Luminiferous Aether Exists!

Why don't you read the articles I linked to?
You haven't established the factual predicate to induct a cite into the dead claim.

Why don't you learn to understand what supersolid means?
Why don't you learn what the mass and volume of aether are, and report them here? You said aether has mass and volume. I said, if so, you can state its measure in kg and m[sup]3[/sup]. You can't, because it doesn't. There's no jumping off point here. This is a terminus. Your point is dead on the ground, incapable of reanimation by supersolids, galactic pressure, de Broglie, or anything else you want to clutter the thread with.

There is not enough mass of the matter to account for the rate at which galaxies spin so physicists made up non-baryonic dark matter which was assumed to be anchored to matter. The missing mass has now been shown not to be anchored to the matter. This means galaxies move through the missing mass. This means the missing mass is the aether.
No, you just invented that conclusion. Go back to my point above, without a quantitative value in kg and m[sup]3[/sup] you have no basis for saying any of this. You're just pulling it out of thin air and requiring it to be so, according to any arbitrary rules you impose. That makes it pure sci-fi, nothing more.

The back reaction described in the first article is the pressure exerted by the displaced aether toward the matter. Other articles specifically refer to a gravitational aether where the pressure exerted by the aether toward the matter is gravity.
No, you're inventing those conclusions. Again, it's not pressure which is a function of surface area. Put down your cites and write one equation that you know to be true.

No formulas means no laws, no principles, and thus, no aether.
 
No aether preassure theory of gravity has yet been presented that deserves any real consideration. That said there have been some attempts to addresses gravitation from QM, that to a lay person may sound and appear to represent an ether of sorts and preassure derived source of gravitation.
I took it he was relating to pressure in the sensible world, not as, say, Maxwell may have used the term.

The ether as you seem to believe it to be, does not exist, and gravity is not the result of the preassure of the ether.
I think he latched onto the idea of pressure in its other meaning and mistook it. Maybe you've pushed his reset button. I know you would have just pushed mine, if I were in his shoes.
 
You haven't established the factual predicate to induct a cite into the dead claim.


Why don't you learn what the mass and volume of aether are, and report them here? You said aether has mass and volume. I said, if so, you can state it's measure in kg and m[sup]3[/sup]. You can't, because it doesn't. There's no jumping off point here. This is a terminus. Your point is dead on the ground, incapable of reanimation by supersolids, galactic pressure, de Broglie, or anything else you want to clutter the thread with.


No, you just invented that conclusion. Go back to my point above, without a quantitative value in kg and m[sup]3[/sup] you have no basis for saying any of this. You're just pulling it out of thin air and requiring it to exist, according to any arbitrary rules you impose. That makes it pure sci-fi, nothing more.


No, you're inventing those conclusions. Again, it's not pressure which is a function of surface area. Put down your cites and write one equation that you know to be true.

No formulas means no laws, no principles, and thus, no aether.

Are you denying the articles describe gravity as pressure exerted by aether toward matter?
 
I don't think you understand the papers you are citing. None of them present a compelling arguement, for the conclusions you seem to be dreaming up. One hint should be the citation records. Those which are cited by other papers seem to be cited by papers from the same authors. Not a lot of "other" physicists jumping on their band wagon.

There has always been and will continue to be interest in ether theories that are consistent with GR. GR is a geometric description of how objects interact, not a fundamental description of why. It does not explain the mechanism(s), only the result.., the geometry... So far no ether theory has been entirely successful in duplicating the success of GR, in a rigorously consistent manner.

The way you state some of your assumptions, is not clear enough for anything other than comment of rejection. No aether preassure theory of gravity has yet been presented that deserves any real consideration. That said there have been some attempts to addresses gravitation from QM, that to a lay person may sound and appear to represent an ether of sorts and preassure derived source of gravitation. In all of the credible papers I have read through on the subject the limited success has been clearly defined.., no one to my knowledge has yet presented a mechanism that is wholly consitent with observation. And the task only becomes more difficult as time passes and our observations of the universe expand.

