Luminiferous Aether Exists!

[Aqueous Id]

I don't deny the existence of the particles. I am able to understand there are too few of them to be what is causing the magnetic field to pile up.

Note:

Show mathematically that the quantity of particles is too low to affect the magnetic field.

Origin knows that F = qV x B, so the quantity of particles is not the only factor, but their velocity. He also knows related principles, like Coulomb's law, which shows how the electric force between charges relates identically to that of the propagation of the gravitational force between two masses. This is freshman math and science, nothing special. But this is why he's bringing it up. Nature follows laws, and the laws that predict what Voyager is detecting are the reason NASA put the detectors on board and waited 35 years to get the data.

Are you able to understand the following?

http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html

"the interstellar regions are more devoid of matter than any vacuum artificially created on earth"

So? What does that mean to you?

Are you able to understand that that means there are too few particles of matter to be what is causing the magnetic field to pile up?

Hahaha. Back to square 1. Let me try to paint you a picture:

What you are seeing is not aether, but the particles of Orion Nebula. The crescent shape around the bright object is its heliosphere--its magnetic field being blown outward by its particle emissions. That field is "piling up" as the "pressure" from all the stuff in the nebula (that happens to be racing towards it) "pushes" back the the other way. Another word for "piling up" is bow shock. As you can plainly see, there are no shortage of particles, as you seem to think.

It is the interstellar medium which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system which causes the magnetic field to pile up.

Look at the photo and tell me what the interstellar medium is composed of.

The interstellar medium is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system because it is displaced by the solar system.

Is that what the photo shows?

 

[Aqueous Id]

The interstellar medium is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid. It is the interstellar medium which the particles of matter exist in. It is you who is misusing the term interstellar medium. ... Call it the interstellar medium, aether, ether, plenum, quintessence, Higg's field, quantum foam, quantum vacuum or whatever else you prefer, 'it' exists where particles of matter do not and 'it' is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in 'it'. 'It' is what is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system which causes the magentic field to pile up.

Not quite:


[video=youtube;GYU5892R6IY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYU5892R6IY[/video]

 

[RealityCheck]

The interstellar medium is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid. It is the interstellar medium which the particles of matter exist in.

It is you who is misusing the term interstellar medium. You have to use nonsense terms such as 'energy-space' because of your inability to understand what you refer to as 'energy-space' is the state of the interstellar medium.

Call it the interstellar medium, aether, ether, plenum, quintessence, Higg's field, quantum foam, quantum vacuum or whatever else you prefer, 'it' exists where particles of matter do not and 'it' is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in 'it'. 'It' is what is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system which causes the magentic field to pile up.

No, the medium you are trying to nominate is UBIQUITOUS throught the universe, and not just in interstellar regions. That was all I was trying to get you to realize, that your term 'limiting' the description to 'interstellar' gives the wrong implication/inference in the context of UNIVERSAL medium which is what you actually are wanting to describe, irrespective of whether that is between stars of galaxies or clusters of galaxies or "the whole shebang" underlying energy-space context.

Use another 'descriptor' than 'interstellar'. That is all I am suggesting. The 'properties' of that 'medium' which you want to convey will not be changed, but other people's understanding of what medium you are talking about will then be 'on the same page'.

Maybe call it 'Universal Medium' if you don't like the 'universal energy-space' of my own TOE's 'perspective'. But just 'interstellar medium' is confusing to many others who want to read you properly otherwise.


Anyhow, good luck, g_a. See y'all in a few weeks!

 

[brucep]

Not quite:


[video=youtube;GYU5892R6IY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYU5892R6IY[/video]

Nice posts. Always.

 

[gravitational_aether]

What you are seeing is not aether, but the particles of Orion Nebula. The crescent shape around the bright object is its heliosphere--its magnetic field being blown outward by its particle emissions. That field is "piling up" as the "pressure" from all the stuff in the nebula (that happens to be racing towards it) "pushes" back the the other way. Another word for "piling up" is bow shock. As you can plainly see, there are no shortage of particles, as you seem to think.

