verifying the expansion of space

[RichD]

Alex Filippenko, in his lecture on dark energy, said that
astrophysics can tell the difference between space -
the vacuum - expanding, and objects moving through space.

How?

Also, he says dark energy has negative pressure.
What does that mean, how do they measure it?

--
Rich

[micro...@hotmail.com]

Orbits expand and galaxies grow as light is red shifted
crossing expanding space. The hypersphere universe has no prefered
scale. It expands everywhere.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Brad Guth]

On Jun 13, 8:56 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Negative pressure, as in antimatter?

Would not the quantum joining of matter and antimatter = 2c

What is a reflection of our universe, if not negative photons.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG, Guth Usenet/Guth Venus

[Brad Guth]

On Jun 13, 9:02 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Except where galaxies are merging and joining up.

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/13/12 6/13/12 10:56 PM, RichD wrote:
> Alex Filippenko, in his lecture on dark energy, said that
> astrophysics can tell the difference between space -
> the vacuum - expanding, and objects moving through space.
> How?

An expansion of space, as in the FRW manifolds, is universal, and everything
sufficiently far away will be seen to recede from any point in the manifold,
such as the location of earth. Moving objects, however, are not so systematic,
and they move in essentially random directions. Moreover, the speed of the
expansion is often/usually larger than typical speeds of moving objects (what
astronomers call their "proper speed", in which "proper" does not have the
meaning used in relativity).

> Also, he says dark energy has negative pressure.
> What does that mean, how do they measure it?

"Dark energy" is the name for a putative "substance" that "generates" the
cosmological constant needed to model the accelerating cosmic expansion
discovered a decade or so ago. The positive value of the cosmological constant
is really EQUIVALENT to a negative pressure, it is not actually one itself. Any
real pressure would appear in the energy-momentum tensor, rather than in the
term involving the cosmological constant. So by "negative pressure" they mean
the form of the e-m tensor that would mimic the c-c term's effect on the geometry.

The properties of this "substance" (other than negative pressure),
and the details of how it "generates" a positive cosmological
constant, are left unspecified.


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/13/12 6/13/12 11:10 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Negative pressure, as in antimatter?

No. Antimatter is VERY different, and has positive pressure insofar as a
pressure can be attributed to it (which is rarely the case).

One cannot ascribe a pressure to isolated atoms or particles,
and that is generally how antimatter appears in our universe.


Tom Roberts

[mpc755]

On Jun 14, 12:34 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 6/13/12 6/13/12   10:56 PM, RichD wrote:
>
> > Alex Filippenko, in his lecture on dark energy, said that
> > astrophysics can tell the difference between space -
> > the vacuum -  expanding, and objects moving through space.
> > How?
>
> An expansion of space, as in the FRW manifolds, is universal, and everything
> sufficiently far away will be seen to recede from any point in the manifold,
> such as the location of earth. Moving objects, however, are not so systematic,
> and they move in essentially random directions.

Which is refuted by the matter in the Universe spinning about a
preferred axis and directionality of galaxy clusters which can not be
explained by the big bang.

'Was the universe born spinning?'
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688

"The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a
preferred axis"

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

'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html

'The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our
solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion
is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed
outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule
out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right
now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the
clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said.'

The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or
the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet.

The following is an image analogous of the Universal jet.

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. Three dimensional space
associated with the Universe itself is not expanding. 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 aether condenses into matter.

The following is an image analogous of the Universe, or the local
Universe, we exist in.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/planetarium/graphics/st_images/BlackHole.jpg

The following is an image analogous of the Universal spin.

http://i.space.com/images/i/612/i02/040817_quasar_illo_02.jpg?1292259454

Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.

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

[mpc755]

Dark energy is not negative pressure.

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

The analogy is objects exiting the mouth of a river. The objects move
away from one another.

Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.

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

Don't fall for the lazy nonsense dogma of mainstream physics.

[Brad Guth]

Yes, "the big ongoing" of a BH polar jet sounds about right.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jun 13, 8:56 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Alex Filippenko,

Who? <shrug>

> in his lecture on dark energy, said that
> astrophysics can tell the difference between space -
> the vacuum - expanding, and objects moving through space.
>
> How?

It depends on how much faith you have in GR. <shrug>

> Also, he says dark energy has negative pressure.
> What does that mean, how do they measure it?

It means vacuum manifests a negative mass density. The concept of a
negative mass density is so fvcking ludicrous, and the self-styled
physicists know that. So, instead of presenting what dark energy
actually is (negative mass density in vacuum), they just mystified it
with this term dark energy. <shrug>

Oh, by introducing this dark energy, the first law of thermodynamics
is easily falsified. It is indirectly decided based on at least three
assumptions where all these assumptions have to be valid to falsify
the first law of thermodynamics. If interested, Koobee Wublee will
discuss it further. Otherwise, behaving like the self-styled
physicists with their thumbs plugged into their anuses, the discussion
will allow Koobee Wublee to have the last words again --- not by
choice but by the ignorance of the self-styled physicists. <shrug>

[Ron Gibbs]

"RichD" wrote in message
news:3ba627a4-3d11-4a59...@po9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet another cross-posted discussion with no relevance to sci.optics? Please
consider leaving us out of it.

Ron

[ken...@att.net]

Observed Dark Energy is the result of objects following the divergent
structure of the medium (called the E-Matrix) occupying space. Gravity
is the combined result of an attractive force derived from the
interacting objects moving in the same direction in the E-Matrix less
the repulsive effect derived from the interacting objects following
the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. That's why gravity is so weak
compare to the other forces. A paper on on this new concept of gravity
is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/14/12 6/14/12 1:08 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Jun 13, 8:56 pm, RichD<r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Also, he says dark energy has negative pressure.
>> What does that mean, how do they measure it?
>

> It means vacuum manifests a negative mass density. [...]

