The True Story of Aether...

[Aetherist]

http://www.aip.org.au/Congress2006/627.pdf

[Inertial]

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:ct9u97ten80sqcl3o...@4ax.com...
>
> http://www.aip.org.au/Congress2006/627.pdf

An interesting paper to read.

The paper seems to point out in several places that our existing physics
models work just fine without aether. The only way aether gets added into
the mix is to postulate it has properties that make it undetectable, as
every test to detect an aether that DID have any detectable properties has
failed. So special relativity without aether is identical to special
relativity with aether (i.e. LET), as long as aether is postulated to have
properties which satisfy that. One might just as well add magical pixies.

[mpc755]

Explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.

Explain why there is an offset between the light lensing through the
space neighboring moving galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters
themselves.

You can remain ignorant if you choose to.

Or, you can understand aether has mass, aether physically occupies
three dimensional space and aether is physically displaced by matter.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.

The offset is caused by the galaxy clusters moving through and
displacing the aether.

[Aetherist]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:42:00 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:

>"Aetherist" wrote in message
>news:ct9u97ten80sqcl3o...@4ax.com...
>>
>> http://www.aip.org.au/Congress2006/627.pdf
>
>An interesting paper to read.
>
>The paper seems to point out in several places that our existing physics
>models work just fine without aether. The only way aether gets added into
>the mix is to postulate it has properties that make it undetectable, as
>every test to detect an aether that DID have any detectable properties has
>failed.

No moron, what failed was detecting motion wrt to the rest frame via
interferometry. Fitzgerald, Lorentz, Poincare' and others pointed out why.
There are many other properties of aether which gave rise to it becoming
the dominant theory. We can even detect our motion without resorting to
looking at the CMBR (although that is a direct method also). The only
class of experiments that failed to behave as initially expected was the
interfreometry tests.

>So special relativity without aether is identical to special
>relativity with aether (i.e. LET), as long as aether is postulated to have
>properties which satisfy that. One might just as well add magical pixies.

I'll ask you again, name those other experiments that failed to match
aether's predicted behavior. I don't really expect you to be able to
produce anything...
>

[Inertial]

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:hvvu979kf3i7b2ut4...@4ax.com...

>
>On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:42:00 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>

.>"Aetherist" wrote in message

>>news:ct9u97ten80sqcl3o...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> http://www.aip.org.au/Congress2006/627.pdf
>>
>>An interesting paper to read.
>>
>>The paper seems to point out in several places that our existing physics
>>models work just fine without aether. The only way aether gets added into
>>the mix is to postulate it has properties that make it undetectable, as
>>every test to detect an aether that DID have any detectable properties has
>>failed.
>
>No moron, what failed was detecting motion wrt to the rest frame via
>interferometry.

EVERY test to detect aether has failed, you brain-dead aether zombie. If
they hadn't failed, aether would be part of modern physics. It isn't.

[mpc755]

The ripple created when galaxy clusters collide is an aether
displacement wave.

The observed behaviors in a double slit experiment are due to the
moving particle having an associated aether displacement wave.

Pressure exerted by displaced aether is gravity.

The offset between the light lensing through the space neighboring
moving galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters themselves is evidence
the galaxy clusters move through and displace the aether.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

The state of displacement of the aether and the effects caused by
displaced aether are detected all the time.

It is modern physics dogma, denial and delusion which causes it to be
as screwed up as it is.

[Aetherist]

I say again, name them...

[Inertial]

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:a27v971uq46e9en28...@4ax.com...

> I say again, name them...

Why .. do you not know of any? Perhaps you just ignore them and try to
rationalise them out of the way (like MMX that would have detected a static
aether .. nope .. so aether dragging was used to 'explain' that failure,
then tests for aether drag showed that that didn't happen either, and so on)

I say name one that detected aether.

[Benj]

On Oct 19, 11:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> "Aetherist"  wrote in message

> >No moron, what failed was detecting motion wrt to the rest frame via
> >interferometry.
>
> EVERY test to detect aether has failed, you brain-dead aether zombie.  If
> they hadn't failed, aether would be part of modern physics.  It isn't.

Oh really? Well let's make a vacuum chamber. A REALLY good one and
install a capacitor in it. Let's pump everything we know how out of
it. Now it's "empty" supposedly. But lo the vacuum capacitor still
has properties! In fact the space between the plates still has
measurable properties. In fact NOTHING AT ALL (in your view) has
properties. This is illogical nonsense even at the level of the
English language let alone at the level of science. Or are you going
to be like PD and insist that words have separate meanings to
"scientists" where reason and logic get replaced by dogma and faith?

Waves travel through empty space with no medium at all. And that works
because? Oh that's right because nothing at all has properties! Now
that makes the "magic" theory consistent! And your idea is that
Einstein is crap. Classical physics is crap. And "action at a
distance" is real! (Bell's theorem)

And YOU are trying to explain to US how screwed up aether theory is?
And your theory is that all this happens by...er...magic?

Bwahahaha!

[mpc755]

The Gravity Probe B.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether 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.

To see a visual representation of the state of the aether as
determined
by its connections with the Earth and the state of the aether in
neighboring places, which is the state of displacement of the aether,
watch the following video starting at 0:45. What is referred to as a
twist in spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether. What is
referred to as frame-dragging is the state of displacement of the
aether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE

The above video visually represents the state of displacement of the
aether of relativity.

[Byron Forbes]

In article <4e9f604d$0$30001$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com>, relat...@rest.com says...

Well, you sure are off with the fairies.

They abandon the aether and hurl insults at it upon being done like a dinner by it!

Aether pops up because -

1/ People wonder how you get E and M fields for a photon when it's nowhere near a charged particle

2/ Then even when they look at uncle Maxwell's equations that say these fields can self propagate if they're constantly
changing (which is possibly bullshit too), then some ask "But how the fuck are they changing?".

3/ Some would like to know why light is always emitted and observed at c as though it was a wave in a constant medium -
there is no other explanation for this that I have heard of.

4/ reflection

5/ refraction

6/ diffraction

7/ polarization

Get the idea?


Perhaps you could take uncle Maxwell's equations and explain not only how the fields change, but how they also spin
in the case of circularly polarized light and photons?

Cant wait.

[Inertial]

"Benj" wrote in message
news:5d76238f-ee40-47cd...@w1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

>
>On Oct 19, 11:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Aetherist" wrote in message
>
>> >No moron, what failed was detecting motion wrt to the rest frame via
>> >interferometry.
>>
>> EVERY test to detect aether has failed, you brain-dead aether zombie. If
>> they hadn't failed, aether would be part of modern physics. It isn't.
>
>Oh really? Well let's make a vacuum chamber. A REALLY good one and
>install a capacitor in it. Let's pump everything we know how out of
>it. Now it's "empty" supposedly.

No matter at least

> But lo the vacuum capacitor still
> has properties!

Yeup. And you think that you need something to be between the plates of the
capacitor for it to have properties?

> In fact the space between the plates still has
> measurable properties. In fact NOTHING AT ALL (in your view) has
> properties. This is illogical nonsense even at the level of the
> English language let alone at the level of science. Or are you going
> to be like PD and insist that words have separate meanings to
> "scientists" where reason and logic get replaced by dogma and faith?

I'll leave dogma and faith to the atheists

> Waves travel through empty space with no medium at all.

Something that has some properties of waves does .. yes

> And that works
> because?

Why do you think there needs to be a reason?

> Oh that's right because nothing at all has properties! Now
> that makes the "magic" theory consistent! And your idea is that
> Einstein is crap. Classical physics is crap. And "action at a
> distance" is real! (Bell's theorem)
>
> And YOU are trying to explain to US how screwed up aether theory is?

It is

> And your theory is that all this happens by...er...magic?

Nope

>Bwahahaha!

Glad to see you're amused by your own stupidity.

[Inertial]

"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
news:MPG.290ac7f21...@news.tpg.com.au...
>Get the idea?

Yes .. you know nothing of physics .. and because you're a failure at it,
you try to play games with those who didn't fail. Pathetic really.

[mpc755]

On Oct 20, 9:21 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> "Benj"  wrote in message
>
> news:5d76238f-ee40-47cd...@w1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >On Oct 19, 11:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Aetherist"  wrote in message
>
> >> >No moron, what failed was detecting motion wrt to the rest frame via
> >> >interferometry.
>
> >> EVERY test to detect aether has failed, you brain-dead aether zombie.  If
> >> they hadn't failed, aether would be part of modern physics.  It isn't.
>
> >Oh really? Well let's make a vacuum chamber. A REALLY good one and
> >install a capacitor in it. Let's pump everything we know how out of
> >it. Now it's "empty" supposedly.
>
> No matter at least
>

Aether has mass.

[Alfonso]

On 20/10/11 00:42, Inertial wrote:
> "Aetherist" wrote in message
> news:ct9u97ten80sqcl3o...@4ax.com...
>>
>> http://www.aip.org.au/Congress2006/627.pdf
>
> An interesting paper to read.

