Big-Bang falacies and the Occult Aetheric Physics reality.

[gravitational_aether]

No. Nobody knows anything of sorts, that is another one of your postulates. What we can do is falsify the gravitational models as is the practice in science when observation verifiably contradicts theory.

Here, I'll throw you a claim:
It is quite possible that the method of calculating ratios of masses of celestial objects via their luminosity if wrong.

Then it logically follows that the objects in the center of galaxies could be just more massive than previously thought and no magical substance is needed to patch the gap. The common gravitational models still remain falsified as they fail to model the rotational patterns of galaxies.



Is that anything more than simply an assertion for the part of some "aether" existing and having mass?



And how do you support these claims?



Just to clarify:
This "aether" is something that cannot be scientifically tested, like the great myths "dark matter" and "dark energy"?

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.

[dragonborn]

What we know is the speed at which galaxies rotate can not be explained by the mass of the matter of the galaxy.

No. Nobody knows anything of sorts, that is another one of your postulates. What we can do is falsify the gravitational models as is the practice in science when observation verifiably contradicts theory.

Here, I'll throw you a claim:
It is quite possible that the method of calculating ratios of masses of celestial objects via their luminosity if wrong.

Then it logically follows that the objects in the center of galaxies could be just more massive than previously thought and no magical substance is needed to patch the gap. The common gravitational models still remain falsified as they fail to model the rotational patterns of galaxies.

What mainstream physics fails to realize is aether has mass and is physically displaced by matter.

Is that anything more than simply an assertion for the part of some "aether" existing and having mass?

Mainstream physics fails to realize displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter IS gravity.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

And how do you support these claims?

It is the aether which is displaced by the Milky Way which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the Milky Way which causes it to rotate at the speed it does.

Just to clarify:
This "aether" is something that cannot be scientifically tested, like the great myths "dark matter" and "dark energy"?

[gravitational_aether]

"Supposed"



"Postulated"



I propose that you let go of the supernatural dark-myth-didit-god.

Here it is for you straight up:
1. in 1967 physicist Vera Rubin observed the flat rotation curves of galaxies
2. this contradicted all the used gravity models
3. in science verified observations that contradict models falsify those models
4. were the gravity models falsified? NO!
5. theory was considered superior to observation, theory must be *correct* and verified observations false
6. the dark myth was born and astronomy became religion

What we know is the speed at which galaxies rotate can not be explained by the mass of the matter of the galaxy.

What mainstream physics fails to realize is aether has mass and is physically displaced by matter.

Mainstream physics fails to realize displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter IS gravity.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

The Milky Way's halo is what Einstein referred to as curved spacetime.

It is the aether which is displaced by the Milky Way which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the Milky Way which causes it to rotate at the speed it does.

[dragonborn]

The Milky Way's halo is supposed to be non-baryonic dark matter.

"Supposed"

Non-baryonic dark matter is postulated to have mass.

"Postulated"

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

Aether has mass.

I propose that you let go of the supernatural dark-myth-didit-god.

Here it is for you straight up:
1. in 1967 physicist Vera Rubin observed the flat rotation curves of galaxies
2. this contradicted all the used gravity models
3. in science verified observations that contradict models falsify those models
4. were the gravity models falsified? NO!
5. theory was considered superior to observation, theory must be *correct* and verified observations false
6. the dark myth was born and astronomy became religion

[gravitational_aether]

I haven't said anything different about gravity so I'm not sure why you keep repeating yourself. I agree the mass of the solar system displaces the aether and the aether is rebounding back and is holding the solar system together. It is self apparent to anyone that believes in aetheric displacement.

You already admitted in your other post that rebounding aether is a force that contributes energy to do work on an object that displaced the aether. Yes, that is true with impact work from a falling object or an object accelerating, but an object at constant velocity floating through space is still moving through the Aether but isn't performing work so requires no energy to be dissipated. That means this quote is not true: "An object moving through the aether requires energy to displace the aether"

At least you do admit there IS a free exchange of forces between the mass and the Aether meaning the mass is not an isolated system in relation to the Aether and is therefore an open dissipative system. But that also means energy's source potential is external from the mass and Einstein is wrong.

"An object in motion tends to stay in motion UNLESS it is acted upon by another force." That is true because the natural tendency of the universe actually is perpetual motion. The tendency of natural system is perpetual motion UNLESS it is acted upon by another force, it doesn't say UNTIL it is acted upon - so the law does not require an opposing force - meaning a perpetual motion machine is perfectly permissible according to the laws of motion. However, a perpetual motion machine will still be described by open dissipative systems and won't violate it like your example of requiring energy to displace aether as an object moves through space.

