41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:
>you agree that Aether has mass
>so
>how many
> kilograms of Aether do you have
>in one cubic mater of 'empty space '
About three per mater.
>ie that is not including any particles in it
>
>2
>what is the smallest aether physical entity ??
a mouse
>3
>please dont erase the particle ng
>because it serves me as a aiding store of my threads
>unless you are ashamed that your posts
>will appear in that particle ng ..... (:-) ....
Of course I am not ashamed, so I also deleted relatitvity for now :-)
Feel free to ask more questions.
>TIA
>Y.Porat
>-----------------------------
>
>
Y.Porat
> On a sunny day (Sat, 4 Jun 2011 02:18:02 -0700 (PDT)) it happened "Y.Porat"
> <750d6829-329e-4e77-a427-23988bc3e...@c41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >you agree that Aether has mass
> >so
> >how many
> > kilograms of Aether do you have
> >in one cubic mater of 'empty space '
>
> About three per mater.
>
> >ie that is not including any particles in it
>
> >2
> >what is the smallest aether physical entity ??
>
> a mouse
>
> >3
> >please dont erase the particle ng
> >because it serves me as a aiding store of my threads
> >unless you are ashamed that your posts
> >will appear in that particle ng ..... (:-) ....
>
> Of course I am not ashamed, so I also deleted relatitvity for now :-)
>
> Feel free to ask more questions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >TIA
> >Y.Porat
> >-----------------------------
and now anyone can see scientifically that you are
an idiot moron crook !!
that is not cleaver enough even to be a shamed ...
i thought that a cubic Meter has 40 Kilograms of Aether (:-)
so now go and fuck yourself with your Aether
Y.P
---------------------------
Jan Panteltje
<y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in
<c870d183-7e46-4854...@p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:
>and now anyone can see scientifically that you are
>an idiot moron crook !!
>that is not cleaver enough even to be a shamed ...
>
>i thought that a cubic Meter has 40 Kilograms of Aether (:-)
>so now go and fuck yourself with your Aether
Well, you may get over it once you grow up :-)
Yousuf Khan
> "Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
> unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
> theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
> takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
> both slits. The traditional interpretation of quantum mechanics, known
> as the Copenhagen interpretation, dismisses the notion of
> trajectories, and maintains that it is meaningless to ask what value a
> variable, such as momentum, has if that's not what is being measured."
>
> A moving particle has an associated aether wave. In a double slit
> experiment the particle travels a single path and enters and exits a
> single slit. It is the associated aether wave which enters and exits
> both slits. The associated aether wave creates wave interference upon
> exiting the slits. As the particle exits a single slit, the direction
> it travels is altered by the interference it encounters. Detecting the
> particle causes there to be a loss of coherence, in the above
> experiment the loss of coherence is not great enough for there not to
> be an interference pattern.
It's quite likely that space itself is an aether, fluidic in nature
rather than solid as previously postulated in the 19th century.
It's showing up in the cosmological scale too, where it affects galaxies
and galactic clusters in the form of dark matter and dark energy. In
some cases the fluid works to reinforce gravity as in dark matter, and
in some cases works against gravity as in dark energy. But it's the same
thing in both cases. Dark Fluid, fluidic aether, whatever.
Yousuf Khan
mpc755
> On 03/06/2011 7:01 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
> > unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
> > theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
> > takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
> > both slits. The traditional interpretation of quantum mechanics, known
> > as the Copenhagen interpretation, dismisses the notion of
> > trajectories, and maintains that it is meaningless to ask what value a
> > variable, such as momentum, has if that's not what is being measured."
>
> > A moving particle has an associated aether wave. In a double slit
> > experiment the particle travels a single path and enters and exits a
> > single slit. It is the associated aether wave which enters and exits
> > both slits. The associated aether wave creates wave interference upon
> > exiting the slits. As the particle exits a single slit, the direction
> > it travels is altered by the interference it encounters. Detecting the
> > particle causes there to be a loss of coherence, in the above
> > experiment the loss of coherence is not great enough for there not to
> > be an interference pattern.
>
> It's quite likely that space itself is an aether, fluidic in nature
> rather than solid as previously postulated in the 19th century.
>
The aether is, or behaves similar to, a frictionless superfluid with
properties of a solid.
'Superfluid Is Shown To Have Property Of A Solid'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/990730072958.htm
> It's showing up in the cosmological scale too, where it affects galaxies
> and galactic clusters in the form of dark matter and dark energy. In
> some cases the fluid works to reinforce gravity as in dark matter, and
> in some cases works against gravity as in dark energy. But it's the same
> thing in both cases. Dark Fluid, fluidic aether, whatever.
>
> Yousuf Khan
What is presently postulated as dark matter is aether. Aether has
mass. Aether is physically displaced by matter. Displaced aether
exerts force towards matter. Force exerted towards matter by aether
displaced by matter is gravity.
The Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet.
Analogous to the polar jet of a black hole. What is presently
postulated as dark energy is aether. Dark energy is the change in
state of the aether emitted into, and propagating through the
Universal jet.
Yousuf Khan
> The aether is, or behaves similar to, a frictionless superfluid with
> properties of a solid.
Aether may not be as frictionless as you think, if it is to act like the
Dark Matter in the Universe. It would need to have a bit of friction in
order to enter into orbit around galaxies. Perhaps it's an escalating
friction scale, doesn't show up unless there is enough mass around it,
or if it's moving close to the speed of light.
>> It's showing up in the cosmological scale too, where it affects galaxies
>> and galactic clusters in the form of dark matter and dark energy. In
>> some cases the fluid works to reinforce gravity as in dark matter, and
>> in some cases works against gravity as in dark energy. But it's the same
>> thing in both cases. Dark Fluid, fluidic aether, whatever.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
> What is presently postulated as dark matter is aether. Aether has
> mass. Aether is physically displaced by matter. Displaced aether
> exerts force towards matter. Force exerted towards matter by aether
> displaced by matter is gravity.
But it can be the basis of Dark Energy too. If it's not near enough to
large bodies of matter, such as galaxies, it starts to act repulsively.
> The Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet.
> Analogous to the polar jet of a black hole. What is presently
> postulated as dark energy is aether. Dark energy is the change in
> state of the aether emitted into, and propagating through the
> Universal jet.
That I can agree with. There could be an equal and opposite jet on the
other side which would form the the anti-matter universe, as it's
direction of travel would be in the reverse direction of time.
Yousuf Khan
Y.Porat
> On a sunny day (Sat, 4 Jun 2011 06:46:45 -0700 (PDT)) it happened "Y.Porat"
> <c870d183-7e46-4854-a7eb-2823dc127...@p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >and now anyone can see scientifically that you are
> >an idiot moron crook !!
> >that is not cleaver enough even to be a shamed ...
>
> >i thought that a cubic Meter has 40 Kilograms of Aether (:-)
> >so now go and fuck yourself with your Aether
>
> Well, you may get over it once you grow up :-)
--------------------
shameless crook !!
science is about honesty as well
did you ever hear the term HONESTY ??!!
not all people here are idiot crooks
anyway
i suggest that you will prepare
for youself and others
an 'respectful' retreat from your floppy Aether !!
and dont forget to remember who lead you for that
and you should thank me for preventing you from wasting your precious
time
on fucking theories
and start dealing with real useful theories !!
got it -only from now on - crook ??!!
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
Y.Porat
----------------------
parrot !!
science is about quantity
and quantity measuring as well
no witches on brooms !!
2
No mass --the only mass - no real physics !!
remember ??
is so
HOW MANY KILOGRAMS OF AETHER ARE THERE IN ONE CUBIC METER OF EMPTY
SPACE ??
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Y.Porat
---------------------
the fucking Aether tell you that
aether is filling ** all ** vacuum !
now
do you idiots understand that
if there is no COMPLETE VACUUM!
WITH **NOTHING** IN IT --
--NO MOVEMENT COULD BE DONE !!
GOT IT OR IT IS TOO COMPLICATED FOR YOU ??
Y.Porat
--------------------------
mpc755
> On 04/06/2011 7:25 PM, mpc755 wrote:
> > The aether is, or behaves similar to, a frictionless superfluid with
> > properties of a solid.
> Aether may not be as frictionless as you think, if it is to act like the
> Dark Matter in the Universe. It would need to have a bit of friction in
> order to enter into orbit around galaxies. Perhaps it's an escalating
> friction scale, doesn't show up unless there is enough mass around it,
> or if it's moving close to the speed of light.
There is no such thing as dark matter. What is presently postulated as
dark matter is aether. Aether is not entering into orbit around
galaxies. Galaxies exist in and move through the aether. The offset in
the following article is not because dark matter travels with matter.
The offset in the following article is caused by the galaxy clusters
moving through the aether.
'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/abstract
> > What is presently postulated as dark matter is aether. Aether has
> > mass. Aether is physically displaced by matter. Displaced aether
> > exerts force towards matter. Force exerted towards matter by aether
> > displaced by matter is gravity.
> But it can be the basis of Dark Energy too. If it's not near enough to
> large bodies of matter, such as galaxies, it starts to act repulsively.
It is acting repulsively because it is being emitted into and is
propagating through the Universal jet we exist in.
> > The Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet.
> > Analogous to the polar jet of a black hole. What is presently
> > postulated as dark energy is aether. Dark energy is the change in
> > state of the aether emitted into, and propagating through the
> > Universal jet.
> That I can agree with. There could be an equal and opposite jet on the
> other side which would form the the anti-matter universe, as it's
> direction of travel would be in the reverse direction of time.
>
> Yousuf Khan
There could be an equal and opposite jet on the other side which
consists of matter just as our jet does and it would not be in the
reverse direction of time. The Universe, or our local Universe, may
just be two jets analogous to the polar jets of a black hole. There
could be an infinite number of Universal jets associated with an
infinite number of Universal black holes. This could also be the only
jet.
The experimental evidence is of a Universal jet in which we exist.
Let's get rid of the nonsense of the Big Bang and understand it is
more correct to understand its the Big Ongoing before we start
hypothesizing what else might be.
Yousuf Khan
> There could be an equal and opposite jet on the other side which
> reverse direction of time. The Universe, or our local Universe, may
> just be two jets analogous to the polar jets of a black hole. There
> only jet.
I agree that there could be a jet ejected from one side of a blackhole,
and there might be another jet ejected on the opposite side of the
blackhole. The direction in "space" that these jets were ejected were
polar opposites, and this direction of space became what we now call
"time". It would explain the baffling reason why time is infinite in
only one direction with a definite beginning point, whereas the other
space dimensions are infinite in every direction and have no definite
starting points. It would also explain why the traversal in time can
only happen in one direction.
This same effect might have happened on the other side of the black
hole, and due to the reversed direction of the magnetic field, it ended
up favouring anti-matter there, whereas our side favoured matter here.
Since their jet is traversing in the reverse direction of the dimension
that we call time, you could say that they are travelling backwards in
time, but they are not actually doing anything different than what we do
here, which is cause and effect still occur in the same order as they do
here. So they feel that they are going forward in time, and we feel
we're going forward in time, even though we're going in the total
opposite directions of that dimension.
> The experimental evidence is of a Universal jet in which we exist.
>
> Let's get rid of the nonsense of the Big Bang and understand it is
> more correct to understand its the Big Ongoing before we start
> hypothesizing what else might be.
I have no problem with saying the Big Bang might still be affecting us,
but I don't necessarily think that the initial conditions of the Big
Bang are still with us. The big events of the Big Bang are already over,
such as the condensation of matter from energy, the separation of the
Forces, etc.
Yousuf Khan
mpc755
If there is a Universal black hole associated with the Universal jet
we exist in and if there is another polar jet associated with the
Universal black hole there is no reason not to assume it is exactly
similar to the Universal jet we exist in which consists of matter just
like the one in which we do.
That is not to say it could not consist of anti-matter.
At this point in time in our understanding, or what is more correctly
described as our misunderstanding of what occurs physically in nature,
I think the emphasis should be on understanding we exist in a
Universal jet.
> > The experimental evidence is of a Universal jet in which we exist.
>
> > Let's get rid of the nonsense of the Big Bang and understand it is
> > more correct to understand its the Big Ongoing before we start
> > hypothesizing what else might be.
>
> I have no problem with saying the Big Bang might still be affecting us,
> but I don't necessarily think that the initial conditions of the Big
> Bang are still with us. The big events of the Big Bang are already over,
> such as the condensation of matter from energy, the separation of the
> Forces, etc.
>
> Yousuf Khan
There is zero evidence of a Big Bang. All of the evidence suggest the
Universe has always existed as it appears. That is not to suggest the
Universe has always existed as it appears. I am simply pointing out
there is zero evidence of a Big Bang. All of the evidence supports a
Big Ongoing.
Poutnik
@ct4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, mpc...@gmail.com says...
>
> There is zero evidence of a Big Bang.
There is zero evidence that there is zero evidence of Big Bang.
At least the evidence is better than for the opposite.
--
Poutnik
mpc755
The following directionality of the galaxy clusters can not be
explained by the Big Bang. You will ignore this evidence in order to
continue to believe in the dogma of the Big Bang.
Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html
'The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our
solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion
is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed
outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule
out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right
now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the
clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said.'
The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or
the local Universe we exist in is, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet
of a black hole.
Yousuf Khan
> If there is a Universal black hole associated with the Universal jet
> we exist in and if there is another polar jet associated with the
> Universal black hole there is no reason not to assume it is exactly
> similar to the Universal jet we exist in which consists of matter just
> like the one in which we do.
There is one good reason to suspect that it consists of antimatter
rather than matter, and that is because that jet is travelling in the
opposite direction of time. Although cause and effect events would occur
in the same order within that jet as it does in our jet, so everything
would look normal, the charges would operate in the reverse direction.
