mooeypoo Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 ! Moderator Note The speculation rules are not out for debate or deliberation, they exist for a reason. We are a science forum, and we discuss theories in light of the scientific method - which includes substantiating claims. This is not optional.You are given ample time to do so, mpc755. You were asked, now you're being told. Follow the rules and start cooperating according to proper scientific debate, or this thread will be closed.You chose to come to a science-based forum. It's time you follow the rules you agreed upon when you did that.Consider this the last time we request you provide evidence. You either start cooperating, or we start treating this circular evasion as the trolling it is, and close the thread.
mpc755 Posted May 24, 2011 Author Posted May 24, 2011 (edited) ! Moderator Note The speculation rules are not out for debate or deliberation, they exist for a reason. We are a science forum, and we discuss theories in light of the scientific method - which includes substantiating claims. This is not optional. You are given ample time to do so, mpc755. You were asked, now you're being told. Follow the rules and start cooperating according to proper scientific debate, or this thread will be closed. You chose to come to a science-based forum. It's time you follow the rules you agreed upon when you did that. Consider this the last time we request you provide evidence. You either start cooperating, or we start treating this circular evasion as the trolling it is, and close the thread. Aether Displacement explains why the shape of the Milky Way's 'dark matter' is in the shape of a squished beach ball. 'Dark Halo Around Our Galaxy Looks Like Squished Beach Ball' http://www.space.com/7746-dark-halo-galaxy-squished-beach-ball.html "Dark matter seems to shroud the remaining visible matter in giant spheres called haloes." The Milky Way's halo is displaced aether. "But the new study found that the Milky Way's halo isn't exactly spherical, but squished. In fact, its beach-ball form is flattened in a surprising direction perpendicular to the galaxy's visible, pancake-shaped spiral disk." All of the aether displaced by the Milky Way matter exerts force towards the matter. The force exerted towards the matter by the aether displaced perpendicular to the plane of the galaxy's spiral disk offset. It is the aether which is displaced outward relative to the plane of the spiral disk which exerts force towards the center of the galaxy. This forces the matter closer together which results in the displaced aether looking like a squished beach ball. If you can't explain why the Milky Way's halo is in the shape of a squished beach ball then how do you know I am trolling? Matter does not move with dark matter. Matter moves through the aether. 'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies' http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16739.x/abstract "We compile a sample of 38 galaxy clusters which have both X-ray and strong lensing observations, and study for each cluster the projected offset between the dominant component of baryonic matter centre (measured by X-rays) and the gravitational centre (measured by strong lensing). Among the total sample, 45 per cent clusters have offsets >10 arcsec. The >10 arcsec separations are significant, considering the arcsecond precision in the measurement of the lensing/X-ray centres. This suggests that it might be a common phenomenon in unrelaxed galaxy clusters that gravitational field is separated spatially from the dominant component of baryonic matter. It also has consequences for lensing models of unrelaxed clusters since the gas mass distribution may differ from the dark matter distribution and give perturbations to the modelling. Such offsets can be used as a statistical tool for comparison with the results of Lambda cold dark matter ( CDM) simulations and to test the modified dynamics." The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving with respect to the state of the aether. If you can't explain why there is an offset between the galaxy clusters and the 'dark matter' then how do you know I am trolling? 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. If you can't explain what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity then how do you know I am trolling? A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment, the particle travels a single path and enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits both slits. The 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 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 altered. If you can't explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment then how do you know I am trolling? If you can't provide one piece of evidence which suggests any of the above is incorrect then how do you know I am trolling? Edited May 24, 2011 by mpc755 -1
mooeypoo Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 We don't need to explain, you do. You're the one making the off mainstream claim. You're the one in need of explaining and substantiating it. Claim from ignorance is not proof; the fact YOU don't understand how something works, doesn't mean it's not understood. You either want to discuss the mainstream theories (without claiming new theory) or you discuss your theory, in which case you are in dire need of substantiation. Seeing as you can't provide a single shred of barely operational mathematical predictive anything for 4 pages, I'll take it that you can't. Even the speculation forum has rules. Do read them. This is the last time anyone - particularly a staff member quoting the rules for you - is going to ask you to do that. ~mooey
mpc755 Posted May 24, 2011 Author Posted May 24, 2011 (edited) We don't need to explain, you do. You're the one making the off mainstream claim. You're the one in need of explaining and substantiating it. Claim from ignorance is not proof; the fact YOU don't understand how something works, doesn't mean it's not understood. No mainstream physicist can explain what occurs physically in nature to cause the offset between 'dark matter' and the galaxy clusters. No mainstream physicist can explain what occurs physically in nature to cause the Milky Way's halo to be in the shape of a squished beach ball. No mainstream physicst can explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment. No mainstream physicist can explain what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity. Do you know why they can't? Because understanding aether has mass, aether physically occupies three dimensional space, aether is physically displaced by matter, a moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave and force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity is not mainstream. It is the most correct explanation of what occurs physically in nature to date. You either want to discuss the mainstream theories (without claiming new theory) or you discuss your theory, in which case you are in dire need of substantiation. Seeing as you can't provide a single shred of barely operational mathematical predictive anything for 4 pages, I'll take it that you can't. Even the speculation forum has rules. Do read them. This is the last time anyone - particularly a staff member quoting the rules for you - is going to ask you to do that. ~mooey All 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiments are explained by understanding conservation of momentum and a moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. Following the explanation is an experiment which will provide evidence of aether displacement. 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 24, 2011 by mpc755
swansont Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 … 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. … Aether exists where matter does not. That's not a derivation, and isn't even an explanation of why gravity drops off as 1/r^2. Does a displaced fluid display that sort of behavior? Shall we just mark this down as a "No, I can't derive it" ? 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. If we're moving through the aether, why didn't the Michelson-Morley experiment show an appropriate shift in the interference fringes?
