That's great cav755.......But has all this incredible stuff been peer reviewed? Or is this just for our benefits on this little old forum, because you like us? I mean surely, you would like to educate the whole world and change the mainstream position? I'll even nominate you for the Physics Nobel prize!
The energy of the vacuum isn't space. That's what the sock puppet wants you to believe. The aether is space, it's everything. More like complete nonsense. None of the stuff that makes up the vacuum energy can travel faster than c. Space can expand faster than the speed of light so it doesn't have mass like the sock puppet keeps trying to assert in the most annoying manner.
One of the points that I did raise in this or another one of his trolling threads on the same subject. It was ignored.
Three dimensional space is not expanding. Our Universe is a larger version of a black hole polar jet. The stuff in our Universe is moving outward and away from the Universal jet emission point. It's not the Big Bang; it's the Big Ongoing. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If that were the case, then the Universe would only be expanding in one direction/vector... as it stands, it appears to be expanding in all directions. This is supported by Doppler shift observation... if we were expanding in one trajectory, the Doppler shift gradient would be VASTLY different than what we see.
There is evidence of directionality to matter in our Universe which refutes the Big Bang. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...s-caused-by-unknown-gravitational-pull-t.html ""Dark Flow" sounds like a new SciFi Channel series. It's not! The dark flow is controversial because the distribution of matter in the observed universe cannot account for it. Its existence suggests that some structure beyond the visible universe -- outside our "horizon" -- is pulling on matter in our vicinity." There is zero evidence of Universes beyond our Universe pulling on the matter in our vicinity. What there is evidence of is directionality to matter in our Universe which refutes the Big Bang. 'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe' http://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 clusters are headed along this path because our Universe is a larger version of a polar jet. 'Cosmic microwave background' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic..._radiation#Low_multipoles_and_other_anomalies "With the increasingly precise data provided by WMAP, there have been a number of claims that the CMB exhibits anomalies, such as very large scale anisotropies, anomalous alignments, and non-Gaussian distributions. ... A number of groups have suggested that this could be the signature of new physics at the greatest observable scales" In other words, there's a whole bunch of stuff which refutes the Big Bang. Dark energy is evaporated matter (i.e. aether) continually being emitted into the Universal jet. We are moving outward and away from the Universal jet emission point in three dimensional space. It's not the Big Bang; it's the Big Ongoing.
The BB has four main pillars of observation supporting it, along with GR. Your polar jet crap has nothing. What minor hiccups that at this time may seem problematical to the BB, will eventually be solved. If you have a different hypothesis, then write a scientific paper and get it peer reviewed..... Otherwise, you are only preaching to a small scientific community that sees your continued rantings as pseudoscience. And of course you wont. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There is nothing in that article, that refutes the BB. The large scale galactic structures within regions of space/time, are simply under the influence of gravity, and subsequently decoupled from the overall expansion rate. This is well known. But again, if you have different thought, you know what to do.
I read the first of the articles you cited and what a waste that was. Yes it had the words aether and gravity but I see in no way that it supported your conjectures. Stop blindly citing sources and repeating quotes. Why don't you try explaining things in your own words or cite the specfic areas of sources that support your conjectures and why it supports your conjecture. Yes honey has mass and it is also sweet, so what. However, honey also has a high viscosity which means it is NOTHING like a super solid. Give me some evidence then. If you are simply saying that empty space produces virtual particles that is known if you are saying empty space actually has mass - give evidence. Evidence is not simply repeating the same quotes over and over.