'Surprise! IBEX Finds No Bow ‘Shock’ Outside our Solar System'
http://www.universetoday.com/95094/surprise-ibex-finds-no-bow-shock-outside-our-solar-system/

'“While bow shocks certainly exist ahead of many other stars, we’re finding that our Sun’s interaction doesn’t reach the critical threshold to form a shock,” said Dr. David McComas, principal investigator of the IBEX mission, “so a wave is a more accurate depiction of what’s happening ahead of our heliosphere — much like the wave made by the bow of a boat as it glides through the water.”'

Note the use of the analogy of the bow wave of a boat.

The wave ahead of our heliosphere is an aether displacement wave. This is evidence of a moving 'particle', the solar system, having an associated aether wave.

 

[gravitational_aether]

Not quite:


[video=youtube;GYU5892R6IY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYU5892R6IY[/video]

Yes quite. The interstellar medium is not the particles which exist in quantities less than in any vacuum artificially created on Earth. The particles of matter exist in the interstellar medium. The solar system is moving through and displacing the interstellar medium.

'Surprise! IBEX Finds No Bow ‘Shock’ Outside our Solar System'
http://www.universetoday.com/95094/surprise-ibex-finds-no-bow-shock-outside-our-solar-system/

'“While bow shocks certainly exist ahead of many other stars, we’re finding that our Sun’s interaction doesn’t reach the critical threshold to form a shock,” said Dr. David McComas, principal investigator of the IBEX mission, “so a wave is a more accurate depiction of what’s happening ahead of our heliosphere — much like the wave made by the bow of a boat as it glides through the water.”'

The wave ahead of our heliosphere is an aether displacement wave. This is evidence of a moving 'particle', the solar system, having an associated aether wave.

 

[gravitational_aether]

No, the medium you are trying to nominate is UBIQUITOUS throught the universe, and not just in interstellar regions. That was all I was trying to get you to realize, that your term 'limiting' the description to 'interstellar' gives the wrong implication/inference in the context of UNIVERSAL medium which is what you actually are wanting to describe, irrespective of whether that is between stars of galaxies or clusters of galaxies or "the whole shebang" underlying energy-space context.

Use another 'descriptor' than 'interstellar'. That is all I am suggesting. The 'properties' of that 'medium' which you want to convey will not be changed, but other people's understanding of what medium you are talking about will then be 'on the same page'.

Maybe call it 'Universal Medium' if you don't like the 'universal energy-space' of my own TOE's 'perspective'. But just 'interstellar medium' is confusing to many others who want to read you properly otherwise.


Anyhow, good luck, g_a. See y'all in a few weeks!

It's called the aether, it has mass and it is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

 

[Prof.Layman]

It's called the aether, it has mass and it is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

There is no aether displacement caused by particles. Say there lived a photon that no one told that he could travel the speed of light. So this photon assumes he is at rest, then according to relativity spacetime would approuch zero in this frame of reference. There would then be no distance in space to displace! Photons exibit similair behavior to that of heavier particles that travel a bit less than the speed of light. The physics isn't done like this because you would end up getting zero's and infinities, but I think the rules of relativity would still apply to objects traveling close to the speed of light. I think this could help you see that there is no aether displacement, because in certain frames of reference they are not even traveling through space. "There is no spoon." - The Matrix

 

[gravitational_aether]

There is no aether displacement caused by particles. Say there lived a photon that no one told that he could travel the speed of light. So this photon assumes he is at rest, then according to relativity spacetime would approuch zero in this frame of reference. There would then be no distance in space to displace! Photons exibit similair behavior to that of heavier particles that travel a bit less than the speed of light. The physics isn't done like this because you would end up getting zero's and infinities, but I think the rules of relativity would still apply to objects traveling close to the speed of light. I think this could help you see that there is no aether displacement, because in certain frames of reference they are not even traveling through space. "There is no spoon." - The Matrix

Everything is with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists, including the rate at which atomic clocks tick. This is why the speed of light is always measured to be 'c'.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Yes quite. The interstellar medium is not the particles....

No, no quite:

In astronomy, the interstellar medium (or ISM) is the matter that exists in the space between the star systems in a galaxy. This matter includes gas in ionic, atomic, and molecular form, dust, and cosmic rays. It fills interstellar space and blends smoothly into the surrounding intergalactic space.