The universal blackhole operates differently than blackholes in our own
universe because the direction of time is already set in our universe,
so jets coming out of any blackhole inside our own universe will always
come out as matter. But there was no preferred direction of time prior
to the universal blackhole; the universal blackhole is the one that set
our direction of time, and set the reverse direction of time for the
antimatter universe too.
>> I have no problem with saying the Big Bang might still be affecting us,
>> but I don't necessarily think that the initial conditions of the Big
>> Bang are still with us. The big events of the Big Bang are already over,
>> such as the condensation of matter from energy, the separation of the
>> Forces, etc.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
> There is zero evidence of a Big Bang. All of the evidence suggest the
> Universe has always existed as it appears. That is not to suggest the
> Universe has always existed as it appears. I am simply pointing out
> there is zero evidence of a Big Bang. All of the evidence supports a
> Big Ongoing.
You mean there's "zero" evidence of Doppler shifts? Galaxies moving? Etc.?
You believe that there must be a universal blackhole jet that became our
universe, yet somehow the universe is static? I look upon the idea of a
blackhole jet being the perfect reason why we see a dynamic universe:
the blackhole jets would eventually start spreading out and expanding in
directions other than the one it was originally sent in.
Yousuf Khan
mpc755
> On 6/6/2011 11:38 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > If there is a Universal black hole associated with the Universal jet
> > we exist in and if there is another polar jet associated with the
> > Universal black hole there is no reason not to assume it is exactly
> > similar to the Universal jet we exist in which consists of matter just
> > like the one in which we do.
>
> There is one good reason to suspect that it consists of antimatter
> rather than matter, and that is because that jet is travelling in the
> opposite direction of time.
You don't know that. You are assuming that. It could be just like the
polar jets of a black hole.
I think you are mistaking 'time' for us starting upon our emission
into the Universal jet with the Universal jet may having always
existed.
I am saying there is no evidence the Universe has not always existed
in its present state. The reason for the observed behaviors we see is
matter expands away from other matter as it propagates through the
Universal jet.
There may only be this Universal jet and it may have always existed as
it is presently configured.
Yousuf Khan
> On Jun 7, 1:49 pm, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> There is one good reason to suspect that it consists of antimatter
>> rather than matter, and that is because that jet is travelling in the
>> opposite direction of time.
>
> You don't know that. You are assuming that. It could be just like the
> polar jets of a black hole.
>
> I think you are mistaking 'time' for us starting upon our emission
> into the Universal jet with the Universal jet may having always
> existed.
I of course don't know that the other jet would consist of anti-matter,
any more than either of us would know that this theory of a polar jet is
true either. The reason for that is that we can't see into the other
universe, nor see the blackhole that started either of them.
However, prior to our universe there may have been a primordial
universe. The primordial universe had no preferred direction of time,
and any events that happened in that universe were equally as likely to
happen forward or reverse. If you ran a film of events within the
primordial universe, you couldn't tell which is the film running forward
or which is reverse. The only thing that happened in that universe were
random energy fluctuations.
One of those random fluctuations may have been big enough to create a
blackhole that was big enough to start gathering mass without
evaporating away through Hawking radiation first. As happens in our own
universe, this blackhole created an accretion disk around it which gets
shot out through the polar jets eventually. Each of these polar jets
have momentum of course, and each has a momentum going in a specific
direction of the primordial universe, unlike any random fluctuation that
came before it. The momentum of the jets causes all fluctuations within
these polar jets to have a preferred direction of flow.
This direction was just another random direction of space before, but
now it's the direction that sets events going within the jet. And for
the first time, there are now really distinct and irreversible
cause'n'effect events. Forward events now have higher probability than
their reverse events. The arrow of time is set within each jet.
Now within these jets, smaller blackholes can form too. They may have
their own polar jets too. However, since these mini-blackhole jets are
just entering into our universe's already-set preferred direction of
time, all of the outflows end up as matter just like the rest of the
universe we're in. In the opposite universe, mini-blackholes will always
produce antimatter outflows in both directions.
But the primordial blackhole would have had the most unique condition of
not having any preferred direction of time. Therefore its outflows could
produce time-reversed outflows on one side, and time-forward outflows on
the other side. Which side is the time-forward outflow and which is the
time-reversed is just based on our perspective from whichever universe
we ended up in. People in the antimatter universe would say we're in the
time-reversed universe and that we're made of antimatter, while they are
made of matter.
>> You believe that there must be a universal blackhole jet that became our
>> universe, yet somehow the universe is static? I look upon the idea of a
>> blackhole jet being the perfect reason why we see a dynamic universe:
>> the blackhole jets would eventually start spreading out and expanding in
>> directions other than the one it was originally sent in.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
> I am saying there is no evidence the Universe has not always existed
> in its present state. The reason for the observed behaviors we see is
> matter expands away from other matter as it propagates through the
> Universal jet.
If as you say, "matter expands away as it propagates", then how is that
a static universe?
Yousuf Khan
mpc755
> On 6/7/2011 3:26 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > On Jun 7, 1:49 pm, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> There is one good reason to suspect that it consists of antimatter
> >> rather than matter, and that is because that jet is travelling in the
> >> opposite direction of time.
>
> > You don't know that. You are assuming that. It could be just like the
> > polar jets of a black hole.
>
> > I think you are mistaking 'time' for us starting upon our emission
> > into the Universal jet with the Universal jet may having always
> > existed.
>
> I of course don't know that the other jet would consist of anti-matter,
> any more than either of us would know that this theory of a polar jet is
> true either. The reason for that is that we can't see into the other
> universe, nor see the blackhole that started either of them.
>
[Note: If you see my previous similar post it is because it discussed
the Big Bang which should not have been included and is removed from
this post]
The following directionality of the galaxy clusters can not be
explained by the Big Bang.
Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html
'The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our
solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion
is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed
outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule
out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right
now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the
clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said.'
The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or
the local Universe we exist in is, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet
of a black hole.
The directionality of the galaxy clusters is evidence of the Universal
polar jet.
> However, prior to our universe there may have been a primordial
> universe.
One of the points I am trying to make is, at this time, it is
pointless to try and hypothesis what was prior to the Universal jet.
As far as we know, the Universal jet has always existed.
I never said the Universe is static. What I have been saying is the
Universal jet may have always existed. This could be the billionth
time 'we' have been emitted into the Universal jet. What I mean by the
Universe may have always existed in its present state is we have no
information of what existed prior, if anything existed prior, to the
Universal jet in which we exist; not that the Universe is static.
Yousuf Khan
> On Jun 9, 1:11 am, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I of course don't know that the other jet would consist of anti-matter,
>> any more than either of us would know that this theory of a polar jet is
>> true either. The reason for that is that we can't see into the other
>> universe, nor see the blackhole that started either of them.
>>
>
> [Note: If you see my previous similar post it is because it discussed
> the Big Bang which should not have been included and is removed from
> this post]
Okay, I'll ignore that previous post. It doesn't seem all that different
than this current post, though.
> The following directionality of the galaxy clusters can not be
> explained by the Big Bang.
>
> Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
> http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html
I know about Dark Flow, I even edited a couple of points into its
Wikipedia article myself. However, it never struck me as a disproof of
The Big Bang. It just means that the BB was more complex than most
people think. We know that there are unobservable parts of our universe
that are not causally connected to our part of the universe. However,
these parts may very well be causally connected to other parts of our
observable universe, but not to us.
> The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or
> the local Universe we exist in is, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet
> of a black hole.
You're thinking too conventionally here. You're thinking that the
primordial polar jet is travelling somewhere along the 3 conventional
space dimensions. I'm saying that the polar jet fired off along the 4th
space dimension, which is the time dimension.
Dark Flow would just be a minor localized gravitational effect, not
nearly powerful enough to explain the direction of time.
Yousuf Khan
mpc755
> On 09/06/2011 9:41 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > On Jun 9, 1:11 am, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I of course don't know that the other jet would consist of anti-matter,
> >> any more than either of us would know that this theory of a polar jet is
> >> true either. The reason for that is that we can't see into the other
> >> universe, nor see the blackhole that started either of them.
>
> > [Note: If you see my previous similar post it is because it discussed
> > the Big Bang which should not have been included and is removed from
> > this post]
>
> Okay, I'll ignore that previous post. It doesn't seem all that different
> than this current post, though.
>
> > The following directionality of the galaxy clusters can not be
> > explained by the Big Bang.
>
> > Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
> >http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html
>
> I know about Dark Flow, I even edited a couple of points into its
> Wikipedia article myself. However, it never struck me as a disproof of
> The Big Bang. It just means that the BB was more complex than most
> people think. We know that there are unobservable parts of our universe
> that are not causally connected to our part of the universe. However,
> these parts may very well be causally connected to other parts of our
> observable universe, but not to us.
>
From the article:
"The dark flow is controversial because the distribution of matter in
the observed universe cannot account for it. Its existence suggests
that some structure beyond the visible universe -- outside our
"horizon" -- is pulling on matter in our vicinity."
If the distribution of the matter in the observed universe cannot
account for the dark flow then this is a fundamental failure of the
big bang.
If it is hypothesized some structure beyond the visible universe is
pulling on matter in our vicinity then this is a fundamental failure
of the big bang.
And the above hypothesized explanation is not as correct as the
directionality being caused by the Universal jet in which we exist.
> > The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or
> > the local Universe we exist in is, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet
> > of a black hole.
>
> You're thinking too conventionally here. You're thinking that the
> primordial polar jet is travelling somewhere along the 3 conventional
> space dimensions. I'm saying that the polar jet fired off along the 4th
> space dimension, which is the time dimension.
>
> Dark Flow would just be a minor localized gravitational effect, not
> nearly powerful enough to explain the direction of time.
>
> Yousuf Khan
There are only three dimensions. The rate at which an atomic clock
ticks is determined by the state of the aether in which it exists.
fitlike min
> On Jun 3, 1:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 4:52 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 3, 6:32 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > New 'Double Slit' Experiment Skirts Uncertainty Principle
>
> > > >http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-expe...
>
> > > > "Steinberg's group sent photons one by one through a double slit by
> > > > using a beam splitter and two lengths of fibre-optic cable. Then they
> > > > used an electronic detector to measure the positions of photons at some
> > > > distance away from the slits, and a calcite crystal in front of the
> > > > detector to change the polarization of the photon, and allow them to
> > > > make a very rough estimate of each photon's momentum from that change.
>
> > > > Average trajectory
>
> > > > "By measuring the momentum of many photons, the researchers were able to
> > > > work out the average momentum of the photons at each detector. They then
> > > > moved the crystal progressively further away from the slits, and so by
> > > > "connecting the dots" were able to trace out the average trajectories of
> > > > the photons. They did this while still recording an interference pattern
> > > > at each detector position".
>
> > > > See:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-expe...
>
> > > --------------------------
> > > Bravo !!!!
>
> >http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-expe...
>
> > "Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
> > unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
> > theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
> > takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
> > both slits. The traditional interpretation of quantum mechanics, known
> > as the Copenhagen interpretation, dismisses the notion of
> > trajectories, and maintains that it is meaningless to ask what value a
> > variable, such as momentum, has if that's not what is being measured."
>
> > A moving particle has an associated aether wave. In a double slit
> > experiment the particle travels a single path and enters and exits a
> > single slit. It is the associated aether wave which enters and exits
> > both slits. The associated aether wave creates wave interference upon
> > exiting the slits. As the particle exits a single slit, the direction
> > it travels is altered by the interference it encounters. Detecting the
> > particle causes there to be a loss of coherence, in the above
> > experiment the loss of coherence is not great enough for there not to
> > be an interference pattern.
>
> it is not an aether wave idiot
>
> it is a whole bunch if
>
> SINGLE PHOTONS
> i am much more specific than your
> abstract vague description
>
> my description of it is
> it is composed of a huge nmner of single photons-(nothing more no
> witches on brooms )
> that are mach smaller energy and mass than E=hf
>
> it is composed of a huge number of single photons that each of them
> has the mass of about
> exp -90 kilograms mass
> )the exact figure is in my past threads
> that are documented years before )
>
> multiply it by c^2
> and you will geti ts Energy
>
> make the calculation of
> hf /c
> while hf is multiplied by Planck time
> and you will get its Momentum of a single photon there say msf
> (Momentum of single photon)
>
> divide
> your MEASURE at the experiment
> with that
> momentum(of a single photon)
>
> AND YOU WILL FIND
> HOW MANY ''SINGLE PHOTONS''
> MADE THAT MEASURED MOMENTUM!
> A HUGE NUMBER !!!
>
> the number of single photons you will get
> will be*** linearly*** with the the amount of momentum -you will
> measure in the above experiment
> ntw
> no relativistic and no schmelativistic mass
> just one mass -- the only one
>
> (NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS-
> NO REAL PHYSICS !!))
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ----------------------------
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------------------
Fight the Autism man - fight it.
Yousuf Khan
> On Jun 9, 6:07 pm, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 09/06/2011 9:41 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>>> Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
>>> http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html
>>
>> I know about Dark Flow, I even edited a couple of points into its
>> Wikipedia article myself. However, it never struck me as a disproof of
>> The Big Bang. It just means that the BB was more complex than most
>> people think. We know that there are unobservable parts of our universe
>> that are not causally connected to our part of the universe. However,
>> these parts may very well be causally connected to other parts of our
>> observable universe, but not to us.
>>
>
> From the article:
>
> "The dark flow is controversial because the distribution of matter in
> the observed universe cannot account for it. Its existence suggests
> that some structure beyond the visible universe -- outside our
> "horizon" -- is pulling on matter in our vicinity."
>
> If the distribution of the matter in the observed universe cannot
> account for the dark flow then this is a fundamental failure of the
> big bang.
