Big-Bang falacies and the Occult Aetheric Physics reality.

[gravitational_aether]

Hi GA,
Your interpretation is close to the PCM mechanism...!
'Aeather has Mass' what 'aether' is present in Mass..?

rgds,
Faraday88.

Aether and matter have mass.

Particles of matter are condensations of aether.

[Faraday88]

Hi GA,
Your interpretation is close to the PCM mechanism...!
'Aeather has Mass' what 'aether' is present in Mass..?

rgds,
Faraday88.

[gravitational_aether]

Hi, GA

Hope you do'nt mind me calling you that in short form,
I think Aether exhibits it self in the best way in form of Electricity alone,(Magnetism next) with its extreme broken symmetry, effusive, and Gaseous, qualities.
The essential Meterialistic properties of the aether in other experiments descibes it a complex way.
rgds,
Faraday88 .

Hi,

Currently, the best way to characterize the aether is as a supersolid and the best way to describe the aether is in terms of its displacement by matter.

"Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines? ...Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the Sun, stars, planets and comets, than in the empty celestial space between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the bodies; every body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the medium towards the rarer?" - Newton

Newton is referring to the state of displacement of the aether.

The aether does not grow denser and denser. However, Newton is correct, displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

""In several parts of this treatise an attempt has been made to explain electromagnetic phenomena by means of mechanical action transmitted from one body to another by means of a medium occupying the space between them. The undulatory theory of light also assumes the existence of a medium. We have now to shew that the properties of the electromagnetic medium are identical with those of the luminiferous medium." - Maxwell

Maxwell's displacement current is a physical displacement of the aether.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
Einstein: "Ether and Relativity"

"space without ether is unthinkable"

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'

http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

“When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles.”

“any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium”

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The “energetic contact” is the state of displacement of the aether.

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.

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.

[Faraday88]

Hi, GA

Hope you do'nt mind me calling you that in short form,
I think Aether exhibits it self in the best way in form of Electricity alone,(Magnetism next) with its extreme broken symmetry, effusive, and Gaseous, qualities.
The essential Meterialistic properties of the aether in other experiments descibes it a complex way.
rgds,
Faraday88 .

[gravitational_aether]

Those are just guesses in relation to dark energy. What is not a guess is simple formulas that we can use to measure work being done.

This thread is about aether physics and gravity is the reactive energy of the aether.

Therefore, discussing whether or not the aetheric rebound is potential energy or not IS discussing the aether physics, which is the topic of this thread.

The other thread I started is for only that topic, but this thread is more broad but still would include discussing the reality of potential energy of the aether.

We'll just leave it at that, it is on record that you refuse to answer this question:

If we only put in 9.81 joules as an indisputable mathematically calculable fact, where did the other 23.92659 joules of potential energy came from? Did we store that too when we lifted the ball to 1 meter and expended only 9.81 joules of potential energy? We input 9.81 joules and 23.92659 joules were covertly smuggled into the ball when we weren't looking in a fashion that is so slick that the math formula couldn't even see it coming. Or, is the most simple and rational explanation that on each bounce, a dipole is formed, which lets gravitational potential energy do work, which is completely independent and different from the work we expended to lift it to begin with?

Your refusal is not just implied, but is explicitly stated by you saying you don't want to talk about it.

Since you don't answer it, my statement that the aether rebounding is the potential energy that does work and it is not from an unaccounted for potential energy that came from us - remains uncontested. Stating the potential energy comes from us when we lift the object does not refute what I said since I provided the math - it is uncontested because you refuse to demonstrate either mathematically or otherwise why my statement is false.

Basically, the math has demonstrated that the energy or work done is not an intrinsic property of the mass - it is mathematically proven with simple formulas that it is external from the person that lifted it meaning that Tesla is right - not just because Tesla said so, but because the mathematics shows quite simply that 300+% work was done that didn't come from the person lifting the ball, therefore, if it is not us, it is from the environment.

This post doesn't ask you to answer my questions that you don't want to answer, it is just to summarize what has been demonstrated mathematically and it reveals the errors of Einstein's static and dead gravity model. You countered me early on saying it does have a reaction showing that Einstein does believe in the reaction - I stated I'm talking about a reaction that can be used to do work, you stated that gravity does not contribute to work and I mathematically proved that there is a lot of extra work happening that is a mathematical or logical impossibility to have come from the person lifting the ball.

So anyway, you counted me and I explained myself with mathematical proof. If someone calls you on any of your points, the courteous thing to do is to provide answers to questions to actually substantiate what you are saying instead of simply repeating things over and over that have nothing to do with the questions.

For anyone else reading this - the reason I am so adamant about this is because what I am saying is the truth and this forum is all about energy science. So many people have tried to find the truth about "overunity" devices and there are only a handful of people around the world that are showing anything real. And, everything that is authentic are all open dissipative systems that are able to have a free interchange with an influx of Potential Energy from the environment. The belief in potential energy that does work after someone lifts an object is a belief in isolation or closed system thermodynamics that are cut off to any other source of potential. Therefore, "overunity" is an impossibility under those models.

These principles are universal and do not just apply to the bouncing ball example.