True although not entirely accurate. What Oersted/Faraday and finally
Maxwell did was to unify 3 previously separate branches of physics and
give insight into the nature of light. In so doing 3 aethers were
replaced with a single aether which would be responsible for the
transfer of action at a distance force between charges as well as
providing a medium for electromagnetic waves.

In view of such a breakthrough I believe the MMX was confidently
predicted to confirm the existence of Maxwell's aether beyond
reasonable doubt and the null result caused much consternation.
Lorentz's explanation - often wrongly described as ad-hoc - was to take
into account the fact that the aether was also responsible for
transferring action at a distance force between charges. This was prior
to Bohr's atom and Lorentz postulated that a solid object - a measuring
rod or the arm of the MMX - consists of a matrix of positive and
negative charged particles the action at a distance force between them
being mediated by the aether. He showed mathematically that if the
aether mediating that force was in motion the equilibrium would be
altered affecting the dimensions as described by the Lorentz transform.
Thus he showed that the MMX was prevented from measuring what it was
attempting to measure by the very theory it was intended to test. In
devising it, all the properties of the aether had not been taken into
account

>
> The paper seems to point out in several places that our existing physics
> models work just fine without aether. The only way aether gets added
> into the mix is to postulate it has properties that make it
> undetectable, as every test to detect an aether that DID have any
> detectable properties has failed.

This isn't true. The only property of the aether which is undetectable
is our absolute speed w.r.t it. If you change your speed while observing
light there is an immediate change in the frequency confirming that
whatever your instruments might tell you, you have changed your speed
relative to the light you are observing. There is no other satisfactory
physical explanation for that immediate change.

Either light is ballistic and you have simply changed you speed w.r.t
the light or the speed of light is constant w.r.t Lorentz's aether and
you have changed your speed w.r.t it. The change in frequency confirms
this but your instruments have also been effected by the change in speed
and indicate that the speed hasn't changed. Doppler is the give-away. It
cannot be explained if you simply assume the speed of light is constant
and remains constant w.r.t the observer as he changes speed. Not unless
you believe in magic.

[cjcountess]

Everything is interrelated, including space and matter.


Space is a dispersed form of matter,

Matter is a condensed form of space,

They cyclically change into each other through a pattern of expansion
and contraction

E=mc^2 and m=E/c^2

Tracing the expanding visible Universe back in time, to a point at
which to go any further, means that it must disappear, has lead some
cosmologist and physicist to conclusion that

1) The Universe emerged from absolutely nothing

2) And / or, that it emerged from an infinitely small, dense, and hot
point.

3) That there was no space and time before this so called “Big Bang”
beginning

That too is nonsense based on illogical conclusion that space beyond
that point is absolutely empty nothingness.

But knowing that space in interrelated with matter, in a cyclical
dance of expansion contraction, we can see that this point was not the
beginning of the Universe from absolute nothingness, but the point at
which the form emerges from the formlessness, matter from energy of
space, both which are always interrelated, and constantly interacting
with each other.

Conrad J Countess

[mpc755]

Aether is a dispersed form of matter.

Matter is a condensed form of aether.

When an atomic bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether.

The evaporation is energy.

Mass is conserved.

[Aetherist]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:01:00 +0100, Alfonso <Alf...@duffadd.com> wrote:

>On 20/10/11 00:42, Inertial wrote:
>> "Aetherist" wrote in message
>> news:ct9u97ten80sqcl3o...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> http://www.aip.org.au/Congress2006/627.pdf
>>
>> An interesting paper to read.
>
>True although not entirely accurate. What Oersted/Faraday and finally
>Maxwell did was to unify 3 previously separate branches of physics and
>give insight into the nature of light. In so doing 3 aethers were
>replaced with a single aether which would be responsible for the
>transfer of action at a distance force between charges as well as
>providing a medium for electromagnetic waves.

True, and all experiments and scientific evidence and experiments
were consistent with this. There were no failed experiments that
was contra-indicative of that model.

>In view of such a breakthrough I believe the MMX was confidently
>predicted to confirm the existence of Maxwell's aether beyond

>reasonable doubt ...

Confirm by measuring our speed wrt the rest frame, yes.

> ... and the null result caused much consternation. Lorentz's
>explanation - often wrongly described as ad-hoc - ...

Also absolutely correct...

>... was to take into account the fact that the aether was also responsible

>for >transferring action at a distance force between charges. This was prior
>to Bohr's atom and Lorentz postulated that a solid object - a measuring
>rod or the arm of the MMX - consists of a matrix of positive and
>negative charged particles the action at a distance force between them
>being mediated by the aether. He showed mathematically that if the
>aether mediating that force was in motion the equilibrium would be
>altered affecting the dimensions as described by the Lorentz transform.

And this proved that a key founding assumption necessary for any
positive result for ANY! such interferometer tests was simply false,
not that the aether did not exist. In fact, it had to exist to cause
such behavior. IOW, it was this physical reaction that was the very
basis for the null result...

>Thus he showed that the MMX was prevented from measuring what it was
>attempting to measure by the very theory it was intended to test. In
>devising it, all the properties of the aether had not been taken into
>account

Now try to convince the likes of Gisse, Inertial, Draper, Roberts, ...
etc. of this simple truth.

>> The paper seems to point out in several places that our existing physics
>> models work just fine without aether. The only way aether gets added
>> into the mix is to postulate it has properties that make it
>> undetectable, as every test to detect an aether that DID have any
>> detectable properties has failed.
>
>This isn't true. The only property of the aether which is undetectable
>is our absolute speed w.r.t it.

And even this isn't true. We can detect that speed by several means,
the most direct of which is to simply measure the doppler in the
universial background noise (the CMBR).

>If you change your speed while observing light there is an immediate
>change in the frequency confirming that whatever your instruments might
>tell you, you have changed your speed relative to the light you are
>observing. There is no other satisfactory physical explanation for that
>immediate change.

Yes, Doppler shift proves the medium's existence as does c^2 = 1/uz

>Either light is ballistic and you have simply changed you speed w.r.t
>the light or the speed of light is constant w.r.t Lorentz's aether and
>you have changed your speed w.r.t it. The change in frequency confirms
>this but your instruments have also been effected by the change in speed
>and indicate that the speed hasn't changed. Doppler is the give-away. It
>cannot be explained if you simply assume the speed of light is constant
>and remains constant w.r.t the observer as he changes speed. Not unless
>you believe in magic.

Many around here do fall for the Magican's trick don't they :)

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/20/2011 9:21 AM, Inertial wrote:
> "Benj" wrote in message

>> Oh really? Well let's make a vacuum chamber. A REALLY good one and
>> install a capacitor in it. Let's pump everything we know how out of
>> it. Now it's "empty" supposedly.

> No matter at least

Are you suggesting that there is SOMETHING left in the chamber once the
matter is evacuated? I hope so.

>> But lo the vacuum capacitor still
>> has properties!
>
> Yeup. And you think that you need something to be between the plates of
> the capacitor for it to have properties?

And you are suggesting that nothing at all can have properties? Behavior
is an aspect of the thing possessing the behavior! To say that behavior
exists independent of the thing it is modifying is nothing but
gibberish! You were doing better above suggesting that there was
SOMETHING that might be left in space once the matter was pumped out.

>> In fact the space between the plates still has
>> measurable properties. In fact NOTHING AT ALL (in your view) has
>> properties. This is illogical nonsense even at the level of the
>> English language let alone at the level of science. Or are you going
>> to be like PD and insist that words have separate meanings to
>> "scientists" where reason and logic get replaced by dogma and faith?

> I'll leave dogma and faith to the atheists

Well, obviously this is a false statement!

>> Waves travel through empty space with no medium at all.

> Something that has some properties of waves does .. yes

Well that is rather vague. Are you referring to the property that waves
need a medium in which to propagate?

>> And that works
>> because?

> Why do you think there needs to be a reason?

Magic obviously does not need a reason! Now we are getting somewhere!

>> Oh that's right because nothing at all has properties! Now
>> that makes the "magic" theory consistent! And your idea is that
>> Einstein is crap. Classical physics is crap. And "action at a
>> distance" is real! (Bell's theorem)
>>
>> And YOU are trying to explain to US how screwed up aether theory is?

> It is

Proof by assertion? List your credentials as God of Physics, please...

>> And your theory is that all this happens by...er...magic?

> Nope

That isn't where your arguments ended up above. Please explain in detail
where I failed to correctly follow your "logic"...

>> Bwahahaha!
>
> Glad to see you're amused by your own stupidity.

"Stupidity"? I'm not familiar with that "scientific" term. So far as I
know it's a political term used to further a political agenda. It's a
common term in say Climate Change discussions, but I fail to see the
political agenda here. Could you expand a bit on your point?

[cjcountess]

I agree that the "Ground State Dark Energy" of space, can be called
"Aether", and wonder why mainstream scientist cannot see this, and
fight so hard against it.

But I do not think it is the only applicable term, and therefore will
not argue in favor of this particular tern at the expense of an entire
theory.

