Big-Bang falacies and the Occult Aetheric Physics reality.

[Aaron Murakami]

"We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the "fluidic" nature of space itself. This "back-reaction" ... " is the definition of the aether displacing back when an object changes state with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists.

Again, you have no idea how to comprehend the subject.

Gravity is the Earth displacing the aether and the aether rebounds back. You're standing on planet Earth, with gravity, and your relationship to the aether is at a CONSTANT VELOCITY. You are NOT experiencing the back-reaction they are talking about.

The back reaction they're talking about is related to what gravity is but the distinction that evades your comprehension is they are talking about the back reaction that happens upon sudden movement - just like back emf in a coil when charged.

You tried to equate the back reaction they're talking about as being exactly what your gravity definition is, which is pretty much like mine, but equating them is either fraud or a lack of comprehension.

[Aaron Murakami]

Just to be perfectly clear - further clarification on your disinformation:

1. "An object moving through the aether requires energy to displace the aether. The aether returns the energy to the object as the aether fills-in where the object had been and the aether 'displaces back'." - GP

2. "there is no loss of energy in the interaction of the object and the supersolid." - GP

You attempts are inherently subversive.

First of all, in point #2, you say there is no loss of energy when something moves through a supersolid.

A. No energy loss because there is 100% recovery in energy that it took?

Or

B. No energy loss because it doesn't take energy to begin with and it travels with no resistance?

It is point A, which expresses your opinion, which is evidenced by your claim in point #1.

You clearly describe an object moving through a "supersolid", it requires energy meaning there is resistance to overcome and then super solid's reaction gives all the energy back so there is no energy loss.

Here is where it becomes even more clear that you are spreading disinformation:

"Northwestern University physicists have for the first time shown that superfluid helium-3 -- the lighter isotope of helium, which is a liquid that has lost all internal friction, allowing it to flow without resistance and ooze through tiny spaces that normal liquids cannot penetrate -- actually behaves like a solid in its ability to conduct sound waves."

When there is no friction, there is no resistance to overcome. That means there is no joules of energy per unit of time being dissipated since there is no resistance. And since there is no resistance and it takes no energy, there is no energy or reactive energy to be recovered back from the aether meaning that the quote you post about super solids is 180 degrees in opposition to your quote in point #1 above.

What is that about a dozen contradictions you have posted so far? And the references that you post actually support my argument and contradicts yours. The above is an example of that.

Because of your point in #1, it is 100% apparent, you don't even know what energy is.

[gravitational_aether]

Again, they are specifically talking about a SUDDEN CHANGE. Inertia. The EFFECT of that induction is what they are talking about. You keep equating with gravity. You don't understand what you're reading. Displacement of the Aether is one thing. Having the counter force being induced by sudden movement is another. They are not identical. Related, yes, but the counter induction is NOT defining mass displacing aether - it is related to a rate of change!

"We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the "fluidic" nature of space itself. This "back-reaction" ... " is the definition of the aether displacing back when an object changes state with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists.

[Aaron Murakami]

"When a system is subject to a sudden change of velocity or direction of motion, there appears an induction force
that opposes such a change.

You don't understand supersolids. An object moving through a supersolid interacts with the supersolid. However, there is no loss of energy in the interaction of the object and the supersolid. That's what supersolid means.

Again, they are specifically talking about a SUDDEN CHANGE. Inertia. The EFFECT of that induction is what they are talking about. You keep equating with gravity. You don't understand what you're reading. Displacement of the Aether is one thing. Having the counter force being induced by sudden movement is another. They are not identical. Related, yes, but the counter induction is NOT defining mass displacing aether - it is related to a rate of change!

I know what a super solid is. You even admit "similar" to a supersolid - not exact. The aether does have properties like a supersolid - you don't understand the distinctions or the differences.

When something travels at zero friction or even negative friction - being pulled - it does not require work and therefore does NOT take energy and therefore there is no energy to return to the object.

Your claim is a farce: "An object moving through the aether requires energy to displace the aether. The aether returns the energy to the object as the aether fills-in where the object had been and the aether 'displaces back'."

No loss of energy does not mean energy is returned without loss, it means no work is required to begin with since there is no resistance.

You claim there is no energy loss when an object moves through a supersolid. You really don't understand what you're saying.

This claim of yours reveals everything there is needed to know about your perspective, which is complete disinformation: ""An object moving through the aether requires energy to displace the aether. The aether returns the energy to the object as the aether fills-in where the object had been and the aether 'displaces back'.""

An object moving through a supersolid has no resistance to overcome meaning work is not required. Because it is a fact that no work is required, there is no energy or reaction to be returned to the object as you claim "The aether returns the energy to the object."

