mississippichem Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 Aether is displaced based on matter per volume. The more matter there is per volume the less aether it contains the more aether it displaces. There is the gas giant Jupiter and a Jupiter made of lead. They both have the same volume. The lead Jupiter contains more matter per volume and displaces more aether than the gas Jupiter. It's not that the center of the Earth displaces more aether. It is that there is more displaced aether overall exerting force towards the center of the Earth. The Earth displaces the aether far past the moon. All of this displaced aether is exerting force towards the Earth. If you are a mile below sea level there is a mile more of displaced aether exerting force towards you than when you are at sea level. When you climb to a mountain top there is less displaced aether exerting force towards you than when you were at sea level. Back to the water analogy. You dive into the ocean. You dive a few feet down. There are a few feet of water exerting pressure towards you. You dive deeper. There is more water exerting pressure towards you. You dive miles deep. There is now miles of ocean exerting force towards you. Think of all of the water as being displaced by the ocean floor. There is a crevas on the ocean floor. You dive deep into the crevas. The deeper you dive into the crevas the greater the pressure exerted by the displaced water towards you. An elaborate explanation to not be backed with any math or observational evidence. How do you quantify this displacement force? The center of the earth displaces more aether? What is the function that describes the variation? Why does a chunk of material at the center of the earth displace more aether than at the surface — what does this depend on? Does a cubic meter of atmosphere displace as much aether as a cubic chunk of granite, at the same location? I want to see this as well, mpc755.
swansont Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 What about a hollow volume? A balloon made with a shell of lead, would it displace more aether than a regular balloon, or a balloon of solid lead? i.e. would the interior see the same aether effects? What about an individual atom? Does an atom of lead displace more aether than a lighter atom (or molecule) that takes up the same volume?
mpc755 Posted May 20, 2011 Author Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) An elaborate explanation to not be backed with any math or observational evidence. How do you quantify this displacement force? There is plenty of evidence of displaced aether. If galaxy clusters traveled with dark matter their 'collisions' would not cause ripples. Galaxy clusters are moving with respect to the state of the aether. The galaxy clusters displace the aether. The galaxy clusters have associated aether displacement waves. Their 'collisions' cause the associated aether displacement waves to create a ripple. No different than two boats colliding. Galaxy clusters are detected as having an offset with the gravitational center of the 'dark matter'. If galaxy clusters traveled with dark matter there would not be an offset. The offset is because the galaxy clusters are moving with respect to the state of the aether. The galaxy clusters displace the aether. The gravitational center is the state of displacement of the aether. The Milky Way's halo is in the shape of a squished beach ball. The Milky Way's halo is displaced aether. The displaced aether exerts force towards the matter which makes up the Milky Way. This forces the matter which exists in the plane of the Milky Way toward the center of the Milky Way and is the reason why the displaced aether is in the shape of a squished beach ball. The is plenty of evidence of the existence of displaced aether. Not to mention a moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave and in a double slit experiment it is the particle which enters and exits a single slit and it is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits both slits. The associated aether displacement wave creates wave interference upon exiting the slits. As the particle exits a single slit, the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference it encounters. Detecting the particle causes there to be a loss of coherence of the associated aether wave, there is no wave interference, and the direction the particle travels is not altered. Just because you refuse to understand the observational evidence of displaced aether does not mean there is not observational evidence of displaced aether. What about a hollow volume? A balloon made with a shell of lead, would it displace more aether than a regular balloon, or a balloon of solid lead? i.e. would the interior see the same aether effects? Aether is displaced based on the amount of matter per volume. If the lead balloon contains more matter per volume than a regular balloon then it displaces more aether. If a solid lead balloon has more matter per volume than a shell lead balloon then it displaces more aether. The more matter per volume the less aether the volume contains the more aether the volume displaces. Two balloons have the same volume. The balloon of solid lead contains more matter than the regular balloon. Therefore the solid lead baloon displaces more aether; because it contains less aether. What about an individual atom? Does an atom of lead displace more aether than a lighter atom (or molecule) that takes up the same volume? By lighter do you mean less matter per volume? Aether is displaced based on the amount of matter per volume. If the lead atom has more matter per volume then the lighter atom (or molecule) then it contains less aether and therefore displaces more aether. 'Matter per volume' means the stuff that is not aether. If there is more of it in a particular volume then there is less aether in the volume. This means more aether has been displaced. Edited May 20, 2011 by mpc755
