Luminiferous Aether Exists!

Matter displaces aether. Aether has mass.

I'm not sure what you mean by easily. When a double slit experiment is performed it is the aether which waves, so in some ways we are controlling the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed.

When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved. I wouldn't say we are controlling the aether when a nuclear bomb explodes but we are converting matter to aether when we do.

Where the pressure is great enough aether condenses into particles of matter. There may be a way to generate that type of pressure.

The following is an image analogous of the Universal jet.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The reason for the 'expansion' of the universe is the continual emission of aether into the Universal jet. Three dimensional space associated with the Universe itself is not expanding. What we see in our telescopes is the matter associated with the Universe moving outward and away from the Universal jet emission point. In the image above, '1st Stars' is where the pressure associated with the aether constantly being emitted into the universal jet causes the aether to condense into particles of matter.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What I mean is that I can right now pick up my coffee cup and drain some of the coffee down my throat into my stomach. I am easily moving matter around and hence I am displacing aether. Is that not right? So it looks to me like manipulation of aether should be a piece of cake. That is why I mentioned the squirt gun idea. When the trigger / plunger is depressed, the matter that is the plunger is going to displace the aether in the chamber and squirt it at my target. Sure the chamber has air inside but perhaps we could perform the experiment in space. Astronauts are always doing simple experiments like that. If that is the case then a aether propulsion system for a space craft could be made out of a simple pump. An aether pump. But as I understand it the direction you squirt the aether is the direction you travel. In this way a space ship would not need propellent. Perhaps even propellers like on a ship would work. Or large fins on the outside to swim like a fish. Is that correct?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Correct.

Incorrect. The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid. You can't push against it like a fish swimming through water. Let's look at how a double slit experiment works. Energy is required to fire the particle at the slits. The particle requires energy to displace the aether. The aether is displaced by the particle. The aether returns to the particle the same amount of energy as the aether fills-in where the particle had been and 'displaces back'. There is no gain or loss of energy in the interaction of the aether and the particle. The particle moves uniformly toward the slits.

A large fin moving through the aether displaces the aether. The aether returns to the fin the same amount of energy as the aether fills-in and 'displaces back'. There is no loss or gain of energy in the interaction of the fin and the aether.

When a fish uses its fin to push against the water the water does not return to the fin the same amount of energy as the water fills-in and displaces back. This allows the fish to move.

Q. A fish in 'empty space' pushes against the aether. Is the fin displacing the aether or is the aether displacing the fin?
A. Both occur simultaneously with equal force. The fish doesn't move.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Cheezle!

Yes, the dope-slapping only lends to the absurdity. (As if it could get worse.)

 

But if an object can't propel itself because the aether has no viscosity, and gravity is aether, then how can the aether accelerate an object toward another. Would not the lack of viscosity render the aether ineffectual.

I watched this video to try and understand how it works but I am still confused. It is fascinating but really difficult to understand.
Gravity is Ether

 

Not a chance.

Spurious, unsupported by facts and evidence.

No, you need to explain spectral diffraction, not Santa Claus.

Gravity is always there, so not caused, not in any conventional sense.

The superposition principle occurs. Destructive interference occurs.

That's not a question, it's a statement.

 

I tested that idea for awhile under the name "the DaleHileman Effect", but the question I couldn't answer at the time with it was that light has wave/particle duality which meant that the relationship was more than light hitchhiking on gravity waves. It was a year or so latter that I reconciled wave/particle duality with gravity waves using the aether concept.

I won't bore you with the particulars; I just mention it because the aether becomes the commonality between light and gravity; not that one rides the other, but that both are effects of wave energy traversing the medium.

 

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter. The aether displaced by the Earth is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the Earth. You throw a stone off a building. The aether displaced by the Earth pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the Earth pushes the stone to the Earth. As the stone gets closer to the Earth there is more aether displaced by the Earth pushing the stone to the Earth causing the stone to accelerate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect#Vacuum_energy

"a "field" in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with interconnected vibrating balls and springs, and the strength of the field can be visualized as the displacement of a ball from its rest position"

A 'field' in physics is space filled with aether and the strength of the field is the displacement of the aether from its rest position.

The strength of the aether displaced by the Earth is toward the Earth. This causes the stone to accelerate.

No viscosity does not mean not interaction. It means no friction. It means no loss of energy in the interaction of an object moving through the aether.

Each of the plates in the Casimir effect displace the aether. The displaced aether which exists between the plates is pushing back toward each of the plates which causes the aether displaced by each of the plates which exists between the plates to offset. This aether is more at rest than the aether which is displaced by the plates which encompasses the plates. The reduced force associated with the aether which exists between the plates along with the displaced aether which encompasses the plates which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the plates causes the plates to be forced together.

What occurs physically in nature in the Casimir effect is the same phenomenon as gravity.

There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter.

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

 

I like it. :roflmao:

 

The 3 aether amigos apparently have placed science in general in their ignore list.

 

Ridiculous absurd embarassing non-answer. Explain what is occuring physically in nature which causes you to remain on the surface of the Earth.

