# Luminiferous Aether Exists!

If you want to understand the physics of nature in terms of the aether then understand the following.
I'd really love to address all those points, and I think that Mazulu will pick up with you if he wants. In the mean time I will wait until he lets me know I have bored him enough before I get into a deep and complicated discussion with you, OK? Maybe you and he will get a discussion going that I could watch and add to? We'll see.

I'd really love to address all those points

Then you should.

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.

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

Both are waves in the aether.

Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Then you should.
Sorry, let's see where Mazulu wants to take his thread, and my Friday night comes to a close. Thanks for the fun.

Sorry, let's see where Mazulu wants to take his thread, and my Friday night comes to a close. Thanks for the fun.

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.

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

Both are waves in the aether.

Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Grrr... I am starting to feel like adding a higher dimension. If aether was displaced in a higher dimension then it wouldn't cause any waves that we could see in our own dimension. Now, look and see what you made me do! You couldn't tell the difference between going more or less in a higher spatial dimension.

Grrr... I am starting to feel like adding a higher dimension. If aether was displaced in a higher dimension then it wouldn't cause any waves that we could see in our own dimension. Now, look and see what you made me do! You couldn't tell the difference between going more or less in a higher spatial dimension.

There are only 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.

The superfluid you refer to as what waves in wave-particle duality is the aether. The aether waves because it physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by particles of matter moving through it, analogous to the bow wave of a boat.

There are only 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.

The superfluid you refer to as what waves in wave-particle duality is the aether. The aether waves because it physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by particles of matter moving through it, analogous to the bow wave of a boat.
LoL, an aether theory that only has three dimensions, now that really tops the cake. I didn't think such a thing was even possible.

So, you still can't understand superfluid and supersolid mean a frictionless interaction
No, you simply can't understand that "superfluids" and "supersolids" are matter, not aether. If aether were either of these, it would have a known temperature. So go ahead and state it in Kelvins. You can't, because it isn't.

with objects which exist in it.
What exists in what? The sun is sitting in a sea of superfluid helium? It would immediately flash to plasma. Oh wait, that's kind of like what the sun is. No, wait, you say: it's an electron sea. Imagine the sun in an electron sea, an "immersion" in "packed" electrons? A sea of back-to-back electrons blown back by the solar wind. Not to mention the magnetic field interactions. Oh, wait, you didn't get that memo--you missed all of the science from Maxwell forward. . . and, in compensation, you've appointed yourself . . . Bonaparte of the Heliosphere? Issuing proclamations may work when you have an entire army to support you. But this solo gig of yours has crashed and burned.

Not no interaction. A frictionless interaction.
Really? An interaction? Specify the interaction in SI units. You can't, because there is no interaction.

You are still unable to understand an object moving through a superfluid or a supersolid displaces it.
I understand full well that superfluidity has nothing to do with aether. You would, too, if you'd ever studied a little chemistry and a little kinematics. Lacking that, you've decided to simply issue proclamations for nature to follow. It's classic pseudoscience.

So, you still can't explain why the 'dark matter' is being left behind when galaxy clusters collide.
I can explain the article you cited, but you could not possibly understand my explanation. You have already demonstrated an ignorance of fundamental electromagnetics. Explaining to you what this article is saying would be like trying to explain stereo vision to a person who has monocular vision. Even then, the person would have to be able to process ideas scientifically. In other words, when it comes to science, you are completely blind. Now imagine that, plus wanting an explanation of stereo vision. And, on top of that, you're in a state of cynical rebellion, believing the sighted to be ignorantly mistaken, all while adamantly claiming you can see 4D. Yet you have no reflex response to light whatsoever.

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.
In other words, you understand not one whit of what was observed, what has been proposed as the explanation, and why.

. . . There is nothing to 'leave behind'. Non-baryonic dark matter was never anchored to the matter in the first place.
And there's the corroboration that you completely missed the point of the article.
There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.
Which makes you Bonaparte of the Heliosphere. Sadly, monsieur, nature is in rebellion against you.

No, you simply can't understand that "superfluids" ad "supersolids" are matter, not aether. If aether were either of these, it would have a known temperature. So go ahead and state it in Kelvins. You can't, because it isn't.

What exists in what? The sun is sitting in a sea of superfluid helium? It would immediately flash to plasma. Oh wait, that's kind of like what the sun is. No, wait, you say: it's an electron sea. Imagine the sun in an electron sea, an "immersion" in "packed" electrons? A sea of back-to-back electrons blown back by the solar wind. Not to mention the magnetic field interactions. Oh, wait, you didn't get that memo--you missed all of the science from Maxwell forward. . . and, in compensation, you've appointed yourself . . . Bonaparte of the Heliosphere? Issuing proclamations may work when you have an entire army to support you. But this solo gig of yours has crashed and burned.

Really? An interaction? Specify the interaction in SI units. You can't, because there is no interaction.

I understand full well that superfluidity has nothing to do with aether. You would, too, if you'd ever studied a little chemistry and a little kinematics. Lacking that, you've decided to simply issue proclamations for nature to follow. It's classic pseudoscience.