The ether as you seem to believe it to be, does not exist, and gravity is not the result of the preassure of the ether.

As I alluded to earlier, there is/are some QM models (SED), that could be understood as a preassure model, addressing gravitation as an interaction between matter and the ZPF of vacuum energy (in a manner similar to our current understanding of the Casimir effect).., but they have not yet been entirely successful and they are not the only game in town.

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

The milky ways halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

The milky ways halo is what Einstein referred to as curved spacetime.

Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.

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.

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.
 
Are you denying the articles describe gravity as pressure exerted by aether toward matter?
I deny that gravitational pressure (field density) is in any way related to conventional pressure (F/A) as you require by your claim of "aether displacement".

I deny that NASA ever used pressure in this convoluted way when mentioning gravitational pressure. I deny that NASA says there is an aether, your ultimate reason for attempting the fallacy of the non sequitur appeal to authority.
 
I deny that gravitational pressure (field density) is in any way related to conventional pressure (F/A) as you require by your claim of "aether displacement".

That's not what I asked you. I asked you if you are able to understand some of the articles describe gravity as aether exerting pressure toward matter. Are you able to understand some of the articles describe gravity as aether exerting pressure toward matter?

I deny that NASA ever used pressure in this convoluted way when mentioning gravitational pressure. I deny that NASA says there is an aether, your ultimate reason for attempting the fallacy of the non sequitur appeal to authority.

'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar space is compacting it."

You are able to understand NASA is saying it is the interstellar medium which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the Solar System, correct?

It is not the particles of matter which exist in quantities less than in any vacuum artifically created on Earth which are pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system.

It is the aether, which the particles of matter exist in, which is the interstellar medium. It is the aether which is displaced by the matter the solar system consists of which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system.
 
Hi Aqueous Id, gravitational_aether.

Happily, my upcoming COMPLETE T O E publication includes, among all the other main aspects, a consistent and testable/falsifiable explanation of that very same mass-energy-content 'proportionality' gravity effect, which arises irrespective of topographical or other considerations except that energy-mass content must be in a certain state which induces the gravity effect from its surroundings exactly proportional to the energy-mass content of the particular 'gravity-inducing energy-mass feature' under study, of whatever scale from infinitesimal to largest.

In short, my explanation provides both your respective requirements: the reason and mechanism for gravity per se, and the reason and mechanism for its 'proportionality' and its 'ubiquity' such that gravity immediately arises 'locally' once the conditions and content of the gravity-inducing energy-matter content form itself in the necessary way to induce its gravity field around it. Nothing outre' involved. Easily confirmed/observed in everyday physics!

It 'bridges' easily and observably/mathematically the heretofore 'separate' quantum-GR 'domains of applicability' when it comes to the separate partial theories to date. No 'renormalization' or 'additional dimension' or 'abstract geometry' needed to explain gravity in the QM domain and in the GR domain simultaneously and without ad hoc 'fixes' or fantastic 'contortions' of reality/dimensions etc. It confirms both QM AND GR, but also provides the MECHANISMS and the CONSISTENT FULLER PHYSICAL CONTEXT wherein all these phenomena arise as inevitable once the correct starting physical premise has been identified properly.

Anyhow, that's all the hint I can give before publishing the papers/book, which I will be withdrawing any day now from forum posting in order to concentrate on!

Until then, enjoy your discussions....and watch your blood pressure, both of you, hear!

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Hi Aqueous Id, gravitational_aether.

Happily, my upcoming COMPLETE T O E publication includes, among all the other main aspects, a consistent and testable/falsifiable explanation of that very same mass-energy-content 'proportionality' gravity effect, which arises irrespective of topographical or other considerations except that energy-mass content must be in a certain state which induces the gravity effect from its surroundings exactly proportional to the energy-mass content of the particular 'gravity-inducing energy-mass feature' under study, of whatever scale from infinitesimal to largest.