Some physicist are so focused on the opposition to that term that you
can insert another term with the same properties and they will accept
it, not seeing the sameness of it.

mpc755

your obsessive with this term, as well as with the misconception of
energy may cause one to overlook the good things in you theory.

Just how is it that mass is conserved but not energy, or am I
misreading.

Aetherist,

I can understand why you use this term almost exclusively; because
you are making the point that the aether theory was right from the
beginning.

I agree with you, and also with mp755, to a point. But I don't think
that you would find it necessary to correct me by replacing my "space
is dispersed matter" with "aether is dispersed matter", because I
think you would know that I see the two as equivalent, and that
pointing out the interrelationship between matter and space inherently
implies that space is not absolutely empty, and therefore supports
"the aether theory" indirectly, sometimes without mainstream physicist
even being aware of it.

Anyway fellas

Keep it up, all it really takes to beat these mainstreamers is "common
sense" which they seemed to have abandoned.

We are participating in an inevitable and nessesary revolution in
physics, one in which it takes a certain amount of confidense to
achieve because these people are so indoctrinated and indoctrinating,
that they take what is obviously true and make it appear false, unless
you have a clear and confident perspective, And so be strong, clear,
and persistent, and lets move the world of physics.

Conrad J Countess

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/20/2011 1:26 PM, mpc755 wrote:

> Aether is a dispersed form of matter.
>
> Matter is a condensed form of aether.
>
> When an atomic bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether.
>
> The evaporation is energy.
>
> Mass is conserved.

SLAM DUNK!

clap! clap! Clap! Clap! clap!

Here's an interesting point E = mc^2

Note that c is the conversion factor not between mass and energy, but
between how much energy condensed aether (matter) gives off when it
expands to the gaseous state (aether). Presumably this ratio is fixed
(sort of like heat of vaporization) no matter what the conditions or
reference frames. And that makes c a constant value no matter what as well.

[mpc755]

Conrad,

The fact that you have to say things like, "the interrelationship

between matter and space inherently implies that space is not absolutely

empty" is the reason it is necessary to distinguish between three
dimensional space and that which physically occupies space.

The interrelationship between matter and aether inherently implies that
space is not absolutely empty.

The interrelationship between matter and aether inherently implies that
three dimensional space is not absolutely empty.

With this simple construct it is easy to distinguish between three
dimensional space and that which physically occupies three dimensional
space.

It is also clearer and more correct. to say matter is condensations of
aether.

It also is more correct to say, when an atomic bomb explodes matter

evaporates into aether. The evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.

Energy are conserved.

Mass is not energy.

Mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space.

A change in state of that which has mass is energy.

[jon car]

When the H bomb goes off a little Helium comes out!

>
> The evaporation is energy.
>
> Mass is conserved.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Inertial]

"BJA...@teranews.com" wrote in message
news:6f0oq.8542$El....@newsfe19.iad...

> And you are suggesting that nothing at all can have properties?

How would you test the properties (if any) of nothing at all? The act of
testing means there is something there ... what you are testing with.

[PD]

On Oct 20, 4:59 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> "BJAC...@teranews.com"  wrote in message

It's simple. You DECLARE that it is nothing and you punctuate that
statement with "BY DEFINITION!" for emphasis. By this act, then
measuring any property of it becomes impossible.

:)

[cjcountess]

Ok mp755

I don’t want to get too tedious and start nitpicking, which might
detract from the bigger picture. But I state that “matter and SPACE”
are interrelated, because space is something that is discernable
through common sense, and covers the largest possible range between
form and formlessness, what can be perceived and conceived and what
cannot be perceived but can still be conceived, within the range of
our senses.

The state that seems the most empty to us “space” being related to
the state most recognized as something, “matter”, seems to me to bring
the whole range of something and nothing into interrelationship,
whereas an aether is harder to comprehend. And so I would introduce it
later, as occupying the space, which seems to be totally empty.

And what about E=mc^2?

Do you still not recognize that energy is dispersed matter, and that
matter is condensed energy? Because to me ground state dark energy =
aether = space, which make E=mc^2 = S “space”=mc^2 = A “aether”
=mc^2.

I do not think you can separate space from energy or aether, as
everything from the most dispersed to the most condensed, is a
different degree of condensation of space, aether, energy.

Conrad J Countess

Remember guys, all it takes to beat these guys is common sense,
clearity, and confidence.

You need confidense because they are very indoctrinated and
indoctrinating, thus they come off as very authoritative and they are
self righteous because they realy belive this stuff.

But just listen closly to what they say, and it make very little sense.

[mpc755]

Mass is NOT energy. They are NOT the same thing.

[PD]

On Oct 20, 5:29 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Remember guys, all it takes to beat these guys is common sense,
> clearity, and confidence.
>

Just keep telling yourself that with as much clearity as you can
geather.

[Aetherist]

And you shall fall prey to Planck's observation...

[Aetherist]

All of them...

Yet you can't name one single experiment that failed to detect
aether's medium effects. That says it all, you're all bluff
and no substance.
>

[cjcountess]

mpc755

That makes no sense

According to what you just said

E dosn't = mc^2 because they are not the same thing

Energy does't occupy 3d space but mass does

I cannot agree with that becasue as my (Geometrical Interpretation of
E=mc^2), shows, (E or energy = m or rest mas at the frequency of

1) "c in linear direction

2) x c in 90 degree angular direction

3) = c^2 = in circular and or spherical rotation

It is exactly this rotation that gives energy rest mass.

But I still agree with your main idea that there is a physical
property to space which make the aether idea applicable to it.

PD.

Does F=mv for momentum, or do you want to change that?

Ha ha

Better add that gamma factor to fudge it so they won't notice that we
were wrong, right PD?

Or why not just add the ^2 or ^2/r, so that it reads F=mv^2, because
energy and force are equal, or F=mv^2/r, in order to fit that faulty
Dimensional Analisis. We can't afford for "Dimensional Analisis" to be
wrong again, after that Planck length, time, and mass, fiasco, can we?

Conrad J Countess

Did you know that "F=mv" better fits the description of centrifugal
force, and inertia frames of Special Relativity, than momentum?

Of course not. But see if you can figure out why. If not, I will tell
you.

[cjcountess]

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually
die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. "
-- Max Planck

[mpc755]

I can not explain it any more clearly then the following.

Aether and matter are different states of the same material.

Aether and matter have mass.

When an atomic bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether.

The evaporation is energy.

Mass is conserved.

Energy is conserved.

If energy and mass were the same thing the equation would be:

E=m.

It is not.

E=mc^2 defines the relationship between mass and energy. Not that they
are one in the same.

[PD]

On Oct 20, 6:30 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> mpc755
>
> That makes no sense
>
> According to what you just said
>
> E dosn't = mc^2 because they are not the same thing
>
> Energy does't occupy 3d space but mass does
>
> I cannot agree with that becasue as my (Geometrical Interpretation of
> E=mc^2), shows, (E or energy = m or rest mas at the frequency of
>
> 1) "c in linear direction
>
> 2) x c in 90 degree angular direction
>
> 3) = c^2 = in circular and or spherical rotation
>
> It is exactly this rotation that gives energy rest mass.
>
> But I still agree with your main idea that there is a physical
> property to space which make the aether idea applicable to it.
>
> PD.
>
> Does F=mv for momentum, or do you want to change that?

No. F does not equal mv. F is the customary symbol for force. mv is a
classical expression for momentum, which is something not equal to
force; moreover, that expression mv only works for slow, massive
objects and does not work for anything else.

Nowhere in a physics book will you ever see the expression F=mv.

>
> Ha ha
>
> Better add that gamma factor to fudge it so they won't notice that we
> were wrong, right PD?
>
> Or why not just add the ^2 or ^2/r, so that it reads F=mv^2, because
> energy and force are equal, or F=mv^2/r, in order to fit that faulty
> Dimensional Analisis. We can't afford for "Dimensional Analisis" to be
> wrong again, after that Planck length, time, and mass, fiasco, can we?
>
> Conrad J Countess
>
> Did you know that "F=mv" better fits the description of centrifugal
> force, and inertia frames of Special Relativity, than momentum?

Depends on what you mean by "fit", Conrad. In physics, "fitting" means
calculating a value that agrees numerically with a measurement.
Calculating is not something that you can do with any reliability,
Conrad, so it's not likely you know how to do a physicist's fit. What
do YOU mean by "fit"? You mean, like a seizure?

[Inertial]

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:8ra1a71p85ss6se2s...@4ax.com...

>
>On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:02:25 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>>"Aetherist" wrote in message
>>news:a27v971uq46e9en28...@4ax.com...
>>> I say again, name them...
>>
>>Why .. do you not know of any? Perhaps you just ignore them and try to
>>rationalise them out of the way (like MMX that would have detected a
>>static
>>aether .. nope .. so aether dragging was used to 'explain' that failure,
>>then tests for aether drag showed that that didn't happen either, and so
>>on)
>>
>>I say name one that detected aether.
>
>All of them...

Liar. Its never been detected. Tested and failed. Then supposed aether
properties changed so that it explains away the lack of result. Repeat.
That's the history of aether 'science'.