No. It is negative PRESSURE.

> The concept of a
> negative mass density is so fvcking ludicrous,

So why did YOU make it up?

As usual, Koobee gets it completely wrong. He is so consistent in that, and so
persistent in attempting to promulgate his nonsense, that it is rarely
appropriate to respond to him.


Tom Roberts

[mpc755]

On Jun 14, 8:22 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 6/14/12 6/14/12   1:08 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> > On Jun 13, 8:56 pm, RichD<r_delaney2...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
> >> Also, he says dark energy has negative pressure.
> >> What does that mean, how do they measure it?
>
> > It means vacuum manifests a negative mass density. [...]
>
> No. It is negative PRESSURE.
>

No. Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.

[dlzc]

Dear RichD:

On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 8:56:06 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> Alex Filippenko, in his lecture on dark energy,
> said that astrophysics can tell the difference
> between space - the vacuum - expanding, and
> objects moving through space.
>
> How?

Expansion talks about *us* "moving" wrt sources at a given (younger) age, and moving objects are moving wrt all other objects. So if we see a red shift for every object, full spectrum, specular, of a given "age of emission", then we know it is *us* "moving", and not every object on our light cone at that "distance".

> Also, he says dark energy has negative pressure.
> What does that mean, how do they measure it?

Tom Robert's response is really clear. I cannot "plain folks" it any better.

David A. Smith

[G=EMC^2]

Expansion is the convex in my theory on space curve

[mpc755]

In your theory which you have been working on for 68 years you have
still failed to correctly understand what occurs physically in nature
to cause gravity.

In aether displacement, aether has mass and physically occupies three
dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter. There is
no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter traveling with matter.
Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

Einstein's definition of the state of the aether:

the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by
connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring
places[3]

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.

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 a well defined path which
takes it through one slit while the associated aether wave passes
through both.

The Michelson-Morley experiment disproved a stationary aether the
Earth moved through. The Sagnac effect disproved a completely
entrained aether. The aether is neither stationary nor completely
entrained by the Earth. Aether is displaced by matter.

[mpc755]

And incorrect.

The Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet; a

larger version of a black holes polar jet.

The analogy are objects exiting the mouth of a river. The object move
away from each other.

[HVAC]

On 6/14/2012 10:32 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>
> Expansion is the convex in my theory on space curve

Please lay out your 'theory' in it's entirety.

(He won't because he has no theory'










--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

[dlzc]

Dear Tom Roberts:

On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:34:08 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/13/12 6/13/12 10:56 PM, RichD wrote:
> > Alex Filippenko, in his lecture on dark energy,
> > said that astrophysics can tell the difference
> > between space - the vacuum - expanding, and
> > objects moving through space.
> > How?
>
> An expansion of space, as in the FRW manifolds,
> is universal, and everything sufficiently far
> away will be seen to recede from any point in
> the manifold, such as the location of earth.
> Moving objects, however, are not so systematic,
> and they move in essentially random directions.
> Moreover, the speed of the expansion is often /
> usually larger than typical speeds of moving
> objects (what astronomers call their "proper
> speed", in which "proper" does not have the
> meaning used in relativity).

In this case, "proper" means something like "peculiar speed of a luminous object within an acceptable / expected range of speeds".

> > Also, he says dark energy has negative pressure.
> > What does that mean, how do they measure it?
>
> "Dark energy" is the name for a putative
> "substance" that "generates" the cosmological
> constant needed to model the accelerating
> cosmic expansion discovered a decade or so ago.
> The positive value of the cosmological constant
> is really EQUIVALENT to a negative pressure, it
> is not actually one itself. Any real pressure
> would appear in the energy-momentum tensor,
> rather than in the term involving the
> cosmological constant. So by "negative
> pressure" they mean the form of the e-m tensor
> that would mimic the c-c term's effect on the
> geometry.
>
> The properties of this "substance" (other
> than negative pressure), and the details of
> how it "generates" a positive cosmological
> constant, are left unspecified.

David A. Smith

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jun 14, 5:22 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/14/12 6/14/12 1:08 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > It [Dark Engery] means vacuum manifests a negative mass

> > density. The concept of a negative mass density is so fvcking
> > ludicrous, and the self-styled physicists know that. So,
> > instead of presenting what dark energy actually is (negative
> > mass density in vacuum), they just mystified it with this term
> > dark energy. <shrug>
>

> No. It is negative PRESSURE.

Denial? Well, math does not lie. So, let’s start with the Lagrangian
on which the field equations are derived, and Koobee Wublee would be
more than happy to show Professor Roberts how this negative pressure
is exactly a negative mass density in vacuum. <shrug>

** L = (R / K + rho) sqrt(-det[g])

Where

** L = Lagrangian
** R = Ricci scalar
** K = Constant
** rho = Mass density
** [g] = The metric (a 4x4 matrix)
** det[] = Determinant of a matrix

You can easily derive the field equation from the Lagrangian above in
just one single step through Leibniz’s rules of derivatives. Oh, for
those who are looking for how this Lagrangian is derived, it was one
pulled out of Hilbert’s ass with the mass density term added. <shrug>

** [R] – R [g] / 2 = K rho [g] / 2

Where

** [R] = Ricci tensor (another 4x4 matrix)

Note: If you like, you can write the above field equation in its
matrix form into the following element-by-element form.

** [R]_ij – R [g]_ij / 2 = K rho [g]_ij / 2

Where

** []_ij = The i’th, j’th element in the matrix

There are many ways to apply the boundary conditions (such as
degeneracy into Newtonian law of gravity). Each way results in a
different value of this constant, K. For the purpose of this
exercise, let’s leave K alone since working with the boundary
conditions can be discussed in great length. Then, the mass density,
rho, can be written into the following.