The reason an object can remain at a constant velocity in space as long as there is no force opposing it is because the Aether has no mass to offer any resistance.

The Milky Way's halo is supposed to be non-baryonic dark matter. Non-baryonic dark matter is postulated to have mass.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

Aether has mass.

[Aaron Murakami]

So, aether displaces aether. However, it has nothing to do with gravitational attraction. There is no such thing as gravitational attraction. Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.

I haven't said anything different about gravity so I'm not sure why you keep repeating yourself. I agree the mass of the solar system displaces the aether and the aether is rebounding back and is holding the solar system together. It is self apparent to anyone that believes in aetheric displacement.

You already admitted in your other post that rebounding aether is a force that contributes energy to do work on an object that displaced the aether. Yes, that is true with impact work from a falling object or an object accelerating, but an object at constant velocity floating through space is still moving through the Aether but isn't performing work so requires no energy to be dissipated. That means this quote is not true: "An object moving through the aether requires energy to displace the aether"

At least you do admit there IS a free exchange of forces between the mass and the Aether meaning the mass is not an isolated system in relation to the Aether and is therefore an open dissipative system. But that also means energy's source potential is external from the mass and Einstein is wrong.

"An object in motion tends to stay in motion UNLESS it is acted upon by another force." That is true because the natural tendency of the universe actually is perpetual motion. The tendency of natural system is perpetual motion UNLESS it is acted upon by another force, it doesn't say UNTIL it is acted upon - so the law does not require an opposing force - meaning a perpetual motion machine is perfectly permissible according to the laws of motion. However, a perpetual motion machine will still be described by open dissipative systems and won't violate it like your example of requiring energy to displace aether as an object moves through space.

The reason an object can remain at a constant velocity in space as long as there is no force opposing it is because the Aether has no mass to offer any resistance.

[gravitational_aether]

You have now flip-flopped so many times I lost count.

You say: "Aether returns energy to the object."

That means the Aether IS acting as potential energy that does work since energy is work - I've said this all along and proved it with child's math. You've denied it so far so thank you for finally being honest enough to agree with me now.

Furthermore, you extend this agreement with what I've been saying by admitting that the Aether exerts a force on the object that displaces it. "A. Both are occurring simultaneously with equal force." There is no force that is absent from potential energy that does work energy further validating the point above that the rebounding aether pushing back on mass is a real measurable force that has potential energy to do work. Thank you again for being honest enough to agree with this too finally.

However, here is where you create yet another double standard - I have been pointing out about the flawed claim that Aether has mass.
I said that IF aether has mass and volume as you claimed that it would displace an equal volume of space and would therefore displace other Aether - you denied that, but here you go... "Q. Is the object displacing the aether or is the aether displacing the object." and you answer yourself "A. Both are occurring simultaneously with equal force."
Ummmm, you finally admit the point I made about your claim that if aether has mass that it must demonstrate displacement. But before, you said that it cannot displace other aether.

Why is Aether's displacement volume able to displace an object, yet surrounding aether mysteriously escapes this displacement? There is some serious cognitive dissonance being demonstrated here.

If Aether has mass and volume and it does offer displacement AS YOU FINALLY ADMIT, of course it will displace other aether! Which of course means that if aether had mass and at the density that the aether exists, there would be an ultra gravitational implosion that would suck up the whole universe and then some. The only reason that we're able to exist and type these messages is because the aether is MASSLESS. If aether had mass, the Universe would never get any bigger than an infinitely small point that is so dense that it would make a black hole's suction look like a squeeze bulb that cleans out a baby's nose.

You are literally making this all up as you go along - and you forget what you agree with or what you denied in the past (If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything - Mark Twain) and this is evidenced by the flip-flopping on the points above where you wind up agreeing with what I said in the beginning that when you lift an object, the energy of the impact comes from the rebounding aether and NOT from the person that lifted it. You admit that "Aether returns energy to the object." So you are finally admitting that an object's interaction with the Aether is not isolated at all and is an open system as I've stated from the beginning seeing that aether does indeed return energy to the object that displaced it.

You say "An object moving through the aether requires energy to displace the aether" - ummmm, LOL. Well, like I said, if aether did have mass, which it doesn't, of course it would require energy because there would be friction and that resistance is of course why it would require energy to overcome that friction. Energy is entropy, the dissipation of potential energy to a lower potential. If an object is at a constant velocity moving through space and it took x joules of energy to project it from a space craft, if it required any energy to move through the aether, it would come to a dead stop pretty quick. And no comet or meteor could ever travel as far as they do. The universe couldn't expand, etc...