. . .which exist in quantities less than in any vacuum artificially created on Earth.

Yes and the heliosphere is very weak by Earth standards, which is why only a few particles per sq meter are sufficient to bend it and compress it, particularly when they arrive with high kinetic energy.

The particles of matter exist in the interstellar medium. The solar system is moving through and displacing the interstellar medium.

To be more precise, the gas and dust of the interstellar medium displace the B field at the nose of the solar system's trajectory, and high energy particles are captured, while low energy particles are reflected back into the medium. High energy particles coming from the sun leak out and are left behind. "Displacing the medium" is therefore meaningless. Particles are exchanged. In some cases more may be captured than emitted. Or the converse. It depends on the changing particle energy and density of the interstellar medium as the solar system swims through the wispy formations, clumps and voids of dust and gas.

'“While bow shocks certainly exist ahead of many other stars, we’re finding that our Sun’s interaction doesn’t reach the critical threshold to form a shock,” said Dr. David McComas, principal investigator of the IBEX mission, “so a wave is a more accurate depiction of what’s happening ahead of our heliosphere — much like the wave made by the bow of a boat as it glides through the water.”'

The wave ahead of our heliosphere is an aether displacement wave. This is evidence of a moving 'particle', the solar system, having an associated aether wave.

No, that's absurd. Dr McComas is referring to an electromagnetic wave.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Everything is with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists, including the rate at which atomic clocks tick. This is why the speed of light is always measured to be 'c'.

A very poor choice of comparisons in reference to relativity. The atomic clock will dilate in relativistic motion, whereas the light to and from the object carrying the clock will emanate at constant velocity. Yet another reason that aether can't exist. I think you just disproved your beliefs quite convincingly.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Note the use of the analogy of the bow wave of a boat.

Note, the only references by NASA are to magnetic fields and charged particles. The arc you see in the photo of Orion nebula is the edge of a star's heliosphere, a magnetic field, lit up because of the particles reflected by it. The crescent shape is due to the interstellar medium of charged particles that bend the sphere according to F = qV x B. I provided this image in answer to your belief that something else is bending our heliosphere. You can see what's going on there, and it has nothing at all to do with aether. It's all about electromagnetics.

 

[RealityCheck]

It's called the aether, it has mass and it is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

Sorry mate, I've just about stopped all internet posting for a few weeks, and this will probably be my last post for some time. I have very little time, so briefly...

Your approach mixes TWO contexts/dynamics such that your perspective has a foot in both such that your analogies/terminology does not properly identify the domain of either.

Remember always that ANY fundamental universal medium must BE universal and fundamental. Once you have identified/understood that, you will then be able to see the confusions brought about by your conflation of both, the dynamics/features of the ubiquitous medium, and the overlay dynamics of your 'particle' mediums, whatever their nature.

These later 'particulate' dynamics are NOT fundamental and ubiquitous, they in fact 'locally' arise and evolve/process and subside forming phenomena which can be observed in regions OF that ubiquitous underlying universal medium.

Distinguish between particle your particle medium (which is always higher-level and localized) phenomena; and the universal energy-space medium which zIS everywhere, including where 'particles' of any sort are (since these are energy-space features). Hence the real universal medium is ALSO part OF any higher-level 'particulate media and its higher-level dynamics/phenomenological evolutions/interactions until they eventually locally subside (via annihilation-negation interactions) into the ubiquitous universal energy-space 'ground state' reservoir from which new features/particles/dynamics arise locally via further fluctuations.

I suggest you review your perspective having regard to these TWO CONTEXTS for the 'media' you use to explain both local and universal contexts/dynamics.

That's all I have time for, mate. Until we speak again, good luck and good thinking, g_a, everyone! Back in a few weeks!

 

[gravitational_aether]

No, no quite:

In astronomy, the interstellar medium (or ISM) is the matter that exists in the space between the star systems in a galaxy. This matter includes gas in ionic, atomic, and molecular form, dust, and cosmic rays. It fills interstellar space and blends smoothly into the surrounding intergalactic space.

That definition is incorrect and shows the ignorance associated with mainstream physics.