Before making such ridiculous claims, you need to study what energy and potential even means and what the difference is between them.

[gravitational_aether]

At some point in the future, those guys will figure out that mass is an inductor and the massless potential moving through it induces a counter voltage that opposes the forward movement. As far as I know, nobody else has proposed that it is a voltage equivelant of Lenz's law.

'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction'
[1208.3458] An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction

"When a system is subject to a sudden change of velocity or direction of motion, there appears an induction force
that opposes such a change. This induction force is related to the inertia of bodies. The previous discussion implies
that a nonuniform motion of a body that is under observation from a frame of reference (inertial or noninertial),
undergoes real physical changes due to the intrinsic properties of the physical vacuum, its polarizability and back-
reaction inductive term."

What they have figured out is the physical vacuum 'displaces back'. What they have figured out is displaced aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward bodies.

You stated very clearly that it takes energy for mass to move through aether. If that were true, Voyager 1 would have stopped dead in its tracks and would have never made it close to the end of the solar system. Instead it has and it is still in motion.

You don't understand supersolids. An object moving through a supersolid interacts with the supersolid. However, there is no loss of energy in the interaction of the object and the supersolid. That's what supersolid means.

If you were to roll a bowling ball in a bowling alley filled with a supersolid the bowling ball would roll forever. The bowling ball displaces the supersolid. The supersolid displaces the bowling ball. There is no loss of energy in the interaction of the bowling ball and the supersolid. That does not mean no interaction.

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid.

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether through both.

[Aaron Murakami]

'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction'
[1208.3458] An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction

At some point in the future, those guys will figure out that mass is an inductor and the massless potential moving through it induces a counter voltage that opposes the forward movement. As far as I know, nobody else has proposed that it is a voltage equivelant of Lenz's law.

If you look at atoms and "particles" like a vortex where the aetheric charges are disconnected from their counter charge, they're chasing their own tail as the lower potential point is constantly behind them, they can't self annihilate themselves. The particles do not become mass because they turn into something physical, they turn into mass because they are shaped like electromagnetic coils that displace aether with their own "magnetic field" so to speak, which is made of more condensed and polarized aether. That is why the aether itself has no mass and is at a density that is exponentially higher than nuclear mass.



That is the Babbit atom - what I'm suggesting is similar to this concept.

That induction mentioned by that paper happens with a rate of change and gravity is CONSTANT VELOCITY. You are not experiencing this induction when you are standing still on the surface of the Earth so it is not identical to the general push back of the aether displaced by mass. Nor is there a counter resistance occurring in mass moving through aether at a CONSTANT VELOCITY.

You're not comprehending the reference that you posted.

You stated very clearly that it takes energy for mass to move through aether. If that were true, Voyager 1 would have stopped dead in its tracks and would have never made it close to the end of the solar system. Instead it has and it is still in motion.

If you understand anything about energy, potential and how this all relates to these topics, you will understand that counter emf is always lower than the applied voltage. A transient spike in a coil when the power is turned off is not the same as back emf. Anyway, if counter emf was the same voltage as the applied, the coil could never charge. If the counter was equal (without losses as you have claimed below), an object would never be able to accelerate! As soon as it tries to take off, it would just be stopped in its tracks! It would meet complete resistance and would have no net forward movement.

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid.

An object moving through the aether requires energy to displace the aether. The aether returns the energy to the object as the aether fills-in where the object had been and the aether 'displaces back'.

Q. Is the object displacing the aether or is the aether displacing the object.
A. Both are occurring simultaneously with EQUAL force.

An object moving through the aether at constant velocity is not experiencing a rate of change and therefore there is no counter induction in the mass to oppose the movement so it takes no energy to overcome that resistance. You say the aether returns energy admitting it is external from the mass admitting it is an open system totally contradicting your earlier claims. And you say the forces are equal with no losses meaning movement would be impossible!

There has to be a loss during the counter opposition in order to allow net forward movement.

Your claims violate both classical thermodynamics and non-equilibrium thermodynamics and it really appears that you are just making this up as you go along.

[gravitational_aether]

In this case THERE IS NO SLIT. There is only one sharp edge from which some of the particles are diffracted behind the sharp edge.

Your statements indicate that strong measurement in this case causes there to be no diffraction. That is what YOU are saying, strong measurement prevents diffraction in all cases where diffraction normally occurs.

Post a link to the experiment.

Are you suggesting when the diffraction pattern is created is the strong detection? Of course that's not what I mean. Strongly detecting the particle right after its interaction with the sharp edge will cause there to be no diffraction pattern.

