Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
We are all moving through the aether
43 views
Skip to first unread message
mpc755
Jul 29, 2012, 9:58:27 AM7/29/12
to
'Concerning CERN: Cliff Burgess on the discovery of the Higgs boson'
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-cern-cliff-burgess-discovery-higgs.html
"At CERN they have just provided the first experimental evidence that
this picture of the vacuum having physical properties is right. They
did so by exciting a wave in the vacuum, which in their experiment
looks like a new type of particle."
At CERN they have just provided the first experimental evidence that
this picture of the vacuum having physical properties is right. They
did so by exciting a wave in the aether, which in their experiment
looks like a new type of particle.
"You can think of the whole picture as an analogy where elementary
particles are replaced by fish. Suppose you were interested in the
properties of fish and how they move and why some fish move faster
than others given the same amount of effort. This would be very hard
if you did not understand what water was. In order to understand
properly the motion of fish, you must first also understand the
environment through which they move. Now, those who study fish never
doubted the existence of water because, unlike the fish, scientists do
not live in it. If you were the first to propose that water existed,
it might be a harder sell since everyone would take it for granted.
The acid test would be to move the water, or to excite a water wave,
since that would show that there was something “there” besides just
fish. So the radical theoretical proposal is that we are all moving
through a medium, and it is the properties of this medium that
partially control the behaviour of elementary particles. Again the
acid test is to perturb the vacuum and excite a wave in it. This is
what the experiments at CERN seem to have done for the very first
time."
It is obvious that we are all moving through the aether, and it is the
properties of this aether that partially control the behaviour of
elementary particles. Again the acid test is to perturb the aether and
excite a wave in it. This is what the experiments at CERN seem to have
done for the very first time.
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-cern-cliff-burgess-discovery-higgs.html
"At CERN they have just provided the first experimental evidence that
this picture of the vacuum having physical properties is right. They
did so by exciting a wave in the vacuum, which in their experiment
looks like a new type of particle."
At CERN they have just provided the first experimental evidence that
this picture of the vacuum having physical properties is right. They
did so by exciting a wave in the aether, which in their experiment
looks like a new type of particle.
"You can think of the whole picture as an analogy where elementary
particles are replaced by fish. Suppose you were interested in the
properties of fish and how they move and why some fish move faster
than others given the same amount of effort. This would be very hard
if you did not understand what water was. In order to understand
properly the motion of fish, you must first also understand the
environment through which they move. Now, those who study fish never
doubted the existence of water because, unlike the fish, scientists do
not live in it. If you were the first to propose that water existed,
it might be a harder sell since everyone would take it for granted.
The acid test would be to move the water, or to excite a water wave,
since that would show that there was something “there” besides just
fish. So the radical theoretical proposal is that we are all moving
through a medium, and it is the properties of this medium that
partially control the behaviour of elementary particles. Again the
acid test is to perturb the vacuum and excite a wave in it. This is
what the experiments at CERN seem to have done for the very first
time."
It is obvious that we are all moving through the aether, and it is the
properties of this aether that partially control the behaviour of
elementary particles. Again the acid test is to perturb the aether and
excite a wave in it. This is what the experiments at CERN seem to have
done for the very first time.
mpc755
Jul 29, 2012, 11:49:17 AM7/29/12
to
the properties of this aether that partially control the behaviour of
elementary particles. Again the acid test is to perturb the aether and
excite a wave in it.
Something which is done every time a double slit experiment is
elementary particles. Again the acid test is to perturb the aether and
excite a wave in it.
performed.
G=EMC^2
Jul 29, 2012, 12:47:53 PM7/29/12
to
On Jul 29, 9:58 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Function is the foundation of QM. If space has virtual particles it
must have virtual waves. Like photons can have different wave
lengths,so can space waves. Space waves can reach across the universe
and get bigger faster than c. It is my thoughts on space waves that
gave me the shape of the universe.Space waves fit well with my convex
space theory. Casimir gave us space wave actions TreBert
mpc755
Jul 29, 2012, 1:26:06 PM7/29/12
to
Aether has mass. In the Casimir effect it is the aether displaced by
the plates which encompasses the plates, along with the cancellation
of some of the force associated with the aether displaced by each of
the plates which exists between the plates, which forces the plates
together.
What you mistake for virtual waves are actual waves in the aether.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
the associated aether wave passes through both.
mpc755
Jul 29, 2012, 4:52:27 PM7/29/12
to
Astrophysics'
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive_2012/today12-07-25.html
"For example, the Higgs field is much weirder than the comparisons
with molasses or crowds suggest, since it does not actually drag or
impede particles, but still somehow shares its mass with them."
"the Higgs field ... shares its mass with [particles of matter]"
Now the Higgs field has mass.
Aether has mass.
Matter is condensations of aether.
"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory
of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium
when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such
medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative
connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association
with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped
of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most
physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually
says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading
the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic
symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time
relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began
showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure
similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent
studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand
that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian
emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but
can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a
part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day
by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this
because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics,
endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.
They are both aether displacement wave.
Aether displaced by matter unifies general relativity and quantum
mechanics.
Y
Jul 29, 2012, 8:46:50 PM7/29/12
to
-y
mpc755
Jul 29, 2012, 9:16:53 PM7/29/12
to
HVAC
Jul 30, 2012, 7:52:31 AM7/30/12
to
On 7/29/2012 1:26 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>> Good post. Could be called "space wave Function" Reality is Wave
>> Function is the foundation of QM. If space has virtual particles it
>> must have virtual waves. Like photons can have different wave
>> lengths,so can space waves. Space waves can reach across the universe
>> and get bigger faster than c. It is my thoughts on space waves that
>> gave me the shape of the universe.Space waves fit well with my convex
>> space theory. Casimir gave us space wave actions TreBert
>
> There are no such things as virtual particles or virtual waves.
>
> Aether has mass. In the Casimir effect it is the aether displaced by
> the plates which encompasses the plates, along with the cancellation
> of some of the force associated with the aether displaced by each of
> the plates which exists between the plates, which forces the plates
> together.
>
> What you mistake for virtual waves are actual waves in the aether.
Kook fight!
>
>> Good post. Could be called "space wave Function" Reality is Wave
>> Function is the foundation of QM. If space has virtual particles it
>> must have virtual waves. Like photons can have different wave
>> lengths,so can space waves. Space waves can reach across the universe
>> and get bigger faster than c. It is my thoughts on space waves that
>> gave me the shape of the universe.Space waves fit well with my convex
>> space theory. Casimir gave us space wave actions TreBert
>
> There are no such things as virtual particles or virtual waves.
>
> Aether has mass. In the Casimir effect it is the aether displaced by
> the plates which encompasses the plates, along with the cancellation
> of some of the force associated with the aether displaced by each of
> the plates which exists between the plates, which forces the plates
> together.
>
> What you mistake for virtual waves are actual waves in the aether.
--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
mpc755
Jul 30, 2012, 9:05:47 AM7/30/12
to
G=EMC^2
Jul 30, 2012, 9:29:46 AM7/30/12
to
Faster you move through the aether the more you weigh. We know gravity
and inertia are the same. When I talked with Einstein we talked on
inertia,and gravity. TreBert
mpc755
Jul 30, 2012, 9:38:56 AM7/30/12
to
which it exists the more aether the object displaces.
Relativistic mass is the mass of the object and the mass of the aether
displaced by the object.
HVAC
Jul 30, 2012, 9:43:45 AM7/30/12
to
On 7/30/2012 9:05 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.
>
> They are both aether displacement wave.
>
> Aether displaced by matter unifies general relativity and quantum
> mechanics.
There is no ether. There IS space. Space has properties.
>
> Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.
>
> They are both aether displacement wave.
>
> Aether displaced by matter unifies general relativity and quantum
> mechanics.
Re-think your position.
HVAC
Jul 30, 2012, 9:44:36 AM7/30/12
to
On 7/30/2012 9:29 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>>
>> Aether displaced by matter unifies general relativity and quantum
>> mechanics.
>
> Is this the reason motion and gravity are two sides to the same coin.?
> Faster you move through the aether the more you weigh. We know gravity
> and inertia are the same. When I talked with Einstein we talked on
> inertia,and gravity. TreBert
Bert: Reading your shit, it seems that you have been huffing 'ether'.
>
>>
>> Aether displaced by matter unifies general relativity and quantum
>> mechanics.
>
> Is this the reason motion and gravity are two sides to the same coin.?
> Faster you move through the aether the more you weigh. We know gravity
> and inertia are the same. When I talked with Einstein we talked on
> inertia,and gravity. TreBert
G=EMC^2
Jul 30, 2012, 9:49:30 AM7/30/12
to
On Jul 30, 9:29 am, "G=EMC^2" <herbertglazi...@gmail.com> wrote:
mass. That tells it all period TreBert
mpc755
Jul 30, 2012, 9:50:01 AM7/30/12
to
On Jul 30, 9:43 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/30/2012 9:05 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> > Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.
>
> > They are both aether displacement wave.
>
> > Aether displaced by matter unifies general relativity and quantum
> > mechanics.
>
> There is no ether. There IS space. Space has properties.
>
> Re-think your position.
>
I realize how convincing you sound. However, I'm sticking with Robert
> On 7/30/2012 9:05 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> > Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.
>
> > They are both aether displacement wave.
>
> > Aether displaced by matter unifies general relativity and quantum
> > mechanics.
>
> There is no ether. There IS space. Space has properties.
>
> Re-think your position.
>
B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics,
Stanford University and Craig Hogan, Director of the Fermilab Center
for Particle Astrophysics.
"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory
of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium
when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such
medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative
connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association
with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped
of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most
physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually
says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading
the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic
symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time
relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began
showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure
similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent
studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand
that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian
emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but
can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a
part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day
by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this
because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin
"For example, the Higgs field is much weirder than the comparisons
with molasses or crowds suggest, since it does not actually drag or
impede particles, but still somehow shares its mass with them." -
with molasses or crowds suggest, since it does not actually drag or
Craig Hogan
"the Higgs field ... shares its mass with [particles of matter]" -
Craig Hogan
HVAC
Jul 30, 2012, 10:00:23 AM7/30/12
to
On 7/30/2012 9:50 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> "For example, the Higgs field is much weirder than the comparisons
> with molasses or crowds suggest, since it does not actually drag or
> impede particles, but still somehow shares its mass with them." -
> Craig Hogan
>
> "the Higgs field ... shares its mass with [particles of matter]" -
> Craig Hogan
>
> Now the Higgs field has mass.
>
> Aether has mass.
>
> Matter is condensations of aether.