swansont Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 Aether is displaced based on the amount of matter per volume. If the lead balloon contains more matter per volume than a regular balloon then it displaces more aether. If a solid lead balloon has more matter per volume than a shell lead balloon then it displaces more aether. The more matter per volume the less aether the volume contains the more aether the volume displaces. Ask yourself this question. Two balloons have the same volume. Does the balloon of solid lead contain more matter than the regular balloon? If it does then it displaces more aether; because it contains less aether. By lighter do you mean less matter per volume? Aether is displaced based on the amount of matter per volume. If the lead atom has more matter per volume then the lighter atom (or molecule) then it contains less aether and therefore displaces more aether. 'Matter per volume' means the stuff that is not aether. If there is more of it in a particular volume then there is less aether in the volume. This means more aether has been displaced. By amount of matter are you referring to mass, or number of atoms? You have not made that clear. You said that the Earth displaces the aether far past the moon. How can that be, when there is no matter out there? How much aether is displaced? What is the function that describes it?
mpc755 Posted May 20, 2011 Author Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) By amount of matter are you referring to mass, or number of atoms? You have not made that clear. Aether has mass. That is why I use the term matter. What displaces the aether is the nuclei of atoms. You said that the Earth displaces the aether far past the moon. How can that be, when there is no matter out there? How much aether is displaced? What is the function that describes it? What is presently postulated as dark matter is aether. Aether has mass. Aether is physically displaced by matter. What is referred to in the following article as the Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether. The reason why the halo is in the shape of a squished beach ball is because the displaced aether exerts force towards the matter which is the Milky Way and forces the matter in the plane of the Milky Way towards the center of the Milky Way resulting in the displaced aether being in the shape of a squished beach ball. 'Dark Halo Around Our Galaxy Looks Like Squished Beach Ball' http://www.space.com/7746-dark-halo-galaxy-squished-beach-ball.html If you determine the volume of the halo you will have developed a relationship between the volume of the matter which exists in the Milky Way with the volume of the aether displaced by the matter which exists in the Milky Way. My guess is there is a correlation similar to E=mc^2, where: A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter. The ripple in the following is an aether displacement wave. 'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter' http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html Edited May 20, 2011 by mpc755
swansont Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 Aether has mass. That is why I use the term matter. What displaces the aether is the nuclei of atoms. That doesn't explain your claim that the aether displacement extends into space, where there are few nuclei. It also doesn't explain your claim that the aether displacement varies with the distance from the center of the earth; if it's displaced by nuclei, then the aether density should be roughly the same at any point of the earth's surface, and then rapidly drop off as you transition from solid to gas. Is that transition abrupt, or is there some decay function allowing for the displacement to be present further from the earth?
mississippichem Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 My guess is there is a correlation similar to E=mc^2, where: A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter. So wait...Aether is quantified in units of joules. Explain that one. Or are you just admitting that your entire theory of "aether" displacement is all based on some hunch? What is the justification for your equation? Is it derived from first principles or fitted from data? Please derive it.
swansont Posted May 21, 2011 Posted May 21, 2011 So wait...Aether is quantified in units of joules. Explain that one. Or are you just admitting that your entire theory of "aether" displacement is all based on some hunch? What is the justification for your equation? Is it derived from first principles or fitted from data? Please derive it. We don't really have a unit for "matter," but I would also like to see the derivation of this relationship.