** rho = rho1 + rho0

Where

** rho1 >= 0, Positive or null (if in vacuum) mass density
** rho0 <= 0, Negative mass density in vacuum

The field equations can be written as follows.

** [R] – R [g] / 2 = K (rho1 + rho0) [g] / 2

Or

** [R] – R [g] / 2 – K rho0 [g] / 2 = K rho1 [g] / 2

Or

** [R] – (LAMBDA + R / 2) [g] / 2 = [T]

Where

** LAMBDA = K rho0 / 2, Cosmological Constant

** [T] = Energy momentum tensor (another 4x4 matrix)

Thus, LAMBDA, the Cosmological Constant, is a negative mass density in
vacuum in disguise. This so-called vacuum pressure results from this
negative mass density. <shrug>

The funny thing is that you don’t have to go to GR to find the
ridiculous nature in the negative mass density in vacuum. The Poisson
equation shows this too. So, please study Newtonian law of gravity
first. <shrug>

> > Oh, by introducing this dark energy, the first law of
> > thermodynamics is easily falsified. It is indirectly decided
> > based on at least three assumptions where all these assumptions
> > have to be valid to falsify the first law of thermodynamics.
> > If interested, Koobee Wublee will discuss it further. Otherwise,
> > behaving like the self-styled physicists with their thumbs plugged
> > into their anuses, the discussion will allow Koobee Wublee to have
> > the last words again --- not by choice but by the ignorance of the
> > self-styled physicists. <shrug>
>

> So why did YOU make it up?

Koobee Wublee did not make it up. All you need to do is to actually
study what GR actually says instead of deciding what GR is through
mysticism, ignorance, and downright lies. Koobee Wublee believes
studying the subjects involved was your suggestion, no? <shrug>

> As usual, Koobee gets it completely wrong. He is so consistent in that, and so
> persistent in attempting to promulgate his nonsense, that it is rarely
> appropriate to respond to him.

You don’t respond because you are incapable of responding using ideas
within the knowledge in science. Please stop giving excuses. <shrug>

Oh, as a parting comment, GR has never been verified with non-zero
energy momentum tensor. This includes binary star systems. So,
please don’t try to spin more mysticism with the energy momentum
tensor. <shrug>

[Tonico]

Koobe Wublee = Idiot shrugging around

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/14/12 6/14/12 8:18 AM, China Blue Meanies wrote:
> When a charge is accelerated, it has a magnetic field.

Acceleration is not necessary, merely motion relative to the coordinates used.


> If instead the space
> containing the charge accelerates, does the charge still have a magnetic field?

Yes, if one uses coordinates in which it is not at rest; no if one uses
coordinates in which it is at rest.

Neither electric nor magnetic fields are really fields in the
modern sense of functions on the manifold. But the names live on.
The EM field is a 2-form, not two "3-vector fields". The
separation of the 2-form into E and B is coordinate dependent.


When a charge is accelerated, it emits EM radiation. So consider: does a distant
charge radiate if the manifold is experiencing an accelerated expansion? The
answer is similar: if an observer is co-moving with the charge and close to it,
that observer sees no radiation; but an observer not co-moving does.

[I'm pretty sure this is only true to lowest order.]

A related question: does a charge at rest on the earth's surface radiate? -- no
to an observer at rest nearby on the earth's surface; yes to an inertial
observer falling past, or to an observer at rest on the surface far away.


Note the difference between the use of COORDINATES in the first answer, but an
observer in the later ones. The magnetic field is coordinate-dependent, but
radiation is not; some radiation is observer dependent, and some radiation is
independent of observer (e.g. self-propagating waves such as light).


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/14/12 6/14/12 8:58 AM, dlzc wrote:
>> An expansion of space, as in the FRW manifolds,
>> is universal, and everything sufficiently far
>> away will be seen to recede from any point in
>> the manifold, such as the location of earth.
>> Moving objects, however, are not so systematic,
>> and they move in essentially random directions.
>> Moreover, the speed of the expansion is often /
>> usually larger than typical speeds of moving
>> objects (what astronomers call their "proper
>> speed", in which "proper" does not have the
>> meaning used in relativity).
>
> In this case, "proper" means something like "peculiar speed of a luminous object within an acceptable / expected range of speeds".

No. In astronomy, "proper motion" refers to an object's motion relative to the
earth, perpendicular to its line of sight; this is independent of the overall
cosmological expansion. I believe the earth's rotation and orbit are subtracted
away, but the solar system's motion is not.

In physics, an object's "proper motion" would be identically zero, as we use
"proper" to mean "referenced to the object itself".


Tom Roberts

[4HEAD]

Negative pressure? Sounds like anti gravity.
That's it. I'm making plans to drag ol Bessie
out to the observing site Saturday. I got the bug.
((Ś :->)

[Phil Hobbs]

Would you folks please consider dropping sci.optics from your
crossposts?

Thanks

Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Jun 14, 7:54 pm, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:

Orbits in gravity expand into faster time.
Light is redshifted crossing expanding space.

Mitchell Raemsch

[HVAC]

On 6/14/2012 9:19 PM, 4HEAD wrote:
> On 6/13/2012 10:56 PM, RichD wrote:
>> Alex Filippenko, in his lecture on dark energy, said that
>> astrophysics can tell the difference between space -
>> the vacuum - expanding, and objects moving through space.
>>
>> How?
>>
>> Also, he says dark energy has negative pressure.
>> What does that mean, how do they measure it?
>>
>

> Negative pressure? Sounds like anti gravity.

Only to a kook.

'Dark energy' is merely a property of space...It expands.
When kooks like you hear anything with 'dark' in the name,
they get all sci-fi. 'Dark energy' is quite pedestrian.