> Yet you can't name one single experiment that failed to detect
> aether's medium effects.

You mean the same effects you get without aether? That's not a test.

You need a test that gives results A if aether exists and B if it doesn't.
So you can determine if its there.

Your sort of 'test' is asserting something like 'aether is required for
light to travel like a wave' .. then testing that light does travel like a
wave and so then saying you detected aether. No .. you simply made an
assertion.

> That says it all, you're all bluff
> and no substance.

You just defined aether .. all bluff and no substance.

[cjcountess]

Good "fit" joke

This is off topic, but sense you showed up it just came to mind.

The wiki sites listed below, say that both momentum and energy are
inversely proportional to frequency, making both equal, and the Nova
transscript below which i refferenced before, equates energy and
force. These together with the evidence that the momentum equasion is
fudged with gamma factor and that energy is considered on of the four
forces justifies me in equating energy force and momentum.

Besides I still can find no side by side measure of force = ML/T^2,
energy = 1/2ML^2/T^2 p=mv showing each progressing also a different
route.They are fudged to appear different and the dimensional analysis
also falls apart on quantum level as evident by the so called Planck
units that represent nothing in nature and are missleading.

I have shown that F=ML/T^2 does equal E=1/2ML^2/T^2 and it is also
shown that p=mv with added gamma factor makes that also equal to
F=mv^2, so why the separation?

Clearly taking an object and simutainiously measuring its F=mv^2 along
side its p=mv, will show an ever increasing divergence between the two
such that a relativly small difference between F and p becomes so
great, that it will be so obvious that the two cannot represent the
same object..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave

In quantum mechanics, a matter wave or de Broglie wave ( /dəˈbrɔɪ/)
is the wave (wave–particle duality) of matter. The de Broglie
relations show that the wavelength is inversely proportional to the
momentum of a particle and that the frequency is directly proportional
to the particle's kinetic energy. The wavelength of matter is also
called de Broglie wavelength.
The theory was advanced by Louis de Broglie in 1924 in his PhD thesis.
[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelength
Assuming a sinusoidal wave moving at a fixed wave speed, wavelength is
inversely proportional to frequency: waves with higher frequencies
have shorter wavelengths, and lower frequencies have longer
wavelengths.[6]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3213_einstein.html

EMILIE DU CHÂTELET: Ah, Monsieur you are young. I hope that soon you
will judge me for my own merits or lack of them, but do not look upon
me as an appendage to this great general or that renowned scholar. I
am, in my own right, a whole person, responsible to myself alone for
all that I am, all that I say, all that I do.
NARRATOR: Du Châtelet learned from the brilliant men around her, but
she quickly developed ideas of her own. Much to the horror of her
mentors, she even dared to suspect that there was a flaw in the great
Sir Isaac Newton's thinking.


Newton stated that the energy of an object, the force with which it
collided with another object, could very simply be accounted for by
its mass times its velocity. In correspondence with scientists in
Germany, Du Châtelet learned of another view, that of Gottfried
Leibniz. He proposed that moving objects had a kind of inner spirit.
He called it "vis viva," Latin for "living force." Many discounted his
ideas, but Leibniz was convinced that the energy of an object was made
up of its mass times its velocity, squared.


Can you not see that in this transcript, force is equated with energy,
and that it is said to be equal to mv by Newton and mv^2 by Leibniz?


Besides that, this transcript indicates that the F=ma attributed to
Newton these days was in part stolen from Leibniz and or fudged as not
to make him look bad for some prejudice reason.


If you measure the impact of a bullet, you can get the correct result
by F=mv^2. You do not have to use E=1/2mv^2 or F=mv^2/r. In other
words, the ½ is not needed, nor the /radius, so F=mv^2 is correct for
particular measurements, regardless of dimensional analysis rules.


http://www.remington.com/pages/news-and-resources/ballistics.aspx

Energy Calculator

This tool will help you estimate the energy of your favorite
cartridge. If you are unsure of which bullet weight and/or velocity to
submit, use the information from our on-line ballistics tables above.

Example: The muzzle energy of a 300 Remington Ultra Mag 180gr Core-
Lokt Ultra bullet propelled at 3250 feet per second is determined
using the follow formula:

M x V2 ÷ 450400 = foot pounds energy.

Step 1: Multiply M (M = bullet weight in grains) times V2 (V2 = the
square of bullet velocity in feet per second): 180 x 3250 x 3250 =
1,901,250,000

Step 2: Divide the product of step 1 by 450400: 1,901,250,000 ÷ 450400
= 4221 foot pounds of energy.


Also see this calculator http://www.beartoothbullets.com/rescources/calculators/php/energy.htm?bw=100&bv=2000


All you do is insert the mass and velocity, not the radius, nor does
it take the answer and break it in half.
Insert 100 units for weight and 1000 for velocity and you get 222 foot
pounds of energy or force, they use these terms interchangeably, or
insert 100 units for weight and 2000 for velocity, and you get 888
foot pounds, indicating that force or energy, increases 4 times each
time velocity doubles, and that the formula used is F or E = mv^2


What is the origin of the division of F= ML/T^2, p = mv, E =1/2 ML^2/
T^2? And how do you know they are correct, especially considering the
amount of fudging that goes on in this mathematics.

mpc755

you sound like a tape recorder who can record and recite facts but not
explain them.

E=mc^2 and m= E/c^2 as they are equal and intercovertable through
conversion factor c^2. this can be explained geometrically by showing
that c^2 is a frequency where energy equals and turns to rest mass
through circular and or spherical rotation, but they are still the
same thing just different frequencys.

mp755 you say

Aether and matter are different states of the same material.

Aether and matter have mass.

But what about space and matter, are they too different states of same
material?

And does aether and matter have energy?

Conrad J Countess

Conrad J Countess

[Byron Forbes]

In article <4ea02045$0$29980$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com>, relat...@rest.com says...

>
> Why do you think there needs to be a reason?

Here be the motto of all relativists.

Hear hear.

[Alfonso]

You have perhaps missed the alternative that light is ballistic.
Lorentz's Aether theory is a clarification of Maxwell's aether theory
which in all honesty had failed in its prediction of black body
radiation and the photoelectric effect. Light it seems is made up of
particles which have no need of an aether. Their speed is constant w.r.t
the source, the result of the process generating them. This is the
simplest explanation of the null result of the MMX and it is an
explanation which has been neglected.

>
> Many around here do fall for the Magican's trick don't they :)

They prefer to play with equations rather than complicate things by
worrying about what the equations are describing.

"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist
sufficiently strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr
Scott Murray

[Byron Forbes]

In article <4ea020e0$0$30001$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com>, relat...@rest.com says...
>
> "Byron Forbes" wrote in message
> news:MPG.290ac7f21...@news.tpg.com.au...
> >Get the idea?
>
> Yes .. you know nothing of physics .. and because you're a failure at it,
> you try to play games with those who didn't fail. Pathetic really.


You snip, you lose.

[Byron Forbes]

In article <58p0a7d1spcf6johp...@4ax.com>, TheAet...@gmail.com says...

>
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:01:00 +0100, Alfonso <Alf...@duffadd.com> wrote:
>
> >On 20/10/11 00:42, Inertial wrote:
> >> "Aetherist" wrote in message
> >> news:ct9u97ten80sqcl3o...@4ax.com...
> >>>
> >>> http://www.aip.org.au/Congress2006/627.pdf
> >>
> >> An interesting paper to read.
> >
> >True although not entirely accurate. What Oersted/Faraday and finally
> >Maxwell did was to unify 3 previously separate branches of physics and
> >give insight into the nature of light. In so doing 3 aethers were
> >replaced with a single aether which would be responsible for the
> >transfer of action at a distance force between charges as well as
> >providing a medium for electromagnetic waves.
>
> True, and all experiments and scientific evidence and experiments
> were consistent with this. There were no failed experiments that
> was contra-indicative of that model.
>

There is, however, some explaining to do.

How do the E and M fields change in a photon? And how do they spiral in the case of circular polarization?

Maxwell's equations explain how the fields work (i.e. change) near a wire with AC current but there is no
explanation for this with a photon.

A part definition for a photon would be a piece of energy produced by an EM wave that is no longer a part of that
wave and thus no longer effected by it (and it's source).

If you adopt the idea of perp' E and M fields for a photon, then this implies a min amplitude for both and so even
if the field from a wire with AC current expanded to infinity (which I doubt it does), then it drops to an
infinitesimal value and becomes insignificant anyway.

So then how do these fields continue to change?

[mpc755]

> Also see this calculatorhttp://www.beartoothbullets.com/rescources/calculators/php/energy.htm...

When I refer to space I am referring to three dimensional space which
is occupied by aether and matter.

Aether and matter have mass.

As far as we know, there is no space, nor any part of three
dimensional space, devoid of mass.

[mpc755]

The simplest explanation for the Michelson-Morley experiment results
is Einstein was correct.

The state of the aether is at every place determined by its
connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring
places. This means the aether is in the same state with respect to the
Earth throughout the Earth's rotation about its axis and orbit of the
Sun.