If you really want me to explain the Higgs effect to you I will.
>
> "For example, the Higgs field is much weirder than the comparisons
> with molasses or crowds suggest, since it does not actually drag or
> impede particles, but still somehow shares its mass with them." -
> Craig Hogan
>
> "the Higgs field ... shares its mass with [particles of matter]" -
> Craig Hogan
>
> Now the Higgs field has mass.
>
> Aether has mass.
>
> Matter is condensations of aether.
It will be very boring.
From now on I want you to just accept my word on the physical world as
if it were the word of god. Things will become easier for you from then
on. Also, never question me.
mpc755
Jul 30, 2012, 10:04:32 AM7/30/12
to
On Jul 30, 10:00 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/30/2012 9:50 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> > "For example, the Higgs field is much weirder than the comparisons
> > with molasses or crowds suggest, since it does not actually drag or
> > impede particles, but still somehow shares its mass with them." -
> > Craig Hogan
>
> > "the Higgs field ... shares its mass with [particles of matter]" -
> > Craig Hogan
>
> > Now the Higgs field has mass.
>
> > Aether has mass.
>
> > Matter is condensations of aether.
>
> If you really want me to explain the Higgs effect to you I will.
>
> It will be very boring.
>
> From now on I want you to just accept my word on the physical world as
> if it were the word of god. Things will become easier for you from then
> on. Also, never question me.
>
> On 7/30/2012 9:50 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> > "For example, the Higgs field is much weirder than the comparisons
> > with molasses or crowds suggest, since it does not actually drag or
> > impede particles, but still somehow shares its mass with them." -
> > Craig Hogan
>
> > "the Higgs field ... shares its mass with [particles of matter]" -
> > Craig Hogan
>
> > Now the Higgs field has mass.
>
> > Aether has mass.
>
> > Matter is condensations of aether.
>
> If you really want me to explain the Higgs effect to you I will.
>
> It will be very boring.
>
> From now on I want you to just accept my word on the physical world as
> if it were the word of god. Things will become easier for you from then
> on. Also, never question me.
>
HVAC
Jul 30, 2012, 10:31:08 AM7/30/12
to
On 7/30/2012 10:04 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>> From now on I want you to just accept my word on the physical world as
>> if it were the word of god. Things will become easier for you from then
>> on. Also, never question me.
>>
>
> I realize how convincing you sound. However, I'm sticking with Robert
> B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics,
> Stanford University and Craig Hogan, Director of the Fermilab Center
> for Particle Astrophysics.
You are misinterpreting what they are saying.
>
>> From now on I want you to just accept my word on the physical world as
>> if it were the word of god. Things will become easier for you from then
>> on. Also, never question me.
>>
>
> I realize how convincing you sound. However, I'm sticking with Robert
> B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics,
> Stanford University and Craig Hogan, Director of the Fermilab Center
> for Particle Astrophysics.
mpc755
Jul 30, 2012, 10:34:37 AM7/30/12
to
On Jul 30, 10:31 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/30/2012 10:04 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> >> From now on I want you to just accept my word on the physical world as
> >> if it were the word of god. Things will become easier for you from then
> >> on. Also, never question me.
>
> > I realize how convincing you sound. However, I'm sticking with Robert
> > B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics,
> > Stanford University and Craig Hogan, Director of the Fermilab Center
> > for Particle Astrophysics.
>
> You are misinterpreting what they are saying.
>
Gotta love the denial.
> On 7/30/2012 10:04 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> >> From now on I want you to just accept my word on the physical world as
> >> if it were the word of god. Things will become easier for you from then
> >> on. Also, never question me.
>
> > I realize how convincing you sound. However, I'm sticking with Robert
> > B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics,
> > Stanford University and Craig Hogan, Director of the Fermilab Center
> > for Particle Astrophysics.
>
> You are misinterpreting what they are saying.
>
"The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by
experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this
because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin
"the Higgs field ... shares its mass with [particles of matter]" -
Craig Hogan
The relativist aether has mass and physically occupies three
Craig Hogan
dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter.
Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
matter is gravity.
HVAC
Jul 30, 2012, 11:21:37 AM7/30/12
to
On 7/30/2012 10:34 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>>
>> You are misinterpreting what they are saying.
>>
>
> Gotta love the denial.
>
> "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by
> experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this
> because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin
Why do you suppose it's 'taboo'?
>
>>
>> You are misinterpreting what they are saying.
>>
>
> Gotta love the denial.
>
> "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by
> experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this
> because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin
> The relativist aether has mass and physically occupies three
> dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter.
mpc755
Jul 30, 2012, 11:35:21 AM7/30/12
to
On Jul 30, 11:21 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/30/2012 10:34 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> >> You are misinterpreting what they are saying.
>
> > Gotta love the denial.
>
> > "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by
> > experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this
> > because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin
>
> Why do you suppose it's 'taboo'?
>
Because you can't even read a sentence and understand a Nobel Laureate
> On 7/30/2012 10:34 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> >> You are misinterpreting what they are saying.
>
> > Gotta love the denial.
>
> > "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by
> > experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this
> > because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin
>
> Why do you suppose it's 'taboo'?
>
is stating there is an aether.
> > The relativist aether has mass and physically occupies three
> > dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter.
>
> Ether does not exist. You claiming that it does is irrelevant.
>
"The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by
Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
And a director at Fermilab is stating the Higg's field has mass.
"the Higgs field ... shares its mass with [particles of matter]" -
Craig Hogan, Director of the Fermilab Center for Particle
Astrophysics.
If you did not exist in a state of denial you would understand this
Astrophysics.
means aether has mass.
HVAC
Jul 30, 2012, 12:21:00 PM7/30/12
to
On 7/30/2012 11:35 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>>> "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by
>>> experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this
>>> because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin
>>
>> Why do you suppose it's 'taboo'?
>>
>
> Because you can't even read a sentence and understand a Nobel Laureate
> is stating there is an aether.
Non-sequitur
>
>>> "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by
>>> experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this
>>> because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin
>>
>> Why do you suppose it's 'taboo'?
>>
>
> Because you can't even read a sentence and understand a Nobel Laureate
> is stating there is an aether.
>> Ether does not exist. You claiming that it does is irrelevant.
>>
>
> I'm not the only one claiming it.
>
> "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by
> experiment, is a relativistic ether." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel
> Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
mpc755
Jul 30, 2012, 12:27:09 PM7/30/12
to
On Jul 30, 12:21 pm, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/30/2012 11:35 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> >>> "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by
> >>> experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this
> >>> because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin
>
> >> Why do you suppose it's 'taboo'?
>
> > Because you can't even read a sentence and understand a Nobel Laureate
> > is stating there is an aether.
>
> Non-sequitur
>
> >> Ether does not exist. You claiming that it does is irrelevant.
>
> > I'm not the only one claiming it.
>
> > "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by
> > experiment, is a relativistic ether." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel
> > Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
>
> Yet even he says it's 'taboo'. Why do you suppose that is?
>
Because you are in denial.
> On 7/30/2012 11:35 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> >>> "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by
> >>> experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this
> >>> because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin
>
> >> Why do you suppose it's 'taboo'?
>
> > Because you can't even read a sentence and understand a Nobel Laureate
> > is stating there is an aether.
>
> Non-sequitur
>
> >> Ether does not exist. You claiming that it does is irrelevant.
>
> > I'm not the only one claiming it.
>
> > "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by
> > experiment, is a relativistic ether." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel
> > Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
>
> Yet even he says it's 'taboo'. Why do you suppose that is?
>
Are you able to understand Robert B. Laughlin is a Nobel Laureate who
is saying a relativistic ether is confirmed every day by experiment?
HVAC
Jul 30, 2012, 12:39:49 PM7/30/12
to
On 7/30/2012 12:27 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>>> "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by
>
>>> "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by
>>> experiment, is a relativistic ether." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel
>>> Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
>>
>> Yet even he says it's 'taboo'. Why do you suppose that is?
>>
>
> Because you are in denial.
So Laughlin says it's 'taboo' because of ME?
>>> Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
>>
>> Yet even he says it's 'taboo'. Why do you suppose that is?
>>
>
> Because you are in denial.
mpc755
Jul 30, 2012, 1:16:24 PM7/30/12
to
On Jul 30, 12:39 pm, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/30/2012 12:27 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> >>> "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by
> >>> experiment, is a relativistic ether." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel
> >>> Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
>
> >> Yet even he says it's 'taboo'. Why do you suppose that is?
>
> > Because you are in denial.
>
> So Laughlin says it's 'taboo' because of ME?
>
Laughlin is saying a relativistic ether is confirmed every day by
> On 7/30/2012 12:27 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> >>> "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by
> >>> experiment, is a relativistic ether." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel
> >>> Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
>
> >> Yet even he says it's 'taboo'. Why do you suppose that is?
>
> > Because you are in denial.
>
> So Laughlin says it's 'taboo' because of ME?
>
experiment.
Laughlin is saying it is taboo to call the relativistic ether by its
name because mainstream physics is in denial of the existence of the
aether.
'Concerning CERN: Cliff Burgess on the discovery of the Higgs boson'
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-cern-cliff-burgess-discovery-higgs.html
"So the radical theoretical proposal is that we are all moving through
a medium, and it is the properties of this medium that partially
control the behaviour of elementary particles. Again the acid test is
to perturb the vacuum and excite a wave in it. This is what the
experiments at CERN seem to have done for the very first time."
Only in mainstream physics can our moving through a medium be
a medium, and it is the properties of this medium that partially
control the behaviour of elementary particles. Again the acid test is
to perturb the vacuum and excite a wave in it. This is what the
experiments at CERN seem to have done for the very first time."
considered a "radical theoretical proposal".
So it is obvious that we are all moving through the aether, and it is
the properties of this aether that partially control the behaviour of
elementary particles. Again the acid test is to perturb the aether and
excite a wave in it.
elementary particles. Again the acid test is to perturb the aether and
excite a wave in it.
alexander...@gmail.com
Jul 30, 2012, 2:50:58 PM7/30/12
to
On Sunday, July 29, 2012 9:58:27 AM UTC-4, mpc755 wrote:
> 'Concerning CERN: Cliff Burgess on the discovery of the Higgs boson'
>
> http://phys.org/news/2012-07-cern-cliff-burgess-discovery-higgs.html
>
>
>
> "At CERN they have just provided the first experimental evidence that
>
> this picture of the vacuum having physical properties is right. They
>
> did so by exciting a wave in the vacuum, which in their experiment
>
> looks like a new type of particle."
mpc755,
> 'Concerning CERN: Cliff Burgess on the discovery of the Higgs boson'
>
> http://phys.org/news/2012-07-cern-cliff-burgess-discovery-higgs.html
>
>
>
> "At CERN they have just provided the first experimental evidence that
>
> this picture of the vacuum having physical properties is right. They
>
> did so by exciting a wave in the vacuum, which in their experiment
>
> looks like a new type of particle."
