Luminiferous Aether Exists!

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Mazulu, Jun 19, 2012.

  1. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,822
    My goodness, what a lost ball in high weeds! You're a hoot g_a.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. gravitational_aether Banned Banned

    Messages:
    356
    You do understand the Nobel was awarded for this, correct?

    Universe Speeding Up Discovery Wins Nobel Prize in Physics

    "The expansion of the universe is speeding up."

    The Universe itself is not speeding up. The matter in the Universe is speeding up as it moves away from other matter. The reason why the matter is speeding up as it moves away from other matter is because the Universe is, or our local Universe is in, a larger version of a black hole polar jet.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,822
    Your understanding of science is on a child-like level. You take an idea from real science that you clearly do not understand and then based on your misunderstanding draw absurd conclusions. Pitiful, just pitiful.:facepalm:
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. gravitational_aether Banned Banned

    Messages:
    356
    The Universe spins about a perferred axis. This refutes the Big Bang.

    There is directionality to galaxy clusters. This refutes the Big Bang.

    The Universe is speeding up. This is the opposite of what was predicted by the Big Bang.

    Holding on to refuted dogmatic beliefs ... pitiful.

    The state of mainstream physics ... pitiful.

    There is zero evidence of a Big Bang. The evidence which lead to the absolutely ridiculous absurd nonsense of the Big Bang is evidence the matter in the Universe is moving away from other matter. It doesn't mean everything in the Universe originated from an infinitesimally small point. If you are at a water park and you and a bunch of other people are in individual floats and when you exit a slide you enter the pool and you all move away from one another does this mean you all existed in an infinitesimally small point in the past or is this evidence you all exited a slide and entered a pool? If someone said you all existed in an infinitesimally small point and this is why you are now moving away from each other in the pool would you believe them? Believing in the Big Bang is just as pitiful.

    The Universe is, or our local Universe is in, a larger version of a black hole polar jet.
     
  8. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,822
  9. gravitational_aether Banned Banned

    Messages:
    356
    Denial of the evidence which refutes the Big Bang in order to maintain the entrenched dogma of the Big Bang is nuts.

    The Universe spins about a perferred axis. This refutes the Big Bang.

    There is directionality to galaxy clusters. This refutes the Big Bang.

    The Universe is speeding up. This is the opposite of what was predicted by the Big Bang.

    Holding on to refuted dogmatic beliefs ... pitiful.

    The state of mainstream physics ... pitiful.

    There is zero evidence of a Big Bang. The evidence which lead to the absolutely ridiculous absurd nonsense of the Big Bang is evidence the matter in the Universe is moving away from other matter. It doesn't mean everything in the Universe originated from an infinitesimally small point. If you are at a water park and you and a bunch of other people are in individual floats and when you exit a slide you enter the pool and you all move away from one another does this mean you all existed in an infinitesimally small point in the past or is this evidence you all exited a slide and entered a pool? If someone said you all existed in an infinitesimally small point and this is why you are now moving away from each other in the pool would you believe them? Believing in the Big Bang is just as pitiful.

    The Universe is, or our local Universe is in, a larger version of a black hole polar jet.
     
  10. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,822
  11. gravitational_aether Banned Banned

    Messages:
    356
    Denial of the evidence which refutes the Big Bang in order to maintain the entrenched dogma of the Big Bang is being a bonehead.

    The Universe spins about a perferred axis. This refutes the Big Bang.

    There is directionality to galaxy clusters. This refutes the Big Bang.

    The Universe is speeding up. This is the opposite of what was predicted by the Big Bang.

    Holding on to refuted dogmatic beliefs ... pitiful.

    The state of mainstream physics ... pitiful.

    There is zero evidence of a Big Bang. The evidence which lead to the absolutely ridiculous absurd nonsense of the Big Bang is evidence the matter in the Universe is moving away from other matter. It doesn't mean everything in the Universe originated from an infinitesimally small point. If you are at a water park and you and a bunch of other people are in individual floats and when you exit a slide you enter the pool and you all move away from one another does this mean you all existed in an infinitesimally small point in the past or is this evidence you all exited a slide and entered a pool? If someone said you all existed in an infinitesimally small point and this is why you are now moving away from each other in the pool would you believe them? Believing in the Big Bang is just as pitiful.

    The Universe is, or our local Universe is in, a larger version of a black hole polar jet.
     
  12. gravitational_aether Banned Banned

    Messages:
    356
    This guy has it figured out. He understands the faster the object moves through the super-fluid ideal relativistic ether from general relativity the greater the relativistic mass of the object.

    'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia'
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611

    "It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an increase of mass with velocity. ... The interaction between the particle and the entrained space flow gives rise to the observed properties of inertia and the relativistic increase of mass. ... Accordingly, in this framework the non resistance of a particle in uniform motion through an ideal fluid (D’Alembert’s paradox) corresponds to Newton’s first law. The law of inertia suggests that the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."
     
  13. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    I like the paper. It doesn't address that same type of medium that I am following because it features particles moving through the medium with drag, and I am hoping for a frictionless medium. Perhaps drag is not considered friction, but a wave traverses the medium frictionlessly compared to any particle that displaces the medium and causes an effect called drag. Just my opinion though, and I'm just glad people are looking at a medium as a solution.
     
  14. gravitational_aether Banned Banned

    Messages:
    356
    Read the article more closely. You are misinterpreting 'drag'. The author is not referring to a drag as in the particle will slow down.