[mpc755]

On Jun 14, 9:19 pm, 4HEAD <u...@localhost.invalid> wrote:
> On 6/13/2012 10:56 PM, RichD wrote:
>
> > Alex Filippenko, in his lecture on dark energy, said that
> > astrophysics can tell the difference between space -
> > the vacuum -  expanding, and objects moving through space.
>
> > How?
>
> > Also, he says dark energy has negative pressure.
> > What does that mean, how do they measure it?
>
> > --
> > Rich
>
> Negative pressure? Sounds like anti gravity.

Both are nonsense.

The Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet; a

larger version of a black hole polar jet.

The analogy is objects exiting the mouth of a river. The objects move
away from one another.

Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.

It's not the big bang; it's the big ongoing.

[Ron Gibbs]

>
> Would you folks please consider dropping sci.optics from your
> crossposts?
>
> Thanks
>
> Phil Hobbs
> --
> Dr Philip C D Hobbs
> Principal Consultant
> ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
> Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
>
> 160 North State Road #203
> Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
> 845-480-2058
>
> hobbs at electrooptical dot nethttp://electrooptical.net
>
>

Orbits in gravity expand into faster time.
Light is redshifted crossing expanding space.

Mitchell Raemsch

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't have put it better myself.

Evidently many people are interested in astrophysics, but none of the
discussion involves optics, and none of the contributors are sci.optics
regulars. Please stop cross-posting to sci.optics!

Ron Gibbs

[Hägar]

<micro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2b3a4b2-0eb3-4add...@re7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 13, 8:56 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Alex Filippenko, in his lecture on dark energy, said that
> astrophysics can tell the difference between space -
> the vacuum - expanding, and objects moving through space.
>
> How?
>
> Also, he says dark energy has negative pressure.
> What does that mean, how do they measure it?
>
> --
> Rich
>
>

Orbits expand and galaxies grow as light is red shifted
crossing expanding space. The hypersphere universe has no prefered
scale. It expands everywhere.

Mitchell Raemsch

**********************************
The Galaxies themselves DO NOT grow. The distance between them does.
So, GuthBall, before you parade any of your non-scientific nonsense in a
demonstration of utter ignorance, consider this:
In order for a Galaxy to expand, it combined gravitational force would have
do diminish. It does not. Stars may burn out, matter may change from one
form to another. but the total mass pretty much remains the same ... in
perpetuity ...

[RichD]

On Jun 14, Phil Hobbs

> > > Alex Filippenko, in his lecture on dark energy, said that
> > >astrophysics can tell the difference between space -
> > >the vacuum -  expanding, and objects moving
> > >through space.
> > > How?
>
> > > Also, he says dark energy has negative pressure.
> > > What does that mean, how do they measure it?
>

> Would you folks please consider dropping sci.optics
> from your crossposts?

A question of astronomical observations,
telescopes etc, ougth to be pertinent to opticians.

--
Rich

[HVAC]

On 6/15/2012 7:41 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> The Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet; a
> larger version of a black hole polar jet.
>
> The analogy is objects exiting the mouth of a river. The objects move
> away from one another.
>
> Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.

Jet THIS, dipshit.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

Space distance is being created inbetween...
In Cosmology distance forever growing is the problem.

Do all stars die and float apart forever?

Mitchell Raemsch

[mpc755]

On Jun 15, 7:14 pm, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/15/2012 7:41 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> > The Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet; a
> > larger version of a black hole polar jet.
>
> > The analogy is objects exiting the mouth of a river. The objects move
> > away from one another.
>
> > Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.
>
> Jet THIS

'Was the universe born spinning?'
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688

"The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a
preferred axis"

The Universe spins around a preferred axis because the Universe is, or

the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet; a larger version of a
black hole polar jet.

'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html

'The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our
solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion
is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed
outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule
out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right
now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the
clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said.'

The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or
the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet.

The following is an image analogous of the Universal jet.

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. Three dimensional space
associated with the Universe itself is not expanding. 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 aether condenses into matter.

Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.

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

[micro...@hotmail.com]

There was an instant before the beginning of time...
The hypersphere universe expanded.
light traversing expanding space expands in
a red energy shift.

Mitchell Raemsch

[mpc755]

[Brad Guth]

You'd think so, but they only seem to deal favorably with insiders of
their own kind, and you are not one of their kind.

[HVAC]

On 6/15/2012 7:38 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Space distance is being created inbetween...

Space ITSELF is expanding.

> In Cosmology distance forever growing is the problem.

Says who, and why would ANYONE say that.

> Do all stars die and float apart forever?

Eventually, yes.

[HVAC]

On 6/15/2012 8:29 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.

There is no 'ether'.

[HVAC]

On 6/15/2012 9:19 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>
> There was an instant before the beginning of time...

No.

[mpc755]

On Jun 16, 5:47 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/15/2012 8:29 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.
>
> There is no 'ether'.
>

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable" - Albert Einstein

"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous
“energetic contact” with a hidden medium" - Louis de Broglie

"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

Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.

[HVAC]

On 6/16/2012 6:58 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>>> Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.
>>
>> There is no 'ether'.
>>
>
> "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
> unthinkable" - Albert Einstein

Einstein was wrong. He later admitted it.

Look, I am one of the smartest people on the planet.
If I was wrong, I would certainly know it.

[mpc755]

On Jun 16, 7:17 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/16/2012 6:58 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> >>> Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.
>
> >> There is no 'ether'.
>
> > "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
> > unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
>
> Einstein was wrong. He later admitted it.
>

Nobel Laureates Einstein, de Broglie and Laughlin disagree with you.

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable" - Albert Einstein

Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.

[HVAC]

On 6/16/2012 9:22 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>>>>> Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.
>>
>>>> There is no 'ether'.
>>
>>> "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
>>> unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
>>
>> Einstein was wrong. He later admitted it.
>>
>
> Nobel Laureates Einstein, de Broglie and Laughlin disagree with you.