Often physicists (and people who are interested in the subject) misquote William Ockham when describing 'Ockham's Razor', as translating from the Latin as the simplest of two explanations is usually correct, or something along this line of reasoning. But Ockham, who was a Logician, actually writes something quite different... the closest translation is "categories should never be added without necessity"... meaning that the explanation of some natural phenomena that keeps it's complexity (in the modern sense) to a minimum is preferable to one which requires a number of additional 'categories' of related or required data unnecessarily. The key term being 'necessity'.
I mention Ockham in relation to your post because aether, is a concept and subject that often falls within the realm of Ockham's principle. Put plainly, whenever we measure 'background' radiation in a given volume of space (which is basically everywhere), the instruments are detecting a category of "heat" (albeit a very small amount). Where ever there is 'heat', the Gas Laws apply. Period. That the density of the gaseous media in our stellar system, or between stars within our Galaxy, or even between Galaxy's is diffuse below the point of modern sciences ability to detect with the technology at hand is moot. Observing that the Gas Laws are the applicable Laws, happily affords us an explanation without a surplus of complicated additional categories full of topology or other 'theoretical' hocus pokus (God particle indeed!).
One last observation. Never listen to a physicist explaining how the latest developments at CERN or SANDIA or LL prove this or that mathematical curiosity, until you've gotten a chance to ask the engineers responsible for the nuts and bolts refinement of the apparatus what they did... however much engineers are treated like Trollocs or peons by theorists, they're typically the people patching the physicists computer interface software in a manner the physicists understand, and are the people who actually understand how their recent localized improvements relate to the global apparatus (state equations aren't concerned with filling in the gaps..)
Best,
A. Scott Crawford
HVAC
Jul 30, 2012, 3:04:27 PM7/30/12
to
On 7/30/2012 1:16 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>> So Laughlin says it's 'taboo' because of ME?
>>
>
> Laughlin is saying a relativistic ether is confirmed every day by
> experiment.
>
> Laughlin is saying it is taboo to call the relativistic ether by its
> name because mainstream physics is in denial of the existence of the
> aether.
OK. Just so we have this straight, it isn't just ME that 'is in denial',
>
>> So Laughlin says it's 'taboo' because of ME?
>>
>
> Laughlin is saying a relativistic ether is confirmed every day by
> experiment.
>
> Laughlin is saying it is taboo to call the relativistic ether by its
> name because mainstream physics is in denial of the existence of the
> aether.
it is ALL of mainstream physics. You should have said that in the 1st
place. The way I see it both you and Laughlin are kooks...And the
overwhelming majority of mainstream physicists agree with me.
Ether is physics can be treated exactly the way we treat god and other
supernatural claims...As if they did not exist at all.
mpc755
Jul 30, 2012, 3:59:53 PM7/30/12
to
On Jul 30, 3:04 pm, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/30/2012 1:16 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> >> So Laughlin says it's 'taboo' because of ME?
>
> > Laughlin is saying a relativistic ether is confirmed every day by
> > experiment.
>
> > Laughlin is saying it is taboo to call the relativistic ether by its
> > name because mainstream physics is in denial of the existence of the
> > aether.
>
> OK. Just so we have this straight, it isn't just ME that 'is in denial',
> it is ALL of mainstream physics. You should have said that in the 1st
> place. The way I see it both you and Laughlin are kooks...And the
> overwhelming majority of mainstream physicists agree with me.
>
> Ether is physics can be treated exactly the way we treat god and other
> supernatural claims...As if they did not exist at all.
>
> On 7/30/2012 1:16 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> >> So Laughlin says it's 'taboo' because of ME?
>
> > Laughlin is saying a relativistic ether is confirmed every day by
> > experiment.
>
> > Laughlin is saying it is taboo to call the relativistic ether by its
> > name because mainstream physics is in denial of the existence of the
> > aether.
>
> OK. Just so we have this straight, it isn't just ME that 'is in denial',
> it is ALL of mainstream physics. You should have said that in the 1st
> place. The way I see it both you and Laughlin are kooks...And the
> overwhelming majority of mainstream physicists agree with me.
>
> Ether is physics can be treated exactly the way we treat god and other
> supernatural claims...As if they did not exist at all.
>
"The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by
experiment, is a relativistic ether." - Robert B. Laughlin
You do understand Laughlin is a Nobel Laureate, correct?
experiment, is a relativistic ether." - Robert B. Laughlin
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
You do understand Einstein is a Nobel Laureate, correct?
"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous
“energetic contact” with a hidden medium" - Louis de Broglie
You do understand de Broglie is a Nobel Laureate, correct?
"the Higgs field ... shares its mass with [particles of matter]" -
Craig Hogan
Particle Astrophysics, correct?
The majority of mainstream physicists can't explain what occurs
physically in nature to cause gravity or the observed behaviors in a
double slit experiment.
HVAC
Jul 30, 2012, 4:38:43 PM7/30/12
to
On 7/30/2012 3:59 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>> OK. Just so we have this straight, it isn't just ME that 'is in denial',
>> it is ALL of mainstream physics. You should have said that in the 1st
>> place. The way I see it both you and Laughlin are kooks...And the
>> overwhelming majority of mainstream physicists agree with me.
>>
>> Ether is physics can be treated exactly the way we treat god and other
>> supernatural claims...As if they did not exist at all.
>>
>
> "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by
> experiment, is a relativistic ether." - Robert B. Laughlin
>
> You do understand Laughlin is a Nobel Laureate, correct?
So what? Are you saying that he isn't a kook as well?
>
>> OK. Just so we have this straight, it isn't just ME that 'is in denial',
>> it is ALL of mainstream physics. You should have said that in the 1st
>> place. The way I see it both you and Laughlin are kooks...And the
>> overwhelming majority of mainstream physicists agree with me.
>>
>> Ether is physics can be treated exactly the way we treat god and other
>> supernatural claims...As if they did not exist at all.
>>
>
> "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by
> experiment, is a relativistic ether." - Robert B. Laughlin
>
> You do understand Laughlin is a Nobel Laureate, correct?
Certainly myself and the VAST majority of physicists are of the opinion
that he is. You do understand that the vast majority of physicists
include many who are Nobel winners, correct?
Ether in physics can be treated exactly the way we treat god and other
supernatural claims...As if they did not exist at all.
mpc755
Jul 30, 2012, 5:21:56 PM7/30/12
to
Hogan states the Higg's field has mass.
You can remain ignorant of understanding what occurs physically in
nature to cause gravity and the observed behaviors in a double slit
experiment if you choose to.
Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by matter.
HVAC
Jul 30, 2012, 6:06:25 PM7/30/12
to
On 7/30/2012 5:21 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> Laughlin, Einstein, de Broglie all state there is an aether.
>
> Hogan states the Higg's field has mass.
>
> You can remain ignorant of understanding what occurs physically in
> nature to cause gravity and the observed behaviors in a double slit
> experiment if you choose to.
>
> Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space.
> Aether is physically displaced by matter.
>
> Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
> matter is gravity.
>
> A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
> double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
> the associated aether wave passes through both.
Ether in physics can be treated exactly the way we treat god and other
supernatural claims...As if they did not exist at all.
>
> Laughlin, Einstein, de Broglie all state there is an aether.
>
> Hogan states the Higg's field has mass.
>
> You can remain ignorant of understanding what occurs physically in
> nature to cause gravity and the observed behaviors in a double slit
> experiment if you choose to.
>
> Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space.
> Aether is physically displaced by matter.
>
> Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
> matter is gravity.
>
> A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
> double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
> the associated aether wave passes through both.
Ether in physics can be treated exactly the way we treat god and other
supernatural claims...As if they did not exist at all.
mpc755
Jul 30, 2012, 6:21:10 PM7/30/12
to
On Jul 30, 6:06 pm, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/30/2012 5:21 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Laughlin, Einstein, de Broglie all state there is an aether.
>
> > Hogan states the Higg's field has mass.
>
> > You can remain ignorant of understanding what occurs physically in
> > nature to cause gravity and the observed behaviors in a double slit
> > experiment if you choose to.
>
> > Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space.
> > Aether is physically displaced by matter.
>
> > Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
> > matter is gravity.
>
> > A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
> > double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
> > the associated aether wave passes through both.
>
> Ether in physics can be treated exactly the way we treat god and other
> supernatural claims...As if they did not exist at all.
>
Not according to Nobel Laureates Laughlin, Einstein and de Broglie.
> On 7/30/2012 5:21 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Laughlin, Einstein, de Broglie all state there is an aether.
>
> > Hogan states the Higg's field has mass.
>
> > You can remain ignorant of understanding what occurs physically in
> > nature to cause gravity and the observed behaviors in a double slit
> > experiment if you choose to.
>
> > Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space.
> > Aether is physically displaced by matter.
>
> > Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
> > matter is gravity.
>
> > A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
> > double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
> > the associated aether wave passes through both.
>
> Ether in physics can be treated exactly the way we treat god and other
> supernatural claims...As if they did not exist at all.
>
HVAC
Jul 30, 2012, 7:06:52 PM7/30/12
to
On 7/30/2012 6:21 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> Not according to Nobel Laureates Laughlin, Einstein and de Broglie.
I honestly don't care what you believe in.
>
> Not according to Nobel Laureates Laughlin, Einstein and de Broglie.
Ether in physics can be treated exactly the way we treat god and other
supernatural claims...As if they did not exist at all.
How do you reconcile THESE facts with your 'belief'?
Is this ether like a religion to you?
Father Haskell
Jul 30, 2012, 7:06:21 PM7/30/12
to
and photons, slowing them down as they moved through?
Big Dog
Jul 30, 2012, 7:14:11 PM7/30/12
to
superfluid that behaves like a frictionless solid that Cavedon would put in.
Which of course makes that ether NOTHING AT ALL FUCKING LIKE the ethers
that de Broglie, Einstein, Hogan, and Laughlin are referring to, which
are each all different from each other.
But Cavedon of course is insisting that all animals are unicorns, as
long as unicorns are invisible, because Linnaeus and Darwin and other
very important biologists all acknowledge that a lot of animals have
four legs and so do unicorns, which proves that those animals are
unicorns and are invisible.
And of course you can CHOOSE to not understand this if you want and be
in denial.
You are wasting time on someone with a mental problem.
mpc755
Jul 30, 2012, 7:32:31 PM7/30/12
to
a solid; a supersolid.
