Aether Displacement

[CCC]

The only way I can imagine this working is if the matter is going with the flow of the aether. If it's not going with the flow, then I'm not seeing how it can work.

Because the interaction of the Earth and the aether is a closed system and the interaction is frictionless.

I just don't see why the Earth/aether system should be closed, though. Why doesn't Mars, barreling through the aether, have any effect on teh Earth-aether system?

The universe is a closed system. What I'm wondering about is whether the Earth's motion is a closed system or not.

Yes. The interaction of the Earth and the aether is a closed system.

But what proof can you offer that this would be true?

So the entrained aether is less than the displaced aether?

I try and stay away from 'entrainment' unless I see no other way to describe what is occurring in nature. I like how Einstein described the interaction of matter and ather:

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his ... 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"

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

Einstein's idea of the aether wasn't as a substance that has to be pushed aside by matter, though. And that's where my problems with your ideas come in, in the description of it as something that matter must push aside, and that has mass.

If you put a bowling ball with a million tiny holes drilled throughout it and you put it into the ocean and spin it, I'm assuming the water it entrains ends prior to the water it displaces does.

Water is incompressible; the water it displaces moves at least as far as the surface of the ocean.

Is aether compressible?

If there is any hope in your progressing with understanding this, you really need to understand the interaction of matter moving through the aether is frictionless. The matter does not have to be 'going with the flow' in order to maintain momentum.

Then how does it maintain momentum? I'm just not seeing how it can work.

http://access.ncsa.illinois.edu/Stories ... fluid.html

"It's like rotation to a superfluid." Similarly, as it's possible to establish current in a superconducting circuit that will flow forever, superfluid helium can be made to flow in a loop, a "superflow" that continues as long as superfluid conditions are maintained."

The aether conditions are maintained because the interaction of matter and aether is always frictionless.

...I don't see how that works if the matter is not going with the flow.

In the superfluid helium superflow, there aren't any objects sitting in the middle of the superflow trying to push through the helium in the opposite direction.

Why doesn't the aether that gains energy from the Earth pass it on to more aether and more aether until it's rippled out as far as Alpha Centauri?

If might ripple out as far as Alpha Centauri but the point is the interaction of the Earth and the aether is a closed frictionless system and no matter how far it ripples out, it ripples back.

What makes it ripple back?

And I'm just not seeing how that could work. If the aether moves, it must have kinetic energy; if it has kinetic energy, that energy must come from somewhere.

It came from being displaced by the Earth. Where did the Earth's momentum come from? It came from being displaced by the aether. The interaction of the Earth and the aether is a closed frictionless system.

[mpc755]

The only way I can imagine this working is if the matter is going with the flow of the aether. If it's not going with the flow, then I'm not seeing how it can work.

Because the interaction of the Earth and the aether is a closed system and the interaction is frictionless.

I just don't see why the Earth/aether system should be closed, though. Why doesn't Mars, barreling through the aether, have any effect on teh Earth-aether system?

I'm sure Mars' gravity does have some effect on the Earth. In AD, it is the interaction of Mars' and the Earth's displaced aether which is labeled the interaction of Mars' and the Earth's gravity.

Do you believe in the existence of gravity waves?

Do you believe the Earth has an associated gravity wave?

Do you believe the Earth's gravity wave exists physically?

If you believe the Earth has an associated gravity wave and the gravity wave exists physically, do you question why the Earth has momentum?

The only difference between the Earth's associated gravity wave and the Earth's associated aether displacement wave is semantics.

A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment, the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associated aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits.

[mpc755]

Your last statement is answered elsewhere.

A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment, the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associated aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits.

Yours faithfully,
OZLOFT

A C-60 molecule enters the slits in a double slits experiment. While the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) detectors are places at the exits. How is it the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit? While the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) detectors are placed and removed from the exits. How is it the C-60 molecule is able to create interference in and of itself?

How is it the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit when detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) and how is it the C-60 molecule always creates interference when the detectors are placed and removed from the exits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s)?

The C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit because the C-60 molecule always enters a single slit.