To see a visual representation of the state of the aether as
determined
by its connections with the Earth and the state of the aether in
neighboring places, which is the state of displacement of the aether,
watch the following video starting at 0:45. What is referred to as a
twist in spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether. What is
referred to as frame-dragging is the state of displacement of the
aether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE

The above video visually represents the state of displacement of the
aether of relativity.

[cjcountess]

mpc755

I agree. there is no space devoid of energy/mass, and the true origin
of mass is the ground state energy field, which some prefere to call
the aether, others the Higgs field, others the zero point energy
field, and others the cosmological constant expanding space field,
which can be represented by straight line as a vector of "constant
speed in straight line" generating an inertia equal to c = h and is
the ground upon which all waves and rest mass builds, as straight line
at constant speed is displaced into angular direction creating waves
with mass/enrgy of E / M =hf/c^2

And likewise, the true origin of "Rest Mass" is this same energy based
of "constant speed in straight line" being compressed into waves,
until the angular speed = "c' and counter balences the linear speed of
"c", which is c^2. This balence of centipital / centrifugal forces
produces c in circular and or spherical rotation, and is exactly how
energy equals and turns into matter "Rest mass" at conversion
frequency "c^2"

Conrad J Countess

[cjcountess]

PD

Force defined as ML/T^2 is equal to energy defined as 1/2 ML^2/T^2
just as (2/4^2 = 2/16 = 1/8) is equal to 1/2 of (2^2/4^2 = 4/16 = 1/4)
which is 1/8 as 1/8 is 1/2 of 1/4 thereby making (F=mv^2) =
(E=1/2mv^2).
And as I stated I am defining force as equal to energy because that is
its original meaning and energy is indeed one of the four forces of
nature which includes Electromagnetism, Strong, Weak, and Gravity,
Also the F=mv or p=mv with fudged gamma factor also equals p=mv^2
because if E=mc^2 for all energy and mass relation as some point out
here

(http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html)

which contains: "The equation E = mc2 says that a body's relativistic
mass is proportional to its total energy,

without the added KE=1/2mv^2 and or p=mv than p=ymv = E=mc^2
concerning these particles.

Conrad J Countess

[cjcountess]

Also who is reponsible for defining energy force and momentum in such
a fasion, has anyone dared to question that? Because if the very
foundation is shaky or at best ineficient, than so are the outcomes of
the equations.
The Dimensional Analisis idea that you cannot equate add or subtract
unlike dimensions as well as the idea that conversion factor is
dimensionless does not hold on the quantum level where 1/1=1x1 and E =
m = Q = T= t = G as c^2 is a dimensional conversion factor, turning
energy into matter, with charge, and gravity rest mass, at a critical
frequency which is equakl to a critical temp, and therefore is also
conversion factor of not only E and m but T, t, Q, and G.

Besides that, the so called Planck unites reffered to here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

1.616 199(97) × 10−35 m for length

2.176 51(13) × 10−8 kg for mass

5.391 06(32) × 10−44 s for time

matches nothing in nature and is misleading

This can be seen as it has some thinking that this level will reveal
Quantum Gravity when The geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2 reveals
Quantum Gravity to be "c^2" = h/2pi/2 = "G" and physically manifested
in natural particle Electron itself.

Conrad J Countess

[mpc755]

There would be no energy if there were no mass. A statement such as,
"the true origin of mass is the ground state energy field" is simply
made up.

There would be no field if there were no mass.

A field in physics is space filled with aether and the strength of the
field is the displacement of the aether from its rest position.

Aether has mass.

[cjcountess]

> Aether has mass.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

mpc755

You are partially correct.

Because everything is interrelated there can be no mass without energy
and no energy without mass.

As a matter of fact, because everything is in constant motion, which
is how energy turns to matter and matter to energy through expansion
and contraction, and because there can be no motion without at least
three components

1) something that moves

2) something to move in relation to.

3) and space within which to move

Not nessesarily in that order but as a package deal as niether
component exist independently, the origin of mass must be this
contiual motion itself exibited in this pattern of expansion
contraction with no begining and no end.

Stiil tracing the universe back in time to a point where the expanding
universe mearges with the formless space and still finding motion and
energy and mass there, although not the end of it, is still a usefull
finding. And furthermore, realizing that "Rest Mass" is just relative
mass, kinetic energy of the substence that permetes space in circular
and or spherical motion, does bridge the mass gap between so called
massless photons and rest mass particles, and indicates a quantum
tipping point, or critical mass and frequency, where this occures.

And mpc755

> A field in physics is space filled with aether and the strength of the
> field is the displacement of the aether from its rest position.

is also a made up statement, would you care to elaborate on it?

Conrad J Countess

[mpc755]

Which is how aether turns to matter and matter to aether through
expansion and contraction

[mpc755]

You have a tub full of water. The water has a certain mass and energy.
You throw a bowling ball into the water. The mass of the water has not
changed. The energy of the water has changed. Mass is not energy.

[Sam Wormley]

On 10/21/11 8:19 AM, cjcountess wrote:
> there is no space devoid of energy/mass

It is even measurable!
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

The quantization of a simple harmonic oscillator states that the
lowest possible energy or zero-point energy that such an oscillator
may have is

E = ωh/4π

Summing over all possible oscillators at all points in space gives
an infinite quantity. To remove this infinity, one may argue that
only differences in energy are physically measurable; this argument
is the underpinning of the theory of renormalization. In all
practical calculations, this is how the infinity is always handled.
In a deeper sense, however, renormalization is unsatisfying, and the
removal of this infinity presents a challenge in the search for a
Theory of Everything.

[mpc755]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect#Vacuum_energy

"a "field" in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with
interconnected vibrating balls and springs, and the strength of the
field can be visualized as the displacement of a ball from its rest
position"

A "field" in physics is space filled with aether and the strength of

the field is the displacement of the from its rest position.

The displacement of the aether by the plates which encompasses the
plates and exerts pressure toward the plates, along with the
cancellation of some of the force associated with the aether which
exists between the plates being displaced by both plates toward its
rest position, forces the plates together.

Pressure exerted by displaced aether toward matter is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.

Curved space-time is displaced aether.

Aether displacement is a theory of everything.

[Dono.]

On Oct 20, 6:16 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yet you can't name one single experiment that failed to detect aether's medium effects.  

paul, old fart, start with MMX and proceed with Michelson-Gale all the
way up to Hammar and beyond.

[mpc755]

The Michelson-Morley experiment is evidence of the aether of
relativity.

All 'aether' experiments are evidence of the aether of relativity.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the

[Dono.]

On Oct 21, 1:16 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 21, 2:07 pm, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 20, 6:16 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yet you can't name one single experiment that failed to detect aether's medium effects.  
>
> > paul, old fart, start with MMX and proceed with Michelson-Gale all the
> > way up to Hammar and beyond.
>
> The Michelson-Morley experiment is evidence of the aether of
> relativity.
>

STFU

[Sam Wormley]

On 10/21/11 8:36 AM, cjcountess wrote:
> Force defined as ML/T^2 is equal to energy defined as 1/2 ML^2/T^2

Major malfunction there, Conrad.

1. Dimensional analysis does not include numerical constants.
2. Force is not equal to Kinetic Energy

Get yourself a first year physics textbook and learn some basics.

[mpc755]

Affecting your ability to remaining ignorant of understanding Einstein
was correct?

The Michelson-Morley experiment is evidence of the aether of
relativity.

All 'aether' experiments are evidence of the aether of relativity.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether 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.

To see a visual representation of the state of the aether as
determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of the
aether in neighboring places, which is the state of displacement of
the aether, watch the following video starting at 0:45. What is
referred to as a twist in spacetime is the state of displacement of
the aether. What is referred to as frame-dragging is the state of
displacement of the aether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE

The video represents the state of displacement of the aether of
relativity.

[jon car]

Statistical accuracy removes MMX from being valid in terms of light
speed. That is just the way it is.
Motion through distance causes light to seperate or come together with
matter at above and below the speed of light.
With the maximum of 2 C.

[cjcountess]

mpc755

you said:

>There would be no energy if there were no mass. A statement such as,
>"the true origin of mass is the ground state energy field" is simply
>made up.

>There would be no field if there were no mass.

>A field in physics is space filled with aether and the strength of the

>field is the displacement of the aether from its rest position.


>Aether has mass.

There is noting at rest in the Universe, as even the aether or space
energy contracts through motion into matter and expands again back
into space energy, or aether if you prefer that term. so elaborate on
what you call the rest position of the aether, because as you said
concerning my statement,

A statement such as,

>A field in physics is space filled with aether and the strength of the

>field is the displacement of the aether from its rest position.

is also simply
made up.

shuba

You got the pool problem wrong and you don't even have a theory, Just
what is your funtion, just to be a pest?

Get an original thought and than come back and talk to me.

E=mc ^2 tell us that energy and mass are equal and interelated through
conversion factor c^2, but does not explain how.

My Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled and or sphered
not only agrees with and complements this equation but actualy shows
how E or energy equals m or Rest Mass at the conversion frequency of
c^2, because c62 is not just a dimensionless conversion factor with no
geometrical form but is a frequency of

1) c in the linear direction

2) x c in the 90 degree angular direction

3) = c^2 = c in circular and or spherical rotation as a balence of
centipital/centrifugal forces enabling energy to attain rest mass
through circular and or spherical rotation.

Wow, I took the most famous equation in the world by the most famouse
scientist einstein, and add another dimention to it.

Can you top that shuba?

Sam

Force is equal to energy for at least these two reasons, whether you
like it or not.

Force defined as ML/T^2 is equal to energy defined as 1/2 ML^2/T^2

just as (2/4^2 = 2/16 = 1/8) is equal to 1/2 of (2^2/4^2 = 4/16 =
1/4)
which is 1/8 as 1/8 is 1/2 of 1/4 thereby making (F=mv^2) =
(E=1/2mv^2).
And as I stated I am defining force as equal to energy because that
is
its original meaning and energy is indeed one of the four forces of
nature which includes Electromagnetism, Strong, Weak, and Gravity,
Also the F=mv or p=mv with fudged gamma factor also equals p=mv^2
because if E=mc^2 for all energy and mass relation as some point out
here

And Sam you are right. Dimensional Analysis does not apply to the
constents for the reasons that I stated. Thak you.

[Aetherist]

OK, let's start with the MMX...

see my detailed response in "On the Basis of the MMX Experiment"

[mpc755]

You have a pool full of water. You throw a bowling ball into the
water.

Does the mass associated with the water change?

No.

Does the energy associated with the water change?

Yes.

What I have figured out is when a nuclear bomb explodes matter
evaporates into aether. The evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.
Energy is conserved.

A change in state of that which has mass is energy.

[eric gisse]

PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in news:e0d607f1-0471-4d75-a1c4-
ea3170...@v28g2000vby.googlegroups.com:

[...]

It'd be prettty swell if him and noeinstein fought over the true expression
for force.

[jon car]

> A change in state of that which has mass is energy.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The new energy in the pool is kinetic.
If you were to give a quantity for that
it would be incredibly small.
Hot water has a little more energy of motion
than does cold.

[Sam Wormley]

On 10/21/11 3:40 PM, cjcountess wrote:
> Force is equal to energy for at least these two reasons, whether you
> like it or not.

Ouch -- Major *Failure on your part, Conrad*, not understanding the
difference between Force and Energy. I'll bet you don't even know
which one is conserved in nature.

Noether's theorem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

You should get yourself a copy of a first year physics textbook and
learn some basic physics.

[Dono.]

On Oct 21, 3:46 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
>ay up to Hammar and beyond.
>
> OK, let's start with the MMX...
>
> see my detailed response in "On the Basis of the MMX Experiment"

Paul, you are an ignorant imbecile so I don't need to read your answer
since it is a guaranteed imbecility.

[Aetherist]

I know, don't try to confose you with answers to YOUR! QUESTION,
your mind is made up... typical of the likes of your ilk...

[Dono.]

On Oct 21, 6:29 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I know, don't try to confose

Yes, Paul, you are "confosed". The Alzheimer is taking over whatever
little is left of your brain.

[G=EMC^2]

On Oct 21, 12:54 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

The more we know makes TOE just a dream TreBert

[mpc755]

[xray4abc]

On Oct 20, 3:06 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 11:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> > "Aetherist"  wrote in message
> > >No moron, what failed was detecting motion wrt to the rest frame via
> > >interferometry.
>
> > EVERY test to detect aether has failed, you brain-dead aether zombie.  If
> > they hadn't failed, aether would be part of modern physics.  It isn't.
>
> Oh really? Well let's make a vacuum chamber. A REALLY good one and
> install a capacitor in it. Let's pump everything we know how out of
> it. Now it's "empty" supposedly.  But lo the vacuum capacitor still
> has properties!  In fact the space between the plates still has
> measurable properties. In fact NOTHING AT ALL (in your view) has
> properties. This is illogical nonsense even at the level of the
> English language let alone at the level of science. Or are you going
> to be like PD and insist that words have separate meanings to
> "scientists" where reason and logic get replaced by dogma and faith?
>
> Waves travel through empty space with no medium at all. And that works
> because? Oh that's right because nothing at all has properties!  Now
> that makes the "magic" theory consistent!  And your idea is that
> Einstein is crap. Classical physics is crap. And "action at a
> distance" is real!  (Bell's theorem)
>
> And YOU are trying to explain to US how screwed up aether theory is?
> And your theory is that all this happens by...er...magic?
>
> Bwahahaha!

Hi, Benj
My current position on this subject, in short is:
There IS an aether or whatever may it be called, as it
makes no sense to talk about waves propagating in a
purely empty space.
The fact that we may not need it currently in different
applications, or our inability to show it with our fingers,
does not make it non-existent.
For me the very existance of electric and magnetic fields
in itself is proof enough.
In fact, notions like dark-matter, quantum-vacuum
and such, make its existence more and more acceptable
for physicists, so that its oponents will die out in
due course.
In sci.physics.electromag I have started to analize
some of the mistakes/lapses in our understanding of the
electrical fields. (The thread is:Electrical interaction.)
I do not have the time or will to try to convince
"non-believers". What for? (Yet, I could use constructive
critical opinions.)
All the best, LL

[jon car]

On Oct 21, 4:55 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 21, 7:41 pm, "G=EMC^2" <herbertglazi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 21, 12:54 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 10/21/11 8:19 AM, cjcountess wrote:
>
> > > > there is no space devoid of energy/mass

If mass is packed thenow can anything move through it?
Mass space would be a solid that you can't move through.

> > >    It is even measurable!
> > >    See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
>
> > >    The quantization of a simple harmonic oscillator states that the
> > >    lowest possible energy or zero-point energy that such an oscillator
> > >    may have is

The math for z-p is easily demonstratable as bunk.
Take time to an instant at any poiint in space and energy goes
infinite.
This is bunk.

> > >      E = ωh/4π



> > >    Summing over all possible oscillators at all points in space gives
> > >    an infinite quantity.

You cannot sum to Infinity ever. If you think you can then show it.

> To remove this infinity, one may argue that
> > >    only differences in energy are physically measurable; this argument
> > >    is the underpinning of the theory of renormalization. In all
> > >    practical calculations, this is how the infinity is always handled.
> > >    In a deeper sense, however, renormalization is unsatisfying, and the
> > >    removal of this infinity presents a challenge in the search for a
> > >    Theory of Everything.
>
> > The more we know makes TOE just a dream   TreBert
>

> Aether displacement is a theory of everything.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Why does everyone need a Big TOE?
They already got two.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Byron Forbes]

In article <e2ab39e0-3738-46db...@i19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, mpc...@gmail.com says...
>
> The simplest explanation for the Michelson-Morley experiment results
> is Einstein was correct.
>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB#CMBR_dipole_anisotropy

"From the CMB data it is seen that our local group of galaxies (the galactic cluster that includes the Solar
System's Milky Way Galaxy) appears to be moving at 627±22 km/s relative to the reference frame of the CMB (also called
the CMB rest frame, or the frame of reference in which there is no motion through the CMB) in the direction of galactic
longitude l = 276±3°, b = 30±3°.[60] This motion results in an anisotropy of the data (CMB appearing slightly warmer in
the direction of movement than in the opposite direction).[61] The standard interpretation of this temperature
variation is a simple velocity redshift and blueshift due to motion relative to the CMB"


How is the MMX consistent with this?

This is clear evidence of a stationary aether as was the MGP experiment.

The CMBR is anisotropic in 1 single direction symmetrically - any conclusion other than the existence of a
stationary aether is absurd!

A ballistic theory is also consistent since it can be thought of as a gas so this could be the speed/direction of
that gas.

No way SR can explain this!

[Byron Forbes]

In article <c64ea515-1e4d-488c...@h39g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, sa...@comcast.net says...

[mpc755]

On Oct 22, 4:57 am, Byron Forbes <chocol...@caramel.com.au> wrote:
> In article <e2ab39e0-3738-46db-aae5-922464b84...@i19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, mpc...@gmail.com says...

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether 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.

To see a visual representation of the state of the aether as
determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of the
aether in neighboring places, which is the state of displacement of
the aether, watch the following video starting at 0:45. What is
referred to as a twist in spacetime is the state of displacement of
the aether. What is referred to as frame-dragging is the state of
displacement of the aether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE

The above video visually represents the state of displacement of the
aether of relativity.

Galaxy clusters move through and displace the aether. That is the
reason why there is an offset between the light lensing through the
space neighboring moving galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters
themselves.

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/21/2011 11:06 PM, xray4abc wrote:

> Hi, Benj
> My current position on this subject, in short is:
> There IS an aether or whatever may it be called, as it
> makes no sense to talk about waves propagating in a
> purely empty space.

How could a reasonable person hold any other view?

> The fact that we may not need it currently in different
> applications, or our inability to show it with our fingers,
> does not make it non-existent.