In short, my explanation provides both your respective requirements: the reason and mechanism for gravity per se, and the reason and mechanism for its 'proportionality' and its 'ubiquity' such that gravity immediately arises 'locally' once the conditions and content of the gravity-inducing energy-matter content form itself in the necessary way to induce its gravity field around it. Nothing outre' involved. Easily confirmed/observed in everyday physics!

It 'bridges' easily and observably/mathematically the heretofore 'separate' quantum-GR 'domains of applicability' when it comes to the separate partial theories to date. No 'renormalization' or 'additional dimension' or 'abstract geometry' needed to explain gravity in the QM domain and in the GR domain simultaneously and without ad hoc 'fixes' or fantastic 'contortions' of reality/dimensions etc. It confirms both QM AND GR, but also provides the MECHANISMS and the CONSISTENT FULLER PHYSICAL CONTEXT wherein all these phenomena arise as inevitable once the correct starting physical premise has been identified properly.

Anyhow, that's all the hint I can give before publishing the papers/book, which I will be withdrawing any day now from forum posting in order to concentrate on!

Until then, enjoy your discussions....and watch your blood pressure, both of you, hear!

Cheers!

Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.

Curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.
 
Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.

Curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

According to my COMPLETE T.O.E., you are NEARLY on the right track. Your mechanism is not needed in mine, since the the underlying universal 'primary vacuum' (as distinct from the 'false vacuum'...look them up) is ALWAYS at the same 'energy-mass' value, with the only fluctuations of state being a certain way such that gravity-inducing 'matter-energy' forms via that 'differentiating mechanism' from primary vacuum 'space region' into 'localized' false-vacuum features which induce gravity proportionately to the matter-energy localised by the 'differentiation' mechanism into 'false vacuum' dynamics. Also, the mechanism of gravity is not 'pressure' as such, but the effect on the surrounding primary vacuum environment not caught up in the 'differentiation mechanism' event that creates the 'gravity-inducing' feature, which distribution of such features (from photons, to electrons to nucleons etc etc) effectively constitutes and behaves as the 'false vacuum' which is perceived as the phenomenological processes/dynamics of the false vacuum which arises and evolves and reverts in due course back to the primary vacuum state locally depending on local conditions. The "GR" type "curvature" is "real" only insofar as the 'differentiation' is real, and then only so far as that differentiation effect extends 'proportionately' and spread radially outwards to a distance/effectiveness concentration depended on the inducing energy-matter feature creating that 'differentiation' gradient into the surroundings where other 'features' may interact via that extended environmental effect. Sorry, I really mustn't say any more or my publication will be an anticlimax because "the cat will have been let out of the bag"!

You are CLOSE, but have the wrong 'mechanism' and wrong 'take' on it because, unlike mine, you have not identified the real starting premise (ie, you haven't the right 'aether' concept, so the rest of your logic-train and conclusions are slightly off). Still, not a bad effort! Better than some I've heard so far, both from amateurs or professionals! Until my complete toe publication comes out, enjoy your own exploratory journey! Cheers!
 
According to my COMPLETE T.O.E., you are NEARLY on the right track. Your mechanism is not needed in mine, since the the underlying universal 'primary vacuum' (as distinct from the 'false vacuum'...look them up) is ALWAYS at the same 'energy-mass' value, with the only fluctuations of state being a certain way such that gravity-inducing 'matter-energy' forms via that 'differentiating mechanism' from primary vacuum 'space region' into 'localized' false-vacuum features which induce gravity proportionately to the matter-energy localised by the 'differentiation' mechanism into 'false vacuum' dynamics. Also, the mechanism of gravity is not 'pressure' as such, but the effect on the surrounding primary vacuum environment not caught up in the 'differentiation mechanism' event that creates the 'gravity-inducing' feature, which distribution of such features (from photons, to electrons to nucleons etc etc) effectively constitutes and behaves as the 'false vacuum' which is perceived as the phenomenological processes/dynamics of the false vacuum which arises and evolves and reverts in due course back to the primary vacuum state locally depending on local conditions. The "GR" type "curvature" is "real" only insofar as the 'differentiation' is real, and then only so far as that differentiation effect extends 'proportionately' and spread radially outwards to a distance/effectiveness concentration depended on the inducing energy-matter feature creating that 'differentiation' gradient into the surroundings where other 'features' may interact via that extended environmental effect. Sorry, I really mustn't say any more or my publication will be an anticlimax because "the cat will have been let out of the bag"!