The interaction of an object and a superfluid or supersolid is
frictionless by definition. That does not mean no interaction. It
means no loss of energy in the interaction. An object requires energy
to displace the aether. The aether returns to the object the same
amount of energy as the aether 'displaces back'.
mpc755
Jul 30, 2012, 7:30:56 PM7/30/12
to
On Jul 30, 7:06 pm, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/30/2012 6:21 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> > Not according to Nobel Laureates Laughlin, Einstein and de Broglie.
>
> I honestly don't care what you believe in.
>
> Ether in physics can be treated exactly the way we treat god and other
> supernatural claims...As if they did not exist at all.
>
> It is never taken into consideration for any equations or calculations.
>
> How do you reconcile THESE facts with your 'belief'?
>
> Is this ether like a religion to you?
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
> On 7/30/2012 6:21 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> > Not according to Nobel Laureates Laughlin, Einstein and de Broglie.
>
> I honestly don't care what you believe in.
>
> Ether in physics can be treated exactly the way we treat god and other
> supernatural claims...As if they did not exist at all.
>
> It is never taken into consideration for any equations or calculations.
>
> How do you reconcile THESE facts with your 'belief'?
>
> Is this ether like a religion to you?
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"
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.
mpc755
Jul 30, 2012, 7:34:50 PM7/30/12
to
Particle Astrophysics'
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive_2012/today12-07-25.html
"For example, the Higgs field is much weirder than the comparisons
with molasses or crowds suggest, since it does not actually drag or
impede particles, but still somehow shares its mass with them."
Message has been deleted
Olrik
Jul 30, 2012, 11:42:50 PM7/30/12
to
Le 2012-07-30 19:32, mpc755 a �crit :
So, HVAC was right, then:
� Ether in physics can be treated exactly the way we treat god and other
supernatural claims...As if they did not exist at all.�
� Ether in physics can be treated exactly the way we treat god and other
supernatural claims...As if they did not exist at all.�
mpc755
Jul 31, 2012, 12:03:49 AM7/31/12
to
"The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by
experiment, is a relativistic ether." - Robert B. Laughlin
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous
“energetic contact” with a hidden medium" - Louis de Broglie
“energetic contact” with a hidden medium" - Louis de Broglie
"the Higgs field ... shares its mass with [particles of matter]" -
Craig Hogan
Craig Hogan
Olrik
Jul 31, 2012, 12:33:53 AM7/31/12
to
Le 2012-07-31 00:03, mpc755 a �crit :
You do that.
Meanwhile, I'll stick with everything, and everyone else in physics: the
�aether� is non-existent.
Meanwhile, I'll stick with everything, and everyone else in physics: the
�aether� is non-existent.
mpc755
Jul 31, 2012, 12:46:21 AM7/31/12
to
On Jul 31, 12:33 am, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> «aether» is non-existent.
You mean the ones who can't explain simple things like gravity and
what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
matter is gravity.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
the associated aether wave passes through both.
Why do you choose to be ignorant?
You mean the ones who can't explain simple things like gravity and
what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
matter is gravity.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
the associated aether wave passes through both.
Olrik
Jul 31, 2012, 12:59:41 AM7/31/12
to
Le 2012-07-31 00:46, mpc755 a �crit :
Gravity is well explained.
> and what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
>
> Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
> matter is gravity.
Meaningless drivel.
> A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
> double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
> the associated aether wave passes through both.
>
> Why do you choose to be ignorant?
I'm not ignorant about current physics. You do seem to want to defy it,
though, but without resources and evidence.
Please provide experimental data so physicists could test your ideas.
Thanks.
> On Jul 31, 12:33 am, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Le 2012-07-31 00:03, mpc755 a �crit :
> and what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
>
> Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
> matter is gravity.
> A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
> double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
> the associated aether wave passes through both.
>
> Why do you choose to be ignorant?
though, but without resources and evidence.
Please provide experimental data so physicists could test your ideas.
Thanks.
mpc755
Jul 31, 2012, 1:06:12 AM7/31/12
to
Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
matter is gravity.
> > and what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
>
> > Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
> > matter is gravity.
>
> Meaningless drivel.
>
> > A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
> > double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
> > the associated aether wave passes through both.
>
> > Why do you choose to be ignorant?
>
> I'm not ignorant about current physics. You do seem to want to defy it,
> though, but without resources and evidence.
>
> Please provide experimental data so physicists could test your ideas.
>
> Thanks.
Please explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit
>
> > Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
> > matter is gravity.
>
> Meaningless drivel.
>
> > A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
> > double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
> > the associated aether wave passes through both.
>
> > Why do you choose to be ignorant?
>
> I'm not ignorant about current physics. You do seem to want to defy it,
> though, but without resources and evidence.
>
> Please provide experimental data so physicists could test your ideas.
>
> Thanks.
experiment.
Thanks.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit
Olrik
Jul 31, 2012, 1:13:41 AM7/31/12
to
Le 2012-07-31 01:06, mpc755 a �crit :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation
> Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
> matter is gravity.
Provide a link to the maths.
>>> and what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
>>
>>> Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
>>> matter is gravity.
>>
>> Meaningless drivel.
>>
>>> A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
>>> double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
>>> the associated aether wave passes through both.
>>
>>> Why do you choose to be ignorant?
>>
>> I'm not ignorant about current physics. You do seem to want to defy it,
>> though, but without resources and evidence.
>>
>> Please provide experimental data so physicists could test your ideas.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> Please explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit
> experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
> Thanks.
No problem.
> A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
> double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit
> while the associated aether wave passes through both.
Meaningless drivel. Publish the maths.
> Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
> matter is gravity.
>>> and what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
>>
>>> Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
>>> matter is gravity.
>>
>> Meaningless drivel.
>>
>>> A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
>>> double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
>>> the associated aether wave passes through both.
>>
>>> Why do you choose to be ignorant?
>>
>> I'm not ignorant about current physics. You do seem to want to defy it,
>> though, but without resources and evidence.
>>
>> Please provide experimental data so physicists could test your ideas.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> Please explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit
> experiment.
> Thanks.
No problem.
> A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
> double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit
> while the associated aether wave passes through both.
mpc755
Jul 31, 2012, 1:25:28 AM7/31/12
to
Curved spacetime is displaced aether.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/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."
matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places is the state
of displacement of the aether.
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
General relativity is an aether theory.
unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> and what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
>
> >>> Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
> >>> matter is gravity.
>
> >> Meaningless drivel.
>
> >>> A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
> >>> double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
> >>> the associated aether wave passes through both.
>
> >>> Why do you choose to be ignorant?
>
> >> I'm not ignorant about current physics. You do seem to want to defy it,
> >> though, but without resources and evidence.
>
> >> Please provide experimental data so physicists could test your ideas.
>
> >> Thanks.
>
> > Please explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit
> > experiment.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
>
> > Thanks.
>
> No problem.
>
> > A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
> > double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit
> > while the associated aether wave passes through both.
>
> Meaningless drivel. Publish the maths.
Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
“When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was
looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles,
of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in
his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the
physical reality of waves and particles.”
“any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous
“energetic contact” with a hidden medium”
The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The
“energetic contact” is the state of displacement of the aether.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
which takes it through one slit. The associated aether wave passes
through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates wave
interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it
travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave piloting
the particle of pilot-wave theory. Detecting the particle strongly
exiting a single slit turns the associated aether wave into chop. The
aether waves exiting the slits interact with the detectors and become
many short waves with irregular motion. The waves are disorganized.
There is no wave interference. The particle pitches and rolls through
the chop. The particle gets knocked around by the chop and it no
longer creates an interference pattern.
bjacoby
Jul 31, 2012, 2:47:07 AM7/31/12
to
On 7/30/2012 7:06 PM, HVAC wrote:
> I honestly don't care what you believe in.
And we honestly don't care what you say or even "think".
> I honestly don't care what you believe in.
> Ether in physics can be treated exactly the way we treat god and other
> supernatural claims...As if they did not exist at all.
supernatural claims... As if you do not exist at all. As if you are just
one more government "strategic writer" bureaucrat sitting at a terminal
pounding out your "18" personalities each day reenforcing the gummint
line. Not a real person at all. Just fairy tales.
> It is never taken into consideration for any equations or calculations.
real ACTUAL) human being and not some "virtual internet operator", no
one ever will care what you "say".
> How do you reconcile THESE facts with your 'belief'?
>
> Is this ether like a religion to you?
Father Haskell
Jul 31, 2012, 2:48:44 AM7/31/12
to
ether, but more like being slammed into concrete
at orbital velocity?
bjacoby
Jul 31, 2012, 3:03:58 AM7/31/12
to
On 7/30/2012 7:30 PM, mpc755 wrote:
> '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"
>
> "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 at every place determined by connections with
> the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
> state of displacement of the aether.
Has everyone figured this out yet? When "waves" exist they MUST exist
> '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"
>
> "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 at every place determined by connections with
> the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
> state of displacement of the aether.
in a medium BY DEFINITION. The "modern physics" "idea" that waves can
exist and propagate in "nothing at all" is patent nonsense and anyone
saying so should be immediately fired, tenure or no.
So how do EM waves (or possibility waves, or probability waves, yada
yada yada) propagate. As Maxwell pointed out LONG ago energy can ONLY be
transferred from one place to another TWO ways: One is kinetically by
particles (which do NOT require an medium to move in) and the other is
by WAVES which DO require a medium to move in. There are NO other
possibilities.
So if one thinks for a minute of HOW a medium transmits waves, you
understand that this occurs because there is a CONNECTION between one
point in the medium and the NEXT point. That connection point to point
is what gives wave propagation. This is mathematical certainty.
Read the above quotes again. It is the CONNECTION of one point in aether
with neighboring points that PERMITS waves (and energy) to be propagated
to a distance. (And today we understand that propagating energy is
identical with propagating information) Hence Aether is the Medium as
defined above. Without it there are only particles.
So you say, well why not "only particles"? One strong reason is that so
much in electro-magnetics and quantum mechanics obeys solutions to the
wave equation! Usually why this is, is not understood at all. But the
big hint is: if there are waves and wave propagation, there MUST be a
medium. So for now we can use the word "aether" to describe that medium
which is so necessary.
Get the picture? :-)
mpc755
Jul 31, 2012, 7:14:00 AM7/31/12
to
supersolid.
'Superfluid Is Shown To Have Property Of A Solid'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/990730072958.htm
"Northwestern University physicists have for the first time shown that
superfluid helium-3 -- the lighter isotope of helium, which is a
liquid that has lost all internal friction, allowing it to flow
without resistance and ooze through tiny spaces that normal liquids
cannot penetrate -- actually behaves like a solid in its ability to
conduct sound waves."