I don't care WHO disagrees. The truth is the truth. There is NO ether.
Learn to deal with the facts, son.

Who was it that said, "Ether, much like god, can be treated EXACTLY as
if it doesn't exist"? Oh ya, that was ME.

[mpc755]

On Jun 16, 9:30 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/16/2012 9:22 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> >>>>> Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.
>
> >>>> There is no 'ether'.
>
> >>> "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
> >>> unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
>
> >> Einstein was wrong. He later admitted it.
>
> > Nobel Laureates Einstein, de Broglie and Laughlin disagree with you.
>
> I don't care WHO disagrees. The truth is the truth. There is NO ether.
> Learn to deal with the facts, son.
>
> Who was it that said, "Ether, much like god, can be treated EXACTLY as
> if it doesn't exist"?   Oh ya, that was ME.
>

I'll stick with Einstein, de Broglie and Laughlin.

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable" - Albert Einstein

[Brad Guth]

The energy, density and flow of physically empty space is kind of 2D
invisible. In order to see or detect it we'll need to create or at
least simulate its third dimension.

[mpc755]

I do not think it can be known if aether flows or not. What we are
able to detect is a spin about a preferred axis of the Universe. What
we are able to detect is directionality of galaxy clusters which can
not only not be explained by the big bang, it disproves the big bang.

Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.

[HVAC]

On 6/16/2012 11:47 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> I do not think it can be known if aether flows or not. What we are
> able to detect is a spin about a preferred axis of the Universe. What
> we are able to detect is directionality of galaxy clusters which can
> not only not be explained by the big bang, it disproves the big bang.

Only to a kook.

[mpc755]

On Jun 16, 12:30 pm, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/16/2012 11:47 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> > I do not think it can be known if aether flows or not. What we are
> > able to detect is a spin about a preferred axis of the Universe. What
> > we are able to detect is directionality of galaxy clusters which can
> > not only not be explained by the big bang, it disproves the big bang.
>
> Only to a kook.
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Pilot_waves

Louis de Broglie stated, "any particle, even isolated, has to be

imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium"

'Foundations of Physics, Volume 13, Issue 2'
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g024j8473364l780/

"It is shown that one can deduce the de Broglie waves as real
collective Markov processes on the top of Dirac's aether"

de Broglie waves are real and exist on top of Dirac's aether.

The "energetic contact" with a hidden medium is the aether physically
displaced by the particle.

A moving particle has an associated aether wave; analogous to the bow
wave of a boat.

In a double slit experiment, the particle has a well defined
trajectory which takes it through one slit while the associated aether
wave passes through both.

'A quantum take on certainty : Nature News'
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110602/full/news.2011.344.html

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
both slits."

"other interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the pilot-wave
theory, might "help us to think in new ways"."

Something you are incapable of doing.

[Brad Guth]

I agree, that any Big Bang theory is just a premature conjecture based
upon extremely limited and totally subjective knowledge from the best
available science that's outdated by at least 13.7 billion years.

So, where's the other universe?

What's in between the two primary universes?

[Brad Guth]

Harlow can't seem to deal with new poop showing up in his pants, much
less any new or improved cosmology.

[HVAC]

On 6/16/2012 12:47 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>> It's not the Big Bang. It's the Big Ongoing.
>
> I agree, that any Big Bang theory is just a premature conjecture based
> upon extremely limited and totally subjective knowledge from the best
> available science that's outdated by at least 13.7 billion years.
>
> So, where's the other universe?
>
> What's in between the two primary universes?

There ya go, MPC...There's your supporter.
Long time net look, Brad Goth.

Good luck with that.

[HVAC]

On 6/16/2012 12:49 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> Harlow can't seem to deal with new poop showing up in his pants, much
> less any new or improved cosmology.

You just cannot stop yourself from expressing your fecal/anal fetish,
can you Goth? I advise you to seek psychiatric treatment before you
slip further into your insanity and wind up in a mental facility, in a
straightjacket, drooling in a corner, eating your own excrement in an
attempt to satisfy your perverted fetishes. Good luck in your long
struggle towards the light of sanity.

Your good friend and close confidant, Harlow.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Jun 13, 8:56 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Alex Filippenko, in his lecture on dark energy, said that
> astrophysics can tell the difference between space -
> the vacuum -  expanding, and objects moving through space.
>
> How?
>
> Also, he says dark energy has negative pressure.
> What does that mean, how do they measure it?
>

> --
> Rich
>
>

We would have to wait millions of years for it to
be seen.

Mitchell Raemsch

[mpc755]

We don't know if there is another jet on the other side of the
Universal jet we exist in.

It is easy to surmise that because every black hole we sees has two
polar jets, hence the 'polar' in polar jet.

Until we can find any evidence of anything else other than the
Universal jet we exist in I think we should assume this is the only
one. I'm not sure it is worth trying to figure out how to see outside
of the Universal jet we exist in. It may not be possible. However, we
should not assume there is an 'outside' of the Universal jet we exist
in until there is evidence of an 'outside'.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

Cosmology is dead stars forever floating away from each other in never
ending expanding distance...
The problem in Cosmology is forever distance...

Mitchell Raemsch

[mpc755]

[micro...@hotmail.com]

The universe is not shaped like a jet.
Need I say more?

Mitchell Raemsch

[mpc755]

[micro...@hotmail.com]

When the stars die what happens next?

Mitchell Raemsch

[mpc755]

[micro...@hotmail.com]

What is the shape of the universal jet?

Mitchell Raemsch

[Brad Guth]

Assuming a mother BH only had one polar jet to offer seems rather
unbalanced if not entirely biased.

We can't see it perhaps because of the escape velocity for each
universe of 5e55 kg being 2.8 c at 9.46e24 km, and that's a
differential of 5.6 c between a pair of universes worth 5e55 kg each.