mpc755 Posted May 24, 2011 Author Posted May 24, 2011 (edited) That's not a derivation, and isn't even an explanation of why gravity drops off as 1/r^2. Does a displaced fluid display that sort of behavior? It would have to be a frictionless superfluid with properties of a solid like the following. 'Superfluid Is Shown To Have Property Of A Solid' http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/990730072958.htm "Northwestern University physicists have for the first time shown that superfluid helium-3 -- the lighter isotope of helium, which is a liquid that has lost all internal friction, allowing it to flow without resistance and ooze through tiny spaces that normal liquids cannot penetrate -- actually behaves like a solid in its ability to conduct sound waves." '"Faraday's finding was the first indication that light and magnetism were related," says William Halperin, professor of physics and astronomy at Northwestern. "I wouldn't say that our discovery is of that magnitude, but it is significant as the first observation of a previously unknown mode of wave propagation in a liquid -- one that is of the type you would expect to see in a solid."' My guess is it is the 'property of a solid' which gives it its elasticity. Einstein's 'First Paper' http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf "The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces." More correctly described as the square root of the elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether [displaced] by these forces. Shall we just mark this down as a "No, I can't derive it" ? I don't even know what derive means. I could look it up but if I don't know what it means looking up the definition of it doesn't mean I am going to be able to derive it. If we're moving through the aether, why didn't the Michelson-Morley experiment show an appropriate shift in the interference fringes? The Michelson-Morley experiment was looking for an ether similar to the ether of Lorentz. An immobile ether the Earth moves with respect to; or some type of stationary ether which the Earth is moving with respect to. Einstein removed from the ether of Lorentz its immobility. 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein' http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html "It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility." The mistake everyone makes when they read the above article is to mistake immobility for motion. Einstein's definition of motion is defined throughout the article as individual particles which can be separately tracked through time. Not being able to apply the idea of motion to the ether does not mean it is immobile. It means the ether does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time. Replacing water with ether from the article defines the ether as: if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the [ether] as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that [ether] consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium. NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment" http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/ "Our planet spins, and the spin should twist the dimple, slightly, pulling it around into a 4-dimensional swirl. This is what GP-B went to space in 2004 to check." And found. Either the spin physically exists in the displaced aether or what is described as spin is the state of displacement of the aether. Either way this is evidence the aether is in the same state, or almost the same state, where it is located with respect to the Earth throughout the Earth's rotation about its axis and orbit of the Sun. The near-null result of the Michelson Morley experiment is expected based on the GP-B experiment. The recent GP-B experiment is evidence of the ether of general relativity. 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state." The cause which conditions its state is its displacement by matter. Edited May 24, 2011 by mpc755
swansont Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 I don't even know what derive means. I could look it up but if I don't know what it means looking up the definition of it doesn't mean I am going to be able to derive it. So when you claim that the aether explains all these phenomena, you don't really know that, because you don't know how the aether is supposed to behave. It just sounds good, but not only hasn't it undergone the scrutiny of relativity, it can't because there is nothing to scrutinize. It's magic! "explains" all of these phenomena too, but until you can precisely predict a behavior in a new situation, there's not only no way to test the model, there is no model. Which leads us back to speculations rule #1, which demands that you have something other than hand-waving in support of an idea.
