Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Mazulu, Jun 19, 2012.
Are you able to understand a bowling ball rolling through a superfluid displaces the superfluid?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
How do you know that the superfluid does not just flow though the bowling ball? After all most of what we call matter is just empty space!
You are able to understand if you place a bowling ball into a tank filled with a superfluid the level of the superfluid in the tank rises, correct? You are able to understand this means the bowling ball is displacing the superfluid, correct?
You do understand a bowling ball consists of particles of matter, correct?
You are able to understand the particles of matter the bowling ball consists of and the superfluid are not capable of physically occupying the same three dimensional space simultaneously, correct?
Same crap, again and again and again.
It's pretty obvious that the mods don't care.
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'
"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.
I don't exactly understand that objects would displace superfluid or even how you can remove an object from the superfluid. Doesn't it fill all space? There is no place else to put the bowling ball while you move it except somewhere else in the superfluid.
True, the bowling ball consists of particles of matter, but why aren't the particles of matter composed of the superfluid itself at higher wave energy or pressure. I guess I missed what particles are composed of to make you say that you could displace the superfluid with them; so let me ask, what are particles composed of?
You have a tank filled with water. You place the bowling ball into the tank of water. The water is displaced by the bowling ball. You know the water is displaced by the bowling ball because the water level in the tank rises.
You have a tank filled with a superfluid. You place the bowling ball into the tank of superfluid. The superfluid is displaced by the bowling ball. You know the superfluid is displaced by the bowling ball because the superfluid level in the tank rises.
You didn't tell me what particles are made of. If the bowling ball is made of wave energy traversing the superfluid, then it won't displace the superfluid. My point was if your superfluid fills all space, when you took the bowling ball out of the superfluid in one place and moved it to another place, it never left the fluid and so it wouldn't displace any fluid when you set it down. So let me ask this; does the superfluid fill all space?
You are not discussing a bowling ball and a tank filled with a superfluid.
You are discussing particles of matter and the aether.
Aether and matter have mass.
Particles of matter are condensations of aether. Particles of matter exist in and displace the aether.
As far as we know, aether exists everywhere particles of matter do not.
The particles of matter moving through the aether never leave the aether. However, where the particle of matter is moving toward consists of aether. When the particle of matter arrives at that location the aether which had been there has been displaced. As the particle of matter moves through the aether the aether fills-in where the particle of matter had been. As the aether fills-in where the particle had been the aether displaces the particle.
Q. Is the particle displacing the aether or is the aether displacing the particle?
A. Both are occurring simultaneously with equal force.
If particles are condensations of matter then wouldn't it be more correct for that sentence to read, "As far as we know, aether exists everywhere, even in the fundamental composition of particles"?
I see your point. You are saying that the condensed aether that makes up the presence of a bowling ball is far more dense than the aether between the bowling ball and the container. I get you.
I was with you there until you said "of equal force". The pressure or force of energy contained withing the particles that make up the bowling ball would seem to have to be higher than in the fluid surrounding the ball, and so the particles have more force or at least potential force than the fluid, wouldn't they?
Displaces the super fluid - got it. Now please give me a brief description of how a fluid that has zero viscosity and no friction can cause the feathers to 'wave' as you call it in your bowling ball example.
What I am discussing is the inertia of the particle. The particle displaces the aether. The aether 'displaces back' as it fills-in where the particle had been. The particle moves uniformly forever through the aether.
One mile from where the bowling ball is there are feathers lining the path of where the bowling ball will eventually be. We will consider the superfluid at this location to be at rest. As the bowling ball passes this location the superfluid changes state from one at rest to one where it is displaced. As the superfluid changes state it affects the state of the feathers lining the path causing the feathers to move. The superfluid displaces the feathers. There is no loss of energy in the interaction of the superfluid and the bowling ball or the feathers. That does not imply no interaction.
I think the superfluid and the aether would have to be two different things. Say like I mentioned before, spacetime would contract to zero for an object traveling close to the speed of light. Then spacetime or some type of aether would then not have distance or time, so then it could take on the behavior of a superfluid (there is no distance to transverse). So then I think it would be the superfluid that determines particle behaivor not the aether. Where aether and the superfluid are manifistations of the same thing seen at totally different frames of references. Aether doesn't act like superfluid and superfluid does not act like aether. So then particle behavior would be determined by the superfluid and not the aether. Then the act of observation would be a particle dipping out of the superfluid and dipping into the aether. The position in the superfluid could not be determined so then it would dip into a random location into the aether or spacetime. So the being more in the superfluid would be more wavelike behaivor and dipping into the aether would be more like particle behavior. I don't think superfluid can be displaced in the same way aether is.
In the post you are responding to the bowling ball is analogous of a particle of matter and the superfluid is analogous of the aether.
Just as the bowling ball moves through and displaces the superfluid a particle of matter moves through and displaces the aether.
Aether changes state at 'c'. As a particle of matter accelerates as it approaches 'c' it requires more and more energy to displace the aether. Eventually the particle will evaporate into aether, releasing energy. The particle of matter evaporating into aether is energy. Mass is conserved.
I don't think a particle traveling at the speed of light can evaporate. I think it would have to travel at least slightly slower than 'c' in order to decay. Take the photon for instance, it is thought it has traveled outwards since the moment of the Big Bang and is involved in determining the age of the universe. It is theorized that photons can travel forever and do not have a half life. They would only experience traveling in the superfluid or this type of supersolid, so then it would not disipate into the aether.
Good point. That's what I meant.
The Big Bang is absurd nonsense.
'Was the universe born spinning?'
"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; a larger version of a black hole polar jet.
'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
"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.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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.
Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.
It's not the Big Bang; it's the Big Ongoing.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
How is the simple act of moving a change in state. Are you redefining the term state?
What do you mean the feathers change state? Why would changing state cause them to move?
Why would a frictionless liquid with zero viscosity displace the feathers? Do you know what friction is? Do you know what viscosity is?
I don't think it is or we wouldn't be here talking about it now.
I don't think it does. It could only mean that the galaxy is spinning in one certain direction.
This picture is not to scale of an accurate 3-D graphical representation of space. One of the dimensions of the image is time where it comes to an end on the far left that represents the Big Bang. Like Stephen Hawking use to say that there is no before the Big Bang, on this picture there is no spacetime before the moment of creation. It is similair to looking at the evolution of the universe over time from some higher dimension.
I'm always interested in feeling out people who have aether theories. I have missed the real converstation and so just consider this a discussion on the side if you will. How well developed is your theory and is it presented somewhere that you could link me to? In particular, the phrase "condensed aether" implies a whole process and mechanics of changing state. Do you discuss how aether changes state?
Separate names with a comma.