Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Curvature of Space/Time

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by mpc755 View Post
    By definition, there is no loss of energy in the interaction of an object and a supersolid.

    You are in a bowling alley filled with a supersolid. You roll the bowling ball. The bowling ball displaces the supersolid. The supersolid displaces the bowling ball as the supersolid fills-in where the bowling ball had been and the bowling ball rolls forever through the supersolid.

    Q. Is the bowling ball displacing the supersolid or is the supersolid displacing the bowling ball?
    A. Both are occurring simultaneously with equal force.
    I'm going to have to call you out mpc755 - you are "Gravitational Aether" user posting under a different username.

    @All...

    Originally posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
    OK mpc,

    Here is a past thread that got heated lol.

    http://www.energyscienceforum.com/showthread.php?t=356

    I give all my arguments for being against an aether with mass, supersolid discussion, etc... if anyone wants to look at that thread, which I don't necessarily recommend, the points I bring up against the friction vs resistance arguments, etc... remain unanswered in an intellectually honest way to my satisfaction.
    Now, I do highly recommend looking at that thread and critically analyze the statements by "Gravitational Aether" in regards to a superfluid, claiming it is giving energy back to the item that displaces it, etc. There are multiple contradictions in the logic.

    For example - the object displaces the superfluid and the superfluid gives back the energy to the object at zero loss (his/her claims) - so that is how the object moves through space at zero loss. However, the absolute flaw in this is that energy is only there IF work is being done. I completely understand recovery, but if the object is moving through the superfluid with no friction or resistance, work is NOT being done and therefore there is no energy being used by the object moving through space (superfluid) and therefore, there can be no energy being given back to the object. Gravitational Potential aka mpc755 claims it does this with no loss but having zero resistance, there is no 100% energy recovery as energy is not being used to begin with to displace the aether it is moving through.

    The reality is that an object moving through "vacuum space" at a steady rate is in equilibrium with the aether meaning there is no potential difference and no work is being done. When there is a rate of change, then an assymetrical relationship with the mass and aether exists (dipole) and with the polarization of the aether under these conditions, then and only then is there a dipole from where the source potential can be imparted to the mass of the object to cause resistance to the movement. That is what "rate of change" is doing with mass and aether, it causes a dipole. That is the only time energy is happening and this is NOT the case when an object is moving at a steady speed where inertia is not being experienced.

    This person also refused to answer me in any intellectually honest way when I pointed out his logical inconsistencies on his claims that the aether has mass. You can see all of that in that thread. Whether the aether has mass or not is not the point I'm making. The point I AM making is that Gravitational Aether aka mpc755 will give lawyer answers when any valid questions are brought up such as the logical fallacy in his claims about energy meaning he/she is absolutely using an incorrect definition of energy.

    Just saying...
    Last edited by Aaron Murakami; 12-10-2013, 02:23 PM.
    Aaron Murakami





    You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
      I'm going to have to call you out mpc755 - you are "Gravitational Aether" user posting under a different username.

      @All...



      Now, I do highly recommend looking at that thread and critically analyze the statements by "Gravitational Aether" in regards to a superfluid, claiming it is giving energy back to the item that displaces it, etc. There are multiple contradictions in the logic.

      For example - the object displaces the superfluid and the superfluid gives back the energy to the object at zero loss (his/her claims) - so that is how the object moves through space at zero loss. However, the absolute flaw in this is that energy is only there IF work is being done. I completely understand recovery, but if the object is moving through the superfluid with no friction or resistance, work is NOT being done and therefore there is no energy being used by the object moving through space (superfluid) and therefore, there can be no energy being given back to the object. Gravitational Potential aka mpc755 claims it does this with no loss but having zero resistance, there is no 100% energy recovery as energy is not being used to begin with to displace the aether it is moving through.

      The reality is that an object moving through "vacuum space" at a steady rate is in equilibrium with the aether meaning there is no potential difference and no work is being done. When there is a rate of change, then an assymetrical relationship with the mass and aether exists (dipole) and with the polarization of the aether under these conditions, then and only then is there a dipole from where the source potential can be imparted to the mass of the object to cause resistance to the movement. That is what "rate of change" is doing with mass and aether, it causes a dipole. That is the only time energy is happening and this is NOT the case when an object is moving at a steady speed where inertia is not being experienced.