As a ball rolls through a superfluid with properties of a solid the
supersolid is displaced by the ball. The supersolid fills-in where the
ball had been. As the supersolid fills-in where the ball had been the
supersolid pushes the ball. The ball requires energy to displace the
supersolid. The supersolid returns the energy to the ball as it
'displaces back'.
There is no loss of energy in the interaction of the ball and the
supersolid. That is what supersolid means. It means no friction. It
means no loss of energy in the interaction of. It does not mean there
is no interaction.
The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfliud with properties of
a solid; an incompressible fluid.
As the Earth moves through the aether the Earth displaces the aether.
The aether fills-in where the particles of matter the Earth consists
of had been. As the aether fills-in where the particles of matter the
Earth consists of had been the aether pushes back and exerts inward
pressure toward the particles of matter. The Earth requires energy to
displace the aether. The aether returns to the Earth the same amount
of energy as the aether 'displaces back'.
Does the Earth displace the aether or does the aether displace the
Earth? Both are occurring simultaneously with equal amounts of energy.
mpc755
Jul 31, 2012, 7:20:58 AM7/31/12
to
one of those properties is that it can wave.
Where physics has fallen down and can't get up is not understanding
that in order for something to wave requires mass. And the definition
of mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space.
Now, 'they' will respond that that is not the correct definition of
mass. What they fail to realize is their incorrect definition of mass
is another reason why 'they' can't get out of the hole they have dug
for themselves.
Let's see how easy it is to fix mainstream physics.
* Mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space.
* Aether has mass.
* Matter moves through and displaces the aether.
* Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
matter is gravity.
* A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
* In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single
slit and the associated aether wave passes through both.
* Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.
* Both are aether displacement wave.
* Aether displaced by matter unifies general relativity and quantum
mechanics.
G=EMC^2
Jul 31, 2012, 8:45:40 AM7/31/12
to
Micro,or Macro world. Reality is it created the quantum world
first,and the quantum realm evolved into the larger,and larger macro
realm to a point they don't relate very well. The very tiny seems
weird. The very large would seem just as weird to us if we lived
inside a molecule. get the picture TreBert
HVAC
Jul 31, 2012, 9:03:58 AM7/31/12
to
On 7/31/2012 12:46 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>> Meanwhile, I'll stick with everything, and everyone else in physics: the
>> �aether� is non-existent.
>
> You mean the ones who can't explain simple things like gravity and
> what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
Gravity is quite well understood and described.
>
>> Meanwhile, I'll stick with everything, and everyone else in physics: the
>> �aether� is non-existent.
>
> You mean the ones who can't explain simple things like gravity and
> what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
HVAC
Jul 31, 2012, 9:09:08 AM7/31/12
to
On 7/31/2012 3:03 AM, bjacoby wrote:
>
> Has everyone figured this out yet? When "waves" exist they MUST exist in
> a medium BY DEFINITION. The "modern physics" "idea" that waves can exist
> and propagate in "nothing at all" is patent nonsense and anyone saying
> so should be immediately fired, tenure or no.
But space isn't 'nothing at all'. It's space.
>
> Has everyone figured this out yet? When "waves" exist they MUST exist in
> a medium BY DEFINITION. The "modern physics" "idea" that waves can exist
> and propagate in "nothing at all" is patent nonsense and anyone saying
> so should be immediately fired, tenure or no.
Big Dog
Jul 31, 2012, 9:09:59 AM7/31/12
to
On 7/31/2012 6:20 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> 'They' say it is not an empty void. 'It' has physical properties. And
> one of those properties is that it can wave.
Yes.
>
> 'They' say it is not an empty void. 'It' has physical properties. And
> one of those properties is that it can wave.
>
> Where physics has fallen down and can't get up is not understanding
> that in order for something to wave requires mass.
> And the definition
> of mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space.
Big Dog
Jul 31, 2012, 9:12:21 AM7/31/12
to
On 7/30/2012 6:33 PM, mpc755 wrote:
> On Jul 30, 7:14 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> On Jul 30, 7:14 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Why yes, yes, it would, unless you invoke the new property of being a
>> superfluid that behaves like a frictionless solid that Cavedon would put in.
>>
>> Which of course makes that ether NOTHING AT ALL FUCKING LIKE the ethers
>> that de Broglie, Einstein, Hogan, and Laughlin are referring to, which
>> are each all different from each other.
>>
>> But Cavedon of course is insisting that all animals are unicorns, as
>> long as unicorns are invisible, because Linnaeus and Darwin and other
>> very important biologists all acknowledge that a lot of animals have
>> four legs and so do unicorns, which proves that those animals are
>> unicorns and are invisible.
>>
>> And of course you can CHOOSE to not understand this if you want and be
>> in denial.
>>
>> You are wasting time on someone with a mental problem.
>
>> superfluid that behaves like a frictionless solid that Cavedon would put in.
>>
>> Which of course makes that ether NOTHING AT ALL FUCKING LIKE the ethers
>> that de Broglie, Einstein, Hogan, and Laughlin are referring to, which
>> are each all different from each other.
>>
>> But Cavedon of course is insisting that all animals are unicorns, as
>> long as unicorns are invisible, because Linnaeus and Darwin and other
>> very important biologists all acknowledge that a lot of animals have
>> four legs and so do unicorns, which proves that those animals are
>> unicorns and are invisible.
>>
>> And of course you can CHOOSE to not understand this if you want and be
>> in denial.
>>
>> You are wasting time on someone with a mental problem.
>
> '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"
>
> "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 at every place determined by connections with
> the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
> state of displacement of the aether.
>
And Einstein's ether is not your ether, which is what I just fucking got
> 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"
>
> "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 at every place determined by connections with
> the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
> state of displacement of the aether.
>
done saying. Repeating Einstein's statement to *emphasize* the fact that
Einstein's ether is not your either does not help your case.
Same goes for de Broglie's ether, which is not your ether.
Same goes for Laughlin's ether, which is not your ether.
Same goes for Bohm's ether, which is not your ether.
Big Dog
Jul 31, 2012, 9:13:27 AM7/31/12
to
>
> Aether has mass.
Donkeys have four legs. Lizards have four legs. This doesn't make
donkeys lizards or lizards donkeys.
Big Dog
Jul 31, 2012, 9:15:19 AM7/31/12
to
>> Le 2012-07-31 00:03, mpc755 a �crit :
>>
>>> I'll stick with the Nobel Laureates and a Director at Fermilab.
>>
>> You do that.
>>
>> Meanwhile, I'll stick with everything, and everyone else in physics: the
>> �aether� is non-existent.
>
> You mean the ones who can't explain simple things like gravity and
> what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
Sure they can. Have you asked them? No.
You've asked selected people ON THIS NEWSGROUP, who have told you this
is not the right place to get those answers.
>>
>>> I'll stick with the Nobel Laureates and a Director at Fermilab.
>>
>> You do that.
>>
>> Meanwhile, I'll stick with everything, and everyone else in physics: the
>> �aether� is non-existent.
>
> You mean the ones who can't explain simple things like gravity and
> what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
You've asked selected people ON THIS NEWSGROUP, who have told you this
is not the right place to get those answers.
HVAC
Jul 31, 2012, 9:15:53 AM7/31/12
to
On 7/31/2012 2:47 AM, bjacoby wrote:
> On 7/30/2012 7:06 PM, HVAC wrote:
>
>> I honestly don't care what you believe in.
>
> And we honestly don't care what you say or even "think".
"We" ?
> On 7/30/2012 7:06 PM, HVAC wrote:
>
>> I honestly don't care what you believe in.
>
> And we honestly don't care what you say or even "think".
>> Ether in physics can be treated exactly the way we treat god and other
>> supernatural claims...As if they did not exist at all.
>
> I say YOU need to be treated exactly the way we treat got and other
> supernatural claims... As if you do not exist at all. As if you are just
> one more government "strategic writer" bureaucrat sitting at a terminal
> pounding out your "18" personalities each day reenforcing the gummint
> line. Not a real person at all. Just fairy tales.
>> It is never taken into consideration for any equations or calculations.
>
> Until you provide some "proof" you are a real honest to God (er I mean
> real ACTUAL) human being and not some "virtual internet operator", no
> one ever will care what you "say".
are posted for all to read.
And let me take this opportunity to state categorically that I do not
currently work for any known government agency or organization.
>> How do you reconcile THESE facts with your 'belief'?
>>
>> Is this ether like a religion to you?
>
> We all know the "party line" that is YOUR "religion", ACDC.
Big Dog
Jul 31, 2012, 9:17:00 AM7/31/12
to
On 7/31/2012 12:25 AM, mpc755 wrote:
> On Jul 31, 1:13 am, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Le 2012-07-31 01:06, mpc755 a crit :
>>
>>
> On Jul 31, 1:13 am, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Le 2012-07-31 01:06, mpc755 a crit :
>>
>>
>>> Please explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit
>>> experiment.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
>>
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> No problem.
>>
>>> A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
>>> double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit
>>> while the associated aether wave passes through both.
>>
>> Meaningless drivel. Publish the maths.
>
> 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory -
> Louis de BROGLIE'
> http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
>
de Broglie's ether is not your ether.
>>> experiment.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
>>
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> No problem.
>>
>>> A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
>>> double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit
>>> while the associated aether wave passes through both.
>>
>> Meaningless drivel. Publish the maths.
>
> 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory -
> Louis de BROGLIE'
> http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
>
Repeating stuff by de Broglie only emphasizes the difference and does
not help your case.
Brad Guth
Jul 31, 2012, 9:19:16 AM7/31/12
to
similar interpretation?
Are you still stuck with the quantum force field of gravity as being
limited to c?
Perhaps because we can't seem to objectively measure the raw velocity
of gravity, is suggesting it's much faster than c.
Others and yourself still can't prove that an individual photon wave
actually moves, and yet you claim to know everything. Not even the
impressive trillion frame per second camera is depicting any one
individual photon wave as moving instead of simply creating new waves.
You insist that our cold-war era of spooks, moles, spies and unlimited
national and international cold-war skullduggery that supposedly put
us as walking on that physically dark and paramagnetic moon, was
telling us the whole truth and nothing but the truth, even though we
can't seem to replicate such from that need-to-know and/or cloak and
dagger era of fly-by-rocket technology and of Kodak that still offers
no independent photographic forensics.
You have demonstrated no actual photographic processing or
interpretive skills, as well as having no computer PhotoShop skills of
any kind, and yet you see nothing the least bit unusual or unexpected
about the planet Venus.