The problem with dogma is people want it all tied in neat little
packages. Nature isn't so accommodating.

> For me the very existance of electric and magnetic fields
> in itself is proof enough.

Well proof of SOMETHING transmitting force. It's funny the way
physicists call that "behavior fields" as if one can have behavior
without anything that the behavior describes! Pure illogic!

> In fact, notions like dark-matter, quantum-vacuum
> and such, make its existence more and more acceptable
> for physicists, so that its oponents will die out in
> due course.

Well eventually discoveries get made. And the very funny thing is that
all the clowns arguing tooth and nail for their insane theories will all
turn on a dime the minute they are proved totally false and every one of
these guys to a man will swear on his mother's grave that "everybody
knows" there is an aether and THEY never denied it!

Bwahahaha!

I've seen this happen so often (Theory of uniformity, plate tectonics,
animals speaking, etc.)

> In sci.physics.electromag I have started to analize
> some of the mistakes/lapses in our understanding of the
> electrical fields. (The thread is:Electrical interaction.)
> I do not have the time or will to try to convince
> "non-believers". What for? (Yet, I could use constructive
> critical opinions.)
> All the best, LL

And the real kick in the ass, is that many of the shills are actually
NOT "non-believers", they actually know the truth but have the JOB of
steering people away from the truth! Just take Old Wormer as an
example! Yep. Just like that.

Cheers. Benj

[Aetherist]

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:42:36 -0400, "BJA...@teranews.com" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

>On 10/21/2011 11:06 PM, xray4abc wrote:
>
>> Hi, Benj
>> My current position on this subject, in short is:
>> There IS an aether or whatever may it be called, as it
>> makes no sense to talk about waves propagating in a
>> purely empty space.
>
>How could a reasonable person hold any other view?

Well 'reasonable person' excludes those hiding behind such
psuedonyms as Inertial, Dono, as well as the likes of Shuba,
Gisse, Roberts, and Draper then doesn't it? :) Illogical
behavior is difficult to understand. It's easy to spot
though, because those that act this way usually cannot muster
any actual rational arguments and almost aways immediately
resort to childish behavior such as personal attacks and name
calling to try to hide their lack of capability, or, as you
point out below, as a shill tactic. It's also the mentality
of 'How dare you challenge our beliefs/status-quo/theories'

>> The fact that we may not need it currently in different
>> applications, or our inability to show it with our fingers,
>> does not make it non-existent.
>
>The problem with dogma is people want it all tied in neat little
>packages. Nature isn't so accommodating.

I think it is sometimes tied to emotive investment and ego.
They have spent awful lot of effort 'learning' the current paradymn
and cannot fathomn/admit that all those folks, esspecially
themselves,'could have been/be wrong' about anything. Many in
the field are to varying degrees like Sheldon's character on the
"Big Bang Theory'. It's genetics. It like trying to tell Sheldon
he's got his theory erong :)

>> For me the very existance of electric and magnetic fields
>> in itself is proof enough.
>
>Well proof of SOMETHING transmitting force. It's funny the way
>physicists call that "behavior fields" as if one can have behavior
>without anything that the behavior describes! Pure illogic!

No, actual proof of a medium. aka a physical substance
that has distributed properties like pressure... This
type of 'scientific evidence' was the real proof of aether
NOT! some imagined special properties of any single
state like a 'rest frame'.

>> In fact, notions like dark-matter, quantum-vacuum
>> and such, make its existence more and more acceptable
>> for physicists, so that its oponents will die out in
>> due course.
>
>Well eventually discoveries get made. And the very funny thing is that
>all the clowns arguing tooth and nail for their insane theories will all
>turn on a dime the minute they are proved totally false and every one of
>these guys to a man will swear on his mother's grave that "everybody
>knows" there is an aether and THEY never denied it!
>
>Bwahahaha!
>
>I've seen this happen so often (Theory of uniformity, plate tectonics,
>animals speaking, etc.)
>
>> In sci.physics.electromag I have started to analize
>> some of the mistakes/lapses in our understanding of the
>> electrical fields. (The thread is:Electrical interaction.)
>> I do not have the time or will to try to convince
>> "non-believers". What for? (Yet, I could use constructive
>> critical opinions.)
>> All the best, LL
>
>And the real kick in the ass, is that many of the shills are actually
>NOT "non-believers", they actually know the truth but have the JOB of
>steering people away from the truth! Just take Old Wormer as an
>example! Yep. Just like that.

Thre is much more truth in this statement than most here realise.
The reason is obvious, to those that can reason :)

>Cheers. Benj

[Dono.]

On Oct 22, 9:58 am, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think it is sometimes tied to emotive investment and ego.
> They have spent awful lot of effort 'learning' the current paradymn
> and cannot fathomn/admit that all those folks, esspecially
> themselves,'could have been/be wrong' about anything.  Many in
> the field are to varying degrees like Sheldon's character on the
> "Big Bang Theory'.  It's genetics.  It like trying to tell Sheldon
> he's got his theory erong :)  
>

Did you write the above while watching yourself in the mirror, Paul ,
old deluded fart?

[Aetherist]

What ones sees is the blatent lack of any substance to your posts,
as always.

[Dono.]

"Blatent", old fart? Learn how to spell. Well, at your age and with
your advanced case of Alzheimer....

[Szczepan Bialek]

"xray4abc" <lemh...@yahoo.ca> napisal w wiadomosci
news:3a71f2b0-d9ae-4c06...@f11g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

On Oct 20, 3:06 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>
> > EVERY test to detect aether has failed, you brain-dead aether zombie. If
> > they hadn't failed, aether would be part of modern physics. It isn't.
>

Vogel, H. C., "On the spectrographic method of determining the velocity
of
stars in the line of sight", Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, Vol. 52, p.87, 1891 >
"The first result of any importance which the spectrographic method
furnished was the proof of the influence of the Earth's motion on the
displacement, which the earlier direct observations had failed to show
with certainity. [...]" From:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1891MNRAS..52...87V

S*

[Aetherist]

Still name calling & lack of substance... Gotta feed you somethin'

[mpc755]

'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old
Cosmological Constant Problem'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955

"We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in this theory
are sourced by pressure or vorticity."

Pressure exerted by displaced aether toward matter is gravity.

[Aetherist]

Thanks,

Hey Dono, here's an example of posting something of s-u-b-s-t-a-n-c-e!
Like you could ever learn...

[Szczepan Bialek]

"Aetherist" <TheAet...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:acs5a7tdi7jthlfdb...@4ax.com...

But before Vogel was Arago:
""In 1818 Arago found that the refraction of a prism for star light was the
same for light incident in the direction of the earth's orbital velocity v
as for that coming in the opposite direction. This unexpected null result
was explained that same year by Fresnel's ether-dray theory, which assumed
partial ether entrainment in transparent media by an amount depending upon
the first power of v." From: http://www.3rd1000.com/chronoatoms.htm

Who is right: Arago or Vogel?
S*

[mpc755]

On Oct 22, 12:54 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>  "Aetherist" <TheAether...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:acs5a7tdi7jthlfdb...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 18:36:49 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl>
> > wrote:
>
> >> "xray4abc" <lemhen...@yahoo.ca> napisal w wiadomosci

Einstein is more correct.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether 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.

To see a visual representation of the state of the aether as
determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of the
aether in neighboring places, which is the state of displacement of
the aether, watch the following video starting at 0:45. What is
referred to as a twist in spacetime is the state of displacement of
the aether. What is referred to as frame-dragging is the state of
displacement of the aether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE

The video represents the state of displacement of the aether of
relativity.

[Aguirre]

On 22 Okt., 18:54, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>  "Aetherist" <TheAether...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:acs5a7tdi7jthlfdb...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 18:36:49 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl>
> > wrote:
>
> >> "xray4abc" <lemhen...@yahoo.ca> napisal w wiadomosci

> S*- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

Oh Dr Vogel is involved?
Don`t worry.

Und wenn ich will das die Vögel tot von den Bäumen fallen
dann fallen die Vögel tot von den Bäumen, denn
ich bin Aguirre der Zorn Gottes

[Dono.]

On Oct 22, 11:40 am, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 18:36:49 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> > "xray4abc" <lemhen...@yahoo.ca> napisal w wiadomosci

But old deluded imbecile, the Vogel observation has nothing to do with
any aether.

[cjcountess]

mpc755

I do agree that there is substance to space as you know, call it
aether or otherwise. My problem with your description is in the
details.

Where you say:

> You have a pool full of water. You throw a bowling ball into the
> water.
>
> Does the mass associated with the water change?
>
> No.
>
> Does the energy associated with the water change?
>
> Yes.
>
> What I have figured out is when a nuclear bomb explodes matter
> evaporates into aether. The evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.
> Energy is conserved.
>
> A change in state of that which has mass is energy.

I would say:


You have a pool full of water. You through temperature change,
contract some of it into a solid

Does the mass associated with the water change?

Not totally, but some of it changes form from liquid to solid

Does the energy associated with the water change?