      This person also refused to answer me in any intellectually honest way when I pointed out his logical inconsistencies on his claims that the aether has mass. You can see all of that in that thread. Whether the aether has mass or not is not the point I'm making. The point I AM making is that Gravitational Aether aka mpc755 will give lawyer answers when any valid questions are brought up such as the logical fallacy in his claims about energy meaning he/she is absolutely using an incorrect definition of energy.

      Just saying...
      By definition there is no loss of energy in the interaction of an object and a supersolid.

      Just saying...

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by mpc755 View Post
        By definition there is no loss of energy in the interaction of an object and a supersolid.

        Just saying...
        I agree 100%, but your claims for the reason why that is the case is problematic.

        That is because no work in joules/sec/sec are being done for a a mass to move through space at a steady speed.
        Since there is no work, there is no energy dissipation. If there is no energy dissipation, energy cannot and will not be given back to the object by the supersolid - which energy will not be given back in any case.

        Your agrument was that the object displaces the supersolid and that takes energy and the supersolid returns the same amount of energy back to the object with 0 loss - at 100% efficiency.

        Just because you agree there is no energy loss, does not mean you are correctly using the concept of energy to make your claim.

        What you are claiming is that the energy dissipated by the object moving through the supersolid is conserved by the supersolid's displacement and that is given back to the object at 0 loss.

        That is inconsistent with all empirically measurable facts - it is inconsistent with the proper definition of energy and potential.

        Your claim is consistent with conservation of energy and is therefore fundamentally incorrect at face value.

        An object moving through space at a steady speed is moving without slowing down - not because the energy it takes to displace the aether is given back to the ball to push it on its way.

        An object moving through space at a steady speed is moving without slowing down - because there is no rate of change between the mass and aether and therefore, it remains in a state of equilibrium with the mass meaning no potential difference exists. If no potential difference exists, then the aetheric source potential is not able to impart any electrostatic type repulsion against the protons of the mass in order to manifest the appearance of resistance to its movement. If that isn't happening, then there is no energy.

        What you are doing is being quite sneaky.

        With almost everything you state about mass and the aether, I agree with 99% of it.

        However, you are subtly injecting Einstein's model into the conservation, which will go unnoticed by anyone that is not familiar with this general concept and just because you are talking about an aether, that does not mean you are anti-Einstein.

        What you are doing is maintaining the fictitious convoluted belief system of Einstein that when mass displaces the aether such as Earth displacing the aether around it - that an object lifted off of the ground is storing potential in the displaced aether. And when the object is dropped, the aether simply returns that same energy to the object as it drops to the ground. What you are here doing is simply trying to maintain the misinformation in the 9th grade physics books. That - is misinformation.

        What you are doing is presenting a very appealing model of aetheric displacement with that one little caveat - it completely wipes out the reality that dissipated energy is gone and none of it is conserved and simply a new potential difference is established for fresh potential to enter the system and meet resistance, which is work, which is energy.

        In reality, your claims, although are almost completely accurate, leaving out that one little fact, you are actually here to maintain the fallacy of conventional thermodynamics and Einsteinian physics.

        I don't know who you are fooling with this, but you can definitely cross me off that list.

        Now I recall in the other discussion thread that you were claiming the same with lifting an object from the ground. You claimed that the energy that happened after the object was dropped was from the energy we put in to lift it. That only shows you are:

        1. Unable to see why it is a logical fallacy, which is proven by using 3rd grade mathematics (multiplication, addition, division) and 8th grade equations (basic Newtonian equations proving how much REAL WORK is done in lifting an object) - it is quite a blow to one's ego for children's math and common sense logic to be able to overturn 100 years + of fundamentally flawed foundational physics.

        2. You are intentionally trying to cover up the very simple mathematical proof and concepts that I have shared in order to prevent the truth from coming out because you are a misinformation agent.

        Please give it up, conservation of energy is less valid than the tooth fairy since the math can be done by anyone to validate the truth. The tooth fairy has more credibility than conservation of energy because simply, the tooth fairy has not been debunked yet.
        Aaron Murakami





        You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
          I agree 100%, but your claims for the reason why that is the case is problematic.

          That is because no work in joules/sec/sec are being done for a a mass to move through space at a steady speed.
          Since there is no work, there is no energy dissipation. If there is no energy dissipation, energy cannot and will not be given back to the object by the supersolid - which energy will not be given back in any case.