Escape velocity:
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
5e55 kg at 9.46e24 km
Escape velocity = 839,956 km/sec (2.8 c)

How far apart would a pair of polar universes be? (? 27.5e9 ly ?)
If we're talking only 27.5e9 ly, the escape velocity = 5.666e6 km/sec
(19 c)

[mpc755]

The point I am trying to make is mainstream physics is completely
screwed up. It is completely screwed up because 'it' is unable to say
"I don't know".

Some obvious examples of how screwed up mainstream physics is are
virtual particles, anti-gravity, the big bang, the Copenhagen
interpretation of quantum mechanics, waves which propagate through an
empty void, particles of matter which exist in quantities less than in
any vacuum created on Earth being able to wave, particles of matter
which exist in quantities less than in any vacuum created on Earth
being able to push back and exert inward pressure toward the Solar
System, and on and on and on is the nonsense associated with
mainstream physics.

I don't know if there is a super, super, super black hole associated
with the Universal jet we exist in.

What I do know is all of the evidence is evidence we exist in a
Universal jet; a larger version of a black hole polar jet.

[G=EMC^2]

On Jun 16, 2:48 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Aether energy is measured by Casimir metal plates.TreBert

[G=EMC^2]

On Jun 16, 10:22 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Universe is in the shape of a saddle Its volume is unbounded.
Universes are separateby a membrane.

[mpc755]

The aether is displaced by each of the plates. The aether displaced by
the plates which exists between the plates and is pushing back toward
each of the plates offset and cancel each other out to some degree.

It is the aether which encompasses the plates, along with the lack of
force associated with the aether which exists between the plates,
which causes the plates to be forced together.

The physical phenomenon which causes the plates to be forced together
in the Casimir effect is the same physical phenomenon which causes the
Moon to orbit the Earth.

[Brad Guth]

Exactly, and otherwise the very last thing they'll allow is any
outsiders poking holes in their mainstream published and even textbook
established ideas and theories.

>
> Some obvious examples of how screwed up mainstream physics is are
> virtual particles, anti-gravity, the big bang, the Copenhagen
> interpretation of quantum mechanics, waves which propagate through an
> empty void, particles of matter which exist in quantities less than in
> any vacuum created on Earth being able to wave, particles of matter
> which exist in quantities less than in any vacuum created on Earth
> being able to push back and exert inward pressure toward the Solar
> System, and on and on and on is the nonsense associated with
> mainstream physics.
>
> I don't know if there is a super, super, super black hole associated
> with the Universal jet we exist in.
>
> What I do know is all of the evidence is evidence we exist in a
> Universal jet; a larger version of a black hole polar jet.

I also happen like the inflated balloon notion of our universe,
whereas the skin or shell of this cosmic balloon is roughly 28e9 ly
thick, with damn little if anything inside or outside of our balloon
universe. This inflated balloon universe created by an imploded BH of
perhaps 5e64 kg could easily have a diameter of 9.46e24 km hosting a
billion universes.

Of course the dozen or more public funded supercomputers could easily
help by simulating such polar jet or balloon universe theories, but
only if they wanted to, and if anything positive or constructive
should come of it, the credit always has to go to an insider that our
nation has deeply invested or having leveraged itself with. Semites
extensively used Einstein for taking as much credit as possible,
because at the time he was their only ace in the hole.

What we need is another adorable puppet wise-guy like Einstein, as our
pretend wizard of Oz that the public will accept, though hopefully
this time not as another wife beater and self-richest plagiarist would
be a nice change.

How often in public did Einstein say, "I don't know"?

[G=EMC^2]

Your saying space energy in the form of waves is in reality gravity?
I have kicked that around when we had a poster oc who posted it about
once a week for many years. The force that is pushing the plates
together is very weak,and that fits. I would love to see this being
done in a lab. Would very light wood plates work? Why metal? Is it
done in a vacuum? Could it be some force of attraction? Attraction
can be tricky. Hmmm I will do a "what if" on attraction over very
short distances in everyday life. TreBert

[Brad Guth]

Ocean debris items from Japan that's obviously lighter than water,
clings together.

There's a few other factors, but for the most part it's the extremely
weak force of gravity doing its thing. A lot of our stuff is slightly
paramagnetic, as well as electrostatic charged.

[mpc755]

Einstein was very careful in the words he chose and if you put his
ideas together with de Broglie's you get aether displacement.

Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space. There
is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter traveling with matter.
Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

There are so many observed behaviors in the Universe which could
easily be modelled in a computer simulation with an aether which is,
or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of a solid.

Here is one example.

'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.

[mpc755]

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.

The analogy is placing a bowling ball into a tank of water. The
bowling ball displaces the water. The water pushes back and exerts
inward pressure toward the bowling ball.

The difference between water and aether is the aether is, or behaves

[micro...@hotmail.com]

Aether and matter exist in togetherness.
Energy has its own aether. So does the space
energy moves through. There is aether within
aether... with elements floating together as one.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Ron Gibbs]

"RichD" wrote in message
news:2399339b-8b34-48f0...@oe8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 14, Phil Hobbs

> > > Alex Filippenko, in his lecture on dark energy, said that
> > >astrophysics can tell the difference between space -
> > >the vacuum - expanding, and objects moving
> > >through space.
> > > How?
>
> > > Also, he says dark energy has negative pressure.
> > > What does that mean, how do they measure it?
>

> Would you folks please consider dropping sci.optics
> from your crossposts?


A question of astronomical observations,
telescopes etc, ougth to be pertinent to opticians.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I must have missed the discussion of telescope design. That would
have justified the cross-post.

Optics has many applications, but there is a difference between the
technology (which is what sci.optics is about) and the applications. There
are separate groups for microscopy and photography for example. Oh yes, and
astronomy.