>
> If it is hypothesized some structure beyond the visible universe is
> pulling on matter in our vicinity then this is a fundamental failure
> of the big bang.
Not really, it's a fundamental failure of General Relativity. We know
this theory is incomplete, just the issue of having to invoke Dark
Matter alone is enough to show its incompleteness, let alone Dark Energy.
General Relativity is not completely broken, it just has not gone far
enough.
> And the above hypothesized explanation is not as correct as the
> directionality being caused by the Universal jet in which we exist.
Think 4-dimensional rather than 3-dimensional.
>>> The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or
>>> the local Universe we exist in is, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet
>>> of a black hole.
>>
>> You're thinking too conventionally here. You're thinking that the
>> primordial polar jet is travelling somewhere along the 3 conventional
>> space dimensions. I'm saying that the polar jet fired off along the 4th
>> space dimension, which is the time dimension.
>>
>> Dark Flow would just be a minor localized gravitational effect, not
>> nearly powerful enough to explain the direction of time.
>
> There are only three dimensions. The rate at which an atomic clock
> ticks is determined by the state of the aether in which it exists.
Here's where our ideas about aether differ. You're thinking along 19th
century lines where aether is the 3-dimensional space. I'm thinking of
aether as the 4-dimensional *space-time* instead.
Yousuf Khan
mpc755
What is presently postulated as dark matter is aether. There is no
such thing as dark matter moving with matter. Matter moves with
respect to the state of the aether. Dark energy is the change in state
of the aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet.
> General Relativity is not completely broken, it just has not gone far
> enough.
>
> > And the above hypothesized explanation is not as correct as the
> > directionality being caused by the Universal jet in which we exist.
>
> Think 4-dimensional rather than 3-dimensional.
>
Think clocks tick according to the state of the aether in which they
exist. The faster a clock moves with respect to the state of the
aether the more aether the clock displaces the more the displaced
aether exerts force towards and throughout the atomic clock the slower
the clock ticks.
> >>> The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or
> >>> the local Universe we exist in is, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet
> >>> of a black hole.
>
> >> You're thinking too conventionally here. You're thinking that the
> >> primordial polar jet is travelling somewhere along the 3 conventional
> >> space dimensions. I'm saying that the polar jet fired off along the 4th
> >> space dimension, which is the time dimension.
>
> >> Dark Flow would just be a minor localized gravitational effect, not
> >> nearly powerful enough to explain the direction of time.
>
> > There are only three dimensions. The rate at which an atomic clock
> > ticks is determined by the state of the aether in which it exists.
>
> Here's where our ideas about aether differ. You're thinking along 19th
> century lines where aether is the 3-dimensional space. I'm thinking of
> aether as the 4-dimensional *space-time* instead.
>
> Yousuf Khan
The difference between understanding aether as the 3-dimensional space
and aether as the 4-dimensional space is understanding the rate at
which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the state of the aether
in which it exists and that time itself does not change.
All that needs to occur in order to correctly understand the
relationship between the rate at which atomic clocks tick and time is
to correctly define what a second is.
The present definition is:
the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding
to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state
of the caesium-133 atom.
The correct definition is:
the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding
to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state
of the caesium-133 atom [at sea level].
If you put an atomic clock into a GPS the physical state of the space
in which it exists causes it to tick faster. The physical state of the
aether in which it exists causes it to tick faster. Time has not
changed.
Jan Panteltje
<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in <4df1...@news.bnb-lp.com>:
>You're thinking too conventionally here. You're thinking that the
>primordial polar jet is travelling somewhere along the 3 conventional
>space dimensions. I'm saying that the polar jet fired off along the 4th
>space dimension, which is the time dimension.
I can understand your argument of antimatter - (reverse time) jets on both sides of 'something',
that we now call big bang (with us in the normal matter jet).
But could you elaborate a bit on your last sentence?
Also I have been thinking, in your theory,
would we perceive the universe's expanding speeding up THE SAME in all directions if
we are indeed in a jet?
Robert Higgins
> New 'Double Slit' Experiment Skirts Uncertainty Principle
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-expe...
>
> "Steinberg's group sent photons one by one through a double slit by
> using a beam splitter and two lengths of fibre-optic cable. Then they
> used an electronic detector to measure the positions of photons at some
> distance away from the slits, and a calcite crystal in front of the
> detector to change the polarization of the photon, and allow them to
> make a very rough estimate of each photon's momentum from that change.
>
> Average trajectory
>
> "By measuring the momentum of many photons, the researchers were able to
> work out the average momentum of the photons at each detector. They then
> moved the crystal progressively further away from the slits, and so by
> "connecting the dots" were able to trace out the average trajectories of
> the photons. They did this while still recording an interference pattern
> at each detector position".
>
> See:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-expe...
The work is virtually meaningless, as the P.I. himself notes - it does
not upend the uncertainty principle AT ALL. The fact that the
"average" momentum allows some sort of ad hoc calculation of the
"average" trajectory is useless.
Yousuf Khan
> On Jun 10, 2:21 am, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 09/06/2011 8:14 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>>> If it is hypothesized some structure beyond the visible universe is
>>> pulling on matter in our vicinity then this is a fundamental failure
>>> of the big bang.
>>
>> Not really, it's a fundamental failure of General Relativity. We know
>> this theory is incomplete, just the issue of having to invoke Dark
>> Matter alone is enough to show its incompleteness, let alone Dark Energy.
>>
>
> What is presently postulated as dark matter is aether. There is no
> such thing as dark matter moving with matter. Matter moves with
> respect to the state of the aether. Dark energy is the change in state
> of the aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet.
That can be easily disproven. There are several colliding clusters, the
two most famous (and infamous) ones being the Bullet Cluster (1E
0657-56) and the Train Wreck Cluster (Abell 520). These are the two
diametrically opposing examples of the behaviour of Dark Matter (thus
your aether). But in both cases, they disprove something about your
assumptions about how Dark Matter/Aether works.
In the case of the Bullet, it shows Dark Matter co-moving with the path
of the galaxies in the cluster. While at the same time, the intracluster
gas moves independently of the Dark Matter. However, the intracluster
gas actually outweighs the galaxies by quite a bit. If they were
following the aether, then the gas would not have moved in that way.
On the other hand, the Train Wreck shows that the both the galaxies and
the intracluster gas have separated from Dark Matter/Aether. This should
not have happened if Aether behaves as you think it does.
I don't believe Aether is quite as joined to normal matter as you seem
to think it is. I think it can move independently in extraordinary
circumstances.
>> Here's where our ideas about aether differ. You're thinking along 19th
>> century lines where aether is the 3-dimensional space. I'm thinking of
>> aether as the 4-dimensional *space-time* instead.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
> The difference between understanding aether as the 3-dimensional space
> and aether as the 4-dimensional space is understanding the rate at
> which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the state of the aether
> in which it exists and that time itself does not change.
>
> All that needs to occur in order to correctly understand the
> relationship between the rate at which atomic clocks tick and time is
> to correctly define what a second is.
>
> The present definition is:
>
> the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding
> to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state
> of the caesium-133 atom.
>
> The correct definition is:
>
> the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding
> to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state
> of the caesium-133 atom [at sea level].
>
> If you put an atomic clock into a GPS the physical state of the space
> in which it exists causes it to tick faster. The physical state of the
> aether in which it exists causes it to tick faster. Time has not
> changed.
Again, there's plenty of examples that time does change its rate.
Chemical processes slow down, biological processes slow down, even your
bodily functions slow down with higher speeds and weaker gravity. These
are all real and measurable. In particle accelerators, the closer that
particles are smashed at near the speed of light, the longer their
byproducts last before decaying, which allows particle detectors some
extra time to observe short lived particles.
Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan
> On a sunny day (Thu, 09 Jun 2011 18:07:32 -0400) it happened Yousuf Khan
> <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in<4df1...@news.bnb-lp.com>:
>
>> You're thinking too conventionally here. You're thinking that the
>> primordial polar jet is travelling somewhere along the 3 conventional
>> space dimensions. I'm saying that the polar jet fired off along the 4th
>> space dimension, which is the time dimension.
>
>
> I can understand your argument of antimatter - (reverse time) jets on both sides of 'something',
> that we now call big bang (with us in the normal matter jet).
> But could you elaborate a bit on your last sentence?
I look upon it like a bunch of colliding cars on a long one-way straight
stretch of road. If all cars on this road were travelling at exactly the
same speed, then there would be no collisions as no cars would be either
approaching or receding from each other, they would maintain exact
distance between each other; that would be more like a bunch of rail
cars rather than road cars.
Just the fact that there are differences in speed between particles,
allows them to catch up and interact with each other. Thus if every
particle could travel at the speed of light, then there would be almost
no interactions between any particles, as they would maintain station
with each other. Basically there are two most uninteresting speeds in
this Universe: (1) exactly zero speed, and (2) the speed of light, the
maximum speed. Both of these speeds would look exactly identical to an
outside observer, namely nothing would be happening. All of the
interesting stuff happens between these two speeds. Chemical reactions,
biological reactions, nuclear reactions, all happens as a result of
speed differences, allowing cause'n'effect events to occur.
> Also I have been thinking, in your theory,
> would we perceive the universe's expanding speeding up THE SAME in all directions if
> we are indeed in a jet?
You're talking about the perceived effects of Dark Energy. I think what
could have happened is that a jet started out perfectly concentrated and
going along a very linear path in one direction. Think of a jet of water
from a hose, very close to the beginning it starts out very powerful and
fast. As the water keeps going, it stays straight for a little while,
until it encounters some air resistance and the water starts to scatter
all over the place. The scattered water starts to slow down and start
moving in different directions than its original straight trajectory.
This could be like Inflationary Big Bang. Initially the Universe was
very linear (one-dimensional) and fast, this is Inflation. Eventually
the Universe encountered resistance and started scattering in different
directions and became 3-dimensional. We still have the momentum of the
original jet propelling us, but the resistance is starting to build, and
eventually we may be stopped dead in our tracks. What's resisting us?
Well the primordial universe has static aether in it too, so we're
crashing into the parts of the primordial universe not involved in the
original jet. Like a small water jet through a pool, eventually the jet
will get stopped by the static water.
What this means is that when we look back in time at earlier parts of
the Universe, we're seeing back to a time when the Universe had more
momentum than it does now. So it looks like it's moving away faster than
it actually is. So Dark Energy might just be an illusionary effect of
the slow down of the Universe. Dark Energy is just a wimpy hold-over of
Inflation.
Yousuf Khan
mpc755
> On 06/10/2011 03:06 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > What is presently postulated as dark matter is aether. There is no
> > such thing as dark matter moving with matter. Matter moves with
> > respect to the state of the aether. Dark energy is the change in state
> > of the aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet.
>
> That can be easily disproven. There are several colliding clusters, the
> two most famous (and infamous) ones being the Bullet Cluster (1E
> 0657-56) and the Train Wreck Cluster (Abell 520). These are the two
> diametrically opposing examples of the behaviour of Dark Matter (thus
> your aether). But in both cases, they disprove something about your
> assumptions about how Dark Matter/Aether works.
>
> In the case of the Bullet, it shows Dark Matter co-moving with the path
> of the galaxies in the cluster. While at the same time, the intracluster
> gas moves independently of the Dark Matter. However, the intracluster
> gas actually outweighs the galaxies by quite a bit. If they were
> following the aether, then the gas would not have moved in that way.
>
> On the other hand, the Train Wreck shows that the both the galaxies and
> the intracluster gas have separated from Dark Matter/Aether. This should
> not have happened if Aether behaves as you think it does.
>
> I don't believe Aether is quite as joined to normal matter as you seem
> to think it is. I think it can move independently in extraordinary
> circumstances.
>
[Note: cleanup of previous post]
The aether is not joined to normal matter. Galaxy clusters move
through the aether. I prefer to say the galaxy clusters are moving
with respect to the state of the aether but that seems to have caused
some confusion. In dark matter theories the dark matter must stay
closely attached to the galaxies. This is incorrect. This is why the
concept of dark matter is incorrect. It is not correct to suggest dark
matter stays closely attached to the galaxies. It is correct to
understand aether has mass and the galaxy clusters are moving through
the aether; again, more correctly stated as the galaxy clusters are
moving with respect to the state of the aether.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster
"The Bullet cluster (1E 0657-56) consists of two colliding clusters of
galaxies.[1] Studies of the Bullet cluster, announced in August 2006,
provide the best evidence to date for the existence of dark matter.[2]
At a statistical significance of 8ó, it was found that the spatial
offset of the center of the total mass from the center of the baryonic
mass peaks cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational
force law.[3] Observations of other galaxy cluster collisions, such as
MACS J0025.4-1222, also show significant displacement between their
center of visible matter and their gravitational potential."
The significant displacement between their center of visible matter
and their gravitational potential are due to the galaxy clusters
moving through the aether.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abell_520
"This particular cluster presents a major problem for prevailing
theories about Dark Matter as well as most alternative theories of
modified gravity, because its dark matter content does not appear to
behave as expected like in other clusters. As expected, the cluster's
galaxies and intergalactic gas content are separated, much like the
well-known Bullet Cluster and other merging clusters. It also appears
to have as many galaxies and as much intergalactic gas as is expected
for a cluster of this size. However, it has a large gravitational
lensing core (usually thought to be the location of the dark matter)
that appears to be devoid of galaxies or other normal matter.
Prevailing theories of Dark Matter believe that dark matter must
always stay closely attached to the galaxies. Meanwhile, the
prevailing theories also believe that only the intergalactic gas is
free to separate out from both the galaxies and the dark matter,
during mergers. Here, the dark core appears to have little or no
correlation to any of the cluster's other components. It has not yet
been determined how the dark matter and galaxies were separated."