mpc755 Posted May 21, 2011 Author Posted May 21, 2011 (edited) So wait...Aether is quantified in units of joules. Explain that one. Or are you just admitting that your entire theory of "aether" displacement is all based on some hunch? What is the justification for your equation? Is it derived from first principles or fitted from data? Please derive it. As I stated in a previous post, your inability to understand the observable evidence of displaced aether, consisting of the aether displacement wave created when galaxy clusters collide and the offset between the galaxy cluster matter and the gravitational center of the displaced aether and the Milky Way's halo caused by the force exerted by the displaced aether towards the matter of the Milky Way and your inability to understand the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment are caused by a moving particle having an associated aether wave does not mean there is no observable evidence of displaced aether. It simply means you choose to remain ignorant of understanding aether is displaced by matter. We don't really have a unit for "matter," but I would also like to see the derivation of this relationship. Since aether has mass, it doesn't make sense to say aether is displaced based on mass per volume. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A. EINSTEIN http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish; however, the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. Matter evaporates into aether. As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space. The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and matter is energy. E=mc^2 represents the physical effects matter evaporating into aether has on the neighboring matter and aether. My guess is A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter, is the change in the volume of the mass as it transitions from matter to aether and aether to matter. First stars in the image below is where aether condenses into matter. http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html That doesn't explain your claim that the aether displacement extends into space, where there are few nuclei. If you throw a grain of sand into the ocean where does the displacement of the water end? It also doesn't explain your claim that the aether displacement varies with the distance from the center of the earth; if it's displaced by nuclei, then the aether density should be roughly the same at any point of the earth's surface, and then rapidly drop off as you transition from solid to gas. Is that transition abrupt, or is there some decay function allowing for the displacement to be present further from the earth? The aether displaced by the Earth extends far past the Moon. It is the force exerted by this displaced aether towards the Earth, and the force exerted by the aether displaced by the Moon which extends past the Earth, which keeps the Moon in orbit about the Earth. The transition is not abrupt. The decay function is gravity. Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity. Edited May 21, 2011 by mpc755
Ringer Posted May 21, 2011 Posted May 21, 2011 Aether is displaced based on matter per volume. The more matter there is per volume the less aether it contains the more aether it displaces. There is the gas giant Jupiter and a Jupiter made of lead. They both have the same volume. The lead Jupiter contains more matter per volume and displaces more aether than the gas Jupiter. As I stated in a previous post, your inability to understand the observable evidence of displaced aether, consisting of the aether displacement wave created when galaxy clusters collide and the offset between the galaxy cluster matter and the gravitational center of the displaced aether and the Milky Way's halo caused by the force exerted by the displaced aether towards the matter of the Milky Way and your inability to understand the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment are caused by a moving particle having an associated aether wave does not mean there is no observable evidence of displaced aether. It simply means you choose to remain ignorant of understanding aether is displaced by matter. Since aether has mass, it doesn't make sense to say aether is displaced based on mass per volume. So your above statement doesn't make sense? 1
mpc755 Posted May 21, 2011 Author Posted May 21, 2011 (edited) So your above statement doesn't make sense? What is presently postulated as dark matter is aether. Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter. Aether displaced by matter exerts force towards matter. Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity. The first statement reads, aether is displaced by the amount of matter per volume. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. Aether has mass. It makes no sense to say aether is displaced by the amount of mass per volume since aether has mass. Aether exists where matter does not. Aether has mass. When discussing the matter associated with a volume there is also aether which exists in the volume (unless discussing a black hole which is aetherless). So, it needs to be specified we are discussing the matter which exists within a particular volume and not the mass within a particular volume because the space which exists within the volume which is not occupied by matter is occupied by aether which has mass. Aether is displaced by the nuclei of atoms. Edited May 21, 2011 by mpc755 -1
swansont Posted May 21, 2011 Posted May 21, 2011 As I stated in a previous post, your inability to understand the observable evidence of displaced aether, consisting of the aether displacement wave created when galaxy clusters collide and the offset between the galaxy cluster matter and the gravitational center of the displaced aether and the Milky Way's halo caused by the force exerted by the displaced aether towards the matter of the Milky Way and your inability to understand the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment are caused by a moving particle having an associated aether wave does not mean there is no observable evidence of displaced aether. It simply means you choose to remain ignorant of understanding aether is displaced by matter. ! Moderator Note I'd venture to say that anyone's inability to understand here is strongly correlated with the quality of your explanations and the extent to which you have answered questions. This would be a good time for you to review the rules about both backing up your claims and not insulting/attacking people. If you throw a grain of sand into the ocean where does the displacement of the water end? At the surface of the water, which is a fairly abrupt transition. Not what you describe below. The aether displaced by the Earth extends far past the Moon. It is the force exerted by this displaced aether towards the Earth, and the force exerted by the aether displaced by the Moon which extends past the Earth, which keeps the Moon in orbit about the Earth. The transition is not abrupt. The decay function is gravity. Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity. When you say the decay function is gravity, that means the amount of aether displacement is proportional to g? Why does the center of the earth displace more aether then? What about a planet of the same size and same nuclear density as earth but with a smaller mass. It displaces the same amount of aether, right?