Ron

[HVAC]

On 6/17/2012 3:12 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Aether and matter exist in togetherness.
> Energy has its own aether. So does the space
> energy moves through. There is aether within
> aether... with elements floating together as one.

What I like about ether is that in all scientific activities,
experiments, observation, etc., it can be treated exactly as if it does
not exist at all.....Sort of like how god is treated in science.

[Brad Guth]

On Jun 17, 12:12 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>

Trillions upon trillions upon trillions of 2D photons continually
coexisting per cm3.

So, after 13.7 billion years and counting, how many all-inclusive
photons per atom of our 5e55 kg universe do we have to work with?

We're talking of 13.7 billions years worth of everything from near
gravity waves of nearly zero Hz to gamma, should be a lot of photons
per atom.

[mpc755]

On Jun 17, 3:50 pm, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6/17/2012 3:12 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Aether and matter exist in togetherness.
> > Energy has its own aether. So does the space
> > energy moves through. There is aether within
> > aether... with elements floating together as one.
>
> What I like about ether is that in all scientific activities,
> experiments, observation, etc., it can be treated exactly as if it does
> not exist at all.....Sort of like how god is treated in science.
>

Nobel Laureates Einstein, de Broglie and Laughlin disagree with you.

[mpc755]

[HVAC]

On 6/17/2012 3:59 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>> What I like about ether is that in all scientific activities,
>> experiments, observation, etc., it can be treated exactly as if it does
>> not exist at all.....Sort of like how god is treated in science.
>>
>
> Nobel Laureates Einstein, de Broglie and Laughlin disagree with you.

I don't care. I'm right, YOU are wrong.

> "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
> unthinkable" - Albert Einstein

Einstein changed his mind before he died.

> "any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous
> “energetic contact” with a hidden medium" - Louis de Broglie

That was the only way HE could imagine things. Times change.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Jun 17, 12:54 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Aether has mass

Not all aether.
Only the aether of energy.
Space-time aether can be empty of energy...

Mitchell Raemsch

[mpc755]

On Jun 17, 4:24 pm, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/17/2012 3:59 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> >> What I like about ether is that in all scientific activities,
> >> experiments, observation, etc., it can be treated exactly as if it does
> >> not exist at all.....Sort of like how god is treated in science.
>
> > Nobel Laureates Einstein, de Broglie and Laughlin disagree with you.
>
> I don't care. I'm right, YOU are wrong.
>
> > "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
> > unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
>
> Einstein changed his mind before he died.
>

No, he didn't. The only thing Einstein said was superfluous was an
absolutely stationary space.

Einstein said, ""the state of the [ether] is at every place determined
by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in
neighbouring places"

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.

> > "any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous
> > energetic contact with a hidden medium" - Louis de Broglie
>
> That was the only way HE could imagine things.  Times change.
>

The explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit
experiment.

According to de Broglie the moving travels a well defined path which
takes it through one slit while the associated physical wave passes
through both.

I'm sure you must be able to explain it more correctly.

Nobel Laureates Einstein, de Broglie and Laughlin disagree with you.

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable" - Albert Einstein

"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous
“energetic contact” with a hidden medium" - Louis de Broglie

[micro...@hotmail.com]

The cause of the continuum is expansion from an aether hypersphere
point universe as the Beginning of existence...

Mitchell Raemsch

[HVAC]

On 6/17/2012 6:44 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>> I don't care. I'm right, YOU are wrong.
>>
>>> "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
>>> unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
>>
>> Einstein changed his mind before he died.
>>
>
> No, he didn't. The only thing Einstein said was superfluous was an
> absolutely stationary space.
>
> Einstein said, ""the state of the [ether] is at every place determined
> by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in
> neighbouring places"

Q) What do you call a rabbit that's been put to sleep with anesthesia?

A) The ether bunny!

[micro...@hotmail.com]

Of course it is a lie that Einstein stopped being an aether
scientist.
The reason he was so great is because he was an Aether Scientist. He
would have been found dumb
to doubt himself when he was right...

Mitchell Raemsch

[mpc755]

On Jun 17, 7:43 pm, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/17/2012 6:44 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> >> I don't care. I'm right, YOU are wrong.
>
> >>> "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
> >>> unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
>
> >> Einstein changed his mind before he died.
>
> > No, he didn't. The only thing Einstein said was superfluous was an
> > absolutely stationary space.
>
> > Einstein said, ""the state of the [ether] is at every place determined
> > by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in
> > neighbouring places"
>
> Q) What do you call a rabbit that's been put to sleep with anesthesia?
>
> A) The ether bunny!
>

Then explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit

[HVAC]

On 6/17/2012 10:58 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> According to de Broglie the moving travels a well defined path which
> takes it through one slit while the associated physical wave passes
> through both.
>
> I'm sure you must be able to explain it more correctly.

Well, of course I can.

> Nobel Laureates Einstein, de Broglie and Laughlin disagree with you.

Again, in any scientific endeavor, ether can be treated exactly like
god...As if it does not exist at all.

[mpc755]

On Jun 18, 6:47 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/17/2012 10:58 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> > According to de Broglie the moving travels a well defined path which
> > takes it through one slit while the associated physical wave passes
> > through both.
>
> > I'm sure you must be able to explain it more correctly.
>
> Well, of course I can.
>

It's a secret?

In a double slit experiment, the particle travels a well defined path
which takes it through one slit while the associated aether wave
passes through both.

> > Nobel Laureates Einstein, de Broglie and Laughlin disagree with you.
>
> Again, in any scientific endeavor, ether can be treated exactly like
> god...As if it does not exist at all.
>

Maxwell's displacement current is a displacement of the aether.

Einstein defined the state of the aether as being determined by its
connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring
places. In other words, the state of displacement of the aether.

de Broglie defined the "energetic contact" of the particle with a
hidden medium. In other words, the energetic contact is the state of
displacement of the aether.