The galaxy clusters are moving through the aether. There is no such
thing as dark matter staying closely attached to matter. Dark matter
is being mistaken for the aether the galaxy clusters are moving
through. Once you understand aether has mass and there is no such
thing as dark matter you realize the galaxy clusters are moving and
colliding with respect to the state of the aether.
'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/abstract
The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether;
again, it is more correct to say the galaxy clusters are moving with
respect to the state of the aether.
Dark matter does not move with matter. There is no such thing as dark
matter. Matter moves through the aether. Matter moves with respect to
the state of the aether.
The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under
water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between the
lights and you one mile away is a submarine. There will be an offset
between the submarine itself and the 'gravitational center' as
determined by the lensing caused by the submarine moving through the
water.
The submarine displaces the water. The state of displacement of the
water causes the lensing of the light propagating through the water
to be offset from the center of the submarine itself.
>
> Again, there's plenty of examples that time does change its rate.
> Chemical processes slow down, biological processes slow down, even your
> bodily functions slow down with higher speeds and weaker gravity. These
> are all real and measurable. In particle accelerators, the closer that
> particles are smashed at near the speed of light, the longer their
> byproducts last before decaying, which allows particle detectors some
> extra time to observe short lived particles.
>
> Yousuf Khan
Post a link to where a complex biological organism, such as the human
body, aged according to an atomic clock where the human body and the
atomic clock were moving at high speeds or weaker gravity and how the
human body aged according to the atomic clock and not the environment
in which it existed.
In particle accelerators, the closer particles are smashed at near the
speed of light, the more aether the particles displace the more the
displaced aether exerts force towards the particles. Same of the
byproducts. The faster the byproducts move with respect to the state
of the aether the more aether the byproducts displace the more force
exerted by the displaced aether towards the byproducts the longer the
byproducts last before decaying.
What you are witnessing in the particle accelerator collision is no
different than the physical effect causing atomic clocks to slow down
or causes the offset between the galaxy clusters and the gravitational
center or causes gravity. The faster an object moves with respect to
the state of the aether the more aether the object displaces the more
aether there is exerting force towards the object. This force causes
atomic clocks to tick slower and for byproducts of particle
accelerator collisions to last longer before decaying. This
displacement of the aether by matter also causes the offset between
galaxy cluster matter and the gravitational center.
Aether has mass.
Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by matter.
Aether displaced by matter exerts force towards matter.
Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle enters and exits a single slit. It
is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits both
slits. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates wave
interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it
travels is altered by the wave interference it encounters. Detecting
the particle causes there to be a loss of coherence of the associated
aether wave, there is no wave interference, and the direction the
particle travels is not altered.
Jan Panteltje
<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in <4df2f9bd$1...@news.bnb-lp.com>:
OK, but in my view light speed (tm) is a very interesting speed :-)
One thing that is intriguing about it, is that if you had a transmitter
leaving you at light speed, its frequency would drop to zero due to Doppler.
Of course somebody will stand up and shout: 'No Way",
but then I am a firm believer in experiments, what I would like to test is:
send a rocket with constant acceleration (maybe 1 G) and a radio transmitter into space.
Could be nuclear, many nuclear plants are being closed in Germany, plenty of material to be had for cheap,
maybe it could use free hydrogen as reaction mass...
Anyways, have it accelerate, see how the received frequency drops, if it goes past c
have it pre-programed to decelerate and send all logged data later when it is slower again.
Maybe people claimed faster than sound was not possible, but it was done.
You gotto try, only way.
Only way to the stars.
>
>> Also I have been thinking, in your theory,
>> would we perceive the universe's expanding speeding up THE SAME in all directions if
>> we are indeed in a jet?
>
>You're talking about the perceived effects of Dark Energy. I think what
>could have happened is that a jet started out perfectly concentrated and
>going along a very linear path in one direction. Think of a jet of water
>from a hose, very close to the beginning it starts out very powerful and
>fast. As the water keeps going, it stays straight for a little while,
>until it encounters some air resistance and the water starts to scatter
>all over the place. The scattered water starts to slow down and start
>moving in different directions than its original straight trajectory.
Dark energy, as you may have noticed I am more a Le Saga type of thinker,
and if those particles originate in processes at the centre of galaxies,
then everything will be pushed apart faster and faster, but we should
see it almost the same in all directions.
In the case of a jet (and I like the simplicity of your idea),
I would not expect a symmetry like that.
One theory does not exclude the other, yours is the first I have read that
makes sense for the anti-matter-missing issue.
>This could be like Inflationary Big Bang. Initially the Universe was
>very linear (one-dimensional) and fast, this is Inflation. Eventually
>the Universe encountered resistance and started scattering in different
>directions and became 3-dimensional. We still have the momentum of the
>original jet propelling us, but the resistance is starting to build, and
>eventually we may be stopped dead in our tracks. What's resisting us?
>Well the primordial universe has static aether in it too, so we're
>crashing into the parts of the primordial universe not involved in the
>original jet. Like a small water jet through a pool, eventually the jet
>will get stopped by the static water.
>
>What this means is that when we look back in time at earlier parts of
>the Universe, we're seeing back to a time when the Universe had more
>momentum than it does now. So it looks like it's moving away faster than
>it actually is. So Dark Energy might just be an illusionary effect of
>the slow down of the Universe. Dark Energy is just a wimpy hold-over of
>Inflation.
>
> Yousuf Khan
Interesting idea, I will have to think about that and look up some data.
Yousuf Khan
> Maybe people claimed faster than sound was not possible, but it was done.
> You gotto try, only way.
> Only way to the stars.
I don't for a minute think faster than light is not possible. It just
needs the appropriate technology. One of main hurdles is that any
spaceship that needs to achieve this speed would need to be protected,
not from asteroids or meteors, but from space itself. Although, I don't
completely agree with mpc755's take on aether, but I do agree that all
matter is made of aether, which would mean that matter is made up from
nothing but space.
If aether is matter and aether is space, then attempting to take matter
out to the speed of light or beyond will result in the organization of
matter falling apart. But Inflation shows that it was done once, and
therefore it can be done once again. We just have to discover how. I
think once we get to the point of understanding how the forces
(electroweak, and strong) re-unify with each other, then we might be
able to figure out that mechanism.
Breaking the speed of sound just required building a vehicle stronger
than the background medium (air in that case). We need to build
something similar if we want to break the speed of light, but there
isn't any matter that we know of that can do it, since matter is made up
of space itself.
> Dark energy, as you may have noticed I am more a Le Saga type of thinker,
> and if those particles originate in processes at the centre of galaxies,
> then everything will be pushed apart faster and faster, but we should
> see it almost the same in all directions.
> In the case of a jet (and I like the simplicity of your idea),
> I would not expect a symmetry like that.
> One theory does not exclude the other, yours is the first I have read that
> makes sense for the anti-matter-missing issue.
With the existing Inflationary Big Bang theory, you should expect small
isolated differences in speed to be left over, i.e. an-isotropic. We're
probably seeing that with the discovery of the Dark Flow galaxies.
With your ideas about Le Sage particles coming from the centers of
galaxies, the problem would be that the centers of the galaxies should
blow themselves up very quickly. Which would then lead to the eventual
disintegration of the rest of these galaxies. Of course that is similar
to one of the theories of how Dark Energy is going to end the Universe
in a Big Rip.
Regarding the blackhole jet theory of the Big Bang, I figured how would
magnetic fields act in a universe without a preferred direction of time?
I figured that it would act in much the same way as it does in our
universe with a preferred direction of time, but first of all it would
actually create the preferred direction of time. Not only that, it'll
likely create two preferred directions of time, one on either side of
the blackhole magnetic poles. Basically it'll create time itself.
Depending on whether the pole was north or south, positive and negative
particles would either prefer to get closer to the center of each jet,
or get further away. Now of course we have particles as heavy as
protons/anti-protons, and as light as electrons/positrons, so depending
on their mass, the speed at which they rush towards or away from the
centerlines of the jets will be mass-dependent. Electrons/positrons will
go faster than protons/anti-protons. This difference will leave
stratified layers of positive and negative charged particles where they
won't be in contact with their equal and opposite member, in both jets.
So even if 99.99% of matter and antimatter annihilated each other in
those regions where they were in contact, there would be those regions
where they could not come in contact, and these would be left over. Then
the energy of the matter/antimatter annihilations would boost the
remaining particles even faster through the jets, so fast that they
would no longer be causally in contact with each other, and the
separation between matter and antimatter would be complete -- two
separate universes in fact. This boosting of the jets would of course be
the Inflationary period. This is more energy than we see in existing
blackhole jets in our universe because there is none of this m-am
annihilation energy boosting them.
Yousuf Khan
Paul Stowe
> On 11/06/2011 3:57 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>
> > Maybe people claimed faster than sound was not possible, but it was done.
> > You gotto try, only way.
> > Only way to the stars.
>
> I don't for a minute think faster than light is not possible. It just
> needs the appropriate technology. One of main hurdles is that any
> spaceship that needs to achieve this speed would need to be protected,
> not from asteroids or meteors, but from space itself. Although, I don't
> matter is made ofaether, which would mean that matter is made up from
> nothing but space.
>
> If aether is matter and aether is space, then attempting to take matter
> out to the speed of light or beyond will result in the organization of
> matter falling apart. But Inflation shows that it was done once, and
> therefore it can be done once again. We just have to discover how. I
> think once we get to the point of understanding how the forces
> (electroweak, and strong) re-unify with each other, then we might be
> able to figure out that mechanism.
The key to solving this riddle is controlled vorticity of the medium.
The structure of such a vessel would most likely consist of a hollow
cylinder. Vortex can go supersonic in their medium. But, I think you
are spot-on with your comment above.
{Snip of Rest...}
> Yousuf Khan
Paul Stowe
cjcountess
I told you so.
See
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b99613bf2c1239b9?hl=en
Conrad J Countess
Y.Porat
wrote:
--------------------
imbecile crrrok moron parrot
a walking damage for adance in physics !!!
you are meanuing less
not that discovery
the explanation for it is as i brougthlong ago
E=hf is not the formula for a single photon!!
only an imbecile blockhead gangster like you
can stick to that stupidity even though all the new innovations !
E=hf is the energy of a huge bunch of
SINGLE PHOTONS
the real single photon energy is
E single photon = h times (the scalar part of Plank time ))
old copyright of
Y.Porat
---------------------
Jan Panteltje
<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in <4df4d9b2$1...@news.bnb-lp.com>:
>On 11/06/2011 3:57 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> Maybe people claimed faster than sound was not possible, but it was done.
>> You gotto try, only way.
>> Only way to the stars.
>
>I don't for a minute think faster than light is not possible. It just
>needs the appropriate technology. One of main hurdles is that any
>spaceship that needs to achieve this speed would need to be protected,
>not from asteroids or meteors, but from space itself. Although, I don't
>completely agree with mpc755's take on aether, but I do agree that all
>matter is made of aether, which would mean that matter is made up from
>nothing but space.
>
>If aether is matter and aether is space, then attempting to take matter
>out to the speed of light or beyond will result in the organization of
>matter falling apart.
Maybe we should be careful not to over-simply things.
There was this idea not so long ago that all particles were made up of waves
or something like that.
If they now rename 'ether' to 'a virtual sea of particles' that smells really bad to me.
Small particles, OK then they claim photons are particles (they are not in my view),
and then they claim 'virtual' beasts of the same kind, all that shows something is wrong.
Sure if there is an ether, then it could be (and likely is) very very complex.
I recently had an idea that came from an other experiment I did that I could not
explain from a power point of view in the normal way (as moving EM waves or particles),
that some 'particles' (say an electron as the smallest thing we know),
act on even smaller Le Saga type particles as MODULATOR.
That is a Le Saga particles passes though it and changes some of its properties.
maybe starts to rotate one way for positive particles, and the other way when
passing through a negative particle (starts to spiral).
These Le Saga particles would then carry information at their own speed about
what they passed through.
These now in motion polarised particles would react differently to positive or negative matter
(elementary particles) causing the attraction and repel that we perceive as 'electrostatic force',
and when hitting random oriented matter (electrically neutral) would cause what we now call gravity.
Or something like that (inertia is here too),
In such a case for sure you can move the electrons and other elementary (for now) particles
at any speed you like relative to the Le Saga particles.
If you could change the resistance to the polarisation of Le Saga particles for normal matter in the right way
then you could make a device that would let Le Saga particles through one way more easy than the other way,
you get propulsion.
(By the way how BIG is that force?? I think it is unbelievably strong).
Some experiments done by Podkletnov, the ideas of Ning_Li, etc etc.
I have been doing some test with superconductors, this is all work in progress.
The other thing is the time issue.
You know our clocks move faster further away from the earth surface (in lower gravity).
Our clocks are made of pendulums, very fine pendulums for atomic clocks.
If you were to compress such a pendulum it would become shorter, and move faster.
Funny how it should then be LESS compressed further away from the earth!
And it SHOULD move slower, but no, and this is the strongest clue for a Le Saga type theory:
Close to the earth more Le Sage particles are intercepted, and the pendulum is less compressed
(less Le Saga flux), becomes longer, and the clocks move slower.
Further from the earth there are more Le Sage particles
and the pendulum gets more compressed, becomes shorter, and the clocks move faster.
There is your 'space-time', and now with a mechanism.
I think the above unifies gravity with the electro forces, and time (as measured by us with the matter we are made of
and use to measure things).
Lorentz was right, but to go back to the start of all this: The ether is more complex.
My thoughts on this.
Lets go for the stars.
Of course Le Saga does away with things like singularities too, as, when all Le Saga particles are intercepted,
there is no force left, and in my view matter would fall apart, like the moon would fly away if there was no gravity.
On the above based ideas the electrostatic and EM forces would stop to exist too for the same reason: no carrier.
