Luminiferous Aether Exists!

[gravitational_aether]

It all can be easily and incorrectly explained by suspending all rational thought and making up goof crap to substitute for your complete and utter lack of any vague understanding of physics.

I understand there is experimental evidence which refutes the notion 'dark matter' is anchored to matter.

'Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/mar/HQ_12-068_Hubble_Dark_Core.html

"This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected into a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. "This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results available online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter.""

The dark matter core does not defy explanation. The dark matter core is not a puzzle. The dark matter core is not difficult to explain. It is obviously clear what is going on.

Non-baryonic dark matter and galaxies are not anchored together. There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

 

[RealityCheck]

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.

I gave you the clues. Nothing 'displaces' the fundamental energy-space primary vacuum. Every 'particle' or 'wave' or other 'feature' in the secondary vacuum IS MADE FROM energy-space, and is only 'differentiated' by its phenomenological behaviour/dynamics in a secondary vacuum 'dynamics' which arise/evolve/subside in the fundamental primary energy-space. Particles and waves OF fundamental energy-space are always fundamental energy-space, so no 'displacement necessary to explain their 'quantum effectiveness' in the secondary 'differentiated energy-space' dynamics. See? No displacement as such. Easy analogy...a 'water-ocean':currents/waves in the water-ocean ARE WATER still, differentiated from the 'fundamental water-ocean' context/nature only by the behaviour of 'solitonic' and 'flow' local water-ocean 'features' which have a dynamics of their own in their secondary 'solitonic/flow' context interactions as they arise/evolve/subside in the water-ocean which is always there and never 'displaced' but only 'differentiated' in localized regions of higher solitonic/flow dynamics.

Gotta go. Back in a few weeks. That's all the clues I can give you. You can figure out the rest so that your own perspective is not so conflating of the two dynamics/contexts.

Good luck, g_a!

 

[RealityCheck]

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??

That is a very ungenerous and uncalled-for cheap-shot empty and malicious troll-post, mate. You will be reminded of this in due course. Get a better character and mindset for yourself, quick! If not for humanity's sake and science's sake, then for your own. Good luck until we speak again, origin, everyone.

 

[origin]

That is a very ungenerous and uncalled-for cheap-shot empty and malicious troll-post, mate. You will be reminded of this in due course. Get a better character and mindset for yourself, quick! If not for humanity's sake and science's sake, then for your own. Good luck until we speak again, origin, everyone.

I believe you meant, "Get a better character and mindset for yourself, quickLY!

I sincerly doubt my mindset has very much affect on huminity or science.

 

[gravitational_aether]

I gave you the clues. Nothing 'displaces' the fundamental energy-space primary vacuum. Every 'particle' or 'wave' or other 'feature' in the secondary vacuum IS MADE FROM energy-space, and is only 'differentiated' by its phenomenological behaviour/dynamics in a secondary vacuum 'dynamics' which arise/evolve/subside in the fundamental primary energy-space. Particles and waves OF fundamental energy-space are always fundamental energy-space, so no 'displacement necessary to explain their 'quantum effectiveness' in the secondary 'differentiated energy-space' dynamics. See? No displacement as such. Easy analogy...a 'water-ocean':currents/waves in the water-ocean ARE WATER still, differentiated from the 'fundamental water-ocean' context/nature only by the behaviour of 'solitonic' and 'flow' local water-ocean 'features' which have a dynamics of their own in their secondary 'solitonic/flow' context interactions as they arise/evolve/subside in the water-ocean which is always there and never 'displaced' but only 'differentiated' in localized regions of higher solitonic/flow dynamics.

Gotta go. Back in a few weeks. That's all the clues I can give you. You can figure out the rest so that your own perspective is not so conflating of the two dynamics/contexts.

Good luck, g_a!

When you place an ice cube into a glass of water the ice cube displaces the water. Both are made of H2O.

 

[origin]

The dark matter core does not defy explanation. The dark matter core is not a puzzle. The dark matter core is not difficult to explain. It is obviously clear what is going on.

It is clear only to the scientifically ignorant.

Non-baryonic dark matter and galaxies are not anchored together. There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

No matter how many times you repeat falsehood, it will not magically become true.

 

[origin]

When you place an ice cube into a glass of water the ice cube displaces the water. Both are made of H2O.

Jesus H Christ - You said something that is a fact. I think I just blew out my aorta! Quick follow it up with something silly before I bleed out!!

 

[gravitational_aether]

It is clear only to the scientifically ignorant.



No matter how many times you repeat falsehood, it will not magically become true.

Are you even able to conceptually understand the experimental evidence 'dark matter' is not anchored to matter? I won't even bother to ask you what you think that means.

It means matter moves through and displaces the aether.

 

[gravitational_aether]

You said something that is a fact.

'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 the 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 evaporates into aether it expands into neighboring places; which is energy. Mass is conserved.

