🚀 go-pugleaf

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