Yes and the heliosphere is very weak by Earth standards, which is why only a few particles per sq meter are sufficient to bend it and compress it, particularly when they arrive with high kinetic energy.



To be more precise, the gas and dust of the interstellar medium displace the B field at the nose of the solar system's trajectory, and high energy particles are captured, while low energy particles are reflected back into the medium. High energy particles coming from the sun leak out and are left behind. "Displacing the medium" is therefore meaningless. Particles are exchanged. In some cases more may be captured than emitted. Or the converse. It depends on the changing particle energy and density of the interstellar medium as the solar system swims through the wispy formations, clumps and voids of dust and gas.



No, that's absurd. Dr McComas is referring to an electromagnetic wave.

The analogy of the bow wave of a boat is more accurate than you are able or willing to understand.

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter.

The bow wave of a boat is the boat's associated water displacement wave. The wave out ahead of our solar system is the solar system's associated aether displacement wave.

The reason why there is an offset between the light lensing through the space neighboring galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters themselves is because the galaxy clusters are moving through and displacing the aether.

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

The 'core' of mass 'left behind' when galaxy clusters collide is caused by the galaxy clusters moving through and displacing the aether.

It is the aether displaced by the matter the solar system consists of which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system which causes the magentic field to pile up.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether through both.

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

The Milky Way's halo is what Einstein referred to as curved spacetime.

Here we have the Milky Way's halo which is the best evidence yet of curved spacetime and you have to deny this evidence because acknowledging this evidence would cause you to have to admit aether exists.

It is more important to you to remain ignorant of understanding what occurs physically in nature than to admit aether exists.

"space without ether is unthinkable" - Albert Einstein

 

[gravitational_aether]

A very poor choice of comparisons in reference to relativity. The atomic clock will dilate in relativistic motion, whereas the light to and from the object carrying the clock will emanate at constant velocity. Yet another reason that aether can't exist. I think you just disproved your beliefs quite convincingly.

It is measured to be at 'c' because everything is with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists including the instruments used to determine the speed of light.

 

[gravitational_aether]

Sorry mate, I've just about stopped all internet posting for a few weeks, and this will probably be my last post for some time. I have very little time, so briefly...

Your approach mixes TWO contexts/dynamics such that your perspective has a foot in both such that your analogies/terminology does not properly identify the domain of either.

Remember always that ANY fundamental universal medium must BE universal and fundamental. Once you have identified/understood that, you will then be able to see the confusions brought about by your conflation of both, the dynamics/features of the ubiquitous medium, and the overlay dynamics of your 'particle' mediums, whatever their nature.

These later 'particulate' dynamics are NOT fundamental and ubiquitous, they in fact 'locally' arise and evolve/process and subside forming phenomena which can be observed in regions OF that ubiquitous underlying universal medium.

Distinguish between particle your particle medium (which is always higher-level and localized) phenomena; and the universal energy-space medium which zIS everywhere, including where 'particles' of any sort are (since these are energy-space features). Hence the real universal medium is ALSO part OF any higher-level 'particulate media and its higher-level dynamics/phenomenological evolutions/interactions until they eventually locally subside (via annihilation-negation interactions) into the ubiquitous universal energy-space 'ground state' reservoir from which new features/particles/dynamics arise locally via further fluctuations.

I suggest you review your perspective having regard to these TWO CONTEXTS for the 'media' you use to explain both local and universal contexts/dynamics.

That's all I have time for, mate. Until we speak again, good luck and good thinking, g_a, everyone! Back in a few weeks!

Aether and matter have mass.

Particles of matter are condensations of aether.

Particles of matter exist in and displace the aether.

When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.

 

[AlexG]

This is just the same crap again and again and again.

Just as it was the last time MPC755 showed up.

Apparently, the mods just don't care.

 

[Prof.Layman]

Everything is with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists, including the rate at which atomic clocks tick. This is why the speed of light is always measured to be 'c'.