It is the C-60 molecule's associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits available slits. If there are detectors at the exits to the slits when the C-60 molecule gets there the associated aether displacement wave is turned into chop (decoherence) and there is no interference. If there are no detectors at the exits to the slits when the C-60 molecule gets there, the associated aether displacement wave creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels.

http://commonsensequantum.blogspot.com/ ... -next.html

'Chapter 1 of Feynman's quantum lectures gives some insight in the reasons of his belief that nobody understands quantum mechanics: "We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics." 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.'

de Broglie did explain the phenomenon of the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment with electrons.

The electron has an associated wave. The electron 'particle' travels a single path and the associated wave propagates available paths.

The only thing missing in de Broglie Wave Mechanics is what is the medium the wave propagates through. The medium is the aether.

In AD, a moving 'particle' has an associated aether wave.
In AD, a moving particle of matter has an associated aether displacement wave.

I have found the machinery behind the law. I have given a deeper representation of the situation.

[CCC]

Because the interaction of the Earth and the aether is a closed system and the interaction is frictionless.

I just don't see why the Earth/aether system should be closed, though. Why doesn't Mars, barreling through the aether, have any effect on teh Earth-aether system?

I'm sure Mars' gravity does have some effect on the Earth. In AD, it is the interaction of Mars' and the Earth's displaced aether which is labeled the interaction of Mars' and the Earth's gravity.

Ah. I would expect a wave of mass to push on Mars, not to pull on it...

Have you considered the possibility that the aether might have negative mass? That might answer quite a few of the questions this model has raised.

Do you believe in the existence of gravity waves?

Do you believe the Earth has an associated gravity wave?

Do you believe the Earth's gravity wave exists physically?

If you believe the Earth has an associated gravity wave and the gravity wave exists physically, do you question why the Earth has momentum?

The only difference between the Earth's associated gravity wave and the Earth's associated aether displacement wave is semantics.

I don't really know enough about gravity waves to discuss them much.

[mpc755]

I'm sure Mars' gravity does have some effect on the Earth. In AD, it is the interaction of Mars' and the Earth's displaced aether which is labeled the interaction of Mars' and the Earth's gravity.

Ah. I would expect a wave of mass to push on Mars, not to pull on it...

Have you considered the possibility that the aether might have negative mass? That might answer quite a few of the questions this model has raised.

If the aether displaced by the Earth is effecting Mars it is because the Earth's displaced aether extends past Mars and is exerting pressure back towards the Earth. I would think the Earth's associated aether displacement wave would effect Mars in some way, but I am not sure it would push Mars away. I see it more of a 'bobbing'.

Matter and aether are different states of the same stuff and as such aether has mass.

Do you believe in the existence of gravity waves?

Do you believe the Earth has an associated gravity wave?

Do you believe the Earth's gravity wave exists physically?

If you believe the Earth has an associated gravity wave and the gravity wave exists physically, do you question why the Earth has momentum?

The only difference between the Earth's associated gravity wave and the Earth's associated aether displacement wave is semantics.

I don't really know enough about gravity waves to discuss them much.

You really need to research them then and decide if you choose to believe in them or not because all of your inability to 'accept' Aether Displacement seems to be based on some preconceived notion of friction or some type of lose of energy because the wave energy dissipates.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/featu ... waves.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitatio ... e_detector

[CCC]

I'm sure Mars' gravity does have some effect on the Earth. In AD, it is the interaction of Mars' and the Earth's displaced aether which is labeled the interaction of Mars' and the Earth's gravity.

Ah. I would expect a wave of mass to push on Mars, not to pull on it...

Have you considered the possibility that the aether might have negative mass? That might answer quite a few of the questions this model has raised.

If the aether displaced by the Earth is effecting Mars it is because the Earth's displaced aether extends past Mars and is exerting pressure back towards the Earth. I would think the Earth's associated aether displacement wave would effect Mars in some way, but I am not sure it would push Mars away. I see it more of a 'bobbing'.

Matter and aether are different states of the same stuff and as such aether has mass.

Bobbing is a pushing motion. Well, as long as the fluid has positive mass.

Negative-mass aether might actually have the properties you're looking for. Then it could be pushed through without resistance, and, in fact, it would pull on anything that tried to drift through it, which is a property you've been claiming all along... also, the ripples caused by something pushing through a negative-mass aether would pull instead of pushing.