[dragonborn]

The analogy are a bunch of pilings with sensors on them in order to detect the boat. The bow wave is turned into chop by the pilings. After interacting with the pilings the bow wave gets turned into chop. The boat gets knocked around by the chop. After a while the bow wave reforms at the front of the boat.

When the particle is strongly detected the wave in the aether is turned into chop. At this time there will not be a diffraction/interference pattern. After the partcle is strongly detected the particle gets knocked around by the chop. After a while the wave in the aether reforms. If after this time the particle passes through a slit there will be a diffraction/interference pattern.

Short time after stongly being detected, no diffraction/interference pattern. More time after strongly being detected and passing through a slit after this time, diffraction/interference pattern.

In this case THERE IS NO SLIT. There is only one sharp edge from which some of the particles are diffracted behind the sharp edge.

Your statements indicate that strong measurement in this case causes there to be no diffraction. That is what YOU are saying, strong measurement prevents diffraction in all cases where diffraction normally occurs.

[gravitational_aether]

You have once more become religiously ambiguous.

Does strong detection cause diffraction to not occur from a sharp edge? Yes or no?

The analogy are a bunch of pilings with sensors on them in order to detect the boat. The bow wave is turned into chop by the pilings. After interacting with the pilings the bow wave gets turned into chop. The boat gets knocked around by the chop. After a while the bow wave reforms at the front of the boat.

When the particle is strongly detected the wave in the aether is turned into chop. At this time there will not be a diffraction/interference pattern. After the partcle is strongly detected the particle gets knocked around by the chop. After a while the wave in the aether reforms. If after this time the particle passes through a slit there will be a diffraction/interference pattern.

Short time after stongly being detected, no diffraction/interference pattern. More time after strongly being detected and passing through a slit after this time, diffraction/interference pattern.

[dragonborn]

As long as the particle is strongly detected and there isn't a long enough time for the aether wave to once again become coherent and for the particle to then pass through another slit there will be no diffraction/interference pattern.

You have once more become religiously ambiguous.

Does strong detection cause diffraction to not occur from a sharp edge? Yes or no?

[gravitational_aether]

'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction'
[1208.3458] An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction

"We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself."

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of a solid, a supersolid, which is described in the article as the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The 'back-reaction' described in the article is the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the matter.

[gravitational_aether]

Response to this please?

As long as the particle is strongly detected and there isn't a long enough time for the aether wave to once again become coherent and for the particle to then pass through another slit there will be no diffraction/interference pattern.

[gravitational_aether]

And why would you conclude that space outside is pushing back???
Because someone gives a vague comment and you straw man it to mean whatever you want?

Where's the data and mathematics of this observed "pushing"?

The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused by pressure (or vorticity).

'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old Cosmological Constant Problem'
[1106.3955] Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old Cosmological Constant Problem

"One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity."

The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter.

'The aether-modified gravity and the G ̈del metric'

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5654v2

"As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53−αg,6a2 so, it is positive if αg < 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval αg < 15 corresponds to the usual matter."

The following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.

'From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum'

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.1155

"The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new form of matter. This is the real substance"

The following articles describe what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether.

'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale'
[1110.3753] Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale

"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in our universe."

"mass of the aether"

'Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity'

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.5168

"the model obtained here gets closer to the aether theory of , which is shown therein to be an alternative to the cold dark matter."

'Unified model for dark matter and quintessence'

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610135

"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the universe using superfluid aether is compatible."

'Vainshtein mechanism in Gauss-Bonnet gravity and Galileon aether'

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.1892

"the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of the presence of the background field"

[dragonborn]

I am saying strong measurements of particles exiting the slit causes there to be no bending/diffraction due to the wave in the aether being turned into chop.

I am not exactly sure what you mean by 'near a sharp edge'. As long as the particle is strongly detected and there isn't a long enough time for the aether wave to once again become coherent and for the particle to then pass through another slit there will be no diffraction/interference pattern.

Lets try this again.

Diffraction occurs in both:
1. in the case of a narrow slit
2. also if one side of the slit is removed leaving only one edge

So in your view will strong measurement cause diffraction to "disappear" in both cases? This is another yes/no question.

Response to this please?

[dragonborn]

NASA - NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar space is compacting it."

It is not the particles of matter which exist in quantities less than in any vacuum artifically created on Earth which are pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system.

It is the aether, which the particles of matter exist in, which is the interstellar medium. It is the aether which is displaced by the matter the solar system consists of which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system.

The aether is 'tested' every time a double slit experiment is performed. It's what waves.

And why would you conclude that space outside is pushing back???
Because someone gives a vague comment and you straw man it to mean whatever you want?

Where's the data and mathematics of this observed "pushing"?