Aether Displacement

OnlyMe said:
When you start talking about "the flow" and gravity it begins to sound more like a LeSage style kinetic model of gravity. Not new and rife with its own inherent problems.

I like the idea of a kinetic gravity model. There would seem to be some potential to resolve some of the conflicts between GR and QM within such a model. The problem lies in that every serious attempt to reconsider a kinetic model of gravity runs into fatal flaws. Most common among them being the vaporization of matter. An event that in itself is not consistent with experience.

There are also a number of fringe models out there. Of those that I am aware they never get to the point of atom vaporization, since they never address what the flow is composed, where it is going, or how energy is transferred.

Any such model, involving a kinetic transfer of motion, must address not only the mechanism of transfer but how sufficient kinetic energy can be transferred to atoms to account for gravitational force and inertia without that same kinetic energy leading to the destruction.., vaporization of the atom and thus the universe as we know it.

Simply saying, it is the flow.., is no better than saying it is displacement. Both ideas need to be further explained such that they represent an accurate account of experience.
Click to expand...

I allow the particles to turn negative, and then back to positive. The destruction is eliminated by the fact that negative particles don't interact with positive particles. They polarize each other. It's very useful to get the flow out of the Earth, and back into space. Anti-matter around the outside edge of the Earth, and it has been found. In fact, that's why I predicted the bubbles in 2004.. 3 years before they were found. The atoms therefore are safe, but the particles inside are turned negative.


oh sorry.. on topic..

I can't help it if you are unable to understand the correctness in the following.

Gravity is force exerted by displaced aether toward matter.
 
Last edited:
OnlyMe said:
With all of this reference to a superfluid, perhaps a definition is in order.

The terms superfluid and perfect fluid both originate from within QM and I don't think either act in the way either of you believe they do.

Still from within GR gravitational force is often modeled using perfect fluid and condensed matter models. However, this most likely has more to do with the complexity of attempting to model the mass distributions of real astronomical objects, than it does anything else.
Click to expand...

'Superfluid Is Shown To Have Property Of A Solid'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/990730072958.htm

'Northwestern University physicists have for the first time shown that superfluid helium-3 -- the lighter isotope of helium, which is a liquid that has lost all internal friction, allowing it to flow without resistance and ooze through tiny spaces that normal liquids cannot penetrate -- actually behaves like a solid in its ability to conduct sound waves. ... "Faraday's finding was the first indication that light and magnetism were related," says William Halperin, professor of physics and astronomy at Northwestern. "I wouldn't say that our discovery is of that magnitude, but it is significant as the first observation of a previously unknown mode of wave propagation in a liquid -- one that is of the type you would expect to see in a solid."'

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a frictionless superfluid with properties of a solid.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Hooray!
We're back to crank vs. crank again.
Click to expand...
What a beautiful site!


I did read some recent research causing a rethink on the sun and earth forming from the same intersteller ectoplasm though...
Science Daily
"We found that Earth, the moon, as well as Martian and other meteorites which are samples of asteroids, have a lower concentration of the O-16 than does the sun," said Kevin McKeegan, a Genesis co-investigator from UCLA, and the lead author of one of two Science papers published this week. "The implication is that we did not form out of the same solar nebula materials that created the sun -- just how and why remains to be discovered."
Click to expand...

/continues to munch popcorn awaiting next hack attack
 
mpc755 said:
Gravity is force exerted by displaced aether toward matter.
Click to expand...
Nope.
Gravity is the massive flow of dumbons and crankons flowing rapidly toward the idiots. The rest of us just get caught up in the stream.
 
mpc755 said:
Incorrect.
Click to expand...

Not a chance!

It's a fact the earth is getting further from the sun as we speak.

So you are left with a few choices if you choose not to agree that the earth was once part of the sun and has since moved away and continues to move away:

1. The earth wasn't always traveling away from the sun. At one time long ago it was maintaining its distance from the sun. It was always at that distance and suddenly, it started to get further from the sun. That means the earth accelerated away from the sun. So if you pick this choice, you are saying the earth accelerated away from the sun, contrary to your initial suggestion that the earth accelerates towards the sun due to gravity.

2. The earth was once accelerating towards the sun, getting closer to the sun, but suddenly, it decelerated, and started accelerating away from the sun, and hence is the reason it is moving away from the sun today.

3. God did it!


Take your pick.
 
Last edited:
Dywyddyr said:
Nope.
Gravity is the massive flow of dumbons and crankons flowing rapidly toward the idiots. The rest of us just get caught up in the stream.
Click to expand...

Wow! That's the closest you have been to describing what occurs physically in nature.

Gravity is force exerted by displaced aether toward matter.
 
mpc755 said:
Wow! That's the closest you have been to describing what occurs physically in nature.
Click to expand...
Yep.
We appear to have an overload of dumbons and crankons. It's the plethora of fools that causes it.

Gravity is force exerted by displaced aether toward matter.
Click to expand...
Still wrong.
Still unsupported.
Still no evidence.
 
mpc755 said:
'Superfluid Is Shown To Have Property Of A Solid'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/990730072958.htm

'Northwestern University physicists have for the first time shown that superfluid helium-3 -- the lighter isotope of helium, which is a liquid that has lost all internal friction, allowing it to flow without resistance and ooze through tiny spaces that normal liquids cannot penetrate -- actually behaves like a solid in its ability to conduct sound waves. ... "Faraday's finding was the first indication that light and magnetism were related," says William Halperin, professor of physics and astronomy at Northwestern. "I wouldn't say that our discovery is of that magnitude, but it is significant as the first observation of a previously unknown mode of wave propagation in a liquid -- one that is of the type you would expect to see in a solid."'

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a frictionless superfluid with properties of a solid.
Click to expand...

Sorry.. did you use the word flow in there?

I can't help it if you are unable to understand the correctness in the following.

Gravity is force exerted by displaced aether toward matter.
 
mpc755 said:
Great! So you now understand the following statement of yours could not be more incorrect?

"Ah yes, Einstein, he was that fellow that showed that the concept of an aether should be abandoned."
Click to expand...

No problem: I withdraw that statement.

Now could you answer my question on your idea:

What is the mathematical model of how the galaxy moving through the 'aether' would form a halo?
Use any approximations or assumptions you like - just identify them.

If you dodge the question this last time I will assume that you cannot answer it (or even acknowledge it) and will therefore realize that your idea about the aether halo is nothing more than a 'hunch'.
 
origin said:
No problem: I withdraw that statement.

Now could you answer my question on your idea:

What is the mathematical model of how the galaxy moving through the 'aether' would form a halo?
Use any approximations or assumptions you like - just identify them.

If you dodge the question this last time I will assume that you cannot answer it (or even acknowledge it) and will therefore realize that your idea about the aether halo is nothing more than a 'hunch'.
Click to expand...

What is the mathematical model of how dark matter is offset from the galaxy clusters?
 
Oh, very subtle there mpc. But I think I spotted a dodge.
I wonder if anyone else will.
 
mpc755 said:
You can't explain what occurs physically in nature to cause there to be an offset and you can't explain it mathematically.
Click to expand...
That's not the point.
YOU are the one making claims and you can't do it.

But you can avoid answering questions. Well done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top