[mpc755]

Bobbing is a pushing motion. Well, as long as the fluid has positive mass.

Looks like you are correct about energy being able to be lost due to the interaction of gravity waves. It also looks like I was incorrect in thinking the Earth had a gravity wave in and of itself. Everything I have read today shows there has to be an interaction of masses in order for there to be gravitational waves.

http://www.ligo-la.caltech.edu/LLO/overviewsci.htm

"Over two decades, these scientists watched for and found the tell-tale shift in timing of these pulses, which indicated a loss of energy from the orbiting stars -- energy that had been carried away as gravitational waves. The result was just as Einstein's theory predicted."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

"Sources of gravitational waves include binary star systems composed of white dwarfs, neutron stars, or black holes."

"Although the waves from the Earth-Sun system are minuscule, astronomers can point to other sources for which the radiation should be substantial."

Looks like there needs to be a disturbance in order for there to be a gravity wave:

http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com ... z0f8nzbmPF

"Very weak gravity waves produced when a massive body is disturbed or accelerated. The phenomenon is predicted by the general theory of relativity, but not yet observed with certainty."

Negative-mass aether might actually have the properties you're looking for. Then it could be pushed through without resistance, and, in fact, it would pull on anything that tried to drift through it, which is a property you've been claiming all along... also, the ripples caused by something pushing through a negative-mass aether would pull instead of pushing.

Matter and aether are different states of the same stuff. When matter transitions to aether the overall mass remains the same but the volume of the mass increases.

Take for example:

'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By 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, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy.

[CCC]

Negative-mass aether might actually have the properties you're looking for. Then it could be pushed through without resistance, and, in fact, it would pull on anything that tried to drift through it, which is a property you've been claiming all along... also, the ripples caused by something pushing through a negative-mass aether would pull instead of pushing.

Matter and aether are different states of the same stuff. When matter transitions to aether the overall mass remains the same but the volume of the mass increases.

Take for example:

'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By 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, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy.

Okay, if you're seeing the mass-energy conversion as a mass-aether conversion as well, then that constrains aether to having positive mass.

But wouldn't that then mean that an object undergoing radioactive decay (and thus turning into aether) would have a higher gravitational mass (due to more aether being introduced into the near vicinity) but a lower inertial mass?

[mpc755]

Negative-mass aether might actually have the properties you're looking for. Then it could be pushed through without resistance, and, in fact, it would pull on anything that tried to drift through it, which is a property you've been claiming all along... also, the ripples caused by something pushing through a negative-mass aether would pull instead of pushing.

Matter and aether are different states of the same stuff. When matter transitions to aether the overall mass remains the same but the volume of the mass increases.

Take for example:

'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By 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, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy.

Okay, if you're seeing the mass-energy conversion as a mass-aether conversion as well, then that constrains aether to having positive mass.

But wouldn't that then mean that an object undergoing radioactive decay (and thus turning into aether) would have a higher gravitational mass (due to more aether being introduced into the near vicinity) but a lower inertial mass?

The way I conceptualize this is to think of having 5 nuclei very close together. All 5 are displacing the aether which would otherwise exist where the nuclei do. This aether is pushing the nuclei closer together which is causing them to displace more aether. Eventually some state of 'equilibrium' is reached. Now envision 4 of those nuclei as 'melting' at 'c'. The aether associated with the 4 nuclei will eventually be 'at rest' with the rest of the aether and there will only be one nuclei displacing the aether.

What you ask does raise the question as to what happens to the universe when matter increases in volume as it transitions to aether. Does the universe expand? Is the overall density of the aether increase? I don't know but I do not want to add the property of 'density' to the aether unless it is required. If ice were denser than liquid water then when an ice cube melts in the ocean the ocean would expand but in terms of the overall ocean is it detectable? I doubt it. And the notion of an expanding universe has never seemed correct to me. The obvious question is expand into what? We're getting meta-physical here which I would prefer to avoid if possible.

The answer to your question is there is less aether being displaced because there is less matter doing the displacing.

[CCC]

Okay, if you're seeing the mass-energy conversion as a mass-aether conversion as well, then that constrains aether to having positive mass.