imatfaal Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 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. The whole point of the dcqe is that it measures the route that the driver photon took through the slits by observation of the idler. That information is either maintained - by looking at the signal photon pattern linked by coincidence counter to a detection of the idler by the detectors D3 and D4 then no interference occurs (not is unable to be discerned, none occurs!). But even after the signal photons have impacted the D0 detector - if we "erase" the information of the route by using a coincidence of idler photons at D1 and D2 - which because of the recombination we do not know which route was taken - then two out of phase interference patterns can be discerned. Your modification removes the recombination of the two idler paths (ie stops the eraser) and if we then look at the coincident pattern at D0 with a non-recombined path we will see two distributions each with NO interference just like at D3 and D4. If anyone could explain to me in simple terms why the D1 and D2 observations (in the real experiment not MPCs castrated version) are out of phase I would love to know - I cannot follow the heavy maths on the paper itself.
mpc755 Posted May 24, 2011 Author Posted May 24, 2011 (edited) So when you claim that the aether explains all these phenomena, you don't really know that, because you don't know how the aether is supposed to behave. It just sounds good, but not only hasn't it undergone the scrutiny of relativity, it can't because there is nothing to scrutinize. It's magic! "explains" all of these phenomena too, but until you can precisely predict a behavior in a new situation, there's not only no way to test the model, there is no model. Which leads us back to speculations rule #1, which demands that you have something other than hand-waving in support of an idea. All 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiments are explained by understanding conservation of momentum and a moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. Following the explanation is an experiment which will provide evidence of aether displacement. Following this is an explanation of what will be derived for the offset between the galaxy clusters matter and their gravitational center which will provide evidence the galaxy clusters are moving with respect to the state of the aether. 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. 'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies' http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16739.x/abstract "We compile a sample of 38 galaxy clusters which have both X-ray and strong lensing observations, and study for each cluster the projected offset between the dominant component of baryonic matter centre (measured by X-rays) and the gravitational centre (measured by strong lensing). Among the total sample, 45 per cent clusters have offsets >10 arcsec. The >10 arcsec separations are significant, considering the arcsecond precision in the measurement of the lensing/X-ray centres. This suggests that it might be a common phenomenon in unrelaxed galaxy clusters that gravitational field is separated spatially from the dominant component of baryonic matter. It also has consequences for lensing models of unrelaxed clusters since the gas mass distribution may differ from the dark matter distribution and give perturbations to the modelling. Such offsets can be used as a statistical tool for comparison with the results of Lambda cold dark matter ( CDM) simulations and to test the modified dynamics." The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving with respect to the state of the aether. The analogy is a submarine moving through the ocean. You are a mile from the submarine. A mile on the other side of the submarine are many lights. As the submarine moves between you and the lights the light waves from the distant light sources changes as it interacts with the water displaced by the submarine. There will be an offset between the submarine itself and its 'gravitational center' as determined by measuring the light which propagates through the water displaced by the moving submarine. '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 galaxy clusters are moving directionally because their motion is determined by the state of the aether in which they exist. When the offset for the clusters moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra is detected it will be in the direction the clusters are traveling. The analogy is a comet moving away from the Sun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_tail "the ion tail, made of gases, always points directly away from the Sun, as this gas is more strongly affected by the solar wind than is dust, following magnetic field lines rather than an orbital trajectory" The offset between galaxy clusters and the aether is caused by the galaxy clusters interaction with the aether. The change in state of the aether is in the direction the galaxy clusters are traveling. The analogy is an object floating down stream. The object flows with the stream of water but moves down stream slower than the water itself. This will not be true of all galaxy clusters and their interaction with the aether. However, it will be so for the galaxy clusters which are moving directionally toward Centaurus/Hydra because their directionality is caused by their interaction with the state of the aether. When all of the offsets for all of the galaxy clusters are factored together they will not correspond with the speed at which the galaxy clusters are moving. The offset will not be able to be defined simply as lagging the galaxy clusters. The offsets will correlate to the state of the aether in which the galaxy clusters exist. The whole point of the dcqe is that it measures the route that the driver photon took through the slits by observation of the idler. That information is either maintained - by looking at the signal photon pattern linked by coincidence counter to a detection of the idler by the detectors D3 and D4 then no interference occurs (not is unable to be discerned, none occurs!). But even after the signal photons have impacted the D0 detector - if we "erase" the information of the route by using a coincidence of idler photons at D1 and D2 - which because of the recombination we do not know which route was taken - then two out of phase interference patterns can be discerned. In order to understand my experiment you must first set aside the misunderstanding of the experiment which you have been subjected to. Nothing is