    "This means that the particle will be subject to a perfect pressure recovery at the rear that will equal the pressure rise at the front, resulting in zero net drag."

    This is what I refer to as the displaced aether 'displacing back'. There is no loss of energy in the interaction of the particle and the aether. Whatever energy the particle requires to displace the aether the aether returns to the object as the aether 'displaces back'.
     
  15. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    I can see that interpretation. I'm not satisfied though because the moving particle radiates and I am thinking the radiation is wave energy. I don't see that being considered, but out flow of wave energy due to acceleration must interfere with the smooth motion through the medium if the particle itself is not composed of wave energy. We just have to different approaches and don't have to agree on which is right.
     
  16. gravitational_aether Banned Banned

    Messages:
    356
    Exactly. And you started your own thread to discuss your concept. My concept of aether having mass, physically occupying three dimensional space, being physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in and move through it, where the relativistic mass of the particle increases the faster the object moves through the aether because the relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object is, in my opinion, what the article refers to.
     
  17. gravitational_aether Banned Banned

    Messages:
    356
    'Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy'
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4176

    "But why an incompressible fluid? The reason comes from an attempt to solve the (old) cosmological constant problem, which is arguably the most puzzling aspect of coupling gravity to relativistic quantum mechanics [13]. Given that the natural expectation value for the vacuum of the standard model of particle physics is ∼ 60 orders of magnitude heavier than the gravitational measurements of vacuum density, it is reasonable to entertain an alternative theory of gravity where the standard model vacuum decouples from gravity. Such a theory could be realized by coupling gravity to the traceless part of the quantum mechanical energy-momentum tensor. However, the consistency/covariance of gravitational field equations then requires introducing an auxiliary fluid, the so-called gravitational aether [14]. The simplest model for gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid (with vanishing energy density, but non-vanishing pressure), which is currently consistent with all cosmological, astrophysical, and precision tests of gravity [15, 16]:

    __3__
    32πGN Gμν = Tμν − Tα gμν + Tμν ,
    Tμν = p (uμ uν + gμν ), T μν;ν = 0,

    where GN is Newton’s constant, Tμν is the matter energy momentum tensor and Tμν is the incompressible gravitational aether fluid. In vacuum, the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."
     
  18. gravitational_aether Banned Banned

    Messages:
    356
    'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia'
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611

    "This means that the particle will be subject to a perfect pressure recovery at the rear that will equal the pressure rise at the front, resulting in zero net drag."

    This is what I refer to as the displaced aether 'displacing back'. There is no loss of energy in the interaction of the particle and the aether. Whatever energy the particle requires to displace the aether the aether returns to the object as the aether 'displaces back'.
     
  19. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
  20. gravitational_aether Banned Banned

    Messages:
    356


    You described space as being 'effectively empty'. As in, the effects of space are as if it were empty. Meaning, it can't wave out ahead of our heliosphere or push back and exert inward pressure toward the solar system causing the magnetic field detected by Voyager to pile up.

    'Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy'
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4176

    "The simplest model for gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid (with vanishing energy density, but non-vanishing pressure), which is currently consistent with all cosmological, astrophysical, and precision tests of gravity"​
     
  21. gravitational_aether Banned Banned

    Messages:
    356
  22. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    You mean: space is filled with potential energy arising from the mere existence of charge.

    You mean: Coulomb described Nature as it behaves, in this fundamental definition of the static electric field.

    You mean: charge, not space, gives rise to the electric field.

    You mean: the field strength attenuates exactly as the subtended surface grows for a given distance r from the charge.

    You mean: fields behave exactly as Coulomb discovered, and not one whit of it has anything to do with your beliefs.

    You mean: Coulomb's law describes the way Nature behaves, and to claim otherwise is to deny that Nature obeys its own laws.
     
  23. gravitational_aether Banned Banned

    Messages:
    356
    I mean the following.

    'Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy'
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4176

    "But why an incompressible fluid? The reason comes from an attempt to solve the (old) cosmological constant problem, which is arguably the most puzzling aspect of coupling gravity to relativistic quantum mechanics [13]. Given that the natural expectation value for the vacuum of the standard model of particle physics is ∼ 60 orders of magnitude heavier than the gravitational measurements of vacuum density, it is reasonable to entertain an alternative theory of gravity where the standard model vacuum decouples from gravity. Such a theory could be realized by coupling gravity to the traceless part of the quantum mechanical energy-momentum tensor. However, the consistency/covariance of gravitational field equations then requires introducing an auxiliary fluid, the so-called gravitational aether [14]. The simplest model for gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid (with vanishing energy density, but non-vanishing pressure), which is currently consistent with all cosmological, astrophysical, and precision tests of gravity [15, 16]:

    __3__
    32πGN Gμν = Tμν − Tα gμν + Tμν ,
    Tμν = p (uμ uν + gμν ), T μν;ν = 0,

    where GN is Newton’s constant, Tμν is the matter energy momentum tensor and Tμν is the incompressible gravitational aether fluid. In vacuum, the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

    'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction'
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458

    "We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself."

    'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia'
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611

    "It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an increase of mass with velocity. ... The interaction between the particle and the entrained space flow gives rise to the observed properties of inertia and the relativistic increase of mass. ... Accordingly, in this framework the non resistance of a particle in uniform motion through an ideal fluid (D’Alembert’s paradox) corresponds to Newton’s first law. The law of inertia suggests that the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."
     

Share This Page