mpc755 Posted May 23, 2011 Author Posted May 23, 2011 (edited) At the surface of the water, which is a fairly abrupt transition. Not what you describe below. In the analogy, water exists where the grain of sand does not. AFAWK, aether exists where matter does not. When you say the decay function is gravity, that means the amount of aether displacement is proportional to g? Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter IS g. Why does the center of the earth displace more aether then? It's not that the center of the Earth displaces more aether. It is that all of the aether displaced by the Earth exerts force towards the center of the Earth. There is an atomic clock at the center of the Earth. The force associated with all of the aether displaced by the Earth exerts force towards and throughout the atomic clock at the center of the Earth. There is an atomic clock at the top of a mountain. The force associated with the aether displaced by the Earth, exerting force towards the center of the Earth, which exists below the mountain top does not apply to the atomic clock on the top of the mountain. What about a planet of the same size and same nuclear density as earth but with a smaller mass. It displaces the same amount of aether, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density "The mass density or density of a material is defined as its mass per unit volume." If the nuclear density and volume of two planets are equal their mass is equal. Edited May 23, 2011 by mpc755 -2
swansont Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 In the analogy, water exists where the grain of sand does not. AFAWK, aether exists where matter does not. Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter IS g. That doesn't address the question. A grain of sand displaces water by a volume equal to the grain of sand, but you claim the earth displaces the aether over a much greater extent than the volume of the earth. The analogy doesn't work. That's why I (and others) want an equation. It's not that the center of the Earth displaces more aether. It is that all of the aether displaced by the Earth exerts force towards the center of the Earth. There is an atomic clock at the center of the Earth. The force associated with all of the aether displaced by the Earth exerts force towards and throughout the atomic clock at the center of the Earth. There is an atomic clock at the top of a mountain. The force associated with the aether displaced by the Earth, exerting force towards the center of the Earth, which exists below the mountain top does not apply to the atomic clock on the top of the mountain. But you said "Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter IS g" g goes down as you move to the center of the earth, but you claimed the aether has a larger effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density "The mass density or density of a material is defined as its mass per unit volume." If the nuclear density and volume of two planets are equal their mass is equal. This is not generally true. What if the nuclei have different masses? Cobalt and Erbium have about the same density, but Co has an AW of 59 while Er is a little over 167. So equal volumes will have ~equal masses, and yet the Co will have more than 2.5 times as many nuclei. 1
mpc755 Posted May 23, 2011 Author Posted May 23, 2011 (edited) That doesn't address the question. A grain of sand displaces water by a volume equal to the grain of sand, but you claim the earth displaces the aether over a much greater extent than the volume of the earth. The analogy doesn't work. That's why I (and others) want an equation. That's missing the point. Where does the displacement of the water by the grain of sand end? But you said "Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter IS g" g goes down as you move to the center of the earth, but you claimed the aether has a larger effect. I was mistaking pressure for gravity below the surface of the Earth. The closer you get to the center of the Earth the more displaced aether there is exerting force towards the center. At the center of the Earth, all of the displaced aether is exerting force towards the center. This is not generally true. What if the nuclei have different masses? Cobalt and Erbium have about the same density, but Co has an AW of 59 while Er is a little over 167. So equal volumes will have ~equal masses, and yet the Co will have more than 2.5 times as many nuclei. I see neutron stars and dark holes as being aether-less. Aether exists where particles do not. My guess is there is more aether in the nuclei of one atom than the other. Edited May 23, 2011 by mpc755
