Aether Displacement

No one is going to change mpc's view in this.

This is the absurd ridiculous state of physics today. Einstein, Newton, de Broglie and Maxwell were all referring to aether displacement. However, since in the absurdity of the current state of physics this can not be correct for delusional reasons only mainstream physics is aware of I must change my views.

Since when does the person who is most correct have to change their views?

Gravity is force exerted by displaced aether toward matter.
 
This is the absurd ridiculous state of physics today. Einstein, Newton, de Broglie and Maxwell were all referring to aether displacement. However, since in the absurdity of the current state of physics this can not be correct for delusional reasons only mainstream physics is aware of I must change my views.

Since when does the person who is most correct have to change their views?

Gravity is force exerted by displaced aether toward matter.

No one must bow to consensus. If everyone did there would be little progress, in our understanding. There is a difference in having a different perspective and/or theory of "things" and just claiming things to be different than current consensus suggests.

Provide some logical argument and others who will probably disagree will at least have some basis for a real discussion. What seems to be going on is a constant restatement of a belief, with little to no real logical explanation.

To be fair there have been a few bits of discussion where it appears you have attempted to discuss, explanations of your beliefs. However, to a significant extent one liner replies like the following tend to overshadow any real conversation you may have attempted. We have all heard the one liner and multi-paragraph statements of belief for near 40 pages of posts now. Try some reasoned explanations that are not dominated by a wrote repetition of now over used catch phrases...

Einstein, Newton, de Broglie and Maxwell all understood aether is physically displaced by matter.

Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether toward matter.

Einstein, Newton, de Broglie and Maxwell were all referring to aether displacement, so your logic and reasoning is not very good.

You do realize Einstein, Newton, and de Broglie are all referring to aether displacement.

You do realize Einstein, Newton, de Broglie and Maxwell are all referring to aether displacement.
 
No one must bow to consensus.

Consensus? It's the mind numbing delusional state of physics today which does not allow it to accept the correctness of aether displacement.

Why don't you explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment, or why there is an offset between the light lensing through the space neighboring moving galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters themselves, or why the Milky Way's halo is in the shape of a squished beach ball.

All of which are easily explained by aether displacement.

with little to no real logical explanation

What part of what is presently postulated as non-baryonic dark matter is aether are you unable to understand?
What part of there is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter gravitationally bound to matter are you unable to understand?
What part of matter moves through and displaces the aether are you unable to understand?
What part of force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity are you unable to understand?
What part of a moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave are you unable to understand?
What part of curved spacetime is displaced aether are you unable to understand?
 
Last edited:
Consensus? It's the mind numbing delusional state of physics today

You have not demonstrated the capability of understanding even high school physics; you are in no position to comment on the state of physics.:rolleyes:
 
You have not demonstrated the capability of understanding even high school physics; you are in no position to comment on the state of physics.:rolleyes:

Why don't you explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment, or why there is an offset between the light lensing through the space neighboring moving galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters themselves, or why the Milky Way's halo is in the shape of a squished beach ball.

All of which are easily explained by aether displacement.
 
What part of what is presently postulated as non-baryonic dark matter is aether are you unable to understand?
What part of there is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter gravitationally bound to matter are you unable to understand?
What part of matter moves through and displaces the aether are you unable to understand?
What part of force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity are you unable to understand?
What part of a moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave are you unable to understand?
What part of curved spacetime is displaced aether are you unable to understand?

Apparently all of it! So why don't you explain it once instead of just repeating it, as if it had already been explained.

You can reference those old papers but don't try to quote them as proof. I have read them all myself, as have probably most of those watching this thread and I come away with a different interpretation that you, apparently.

Just saying something over and over is not proof that it is the way of things. Though if you say anything over and over for long enough you will come to believe it, even without any real logical evidence.

I do find some aspects of "an ether" intriguing and even thought provoking. You have not hit on any of those aspects as of yet.

I do find a kinetic gravity model intriguing and even thought provoking, though so far all attempts to model gravity in this way have failed.., and there is no apparent connection to your beliefs.

So, once again on the question(s) I don't understand any of them. Explain in new words and logical reasoning. Perhaps then a conversation can be entertained as well as entertaining.
 
Why don't you explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment, or why there is an offset between the light lensing through the space neighboring moving galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters themselves, or why the Milky Way's halo is in the shape of a squished beach ball.

All of which are easily explained by aether displacement.

MY explanation (posted elsewhere) . . .again . . .