Apparently those natural geology rules of bedrock formation and
erosion for the extremely nearby planet Venus are functioning entirely
different than any other planet or moon. Go figure how those
continually opposed to anything that isn't insider Oligarch approved,
are also required and/or compelled to topic/author stalk and bash at
this one and at anything else I might have to offer, for all the
Semitic Oligarch approved hate and disparagement they can muster.
“Guth Venus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/102736204560337818634/BradGuth#slideshow/5629579402364691314
Other thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”
G=EMC^2
Jul 31, 2012, 9:21:40 AM7/31/12
to
On Jul 30, 6:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 30, 6:06 pm, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/30/2012 5:21 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > Laughlin, Einstein, de Broglie all state there is an aether.
>
> > > Hogan states the Higg's field has mass.
>
> > > You can remain ignorant of understanding what occurs physically in
> > > nature to cause gravity and the observed behaviors in a double slit
> > > experiment if you choose to.
>
> > > Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space.
> > > Aether is physically displaced by matter.
>
> On Jul 30, 6:06 pm, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/30/2012 5:21 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > Laughlin, Einstein, de Broglie all state there is an aether.
>
> > > Hogan states the Higg's field has mass.
>
> > > You can remain ignorant of understanding what occurs physically in
> > > nature to cause gravity and the observed behaviors in a double slit
> > > experiment if you choose to.
>
> > > Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space.
> > > Aether is physically displaced by matter.
>
> > > Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
> > > matter is gravity.
>
> > > A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
> > > matter is gravity.
>
> > > double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
> > > the associated aether wave passes through both.
>
> > > the associated aether wave passes through both.
>
> > Ether in physics can be treated exactly the way we treat god and other
> > supernatural claims...As if they did not exist at all.
>
> > supernatural claims...As if they did not exist at all.
>
> Not according to Nobel Laureates Laughlin, Einstein and de Broglie.
>
> Hogan states the Higg's field has mass.
>
>
> Hogan states the Higg's field has mass.
>
> You can remain ignorant of understanding what occurs physically in
> nature to cause gravity and the observed behaviors in a double slit
> experiment if you choose to.
>
> Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space.
> Aether is physically displaced by matter.
>
> nature to cause gravity and the observed behaviors in a double slit
> experiment if you choose to.
>
> Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space.
> Aether is physically displaced by matter.
>
> Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
> matter is gravity.
>
> A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
> matter is gravity.
>
> double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
> the associated aether wave passes through both.
In macro realm we relate aether to a 100% vacuum. In the micro realm
> the associated aether wave passes through both.
the aether is a dynamic medium. It all come down to location,location
location TreBert
G=EMC^2
Jul 31, 2012, 9:23:57 AM7/31/12
to
attached wave" TreBert
Brad Guth
Jul 31, 2012, 9:29:42 AM7/31/12
to
superfluid.
Brad Guth
Jul 31, 2012, 9:24:19 AM7/31/12
to
On Jul 30, 6:05 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 30, 7:52 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/29/2012 1:26 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > >> Good post. Could be called "space wave Function" Reality is Wave
> > >> Function is the foundation of QM. If space has virtual particles it
> > >> must have virtual waves. Like photons can have different wave
> > >> lengths,so can space waves. Space waves can reach across the universe
> > >> and get bigger faster than c. It is my thoughts on space waves that
> > >> gave me the shape of the universe.Space waves fit well with my convex
> > >> space theory. Casimir gave us space wave actions TreBert
>
> > > There are no such things as virtual particles or virtual waves.
>
> > > Aether has mass. In the Casimir effect it is the aether displaced by
> > > the plates which encompasses the plates, along with the cancellation
> > > of some of the force associated with the aether displaced by each of
> > > the plates which exists between the plates, which forces the plates
> > > together.
>
> > > What you mistake for virtual waves are actual waves in the aether.
>
> > Kook fight!
>
> 'What fills space? - Craig Hogan, director of the Center for Particle
> of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium
> when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such
> medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative
> connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association
> with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped
> of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most
> physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually
> says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading
> the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic
> symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time
> relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began
> showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure
> similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent
> studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand
> that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian
> emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but
> can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a
> part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day
> by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this
> because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics,
> endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
quantum velocity of gravity that forever radiates the existence of
everything in all directions simultaneously.
> On Jul 30, 7:52 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/29/2012 1:26 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > >> Good post. Could be called "space wave Function" Reality is Wave
> > >> Function is the foundation of QM. If space has virtual particles it
> > >> must have virtual waves. Like photons can have different wave
> > >> lengths,so can space waves. Space waves can reach across the universe
> > >> and get bigger faster than c. It is my thoughts on space waves that
> > >> gave me the shape of the universe.Space waves fit well with my convex
> > >> space theory. Casimir gave us space wave actions TreBert
>
> > > There are no such things as virtual particles or virtual waves.
>
> > > Aether has mass. In the Casimir effect it is the aether displaced by
> > > the plates which encompasses the plates, along with the cancellation
> > > of some of the force associated with the aether displaced by each of
> > > the plates which exists between the plates, which forces the plates
> > > together.
>
> > > What you mistake for virtual waves are actual waves in the aether.
>
> > Kook fight!
>
> 'What fills space? - Craig Hogan, director of the Center for Particle
> Astrophysics'http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive_2012/today12-07-25.html
>
> "For example, the Higgs field is much weirder than the comparisons
> with molasses or crowds suggest, since it does not actually drag or
> impede particles, but still somehow shares its mass with them."
>
> "the Higgs field ... shares its mass with [particles of matter]"
>
> Now the Higgs field has mass.
>
> Aether has mass.
>
> "For example, the Higgs field is much weirder than the comparisons
> with molasses or crowds suggest, since it does not actually drag or
> impede particles, but still somehow shares its mass with them."
>
> "the Higgs field ... shares its mass with [particles of matter]"
>
> Now the Higgs field has mass.
>
>
> Matter is condensations of aether.
>
> "It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory
> Matter is condensations of aether.
>
> of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium
> when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such
> medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative
> connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association
> with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped
> of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most
> physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually
> says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading
> the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic
> symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time
> relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began
> showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure
> similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent
> studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand
> that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian
> emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but
> can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a
> part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day
> by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this
> because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics,
> endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
>
> Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.
>
> They are both aether displacement wave.
> Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.
>
>
> Aether displaced by matter unifies general relativity and quantum
> mechanics.
No doubt the aether is real, and it may even represent the infinite
> Aether displaced by matter unifies general relativity and quantum
> mechanics.
quantum velocity of gravity that forever radiates the existence of
everything in all directions simultaneously.
HVAC
Jul 31, 2012, 9:55:13 AM7/31/12
to
On 7/31/2012 9:23 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
> Slit experiment proves my theory "Particles move in pairs with
> attached wave" TreBert
Explain your 'theory' then. (He won't) Bert just makes things up.
>
> Slit experiment proves my theory "Particles move in pairs with
> attached wave" TreBert
Big Dog
Jul 31, 2012, 9:59:56 AM7/31/12
to
On 7/31/2012 2:03 AM, bjacoby wrote:
> On 7/30/2012 7:30 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>> '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"
>>
>> "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 at every place determined by connections with
>> the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
>> state of displacement of the aether.
>
> Has everyone figured this out yet? When "waves" exist they MUST exist
> in a medium BY DEFINITION.
What definition are you fucking using?
> On 7/30/2012 7:30 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>> '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"
>>
>> "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 at every place determined by connections with
>> the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
>> state of displacement of the aether.
>
> Has everyone figured this out yet? When "waves" exist they MUST exist
> in a medium BY DEFINITION.
That's NOT the definition of waves as used by physicists.
Nobody gives a shit that the mental concept of waves in YOUR head
requires a medium.
Furthermore, nobody gives a shit that the mental concept of waves that
you have in YOUR head is also supported by some loner who works on his
own without benefit of feedback from other scientists.
> The "modern physics" "idea" that waves can
> exist and propagate in "nothing at all" is patent nonsense and anyone
> saying so should be immediately fired, tenure or no.
repeat this all the time. So fire yourself if you want to.
Moreover, any ASSHOLE who thinks that "Hey, it's got to be waves in a
material medium or waves in nothing at all," is committing a logical
fallacy called a false dichotomy. Since this seems to be your
passionately held view, then enjoy sitting in your own shit.
>
> So how do EM waves (or possibility waves, or probability waves, yada
> yada yada) propagate. As Maxwell pointed out LONG ago energy can ONLY be
> transferred from one place to another TWO ways: One is kinetically by
> particles (which do NOT require an medium to move in) and the other is
> by WAVES which DO require a medium to move in. There are NO other
> possibilities.
Maxwell that there ARE other possibilities.
The fact that you do not want to consider them, entertain them, expand
your mental conceptual vocabulary with them, is FUCKING IRRELEVANT to
anyone else.
mpc755
Jul 31, 2012, 10:01:37 AM7/31/12
to
On Jul 31, 9:03 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/31/2012 12:46 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Meanwhile, I'll stick with everything, and everyone else in physics: the
> >> «aether» is non-existent.
>
> > You mean the ones who can't explain simple things like gravity and
> > what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
>
> Gravity is quite well understood and described.
>
> On 7/31/2012 12:46 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Meanwhile, I'll stick with everything, and everyone else in physics: the
> >> «aether» is non-existent.
>
> > You mean the ones who can't explain simple things like gravity and
> > what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
>
> Gravity is quite well understood and described.
>
mpc755
Jul 31, 2012, 10:03:39 AM7/31/12
to
Broglie's ether.
A relativistic ether wave propagates the photon. The relativistic
ether wave propagating the photon is the wave of wave-particle duality.
mpc755
Jul 31, 2012, 10:02:40 AM7/31/12
to
one word you need to redefine in order to understand what occurs
physically in nature is mass.
Mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space.
HVAC
Jul 31, 2012, 10:07:03 AM7/31/12
to
On 7/31/2012 10:01 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>>>> Meanwhile, I'll stick with everything, and everyone else in physics: the
>>>> �aether� is non-existent.
>>
>>> You mean the ones who can't explain simple things like gravity and
>>> what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
>>
>> Gravity is quite well understood and described.
>>
>
> Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
> matter is gravity.
No.
>
>>>> Meanwhile, I'll stick with everything, and everyone else in physics: the
>>>> �aether� is non-existent.
>>
>>> You mean the ones who can't explain simple things like gravity and
>>> what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
>>
>> Gravity is quite well understood and described.
>>
>
> Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
> matter is gravity.
mpc755
Jul 31, 2012, 10:01:11 AM7/31/12
to
Einstein defined motion in terms of the aether as the aether does not
consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked
through time.