And the same situation at or beyond the end of the universe, Le Saga flux would fall to a very low value.
All motion would be slower, you get a red shift.
They could not be THAT wrong could they?
LOL
hehe
cjcountess
"E=hf" may start as average for many photons because it is not easy to
measure a single photon, but if we are measuring a lot of photons of
the same frequency, wavelength, and energy, the average energy turns
out to be the average energy of each individual photon, as well as the
average energy of them all.
Your formula "E=h x scaler of planck time" = "E=hf" if Planck time is
frequency cycle of electron, of which photon frequencys are divisions
of, but not the ficticious Planck time of "10-43 seconds" which is
derived from equating (c = h/2pi = G), when (c^2 = h/2pi...h/2pi/2 =
G) are the true Planck unites with Electron as their physical
manifestation.
see:http://wbabin.net/science/countess.pdf
Conrad J Countess
mpc755
wrote:
Which is completely missing the point.
'Quantum mechanics rule 'bent' in classic experiment'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13626587
'For his part, Professor Steinberg believes that the result reduces a
limitation not on quantum physics but on physicists themselves.
"I feel like we're starting to pull back a veil on what nature really
is," he said.
"The trouble with quantum mechanics is that while we've learned to
calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we've lost much of
our ability to describe what is really happening in any natural
language.
"I think that this has really hampered our ability to make progress,
to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how new systems ought to
behave."'
A moving particle physically displaces the aether. A moving particle
mpc755
> On a sunny day (Sun, 12 Jun 2011 11:22:24 -0400) it happened Yousuf Khan
When experiments are performed to created frictionless superfluids and
frictionless superfluids with properties of a solid not only do they
make the environment as cold as possible they add pressure to the
experiment.
The greater the gravity, the greater the gravitational force on and
throughout an atomic clock, the slower the clock ticks. An atomic
clock is less compressed the further away from the surface of the
Earth it is. However, this does not outweigh the less pressure exerted
towards and throughout the atomic clock allowing it to tick faster.
It is not simply like an ice skater who pulls in their arms in order
to spin faster. The analogy is an ice skater who keeps there arms
extended and spins slower the greater the force exerted towards and
throughout them. The further the ice skater is from the surface of the
Earth the faster the ice skater spins because of the less
gravitational force exerted towards and throughout the skater.
(Replace ice skater with atomic clock)
mpc755
> On 11/06/2011 3:57 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>
> > Maybe people claimed faster than sound was not possible, but it was done.
> > You gotto try, only way.
> > Only way to the stars.
>
> I don't for a minute think faster than light is not possible. It just
> needs the appropriate technology. One of main hurdles is that any
> spaceship that needs to achieve this speed would need to be protected,
> not from asteroids or meteors, but from space itself. Although, I don't
> completely agree with mpc755's take on aether, but I do agree that all
> matter is made of aether, which would mean that matter is made up from
> nothing but space.
>
If you understand matter is made of aether then you understand aether
has mass and you should be able to understand what I mean when I say
what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether.
Dark matter does not move with matter. There is no such thing as dark
matter. Matter moves through the aether. Matter moves with respect to
the state of the aether. All of the offsets between galaxy clusters
and their gravitational centers are offsets between the galaxy
clusters and the state of displacement of the aether connected to and
neighboring the galaxy clusters.
Y.Porat
> Porat
>
> "E=hf" may start as average for many photons because it is not easy to
> measure a single photon, but if we are measuring a lot of photons of
> the same frequency, wavelength, and energy, the average energy turns
> out to be the average energy of each individual photon, as well as the
> average energy of them all.
you ddint follow my old innovation based on a simple experiment
phootn energy is emitted in ways sorter time than
one second !!
E=hf is the energy emitted during one second since
f ISONE SECOND DEFINED !!
got it
i wonder !!
now a simple experiment
with photon emission of light on a photoelectric cell
can show you that
electrons are emitted from that cell
in a ways shorter THAN ONE SECOND
i founs it emitted during
half a second
or 1/4 of s econd
and that is enough to show the principle
real photons are emitted and MAKING WORK
OF EXTRACTING ELECTRONS OF A PHOTOELECTRIC CELL
in a much shorter time than one second
SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN ??
i leave it for you to think about
because
SPOON FEEDING IS NOT REMEMBERED AND APPRECIATED !!
-------------------------------------------
>
> Your formula "E=h x scalar of Planck time" = "E=hf" if Planck time is
> frequency cycle of electron, of which photon frequencys are divisions
> of, but not the ficticious Planck time of "10-43 seconds"
even if you are rigth
**it does not contradict my innovation**
about the **smallest photon energy **
(and by dividing it by c^2 getting smallest
PHOTON MASS !!! ((UNPRECEDENTED ))
may be even confirming it
i ddint test your claime
----------------------
i said and wrote
the ''scalar part of Plank time
IN ORDER OF DIMENSION FITTING !!!
HF MUST BE MULTIPLIED BY A** NET SCALAR**
ION ORDER TOAT IT WILL GIVE YOU
**ENERGY DIMENSIONS !!**
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------
Sam Wormley
> "E=hf" may start as average for many photons because it is not easy to
Why do you say that?
Jan Panteltje
<mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in
<1e623feb-44c4-4657...@f11g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jun 13, 6:23 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Sun, 12 Jun 2011 11:22:24 -0400) it happened Yousuf Khan
>> <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in <4df4d9b...@news.bnb-lp.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 11/06/2011 3:57 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> >> Maybe people claimed faster than sound was not possible, but it was do=
>ne.
>> >> You gotto try, only way.
>> >> Only way to the stars.
>>
>> >I don't for a minute think faster than light is not possible. It just
>> >needs the appropriate technology. One of main hurdles is that any
>> >spaceship that needs to achieve this speed would need to be protected,
>> >not from asteroids or meteors, but from space itself. Although, I don't
>> >completely agree with mpc755's take on aether, but I do agree that all
>> >matter is made of aether, which would mean that matter is made up from
>> >nothing but space.
>>
>> >If aether is matter and aether is space, then attempting to take matter
>> >out to the speed of light or beyond will result in the organization of
>> >matter falling apart.
>>
>> Maybe we should be careful not to over-simply things.
>> There was this idea not so long ago that all particles were made up of wa=
>ves
>> or something like that.
>>
>> If they now rename 'ether' to 'a virtual sea of particles' that smells re=
>ally bad to me.
>> Small particles, OK then they claim photons are particles (they are not i=
>n my view),
>> and then they claim 'virtual' beasts of the same kind, all that shows som=
>ething is wrong.
>> Sure if there is an ether, then it could be (and likely is) very very com=
>plex.
>> I recently had an idea that came from an other experiment I did that I co=
>uld not
>> explain from a power point of view in the normal way (as moving EM waves =
>or particles),
>> that some 'particles' (say an electron as the smallest thing we know),
>> act on even smaller Le Saga type particles as MODULATOR.
>> That is a Le Saga particles passes though it and changes some of its prop=
>erties.
>> maybe starts to rotate one way for positive particles, and the other way =
>when
>> passing through a negative particle (starts to spiral).
>> These Le Saga particles would then carry information at their own speed a=
>bout
>> what they passed through.
>> These now in motion polarised particles would react differently to positi=
>ve or negative matter
>> (elementary particles) causing the attraction and repel that we perceive =
>as 'electrostatic force',
>> and when hitting random oriented matter (electrically neutral) would caus=
>e what we now call gravity.
>> Or something like that (inertia is here too),
>> In such a case for sure you can move the electrons and other elementary (=
>for now) particles
>> at any speed you like relative to the Le Saga particles.
>> If you could change the resistance to the polarisation of Le Saga particl=
>es for normal matter in the right way
>> then you could make a device that would let Le Saga particles through one=
> way more easy than the other way,
>> you get propulsion.
>> (By the way how BIG is that force?? I think it is unbelievably strong).
>> Some experiments done by Podkletnov, the ideas of Ning_Li, etc etc.
>> I have been doing some test with superconductors, this is all work in pro=
>gress.
>> The other thing is the time issue.
>> You know our clocks move faster further away from the earth surface (in l=
>ower gravity).
>> Our clocks are made of pendulums, very fine pendulums for atomic clocks.
>> If you were to compress such a pendulum it would become shorter, and move=
> faster.
>> Funny how it should then be LESS compressed further away from the earth!
>> And it SHOULD move slower, but no, and this is the strongest clue for a L=
>e Saga type theory:
>> Close to the earth more Le Sage particles are intercepted, and the pendul=
>um is less compressed
>> (less Le Saga flux), becomes longer, and the clocks move slower.
>> Further from the earth there are more Le Sage particles
>> and the pendulum gets more compressed, becomes shorter, and the clocks mo=
>ve faster.
>> There is your 'space-time', and now with a mechanism.
>>
>> I think the above unifies gravity with the electro forces, and time (as m=
>easured by us with the matter we are made of
>> and use to measure things).
>> Lorentz was right, but to go back to the start of all this: The ether is =
>more complex.
>> My thoughts on this.
>> Lets go for the stars.
>>
>> Of course Le Saga does away with things like singularities too, as, when =
>all Le Saga particles are intercepted,
>> there is no force left, and in my view matter would fall apart, like the =
>moon would fly away if there was no gravity.
>> On the above based ideas the electrostatic and EM forces would stop to ex=
>ist too for the same reason: no carrier.
>> And the same situation at or beyond the end of the universe, Le Saga flux=
> would fall to a very low value.
>> All motion would be slower, you get a red shift.
>> They could not be THAT wrong could they?
>> LOL
>> hehe
>
>When experiments are performed to created frictionless superfluids and
>frictionless superfluids with properties of a solid not only do they
>make the environment as cold as possible they add pressure to the
>experiment.
>
>The greater the gravity, the greater the gravitational force on and
>throughout an atomic clock, the slower the clock ticks. An atomic
>clock is less compressed the further away from the surface of the
>Earth it is. However, this does not outweigh the less pressure exerted
>towards and throughout the atomic clock allowing it to tick faster.
>
>It is not simply like an ice skater who pulls in their arms in order
>to spin faster.
Right, that example is about conservation of energy.
>The analogy is an ice skater who keeps there arms
>extended and spins slower the greater the force exerted towards and
>throughout them. The further the ice skater is from the surface of the
>Earth the faster the ice skater spins because of the less
>gravitational force exerted towards and throughout the skater.
>(Replace ice skater with atomic clock)
So, you believe in singularities, in 'black holes' for example? where the time stops.
Nature does not allow infinities, something always gives way.
Sometimes I think everything is 100 % opposite of what current science thinks or states,
earth was flat ->
no it was a ball.
Sun orbits the earth ->
no earth orbits the sun.
Incredible gravitational forces in a black hole ->
no gravity goes to zero in its centre,
No ether needed ->
well you need something to explain why time changes, see my theory above.
Universe originates from a big bang ->
maybe the IR shift we see is just the opposite, areas where gravity is less because of less Le Saga flux.
etc etc etc
Nothing can move faster than c ->
well you cannot accelerate something faster than c with an EM field that moves at c.
I want to point out too that at current our models of how super conduction works fail.
With so much crap, and politics playing that crap either for security reasons or what ever sort of personal gain,
generations of parrots being created, parrots of wrong theories.... never a result.
Look how distorted the brains of these so called 'scientist' have become, a clan of Pharisees.
Same for the religions,
look at ape colonies, it is all there.
No wonder no alien ventures here, would you want to live with the apes?
So anyways, kick it a bit, maybe it will fall over, just like that Copenhagen crap.
Politics and science, that sucks in so many ways, I have personally encountered that.
Here an other example, on De Broglie-Bohm theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie?Bohm_theory
<quote>
Bohm's paper was largely ignored by other physicists. Even Albert
Einstein did not consider it a satisfactory answer to the quantum
non-locality question. The rest of the contemporary objections, however,
were ad hominem, focusing on Bohm's sympathy with liberals and supposed
communists as exemplified by his refusal to give testimony to the House
Un-American Activities Committee.
<end quote>
Politics often means the end of real advancement, like they killed the Apollos
and started making space taxies at 10000x the cost, but perhaps created more jobs (and idiots
who can only land on a planet with airbags).
LOL
cjcountess
E=hf/c^2 is a more correct expression, “c^2” being frequency of
electron, or as “deBrolie”, stated it “mc^2” as in “E=hf=mc^2’,
Of course these frequencies are shorter than the man made arbitrary
time unit we call the second, as they are natural time units, and
“c^2” is that time unit cycle of the electron, which is the shortest
posible time cycle if, "c" is the highest posible speed, because "c^2
= c^circled and or sphered" with angular momentum of "h/2pi" for
circle and "h/2pi/2" for circle making two rotations to complete one
wave cycle or "spin 1/2" while photon frequencies are divisions of
that. And of course, "c^2" also = "G" as the highest posible "v^2" or
"L/T^2" as the center og gravity rest mass around which matter builds
up.
Sam
I say that because that is what the article said, namely that they
could not measure both momentum and position at same time, but could
statistically.
I personally thought that one photon might be measured if it had a
sensitive enough scale, but if they are so small that it is not easy
to discern one photon, than it is understandable that they would have
to measure them statistically allot at a time.
Even so if photons are identical, as long as their wavelength,
frequency is identical, than the average for all, reveals the average
for one.
Conrad J Countess
mpc755
> On a sunny day (Mon, 13 Jun 2011 05:31:35 -0700 (PDT)) it happened mpc755
> <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in
I do not believe time stops. I believe what is mistaken for time
starting is 'our' emission into the Universal jet.
What is mistaken as the Big Bang is the Universal jet we exist in,
analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.
We exist in a larger version of a polar jet.
Dark energy is the change is state of the aether emitted into and
propagating through the Universal jet.