You are CLOSE, but have the wrong 'mechanism' and wrong 'take' on it because, unlike mine, you have not identified the real starting premise (ie, you haven't the right 'aether' concept, so the rest of your logic-train and conclusions are slightly off). Still, not a bad effort! Better than some I've heard so far, both from amateurs or professionals! Until my complete toe publication comes out, enjoy your own exploratory journey! Cheers!

‘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.

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

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.

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.

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.
 
That's not what I asked you. I asked you if you are able to understand some of the articles describe gravity as aether exerting pressure toward matter.

No, you asked me:

Are you denying the articles describe gravity as pressure exerted by aether toward matter?

And I answered you: Yes, I deny that NASA is referring to pressure as force per unit area, but as field density. I deny that NASA attributes this to aether. What part of this did you not understand?

Are you able to understand some of the articles describe gravity as aether exerting pressure toward matter?
No, I understand that you have inserted a spurious claim of aether wherever you found a reference to the archaic term "pressure", esp. where it means "field density".

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar space is compacting it."

You are able to understand NASA is saying it is the interstellar medium which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the Solar System, correct?
No, it is not correct, they did not say "medium", or "pressure on the solar system" or aether. You inserted that spuriously. The "it" that is being "compacted" is the magnetic field, nothing more. The rest is your embellishment.

It is not the particles of matter which exist in quantities less than in any vacuum artifically created on Earth which are pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system.
Wrong again. NASA is discussing particles of matter precisely. They are streaming into the heliosphere as a cosmic wind, doubling the density of the the field Voyager is now measuring.

The pressure is not on the solar system but on the magnetic field and solar wind. It is not a mechanical pressure, but a field density pressure. Do you not understand what instruments are aboard Voyager, and what they are measuring?

It is the aether, which the particles of matter exist in, which is the interstellar medium.
Do you not understand that NASA never says that? They do not say "aether". They do not say "medium". You just made that up and snuck it in there to mislead readers. Why? For what purpose?

It is the aether which is displaced by the matter the solar system consists of which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system.
Do you not understand that NASA did not mention an aether or a medium? Do you not understand that they are referring to the magnetic field Voyager is measuring, and the solar ejecta? Do you not understand that they said that what is "pushing back" is the inbound cosmic radiation?
 
Pressure is inversely proportional to surface area, irrelevant to gravity. It's a force, and has no need for contemplating surface area. In any case, gravity is purely dependent on the quantity of the masses (which you can't specify for aether since there is no such thing) and distance between them. No accounting for aether is made in the calculation. So aether can't have anything to do with it.

This is exactly what i was trying to explain.. That guy just doesn't understand what i said.....

I have read all his articles carefully and none of them can tell the answer to this question..... He doesn't understand this... This is only enough to prove that all his theory are wrong.... All his articles are wrong.. Because of this simple conclusions... Sometimes people just miss simple basics and try to extend everything complicated without looking at basics... That is why his type of conclusion arises.... Why he can't understand that?
 
The articles say gravity is a pressure exerted by aether toward matter. That is what I am saying. I am saying there is a pressure because the aether is displaced by the matter.

If you understand the articles are correct then that means you understand I am correct.