But wouldn't that then mean that an object undergoing radioactive decay (and thus turning into aether) would have a higher gravitational mass (due to more aether being introduced into the near vicinity) but a lower inertial mass?

The way I conceptualize this is to think of having 5 nuclei very close together. All 5 are displacing the aether which would otherwise exist where the nuclei do. This aether is pushing the nuclei closer together which is causing them to displace more aether. Eventually some state of 'equilibrium' is reached. Now envision 4 of those nuclei as 'melting' at 'c'. The aether associated with the 4 nuclei will eventually be 'at rest' with the rest of the aether and there will only be one nuclei displacing the aether.

You've previously referred to matter as "compressed aether", though; in this case, I see those four nuclei as decompressing, which means they now take up more space than they did and there is more aether being displaced.

(Presumably, with time that aether would drift away; but it would surely not be immediate).

The answer to your question is there is less aether being displaced because there is less matter doing the displacing.

But now there is more aether around to displace.

[mpc755]

Okay, if you're seeing the mass-energy conversion as a mass-aether conversion as well, then that constrains aether to having positive mass.

But wouldn't that then mean that an object undergoing radioactive decay (and thus turning into aether) would have a higher gravitational mass (due to more aether being introduced into the near vicinity) but a lower inertial mass?

The way I conceptualize this is to think of having 5 nuclei very close together. All 5 are displacing the aether which would otherwise exist where the nuclei do. This aether is pushing the nuclei closer together which is causing them to displace more aether. Eventually some state of 'equilibrium' is reached. Now envision 4 of those nuclei as 'melting' at 'c'. The aether associated with the 4 nuclei will eventually be 'at rest' with the rest of the aether and there will only be one nuclei displacing the aether.

You've previously referred to matter as "compressed aether", though; in this case, I see those four nuclei as decompressing, which means they now take up more space than they did and there is more aether being displaced.

(Presumably, with time that aether would drift away; but it would surely not be immediate).

What you are referring to above is energy.

'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By 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, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy.

The answer to your question is there is less aether being displaced because there is less matter doing the displacing.

But now there is more aether around to displace.

Correct. But there is less matter doing the displacing. If there were no matter in the universe would the aether be the most or least displaced?

[CCC]

The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy.

But this newly released aether is not in equilibrium with aether in general. Won't it cause the aether around the remaining nucleus to push back harder for a brief time, resulting in a temporary but greater gravitational force?

But now there is more aether around to displace.

Correct. But there is less matter doing the displacing. If there were no matter in the universe would the aether be the most or least displaced?

It's not the matter that concerns me, it's the effects of the newly released aether.

[mpc755]

The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy.

But this newly released aether is not in equilibrium with aether in general. Won't it cause the aether around the remaining nucleus to push back harder for a brief time, resulting in a temporary but greater gravitational force?

I wouldn't call the pushing back harder for a brief time a gravitational force. I would call it the effects of energy.

But now there is more aether around to displace.

Correct. But there is less matter doing the displacing. If there were no matter in the universe would the aether be the most or least displaced?

It's not the matter that concerns me, it's the effects of the newly released aether.

The effects of the newly released aether is energy. Think nuclear fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear fission and fusion reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the matter and aether in neighboring places.

[CCC]

But this newly released aether is not in equilibrium with aether in general. Won't it cause the aether around the remaining nucleus to push back harder for a brief time, resulting in a temporary but greater gravitational force?

I wouldn't call the pushing back harder for a brief time a gravitational force. I would call it the effects of energy.

Hmmm. It looks a lot like gravity, though...

[mpc755]

But this newly released aether is not in equilibrium with aether in general. Won't it cause the aether around the remaining nucleus to push back harder for a brief time, resulting in a temporary but greater gravitational force?

I wouldn't call the pushing back harder for a brief time a gravitational force. I would call it the effects of energy.

Hmmm. It looks a lot like gravity, though...

Aether Displacement is a unified theory. That is why it looks a lot like gravity. The pressure associated with aether displaced by massive objects is gravity. The 'E' in E=mc^2 is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the neighboring matter and aether. I'm guessing you could probably modify the equation to be A=Mc^2, where 'A' is aether and 'M' is matter, and you would have a decent idea of the difference in volume between matter and aether.