I can explain the article you cited, but you could not possibly understand my explanation. You have already demonstrated an ignorance of fundamental electromagnetics. Explaining to you what this article is saying would be like trying to explain stereo vision to a person who has monocular vision. Even then, the person would have to be able to process ideas scientifically. In other words, when it comes to science, you are completely blind. Now imagine that, plus wanting an explanation of stereo vision. And, on top of that, you're in a state of cynical rebellion, believing the sighted to be ignorantly mistaken, all while adamantly claiming you can see 4D. Yet you have no reflex response to light whatsoever.

In other words, you understand not one whit of what was observed, what has been proposed as the explanation, and why.

And there's the corroboration that you completely missed the point of the article.
Which makes you Bonaparte of the Heliosphere. Sadly, monsieur, nature is in rebellion against you.

So, you can't 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.

LoL, an aether theory that only has three dimensions, now that really tops the cake. I didn't think such a thing was even possible.

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

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.

*S*o*,*y*o*u**c*a*n*'t**e*x*p*l*a*i*n**w*h*y**t*h*e**'d*a*r*k**m*a*t*t*e*r'**i*s**b*e*i*n*g**l*e*f*t**b*e*h*i*n*d**w*h*e*n**g*a*l*a*x*y**c*l*u*s*t*e*r*s**c*o*l*l*i*d*e*.
Repetitive posting is akin to spamming/trolling. I think you've posted this same text about a dozen times. You might want to check the site rules to see if repetitive posting is prohibited. If you're not a bot of some kind, that is. That would certainly explain you're inadequacy in science.

Repetitive posting is akin to spamming/trolling. I think you've posted this same text about a dozen times. You might want to check the site rules to see if repetitive posting is prohibited. If you're not a bot of some kind, that is. That would certainly explain you're inadequacy in science.

So, you can't 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.

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter.
If aether had mass, you would be able to state it in kg. You can't because it isn't. You can't specify it's volume, density, temperature, triple point, specific heat, thermal conductivity, charge, mass, momentum, energy, force, torque, moment of inertia, electronegativity, ionization potential . . . or what? What else? Go ahead. You can't. It's all bogus.
Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.
If that were true, you could specify its "push" in Newtons. You can't, because it isn't.

A moving particle has an associated aehter displacement wave.
If that were true you could specify its wavelength in meters (or Angstroms). You can't, because it isn't.

In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.
If that were true you could specify the wavelength and/or energy of the aether on the target, in meters/Angstroms and or eV. You can't because it doesn't.

If aether had mass, you would be able to state it in kg. You can't because it isn't. You can't specify it's volume, density, temperature, triple point, specific heat, thermal conductivity, charge, mass, momentum, energy, force, torque, moment of inertia, electronegativity, ionization potential . . . or what? What else? Go ahead. You can't. It's all bogus.

If that were true, you could specify its "push" in Newtons. You can't, because it isn't.

If that were true you could specify its wavelength in meters (or Angstroms). You can't, because it isn't.

If that were true you could specify the wavelength and/or energy of the aether on the target, in meters/Angstroms and or eV. You can't because it doesn't.

'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"

So, you can't 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.

I'm reposting here an admonishment concerning the rules of posting. I suggest you adhere to them:

1. Explain how the "alternative" theory differs from the mainstream theory in its predictions/explanations of phenomena.
2. Outline why the alternative theory is superior to the mainstream one.
3. Explain any flaws in the standard science one that are addressed by the alternative theory.
4. Outline any experimental evidence or tests that do/might enable us to distinguish between the alternative theory and the mainstream one, in order to determine which is superior.

Elsewhere in the forum rules I believe there is a prohibition against repetitive posting.

I'm reposting here an admonishment concerning the rules of posting. I suggest you adhere to them:

1. Explain how the "alternative" theory differs from the mainstream theory in its predictions/explanations of phenomena.
2. Outline why the alternative theory is superior to the mainstream one.
3. Explain any flaws in the standard science one that are addressed by the alternative theory.
4. Outline any experimental evidence or tests that do/might enable us to distinguish between the alternative theory and the mainstream one, in order to determine which is superior.

Elsewhere in the forum rules I believe there is a prohibition against repetitive posting.

So, you can't 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.

'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"

None of this gives us the SI units for the mass, volume, density, displacement, velocity, temperature, boiling point, charge, force, or any of the other properties you've claimed aether has. Are you going to post this incessantly, or are you going to actually follow the rules of the forum, and defend your claims?

You are given the freedom to propose and defend a fringe idea, but I don't think that includes spamming, or whatever it is that you're up to.

So, you can't 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.
I'm going to call this a violation. Is that what you want?

, but I don't think that includes spamming, or whatever it is that you're up to.

The mods obviously don't care, they've let this go on forever. They also don't care about sockpuppets of banned users.

None of this gives us the SI units for the mass, volume, density, displacement, temperature, charge, boiling point, charge, force, or any of the other properties you've claimed aether has. Are you going to post this incessantly, or are you going to actually follow the rules of the forum, and defend your claims?

You are given the freedom to propose a defend a fringe idea, but I don't think that includes spamming, or whatever it is that you're up to.

You have a pool of water. The pool is infinite in size. Gives us the SI units for the mass and volume of the water.