However, you introduce a new mechanism that allows the object to keep moving. It is called a perpetual motion machine. Where the object moves, encounters steady resistance, which requires energy to overcome (since you say aether has mass), yet 100% of every bit of that energy is recouped from the energy that comes from the Aether "Aether returns energy to the object." Over time, the cumulative amount of dissipated energy that was required by the object to move through space increases and increases and increases yet it only started with a small amount of input. It has a COP higher than anything I've ever heard of. Not only is it over 1.0 COP, it is 100% efficient since there are no losses! WOW A paradox, it requires energy, which contributes to universal entropy, yet being 100% efficient means it does not actually contribute any entropy - yet it requires energy but yet it doesn't. Originally you claim the potential energy comes from the person lifting the object from the ground making sure you stick to the closed system thermodynamic talking points, but now you switched to admitting mass/aether displacement allows the aether to finally give energy to the object, thereby making it an open system that violates the isolation belief you expressed before. However, not only does your claim of how an object moves through space violate closed system thermodynamics, it even violates open system thermodynamics. That's impressive. There is now a completely new 3rd system - schizophrenic thermodynamics - where a system is openly isolated and uses energy, yet it doesn't.
Whoah oh oh it's MAGIC!

In the following article it is the aether which is displaced by the Solar System which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the Solar System which is causing the magnetic field to pile up.

So, aether displaces aether. However, it has nothing to do with gravitational attraction. There is no such thing as gravitational attraction. Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.

'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
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, 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.

[Aaron Murakami]

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.

You have now flip-flopped so many times I lost count.

You say: "Aether returns energy to the object."

That means the Aether IS acting as potential energy that does work since energy is work - I've said this all along and proved it with child's math. You've denied it so far so thank you for finally being honest enough to agree with me now.

Furthermore, you extend this agreement with what I've been saying by admitting that the Aether exerts a force on the object that displaces it. "A. Both are occurring simultaneously with equal force." There is no force that is absent from potential energy that does work energy further validating the point above that the rebounding aether pushing back on mass is a real measurable force that has potential energy to do work. Thank you again for being honest enough to agree with this too finally.

However, here is where you create yet another double standard - I have been pointing out about the flawed claim that Aether has mass.
I said that IF aether has mass and volume as you claimed that it would displace an equal volume of space and would therefore displace other Aether - you denied that, but here you go... "Q. Is the object displacing the aether or is the aether displacing the object." and you answer yourself "A. Both are occurring simultaneously with equal force."
Ummmm, you finally admit the point I made about your claim that if aether has mass that it must demonstrate displacement. But before, you said that it cannot displace other aether.

Why is Aether's displacement volume able to displace an object, yet surrounding aether mysteriously escapes this displacement? There is some serious cognitive dissonance being demonstrated here.

If Aether has mass and volume and it does offer displacement AS YOU FINALLY ADMIT, of course it will displace other aether! Which of course means that if aether had mass and at the density that the aether exists, there would be an ultra gravitational implosion that would suck up the whole universe and then some. The only reason that we're able to exist and type these messages is because the aether is MASSLESS. If aether had mass, the Universe would never get any bigger than an infinitely small point that is so dense that it would make a black hole's suction look like a squeeze bulb that cleans out a baby's nose.

You are literally making this all up as you go along - and you forget what you agree with or what you denied in the past (If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything - Mark Twain) and this is evidenced by the flip-flopping on the points above where you wind up agreeing with what I said in the beginning that when you lift an object, the energy of the impact comes from the rebounding aether and NOT from the person that lifted it. You admit that "Aether returns energy to the object." So you are finally admitting that an object's interaction with the Aether is not isolated at all and is an open system as I've stated from the beginning seeing that aether does indeed return energy to the object that displaced it.

You say "An object moving through the aether requires energy to displace the aether" - ummmm, LOL. Well, like I said, if aether did have mass, which it doesn't, of course it would require energy because there would be friction and that resistance is of course why it would require energy to overcome that friction. Energy is entropy, the dissipation of potential energy to a lower potential. If an object is at a constant velocity moving through space and it took x joules of energy to project it from a space craft, if it required any energy to move through the aether, it would come to a dead stop pretty quick. And no comet or meteor could ever travel as far as they do. The universe couldn't expand, etc...

