Luminiferous Aether Exists!

[gravitational_aether]

I'm going to call this a violation. Is that what you want?

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.

 

[Aqueous Id]

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

Hey, AlexG. The voice of sanity.

I think you or Origin may have mentioned that earlier, but it went over my head since I don't recognize what former user you're noticing.

 

[AlexG]

g_a is a sockpuppet of MPC755, who was banned for spamming these very same posts.

 

[Aqueous Id]

You have a pool of water. The pool is infinite in size. How much does the water weigh?

Oh so you can talk. Water weighs 1000 kg m[sup]-3[/sup] @277 K, and the rest is frivolous and absurd. Now give us your density of aether, and cut the spurious stuff. You can't, because aether has no properties, since it does not exist.

You have a pool of water. The pool is inifinite in size. How much volume does the water occupy?

One mole of water occupies 18.016 mL @277 K. Say what one mole of aether weighs, and its volume. You can't because it doesn't.

 

[gravitational_aether]

Oh so you can talk. Water weighs 1000 kg m[sup]-3[/sup] @277 K, and the rest is frivolous and absurd. Now give us your density of aether,

Read the articles.

One mole of water occupies 18.016 mL @277 K. Say what one mole of aether weighs, and its volume. You can't because it doesn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_(unit)

"The mole is a unit of measurement used in chemistry to express amounts of a chemical substance, defined as an amount of a substance that contains as many elementary entities (e.g., atoms, molecules, ions, electrons) as there are atoms in 12 grams of pure carbon-12 (12C), the isotope of carbon with atomic weight 12."

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could charaterise it as a medium having mass.

 

[Aqueous Id]

g_a is a sockpuppet of MPC755, who was banned for spamming these very same posts.

Oh, Ok I think that was before my time.

The only motivation I can see for pasting the same posts verbatim, and over and over, is to artificially bump some kinds of counters...which is more like spamming than trolling, but I see elements of both here.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Read the articles.

I don't need to. They don't cite a mass or volume for aether, and you know it. If they did, you would be bringing this here like Rover with a bone.

"The mole is a unit of measurement used in chemistry to express amounts of a chemical substance, defined as an amount of a substance that contains as many elementary entities (e.g., atoms, molecules, ions, electrons) as there are atoms in 12 grams of pure carbon-12 (12C), the isotope of carbon with atomic weight 12."

Kudos. So now that you've accused aether of being particulate (calling it a superfluid/solid) you can count it by moles and dispense with the frivolous references to infinity.

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could charaterise it as a medium having mass.

No, you have established the grounds for calling it moving particles by saying it displaces matter, and that it behaves like a superfluid/solid. (I see why you cut and paste cites so much: because your own language is completely riddled with absurdities. The above makes no sense whatsoever.)

 

[gravitational_aether]

I don't need to. They don't cite a mass of voume for aether, and you know it. If they did, you would be bringing this here like Rover with a bone.


Kudos. So now that you've accused aether of being particulate (calling it a superfluid/solid) you can count it by moles and dispense with the frivolous references to infinity.


No, you have established the grounds for calling it moving particles by saying it displaces matter, and that it behaves like a superfluid/solid. (I see why you cut and paste cites so much: because your own language is completely riddled with absurdities. The above makes no sense whatsoever.)

The aether does not have to consist of movable particles in order for it to be displaced by particles of matter. I have said the aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid.

The aether is a medium with mass which physically occupies three dimensional space. It is physically displaced by particles of matter. We have no ground for the assumption that the aether consists of movable particles.

 

[AlexG]

It is physically displaced by particles of matter.

If it's physically displaced, it's moveable, you nitwit.

 

[Aqueous Id]

The aether does not have to consist of movable particles in order for it to be displaced by particles of matter.

Yes, particles displace particles, and nothing more. That's the definition of displacement.

I have said the aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid.

No, you said it was a superfluid/solid. You repeatedly asked me "Do you understand what a superfluid/solid is?" And here I've given you a clear and concise answer that confirms that I do indeed understand that these are states of matter--that is, of particles. So now you see it's you who does not understand, not me.

The aether is a medium with mass which physically occupies three dimensional space.

Then state the volume. You can't, because it doesn't.

It is physically displaced by particles of matter.

Only if it's particulate, which you deny. So you have a fundamental contradiction. Dozens of them, actually.

We have no ground for the assumption that the aether consists of movable particles.

No: you have no ground for assuming anything about aether, but "we" have grounds for saying superfluids/solids are particulate in nature. "We" have grounds for saying that aether would need to be particulate in nature to have any of the properties you claim aether has.

 

[gravitational_aether]

If it's physically displaced, it's moveable, you nitwit.

That does not imply it consists of movable particles. Einstein defined motion in terms of the aether as the aether does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time.

Einstein's definition of motion in terms of the aether is different than its displacement by particles of matter.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable"

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The physical state of the aether at every place determined by its physical connections with the matter and the physical state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

 

[gravitational_aether]

Yes, particles displace particles, and nothing more. That's the definition of displacement.


No, you said it was a superfluid/solid. You repeatedly asked me "Do you understand what a superfluid/solid is?" And here I've given you a clear and concise answer that confirms that I do indeed understand that these are states of matter--that is, of particles. So now you see it's you who does not understand, not me.