erased in a 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiment. There are always two interference patterns created at D0 by two different sets of correlated photons. When the photons are detected at D3 and D4 there is not enough information to discern one interference pattern at D0 from the other. Both 'up' and 'down' photons are being detected at D3 and D4. When the photons pass through the polarizers BSa and BSb and then interact with the polarizer at BSc all 'up' photons wind up at D1 and the other set of correlated photons wind up at D2. The combination of the red and blue paths which is supposedly 'erasing' information is simply combining the aether waves traveling both the red and blue paths, which causes the waves to create wave interference, which allows the photon traveling either the red or blue path to be able to create an interference pattern at D1 and D2. My experiment is simply showing you do not have to 'erase' anything and you will still be able to derive the two interference patterns which are CREATED AT D0 REGARDLESS OF WHAT ELSE OCCURS IN THE EXPERIMENT. Your modification removes the recombination of the two idler paths (ie stops the eraser) and if we then look at the coincident pattern at D0 with a non-recombined path we will see two distributions each with NO interference just like at D3 and D4. You are insisting the interference patterns at D0 will not be able to be discerned in my experiment. I am stating they will be. That is the point of my experiment. Edited May 24, 2011 by mpc755
imatfaal Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 above is just a rehash of previous posts. It is quite clear that you do not understand the experiments you are claiming support your theory
mpc755 Posted May 24, 2011 Author Posted May 24, 2011 above is just a rehash of previous posts. It is quite clear that you do not understand the experiments you are claiming support your theory You are insisting the interference patterns at D0 will not be able to be discerned in my experiment, correct? I am stating they will be. That is the point of my experiment.
lemur Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 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. Yes, I know what displacement means. I see that you view aether as something that is displaced by matter but what about the other questions such as what either is, why/how it clings to matter that displaces it instead of floating away, whether it displaces itself or matter or not and why, etc. All you are really saying at the point is that aether is to matter what shadows are to light. The fact that objects block light doesn't prove that shade is somehow a type of substance that is displaced by light. That is just reification of zero-sum logic. You might as well be claiming that death is a substance that is displaced by life or that deceit is a substance displaced by truth. Any of these would make for potentially interesting (or dull) metaphysical discussions, as could the idea that matter and aether are polar-opposites in physical interactions, but to make it an interesting scientific discussion you need to put forth some kind of falsifiable claims or mechanics that are testable by observation or at least empirical/mechanical logic. What does your aether do and how does it work? Displacement in and of itself is insufficient as a basis for anything except a metaphysical assertion that zero-sum logic is innate in nature.
mpc755 Posted May 24, 2011 Author Posted May 24, 2011 (edited) Yes, I know what displacement means. I see that you view aether as something that is displaced by matter but what about the other questions such as what either is, why/how it clings to matter that displaces it instead of floating away, whether it displaces itself or matter or not and why, etc. All you are really saying at the point is that aether is to matter what shadows are to light. The fact that objects block light doesn't prove that shade is somehow a type of substance that is displaced by light. That is just reification of zero-sum logic. You might as well be claiming that death is a substance that is displaced by life or that deceit is a substance displaced by truth. Any of these would make for potentially interesting (or dull) metaphysical discussions, as could the idea that matter and aether are polar-opposites in physical interactions, but to make it an interesting scientific discussion you need to put forth some kind of falsifiable claims or mechanics that are testable by observation or at least empirical/mechanical logic. What does your aether do and how does it work? Displacement in and of itself is insufficient as a basis for anything except a metaphysical assertion that zero-sum logic is innate in nature. What is presently postulated as dark matter is aether. There is no such thing as dark matter traveling with matter. Matter moves with respect to the state of the 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. Aether is, or behaves similar to, a frictionless superfluid with properties of a solid. Aether is 'connected' to matter because it exists where matter does not. Aether exists between the nuclei of atoms and between the component particles which nuclei consist of. Edited May 24, 2011 by mpc755
lemur Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 What is presently postulated as dark matter is aether. There is no such thing as dark matter traveling with matter. Matter moves with respect to the state of the 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. Aether is, or behaves similar to, a frictionless superfluid with properties of a solid. Aether is 'connected' to matter because it exists where matter does not. Aether exists between the nuclei of atoms and between the component particles which nuclei consist of. How can any substance with mass be frictionless? Inertia is a fundamental property of matter with mass, and particles with inertia necessarily create friction, don't they?
mooeypoo Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 ! Moderator Note Alright, enough. Let me remind you (again) of our speculation forum rules: 1. 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. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure. The OP was given quite a lot of time to follow this rule by providing actual evidence of any scientific form to support his claim, and in particular an alternative mathematical equations that show the suggested theory to be better than the existing theories with existing mathematical predictive equations.This thread is now just going in circles, and is therefore closed.
Recommended Posts