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

 

[origin]

Are you even able to conceptually understand the experimental evidence 'dark matter' is not anchored to matter? I won't even bother to ask you what you think that means.

That's good, it would just confuse you even more - if that is possible.

It means matter moves through and displaces the aether.

It could mean alot of things, but we can all agree it ain't that!

 

[origin]

'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 the 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 evaporates into aether it expands into neighboring places; which is energy. Mass is conserved.

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

Thanks for the quick silly follow up! I thought I was a goner there, whew. All is right in the universe again.

 

[gravitational_aether]

That's good, it would just confuse you even more - if that is possible.

It could mean alot of things, but we can all agree it ain't that!

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Particles of matter move through and displace the aether.

 

[gravitational_aether]

Thanks for the quick silly follow up! I thought I was a goner there, whew. All is right in the universe again.

'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.

 

[RealityCheck]

When you place an ice cube into a glass of water the ice cube displaces the water. Both are made of H2O.

I tried to tell you that the fundamental energy-space medium is not 'displaceable' like that. The 'water-ocean' was just an analogy. The water-ocean can have water molecules SEPARATED and more FUNDAMENTAL energy-space' left between.

Such 'separation' does not occur in the energy-space fundamental context, since ther is no more-fundamental 'thing' that can 'occupy' the larger gaps between, and hence 'water-ice' analogy (less-dense 'energy-space' regions) can NOT occur in that fundamental context.

So your 'ice' example is not consistent with what I have been telling you is only a 'differentiable', NOT 'expandable/displaceable' fundamental medium no matter what 'secondary dynamic 'features' arise. No 'ice' counterpat of 'displacing' features occur in that fundamental context. It is ALL the same thing at the same density throughout. All these 'sparations/densities etc properties/behaviours are part of the secondary dynamics between the 'features' themselves, and NOT in the underlying constant density universal energy-space reservoir.

Now I will send my PM and log out...after I reply to origin's latest.

 

[gravitational_aether]

I tried to tell you that the fundamental energy-space medium is not 'displaceable' like that. The 'water-ocean' was just an analogy. The water-ocean can have water molecules SEPARATED and more FUNDAMENTAL energy-space' left between.

Such 'separation' does not occur in the energy-space fundamental context, since ther is no more-fundamental 'thing' that can 'occupy' the larger gaps between, and hence 'water-ice' analogy (less-dense 'energy-space' regions) can NOT occur in that fundamental context.

So your 'ice' example is not consistent with what I have been telling you is only a 'differentiable', NOT 'expandable/displaceable' fundamental medium no matter what 'secondary dynamic 'features' arise. No 'ice' counterpat of 'displacing' features occur in that fundamental context. It is ALL the same thing at the same density throughout. All these 'sparations/densities etc properties/behaviours are part of the secondary dynamics between the 'features' themselves, and NOT in the underlying constant density universal energy-space reservoir.

Now I will send my PM and log out...after I reply to origin's latest.

Aether and matter have mass.

Particles of matter are condensations of aether.

Particles of matter exist in and displace the aether.

'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 the 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 evaporates into aether it expands into neighboring places; which is energy. Mass is conserved.

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

 

[RealityCheck]

I believe you meant, "Get a better character and mindset for yourself, quickLY!

I sincerly doubt my mindset has very much affect on huminity or science.

Look up "Literary license". It is a well used form to convey urgency. A literary/imperative device. Your empty pedantry will not distract from the essence and urgency of the original message regarding your immediate need for a better character and mindset. Stop your petty malicious emptiness and trolls, for your own sake if for no other reason. Quick!

No more PMs. Logging out. So see ya round!

 

[Prof.Layman]

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

"Outside of physics we know nothing of action at a distance. When we try to connect cause and effect in the experiences which natural objects afford us, it seems at first as if there were no other mutual actions than those of immediate contact, e.g. the communication of motion by impact, push and pull, heating or inducing combustion by means of a flame, etc. It is true that even in everyday experience weight, which is in a sense action at a distance, plays a very important part. But since in daily experience the weight of bodies meets us as something constant, something not linked to any cause which is variable in time or place, we do not in everyday life speculate as to the cause of gravity, and therefore do not become conscious of its character as action at a distance. It was Newton's theory of gravitation that first assigned a cause for gravity by interpreting it as action at a distance, proceeding from masses. Newton's theory is probably the greatest stride ever made in the effort towards the causal nexus of natural phenomena. And yet this theory evoked a lively sense of discomfort among Newton's contemporaries, because it seemed to be in conflict with the principle springing from the rest of experience, that there can be reciprocal action only through contact, and not through immediate action at a distance." - Albert Einstein

LOL, Is this really Albert Einstein saying that gravity works at an action at a distance? I thought there was something fishy about gravity traveling at the speed of light. I had one teacher that said that Newtons equations acted as though gravity did travel at an action at a distance, but then I guess Einstein really didn't modify them to where gravity travels the speed of light.