No.... Your article will be right if your theory is right but your way of describing gravity seems to be wrong..So all other conclusions are wrong..
 
There is not enough mass of the matter to account for the rate at which galaxies spin so physicists made up non-baryonic dark matter which was assumed to be anchored to matter. The missing mass has now been shown not to be anchored to the matter. This means galaxies move through the missing mass. This means the missing mass is the aether.



So, you didn't read any of the articles? The back reaction described in the first article is the pressure exerted by the displaced aether toward the matter. Other articles specifically refer to a gravitational aether where the pressure exerted by the aether toward the matter is gravity.

'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."

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of a solid, a supersolid, which is described in the article as the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The 'back-reaction' described in the article is the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the matter.

The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused by pressure (or vorticity).

'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old Cosmological Constant Problem'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955

"One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity."

The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter.

'The aether-modified gravity and the G ̈del metric'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5654v2

"As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53−αg,6a2 so, it is positive if αg < 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval αg < 15 corresponds to the usual matter."

The following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.

'From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.1155

"The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new form of matter. This is the real substance"

The following articles describe what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether.

'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3753

"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in our universe."

"mass of the aether"

'Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.5168

"the model obtained here gets closer to the aether theory of , which is shown therein to be an alternative to the cold dark matter."

'Unified model for dark matter and quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610135

"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the universe using superfluid aether is compatible."

'Vainshtein mechanism in Gauss-Bonnet gravity and Galileon aether'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.1892

"the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of the presence of the background field"

Hey gravitational aether,
You haven't given answer to what Aqueous Id said... Closely understand inversely proportional thing.. And understand Did you gave the correct answer to what said???? You just said some missing mass concept and didn't answer to anything..

Look, Something which suites to one Phenomena doesn't mean that that theory is correct..If it lacks in something else... Done... Theory is wrong.. proven already that your theory is wrong..So why extent discussion????
 
I deny that gravitational pressure (field density) is in any way related to conventional pressure (F/A) as you require by your claim of "aether displacement".

I deny that NASA ever used pressure in this convoluted way when mentioning gravitational pressure. I deny that NASA says there is an aether, your ultimate reason for attempting the fallacy of the non sequitur appeal to authority.

Really right,,I was actually mentioning this one!!!!
 
That's not what I asked you. I asked you if you are able to understand some of the articles describe gravity as aether exerting pressure toward matter. Are you able to understand some of the articles describe gravity as aether exerting pressure toward matter?



'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar space is compacting it."

You are able to understand NASA is saying it is the interstellar medium which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the Solar System, correct?

It is not the particles of matter which exist in quantities less than in any vacuum artifically created on Earth which are pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system.

It is the aether, which the particles of matter exist in, which is the interstellar medium. It is the aether which is displaced by the matter the solar system consists of which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system.

Hey Gravitational aether,,, If your theory can explain other phenomena and there is a vital strong disagreement in another case,that is enough to prove that your theory is wrong.....
 
According to my COMPLETE T.O.E., you are NEARLY on the right track. Your mechanism is not needed in mine, since the the underlying universal 'primary vacuum' (as distinct from the 'false vacuum'...look them up) is ALWAYS at the same 'energy-mass' value, with the only fluctuations of state being a certain way such that gravity-inducing 'matter-energy' forms via that 'differentiating mechanism' from primary vacuum 'space region' into 'localized' false-vacuum features which induce gravity proportionately to the matter-energy localised by the 'differentiation' mechanism into 'false vacuum' dynamics. Also, the mechanism of gravity is not 'pressure' as such, but the effect on the surrounding primary vacuum environment not caught up in the 'differentiation mechanism' event that creates the 'gravity-inducing' feature, which distribution of such features (from photons, to electrons to nucleons etc etc) effectively constitutes and behaves as the 'false vacuum' which is perceived as the phenomenological processes/dynamics of the false vacuum which arises and evolves and reverts in due course back to the primary vacuum state locally depending on local conditions. The "GR" type "curvature" is "real" only insofar as the 'differentiation' is real, and then only so far as that differentiation effect extends 'proportionately' and spread radially outwards to a distance/effectiveness concentration depended on the inducing energy-matter feature creating that 'differentiation' gradient into the surroundings where other 'features' may interact via that extended environmental effect. Sorry, I really mustn't say any more or my publication will be an anticlimax because "the cat will have been let out of the bag"!