In slit experiments, light interacts with the edges of slits. The interaction actually 'refracts' those photons, electrons, etc. that 'hit' the very thin slit edges. Refraction is induced where photons hit very thin parts of the slit (ideally monoatomic +/-thicknesses). Photonic energy is transferred to outer electrons of the slit material atoms, boosting their (the atom's electrons) energy levels. As the electron energies fall-back to their 'normal' state, the excess energy is emitted as secondary photonic energy - probably of a frequency close (or harmonic?) to that of the impinging photon. So the poorly-understood "bending of light" around slit edges is dominantly a refraction process. The process does not work well when slit material thickness exceeds the ability of the impinging photon to penetrate the material completely. This explanation 'works for me' . . . no one has been able to explain this (light bending) ever since Young first discribed the diffraction phenomenon. I have a brief write-up on this "theory" (hypothesis), send me an email (wlminex@msn.com) and I'll forward it to you.

wlminex
 
Why don't you explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment, or why there is an offset between the light lensing through the space neighboring moving galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters themselves, or why the Milky Way's halo is in the shape of a squished beach ball.

All of which are easily explained by aether displacement.

Yes, but unfortunately it is generally frowned upon in physics to just make stuff up as an explanation. Typically in physics there needs to be some evidence and rigor.

With out any rigor or evidence anyone can make up anything as an explanation.

Maybe there is quantum shyness. The wave like property of matter is shy and if a particle is observed the wave collapses leaving the particle attributes. This explanation has the same amount of math and evidence that your explanation has.

By the way what do you think is responsible for gravity - I can't recall...
 
Why don't you explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment, or why there is an offset between the light lensing through the space neighboring moving galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters themselves, or why the Milky Way's halo is in the shape of a squished beach ball.

All of which are easily explained by aether displacement.

The Milky Ways halo is in the shape of a squished beach ball because we detect it largely based on the distribution of gasses affected by the Milky Ways gravitational influence. If gravity were the only thing in play it would probably be more spherical. The Milky Way and the shape of its halo are not governed solely by the involved gravity. It also has angular momentum. The angular momentum is greatest along the plane of its axis of rotation. Gasses and other debris outside of the plane of its rotational axis is affected more by the involved gravity than by the angular momentum. (The angular momentum adds a centrifugal force (a fictitious force emanating from the inertia of the mass of gasses and objects in orbit) which opposes the involved gravitational force). Gravity's larger relative influence away from the plane of the axis of rotation pulls the gasses and other debris toward the center of mass more efficiently than in the plane of the galaxy. The result is a halo that is distorted from a spherical shape and could be roughly described as a squished beach ball, as it was in the article you got that description from.

Explaining the double slit experiment gets far deeper into QM than I am currently willing to tread. The gravitational lensing issue would also go far astray from the thread. So let us just leave it at the squished beach ball halo for now.

BTW The halo explanation just presented was off the cuff and does most likely contain some errors and this disclaimer is for those of you who might actually understand what I was, attempting to describe and explain...
 
Still page 30 gave me the little gem,

“ Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Has your cheese slid off your cracker? ”



I still get a chuckle out of that one! And with Motor Daddy's permission I might use it on occasion myself.

That's a line I heard in The Green Mile. It's not a MD original.
 
Apparently all of it! So why don't you explain it once instead of just repeating it, as if it had already been explained.

You can reference those old papers but don't try to quote them as proof. I have read them all myself, as have probably most of those watching this thread and I come away with a different interpretation that you, apparently.

Just saying something over and over is not proof that it is the way of things. Though if you say anything over and over for long enough you will come to believe it, even without any real logical evidence.

I do find some aspects of "an ether" intriguing and even thought provoking. You have not hit on any of those aspects as of yet.

I do find a kinetic gravity model intriguing and even thought provoking, though so far all attempts to model gravity in this way have failed.., and there is no apparent connection to your beliefs.

So, once again on the question(s) I don't understand any of them. Explain in new words and logical reasoning. Perhaps then a conversation can be entertained as well as entertaining.

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

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

'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.

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a frictionless superfliud with properties of a solid. Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space unoccupied by matter. 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.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles.

any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether of relativity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment, the particle travels a single path and enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits both slits. The aether displacement wave creates wave interference upon exiting the slits. As the particle exits a single slit, it is the wave interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes there to be a loss of coherence of the associated aether displacement wave, there is no wave interference, and the direction the particle travels is not altered.

The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the state of the aether in which it exists. In terms of general relativity, the greater the mass per volume of the matter the greater the displacement of the aether, the greater the force exerted toward and throughout the atomic clock by the displaced aether the slower the atomic clock ticks. In terms of special relativity, the faster a clock moves through the aether the more aether the clock displaces the more force the displaced aether exerts toward and throughout the atomic clock the slower the clock ticks.

