Aether Displacement

prometheus said:
lol!

Oh, you're serious?
Click to expand...

This thread is titled 'Aether Displacement'.

What is presently postulated as non-baryonic dark matter is aether. Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space unoccupied by matter. Aether is physically displaced by matter.

Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.

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. The associated aether displacement wave creates wave interference upon exiting the slits. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. Detecting the particle causes there to be a loss of coherence of the associated aether, there is no wave interference, and the direction the particle travels is altered.

Curved spacetime physically exists in nature as displaced aether.
 
mpc755 said:
Or, you could correctly understand what is presently postulated as non-baryonic dark matter is aether. Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space unoccupied by matter. Aether is physically displaced by matter.

Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.

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. The associated aether displacement wave creates wave interference upon exiting the slits. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. Detecting the particle causes there to be a loss of coherence of the associated aether, there is no wave interference, and the direction the particle travels is altered.

Curved spacetime physically exists in nature as displaced aether.
Click to expand...

Well you keep changing your mind. Either you want to combine your theory, or you just want to stick with the same theory. I already have a solution to the two slit experiment, and it's similar to yours. I have a similar gravity too, apart from it flows, and I have a similar curved space-time.. apart from it flows. The flow is useful because it also creates magnetism as a by-product. The displacement is not something I am familiar with. I wrote a computer program with flow, and I'm not sure how I would do that with displacement.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
Well you keep changing your mind. Either you want to combine your theory, or you just want to stick with the same theory. I already have a solution to the two slit experiment, and it's similar to yours. I have a similar gravity too, apart from it flows, and I have a similar curved space-time.. apart from it flows. The flow is useful because it also creates magnetism as a by-product. The displacement is not something I am familiar with. I wrote a computer program with flow, and I'm not sure how I would do that with displacement.
Click to expand...

Aether displacement is correct.

Instead of flow think state of displacement. Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see a visual representation of the state of displacement of the aether which could be interpreted as an entrained/flowing aether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE
 
Last edited:
Pincho Paxton said:
Yay.. you said something new! Have a cracker!

I think it's a good idea to give treats to a creature that you want to evolve.
Click to expand...
When you accomplish anything science related with your life then you might be in a position to try to insult people who have. Until then you and mpc are just playing "Who can make up the biggest pile of shit".
 
AlphaNumeric said:
When you accomplish anything science related with your life then you might be in a position to try to insult people who have. Until then you and mpc are just playing "Who can make up the biggest pile of shit".
Click to expand...

Science used to be the study of nature, and the Universe, not accomplishment. I don't know what has happened to your version of science but it seems that you think it is about papers that you parrot fashioned into a fire lighter.
 
@mpc --

Then explain it. The fact that you can't shows how absurd mainstream quantum mechanics is.
Click to expand...

No, it shows that I'm studying ethology, not quantum mechanics or particle physics. This is not my area of expertise, however the few "papers"(I use the term incredibly loosely here) I've found on the subject had worse methodological flaws than Kent Hovind's "thesis" paper. This led to a lack of repeatability on the part of other researches. One needn't be an expert, or be able to provide an alternative explanation, to show that your explanation is flawed.

Now, care to go consult actual experts on the subject? There may even be some here on this site. However, I would recommend Feynman as he was one of the most brilliant physicists of the twentieth century who specialized in quantum mechanics.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
Science used to be the study of nature, and the Universe, not accomplishment.
Click to expand...

No, you are wrong. Studying nature and the universe is called being a student. Adding to our knowledge of nature and the universe is done by scientists. Adding to our knowledge of the universe is called an accomplishment.

Your additions to this thread and other threads is called dropping a turd, or possibly anti-knowledge or maybe the inverse of accomplishment.

I don't know what has happened to your version of science but it seems that you think it is about papers that you parrot fashioned into a fire lighter.
Click to expand...

I don't know WTF this is suppose to mean.:shrug:
 
Arioch said:
@mpc --



No, it shows that I'm studying ethology, not quantum mechanics or particle physics. This is not my area of expertise, however the few "papers"(I use the term incredibly loosely here) I've found on the subject had worse methodological flaws than Kent Hovind's "thesis" paper. This led to a lack of repeatability on the part of other researches. One needn't be an expert, or be able to provide an alternative explanation, to show that your explanation is flawed.

Now, care to go consult actual experts on the subject? There may even be some here on this site. However, I would recommend Feynman as he was one of the most brilliant physicists of the twentieth century who specialized in quantum mechanics.
Click to expand...

http://commonsensequantum.blogspot.com/2009/06/feynman-and-what-comes-next.html

"He goes on to describe the double-slit experiment (with electrons), showing that it is impossible to think of waves alone or of bullets alone (such explanations have been taken over by popular media like that given by "Granddaddy of all Quantum Weirdness"). And Feynman concludes with "No one has found any machinery behind the law. No one can explain any more than we have just explained. No one will give you any deeper representation of the situation." These are terrible sentences when repeated to hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of physics students since 1965. They mark a halt for any further investigation of the subject."

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter.

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 this interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes a loss of coherence of the associated aether displacement wave, there is no wave interference, and the direction the particle travels is not altered.
 
And a word-for-word repeat of something you have previously failed to support.
 
Arioch said:
Good job, you just linked to a page which doesn't support your premise.
Click to expand...

Feynman is incorrect. What occurs physically in nature in quantum mechanics is explained classically by pilot-wave theory.

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter.

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 this interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes a loss of coherence of the associated aether displacement wave, there is no wave interference, and the direction the particle travels is not altered.
 
@mpc --

Again, where are the experiments that verify your hypothesis? Where are the repeated experiments by other, more impartial, scientists? Where is your published paper? I said this before in a "Relativity disproven" thread, mathematics don't mean shit unless they reflect observation, and observation is validated by experimentation to repeat the observation.

As I'm oh-so-fond of saying, cite it or shut it.
 
Arioch said:
@mpc --

Again, where are the experiments that verify your hypothesis? Where are the repeated experiments by other, more impartial, scientists? Where is your published paper? I said this before in a "Relativity disproven" thread, mathematics don't mean shit unless they reflect observation, and observation is validated by experimentation to repeat the observation.

As I'm oh-so-fond of saying, cite it or shut it.
Click to expand...

The offset between the lensing of the light propagating through the space neighboring a moving galaxy cluster and the galaxy cluster itself is evidence the galaxy cluster is moving through the aether. The moving galaxy cluster displaces the aether.
 
@mpc --

Oh, so you just have an alternative interpretation of currently existing evidence, one that isn't as parsimonious as the currently accepted explanations. And you wonder why people don't accept it.
 
Arioch said:
@mpc --

Oh, so you just have an alternative interpretation of currently existing evidence, one that isn't as parsimonious as the currently accepted explanations. And you wonder why people don't accept it.
Click to expand...

There is no currently accepted explanation as to why there is an offset.
 
What? Einstein's hypothesis that because gravity affects light that a large enough source of light could act as a lens isn't good enough for you?
 
Arioch said:
What? Einstein's hypothesis that because gravity affects light that a large enough source of light could act as a lens isn't good enough for you?
Click to expand...

'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.
 
That's what you assert the cause of the offset is, others who are more knowledgeable in the field, feel differently. Now why is that? Perhaps it's because your explanation isn't parsimonious in that it asserts that there are two causes for the same phenomenon.

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.
Click to expand...

Now, again, I'm no physicist but this seems problematic. Light is lensed around a submarine due to the optical properties of water itself. What you're suggesting would require that the aether possess similar optical properties as water does, which means that we could see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top