It's not the Big Bang, it's the Big Ongoing.
Y.Porat
-----------------
because he has a bit more brain than you Sammi....parrot
he is may be a physicist
while you are an orchestra conductor
that does not mean what he said
in his opening thread
ie just quoting others
without the slightest ability tolearn something new
sothank you at least for bringing facts
and let other s todeal with it cleverly
Y.Porat
--------------------------
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Y.Porat
-----------------------
if you dare to talk about calculations -
how can you calculate anything in your Aether Bull
while you dont know
HOW MANY KILOGRAMS OF AETHER
ARE THERE IN ONE CUBIC METER
OF VACUUM ??!!
Y.Porat
--------------------------------------
Y.Porat
> Porat
>
> E=hf/c^2 is a more correct expression, “c^2” being frequency of
> electron, or as “deBrolie”, stated it “mc^2” as in “E=hf=mc^2’,
Electrons and Photons are completely different
physical entities
it might be that both of them are built of the same raw material mass
but still a huge physical difference between them !!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------------------
cjcountess
>
> - Show quoted text -
The only thing separating photons from electrons is frequency/
wavelength, otherwise they both enearge from the same EM spectrum
which is not only the electromagnetic but the energy matter spectrum.
This is why deBroglie gave us E=hf=mc^2, to indecate this . and
Compton stated that the wavelength of photon would be the same as that
of electron and vice versa if they have same energy because they are
both basically the same electromagnetic waves, one with rest mass and
charge due to energy traveling at "c" in circular and or spherical
motion, and one with relative mass, traveling at 'c" in straight and
or wavey lines.
cjcountess
I know that “E=hf”, was interpreted using the second as a standard
measure of time. But I also know the ‘E=hf” can be interpreted using
any unite of time, even the natural unit “/c^2’ as in “E=hf/c^2”,
which I also use. And this is even down to the natural time cycle of
“c” in circular and or spherical motion, which is “c^2” itself, as
well as divisions of it, as time cycles traveled by photons.
Sam
I say that because that is what the article said, namely that they
could not measure both momentum and position at same time, but could
statistically.
I personally thought that one photon might be measured if it had a
sensitive enough scale, but if they are so small that it is not easy
to discern one photon, than it is understandable that they would have
to measure them statistically allot at a time.
Even so, if photons are identical, as long as their wavelength,
frequency is identical, than the average for all, reveals the average
for one.
After all, is not photon wavelength known for single photons?
Conrad J Countess
Jan Panteltje
<mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in
<f122a4ed-1fac-4ae1...@z37g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>:
>> So, you believe in singularities, in 'black holes' for example? where the=
> time stops.
>> Nature does not allow infinities, something always gives way.
>>
>
>I do not believe time stops. I believe what is mistaken for time
>starting is 'our' emission into the Universal jet.
Oh I agree with that.
The whole concept of 'the start of time' smells like creationism to me.
Even if it started with a bang, with or without jets going in opposite directions,
time must have existed before that.
One could argue that one could not measure it, as no clocks could exist.
Sure, as a 'standard' like a fixed ruler in the sense of the oscillations of some
atom, no, but it is for example possible multiple bangs happened
(and very likely in my view) in multiple places at multiple times,
so you would have to apply a current standard to indicate that time.
>What is mistaken as the Big Bang is the Universal jet we exist in,
>analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.
If you follow up on that, if something else banged nearby (is cosmic sense),
jets could intertwine, pass through each other, older ones crossing newer ones.
Then maybe you would find anti-matter flows in the observable universe.
And the associate anhilinations, flashes.. if it collides with matter.
>We exist in a larger version of a polar jet.
>
>Dark energy is the change is state of the aether emitted into and
>propagating through the Universal jet.
>
>It's not the Big Bang, it's the Big Ongoing.
Beware of dogma.
mpc755
> On a sunny day (Mon, 13 Jun 2011 08:18:11 -0700 (PDT)) it happened mpc755
> <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> >> So, you believe in singularities, in 'black holes' for example? where the=
> > time stops.
> >> Nature does not allow infinities, something always gives way.
>
> >I do not believe time stops. I believe what is mistaken for time
> >starting is 'our' emission into the Universal jet.
>
> Oh I agree with that.
> The whole concept of 'the start of time' smells like creationism to me.
> Even if it started with a bang, with or without jets going in opposite directions,
> time must have existed before that.
> One could argue that one could not measure it, as no clocks could exist.
> Sure, as a 'standard' like a fixed ruler in the sense of the oscillations of some
> atom, no, but it is for example possible multiple bangs happened
> (and very likely in my view) in multiple places at multiple times,
> so you would have to apply a current standard to indicate that time.
>
> >What is mistaken as the Big Bang is the Universal jet we exist in,
> >analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.
>
> If you follow up on that, if something else banged nearby (is cosmic sense),
> jets could intertwine, pass through each other, older ones crossing newer ones.
> Then maybe you would find anti-matter flows in the observable universe.
> And the associate anhilinations, flashes.. if it collides with matter.
>
The Universal jet we exist in might be all that there is. As of today,
there is no evidence of anything outside of the Universal jet in which
we exist. And as of today, there is no evidence to suggest the
Universal jet has not always existed in its present state. 'We' may
have been emitted into the Universal jet billions of times.
Yousuf Khan
> On Jun 12, 11:22 am, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I don't for a minute think faster than light is not possible. It just
>> needs the appropriate technology. One of main hurdles is that any
>> spaceship that needs to achieve this speed would need to be protected,
>> not from asteroids or meteors, but from space itself. Although, I don't
>> completely agree with mpc755's take on aether, but I do agree that all
>> matter is made of aether, which would mean that matter is made up from
>> nothing but space.
>>
>
> If you understand matter is made of aether then you understand aether
> has mass and you should be able to understand what I mean when I say
> what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether.
That I don't agree with. Mass is an emergent property that arises as a
result of aether moving through aether. Basically it's the resistance of
aether against itself. If that sounds suspiciously like the Higgs boson,
then that's not a coincidence. In fact, the entire Higgs boson concept
sounds suspiciously like aether to me too. I don't think the idea behind
the Higgs mechanism is wrong though, I just think they're looking for
the mechanism in the wrong place. I don't think they'll ever find a
specific supermassive boson that'll become the Higgs boson. I think the
Higgs boson isn't going to be supermassive at all, it'll likely be the
smallest particles in the universe, i.e. it'll be the particles of
space-time itself. Each atom of space-time is going to be 1 Planck
Length in diameter, and 1 Planck Time in time length. You can also call
it a particle of aether if you like. As you can see aether is not just
space, it's time as well.
Bosons (force) and Fermions (matter) would be made up of this aether as
well. They would be aether twisted, concentrated and rolled up into
balls and/or other shapes. The number of aether particles needed to make
a particle of something becomes its mass, the shape of its particles
would become it's particle identity. If this sounds suspiciously like
String Theory or Loop Quantum Gravity, then that's no coincidence either.
Because aether is both time and space, therefore you don't need
convoluted explanations of how movement through aether or what not lead
to clocks going faster or slower. Clocks simply go faster or slower
because their surrounding aether is flowing faster or slower.
> Dark matter does not move with matter. There is no such thing as dark
> matter. Matter moves through the aether. Matter moves with respect to
> the state of the aether. All of the offsets between galaxy clusters
> and their gravitational centers are offsets between the galaxy
> clusters and the state of displacement of the aether connected to and
> neighboring the galaxy clusters.
Only partly right, now bring the 4th dimension into aether.
Yousuf Khan
Sam Wormley
> That I don't agree with. Mass is an emergent property that arises as a
> result of aether moving through aether. Basically it's the resistance of
> aether against itself. If that sounds suspiciously like the Higgs boson,
> then that's not a coincidence. In fact, the entire Higgs boson concept
> sounds suspiciously like aether to me too. I don't think the idea behind
> the Higgs mechanism is wrong though, I just think they're looking for
> the mechanism in the wrong place. I don't think they'll ever find a
> specific supermassive boson that'll become the Higgs boson. I think the
> Higgs boson isn't going to be supermassive at all, it'll likely be the
> smallest particles in the universe, i.e. it'll be the particles of
> space-time itself. Each atom of space-time is going to be 1 Planck
> Length in diameter, and 1 Planck Time in time length. You can also call
> it a particle of aether if you like. As you can see aether is not just
> space, it's time as well.
>
> Bosons (force) and Fermions (matter) would be made up of this aether as
> well. They would be aether twisted, concentrated and rolled up into
> balls and/or other shapes. The number of aether particles needed to make
> a particle of something becomes its mass, the shape of its particles
> would become it's particle identity. If this sounds suspiciously like
> String Theory or Loop Quantum Gravity, then that's no coincidence either.
>
> Because aether is both time and space, therefore you don't need
> convoluted explanations of how movement through aether or what not lead
> to clocks going faster or slower. Clocks simply go faster
Philosophizing?
Measurable properties of aether are?
Yousuf Khan
> The other thing is the time issue.
> You know our clocks move faster further away from the earth surface (in lower gravity).
> Our clocks are made of pendulums, very fine pendulums for atomic clocks.
> If you were to compress such a pendulum it would become shorter, and move faster.
> Funny how it should then be LESS compressed further away from the earth!
> And it SHOULD move slower, but no, and this is the strongest clue for a Le Saga type theory:
> Close to the earth more Le Sage particles are intercepted, and the pendulum is less compressed
> (less Le Saga flux), becomes longer, and the clocks move slower.
> Further from the earth there are more Le Sage particles
> and the pendulum gets more compressed, becomes shorter, and the clocks move faster.
> There is your 'space-time', and now with a mechanism.
I think you're way overthinking time dilation, as if it's some kind of
illusion caused by the pressure of particles creating more or less
resistance on clocks. It doesn't have to be that way. The far simpler
explanation is that we measure time as a series of events, pendulums
swinging, atomic nuclei vibrating, etc. The reason that time slows down
at higher speeds is because the closer you get to light speed, there are
far less *differences of speed* there can be.
If you're travelling at 99% the speed of light, then the only things
that can go faster than you are those objects travelling at over 99%
light speed and upto 100% light speed. If you're travelling at 0.1%
light speed then you have far greater range of speeds that can be at
differential to you, between 0.1% and 100% light speed. If you're
restricted to a 1% range of speeds, change events are going to happen
far less frequently than if you have 99.9% of the speed range to work with.
Yousuf Khan
Jan Panteltje
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote in <O-ydnerPzIzUWmvQ...@mchsi.com>:
I agree.
> Measurable properties of aether are?
Permeability of free space, mu0.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_(electromagnetism)
Jan Panteltje
<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in <4df6cab3$1...@news.bnb-lp.com>:
>On 13/06/2011 6:23 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> The other thing is the time issue.
>> You know our clocks move faster further away from the earth surface (in lower gravity).
>> Our clocks are made of pendulums, very fine pendulums for atomic clocks.
>> If you were to compress such a pendulum it would become shorter, and move faster.
>> Funny how it should then be LESS compressed further away from the earth!
>> And it SHOULD move slower, but no, and this is the strongest clue for a Le Saga type theory:
>> Close to the earth more Le Sage particles are intercepted, and the pendulum is less compressed
>> (less Le Saga flux), becomes longer, and the clocks move slower.
>> Further from the earth there are more Le Sage particles
>> and the pendulum gets more compressed, becomes shorter, and the clocks move faster.
>> There is your 'space-time', and now with a mechanism.
>
>I think you're way overthinking time dilation, as if it's some kind of
>illusion caused by the pressure of particles creating more or less
>resistance on clocks. It doesn't have to be that way. The far simpler
>explanation is that we measure time as a series of events, pendulums
>swinging, atomic nuclei vibrating, etc. The reason that time slows down
>at higher speeds is because the closer you get to light speed, there are
>far less *differences of speed* there can be.
I think you are screaming like somebody who is about to drown?
The water of space-time and, As I pointed out in an other posting: DOGMA,
Einsteins 'nothing faster than c', tries to swallow you now as it has a whole generation
of 21 century pseudo scientists, basically parrots
who can say: Polly wants a cracker', as that has been what they heard from diaper stage
to PhD stage, every time they asked 'why?'.
>If you're travelling at 99% the speed of light, then the only things
>that can go faster than you are those objects travelling at over 99%
>light speed and upto 100% light speed. If you're travelling at 0.1%
>light speed then you have far greater range of speeds that can be at
>differential to you, between 0.1% and 100% light speed. If you're
>restricted to a 1% range of speeds, change events are going to happen
>far less frequently than if you have 99.9% of the speed range to work with.
Dogma, it kills all reasoning, is a religion, not science or investigation.
Jan Panteltje
<mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in
<0dd45813-f415-4271...@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>:
>The Universal jet we exist in might be all that there is.
IF there is an universal jet.
Your statement sounds like life on earth is all life there is in the universe.
You are creating a dogma, without ANY evidence,
> As of today,
>there is no evidence of anything outside of the Universal jet in which
>we exist. And as of today, there is no evidence to suggest the
>Universal jet has not always existed in its present state. 'We' may
>have been emitted into the Universal jet billions of times.
>
>> >We exist in a larger version of a polar jet.
>>
>> >Dark energy is the change is state of the aether emitted into and
>> >propagating through the Universal jet.
>>
>> >It's not the Big Bang, it's the Big Ongoing.
>>
>> Beware of dogma.
>
If you see one flower, changes are there are more.
And a way those came about, evolved.
There is no evidence whatsoever for your 'universal jet', other
than reasoning it could explain ONE of many observations.
Making it an unique one needs even more evidence.
mpc755
> On a sunny day (Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:05:46 -0700 (PDT)) it happened mpc755
> <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> >The Universal jet we exist in might be all that there is.
>
> IF there is an universal jet.