I interpret this to mean it can not be known if aether consists of
particles or not.
mpc755
Jul 31, 2012, 10:07:46 AM7/31/12
to
a double slit experiment disproves your "particles move in pairs with
attached wave".
mpc755
Jul 31, 2012, 10:06:33 AM7/31/12
to
mpc755
Jul 31, 2012, 10:01:51 AM7/31/12
to
On Jul 31, 9:09 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/31/2012 3:03 AM, bjacoby wrote:
>
>
>
> > Has everyone figured this out yet? When "waves" exist they MUST exist in
> > a medium BY DEFINITION. The "modern physics" "idea" that waves can exist
> > and propagate in "nothing at all" is patent nonsense and anyone saying
> > so should be immediately fired, tenure or no.
>
> But space isn't 'nothing at all'. It's space.
>
Aether has mass.
> On 7/31/2012 3:03 AM, bjacoby wrote:
>
>
>
> > Has everyone figured this out yet? When "waves" exist they MUST exist in
> > a medium BY DEFINITION. The "modern physics" "idea" that waves can exist
> > and propagate in "nothing at all" is patent nonsense and anyone saying
> > so should be immediately fired, tenure or no.
>
> But space isn't 'nothing at all'. It's space.
>
mpc755
Jul 31, 2012, 10:09:48 AM7/31/12
to
On Jul 31, 10:07 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/31/2012 10:01 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> >>>> Meanwhile, I'll stick with everything, and everyone else in physics: the
> >>>> «aether» is non-existent.
>
> >>> You mean the ones who can't explain simple things like gravity and
> >>> what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
>
> >> Gravity is quite well understood and described.
>
> > Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
> > matter is gravity.
>
> No.
>
Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
matter is gravity.
> On 7/31/2012 10:01 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> >>>> Meanwhile, I'll stick with everything, and everyone else in physics: the
> >>>> «aether» is non-existent.
>
> >>> You mean the ones who can't explain simple things like gravity and
> >>> what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
>
> >> Gravity is quite well understood and described.
>
> > Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
> > matter is gravity.
>
> No.
>
Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
matter is gravity.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
mpc755
Jul 31, 2012, 10:04:17 AM7/31/12
to
Big Dog
Jul 31, 2012, 10:15:34 AM7/31/12
to
On 7/31/2012 8:24 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> No doubt the aether is real, and it may even represent the infinite
> quantum velocity of gravity that forever radiates the existence of
> everything in all directions simultaneously.
>
Nice gobbledygook. What the fuck does "quantum velocity of gravity" even
> No doubt the aether is real, and it may even represent the infinite
> quantum velocity of gravity that forever radiates the existence of
> everything in all directions simultaneously.
>
MEAN?
Big Dog
Jul 31, 2012, 10:18:16 AM7/31/12
to
sufficient detail to see the differences. You only see the words "fill
all space" and "ether" and think, "Gee, those must be the same things."
That's the same sort of mental damage that leads one to look at cows and
chameleons and say "Hey, they both have four legs" and "Hey, they both
have tails" and "Hey, they both have two eyes" and then conclude that
cows are the same things as chameleons.
You are an ignoramus.
Big Dog
Jul 31, 2012, 10:21:26 AM7/31/12
to
are decided by community consensus.
If you use your own private meanings for words that are already in use
by a community and mean different things for that community, then your
own sentences will be heard as gobbledygook.
>
> Mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space.
>
"mass" with physicists, then you need to learn what the word means TO
PHYSICISTS.
mpc755
Jul 31, 2012, 10:23:06 AM7/31/12
to
On Jul 31, 10:18 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/31/2012 9:03 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > On Jul 31, 9:12 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> And Einstein's ether is not your ether, which is what I just fucking got
> >> done saying. Repeating Einstein's statement to *emphasize* the fact that
> >> Einstein's ether is not your either does not help your case.
>
> >> Same goes for de Broglie's ether, which is not your ether.
>
> >> Same goes for Laughlin's ether, which is not your ether.
>
> >> Same goes for Bohm's ether, which is not your ether.
>
> > Laughlin's relativistic ether is Einstein's ether which is de
> > Broglie's ether.
>
> No, they are NOT. You OBVIOUSLY have not read up on ANY of them in
> sufficient detail to see the differences. You only see the words "fill
> all space" and "ether" and think, "Gee, those must be the same things."
>
> That's the same sort of mental damage that leads one to look at cows and
> chameleons and say "Hey, they both have four legs" and "Hey, they both
> have tails" and "Hey, they both have two eyes" and then conclude that
> cows are the same things as chameleons.
>
> You are an ignoramus.
>
You need to understand the relativistic ether wave propagating the
> On 7/31/2012 9:03 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > On Jul 31, 9:12 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> And Einstein's ether is not your ether, which is what I just fucking got
> >> done saying. Repeating Einstein's statement to *emphasize* the fact that
> >> Einstein's ether is not your either does not help your case.
>
> >> Same goes for de Broglie's ether, which is not your ether.
>
> >> Same goes for Laughlin's ether, which is not your ether.
>
> >> Same goes for Bohm's ether, which is not your ether.
>
> > Laughlin's relativistic ether is Einstein's ether which is de
> > Broglie's ether.
>
> No, they are NOT. You OBVIOUSLY have not read up on ANY of them in
> sufficient detail to see the differences. You only see the words "fill
> all space" and "ether" and think, "Gee, those must be the same things."
>
> That's the same sort of mental damage that leads one to look at cows and
> chameleons and say "Hey, they both have four legs" and "Hey, they both
> have tails" and "Hey, they both have two eyes" and then conclude that
> cows are the same things as chameleons.
>
> You are an ignoramus.
>
photon is the wave of wave-particle duality before anything you say
has any possibility of having anything to do with what occurs
physically in nature.
Laughlin's relativistic ether is Einstein's ether which is de
Broglie's ether.
Big Dog
Jul 31, 2012, 10:27:51 AM7/31/12
to
On 7/31/2012 9:04 AM, mpc755 wrote:
> On Jul 31, 9:13 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Now the Higgs field has mass.
>>
>> Yes it always has had mass.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Aether has mass.
>>
>> Donkeys have four legs. Lizards have four legs. This doesn't make
>> donkeys lizards or lizards donkeys.
>>
>
> 'What fills space? - Craig Hogan, Director of the Fermilab Center for
> Particle Astrophysics'
> http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive_2012/today12-07-25.html
And the Higgs field is not your ether, either, even though it has mass
> On Jul 31, 9:13 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Now the Higgs field has mass.
>>
>> Yes it always has had mass.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Aether has mass.
>>
>> Donkeys have four legs. Lizards have four legs. This doesn't make
>> donkeys lizards or lizards donkeys.
>>
>
> 'What fills space? - Craig Hogan, Director of the Fermilab Center for
> Particle Astrophysics'
> http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive_2012/today12-07-25.html
and fills space.
Likewise, donkeys are not lizards, even though they both have four legs,
tails, necks, and two eyes.
I don't know why this is so hard for you. Oh yes, it's because you're a
boob.
Big Dog
Jul 31, 2012, 10:28:48 AM7/31/12
to
On 7/31/2012 9:06 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> Laughlin's relativistic ether is Einstein's ether which is de
> Broglie's ether.
No it's not. They are all DIFFERENT, which anyone who has read anything
>
> Laughlin's relativistic ether is Einstein's ether which is de
> Broglie's ether.
of any value understands. I don't know why you can't get that too.
mpc755
Jul 31, 2012, 10:27:38 AM7/31/12
to
cause gravity or the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment.
Physicists deny physical evidence of the particle always being
detected entering, traveling through and exiting a single slit in a
double slit experiment.
What is the difference between physicists denying physical evidence
and making stuff up?
The particle is always detected entering, traveling through and
exiting a single slit in a double slit experiment because the particle
always enters, travels through and exits a single slit.
It is the associated aether wave which passes through both.
mpc755
Jul 31, 2012, 10:30:38 AM7/31/12
to
moving particle has an associated aether wave.
Big Dog
Jul 31, 2012, 10:30:47 AM7/31/12
to
On 7/31/2012 9:23 AM, mpc755 wrote:
> On Jul 31, 10:18 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/31/2012 9:03 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 31, 9:12 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> And Einstein's ether is not your ether, which is what I just fucking got
>>>> done saying. Repeating Einstein's statement to *emphasize* the fact that
>>>> Einstein's ether is not your either does not help your case.
>>
>>>> Same goes for de Broglie's ether, which is not your ether.
>>
>>>> Same goes for Laughlin's ether, which is not your ether.
>>
>>>> Same goes for Bohm's ether, which is not your ether.
>>
>>> Laughlin's relativistic ether is Einstein's ether which is de
>>> Broglie's ether.
>>
>> No, they are NOT. You OBVIOUSLY have not read up on ANY of them in
>> sufficient detail to see the differences. You only see the words "fill
>> all space" and "ether" and think, "Gee, those must be the same things."
>>
>> That's the same sort of mental damage that leads one to look at cows and
>> chameleons and say "Hey, they both have four legs" and "Hey, they both
>> have tails" and "Hey, they both have two eyes" and then conclude that
>> cows are the same things as chameleons.
>>
>> You are an ignoramus.
>>
>
> You need to understand the relativistic ether wave propagating the
> photon is the wave of wave-particle duality before anything you say
> has any possibility of having anything to do with what occurs
> physically in nature.
No, you don't have to do that. You can understand things completely well
> On Jul 31, 10:18 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/31/2012 9:03 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 31, 9:12 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> And Einstein's ether is not your ether, which is what I just fucking got
>>>> done saying. Repeating Einstein's statement to *emphasize* the fact that
>>>> Einstein's ether is not your either does not help your case.
>>
>>>> Same goes for de Broglie's ether, which is not your ether.
>>
>>>> Same goes for Laughlin's ether, which is not your ether.
>>
>>>> Same goes for Bohm's ether, which is not your ether.
>>
>>> Laughlin's relativistic ether is Einstein's ether which is de
>>> Broglie's ether.
>>
>> No, they are NOT. You OBVIOUSLY have not read up on ANY of them in
>> sufficient detail to see the differences. You only see the words "fill
>> all space" and "ether" and think, "Gee, those must be the same things."
>>
>> That's the same sort of mental damage that leads one to look at cows and
>> chameleons and say "Hey, they both have four legs" and "Hey, they both
>> have tails" and "Hey, they both have two eyes" and then conclude that
>> cows are the same things as chameleons.
>>
>> You are an ignoramus.
>>
>
> You need to understand the relativistic ether wave propagating the
> photon is the wave of wave-particle duality before anything you say
> has any possibility of having anything to do with what occurs
> physically in nature.
without that.