swansont Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 That's missing the point. Where does the displacement of the water by the grain of sand end? At the edge of the water, as I answered before. Yet your claim is that aether displacement does NOT end at the edge of the earth, and the aether effect still varies as you go away from the earth, even where there are few atoms. Quit tap-dancing around this. I was mistaking pressure for gravity below the surface of the Earth. The pressure below the surface of the Earth increases because there is more displaced aether exerting force towards the center of the Earth which is forcing all of the matter of the Earth together. So what is the effect? I see neutron stars and dark holes as being aether-less. Aether exists where particles do not. My guess is there is more aether in the nuclei of one atom than the other. Which implies that there is some aether inside of solids. How does one tell how much is displaced, and how much effect there is at a given place? If I dig a hole into the earth, does it fill up with aether, other than that displaced by the air? WHAT IS THE MATHEMATICAL FUNCTION THAT DESCRIBES THIS EFFECT? I'll remind you of Speculations rule #1 at this point. Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. Continue to ignore this at your own risk. 1
mpc755 Posted May 23, 2011 Author Posted May 23, 2011 (edited) At the edge of the water, as I answered before. Yet your claim is that aether displacement does NOT end at the edge of the earth, and the aether effect still varies as you go away from the earth, even where there are few atoms. Quit tap-dancing around this. If you place a bowling ball into a tank of water, does the displacement of the water end at the edge of the bowling ball? Of course not. The displacement of the water begins at the edge of the bowling ball. If the water extended to infinity and the bowling ball consisted of millions of tiny marbles where does the displacement of the water begin and the where does the displacement of the water by the bowling ball end? The displacement of the water begins at the center of the bowling ball. The displacement of the water by the bowling ball does not end. So what is the effect? Which implies that there is some aether inside of solids. How does one tell how much is displaced, and how much effect there is at a given place? If I dig a hole into the earth, does it fill up with aether, other than that displaced by the air? Aether exists where matter does not. WHAT IS THE MATHEMATICAL FUNCTION THAT DESCRIBES THIS EFFECT? IT IS NEWTON'S CALCULATION FOR GRAVITY WHERE THE RADIUS IS BETWEEN THE CENTERS OF THE TWO OBJECTS. NEWTON'S CALCULATION HOLDS FOR THE FORCE ASSOCIATED WITH AN OBJECT WHICH EXISTS BELOW THE EARTH'S SURFACE. I'll remind you of Speculations rule #1 at this point. Continue to ignore this at your own risk. All 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiments are explained by understanding conservation of momentum and a moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In the image on the right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment When the downconverted photon creates the photon pair, in order for there to be conservation of momentum, the original photons momentum is conserved. This means the photon pair have opposite polarizations. We will describe one of the photons as being the 'up' photon and the other photon as being the 'down' photon. One of the photons travels either the red or blue path towards D0 and the other photon travels either the red or blue path towards the prism. There are physical waves in the aether propagating both the red and blue paths. The aether waves propagating towards D0 interact with the lens and create interference prior to reaching D0. The aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels prior to reaching D0. There are actually two interference patterns being created at D0. One associated with the 'up' photons when they arrive at D0 and the other interference pattern associated with the 'down' photons when they arrive at D0. Both 'up' and 'down' photons are reflected by BSa and arrive at D3. Since there is a single path towards D3 there is nothing for the wave in the aether to interfere with and there is no interference pattern and since it is not determined if it is an 'up' or 'down' photon being detected at D3 there is no way to distinguish between the photons arriving at D0 which interference pattern each photon belongs to. The same for photons reflected by BSb and arrive at D4. Photons which pass through BSa and are reflected by BSc and arrive at D1 are either 'up' or 'down' photons but not both. If 'up' photons arrive at D1 then 'down' photons arrive at D2. The opposite occurs for photons which pass through BSb. Photons which pass through BSa and pass through BSb and arrive at D1 are all either 'up' or 'down' photons. If all 'up' photons arrive at D1 then all 'down' photons