 

[gravitational_aether]

"Outside of physics we know nothing of action at a distance. When we try to connect cause and effect in the experiences which natural objects afford us, it seems at first as if there were no other mutual actions than those of immediate contact, e.g. the communication of motion by impact, push and pull, heating or inducing combustion by means of a flame, etc. It is true that even in everyday experience weight, which is in a sense action at a distance, plays a very important part. But since in daily experience the weight of bodies meets us as something constant, something not linked to any cause which is variable in time or place, we do not in everyday life speculate as to the cause of gravity, and therefore do not become conscious of its character as action at a distance. It was Newton's theory of gravitation that first assigned a cause for gravity by interpreting it as action at a distance, proceeding from masses. Newton's theory is probably the greatest stride ever made in the effort towards the causal nexus of natural phenomena. And yet this theory evoked a lively sense of discomfort among Newton's contemporaries, because it seemed to be in conflict with the principle springing from the rest of experience, that there can be reciprocal action only through contact, and not through immediate action at a distance." - Albert Einstein

LOL, Is this really Albert Einstein saying that gravity works at an action at a distance? I thought there was something fishy about gravity traveling at the speed of light. I had one teacher that said that Newtons equations acted as though gravity did travel at an action at a distance, but then I guess Einstein really didn't modify them to where gravity travels the speed of light.

Einstein was unable to determine the cause of the condition of the state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places and how that related to curved spacetime.

What Einstein referred to as curved spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether.

The geometrical representation of gravity as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

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

 

[Prof.Layman]

Einstein was unable to determine the cause of the condition of the state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places and how that related to curved spacetime.

What Einstein referred to as curved spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether.

The geometrical representation of gravity as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

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

"If we consider the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field from the standpoint of the ether hypothesis, we find a remarkable difference between the two. There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational potentials; for these confer upon space its metrical qualities, without which it cannot be imagined at all. The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space. On the other hand a part of space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic field; thus in contrast with the gravitational field, the electromagnetic field seems to be only secondarily linked to the ether, the formal nature of the electromagnetic field being as yet in no way determined by that of gravitational ether. From the present state of theory it looks as if the electromagnetic field, as opposed to the gravitational field, rests upon an entirely new formal motif, as though nature might just as well have endowed the gravitational ether with fields of quite another type, for example, with fields of a scalar potential, instead of fields of the electromagnetic type." - Albert Einstein

I think this statement from the link you provided supports my argument in some way. Like when you say that energy is some sort of disturbance in the aether. I think the main reason for this is because of the spacetime dialation equations. When an object approaches the speed of light spacetime contracts to zero. So I don't think particles that are traveling close to the speed of light really recognize the gravitational aether. There would have to be some other kind of aether like an electromagnetic aether that is observed at speed close to the speed of light, dare I say, like a sub-space or something. It is like Einstein himself is saying that the aether that describes gravity cannot describe electromagnetic phenomena, and I don't see how it possibly could given the basic equations of relativity. You couldn't mathmatically relate something to an aether that has all of its distance and time contracted to zero. There would have to be some other kind of aether to describe energy.

 

[gravitational_aether]

"If we consider the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field from the standpoint of the ether hypothesis, we find a remarkable difference between the two. There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational potentials; for these confer upon space its metrical qualities, without which it cannot be imagined at all. The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space. On the other hand a part of space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic field; thus in contrast with the gravitational field, the electromagnetic field seems to be only secondarily linked to the ether, the formal nature of the electromagnetic field being as yet in no way determined by that of gravitational ether. From the present state of theory it looks as if the electromagnetic field, as opposed to the gravitational field, rests upon an entirely new formal motif, as though nature might just as well have endowed the gravitational ether with fields of quite another type, for example, with fields of a scalar potential, instead of fields of the electromagnetic type." - Albert Einstein

I think this statement from the link you provided supports my argument in some way. Like when you say that energy is some sort of disturbance in the aether. I think the main reason for this is because of the spacetime dialation equations. When an object approaches the speed of light spacetime contracts to zero. So I don't think particles that are traveling close to the speed of light really recognize the gravitational aether. There would have to be some other kind of aether like an electromagnetic aether that is observed at speed close to the speed of light, dare I say, like a sub-space or something. It is like Einstein himself is saying that the aether that describes gravity cannot describe electromagnetic phenomena, and I don't see how it possibly could given the basic equations of relativity. You couldn't mathmatically relate something to an aether that has all of its distance and time contracted to zero. There would have to be some other kind of aether to describe energy.

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

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

If you turn off the electricity or de-magnetize a magnet the electromagnetic field no longer exists.

As long as there are particles of matter the particles of matter will displace the aether and the displaced aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward the matter.

You would have to have a universe devoid of particles of matter to remove the gravitational field.