[HVAC]

On 6/18/2012 8:27 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>>> I'm sure you must be able to explain it more correctly.
>>
>> Well, of course I can.
>>
>
> It's a secret?
>
> In a double slit experiment, the particle travels a well defined path
> which takes it through one slit while the associated aether wave
> passes through both.

No it doesn't.

[mpc755]

On Jun 18, 8:32 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/18/2012 8:27 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> >>> I'm sure you must be able to explain it more correctly.
>
> >> Well, of course I can.
>
> > It's a secret?
>
> > In a double slit experiment, the particle travels a well defined path
> > which takes it through one slit while the associated aether wave
> > passes through both.
>
> No it doesn't.
>

You're keeping what occurs physically in nature in a double slit
experiment a secret?

In a double slit experiment, the particle travels a well defined path
which takes it through one slit while the associated aether wave
passes through both.

[HVAC]

On 6/18/2012 10:19 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> You're keeping what occurs physically in nature in a double slit
> experiment a secret?

No I'm not. The double-slit shows the wave/particle duality of photons.
It's not a secret. I am getting the feeling that you might be a kook.
Are you keeping that fact a secret?

[mpc755]

On Jun 18, 10:26 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/18/2012 10:19 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> > You're keeping what occurs physically in nature in a double slit
> > experiment a secret?
>
> No I'm not. The double-slit shows the wave/particle duality of photons.

That is a statement. I am asking you to explain what occurs physically
in nature to cause the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment.

You do understand the difference between making a statement such as
"The double-slit shows the wave/particle duality of photons" and
actually explaining what occurs physically in nature, correct?

The wave of wave-particle duality is a physical wave.

Are you able to understand the wave of wave-particle duality is a
physical wave?

In a double slit experiment, the particle travels a well defined path

[HVAC]

On 6/18/2012 10:34 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>> No I'm not. The double-slit shows the wave/particle duality of photons.
>
> That is a statement. I am asking you to explain what occurs physically
> in nature to cause the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment.

What is it about the experiment that you don't understand?
Tell me what it is and I will be happy to educate you. The
first step will be having you drop this sophomoric notion of
ether. Once you have removed such silly notions from your mind
you will be open to understanding quantum physics and then we
can march boldly into the 1930's.

[mpc755]

On Jun 18, 10:58 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/18/2012 10:34 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> >> No I'm not. The double-slit shows the wave/particle duality of photons.
>
> > That is a statement. I am asking you to explain what occurs physically
> > in nature to cause the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment.
>
> What is it about the experiment that you don't understand?
> Tell me what it is and I will be happy to educate you. The
> first step will be having you drop this sophomoric notion of
> ether. Once you have removed such silly notions from your mind
> you will be open to understanding quantum physics and then we
> can march boldly into the 1930's.
>

I understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit
experiment.

[RedAcer]

On 14/06/12 13:54, mpc755 wrote:
> On Jun 14, 8:22 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>> On 6/14/12 6/14/12 1:08 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 13, 8:56 pm, RichD<r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Also, he says dark energy has negative pressure.
>>>> What does that mean, how do they measure it?
>>

>>> It means vacuum manifests a negative mass density. [...]
>>
>> No. It is negative PRESSURE.
>>
>
> No. Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.

No. Dark energy is jet emitted into the Universal aether.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_%28lignite%29

>
>>> The concept of a
>>> negative mass density is so fvcking ludicrous,
>>
>> So why did YOU make it up?
>>
>> As usual, Koobee gets it completely wrong. He is so consistent in that, and so
>> persistent in attempting to promulgate his nonsense, that it is rarely
>> appropriate to respond to him.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>


--
" There is no God, and Dirac is his Prophet "
Pauli on dirac.

[mpc755]

On Jun 18, 11:20 am, RedAcer <red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> On 14/06/12 13:54, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > On Jun 14, 8:22 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> On 6/14/12 6/14/12   1:08 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 13, 8:56 pm, RichD<r_delaney2...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
> >>>> Also, he says dark energy has negative pressure.
> >>>> What does that mean, how do they measure it?
>
> >>> It means vacuum manifests a negative mass density. [...]
>
> >> No. It is negative PRESSURE.
>
> > No. Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.
>
> No. Dark energy is jet emitted into the Universal aether.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_%28lignite%29
>

'Was the universe born spinning?'
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688

"The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a
preferred axis"

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

'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html

'The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our
solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion
is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed
outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule
out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right
now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the
clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said.'

The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or
the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet.

The following is an image analogous of the Universal jet.

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. Three dimensional space
associated with the Universe itself is not expanding. 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 aether condenses into matter.

The following is an image analogous of the Universe, or the local
Universe, we exist in.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/planetarium/graphics/st_images/BlackHole.jpg

The following is an image analogous of the Universal spin.

http://i.space.com/images/i/612/i02/040817_quasar_illo_02.jpg?1292259454

Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.

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

[G=EMC^2]

That sounds like Feynman's "Sum of all histories" My idea is
reality. "The two slits are proving a single particle is two twin
particles that travel with a wave between them." Using this theory
answers other mysteries in the quantum realm. All my theories are
short,and can be explained to a bar maid.Niels Bohr would like the way
I think. TreBert

[mpc755]

The wave of wave-particle duality is a physical wave which passes
through both slits. The particle of wave-particle duality travels
through a single slit.

[HVAC]

On 6/18/2012 11:38 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
> That sounds like Feynman's "Sum of all histories" My idea is
> reality. "The two slits are proving a single particle is two twin
> particles that travel with a wave between them." Using this theory
> answers other mysteries in the quantum realm. All my theories are
> short,and can be explained to a bar maid.Niels Bohr would like the way
> I think.

The two of you think alike, Bert!
Of course, that's because he's dead and you're dead from the neck up.