arrive at D2. Since the physical waves in the aether traveling both the red and blue paths are combined prior to D1 and D2 the aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels. Since all 'up' photons arrive at one of the detectors and all 'down' photons arrive at the other an interference pattern is created which reflects back to the interference both sets of photons are creating at D0. The following experiment will provide evidence of Aether Displacement: Instead of having a single beam splitter BSc have two beam splitters BSca and BScb. Have the photons reflected by mirror Ma interact with BSca and have the photons reflected by mirror Mb interact with BScb. Do not combine the red and blue paths. Have additional detectors D1a, D2a, D1b, and D2b. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BSca be detected at D1a and D2a. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BScb be detected at D1b and D2b. If you compare the photons detected at D1a and D1b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. If you compare the photons detected at D2a and D2b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. What is occurring is all 'up' photons are being detected at one pair of detectors, for example D1a and D1b, and all 'down' photons are being detected at the other pair of detectors, for example D2a and D2b. Interference patterns do not even need to be created in order to determine the interference patterns created at D0. Edited May 23, 2011 by mpc755
imatfaal Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 Back to your modified delayed choice quantum eraser - which neatly removes all the delayed-choice-quantum bit. As I posted in another place Your changes to the dcqe are unusual and ineffective. Firstly, .... Secondly, the set of beam splitters after mirror a and mirror b are totally superfluous. Thirdly, the interference will disappear - it does not matter how many spurious beam splitters, mirrors, and detectors in the way your experiment will just duplicate detectors D3 and D4 which receive only one pathway of light. If a photon is detected at D3 or your new D1a or D1b - the slit will be determined and no interference will be seen. Unless I have misunderstood your variation - which is where a schematic would have helped - you are merely replacing a single D3 with a triplet of D3 D1a and D1b and replacing D4 with D4 D2a and D2b; this branching of paths with no interaction or recombination with the other possible path removes all interest and reverts the experiment to a situation well known and well understood before dcqe experiment.
mpc755 Posted May 23, 2011 Author Posted May 23, 2011 (edited) Back to your modified delayed choice quantum eraser - which neatly removes all the delayed-choice-quantum bit. As I posted in another place The photons which propagate to D1 and D2 interact with another beam splitter. This is what causes them to be different than the photons detected at D3 and D4. Replacing D1 and D2 with D1a, D1b and D2a, D2b, will refer back to the TWO interference patterns which HAVE ALREADY BEEN CREATED AT D0. Edited May 23, 2011 by mpc755
swansont Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 If you place a bowling ball into a tank of water, does the displacement of the water end at the edge of the bowling ball? Of course not. The displacement of the water begins at the edge of the bowling ball. If the water extended to infinity and the bowling ball consisted of millions of tiny marbles where does the displacement of the water begin and the where does the displacement of the water by the bowling ball end? The displacement of the water begins at the center of the bowling ball. The displacement of the water by the bowling ball does not end. Aether exists where matter does not. This analogy implies there in no aether inside of a solid, yet you have said that this isn't so. And the aether exists in different amounts, even where there is no matter. What about the displacement on the other side. A bowling ball raises the water level by a finite amount. The water does not extend to infinity. IT IS NEWTON'S CALCULATION FOR GRAVITY WHERE THE RADIUS IS BETWEEN THE CENTERS OF THE TWO OBJECTS. NEWTON'S CALCULATION HOLDS FOR THE FORCE ASSOCIATED WITH AN OBJECT WHICH EXISTS BELOW THE EARTH'S SURFACE. Can you derive this, based on the properties you have described? It seems backwards, since you say that aether increases outside of the earth, and we know gravity decreases. What is the maximum amount of aether you can have? If I dig a hole, there isn't much matter in it — shouldn't it fill up with aether? Is there any way to get/keep aether out of something, like with a vacuum? Is a vacuum even more full of aether than air? How can I tell that one nucleus displaces more aether than another?