However, you introduce a new mechanism that allows the object to keep moving. It is called a perpetual motion machine. Where the object moves, encounters steady resistance, which requires energy to overcome (since you say aether has mass), yet 100% of every bit of that energy is recouped from the energy that comes from the Aether "Aether returns energy to the object." Over time, the cumulative amount of dissipated energy that was required by the object to move through space increases and increases and increases yet it only started with a small amount of input. It has a COP higher than anything I've ever heard of. Not only is it over 1.0 COP, it is 100% efficient since there are no losses! WOW A paradox, it requires energy, which contributes to universal entropy, yet being 100% efficient means it does not actually contribute any entropy - yet it requires energy but yet it doesn't. Originally you claim the potential energy comes from the person lifting the object from the ground making sure you stick to the closed system thermodynamic talking points, but now you switched to admitting mass/aether displacement allows the aether to finally give energy to the object, thereby making it an open system that violates the isolation belief you expressed before. However, not only does your claim of how an object moves through space violate closed system thermodynamics, it even violates open system thermodynamics. That's impressive. There is now a completely new 3rd system - schizophrenic thermodynamics - where a system is openly isolated and uses energy, yet it doesn't.
Whoah oh oh it's MAGIC!

[gravitational_aether]

Yes we do know and I provided you with 3 resources that demonstrate this: Tom Bearden, Nature Magazine and Science News.

Space is pure MASSLESS charge. Not filled with charge - space IS massless charge.

Again, the question is: You claim aether has mass and volume, then why does it not displace anything with its volume?

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.

[Aaron Murakami]

As far as we know there is no space, nor any part of three dimensional space, devoid of mass.

Yes we do know and I provided you with 3 resources that demonstrate this: Tom Bearden, Nature Magazine and Science News.

Space is pure MASSLESS charge. Not filled with charge - space IS massless charge.

Again, the question is: You claim aether has mass and volume, then why does it not displace anything with its volume?

[Faraday88]

Hi Aaron/ GA,

My opinion : Mattter is composed of an asymmetrical form of Aether, which is not Space-like, but is Time Like.


Rgds,
Faraday88.

[gravitational_aether]

Ok, you are afraid to answer because your claim has nothing but holes in it.

You keep repeating yourself, but you give no logic, rhyme or reason as to why. You're simply repeating your "talking points" as if that accomplishes anything.

The question is: Aether has volume and mass according to you, but it is somehow immune to the universal principle of displacing space. Why?

Aether and matter have mass.

Aether exists where matter does not.

As far as we know there is no space, nor any part of three dimensional space, devoid of mass.

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

[Aaron Murakami]

Aether and matter have mass.

Matter is condensations of aether.

Ok, you are afraid to answer because your claim has nothing but holes in it.

You keep repeating yourself, but you give no logic, rhyme or reason as to why. You're simply repeating your "talking points" as if that accomplishes anything.

The question is: Aether has volume and mass according to you, but it is somehow immune to the universal principle of displacing space. Why?

[gravitational_aether]

Here is the definition of MATTER: Matter is generally considered to be anything that has mass and volume. The volume is determined by the space in three dimensions that it occupies. The mass is determined by its rest mass (or invariant mass), which is measured by the acceleration a body has when a force is applied.

You are therefore defining the Aether as MATTER. Your definition is physically identical to matter. You are claiming that a "piece" of Aether, aetheric charge or whatever you want to call it occupies 3D space, meaning you have not just implied that your aether is physically indistinguishable from matter, but are very explicit about in including admitting that you believe that Aether has volume as indicated that you believe a unit of aether "occupies three dimensional space."

Since you define aether as occupying 3D space with mass, therefore, your aether is displacing the rest of that aether by the volume of one "unit" of Aether.

How can a volume of physical matter displace the aether, yet when it is the aether that you claim has volume and therefore displaces that much space, that it isn't displacing aether?

Please don't repeat yourself like usual which answers nothing - just answer the question to clarify why your claim seems to be intrinsically irrational.

Aether has volume and mass according to you, but it is somehow immune to the universal principle of displacing space. Why?

Aether and matter have mass.

Matter is condensations of aether.

[Aaron Murakami]

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter. Displaced aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward matter.

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

Here is the definition of MATTER: Matter is generally considered to be anything that has mass and volume. The volume is determined by the space in three dimensions that it occupies. The mass is determined by its rest mass (or invariant mass), which is measured by the acceleration a body has when a force is applied.

You are therefore defining the Aether as MATTER. Your definition is physically identical to matter. You are claiming that a "piece" of Aether, aetheric charge or whatever you want to call it occupies 3D space, meaning you have not just implied that your aether is physically indistinguishable from matter, but are very explicit about in including admitting that you believe that Aether has volume as indicated that you believe a unit of aether "occupies three dimensional space."

Since you define aether as occupying 3D space with mass, therefore, your aether is displacing the rest of that aether by the volume of one "unit" of Aether.

How can a volume of physical matter displace the aether, yet when it is the aether that you claim has volume and therefore displaces that much space, that it isn't displacing aether?

Please don't repeat yourself like usual which answers nothing - just answer the question to clarify why your claim seems to be intrinsically irrational.

Aether has volume and mass according to you, but it is somehow immune to the universal principle of displacing space. Why?