I think you have it backwards. The speed of light is always measured to be "c", and then that is why atomic clocks are seen to change the rate at which they tick. If you say that "c" is constant and that is a measurement of speed, then what you use to measure that speed has to give way or change in order to maintain the constant speed "c" in all reference frames. So then if there was some aether that traveled at a constant speed, then everything else would have to give way in order to maintain that constant speed. So then we know that there is not an aether that travels at a constant speed relative to everything else. The M&M Experiment showed that the speed of light is not altered by the relative velocity of the Earth, but they did find that the speed of light is constant in perpendicular directions. So in a way the speed of light has taken the role of the aether. It is the constant or the object that does not obey the basic premis of relativity, in that it is measured to travel the same speed no matter what velocity the observer is traveling at. So then the speed of light acts like a prefered frame of reference, it is a true constant velocity. You could never travel the speed of light and see light waves riding next to you because you would never be able to come one step closer to the velocity of light. No matter how much you increase your speed it will always remain the speed of light faster than you are, even if you are traveling close to the speed of light relative to something else. So you see if you introduce something that is a constant that is determined by other variables then those other variables have to be changed and altered in strange ways. I don't think spacetime even exist for something traveling the speed of light, and spacetime is only an illusion created by us not traveling the speed of light. That is the nature of the existance of space. So then it is hard to imagine particle behaivor being determined by something that from a relativity point of view, says that spacetime from this frame of reference doesn't even really exist. And then likewise the rules of relativity to not really apply to this type of particle behaivor, go figure.

 

[origin]

Sorry mate, I've just about stopped all internet posting for a few weeks, and this will probably be my last post for some time.

I'm sure many share my joy at hearing this. I assume this is to produce your Theory of Everything, or as I like to call it your Arm Waving Bull Shit. Take your time and get it just the way you want it. If it takes years and you don't have time to post here I am sure that it will be ok with the overwhelming majority of the people here.

Do you think you could work with gravitational aether and occupy his time too??

 

[gravitational_aether]

I think you have it backwards. The speed of light is always measured to be "c", and then that is why atomic clocks are seen to change the rate at which they tick. If you say that "c" is constant and that is a measurement of speed, then what you use to measure that speed has to give way or change in order to maintain the constant speed "c" in all reference frames. So then if there was some aether that traveled at a constant speed, then everything else would have to give way in order to maintain that constant speed. So then we know that there is not an aether that travels at a constant speed relative to everything else. The M&M Experiment showed that the speed of light is not altered by the relative velocity of the Earth, but they did find that the speed of light is constant in perpendicular directions. So in a way the speed of light has taken the role of the aether. It is the constant or the object that does not obey the basic premis of relativity, in that it is measured to travel the same speed no matter what velocity the observer is traveling at. So then the speed of light acts like a prefered frame of reference, it is a true constant velocity. You could never travel the speed of light and see light waves riding next to you because you would never be able to come one step closer to the velocity of light. No matter how much you increase your speed it will always remain the speed of light faster than you are, even if you are traveling close to the speed of light relative to something else. So you see if you introduce something that is a constant that is determined by other variables then those other variables have to be changed and altered in strange ways. I don't think spacetime even exist for something traveling the speed of light, and spacetime is only an illusion created by us not traveling the speed of light. That is the nature of the existance of space. So then it is hard to imagine particle behaivor being determined by something that from a relativity point of view, says that spacetime from this frame of reference doesn't even really exist. And then likewise the rules of relativity to not really apply to this type of particle behaivor, go figure.

You have an atomic clock at sea level. You take the atomic clock to the top of a mountain. The atomic clock ticks at a different rate because the state of the aether in which it exists has changed.

The MMX looked for a stationary aether the Earth moves through. The aether is not stationary. Aether is displaced by matter.

Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see a visual representation of the state of the aether. What is referred to as a twist in spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether. What is referred to as frame-dragging is the state of displacement of the aether.

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

The analogy is putting a mesh bag full of marbles into a supersolid and spinning the bag of marbles. If you were unable to determine if the superfluid consists of particles or not you would still be able to detect the state of displacement of the supersolid.

The supersolid connected to and neighboring the mesh bag of marbles is in the same state throughout the rotation of the bag in the supersolid.

The aether connected to and neighboring the Earth is in the same state, or almost the same state, throughout the Earth's rotation about its axis and orbit of the Sun.

The state of which as determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.