imatfaal Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 The photons which propagate to D1 and D2 interact with another beam splitter. This is what causes them to be different than the photons detected at D3 and D4. Replacing D1 and D2 with D1a, D1b and D2a, D2b, will refer back to the TWO interference patterns which HAVE ALREADY BEEN CREATED AT D0. But you know what slot your original signal photon went through - and once you know that the interference disappears. The pattern does not exist if you measure which path the photon has taken - even if this measurement takes place on the idler after the signal photon has arrived at your detector. This has been checked and double checked. I will repeat - this would be easier if you gave a schematic or explained if I have the wrong layout - or confirm that I have the layout right, and explain why the experimenters who have performed this any countless similar experiments find that as soon as the path/slit is known the interference disappears and that if that knowledge is erased then the interference can again be identified.
mississippichem Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 Aether exists where matter does not. Alright, lets assume that is true. You also claim that: IT IS NEWTON'S CALCULATION FOR GRAVITY WHERE THE RADIUS IS BETWEEN THE CENTERS OF THE TWO OBJECTS. NEWTON'S CALCULATION HOLDS FOR THE FORCE ASSOCIATED WITH AN OBJECT WHICH EXISTS BELOW THE EARTH'S SURFACE.[/size] So then you have contradicted [math] \frac{1}{\mu _{0} \varepsilon _{0}} = c [/math] which is very well established and is true for a vacuum. So then, why does [math] c [/math] not vary according to [math] \frac{1}{r^{2}} [/math] from a gravitational source. If the aether exists, and mass or matter displaces the aether; then c would be variant according distortions in the aether. What I'm saying is, it is established that c is constant in all vacuum conditions. In your model, c would change as we get further from the Earth. Reconcile this. 1
mpc755 Posted May 24, 2011 Author Posted May 24, 2011 (edited) This analogy implies there in no aether inside of a solid, yet you have said that this isn't so. There is space between the nuclei within a solid. There is space between the particles which make up the nuclei. This space consists of aether. Matter is that which is not aether. Aether is that which is not matter. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. If you say matter does not exist in a particular region of three dimensional space then it consists of aether. If you say aether does not consist in a particular region of three dimensional space then it consists of matter. And the aether exists in different amounts, even where there is no matter. What about the displacement on the other side. A bowling ball raises the water level by a finite amount. The water does not extend to infinity. In the analogy, the tank of water is the universe. All that exists in three dimensional space is the bowling ball and water. Where does the displacement of the water by the bowling ball end? Can you derive this, based on the properties you have described? It seems backwards, since you say that aether increases outside of the earth, and we know gravity decreases. An atomic clock is at the center of the Earth. ALL of the aether displaced by the Earth, including that by the nuclei of the atoms which exist at the center of the Earth in the atomic clock displace the aether. ALL of this displaced aether exerts force towards the center of the Earth. ALL of this force is exerted towards and throughout the atomic clock. There is an atomic clock at sea level. The force associated with the aether displaced by the Earth, which is exerting force towards the center of the Earth, which exists below sea level is not applied to the atomic clock at sea level. Another atomic clock is at the top of a mountain. The force associated with the aether displaced by the Earth, which is exerting force towards the center of the Earth, which exists below the mountain top to the center of the Earth is not applied to the atomic clock on top of the mountain. There is less force exerted towards and throughout the atomic clock on top of the mountain then the clock at sea level or the clock at the center of the Earth because it is not under the effects of the aether displaced by the Earth, which is exerting force towards the center of the Earth, which exists below the mountain top. An atomic clock is in the space shuttle. The force associated with the aether displaced by the Earth, which is exerting force towards the center of the Earth, which exists below the space shuttle is not applied to the atomic clock in the space shuttle. An atomic clock is in a spaceship twice the distance from the Earth as the Moon. The force associated with the aether displaced by the Earth, which is exerting force towards the center of the Earth, which exists between the spaceship and the center of the Earth is not applied to the atomic clock in the spaceship. There is an atomic clock on the other side of the universe. The force associated with the aether displaced by the Earth, which is exerting force towards the center of the Earth, which exists between the atomic clock and the center of the Earth is not applied to the atomic clock on the other side of the Universe. What is the maximum amount of aether you can have? If I dig a hole, there isn't much matter in it — shouldn't it fill up with aether? Aether exists where matter does not. Is there any way to get/keep aether out of something, like with a vacuum? Aether exists where matter does not. Is a vacuum even more full of aether than air? How can I tell that one nucleus