          Your agrument was that the object displaces the supersolid and that takes energy and the supersolid returns the same amount of energy back to the object with 0 loss - at 100% efficiency.

          Just because you agree there is no energy loss, does not mean you are correctly using the concept of energy to make your claim.

          What you are claiming is that the energy dissipated by the object moving through the supersolid is conserved by the supersolid's displacement and that is given back to the object at 0 loss.

          That is inconsistent with all empirically measurable facts - it is inconsistent with the proper definition of energy and potential.

          Your claim is consistent with conservation of energy and is therefore fundamentally incorrect at face value.

          An object moving through space at a steady speed is moving without slowing down - not because the energy it takes to displace the aether is given back to the ball to push it on its way.

          An object moving through space at a steady speed is moving without slowing down - because there is no rate of change between the mass and aether and therefore, it remains in a state of equilibrium with the mass meaning no potential difference exists. If no potential difference exists, then the aetheric source potential is not able to impart any electrostatic type repulsion against the protons of the mass in order to manifest the appearance of resistance to its movement. If that isn't happening, then there is no energy.

          What you are doing is being quite sneaky.

          With almost everything you state about mass and the aether, I agree with 99% of it.

          However, you are subtly injecting Einstein's model into the conservation, which will go unnoticed by anyone that is not familiar with this general concept and just because you are talking about an aether, that does not mean you are anti-Einstein.

          What you are doing is maintaining the fictitious convoluted belief system of Einstein that when mass displaces the aether such as Earth displacing the aether around it - that an object lifted off of the ground is storing potential in the displaced aether. And when the object is dropped, the aether simply returns that same energy to the object as it drops to the ground. What you are here doing is simply trying to maintain the misinformation in the 9th grade physics books. That - is misinformation.

          What you are doing is presenting a very appealing model of aetheric displacement with that one little caveat - it completely wipes out the reality that dissipated energy is gone and none of it is conserved and simply a new potential difference is established for fresh potential to enter the system and meet resistance, which is work, which is energy.

          In reality, your claims, although are almost completely accurate, leaving out that one little fact, you are actually here to maintain the fallacy of conventional thermodynamics and Einsteinian physics.

          I don't know who you are fooling with this, but you can definitely cross me off that list.

          Now I recall in the other discussion thread that you were claiming the same with lifting an object from the ground. You claimed that the energy that happened after the object was dropped was from the energy we put in to lift it. That only shows you are:

          1. Unable to see why it is a logical fallacy, which is proven by using 3rd grade mathematics (multiplication, addition, division) and 8th grade equations (basic Newtonian equations proving how much REAL WORK is done in lifting an object) - it is quite a blow to one's ego for children's math and common sense logic to be able to overturn 100 years + of fundamentally flawed foundational physics.

          2. You are intentionally trying to cover up the very simple mathematical proof and concepts that I have shared in order to prevent the truth from coming out because you are a misinformation agent.

          Please give it up, conservation of energy is less valid than the tooth fairy since the math can be done by anyone to validate the truth. The tooth fairy has more credibility than conservation of energy because simply, the tooth fairy has not been debunked yet.
          You are the one who first brought up the term potential energy. I do not use the term.

          When you lift the bowling ball off of the ground and then let it go the aether displaced by the Earth, pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the Earth, forces the bowling ball to the ground.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir...#Vacuum_energy

          "a "field" in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with interconnected vibrating balls and springs, and the strength of the field can be visualized as the displacement of a ball from its rest position"

          A 'field' in physics is the mass associated with spacetime and the strength of the field is the displacement of mass associated with spacetime from its relative rest position.

          In the following mass associated with spacetime is shortened to spacetime.

          Each of the plates in the Casimir effect displace spacetime. The displaced spacetime which exists between the plates is pushing back toward each of the plates which causes the force associated with spacetime displaced by each of the plates which exists between the plates to offset. This spacetime is more at relativistic rest than the spacetime which is displaced by the plates which encompasses the plates. The reduced force associated with spacetime which exists between the plates along with the displaced spacetime which encompasses the plates which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the plates causes the plates to be forced together.

          What occurs physically in nature in the Casimir effect is the same phenomenon as gravity.

          There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter. Spacetime physically occupies three dimensional space. Spacetime is physically displaced by matter.

