🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 8, 11:32 am, Aetherist <TheAether...@best.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 06:57:27 -0800 (PST), "mpc...@gmail.com" <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 8, 2:52 am, john291208 <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
> >> On Jan 8, 1:43 am, john291208 <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jan 8, 12:25 am, Aetherist <TheAether...@best.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:26:43 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > >"mpc...@gmail.com" wrote:
>
> >> > > >> On Jan 5, 9:43 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
> >> > > >> > "mpc...@gmail.com" wrote:
>
> >> > > >> > [snip]
>
> >> > > >> > > Bullets have mass. How does a massless particle travel through a void?
>
> >> > > >> > > It doesn't. It requires a medium and the medium is aether.
>
> >> > > >> > What does having/not having mass have to do with traveling/not traveling
> >> > > >> > through a void?
>
> >> > > >> > --
> >> > > >> > Paul Hovnanian     mailto:P...@Hovnanian.com
> >> > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >> > Deja fubar: The feeling that you've made the same mistake before.
>
> >> > > >> To me, there are only two ways for something to have momentum:
>
> >> > > >> 1. The object has mass and can have momentum and since it has mass it
> >> > > >> can exist on its own and does not require a medium in order for it to
> >> > > >> maintain its momentum.
> >> > > >> 2. The object is a wave, or a burst, that travels through a medium.
>
> >> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Momentum_in_electromagnetism
>
> >> > > >> How can something without mass exist in a void (i.e. exist in
> >> > > >> nothing), let alone travel through it?
>
> >> > > >What is mass? You might think you know, in the classical physics sense.
> >> > > >But until you can explain what it is, its your job to answer the
> >> > > >question 'how can something have mass'. Void or no void.
>
> >> > > Mass is the quantity of matter which is determined from its weight
> >> > > (gravitational mass), or, from Newton's second law (inertial mass),
> >> > > i.e. related to the definitions of force and acceleration.  Hence it
> >> > > defines both the concepts of inertia and gravity.
>
> >> > > It may not be a fundamental property, but, instead, a by-product of
> >> > > simple changes states of momentum of the quantum entities we conceive
> >> > > of as 'matter'.
>
> >>  Energy moving through the aether creates the standing waves known as
> >>  light and matter. Matter is a standing wave that (obviously) stands
> >>  still.
> >>  Light is a standing wave that (surprisingly) travels at c.
>
> >>  The aether is a spherical fish bowl full of marbles and each marble
> >>  is a spherical fish bowl.
>
> >>  You can never make anything simpler because at every point
> >>  everything is infinitely complex.
>
> >> You recognize that everything is self, and so you are selfish.
>
> >>  john
> >>  galaxy model
>
> >I like Einstein's definition even though I'm not 100% sure about the
> >idea of motion not being able to be applied to it. Even if motion
> >cannot be applied to the aether, that doesn't mean it cannot be
> >displaced. The concept of aether displacement is different than the
> >idea of motion not being applied to the aether which I take to mean
> >the aether cannot flow.
>
> One has to wonder why you demand that it must be displaced.  Maxwell,
> Kelvin, Helmholtz and most other aetherists both classical and modern
> (like Dirac) would argue otherwise.  Aether is the constitute of
> everything, including matter.  It is simply different states of that
> underlying substrate.  If for some pyschological reason one doesn't
> like the term aether use the term sub-space in its place :)
>
> >"But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
> >characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may
> >be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
>
> If you wanted to track the individual parts (molecules) of a volume
> of air it is beyond any known means of doing so.  We deal with it
> in the same manner as aether, namely using known basic properties
> of these parts in bulk, a.k.a. Continuum Mechanics and hydrodynamical
> equations/expressions.  And these have bulit-in limitations becoming
> increasingly less accurate as one approaches the scale of the particles
> mean-free length.

I like the term aether.

I consider aether to be the basic building block of all forms of
matter.

In that regards aether can be considered to be matter.

The aether has mass.

If we consider the earth and its interaction with the aether, a
physical point of the earth's mass cannot exist in the same area of
three dimensional space as a physical point of mass of the aether.
Something has to give. Something has to be displaced.

I think the fact that aetherists do not understand that the aether is
displaced by the objects that exist in it is the reason aether gets
such a bad rap.

It makes absolutely no sense to me that the MM Experiment was looking
for the aether wind. The only way for an aether wind to exist is if
the aether were massless which it isn't if it is a form of matter.
Also, if the aether were massless, that means it is nothing, it is non-
existent.

If the aether is a different state of matter and has mass, how can it
not be displaced?

Aether Displacement explains the observed behaviors in the Double Slit
Experiment perfectly.

I think the idea of the aether consisting of parts implies friction
which rules out momentum.

The aether as a singleton can be displaced and offset any lose of
momentum when it "back-fills" because as a singleton it has an
"elastic" type property. As it is displaced it gains energy which it
returns to the objects momentum as it returns to a state of rest.