> Your statement sounds like life on earth is all life there is in the universe.
I am not suggesting life on Earth is all life there is in the
Universe. I have no idea what would lead you to that conclusion. All
of the matter we see in the Universe had been emitted into the
Universal jet at one time.
> You are creating a dogma, without ANY evidence,
'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html
'The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our
solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion
is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed
outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule
out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right
now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the
clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said.'
The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or
the local Universe we exist in is, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet
of a black hole.
I never said I am right. What I am saying is the Big Bang can not
explain the directionality of the motion of the galaxy clusters in the
above. A Universal jet does.
All I am saying is the Universal jet, which implies a Big Ongoing, is
more correct than the Big Bang.
>
> > As of today,
> >there is no evidence of anything outside of the Universal jet in which
> >we exist. And as of today, there is no evidence to suggest the
> >Universal jet has not always existed in its present state. 'We' may
> >have been emitted into the Universal jet billions of times.
>
> >> >We exist in a larger version of a polar jet.
>
> >> >Dark energy is the change is state of the aether emitted into and
> >> >propagating through the Universal jet.
>
> >> >It's not the Big Bang, it's the Big Ongoing.
>
> >> Beware of dogma.
>
> If you see one flower, changes are there are more.
> And a way those came about, evolved.
> There is no evidence whatsoever for your 'universal jet', other
> than reasoning it could explain ONE of many observations.
> Making it an unique one needs even more evidence.
All of the evidence is evidence of a Universal jet. There is zero
evidence which disputes the Universal jet we exist in.
mpc755
> On 13/06/2011 8:45 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > On Jun 12, 11:22 am, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I don't for a minute think faster than light is not possible. It just
> >> needs the appropriate technology. One of main hurdles is that any
> >> spaceship that needs to achieve this speed would need to be protected,
> >> not from asteroids or meteors, but from space itself. Although, I don't
> >> completely agree with mpc755's take on aether, but I do agree that all
> >> matter is made of aether, which would mean that matter is made up from
> >> nothing but space.
>
> > If you understand matter is made of aether then you understand aether
> > has mass and you should be able to understand what I mean when I say
> > what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether.
>
> That I don't agree with. Mass is an emergent property that arises as a
> result of aether moving through aether.
Matter is condensations of aether.
Matter evaporates into aether.
Energy is the physical effects matter evaporating into aether has on
the neighboring aether and matter.
As matter converts to aether, there is still the same amount of mass
in existence.
Mass is conserved.
> Basically it's the resistance of
> aether against itself. If that sounds suspiciously like the Higgs boson,
> then that's not a coincidence. In fact, the entire Higgs boson concept
> sounds suspiciously like aether to me too. I don't think the idea behind
> the Higgs mechanism is wrong though, I just think they're looking for
> the mechanism in the wrong place. I don't think they'll ever find a
> specific supermassive boson that'll become the Higgs boson. I think the
> Higgs boson isn't going to be supermassive at all, it'll likely be the
> smallest particles in the universe, i.e. it'll be the particles of
> space-time itself. Each atom of space-time is going to be 1 Planck
> Length in diameter, and 1 Planck Time in time length. You can also call
> it a particle of aether if you like. As you can see aether is not just
> space, it's time as well.
>
I agree with Einstein who stated the ether does not consist of
individual particles which can be separately tracked through time. My
interpretation of this is it can not be known if aether consists of
particles or not.
> Bosons (force) and Fermions (matter) would be made up of this aether as
> well. They would be aether twisted, concentrated and rolled up into
> balls and/or other shapes. The number of aether particles needed to make
> a particle of something becomes its mass, the shape of its particles
> would become it's particle identity. If this sounds suspiciously like
> String Theory or Loop Quantum Gravity, then that's no coincidence either.
>
> Because aether is both time and space, therefore you don't need
> convoluted explanations of how movement through aether or what not lead
> to clocks going faster or slower. Clocks simply go faster or slower
> because their surrounding aether is flowing faster or slower.
>
Clocks simply go faster or slower do to the physical state of the
space in which they exist.
> > Dark matter does not move with matter. There is no such thing as dark
> > matter. Matter moves through the aether. Matter moves with respect to
> > the state of the aether. All of the offsets between galaxy clusters
> > and their gravitational centers are offsets between the galaxy
> > clusters and the state of displacement of the aether connected to and
> > neighboring the galaxy clusters.
>
> Only partly right, now bring the 4th dimension into aether.
>
> Yousuf Khan
'Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension'
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html
"As the researchers explain, without using time as the fourth
dimension of spacetime, the physical world can be described more
accurately. As physicist Enrico Prati noted in a recent study,
Hamiltonian dynamics (equations in classical mechanics) is robustly
well-defined without the concept of absolute time. Other scientists
have pointed out that the mathematical model of spacetime does not
correspond to physical reality, and propose that a timeless “state
space” provides a more accurate framework."
The physical world is described more accurately by understanding the
rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the physical
state of the space in which it exists.
mpc755
>
> Measurable properties of aether are?
The galaxy clusters in the following article are not traveling with
dark matter. The galaxy clusters are moving through the aether. The
galaxy clusters displace aether.
'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html
"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view
of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two
galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is
somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the
water."
The 'pond' consists of aether. The moving 'particles' are the galaxy
clusters. The 'ripple' is a gravitational wave. The 'ripple' is an
aether displacement wave.
The above is physical evidence of a moving 'particle' having an
associated aether displacement wave.
In a double slit experiment, the particle travels a single path and
enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether
displacement wave which enters and exits both slits. The aether
displacement wave creates wave interference upon exiting the slits. As
the particle exits a singel slit, it is this interference which alters
the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes a
loss of coherence of the associated aether displacement wave, there is
no wave interference, and the direction the particle travels is not
altered.
The aether is detected every time a double slit experiment is
performed.
Aether Displacement explains why the shape of the Milky Way's 'dark
matter' is in the shape of a squished beach ball.
'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 Milky Way 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.
'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/abstract
"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 ( CDM) simulations and to test the modified dynamics."
The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether.
Matter does not move with dark matter. There is no such thing as dark
mpc755
> On Jun 14, 5:12 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On a sunny day (Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:05:46 -0700 (PDT)) it happened mpc755
> > <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > <0dd45813-f415-4271-86a6-e79a66cf4...@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > >The Universal jet we exist in might be all that there is.
>
> > IF there is an universal jet.
> > Your statement sounds like life on earth is all life there is in the universe.
>
> I am not suggesting life on Earth is all life there is in the
> Universe. I have no idea what would lead you to that conclusion. All
> of the matter we see in the Universe had been emitted into the
> Universal jet at one time.
>
And by stating the matter in our Universe was emitted at one time, I
do not mean all at once. All of the matter we see in our Universe had
been emitted into the Universal jet, as aether. There is still aether
being emitted into the Universal jet. Where the conditions allow for,
aether condenses into matter. This is an ongoing process.
mpc755
> On Jun 14, 8:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 5:12 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On a sunny day (Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:05:46 -0700 (PDT)) it happened mpc755
> > > <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > > <0dd45813-f415-4271-86a6-e79a66cf4...@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > > >The Universal jet we exist in might be all that there is.
>
> > > IF there is an universal jet.
> > > Your statement sounds like life on earth is all life there is in the universe.
>
> > I am not suggesting life on Earth is all life there is in the
> > Universe. I have no idea what would lead you to that conclusion. All
> > of the matter we see in the Universe had been emitted into the
> > Universal jet at one time.
>
> And by stating the matter in our Universe was emitted at one time, I
> do not mean all at once. All of the matter we see in our Universe had
> been emitted into the Universal jet, as aether. There is still aether
> being emitted into the Universal jet. Where the conditions allow for,
> aether condenses into matter. This is an ongoing process.
>
The Big Ongoing is the opposite of dogma. The Universal jet can be
test for. The Big Ongoing is falsifiable. Choosing to believe all of
the matter in the Universe fit into an infinitesimally small point,
which is no different than saying there was nothing then there was
something, is dogma which can not be tested for and must be accepted
on faith.
Jan Panteltje
<mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in
<83c38483-04b7-4ddd...@dr5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jun 14, 5:12 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:05:46 -0700 (PDT)) it happened mpc755
>> <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> <0dd45813-f415-4271-86a6-e79a66cf4...@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >The Universal jet we exist in might be all that there is.
>>
>> IF there is an universal jet.
>> Your statement sounds like life on earth is all life there is in the univ=
>erse.
>
>I am not suggesting life on Earth is all life there is in the
>Universe. I have no idea what would lead you to that conclusion. All
>of the matter we see in the Universe had been emitted into the
>Universal jet at one time.
>
>> You are creating a dogma, without ANY evidence,
Dogma, no proof of 'All of the matter we see in the Universe had been emitted into the Universal jet at one time.'
>'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
>http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html
You ave posted that about a zillion times, saying something again
and again is how you make a parrot say 'Polly wants a cracker'.
Maybe some will pick up on it, and you will gain followers like Einstein seems to have (had).
But it is no science.
mpc755
> On a sunny day (Tue, 14 Jun 2011 05:53:57 -0700 (PDT)) it happened mpc755
> <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
>
>
> >On Jun 14, 5:12 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On a sunny day (Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:05:46 -0700 (PDT)) it happened mpc755
> >> <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> <0dd45813-f415-4271-86a6-e79a66cf4...@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >The Universal jet we exist in might be all that there is.
>
> >> IF there is an universal jet.
> >> Your statement sounds like life on earth is all life there is in the univ=
> >erse.
>
> >I am not suggesting life on Earth is all life there is in the
> >Universe. I have no idea what would lead you to that conclusion. All
> >of the matter we see in the Universe had been emitted into the
> >Universal jet at one time.
>
> >> You are creating a dogma, without ANY evidence,
>
> Dogma, no proof of 'All of the matter we see in the Universe had been emitted into the Universal jet at one time.'
>
And by at one time I did not mean all at once. All of the evidence is
evidence of a Universal jet. It is not dogma. Dogma is taking
something on faith. The Universal jet and the Big Ongoing are
supported by the evidence and are falsifiable.
> >'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
> >http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html
>
> You ave posted that about a zillion times, saying something again
> and again is how you make a parrot say 'Polly wants a cracker'.
> Maybe some will pick up on it, and you will gain followers like Einstein seems to have (had).
>
> But it is no science.
Physics is understanding what occurs physically in nature based upon
the physical evidence.
Such as the following.
matter. Matter moves through the aether. Matter displaces the aether.
Sam Wormley
Space, not aether.
mpc755
> On 6/14/11 4:12 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>
>
>
> > On a sunny day (Mon, 13 Jun 2011 21:28:25 -0500) it happened Sam Wormley
What about the dark matter which exists in the space? Or are you in
denial of that also?
Dark matter does not move with matter. There is no such thing as dark
matter. Matter moves through the aether.
Not the void of space, aether.
Jan Panteltje
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote in <faudnUmtQadRMmrQ...@mchsi.com>:
>>> Measurable properties of aether are?
>>
>> Permeability of free space, mu0.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_(electromagnetism)
>
> Space, not aether.
Well, I was on a tangent there,
but could you not say that if an ether exists, then it must fill space.
And if it does, then what we measure of free space must be caused by that ether.
You could then for example argue that lightspeed is what it is because of wave propagation in the medium ether.
If there was nothing, then why should light move at a fixed speed?
Since EM (Electro Magnetic) waves have the 'Magnetic' element in them,
then mu0 becomes very relevant,
:-)
Sam Wormley
> On a sunny day (Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:00:28 -0500) it happened Sam Wormley
> <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in<faudnUmtQadRMmrQ...@mchsi.com>:
>
>>>> Measurable properties of aether are?
>>>
>>> Permeability of free space, mu0.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_(electromagnetism)
>>
>> Space, not aether.
>
> Well, I was on a tangent there,
> but could you not say that if an ether exists, then it must fill space.
Why not just say the aether of old turned out to be space, but without
any absolute reference.
"The principle of relativity, which states that there is no preferred
inertial reference frame, dates back to Galileo, and was incorporated
into Newtonian Physics. However, in the late 19th century, the existence
of electromagnetic waves led physicists to suggest that the universe was
filled with a substance known as "aether", which would act as the medium
through which these waves, or vibrations travelled. The aether was
thought to constitute an absolute reference frame against which speeds
could be measured, and could be considered fixed and motionless. Aether
supposedly had some wonderful properties: it was sufficiently elastic
that it could support electromagnetic waves, and those waves could
interact with matter, yet it offered no resistance to bodies passing
through it. The results of various experiments, including the
Michelson–Morley experiment, indicated that the Earth was always
'stationary' relative to the aether–something that was difficult to
explain, since the Earth is in orbit around the Sun. Einstein's solution
was to discard the notion of an aether and an absolute state of rest.
Special relativity is formulated so as to not assume that any particular
frame of reference is special; rather, in relativity, any reference
frame moving with uniform motion will observe the same laws of physics.
In particular, the speed of light in a vacuum is always measured to be
c, even when measured by multiple systems that are moving at different
(but constant) velocities".
mpc755
> On 6/14/11 2:55 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>
> > On a sunny day (Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:00:28 -0500) it happened Sam Wormley
'NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment'
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/
"Our planet spins, and the spin should twist the dimple, slightly,
pulling it around into a 4-dimensional swirl. This is what GP-B went
to space in 2004 to check."
And found.
The experiment is evidence of the ether of general relativity.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The displacement of the aether by matter is the cause which conditions
its state.
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
Yousuf Khan
> Measurable properties of aether are?
Time and space.
Yousuf Khan
Jan Panteltje
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote in <grudnRYHMZ_yXmrQ...@mchsi.com>:
Well, it is clear to the casual observer that Einstein tried to brush the ether
under the carpet, because he could not explain what physically happened.