>
> Laughlin's relativistic ether is Einstein's ether which is de
> Broglie's ether.
that so it's understandable why you would think that cows are lizards.
mpc755
Jul 31, 2012, 10:32:26 AM7/31/12
to
Physicists deny the physical evidence of the particle always being
Big Dog
Jul 31, 2012, 10:33:48 AM7/31/12
to
On 7/31/2012 9:27 AM, mpc755 wrote:
> On Jul 31, 10:21 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space.
>>
>> No, it isn't. That's not what mass means. If you want to use the word
>> "mass" with physicists, then you need to learn what the word means TO
>> PHYSICISTS.
>
> Physicists can't even explain what occurs physically in nature to
> cause gravity or the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment.
Sure they can. Please avail yourself of all those venues where they can
> On Jul 31, 10:21 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space.
>>
>> No, it isn't. That's not what mass means. If you want to use the word
>> "mass" with physicists, then you need to learn what the word means TO
>> PHYSICISTS.
>
> Physicists can't even explain what occurs physically in nature to
> cause gravity or the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment.
explain all that to you. Why won't you do that?
>
> Physicists deny physical evidence of the particle always being
> detected entering, traveling through and exiting a single slit in a
> double slit experiment.
>
> What is the difference between physicists denying physical evidence
> and making stuff up?
and the evidence you cite is included in the explanations.
Besides, none of this pertains to your made up definition of "mass"
which has nothing to do with what mass really means.
Big Dog
Jul 31, 2012, 10:37:34 AM7/31/12
to
- the fact that you think that Laughlin, Einstein, de Broglie, Hogan,
are all talking about the same thing when they are not.
- the fact that you have not read enough about any of them to tell the
difference.
- the fact that the meaning of "mass" you use has nothing to do with the
real meaning of mass.
- the fact that physicists CAN explain what physically occurs but you
can't seem to muster availing yourself of the venues where those
explanations are available, and so you lie that they can't explain it.
Big Dog
Jul 31, 2012, 10:38:55 AM7/31/12
to
you. ASK them. If you don't, you chickenshit, you're just bullshitting.
>
> Physicists deny the physical evidence of the particle always being
> detected entering, traveling through and exiting a single slit in a
> double slit experiment.
mpc755
Jul 31, 2012, 10:42:13 AM7/31/12
to
Particles which travel an infinite number of paths simultaneously?
Why don't you explain what occurs in a double slit experiment.
You don't because you can't.
I can so I will.
There is one aether and it has mass.
Physicists deny the physical evidence of the particle always being
detected entering, traveling through and exiting a single slit in a
double slit experiment.
detected entering, traveling through and exiting a single slit in a
double slit experiment.
HVAC
Jul 31, 2012, 10:44:45 AM7/31/12
to
On 7/31/2012 10:09 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>>>> Gravity is quite well understood and described.
>>
>>> Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
>>> matter is gravity.
>>
>> No.
>>
>
> Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
> matter is gravity.
Foolish speculation. Gravity is VERY well understood and described...
>
>>>> Gravity is quite well understood and described.
>>
>>> Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
>>> matter is gravity.
>>
>> No.
>>
>
> Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
> matter is gravity.
Without the need to invoke some spectral 'ether'.
If you have evidence that the existing paradigm is wrong, please present
this earth shattering science.
HVAC
Jul 31, 2012, 10:45:46 AM7/31/12
to
On 7/31/2012 10:01 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>> But space isn't 'nothing at all'. It's space.
>>
>
> Aether has mass.
Sure it does.
>>
>
> Aether has mass.
Big Dog
Jul 31, 2012, 10:46:21 AM7/31/12
to
On 7/31/2012 9:42 AM, mpc755 wrote:
> Big Dog wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Physicists deny the physical evidence of the particle always being
>>> detected entering, traveling through and exiting a single slit in a
>>> double slit experiment.
>>
>> No, they don't. It's INCLUDED in their explanations.
>>
>
> Many worlds? Particles which don't exist until they are detected?
> Particles which travel an infinite number of paths simultaneously?
>
> Why don't you explain what occurs in a double slit experiment.
Because this is not the venue to get those explanations.
> Big Dog wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Physicists deny the physical evidence of the particle always being
>>> detected entering, traveling through and exiting a single slit in a
>>> double slit experiment.
>>
>> No, they don't. It's INCLUDED in their explanations.
>>
>
> Many worlds? Particles which don't exist until they are detected?
> Particles which travel an infinite number of paths simultaneously?
>
> Why don't you explain what occurs in a double slit experiment.
Physicists have explanations for what physically occurs in nature, and
they are in readily available venues. Go to those venues for the
explanations.
>
> You don't because you can't.
Why don't you go to the venues where the explanations are available? Why
do you whine incessantly about your own refusal to fetch the explanations?
>
Bill Snyder
Jul 31, 2012, 10:47:13 AM7/31/12
to
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
mpc755
Jul 31, 2012, 10:51:35 AM7/31/12
to
HVAC wrote:
> On 7/31/2012 10:09 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>>
>>>>> Gravity is quite well understood and described.
>>>
>>>> Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
>>>> matter is gravity.
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>
>> Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
>> matter is gravity.
>
>
> Foolish speculation. Gravity is VERY well understood and described...
> Without the need to invoke some spectral 'ether'.
>
> If you have evidence that the existing paradigm is wrong, please present
> this earth shattering science.
>
'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
> On 7/31/2012 10:09 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>>
>>>>> Gravity is quite well understood and described.
>>>
>>>> Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
>>>> matter is gravity.
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>
>> Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
>> matter is gravity.
>
>
> Foolish speculation. Gravity is VERY well understood and described...
> Without the need to invoke some spectral 'ether'.
>
> If you have evidence that the existing paradigm is wrong, please present
> this earth shattering science.
>
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html
"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like cars
piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity of the
magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar space is
compacting it."
It is the aether which is displaced by the matter the solar system
consists of which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
the solar system.
'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample
of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.1475v1.pdf
"Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in
clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in
gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely."
The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through 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 you and the
lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the water.
The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the lensing
of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the center
of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the lensing of
the light propagating through the water displaced by the submarine and
the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the same as the
submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually displaces
different regions of the water. The state of the water connected to and
neighboring the submarine remains the same as the submarine moves
through the water even though it is not the same water the submarine
continually displaces. This is what is occurring physically in nature as
the galaxy clusters move through the aether.
'Surprise! IBEX Finds No Bow �Shock� Outside our Solar System'
http://www.universetoday.com/95094/surprise-ibex-finds-no-bow-shock-outside-our-solar-system/
'�While bow shocks certainly exist ahead of many other stars, we�re
finding that our Sun�s interaction doesn�t reach the critical threshold
to form a shock,� said Dr. David McComas, principal investigator of the
IBEX mission, �so a wave is a more accurate depiction of what�s
happening ahead of our heliosphere � much like the wave made by the bow
of a boat as it glides through the water.�'
The wave ahead of our heliosphere is an aether displacement wave. This
is evidence of a moving 'particle', the solar system, having an
associated aether wave.
'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 an aether displacement wave. The ripple is a
gravitational wave. This is also evidence of a moving 'particle', the
galaxy clusters, having an associated aether wave.
'Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image '
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/mar/HQ_12-068_Hubble_Dark_Core.html
"This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected into
a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if
the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together. Most of the
galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. "This
result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of
California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results available
online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is not behaving as
predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. It is
difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories
of galaxy formation and dark matter.""
The dark matter core does not defy explanation. The dark matter core is
not a puzzle. The dark matter core is not difficult to explain. It is
obviously clear what is going on.
Dark matter and galaxies are not anchored together. Matter moves through
and displaces the aether.
'Giant black hole kicked out of home galaxy'
http://www.astronomy.com/en/News-Observing/News/2012/06/Giant%20black%20hole%20kicked%20out%20of%20home%20galaxy.aspx
"But these new data support the idea that gravitational waves � ripples
in the fabric of space first predicted by Albert Einstein but never
detected directly � can exert an extremely powerful force."
The fabric of space is the aether.
Gravitational waves are ripples in the aether.
What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit
experiment; the aether.
Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.
mpc755
Jul 31, 2012, 10:53:47 AM7/31/12
to
Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space.
Big Dog
Jul 31, 2012, 11:03:36 AM7/31/12
to
On 7/31/2012 9:53 AM, mpc755 wrote:
> Big Dog wrote:
>> On 7/31/2012 9:42 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>>> Big Dog wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Physicists deny the physical evidence of the particle always being
>>>>> detected entering, traveling through and exiting a single slit in a
>>>>> double slit experiment.
>>>>
>>>> No, they don't. It's INCLUDED in their explanations.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Many worlds? Particles which don't exist until they are detected?
>>> Particles which travel an infinite number of paths simultaneously?
>>>
>>> Why don't you explain what occurs in a double slit experiment.
>>
>> Because this is not the venue to get those explanations.
>>
>> Physicists have explanations for what physically occurs in nature, and
>> they are in readily available venues. Go to those venues for the
>> explanations.
>>
>>>
>>> You don't because you can't.
>>
>> Sure, I can. This is not the venue.
>>
>> Why don't you go to the venues where the explanations are available? Why
>> do you whine incessantly about your own refusal to fetch the
>> explanations?
>>
>
> I am able to explain it right here.
Who the fuck cares?
> Big Dog wrote:
>> On 7/31/2012 9:42 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>>> Big Dog wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Physicists deny the physical evidence of the particle always being
>>>>> detected entering, traveling through and exiting a single slit in a
>>>>> double slit experiment.
>>>>
>>>> No, they don't. It's INCLUDED in their explanations.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Many worlds? Particles which don't exist until they are detected?
>>> Particles which travel an infinite number of paths simultaneously?
>>>
>>> Why don't you explain what occurs in a double slit experiment.
>>
>> Because this is not the venue to get those explanations.
>>
>> Physicists have explanations for what physically occurs in nature, and
>> they are in readily available venues. Go to those venues for the
>> explanations.
>>
>>>
>>> You don't because you can't.
>>
>> Sure, I can. This is not the venue.
>>
>> Why don't you go to the venues where the explanations are available? Why
>> do you whine incessantly about your own refusal to fetch the
>> explanations?
>>
>
> I am able to explain it right here.
The explanation of those things by physicists are in different venues
than here.
Nobody cares that you post your explanations in one venue, which is
completely unrelated to and unconnected with the venues where the REAL
explanations are.
If you posted your explanations on flyers stapled to telephone poles,
would it be of interest to physicists that you could do that? Would your
actions then be tantamount to a challenge to physicists to also staple
their explanations to telephone poles, just because you chose a stupid
venue?
mpc755
Jul 31, 2012, 11:09:46 AM7/31/12
to
You don't because you can't.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages