Aether Displacement

[origin]

Why don't you actually read the following post before responding?

Sorry I may have confused you by quoting the article.

Let's just treat this as a stand alone question:

You have said that there is a halo of aether around the milkyway galaxy. There are 2 possibilities as far as I can see:

1. The halo of aether is moving with the milkyway galaxy.

2. The milkyway happens to have intersected a halo of aether at this point in time.

Which one is it? Or is there another explanation?

 

[mpc755]

Being as mpc755 just repeats the same lines over, and over, let me try to explain what he is saying, and what he isn't understanding.

He says... The halo is a propagated displacement bubble. Propagated in the direction of the flat sides. A lot of the theory is OK. But somehow he allows the displacement to move inside the bubble, and sort of switch on, and off when he wants it to. He will never explain that, because he only knows the word displacement works sometimes.. and he is happy that it works SOMETIMES. His theory needs flow, and he just wants the word displacement. It's like some sort of dyslexic interpretation with missing parts.

The Milky Way bubble is the state of displacement of the aether.

The Milky Way halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

 

[mpc755]

My comment was as to the reference rather than mpc's beliefs.

There is zero evidence non-baryonic dark matter is gravitationally bound to matter. There is zero evidence non-baryonic dark matter travels with matter.

All of the evidence is evidence matter moves through the non-baryonic dark matter.

Including the following.

'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16739.x/abstract

"We compile a sample of 38 galaxy clusters which have both X-ray and strong lensing observations, and study for each cluster the projected offset between the dominant component of baryonic matter centre (measured by X-rays) and the gravitational centre (measured by strong lensing). Among the total sample, 45 per cent clusters have offsets [greater than]10 arcsec. The [greater than]10 arcsec separations are significant, considering the arcsecond precision in the measurement of the lensing/X-ray centres. This suggests that it might be a common phenomenon in unrelaxed galaxy clusters that gravitational field is separated spatially from the dominant component of baryonic matter. It also has consequences for lensing models of unrelaxed clusters since the gas mass distribution may differ from the dark matter distribution and give perturbations to the modelling. Such offsets can be used as a statistical tool for comparison with the results of Lambda cold dark matter ( CDM) simulations and to test the modified dynamics."

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 the aether.

"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 non-baryonic fluid is the aether.

 

[mpc755]

Sorry I may have confused you by quoting the article.

Let's just treat this as a stand alone question:

You have said that there is a halo of aether around the milkyway galaxy. There are 2 possibilities as far as I can see:

1. The halo of aether is moving with the milkyway galaxy.

2. The milkyway happens to have intersected a halo of aether at this point in time.

Which one is it? Or is there another explanation?

Both 1 and 2 above are incorrect.

What part of the following are you unable to understand?

'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16739.x/abstract

"We compile a sample of 38 galaxy clusters which have both X-ray and strong lensing observations, and study for each cluster the projected offset between the dominant component of baryonic matter centre (measured by X-rays) and the gravitational centre (measured by strong lensing). Among the total sample, 45 per cent clusters have offsets [greater than]10 arcsec. The [greater than]10 arcsec separations are significant, considering the arcsecond precision in the measurement of the lensing/X-ray centres. This suggests that it might be a common phenomenon in unrelaxed galaxy clusters that gravitational field is separated spatially from the dominant component of baryonic matter. It also has consequences for lensing models of unrelaxed clusters since the gas mass distribution may differ from the dark matter distribution and give perturbations to the modelling. Such offsets can be used as a statistical tool for comparison with the results of Lambda cold dark matter ( CDM) simulations and to test the modified dynamics."

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 the aether.

"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 non-baryonic fluid is the aether.

Just as the submarine moves through the water, displacing the water; the Milky Way moves through the aether, displacing the aether.

Just as a submarine continues to displace different regions of the water in which it exists, creating a halo which consists of water which surrounds the submarine; the Milky Way has a halo which consists of non-baryonic dark matter which surrounds the Milky way.

Even though the submarine moves through the water, the halo the submarine creates in the water stays in the same state.

Even though the Milky Way moves through the aether, the halo the Milky Way creates in the aether stays in the same state.

 

[mpc755]

I was referring to galaxy collisions, where the dark matter which is moving along with the visible matter continues to move through the colliding galaxy.

The reason the colliding galaxy clusters are able to create a ripple is because the are moving through and displacing the non-baryonic dark matter; like a boat and its bow wave.

If each galaxy cluster was moving with their 'own' non-baryonic dark matter the interaction would not form a ripple.

The article you link to is about the motion of the Earth. You do realise there's a difference between the Earth an a galaxy, right?

Not when discussing the interaction of matter with non-baryonic dark matter.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/05/03/dark-matter-is-just-messing-with-us-now/

"Dark matter is like an atmosphere through which we are moving; when we’re moving into a headwind, the rate of interactions should be slightly higher than when our relative speed through the ambient dark matter is smaller. The DAMA experiment was designed to look for such a modulation, and it certainly sees one."

The above quote is correct for the Earth, the solar system, and the Milky Way.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The reason the colliding galaxy clusters are able to create a ripple is because the are moving through and displacing the non-baryonic dark matter; like a boat and its bow wave.

If each galaxy cluster was moving with their 'own' non-baryonic dark matter the interaction would not form a ripple.

Demonstrably false given the effects of such things as the Bullet Cluster are well modelled by dark matter models.

How is non-baryonic dark matter gravitationally bound to the Milky Way but not the solar system or the Earth?

You're making an argument from ignorance, you don't understand therefore the notion must be wrong. Something moving sufficiently fast may be bound to the galaxy but not to the Sun. For instance, other stars in the galaxy are not gravitationally bound to our Sun but they are bound to the galaxy. Comets are bound to the Sun but not the Earth.

It's all about escape velocities. If you fire a projectile upwards at a speed v then if 0<v<11km/s it will not escape Earth's gravity, it will be gravitationally bound to it. If 11km/s<v<42km/s then the projectile will not be bound to the Earth but will be bound to the Sun. If 42km/s<v<525km/s then the projectile will not be gravitationally bound the Earth or Sun but will be bound to the galaxy gravitationally.

Simple physics, simple enough to be taught in high school. And yet rather than you finding this out (or even learning it properly in school) you are indignant and brush it off as nonsense.

And don't think I didn't notice you skipped over my comments about there being more evidence for all the mainstream stuff you whine about than your aether. Looks like you know you're a hypocrite and just spouting BS but you aren't grown up enough to admit it. How sad.

 

[mpc755]

Demonstrably false given the effects of such things as the Bullet Cluster are well modelled by dark matter models.

The more correct model are two sets of boats. In each set the boats are traveling close together. There will be a single bow wave associated with each set of boats. As the boats 'collide' a ripple will be created.

You're making an argument from ignorance, you don't understand therefore the notion must be wrong. Something moving sufficiently fast may be bound to the galaxy but not to the Sun. For instance, other stars in the galaxy are not gravitationally bound to our Sun but they are bound to the galaxy. Comets are bound to the Sun but not the Earth.

Everything you mention above is in reference to an object in orbit. If non-baryonic dark matter is in orbit about the Milky Way, why is it unable to orbit the Sun or the Earth? If non-baryonic dark matter is not in orbit then what is the specific property non-baryonic dark matter has which causes it to be gravitationally bound to the Milky Way but not the solar system or the Earth?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

The more correct model are two sets of boats. In each set the boats are traveling close together. There will be a single bow wave associated with each set of boats. As the boats 'collide' a ripple will be created.



What is the specific property non-baryonic dark matter has which causes it to be gravitationally bound to the Milky Way but not the solar system or the Earth?

You are supposed to answer it. This is why the Aether was removed from science. A photon was fired towards the Earth, the photon was supposed to travel through the Aether, and the Aether was supposed to be considered unbound to the Earth, else it could not be bound to the sun, and then could not be bound to the Milky Way. I can answer the problem. You have to answer it with displacement. You then have to bond your displacement to everything, and nothing at the same time. This is what scientists struggle with, this is something that I don't struggle with.

 

[mpc755]

You are supposed to answer it.

Just as you can't understand gravity only requires the force associated with displaced aether in order to be defined correctly, you are unable to understand the question I was asking was because non-baryonic dark matter is not gravitationally bound to the Milky Way.

The Milky Way moves through and displaces the aether. The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

 

[AlexG]

Why don't you actually read the following post before responding?

'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16739.x/abstract

"We compile a sample of 38 galaxy clusters which have both X-ray and strong lensing observations, and study for each cluster the projected offset between the dominant component of baryonic matter centre (measured by X-rays) and the gravitational centre (measured by strong lensing). Among the total sample, 45 per cent clusters have offsets [greater than]10 arcsec. The [greater than]10 arcsec separations are significant, considering the arcsecond precision in the measurement of the lensing/X-ray centres. This suggests that it might be a common phenomenon in unrelaxed galaxy clusters that gravitational field is separated spatially from the dominant component of baryonic matter. It also has consequences for lensing models of unrelaxed clusters since the gas mass distribution may differ from the dark matter distribution and give perturbations to the modelling. Such offsets can be used as a statistical tool for comparison with the results of Lambda cold dark matter ( CDM) simulations and to test the modified dynamics."

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 the aether.

"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 non-baryonic fluid is the aether.

This is the fourth time mpc has simply repeated a post verbatim in answer to another post.

This is spam.

 

[mpc755]

This is the fourth time mpc has simply repeated a post verbatim in answer to another post.

This is spam.

I am consistently asked the same questions.

One is by a poster who appears to be actually attempting to understand aether displacement who keeps saying there are only two possibilities as to what causes the Milky Way halo. Both are incorrect. I have repeated the same post to this poster because the offset between the light lensing through the space neighboring moving galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters themselves is the best example of galaxy clusters moving through the aether at the same time the galaxy clusters have a halo.

I also continue to respond to posts with the 'offset' post to respond to those who continue to insist there is no evidence of matter moving through the aether, which the offset is evidence of.

If posters are too ignorant to understand the offset is evidence galaxy clusters move through the aether and insist there is no evidence of galaxy clusters moving through the aether then my response is appropriate.

 

[origin]

I am consistently asked the same questions.

One is by a poster who appears to be actually attempting to understand aether displacement who keeps saying there are only two possibilities as to what causes the Milky Way halo. Both are incorrect. I have repeated the same post to this poster because the offset between the light lensing through the space neighboring moving galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters themselves is the best example of galaxy clusters moving through the aether at the same time the galaxy clusters have a halo.

I also continue to respond to posts with the 'offset' post to respond to those who continue to insist there is no evidence of matter moving through the aether, which the offset is evidence of.

If posters are too ignorant to understand the offset is evidence galaxy clusters move through the aether and insist there is no evidence of galaxy clusters moving through the aether then my response is appropriate.

The problem is that your conjectures are idiotic and your analogy is weak. You must rely on analogy because you have no model, no math and no evidence to support your conjecture.

 

[origin]

I am consistently asked the same questions.

One is by a poster who appears to be actually attempting to understand aether displacement who keeps saying there are only two possibilities as to what causes the Milky Way halo. Both are incorrect. I have repeated the same post to this poster because the offset between the light lensing through the space neighboring moving galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters themselves is the best example of galaxy clusters moving through the aether at the same time the galaxy clusters have a halo.

I also continue to respond to posts with the 'offset' post to respond to those who continue to insist there is no evidence of matter moving through the aether, which the offset is evidence of.

If posters are too ignorant to understand the offset is evidence galaxy clusters move through the aether and insist there is no evidence of galaxy clusters moving through the aether then my response is appropriate.

You have said the aether is a superfluid. I assume you said that because you think it sounds neat or technical. I say that because you also say that a galaxy moving through the aether creates a halo, sort of a bow wave, but that of course wouldn't happen in a superfluid.

The idea of an aether that we are moving through is shown to be incorrect every time that the speed of light is measured.

I recommend that you get some basic understanding of physics. There are courses that you can take at community colleges and if you aren't out of high school yet take a physics course there.

Good luck!

 

[mpc755]

You have said the aether is a superfluid. I assume you said that because you think it sounds neat or technical. I say that because you also say that a galaxy moving through the aether creates a halo, sort of a bow wave, but that of course wouldn't happen in a superfluid.

Of course it would. Roll a bowling ball down a ramp into a tank full of a superfluid. The bowling ball will displace the superfluid into the form of a wave. There will be no loss of energy between the bowling ball and the superfluid because the superfluid is frictionless.

The idea of an aether that we are moving through is shown to be incorrect every time that the speed of light is measured.

Everything is with respect to the state of the aether, including the rate at which clocks tick which are used to determine the speed of light.

 

[mpc755]

The problem is that your conjectures are idiotic and your analogy is weak. You must rely on analogy because you have no model, no math and no evidence to support your conjecture.

What part of the following evidence are you unable to understand?

'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...739.x/abstract

"We compile a sample of 38 galaxy clusters which have both X-ray and strong lensing observations, and study for each cluster the projected offset between the dominant component of baryonic matter centre (measured by X-rays) and the gravitational centre (measured by strong lensing). Among the total sample, 45 per cent clusters have offsets [greater than]10 arcsec. The [greater than]10 arcsec separations are significant, considering the arcsecond precision in the measurement of the lensing/X-ray centres. This suggests that it might be a common phenomenon in unrelaxed galaxy clusters that gravitational field is separated spatially from the dominant component of baryonic matter. It also has consequences for lensing models of unrelaxed clusters since the gas mass distribution may differ from the dark matter distribution and give perturbations to the modelling. Such offsets can be used as a statistical tool for comparison with the results of Lambda cold dark matter ( CDM) simulations and to test the modified dynamics."

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 the aether.

"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 non-baryonic fluid is the aether.

 

[AlexG]

The fifth repetition of this.

 

[mpc755]

The fifth repetition of this.

A poster stated that there was "no evidence to support your conjecture."

The following shows the poster to be incorrect.

Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16739.x/abstract

"We compile a sample of 38 galaxy clusters which have both X-ray and strong lensing observations, and study for each cluster the projected offset between the dominant component of baryonic matter centre (measured by X-rays) and the gravitational centre (measured by strong lensing). Among the total sample, 45 per cent clusters have offsets [greater than]10 arcsec. The [greater than]10 arcsec separations are significant, considering the arcsecond precision in the measurement of the lensing/X-ray centres. This suggests that it might be a common phenomenon in unrelaxed galaxy clusters that gravitational field is separated spatially from the dominant component of baryonic matter. It also has consequences for lensing models of unrelaxed clusters since the gas mass distribution may differ from the dark matter distribution and give perturbations to the modelling. Such offsets can be used as a statistical tool for comparison with the results of Lambda cold dark matter ( CDM) simulations and to test the modified dynamics."

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 the aether.

"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 non-baryonic fluid is the aether.

 

[Arioch]

This thread is still alive? Come on people, stop feeding these trolls. They ran out of entertainment value long ago.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: mpc755 appears to be spamming this thread with the same material over and over again.

Repetition is not an argument. Further spamming of the same material will lead to a ban from sciforums.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The more correct model are two sets of boats. In each set the boats are traveling close together. There will be a single bow wave associated with each set of boats. As the boats 'collide' a ripple will be created.

Until you provide evidence for this 'more correct model' you're making baseless claims. Dark matter models have evidence, you have none.

Everything you mention above is in reference to an object in orbit. If non-baryonic dark matter is in orbit about the Milky Way, why is it unable to orbit the Sun or the Earth? If non-baryonic dark matter is not in orbit then what is the specific property non-baryonic dark matter has which causes it to be gravitationally bound to the Milky Way but not the solar system or the Earth?

You obviously don't understand basic celestial mechanics. If something is moving very quickly, ie between 11km/s and 42km/s it will be bound to the Sun but not the Earth. If it moves between 42km/s and 525km/s then it will be bound to the galaxy but not the Sun. If an object is moving through the Milky Way at 300km/s and passes through our solar system the pull of the Sun will not be strong enough to keep it in the system, it'll just whiz right through. This is true for ANY matter, normal or dark, because it's basic mechanics of gravity.

If the dark matter were to slow down enough it would become gravitationally bound to the Sun or even Earth. The problem is it only slows down when it collides with things and it very very very rarely does that, just like neutrinos. If you sent a beam of neutrinos into 50,000 light years of solid lead (that's half the length of the galaxy!) half the neutrinos would come out the other end, that's how little they interact with things. Normal matter collides with itself all the time, hence why it forms more small scale structure than dark matter.

You haven't bothered to find out anything about this and once again you're getting indignant for something which is your own fault. You are never going to convince people you're right if you can't show some intellectual honesty. No one is going to think "He seems honest, perhaps it's worth investing my time to listen to him" if you're seen to lie all the bloody time.

James, mpc has made it apparent on this forum and others he isn't interested in discussion, only to hear the sound of his own repetitive voice.