Why? Explain....
Aether Displacement
- Thread starter mpc755
- Start date
Why? Explain....
What I'd like to know is why you persist in asking questions while, at the same time, refusing to actually support your claims.
Let's start with the simple one: the discrepancy between your claim that aether causing gravity and the observed results. You know, the question I asked on page one.
More claims. Still no evidence.
What is presently postulated as non-baryonic dark matter is aether. Non-baryonic dark matter does not travel with matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether. Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter. Aether displaced by matter exerts force toward the matter. Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity. A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. Curved spacetime is displaced aether.
What is postulated as the 'dark matter' Milky Way halo is the state of displacement of the aether.
Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
Gravity is dependent on mass. It is also dependent on mass per volume. The total mass of the Solar System is not responsible for the Earth remaining in orbit about the Sun. If all of the matter in the Solar System, except of the Earth and Moon occupied the three dimensional space presently occupied the by Sun the Earth would not be able to remain in orbit about the Sun. That is why I was mentioning mass per volume. Simply to show the more mass which exists within a particular volume to more aether which is displaced from that volume the greater the force of the aether exerted toward the volume.
The fact that you were incapable of figuring this out on your own was obvious to me how pointless actually trying to have a conversation with you would be.
What I'd like to know is why you persist in acting like you know everything when you can not answer any of the following. Let's start with a simple one: What occurs physically in nature to cause the Milky Way halo to be in the shape of a squished beach ball.
Which simply repeats your assertion without addressing the observed fact that acceleration due to gravity does NOT accord with your claim.
And again, a deflection.
Since YOU have made claims it is up to YOU to support them.
For the record: a repeated, and unsubstantiated, claim is NOT an explanation.
And your inability to explain anything shows how ignorant you are of being able to understand the physics of nature.
Gravity is dependent on mass. It is also dependent on mass per volume. The total mass of the Solar System is not responsible for the Earth remaining in orbit about the Sun. If all of the matter in the Solar System, except of the Earth and Moon occupied the three dimensional space presently occupied the by Sun the Earth would not be able to remain in orbit about the Sun. That is why I was mentioning mass per volume. Simply to show the more mass which exists within a particular volume to more aether which is displaced from that volume the greater the force of the aether exerted toward the volume.
The fact that you were incapable of figuring this out on your own made it obvious to me how pointless it would be to actually try to have a conversation with you.
It's difficult enough trying to get people to understand the correctness of aether displacement without having to deal with people who are completely conceptually deficient at the same time they think they know everything.
Explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
Explain why there is an offset between light lensing through space neighboring moving galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters themselves.
Explain why the Milky Way's halo is the shape of a squished beach ball.
Explain how the Solar System and the Earth move through 'dark matter' at the same time the Milky Way moves with dark matter.
Explain something, anything.
Last edited:
On the contrary.
Your inability to support your claims while attempting to deflect the onus onto me shows your ignorance of how science is done. It's NOT up to me to explain YOUR "theory". It's up to you to support it with evidence. Me not be able (or willing) to give answers does NOT support your claims.
The flaws stand on their own, regardless of whether I have an alternate explanation or not.
No. As observed and previously noted. This still doesn't address the question.
Oh dear.
Why not?
Granted, the Earth may not have the same orbit, but it could remain in orbit. (Clue: it's nothing whatsoever to do with your ridiculous claim).
Nope. Erroneous claim.
One of the difficulties in getting people to understand the "correctness of aether displacement" could lie in the fact you have no supporting evidence, claims alone just don't cut it.
Neither do unwarranted ad homs.
Okay.
You're an idiot.
One who thinks that simply repeating a claim (while ignoring the errors that others point out) somehow provides validation.
Goodbye.
If the mass of the Sun was spread out to where the Earth is, then would the Earth remain in orbit around the mass of the Sun evenly distributed within its orbit?
No, of course not. The Earth remains in orbit about the Sun because of the mass of the Sun which occupies the three dimensional space in which it exists.
Explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
Explain why there is an offset between light lensing through space neighboring moving galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters themselves.
Explain why the Milky Way's halo is the shape of a squished beach ball.
Explain how the Solar System and the Earth move through 'dark matter' at the same time the Milky Way moves with dark matter.
Can't, can you?
Do you know why you can't?
Because they are all explained by understanding aether is displaced by matter.
No.
Wrong.
The answer is "no" because the Earth would be inside the Sun, and would suffer drag, slowing it down and causing it to fall out of orbit. Not to mention the heat, of course.
I note that you deleted the question about "what if it were a Black Hole" before I replied.
maybe because you realised the answer would be "yes" and thus invalidate your nonsensical claim.
Instead of doing the nonsense of "Post #191" why don't you just quote the post so we can easily understand the post you are responding to?
Answer the following question or are you like the other poster who can't answer anything yet knows everything?
If the mass of the Sun was spread out evenly within what is presently the orbit of the Earth then would the Earth remain in orbit around this mass?
If the mass of the Sun was spread out evenly within what is presently the orbit of the Earth then would the Earth remain in orbit around this mass?
Do you see how easy it is to allow people to easily understand what post I am responding to by including it in quotes? All you have to do is hit the "quote" button.
Read this:
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits both. As the wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. Detecting the particle turns the associated wave into chop, there is no interference, and the direction the particle travels is not altered.
1. O.K. since your have a problem with searching posts 'by the numbers'
2. Those who think they know it all certainly make it laborious for those of us who do (know it all!) tee hee!
3. If the mass of the sun were extended to the earth's orbit, we would not be here to pose the question. . . an imaginative non-sequitor.
Providing there's no "contact" (and ignoring the obvious problem of heating) why wouldn't it?
Please provide calculations (noting, of course, that such calculations involve values for g as NOT validated by your claim).
Please provide a valid answer, not simply a repetition of your unsubstantiated claim.