Curved spacetime is displaced aether.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field

The electromagnetic field is a state of aether. Matter is condensations of aether.

'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A. EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2.

The mass of the body does diminish. However, the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished; it still exists, as aether. Matter evaporates into aether. As matter evaporates into aether it expands into neighboring places; which is energy. Mass is conserved. Energy is conserved. A change in state of that which has mass is energy.

'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.1475v1.pdf

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 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.

'Milky Way's halo more squished than spherical'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3473567...ys-halo-more-squished-spherical/#.TjkpbmDmE2c

But the new study found that the Milky Way's halo isn't exactly spherical, but squished. In fact, its beach-ball form is flattened in a surprising direction — perpendicular to the galaxy's visible, pancake-shaped spiral disk.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether of relativity. The matter which would form the Milky Way was moving as it displaced the aether. The aether displaced perpendicular to the major direction of motion became the majority force of the displaced aether and forced the matter into the disk. This resulted in the angular momentum of the matter. It is the aether which is displaced outward relative to the plane of the angular momentum which exerts force toward the center of the Milky Way. This force, along with the state of displacement of the aether as determined by the angular momentum of the Milky Way, forced the matter closer together which resulted in the displaced aether looking like a squished beach ball. Aether displacement explains how the Milky Way was created and how the disk and halo formed.

'Was the universe born spinning?'
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688

The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis

The Universe spins around a preferred axis because the Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.

'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html

The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said.

The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet.

The following is an image analogous of the Universal jet.

http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html

The reason for the 'expansion' of the universe is the continual emission of aether into the Universal jet. Three dimensional space associated with the Universe itself is not expanding. What we see in our telescopes is the matter associated with the Universe moving outward and away from the Universal jet emission point. In the image above, '1st Stars' is where aether condenses into matter.

The following is an image analogous of the Universe, or the local Universe, we exist in.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/planetarium/graphics/st_images/BlackHole.jpg

The following is an image analogous of the Universal spin.

http://i.space.com/images/i/612/i02/040817_quasar_illo_02.jpg?1292259454

Dark flow is the aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet. Dark energy is the change in state of the aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet.

It's not the Big Bang. It's the Big Ongoing.
 
Last edited:
mpc

You generate some long repiles and it is sometimes hard for me on a mobile device to tell the difference between what you are saying and what you are quoting...

Could you start indenting your quotes or putting them in italics or both or just doing something that makes it easier to make the transitions between your own words and those you are quoting a little easier to see?
 
mpc

You generate some long repiles and it is sometimes hard for me on a mobile device to tell the difference between what you are saying and what you are quoting...

Could you start indenting your quotes or putting them in italics or both or just doing something that makes it easier to make the transitions between your own words and those you are quoting a little easier to see?

Better?
 
I remember that movie but missed the line... I'll have to watch the thing again now...

Right after Wild Bill's been shot.

The line as delivered is "I think this boy's cheese has slid off his cracker".
 
Right after Wild Bill's been shot.

The line as delivered is "I think this boy's cheese has slid off his cracker".
I don't know how I missed that in the movie because either version gets me to laughing every time. Just lucky I don't drink coke or pepsi, too often.
 
@mpc --

This should about cover it. There's very little difference between the shite you've spouted and this debunked idea.

Sorry, but I can cover that theory myself, and fix it. So that theory is fine. You just need to apply the gravitational pressure to the inside of particles. You need to apply the vector at an angle as well, but you can do that with the nucleus. Using it to spin the particles to the right angles.
 
Well flow results in curved space-time. With any theory, you should always go with the predominate factor, the cause. If you add flow to Aether into the Earth you get both curved space-time, and fix the Michael Morley experiment. You also get gravity, and magnetism, and the bubbles. I know you get the bubbles because I predicted them with this theory in 2004 before they were found. I know that Einstein would rather go with the cause, than the effect.

Looking back over the thread it really seems to me that Pincho's reasoning make a bit more sense than mpc755's ideas. No offence mpc755, it is just that between you guys there seems to be better logic to his idea. Both of your ideas have a lot in common but his cause versus affect really resonates.

What do the other lurkers think?
 
Looking back over the thread it really seems to me that Pincho's reasoning make a bit more sense than mpc755's ideas. No offence mpc755, it is just that between you guys there seems to be better logic to his idea. Both of your ideas have a lot in common but his cause versus affect really resonates.

What do the other lurkers think?

I can't help it if you are unable to understand when you place a ball into water the water exerts pressure toward the ball.
 
Back
Top