From the first article. "There is no contradiction with Einstein theory of gravitational fields and this gives a new perspective on the Mach principle revisiting the “absolute” acceleration concept as a natural motion in spacetime deformed by the matter-energy contained therein." Spacetime deformed by the matter contained therein is referring to the state of displacement of the aether. Francis Everitt is the one who used the analogy of honey. You don't think he understands the Earth would slow down if it actually was in honey? Why do you think he used honey as an analogy? If space were analogous to honey where the Earth wouldn't slow down interacting with it the Earth would still displace it. If you aren't going to make any effort to understand this then stop wasting both of our time. There is evidence the aether has mass every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves. The following is further evidence aether has mass. 'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies' http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1475 "Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely." The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether. The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what is occurring physically in nature as the galaxy clusters move through and displace the aether. The Milky Way's halo being lopsided is evidence of it. 'The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided' http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3802 "The emerging picture of the asymmetric dark matter halo is supported by the \Lambda CDM halos formed in the cosmological N-body simulation." The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the aether. What you refuse to understand is that there is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether. That is what the above is evidence of. The galaxy clusters are moving through and displacing the aether. The Milky Way is moving through and displacing the aether. Aether has mass.
I'm trying to find the paper. I've been waiting to get a glimpse at what Planck might predict after I read this analysis of WMAP. First Observational Tests of Eternal Inflation http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1995 Total mind bending. A possible CMBR signature which predicts gravitational interaction between different universe. Mind boggling. Crank protocol: ........ , on a paper, then 'give it a toss' to see if it sticks to the wall.
The reason for the hypothesizing of external Universes pulling on the matter in our Universe is due to the gravitational effects in our Universe not being able to account for the directionality of the matter. It's not mind boggling to hypothesize external Universes. It's made up nonsense. The directionality of matter in our Universe which can not be explained by the gravitational effects caused by the matter in our Universe is due to our Universe being a larger version of a black hole polar jet.
You are again just making unevidence proclimations. But that is all you have done since you have returned.
You're the one incapable of understanding it is Francis Everitt who used the analogy of honey. You can't even contemplate what that means. You can't even try and understand what it means if what the Earth existed in and moved through was somehow analogous to honey. All you can do is say, space is not honey because if it were the Earth would stop moving. No shit. Care to use your brain and try and figure out how the Earth would interact with space if what existed in space was analogous to honey? Are you even able to understand that if what filled space were somehow analogous to honey the Earth would displace it? You have Nobel Laureate Robert Laughlin describing space as analogous to a piece of window glass. "Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University Is the best you can do is to insist space is not like a piece of window glass because if it was stuff wouldn't be able to move through it? Again, the response to that is, no shit. Are you even able to understand that if space is like a piece of window glass stuff is able to move through than the stuff would displace it?
Analogies should not be taken as gospel. I mean... like... Isaac Newton created his own mathematics to describe his ideas.
Talk, talk, talk..... If you are serious and not just a troll trying to get a raise out of people, then get it peer reviewed. No you won't will you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-lJZiqZaGA&feature=kp
"Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines? ...Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the Sun, stars, planets and comets, than in the empty celestial space between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the bodies; every body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the medium towards the rarer?" - Newton Newton is referring to the state of displacement of the aether. The aether does not grow denser and denser. However, Newton is correct, displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity. The whole point is that there is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter. All the evidence is evidence aether has mass which particles of matter move through and displace. The issue is, for whatever reason, people who are physicists or consider themselves knowledgeable about physics can't bring themselves to understand aether has mass and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. Physics wants to understand what relates general relativity and quantum mechanics, as long as it doesn't mean having to understand empty space has mass. Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality; both are aether displacement waves. What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the aether.
Newton is using words to explain his ideas in the following, contradicting what you said in your previous post. "Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines? ...Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the Sun, stars, planets and comets, than in the empty celestial space between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the bodies; every body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the medium towards the rarer?" - Newton Newton is referring to the state of displacement of the aether. The aether does not grow denser and denser. However, Newton is correct, displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity. If you want to understand what occurs physically in nature then understand the following. If you don't, then don't. The whole point is that there is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter. All the evidence is evidence aether has mass which particles of matter move through and displace. The issue is, for whatever reason, people who are physicists or consider themselves knowledgeable about physics can't bring themselves to understand aether has mass and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. Physics wants to understand what relates general relativity and quantum mechanics, as long as it doesn't mean having to understand empty space has mass. Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality; both are aether displacement waves. What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the aether.