          The spacetime which exists between the Earth and the Moon is displaced by both the Earth and the Moon and is pushing back toward the Earth and toward the Moon. This displaced spacetime offsets and cancels each other out to some degree. This spacetime is more at relativistic rest than the displaced spacetime which encompasses the Earth and the Moon.

          The spacetime which encompasses the Earth and the Moon is able to exert more pressure on the solid matter Earth than it can the liquid oceans. This, along with the molecular bonds associated with the solid matter the Earth consists of, causes the solid matter Earth to be pushed closer to the Moon than the ocean water opposite the Moon. This causes the ocean to 'rise' opposite the Moon. The spacetime between the Earth and Moon exerts less pressure on the ocean water than it can the solid matter Earth. This, along with the the molecular bonds associated with the solid matter the Earth consists of, causes the ocean to rise between the Earth and Moon.

          In terms of relativity, spacetime is less curved between the Earth and the Moon and more curved encompassing the Earth and the Moon.

          In terms of what occurs physically in nature, spacetime is more at relativistic rest between the Earth and the Moon and more displaced encompassing the Earth and the Moon.

          The state of displacement of the mass associated with spacetime is gravity.
          Last edited by mpc755; 12-11-2013, 11:21 AM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by BroMikey
            Hi Aaron

            I just love the way you spell it all out dude. Each time you cut loose with a pure expression of common sense is so over the top that the average college professor has no idea what you are talking about. They don't even understand the terms you are using, ignoring them completely.

            Then it's back to the same ole false assumptions "teacher toad me" LOL

            I'm actually getting what you are saying now. I hope this MPC guy keeps having a mental block because it's working out quite well on my end. Thank MPC

            Mikey
            Thanks Mikey,

            I've experienced this before too many times.

            The bottom line is there is no such thing as energy.

            Energy is not a "thing" - it is not a noun when used properly for what it is.

            Energy is a verb/action to describe the activity that the tangible thing (source potential, aether, vacuum energy) experiences when it encounters a resistance after being polarized. When that tangible source potential is polarized and encounters resistance, it depolarizes through the process of that resistive dissipation right back into the chaotic symmetrical aetheric flux. And we measure such activity in Joules per second per second (real work). When that real work is happening, we say THAT IS ENERGY.

            Source potential is like a runner standing still - the runner has potential to do work. When that runner runs, work is done through dissipative processes and we say that is energy. Potential is the real THING and Energy is the ABSTRACT.

            When the aether is polarized, virtual photons are in a state of broken symmetry by a dipole and become symmetrical, etc.. (all same thing) - that polarized aether is the source POTENTIAL, which is organized (that organized source potential flowing over a wire - wire acting as waveguide - is the Heaviside flow - that flow is real) and that potential is actually the tangible THING that conventional science has brainwashed everyone into believing that it is an abstract concept. In reality, source POTENTIAL is the tangible THING that has the potential to do work (energy) - so Energy is the abstract or intangible thing. It is completely backwards from what is normally taught.

            There are multiple uses for the term potential - "oh that child has so much potential" - in that context, Potential represents a future possibility and the level of probability shows the amplitude of the potential.

            But when we talk "source potential" as in potential energy - knowing really what potential energy is and where it comes from, that source potential is actually a tangible just like the child (it is a noun) that can demonstrate a certain amount of energy later through dissipation.

            Sorry, I know I'm redundant a few times above and it isn't addressed to you - just to everyone in general because it is so self apparent that it really needs to be clear.

            mtc is working with purely conventional beliefs no matter how much he tries to make it look like he is of a "friendly" nature with all the talk of the aether, etc. but the underlying reality that is easily deduced by by following a very common sense hierarchy of logic is that it is pure subterfuge by willful intent or not.
            Aaron Murakami





            You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by mpc755 View Post
              You are the one who first brought up the term potential energy. I do not use the term.

              When you lift the bowling ball off of the ground and then let it go the aether displaced by the Earth, pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the Earth, forces the bowling ball to the ground.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir...#Vacuum_energy

              "a "field" in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with interconnected vibrating balls and springs, and the strength of the field can be visualized as the displacement of a ball from its rest position"

              A 'field' in physics is the mass associated with spacetime and the strength of the field is the displacement of mass associated with spacetime from its relative rest position.

              In the following mass associated with spacetime is shortened to spacetime.

              Each of the plates in the Casimir effect displace spacetime. The displaced spacetime which exists between the plates is pushing back toward each of the plates which causes the force associated with spacetime displaced by each of the plates which exists between the plates to offset. This spacetime is more at relativistic rest than the spacetime which is displaced by the plates which encompasses the plates. The reduced force associated with spacetime which exists between the plates along with the displaced spacetime which encompasses the plates which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the plates causes the plates to be forced together.

              What occurs physically in nature in the Casimir effect is the same phenomenon as gravity.

              There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter. Spacetime physically occupies three dimensional space. Spacetime is physically displaced by matter.

              The spacetime which exists between the Earth and the Moon is displaced by both the Earth and the Moon and is pushing back toward the Earth and toward the Moon. This displaced spacetime offsets and cancels each other out to some degree. This spacetime is more at relativistic rest than the displaced spacetime which encompasses the Earth and the Moon.

              The spacetime which encompasses the Earth and the Moon is able to exert more pressure on the solid matter Earth than it can the liquid oceans. This, along with the molecular bonds associated with the solid matter the Earth consists of, causes the solid matter Earth to be pushed closer to the Moon than the ocean water opposite the Moon. This causes the ocean to 'rise' opposite the Moon. The spacetime between the Earth and Moon exerts less pressure on the ocean water than it can the solid matter Earth. This, along with the the molecular bonds associated with the solid matter the Earth consists of, causes the ocean to rise between the Earth and Moon.

              In terms of relativity, spacetime is less curved between the Earth and the Moon and more curved encompassing the Earth and the Moon.

              In terms of what occurs physically in nature, spacetime is more at relativistic rest between the Earth and the Moon and more displaced encompassing the Earth and the Moon.

              The state of displacement of the mass associated with spacetime is gravity.
              With your conventional and erroneous use of the term ENERGY, I can clearly see why you don't use the term POTENTIAL - you actually don't understand what it is.

              Obviously the inward push of the rebounding aether pushes the ball to the ground, that is just common sense. But what you are pushing a completely conventional and completely erroneous interpretation of the facts and you believe that the energy the ball demonstrates when it hits the ground is from the energy we put into lifting it - when in fact, every bit of energy we used to lift the ball is 100% at the peak of the lift. We only created a potential difference and the gravitational potential that enters that ball when it is dropped is completely NEW and DISCONNECTED from the original energy dissipated to lift it to begin with. That means GP is actually able to do REAL MEASURABLE WORK.

              It is a subtle difference than what you are trying to push but it makes all the difference in the world.

              You're pushing false propaganda by the "Spacetime physically occupies three dimensional space."

              Spacetime / aether does NOT occupy 3D space. The SINGLE dimension of space IS made up of the aether and within that space, there is a COORDINATE system to describe a place within that space, but those are not dimensions.

              On the surface of this Earth, myself and every other member of this forum is at a different coordinate location, but we are all in the SAME single dimension of space.

              Your Earth Moon example is inconsistent with the prima facie evidence of the nature of gravitational attraction between two bodies in an aetheric displacement model. In other words, you're complicating the issue.

              And there is no such thing as "curved" spacetime. There are varying degrees of density. The aether around the world gets denser towards the surface and less dense out further away. That is not curved and the common example of Einstein's marbles rolling around a funnel is beyond superficial.
              Aaron Murakami





              You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

              Comment


              • #52
                Gravitational attraction between two large masses...

                When a mass is in the aether away from other masses, the aetheric rebound towards the mass is fairly symmetrical and pushes down equally on all sides of the mass.

                When two masses are in proximity of each other, the aether BETWEEN the objects that would normally rebound back towards one of the masses, is DIVIDED proportionally between the two masses and will rebound at that divided level.

                So if two large planets of equal mass are next to each other, the reason they gravitate towards each other is this...

                On their far sides, the aetheric displacement and rebound to the mass are equal all the way around.

                But in between the masses, the aether would be divided in half meaning on those sides facing each other, only half the aether is able to rebound to each respective mass.

                What that does is create a dipole - an asymmetrical situation for each mass in its relationship to the surrounding aether.

                Now that each mass has a fairly consistent push on the outer sides of them and less between them, they are pushed together and that is why large bodies are attracted to each other.

                gravitationalattraction.jpg

                That image is from my book The Quantum Key and shows that the smaller mass is PUSHED to the larger mass.

                The larger mass is taking away some of the push that would normally be rebounding back to that facing side of the smaller mass so that causes an asymmetrical push on the small object, by the surrounding aether, and it pushes the smaller mass in the direction where there is less push-back on the smaller mass.

                If you take a bar of soap and it and your hands are wet and you squeeze down on the soap, it will shoot out in the direction where the push on the soap is less. Same thing.

                @mtc - if I didn't know any better, I'd say you read my book and were offended that Einstein was ostracized and you are doing what you can to Einstein-ize it.

                This is why the ocean is higher on the side facing the moon - simply because the aether that is normally rebounding to the Earth on that side is partially reduced by the Moon occupying an area that is taking away form some of that push since the aether between the Earth and Moon is divided and and gives a less of a push back on each respective object because of that proportional division.
                Aaron Murakami





                You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
                  With your conventional and erroneous use of the term ENERGY, I can clearly see why you don't use the term POTENTIAL - you actually don't understand what it is.

                  Obviously the inward push of the rebounding aether pushes the ball to the ground, that is just common sense. But what you are pushing a completely conventional and completely erroneous interpretation of the facts and you believe that the energy the ball demonstrates when it hits the ground is from the energy we put into lifting it.
                  Incorrect. No energy is put into anything by lifting the ball. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter the Earth and the bowling ball consist of. If you pick the bowling ball up the aether displaced by the Earth pushing back toward the Earth forces the bowling ball to the ground. If you lift the bowling ball far enough away from the Earth the aether displaced by the Earth pushing back toward the Earth is no longer capable of pushing the bowling ball back toward the Earth.
                  Last edited by mpc755; 12-12-2013, 10:33 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
                    Gravitational attraction between two large masses...
                    Gravity is not an attraction.

                    Aether has mass. Mass is defined as that which physically occupies three dimensional space.

                    The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Transformation of energy and re gauging....

                      Aaron thank you for your insight, through your writings... I am beginning to see things somewhat better now.

                      I think water can be a prime example of the ball example Aaron used.

                      Lets pick a place to start, 1) We have a 50' water fall with water continuously flowing down into the basin that then disperses into a much larger body water. 2) The energy ( or what ever you want to call it) from the sun, heats up the water's surface. 3) Water eventually evaporates or becomes much smaller particles of water (there is no transformation into some thing different, water vapour is still composed of H2O) and rises into the atmosphere high above the water fall it previously came from. 4) These very small, warm, light particles of water vapour that used a different form or energy source, the sun, to elevate themselves high above into the atmosphere. That was work being done. 5) Now the energy given from the sun is now dissipated and the water vapour has now very much cooled and begins to collect on certain particles of atmospheric dust and form droplets that reach a certain mass and begin to fall back to earth, as the difference in gravitational potential is to great to be sustained, without work. It should be the same as the example Aaron used when you let go of a raised ball. 6) The rain droplet, that was composed of many particles of water vapour fall back to Earth and land, perhaps back into the same body of water that supplied our waterfall in the first place and now goes back over the water fall again to fully complete the cycle. The sun actually reguages and supplies a continuous reguaging mechanism in this system.

                      There we have the cycle with no work being done by the water or water vapour, it only has the potential to do work but has not done any so far, the only outside source to impart any work or energy into the system was the external environment, which was the sun.

                      Now in order to get the water to do some work? What do we have to do? How do we attach a device to the wheel work of nature in order to do some real resistive work, after all we do have an enormous constantly regauging potential energy source at our finger tips in this example? How about a simple water wheel interacting directly with the water fall.

                      Purposefully I left out the oscillating component of the ball when it bounces and fully realize a water droplet dropped into a body of water will exhibit much the same.

                      I know this example may be crude, but I do believe it is an accurate description of the topic at hand.

                      Dave Wing
                      Last edited by Dave Wing; 12-12-2013, 07:25 PM. Reason: Corrections & additions

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by mpc755 View Post
                        Incorrect. No energy is put into anything by lifting the ball. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter the Earth and the bowling ball consist of. If you pick the bowling ball up the aether displaced by the Earth pushing back toward the Earth forces the bowling ball to the ground. If you lift the bowling ball far enough away from the Earth the aether displaced by the Earth pushing back toward the Earth is no longer capable of pushing the bowling ball back toward the Earth.
                        Please stop with the snake talk.

                        Don't tell me I am incorrect because that is not my belief. This is your historical pattern of twisting what others are saying to pursue your perpetually robotic method of communicating your propaganda.

                        What I said about putting energy into the ball is me discussing YOUR belief and you have already admitted that in the past and here you are trying to make it look like I said that and am wrong. That is beyond ridiculous.

                        You are the one that believes the superfluid "gives back energy" to an object moving through it and that energy comes from putting that energy into it to begin with. You claimed this from the beginning so don't try to deny it.

                        It is a matter of very simple common sense that my sentence here: "But what you are pushing a completely conventional and completely erroneous interpretation of the facts and you believe that the energy the ball demonstrates when it hits the ground is from the energy we put into lifting it." is discussing YOUR belief that you are trying to weasel out of now.
                        Aaron Murakami





                        You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by mpc755 View Post
                          Gravity is not an attraction.

                          Aether has mass. Mass is defined as that which physically occupies three dimensional space.

                          The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.
                          You are a snake.

                          I have said from the beginning that gravity is a PUSH.

                          It is common sense that the term gravitational attraction I'm using, especially based on the entire context that I have laid out, is that I'm simply referring to two large masses moving together and I have ALREADY stated that they are PUSHED together from the outside in. You ignore this and take the opportunity to spread your disinformation making it look like I'm saying something else.

                          You are an anonymous snake who is trying to deceive people.

                          @ALL - mpc is obviously a fan of Hitler's propaganda methods by constantly repeating things over and over in a robotic manner because anyone who is a zombie that lives in a passive autopilot state of mind will start to actually believe what is repeated.

                          Here he is - constantly stating this fairytale about "three dimensional space" - you will see him repeat that until he is blue in the face and you will see him constantly repeat that mass displaces aether, which is correct, but the psychology behind his method is to subtly imply that someone is disagreeing with him (me) even though I believe the same thing. And he will repeat until he is blue in the face that aether has mass, which he cannot prove. I believe it is a massless source charge, but on this issue, I'm open to the aether having mass, but it has yet to be proven and most of the logic shows that there is no mass in the aether.

                          Again - you will all see him repeat these points over and over and over and over and over.

                          Where have I said that gravity is an attraction? Never. "Gravitational attraction" is what everyone commonly refers to with two large object moving towards each other and mtc uses this to correct me and claim that gravity is not an attraction. It is completely pathetic.

                          I'll probably bow out soon from this thread and anyone that wants to be subject to this lunacy can have at it.
                          Aaron Murakami





                          You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by BroMikey
                            It is madness to do away with the 8th grade mathematical expressions of the basics to explain existence and exchange it for something else in a college level course. That is not how a foundation for thinking should be laid.
                            We can see that Eric Dollard uses only 9th grade algebra for everything - threw out calculus, etc...
                            Aaron Murakami





                            You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
                              Please stop with the snake talk.

                              Don't tell me I am incorrect because that is not my belief. This is your historical pattern of twisting what others are saying to pursue your perpetually robotic method of communicating your propaganda.

                              What I said about putting energy into the ball is me discussing YOUR belief and you have already admitted that in the past and here you are trying to make it look like I said that and am wrong. That is beyond ridiculous.

                              You are the one that believes the superfluid "gives back energy" to an object moving through it and that energy comes from putting that energy into it to begin with. You claimed this from the beginning so don't try to deny it.

                              It is a matter of very simple common sense that my sentence here: "But what you are pushing a completely conventional and completely erroneous interpretation of the facts and you believe that the energy the ball demonstrates when it hits the ground is from the energy we put into lifting it." is discussing YOUR belief that you are trying to weasel out of now.
                              As an object moves through a supersolid it displaces the supersolid. As the supersolid fills-in where the object had been the supersolid displaces the object.

                              Q. Is the object displacing the supersolid or is the supersolid displacing the object.
                              A. Both are occurring simultaneously with equal force.

                              A boat has a bow wave. The bow wave is the boat's water displacement wave.

                              An ocean wave displaces the surfer.

                              An object moving through a supersolid is both boat and surfer.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
                                ...that mass displaces aether...
                                Aether has mass. Mass defined as that which physically occupies three dimensional space.

                                Particles of matter displace the aether.

                                The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X