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

Which interpretation are you referring to? Copenhagen? Many worlds? Consistent histories? Ensemble interpretation, or statistical interpretation? Relational quantum mechanics? Transactional interpretation? Objective collapse theories? von Neumann/Wigner interpretation: consciousness causes the collapse? There are more but you get the point.

I realize pilot-wave theory is too correct and makes too much sense for you to understand it.

In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

Explain why the 'dark matter' is being left behind when galaxy clusters collide.

'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.

There is nothing to 'leave behind'. Non-baryonic dark matter was never anchored to the matter in the first place. There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

 

Same cut and paste post.

You can't argue with a crank, they just don't listen to anything except their own voice.

 

I see now why so many people have given up on trying to explain science to other people on forums. It makes it impossible to even have an educated difference in opinion. I don't think Michio Kaku took into account crank trolls, when he says that the internet and scientific forums are going to lead to an increase in scientific progress.

 

I know exactly what you mean. It is obvious aether has mass, aether physically occupies three dimensional space and aether is physically displaced by matter. It is obvious displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity. It is obvious in a double slit expeirment the particle travels through a single slit while the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

It is amazing how many crank trolls are unable to understand this.

 

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.

Both are waves in the aether.

Both are aether displacement waves.

 

I think it is because they some degree of scientific knowledge that you are lacking. Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it true, and I have a hard time even locating the verb in your sentences so that they even make some kind sense. Aether cannot have mass, a body will not be attracted to empty space. I don't think there is even dark matter in the large empty voids between galaxies. So then the first thing you mention here is impossible to comply with observation. Then you give no explaination of how this could fit observation. Aether could not be dealt with only having three dimensions of space, gravity as explained in General Relativity is caused by curvature of spacetime in a higher dimension. You cannot then have curvature of the aether in only the three dimensions of space. Objects near the Earth do not look to be curved because of the Earths gravity, another example of how this does not fit observation. Then you say aether is physically displaced by matter, if it was displaced in the three dimensions of space we would be able to see that, there is no evidence or reason why aether should be displaced in our three dimensions. Then there is this sentence that doesn't really make much sense, picking the verb, matter is gravity. Matter is not gravity, gravity is a force cuased by matter. Then it is obvious in the double slit experiment that the disturbance is not caused by a displacement of the aether, if there was they would have detected some type of bow wave like you mention. So then again it does not fit with observation. I could reach a five sigma on a pseudo-science theory and have it proven, just by saying the exact opposite of everything you say, and then it will conform to observation!

 

What is postulated as non-baryonic dark matter is aether. Aether has mass.

Gravity is not an attraction. Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.

There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Aether has mass.

Place a bowling ball into a tank of water. The water is displaced in three dimensions. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is a physical process determined by the physical state of the aether in which it exists.

'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.

 

Is there an echoe in here? I still see no reason at all why I should think that there is an aether that has mass. I still don't see how or why you would even think aether has mass. There is still no reason here why anyone should think that aether has mass. So why should anyone think that aether has mass? If there is no reason to think something, then you shouldn't think it.

Why would you even have to say that gravity is not an attraction? Do you mean that gravity is not an attractive force? So then it is repulsive? Your still not making any sense. I don't think it is possible for the force of gravity to be accurately described as aether trying to get back where it use to be because it was displaced by matter.

There is a possiblity that there is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter that is some other type of matter, but I don't see how aether having mass and being displaced by matter causes gravity. It would seem to be just too heavy.

That example is used to describe how things are attracted to gravity in five dimensions if you include time as a dimension. I think you should really be made aware of this, there should be plenty of layman books at your local library that explain this. I recommend you read at least one of them. I think it will help you be able to form your ideas better and deliver them in a language that people can understand.

I don't think even Dr. David McComas, would even agree with anything you have said. It is just a lose analogy, and you are taking all these loose analogies from scientist and just taking them literalley. The problem is that you can't do that because they are just analogies and there is a lot more going on than just that. If you read a book about some of this stuff, you could begin to realize that. For example, the Earth isn't hit by a bow wave from our sun as it orbits the Sun. It can't be taken literally because then you get results like this are absurd.

 

You said there is no evidence of a bow wave. The wave out ahead of our solar system is a bow wave.

Isn't the defintion of a crank troll someone who says there is no evidence of something and when that evidence is presented to the person they choose to remain ignorant of understanding the evidence?

 

No where in the article does it say that it is a bow wave that is created by aether. That is exactly the reason why you are a crank troll, you believe that aether creates a bow wave. So then when you hear about something in an article saying something is like a bow wave, then you automatically assume that it is a bow wave created by aether. If you did a little reaserch then you would find that the bow wave described in this anology in no relates to aether creating a bow wave and that the scientist in no way shape or form beleives this and was just using a poplular anology to describe completely different phenomena. I could sum up your entire thoery of everything into just being taking analogies too literally. That is why I said you should study it more detail. A lot of this will become clear if read in depth explainations of these experiments from books at your local library, you don't even need to know any math. Then test your theories on the in depth descriptions they have to say, most of them will not work out. Then you will have a better idea of what scientist mean when they say this kind of stuff. Most of them give a good impression of what is scientific fact or unprovable theory.