displaces more aether than another? By its density. The greater the density of the matter the less aether it contains the more aether it displaces. But you know what slot your original signal photon went through - and once you know that the interference disappears. The pattern does not exist if you measure which path the photon has taken - even if this measurement takes place on the idler after the signal photon has arrived at your detector. This has been checked and double checked. I will repeat - this would be easier if you gave a schematic or explained if I have the wrong layout - or confirm that I have the layout right, and explain why the experimenters who have performed this any countless similar experiments find that as soon as the path/slit is known the interference disappears and that if that knowledge is erased then the interference can again be identified. There are two interference patterns being created at D0 regardless of what else occurs in the experiment. What the supposed 'delayed choice quantum erase experiment' and my experiment do is allow you to distinguish one interference pattern from the other. Edited May 24, 2011 by mpc755 -1
lemur Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 By its density. The greater the density of the matter the less aether it contains the more aether it displaces. So do you view aether as a force-field type thing and if so why does density cause it to be displaced from matter? If it is so connected to the existence of matter, then there would have to be some property of matter that creates aether and its displacement, no?
mpc755 Posted May 24, 2011 Author Posted May 24, 2011 Alright, lets assume that is true. You also claim that: So then you have contradicted [math] \frac{1}{\mu _{0} \varepsilon _{0}} = c [/math] which is very well established and is true for a vacuum. So then, why does [math] c [/math] not vary according to [math] \frac{1}{r^{2}} [/math] from a gravitational source. If the aether exists, and mass or matter displaces the aether; then c would be variant according distortions in the aether. What I'm saying is, it is established that c is constant in all vacuum conditions. In your model, c would change as we get further from the Earth. Reconcile this. Everything is with respect to the state of the aether, including the clocks used to determine the speed of light. 'Hafele and Keating Experiment' http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Relativ/airtim.html "Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations." Flying with the Earth's rotation, eastward, is flying against the 'flow' of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, causing a greater aether force on the atomic clock causing the atomic clock to tick slower. Flying against the Earth's rotation, westward, is flying with the 'flow' of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, causing a lower aether force on the atomic clock causing the atomic clock to tick faster. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether and for that aether to exert more force on the clock in the GPS satellite than the force of the aether associated with a clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to result in a delay of about 7 microseconds per day. The force of the aether associated with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less force on the GPS satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth causing the GPS clocks to appear faster by about 45 microseconds per day. The force of the aether associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with respect to the aether and the force of the aether associated with the aether displaced by the Earth causes clocks on the GPS satellites to tick approximately 38 microseconds per day faster than clocks on the ground. So do you view aether as a force-field type thing and if so why does density cause it to be displaced from matter? Density does not cause aether to be displaced by matter. The greater the density the greater the mass of the matter per volume. The greater the mass of the matter per volume the less aether it contains. You have a tank which is full of water. You throw a rock into it. Water is displaced and spills out of the tank. You throw another stone in and more water is displaced. You repeat this process until all that is left in the tank is stones with water filling in the space between them. The greater the density of the stones in the volume of the tank the less water the tank contains the more water is displaced. If the tank is the universe filled with water then the more stones that get together within a particular region of three dimensional space the less water that region of three dimensional space contains, the more water which has been displaced from that region of three dimensional space. Same for matter and ether. If it is so connected to the existence of matter, then there would have to be some property of matter that creates aether and its displacement, no? 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein' http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html "Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field" The electromagnetic field is a state of aether. Matter is condensations of aether. DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A. EINSTEIN http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish; however, the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. Matter evaporates into aether. As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space. The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and matter is energy. Mass is conserved. Energy is conserved. -1
Recommended Posts