You are CLOSE, but have the wrong 'mechanism' and wrong 'take' on it because, unlike mine, you have not identified the real starting premise (ie, you haven't the right 'aether' concept, so the rest of your logic-train and conclusions are slightly off). Still, not a bad effort! Better than some I've heard so far, both from amateurs or professionals! Until my complete toe publication comes out, enjoy your own exploratory journey! Cheers!

Hey,You have invented something???!!! What is it??? Can i see it????
 
No, it is not correct, they did not say "medium", or "pressure on the solar system" or aether. You inserted that spuriously. The "it" that is being "compacted" is the magnetic field, nothing more. The rest is your embellishment.


Wrong again. NASA is discussing particles of matter precisely. They are streaming into the heliosphere as a cosmic wind, doubling the density of the the field Voyager is now measuring.

The pressure is not on the solar system but on the magnetic field and solar wind. It is not a mechanical pressure, but a field density pressure. Do you not understand what instruments are aboard Voyager, and what they are measuring?


Do you not understand that NASA never says that? They do not say "aether". They do not say "medium". You just made that up and snuck it in there to mislead readers. Why? For what purpose?


Do you not understand that NASA did not mention an aether or a medium? Do you not understand that they are referring to the magnetic field Voyager is measuring, and the solar ejecta? Do you not understand that they said that what is "pushing back" is the inbound cosmic radiation?

What is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the Solar System? Are you suggesting it is particles of matter which exist in quantities less than in any vacuum artificially created on Earth are able to push back and exert inward pressure toward the Solar System which causes the magnetic field to pile up?

You aren't able to understand particles of matter exist in quantities too few to push back and exert inward pressure toward the Solar System?

Create a football stadium sized vacuum. It has one particle of matter in it. Pass a magnetic field through it. Send Voyager through it. How is that one particle of matter going to push back and exert pressure toward the magnetic field causing it to pile up?

It can't.

It is not the particles of matter which exist in quantities less than in any vacuum artificially created on Earth which are pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the Solar System.

It is the interstellar medium which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the Solar System.

The interstellar medium is the aether.

It is the aether which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the Solar System.

It is the aether displaced by the Solar System which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the Solar System.
 
Hey gravitational aether,
You haven't given answer to what Aqueous Id said... Closely understand inversely proportional thing.. And understand Did you gave the correct answer to what said???? You just said some missing mass concept and didn't answer to anything..

Look, Something which suites to one Phenomena doesn't mean that that theory is correct..If it lacks in something else... Done... Theory is wrong.. proven already that your theory is wrong..So why extent discussion????


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.

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.
 
Hey,You have invented something???!!! What is it??? Can i see it????

Sorry, mate! The book on complete and consistent t.o.e. will be coming out the first half of next year. But I will probably be publishing some papers before then, specifically on the gravity part, as well as certain other aspects which are of interest in their own right. But for the whole complete theory you will need to wait until then. I'm sorry, but I have said too much already. I don't want to spoil the surprises!

I am withdrawing from internet posting to concentrate on getting everything done; so please do not take it amiss if I do not come back to respond to you (or anyone else) over the coming weeks.

Thanks for your own (and also others') contributions to the open discourse which I have been privy to here. Much appreciated; and that goes for everyone of genuine intent for the sake of science and humanity.

Cheers...and until we speak again, good luck, good thinking and enjoy your discussions, ash64449, everyone!
 
Back
Top