Not totally, but some of it changes form from liquid to solid

What I have figured out is when a nuclear bomb explodes matter

which is standing spherical waves, held together by binding circular
waves, unravel, changing the momentum of the spherical and circular
energy that is contracted into and forms the matter, into a more
linearly directed direction momentum outward from the center of
contraction. The evaporation unravels the spherical and circular waves
that comprise matter into a more linear form, which comprise radiant
energy whose momentum is directed outward in an expanding fashion.
Mass and energy are both conserved as a whole system, but not as
individual units, as they do transform into each other, through
expansion and contraction.

Conrad J Countess


Sam


As to your response:

> Ouch -- Major *Failure on your part, Conrad*, not understanding the
> difference between Force and Energy. I'll bet you don't even know
> which one is conserved in nature.
>
> Noether's theorem
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
>
> You should get yourself a copy of a first year physics textbook and
> learn some basic physics.

My reasons for stating the equivalence of force and energy should have
been clear, and I do think that it was. But what is even more clear to
me is that you do not think for yourself and are with Blind Faith or
confidence following your indoctrination by a self-righteous group of
conservative physicist who , like the party of NO, NO, NO, have so
much time , money pride and prestige invested in this that you will
stick to your story as if your life depended on it. And while your
livelihood may very well do indeed depend on it, I like “Aetherist”
also believe that as soon as one of your High Priest of physics,
denounces the old way because of the overwhelming weight of the
exponentially expanding evidence, you will get on board and claim you
always were and that we just misunderstood your disagreement, just as
you did before with my Electron structure, Origin of Rest Mass being
in background energy field, and Skirting of the Uncertainty Principle.

Your pattern of behavior seems to be pretty much predictable.


Conrad J Countess

[mpc755]

Mass and energy do not transform into each other.

The expansion is energy. The contraction is energy.

Matter and aether transform into each other.

A change in the state of that which has mass is energy.

[Sam Wormley]

On 10/22/11 1:38 PM, cjcountess wrote:
> What I have figured out is when a nuclear bomb explodes matter
> which is standing spherical waves, held together by binding circular
> waves, unravel, changing the momentum of the spherical and circular
> energy that is contracted into and forms the matter, into a more
> linearly directed direction momentum outward from the center of
> contraction. The evaporation unravels the spherical and circular waves
> that comprise matter into a more linear form, which comprise radiant
> energy whose momentum is directed outward in an expanding fashion.
> Mass and energy are both conserved as a whole system, but not as
> individual units, as they do transform into each other, through
> expansion and contraction.

Conrad, you use words like, momentum, energy, mass, linear, binding
circular, waves, evaporation, etc., as though you have no real
understanding of what they really mean.

"standing spherical waves, held together by binding circular
waves, unravel, changing the momentum of the spherical and circular

energy". Either can't express yourself, or more likely, you have no
idea what you are babbling about.

[mpc755]

Conrad understands when a nuclear bomb explodes the mass physically
transitions from a condensed state to an expanded state.

In my words, Conrad understands when a nuclear bomb explodes matter
evaporates into aether. He also understands the evaporation is energy.
He also understands mass and energy are conserved.

Much more than I can say for you.

But you go right ahead and continue to add no value.

It's what you are good at.

[xray4abc]

On Oct 22, 12:36 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>  "xray4abc" <lemhen...@yahoo.ca> napisal w wiadomoscinews:3a71f2b0-d9ae-4c06...@f11g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

Hm!
My finding (and not only mine) is that ALL experiments done
regarding the issue are/were flawed as they did not consider
the change in the substance of the photons/radiation
through transmission or through reflection.
Just one single example: no experience made in the
presence of air can prove anything, as the light is being
continuously absorbed and then re-emitted when propagating
in air. Then, the re-emitted radiation/photon
of course, will not have the "memory" to keep its
initial speed. Even in the interstellar space there
is matter enough along the long way, so that we should
count on the same effect.
Check the literature if you have doubts.
In my opinion the score is 1:1 regarding the issue,
so don't be so aggressive, you do not have a
better standing on this issue then those that
believe in ...some kind of aether,
electron-positron lattice, etc. !
(Of course, if it makes You happy to kick
ass, no matter you are right or not...
just go ahead, have fun!)
Regards, LL

[Szczepan Bialek]

"xray4abc" <lemh...@yahoo.ca> napisal w wiadomosci

news:51f104e1-50ba-43c3...@f11g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

In the literature no the latest effects.
Now are the spacecrafts which transmit radio waves for years.

People who received them know if the frequency is diurinal and/or annual
dependent.
Do you know the effects?

<In my opinion the score is 1:1 regarding the issue,
so don't be so aggressive, you do not have a
better standing on this issue then those that
believe in ...some kind of aether,
electron-positron lattice, etc. !
<(Of course, if it makes You happy to kick
ass, no matter you are right or not...
just go ahead, have fun!)

It is very funny that we do not know the fundamental result.
S*

[Byron Forbes]

In article <bd92c8f7-e75f-46fd...@v33g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, jon.c...@gmail.com says...

>
> On Oct 21, 4:55 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 21, 7:41 pm, "G=EMC^2" <herbertglazi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 21, 12:54 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On 10/21/11 8:19 AM, cjcountess wrote:
> >
> > > > > there is no space devoid of energy/mass
>
> If mass is packed thenow can anything move through it?
> Mass space would be a solid that you can't move through.
>

You assume that there are forces of repulsion between matter and aether.

What are they - electric?

[mpc755]

On Oct 23, 8:13 am, Byron Forbes <chocol...@caramel.com.au> wrote:
> In article <bd92c8f7-e75f-46fd-ac4d-e31def4e7...@v33g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, jon.car...@gmail.com says...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 21, 4:55 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 21, 7:41 pm, "G=EMC^2" <herbertglazi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 21, 12:54 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 10/21/11 8:19 AM, cjcountess wrote:
>
> > > > > > there is no space devoid of energy/mass
>
> > If mass is packed thenow can anything move through it?
> > Mass space would be a solid that you can't move through.
>
>         You assume that there are forces of repulsion between matter and aether.
>
>         What are they - electric?

The Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet;
analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.

Dark flow is aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal
jet.

Dark energy is the change in state of the aether emitted into and
propagating through the Universal jet.

The aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet
causes the matter in the Universe to move away from each other.

The following image more correctly represents an ongoing process then
it does a big bang.

http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html

The reason for the 'expansion' of the universe is the continual
emission of aether into the Universal jet. What we see in our
telescopes is the matter associated with the Universe moving outward
and away from the Universal jet emission point. In the image above,
'1st Stars' is where the pressure associated with the aether emitted
into the Universal jet causes the aether to condense into matter.

It's not the Big Bang. It's the Big Ongoing.

[Szczepan Bialek]

"Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> napisal w wiadomosci
news:283af460-25a8-41da...@u24g2000pru.googlegroups.com...

If the light is a wave than it is important. In that time there were the two
aethers.
The Cauchy-Stokes aether which rotate with the Sun and the Lorentz aether as
a solid body.
S*

[mpc755]

On Oct 23, 12:12 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>  "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> napisal w wiadomoscinews:283af460-25a8-41da...@u24g2000pru.googlegroups.com...

[jon car]

> relativity.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Aether distance unifies it with dimension.

[cjcountess]

Ok mpc755

I see your point. But I do, think that energy and matter change into
each other, energy into matter by moving in circular and or spherical
rotation, and matter into energy by unwinding into a more linear form
of wavy lines, which become straighter with lower frequency.. Still I
agree with you on the more general issue of the aether.

Sam

That was just an attempted description that has to start somewhere, so
why not there? Most descriptions do begin with a rough sketch and are
refined as time goes on. But how could you know this when all you do
is cut and paste without the slightest understanding of what the
article really means.

For instance

Did you know that E=1/2h/2piw also = h/2pi/2 = E=mc^2 and applies to
electrons themselves?

The description of balls attached to springs is modeled on charged
particles sharing photons between them. The charges have a minimum
energy of 1/2h/2piw because they are electrons but the springs also
have a minimum energy of “h”, because they are electromagnetic waves.

And because even the most empty space still contains a residual
electromagnetic energy, the lowest of which can be modeled on a spring
or “wave” uncompressed as a straight line before being displaced, the
lowest possible energy at any point in that field might be said to be
“h”. This is because as all electromagnetic waves move at constant
speed of “c” linearly, regardless of frequency, “except when they are
standing spherical waves, such as electrons or other rest mass
particles”, and also have a constant mass/energy of “h” regardless of
frequency also, the lowest possible energy of the field must too be
“h”, with energies of 1/2h/2piw emerging from very excited states as
indeed electrons do emerge from photons as well as photons emerging
from electrons.

Conrad J Countess

[Sam Wormley]

On 10/24/11 10:58 AM, cjcountess wrote:

>
> Did you know that E=1/2h/2piw also = h/2pi/2 = E=mc^2 and applies to
> electrons themselves?
>

The kinetic energy K_e of an electron moving with velocity v is

K_e = (γ - 1) m_e c^2

where m_e is the mass of the electron and γ = 1/√(1 - v^2/c^2) .