🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 16, 10:08 am, john291208 <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 7:47 pm, "mpc...@gmail.com" <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 15, 8:19 pm, john291208 <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 15, 6:40 pm, "mpc...@gmail.com" <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 15, 5:20 pm, john291208 <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 13, 11:25 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > john291208 wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jan 12, 3:55 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > "mpc...@gmail.com" wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jan 12, 10:40 am, "mpc...@gmail.com" <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Jan 12, 8:13 am, "mpc...@gmail.com" <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 11, 2:58 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > "mpc...@gmail.com" wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 8, 9:03 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "mpc...@gmail.com" wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed!  And how does a particle not have mass?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If its not really a particle in the classical physics sense.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explain how a non-classical massless particle exists in nothing.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What particle? Light is an electromagnetic wave. The idea that its a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > particles is a simplification used to explain its quantum nature.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul Hovnanian     mailto:P...@Hovnanian.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If your only tool is a hammer then every problem looks like a thumb.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Wikipedia:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "A massless particle is a particle whose invariant mass is zero.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently, the only known massless particles are gauge bosons: the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > photon (carrier of electromagnetism) and the gluon (carrier of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > strong force)."
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "The behavior of massless particles is understood by virtue of special
> > > > > > > > > > > > > relativity. For example, these particles must always move at the speed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of light. See Mass in special relativity."
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "General relativity implies that gravitation is quantized by the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > graviton, which is a massless tensor boson"
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > How does an electromagnetic wave travel through nothing?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm afraid you will have to go back and study the basics. Start with
> > > > > > > > > > > > static electric and magnetic fields. They produce a force that has an
> > > > > > > > > > > > effect over a distance with no intervening medium.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Show me the experimental evidence where it is proven there is no
> > > > > > > > > > medium.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Why have the probability of a wave when you can have an actual wave in
> > > > > > > > > > the aether?
>
> > > > > > > > > And don't reply with the MM Experiment.
>
> > > > > > > > > The MM Experiment looked for the aether wind.
>
> > > > > > > > No, it did not. It looked for the motion of the earth through the
> > > > > > > > aether.
>
> > > > > > > > > Aether displacement is the opposite of the concept of an aether wind.
>
> > > > > > > > > The fact that the MM Experiment did not find and aether wind is
> > > > > > > > > evidence of aether displacement, not that there is no aether.
>
> > > > > > > > No. The MM experiment failed to find aether moving relative to the earth
> > > > > > > > due to the earth's motion. There is no aether to displace.
>
> > > > > > > It assigned properties to the aether (interaction with a moving body
> > > > > > > of matter)
> > > > > > > and then tested on the basis of these properties
> > > > > > > when it knew nothing about the aether in the first place.
>
> > > > > > > How stupid are these people?
>
> > > > > > Pretty smart, actually. They hypothesized that the one property that
> > > > > > anything has is its existence in space. Given that, any other thing has
> > > > > > a position and velocity relative to it.
>
> > > > > > If light traveled in a medium made up of anything, then its velocity
> > > > > > relative to that medium would add to, or subtract from an observer
> > > > > > moving with respect to that medium. They found no such effect.
>
> > > > > > > They haven't ruled out the aether.
> > > > > > > All they've ruled out is the effect they decided to search for.
>
> > > > > > The existence of something. Unless this aether you propose has NO
> > > > > > properties. No mass (density), no position or velocity in space, etc.
>
> > > > > > What you have to do is to propose an experiment that measures some
> > > > > > property of your aether not already explained by other theories.
>
> > > > > If I have to do something, I never
> > > > > want to.
> > > > > But I like puzzles. And there
> > > > > is lots of data- undoubtedly some of
> > > > > which is wrong, intentionally or otherwise.
>
> > > > > The aether I propose
> > > > > has no properties- other than its structure,
> > > > > the old fishbowl full of marbles which are
> > > > > themselves fishbowls full of marbles argument-
> > > > > and its nature, which is electromagnetic.
> > > > > Aether is pre-matter. It has no mass. Mass is
> > > > > actually not something that is a constant, so it
> > > > > is rather a poor yardstick. Spherical standing
> > > > > waves of energy use the aether as a matrix
> > > > > in the same way a water wave uses the water
> > > > > as a matrix. The water doesn't come with the energy,
> > > > > it transmits the energy.
> > > > > john
>
> > > > How does it transition from pre-matter to matter if it has no mass to
> > > > begin with?
>
> > > > The form and type of mass may not be constant, but there is mass
> > > > everywhere.
>
> > > > How does the aether transmit a wave if it has no mass?
>
> > > > I think if the aether has no mass than it is nothing.
>
> > > > Since there is nothing with less mass than aether, it would be fairly
> > > > easy to think the aether is mass-less, but I do not see how light
> > > > propagates through a mass-less aether, or how a mass-less aether
> > > > transitions from pre-matter to matter, or how Aether Displacement
> > > > occurs, among other things I can't think of right now.
>
> > > > One idea I have that I am reluctant to post, but here goes anyways...
>
> > > > Is that energy is the transformation of matter (i.e. non-aether mass)
> > > > to aether.
>
> > > > Instead of:
>
> > > > E = mc2
>
> > > > It could be:
>
> > > > A = mc2
>
> > > Cute.
>
> > > Everybody equates mass with  matter.
> > > Actually, mass is a state of matter
> > > much as ice is a state of water.
>
> > > john
>
> > But water still has mass.
>
> > You need a way to get from non-mass (aether) to mass.
>
> > I see trying to conceptually go from non-mass to mass to being similar
> > to going from nothing to something.
>
> > Not going to happen.
>
> > If you assume the aether has some mass, you're already there.
>
> Mass is a *state* of matter.
>
> Sometimes it has it, and sometimes
> it doesn't. It depends upon its environment.
> And where we've been living, we've never seen matter
> *not* have mass, because that's the environment we're in.
>
> Except when an experienced
> pilot has an apparently solid object travelling along
> beside him at hundreds of miles an hour,
> and then turning at *ninety* degree turns at that
> speed and higher. (And more than one experienced
> pilot has seen these kinds of maneuvers, as well
> as thousands of other reputable witnesses- make
> that millions if you count what went on over Mexico City
> awhile back)
>
> *Then* you have matter behaving as if it doesn't have
> inertia, which is like it doesn't have mass.
>
> But that's not quite accurate. It still does have mass,
> but the way the mass is expressed- or better, the
> *direction* the mass is *not* expressed- can be
> manipulated.
>
> john

The aether still does have mass, but it is not expressed because the
aether is a singleton and the least mass dense.

But it still has mass.