'relativity' has absolutely noting to do with it,
any kid knows about 'relative speed', and actually Ein
got that from Lorentz, as all other ideas he had he stole for others.
Remember Bose?
It is one thing to come up with a formula that fits the observations, that is not physics,
that is just engineering, what these guys do these days, like an idiot parrot play with that equation, no knowledge.
It is totally an other thing to come up with a *physical* explanation of what happens.
And then you MUST include gravity and momentum, and charge,
I think in a Le Saga type theory I have all those elements.
So far every prediction I made from that over the years (in this newsgroup)
has come true, been shown to be by observation.
While we are still waiting for your graffiti waves!
Builds a more sensitive one, more sensitive (10x), again more sensitive (100x),
anybody do the Einstein math?
Where is it?
The fear is to have to disagree with Einstein, the God of peer reviewed physics.
Most of those guys do not even have a clue about physics, have been politically assigned,
or put in a job creation project for mentally disabled (through 'education' in the form of parroting)
in CERN.
But hey, they invented the hyperlink, not that you need it for Usenet, but you need it for advertising.
But that guy left CERN.
OK, oh what fun.
30 years ago we could go to the moon, land there, and return.
US showing it could beat Russia.
Now they need a Russian taxi to the international scrap yard in space.
THAT is how your science had advanced, that Einstein and politics.
Idiots believe in a 'photon', in the Copenhagen interpretation,
try to make a quantum computer LOL, and look for the Higgs.
Make non-break-even fusion power in ITER, close all nuclear plants because
PROPERTY was made useless, but keep open all coal plants
as that only kills thousands of people every year, now here is the value of property
versus that of human life,
Apes, masses, silly politics, no knowledge, I love the dinos, I hope they had fun before they became extinct.
And the same calculation goes for us now: Have fun.
I hope those guys in CERN, LIGO, ITER, politics, the murderes of innocent people
with NATO bombs, the many wars the US makes, made, and instigates, evolution.
Planet of the apes.
But OK I am one too, so do not feel too insulted...
There is one small difference however, it is here to find out.
Sam Wormley
Sound like you are defining aether as spacetime. Ta Da!
Why not just use the term "spacetime" instead of "aether" as
spacetime is well defined mathematically? Aether carries
historical baggage.
mpc755
Why not just use the term aether and understand what occurs physically
in nature to cause gravity and understand what occurs physically in
nature in a double slit experiment?
Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle enters and exits a single slit. It
is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits both
slits. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates wave
interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it
travels is altered by the wave interference it encounters. Detecting
the particle causes there to be a loss of coherence of the associated
aether wave, there is no wave interference, and the direction the
particle travels is not altered.
How is it you are able to use quotes which refer to Einstein and
consider them to be more correct than Einstein's own words?
This is the quote you posted:
"Einstein's solution was to discard the notion of an aether and an
absolute state of rest."
These are Einstein's own words:
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory
of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the
existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state
of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last
mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it."
"It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether
which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in
taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its
immobility."
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable"
The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the state of
the space in which it exists.
The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the state of
the aether in which it exists.
Curved spacetime is displaced aether.
Yousuf Khan
> On 6/15/11 1:50 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> On 6/13/2011 10:28 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> Measurable properties of aether are?
>>
>> Time and space.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
>
> Sound like you are defining aether as spacetime. Ta Da!
Exactly.
> Why not just use the term "spacetime" instead of "aether" as
> spacetime is well defined mathematically? Aether carries
> historical baggage.
Because MPC wanted to call it aether, and so I'm accomodating him. I
have no qualms about calling it aether either, because the only problem
with calling it aether is a historical association that is now
politically incorrect. Personally, I think aether is a much simpler,
classier term than spacetime. The word "aether" is like a red cape in
front of a sneering bull for some scientists. It evokes an unreasonable
emotional response from scientists, though they'll hotly deny they have
any emotions at all.
Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan
> A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
> double slit experiment the particle enters and exits a single slit. It
> is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits both
> slits. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates wave
> interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it
> travels is altered by the wave interference it encounters. Detecting
> the particle causes there to be a loss of coherence of the associated
> aether wave, there is no wave interference, and the direction the
> particle travels is not altered.
This is very similar to the De Broglie�Bohm Pilot Wave interpretation of
quantum mechanics. Which was an alternative to the Copenhagen
Interpretation that is the de facto standard interpretation now.
De Broglie�Bohm theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory
Yousuf Khan
mpc755
> On 15/06/2011 9:58 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
> > double slit experiment the particle enters and exits a single slit. It
> > is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits both
> > slits. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates wave
> > interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it
> > travels is altered by the wave interference it encounters. Detecting
> > the particle causes there to be a loss of coherence of the associated
> > aether wave, there is no wave interference, and the direction the
> > particle travels is not altered.
>
> quantum mechanics. Which was an alternative to the Copenhagen
> Interpretation that is the de facto standard interpretation now.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory
>
> Yousuf Khan
Exactly.
'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory -
Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
"When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was
looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles,
of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in
his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the
physical reality of waves and particles."
"In my view, the wave is a physical one..."
"This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
located."
The particle occupying a very small region of the wave means the
particle enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment
and it is the associated aether wave which enters and exits both
slits.
"I think that when this interpretation is further elaborated,
extended, and eventually modified in some of its aspects, it will lead
to a better understanding of the true coexistence of waves and
particles about which actual Quantum mechanics only gives statistical
information, often correct, but in my opinion incomplete."
"I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the
wave, the guidance formula. It may easily be generalized to the case
of an external field acting on the particle."
The external field acting on the particle is the aether.
A moving particle has an associated aether wave.
"This hypothesis was brought forward some fifteen years ago by Bohm
and Vigier, who named this invisible thermostat the “sub-quantum
medium”. As a further assumption, the particle is considered as
continuously exchanging energy and momentum with such a hidden
thermostat. These exchanges would happen regularly, in a well defined
manner, if the guided motion existed alone, but a random energy
exchange is superposed, which has a fluctuation character of well
known kind in statistical thermodynamics. If a hidden sub-quantum
medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature would seem desirable. It
certainly is of quite complex character. It could not serve as a
universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity
theory. Moreover, it does not behave as a unique thermostat, but
rather as an ensemble of thermostats, the temperatures of which are
related to the proper energies M0 c2 of various kinds of molecules.
Although interesting explanations have been proposed for this sub-
quantum medium’s nature, it seems premature to discuss the problem in
the present paper.
The sub-quantum medium is the aether. It is not a universal reference
medium because it is the ether of general relativity.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the
matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state
of displacement of the aether.
Yousuf Khan
> I think you are screaming like somebody who is about to drown?
> The water of space-time and, As I pointed out in an other posting: DOGMA,
> Einsteins 'nothing faster than c', tries to swallow you now as it has a whole generation
> of 21 century pseudo scientists, basically parrots
> who can say: Polly wants a cracker', as that has been what they heard from diaper stage
> to PhD stage, every time they asked 'why?'.
If that's the stage where you typically start foaming at the mouth, then
there's not much else that can be said to you.
There are plenty of good reasons to believe that lightspeed is the
universal speed limit, such as the size of the Planck Length and the
Planck Time being exactly the right size to be same as how fast
lightspeed is. But of course, that probably makes you foam at the mouth
too, so you're not going to listen.
However, that's not to say that you can't change the universal speed
limit somehow. But if you can't get over your emotional allergy to
anything Einstein, then we can't do anything for you.
>> If you're travelling at 99% the speed of light, then the only things
>> that can go faster than you are those objects travelling at over 99%
>> light speed and upto 100% light speed. If you're travelling at 0.1%
>> light speed then you have far greater range of speeds that can be at
>> differential to you, between 0.1% and 100% light speed. If you're
>> restricted to a 1% range of speeds, change events are going to happen
>> far less frequently than if you have 99.9% of the speed range to work with.
>
> Dogma, it kills all reasoning, is a religion, not science or investigation.
Sure whatever you say.
Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan
> Why not just say the aether of old turned out to be space, but without
> any absolute reference.
Well that's exactly what the new aether is, it's space-time, moving and
deforming, not absolutely fixed like old aether.
Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan
> On Jun 13, 10:23 pm, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 13/06/2011 8:45 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>>> If you understand matter is made of aether then you understand aether
>>> has mass and you should be able to understand what I mean when I say
>>> what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether.
>>
>> That I don't agree with. Mass is an emergent property that arises as a
>> result of aether moving through aether.
>
> Matter is condensations of aether.
Okay.
> Matter evaporates into aether.
Okay.
> Energy is the physical effects matter evaporating into aether has on
> the neighboring aether and matter.
Mass and energy are the same things. Energy is just what is required to
keep aether rolled up into various forms of matter. When the energy is
locked up into a particle, it is called mass.
> As matter converts to aether, there is still the same amount of mass
> in existence.
>
> Mass is conserved.
No! Mass itself isn't conserved, the mass-energy balance is conserved.
Again plenty of literature and observations over the past 100 years or
so which shows mass being converted into energy and vice-versa. I'll
leave it upto you to find the references, look under "nuclear reactions".
>> Basically it's the resistance of
>> aether against itself. If that sounds suspiciously like the Higgs boson,
>> then that's not a coincidence. In fact, the entire Higgs boson concept
>> sounds suspiciously like aether to me too. I don't think the idea behind
>> the Higgs mechanism is wrong though, I just think they're looking for
>> the mechanism in the wrong place. I don't think they'll ever find a
>> specific supermassive boson that'll become the Higgs boson. I think the
>> Higgs boson isn't going to be supermassive at all, it'll likely be the
>> smallest particles in the universe, i.e. it'll be the particles of
>> space-time itself. Each atom of space-time is going to be 1 Planck
>> Length in diameter, and 1 Planck Time in time length. You can also call
>> it a particle of aether if you like. As you can see aether is not just
>> space, it's time as well.
>>
>
> I agree with Einstein who stated the ether does not consist of
> individual particles which can be separately tracked through time. My
> interpretation of this is it can not be known if aether consists of
> particles or not.
Reference please! When did Einstein ever say anything about whether
aether is atomic or not? He definitely believed in an aether, but a
deformable aether. For it to be deformable, it must be atomic.
>> Because aether is both time and space, therefore you don't need
>> convoluted explanations of how movement through aether or what not lead
>> to clocks going faster or slower. Clocks simply go faster or slower
>> because their surrounding aether is flowing faster or slower.
>>
>
> Clocks simply go faster or slower do to the physical state of the
> space in which they exist.
You keep repeating this bit over and over again. What exactly is this
"state of space" or "state of aether" that causes clocks to go faster or
slower?
I've already defined it as the aether is either going faster or slower
in relation to itself, which causes the time dilation.
> 'Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension'
> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html
>
> "As the researchers explain, without using time as the fourth
> dimension of spacetime, the physical world can be described more
> accurately. As physicist Enrico Prati noted in a recent study,
> Hamiltonian dynamics (equations in classical mechanics) is robustly
> well-defined without the concept of absolute time. Other scientists
> have pointed out that the mathematical model of spacetime does not
> correspond to physical reality, and propose that a timeless �state
> space� provides a more accurate framework."
Yes, they're suggesting that there is no "absolute" time. That's
basically repeating what Einstein already said about 100 years ago. And
a "timeless state space" is simply an event map, nothing else. We
already know that the only way we can measure time is with events
happening. So an event map is simply another way to say we are measuring
time. Events happen at different rates depending on the relativistic
equations, so absolute time is already an obsolete concept.
What these scientists are saying is that there is no background absolute
time from which our relativistic time emerges from.
Yousuf Khan
Jan Panteltje
<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in <4df9a0c7$1...@news.bnb-lp.com>:
>On 14/06/2011 5:12 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> I think you are screaming like somebody who is about to drown?
>> The water of space-time and, As I pointed out in an other posting: DOGMA,
>> Einsteins 'nothing faster than c', tries to swallow you now as it has a whole generation
>> of 21 century pseudo scientists, basically parrots
>> who can say: Polly wants a cracker', as that has been what they heard from diaper stage
>> to PhD stage, every time they asked 'why?'.
>
>If that's the stage where you typically start foaming at the mouth, then
>there's not much else that can be said to you.
>
>There are plenty of good reasons to believe that lightspeed is the
>universal speed limit, such as the size of the Planck Length and the
>Planck Time being exactly the right size to be same as how fast
>lightspeed is. But of course, that probably makes you foam at the mouth
>too, so you're not going to listen.
Ridiculous, have your brain checked.
>However, that's not to say that you can't change the universal speed
>limit somehow.
Define 'somehow', yo udo not even have a nmmechaism.
Your Holy Einstein Formulas allow no such thing.
Do you hereby reject his sucking inheritance?
But if you can't get over your emotional allergy to
>anything Einstein, then we can't do anything for you.
You cannot do anything because you have said nothing in this posting.
>>> If you're travelling at 99% the speed of light, then the only things
>>> that can go faster than you are those objects travelling at over 99%
>>> light speed and upto 100% light speed. If you're travelling at 0.1%
>>> light speed then you have far greater range of speeds that can be at
>>> differential to you, between 0.1% and 100% light speed. If you're
>>> restricted to a 1% range of speeds, change events are going to happen
>>> far less frequently than if you have 99.9% of the speed range to work with.
>>
>> Dogma, it kills all reasoning, is a religion, not science or investigation.
>
>Sure whatever you say.
No way, you are free, I do not interfere with our Einstein religion.
Believe whatever you have heard from diaper stage upward.
> Yousuf Khan
Genghis Khan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan
Beep, Windblows has detected an exception,
you are part of a botnet, please renboot and erase your harddisk now.
Beep.
Erasure complete.
You can now go to sleep.