Then state the volume. You can't, because it doesn't.


Only if it's particulate, which you deny. So you have a fundamental contradiction. Dozens of them, actually.


No: you have no ground for assuming anything about aether, but "we" have grounds for saying superfluids/solids are particulate in nature. "We" have grounds for saying that aether would need to be particulate in nature to have any of the properties you claim aether has.

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. The three dimensional space where the Earth will be a week from now presently consists of aether. When the particles of matter the Earth consists of occupy that three dimensional space a week from now the aether which would otherwise occupy that three dimensional space has been displaced.

 

[AlexG]

That does not imply it consists of movable particles. Einstein defined motion in terms of the aether as the aether does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time.

Einstein's definition of motion in terms of the aether is different than its displacement by particles of matter.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable"

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The physical state of the aether at every place determined by its physical connections with the matter and the physical state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

You always ignore the last sentence.

But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

Spamming nitwit.

 

[gravitational_aether]

You always ignore the last sentence.



Spamming nitwit.

You always ignore this part.

as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time.

And this part.

Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium.

And this part.

There may be supposed to be extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied. They may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time.

Your always ignoring Einstein's definition of motion in terms of the aether is the aether does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time.

The aether is displaced by particles of matter.

 

[Cheezle]

OK, maybe I was a little bit harsh. But this is what I see. We're getting diminishing returns from our technological advancements. The world economy is struggling. ...

Diminishing returns? Science and technology are accelerating. It is very obvious. So you were more than a little bit harsh, you were exactly wrong. As I said before, you seem to get everything wrong.

 

[gravitational_aether]

Diminishing returns? Science and technology are accelerating. It is very obvious. So you were more than a little bit harsh, you were exactly wrong. As I said before, you seem to get everything wrong.

The question is, where would physics be today if it didn't go off the rails 100 years ago? Where would physics be today if it would just stop digging the hole deeper?

Where would physics be today if the absurd nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation and the Big Bang had never happened?

de Broglie was correct. Wave-particle duality consists of a physical particle and a physical wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave passes through both.

Now physics has the absurd nonsense of 'many worlds' all because it is too stupid to realize the aether waves.

Einstein said, "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable". How mainstream phyiscs interprets this to mean there isn't an ether in general relativity is absurd.

The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places as described by Einstein is the state of displacement of the aether.

The absurd nonsense associated with non-baryonic dark matter is caused by mainstream physics being in denial of the existence of the aether.

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.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the aether.

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

Both are waves in the aether. Both are aether displacement waves.

Mainstream physics is so screwed up it can't see the obvious relationship between quantum mechanics and general relativity.

Physics is full of egotistical, closed minded, conceptually deficient mathematicians.

Where would physics be today if it understood the physics of nature?

 

[Mazulu]

Diminishing returns? Science and technology are accelerating. It is very obvious. So you were more than a little bit harsh, you were exactly wrong. As I said before, you seem to get everything wrong.

Are you blind? There are layoffs all around us. The U.S.A. is trillions of dollars in debt, unsustainable debt. There is going to be an energy crisis as China develops its infrastructure and needs oil (gas) to fuel cars. It's going to take the equivalent of an industrial revolution to save the world economy. But the scientific community isn't going to give us one. The scientific community doesn't have anything that will lead to significant business activity. That's how economic growth happens, that's how people keep their jobs. Engineering companies are pushing Maxwell's equations and quantum mechanics to it's limits, but it's not translating into any major breakthroughs in capability. I would love to be wrong on this one.

 

[Mazulu]

You always ignore the last sentence. Spamming nitwit.

It is not normal to abuse other people as much as you do. There is something deeply wrong with you.

 

[Mazulu]

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

This is the aether.
And this
And this.
And this.
In physics, it's called the wave function $$\Psi$$. But wave-functions are just mathematical descriptions of the aether. But I add one caveat. The speed of light, permitivity and permeability are built into these aether waves as $$c^2 = \frac{1}{\epsilon_0\mu_0}$$. Aether waves are the carriers of the physics constants; without them, there is only the void.

 

[Cheezle]

Are you blind? There are layoffs all around us. The U.S.A. is trillions of dollars in debt, unsustainable debt. There is going to be an energy crisis as China develops its infrastructure and needs oil (gas) to fuel cars. It's going to take the equivalent of an industrial revolution to save the world economy. But the scientific community isn't going to give us one. The scientific community doesn't have anything that will lead to significant business activity. That's how economic growth happens, that's how people keep their jobs. Engineering companies are pushing Maxwell's equations and quantum mechanics to it's limits, but it's not translating into any major breakthroughs in capability. I would love to be wrong on this one.

Well, you are wrong on just about everything you said in this post. It is obvious that you don't know anything about economics, business or even the technology of the industry you work in. I kind of doubt you have any competence in any field. But this is getting off subject. You are trying to deflect away from the fact that you you originally stated that science had not discovered any new phenomena. An astoundingly ignorant remark. When I pointed out your error you reply with "maybe I was a little harsh." An understatement if there ever was one. Now you are going on about doom and gloom, sky is falling business scenarios. None of it has anything to do with the subject of this thread.