When you charge a coil, you are expending x watt seconds per second in energy to charge the coil. What you get out of what you put in IS the charging of the coil against the wire's resistance, etc... it can push a magnet on a wheel or otherwise. What we got out of it was ALREADY received by us up to the time that we terminate the charge to the coil. When we shut it off, that magnetic field (which is polarized and condensed aether) has displaced a certain amount of non-polarized or symmetrical aether and that aether pushes back on this organized field - so when we turn off power to a coil, the rebound of the aether is pushing the organized and polarized aether (magnetic field) back through the windings and we get a spike. That spike is voltage with very little current and can be stored in a capacitor do do work. That spike is NOT the same energy that we used to charge the coil - it is new potential that came back to us by creating a potential difference in the environment between the coil and the local space that it is sitting in and that allowed the aetheric source potential to be sucked into the coil.

The Veljko oscillator is the same. The COP is calculated at about 5.0. Gravitational potential energy has been calculated to have contributed up to 80% meaning out of all work done, only 20% came from the person pushing the pendulum. That is a ratio of 1 in 5 out or 5.0 COP. It isn't a 1:1 so it is very blatant. Even if we just push the pendulum once, that is all the work we put into it. The rest comes from gravitational potential energy (aether) every time the system regauges itself or establishes a new dipole with its relationship between itself and its environment. During those transition points, gravitational potential energy is able to be used to perform work and has nothing to do with potential energy stored in the pendulum from our original push.

Bouncing ball same thing.

Heat pumps same thing - we expend just enough to operate the compressor and circulate the refrigerant. Environmental heat moves for free towards the cold and we get multiple units of heat movement worth of work compared to the btu equivelant in watt hours that we drew from the wall.

If work done after our contribution came from the operator of the system by storing potential by the work we do, if it were true, it would be a universal principle. But, in many of these examples, we see that it breaks down as a principle meaning that it is actually not a law, principle or fact at all but is simply an error in logic and judgement of the facts.

Using a comparison between 1 in and 1 out can confuse some people into thinking it must be from us - but that all changes the moment we have a system that asymmetrically resets itself and establishes a new dipole, which allows free environmental potential energy to enter and perform real work that is in excess of our contribution so that is prima facie evidence that any talk of "storing potential" is patently false 100% of the time.

I am really not trying to be confrontational to anyone - I am just committed that anyone that might be new to this field that are looking for answers are actually able to understand what the real parameters are that an "overunity" system operates by and the false belief that that work done after our contribution comes from potential energy that we magically contributed is not one of them.

The entire concept here is one of the most important underlying principles of occult aether physics because the questions always is - "how do we tap the aether to power our devices" - well, it is not a mystery or occult at all - again: every time the system regauges itself or establishes a new dipole with its relationship between itself and its environment. During those transition points, gravitational potential energy is able to be used to perform work

I just hope this doesn't fall on deaf ears and that new comers see that it is a known principle and is not a mystery at all and I'm not just talking from a theory viewpoints, I have working experience building things that that are completely in alignment with everything I have posted. Therefore, I'm not a desk jockey, I build things that work. That is only possible when we understand the real principles. The only kind of devices that can be built that have a foundation of isolation or closed system equilibrium thermodynamics where the belief is that any work done must have come from potential energy that we somehow stored will only result in a machine that kills itself off steadily until it is in equilibrium with its environment since external potential cannot contribute.

A kid on a swing being pushed by his friend is demonstrating more about the nature of the aether in 1 minute than Einstein did in his entire life.

Aether is what waves in a double slit experiment.

[Aaron Murakami]

You started a thread in order to discuss the potential energy of the aether. The topic of this thread has to do with the big bang falacy and aether theory.

The was no such thing as a big bang.

The universe, or the local universe, is a larger version of a black hole polar jet.

Dark energy is aether emitted into the universal jet.

Those are just guesses in relation to dark energy. What is not a guess is simple formulas that we can use to measure work being done.

This thread is about aether physics and gravity is the reactive energy of the aether.

Therefore, discussing whether or not the aetheric rebound is potential energy or not IS discussing the aether physics, which is the topic of this thread.

The other thread I started is for only that topic, but this thread is more broad but still would include discussing the reality of potential energy of the aether.

We'll just leave it at that, it is on record that you refuse to answer this question:

If we only put in 9.81 joules as an indisputable mathematically calculable fact, where did the other 23.92659 joules of potential energy came from? Did we store that too when we lifted the ball to 1 meter and expended only 9.81 joules of potential energy? We input 9.81 joules and 23.92659 joules were covertly smuggled into the ball when we weren't looking in a fashion that is so slick that the math formula couldn't even see it coming. Or, is the most simple and rational explanation that on each bounce, a dipole is formed, which lets gravitational potential energy do work, which is completely independent and different from the work we expended to lift it to begin with?

Your refusal is not just implied, but is explicitly stated by you saying you don't want to talk about it.

Since you don't answer it, my statement that the aether rebounding is the potential energy that does work and it is not from an unaccounted for potential energy that came from us - remains uncontested. Stating the potential energy comes from us when we lift the object does not refute what I said since I provided the math - it is uncontested because you refuse to demonstrate either mathematically or otherwise why my statement is false.

Basically, the math has demonstrated that the energy or work done is not an intrinsic property of the mass - it is mathematically proven with simple formulas that it is external from the person that lifted it meaning that Tesla is right - not just because Tesla said so, but because the mathematics shows quite simply that 300+% work was done that didn't come from the person lifting the ball, therefore, if it is not us, it is from the environment.

This post doesn't ask you to answer my questions that you don't want to answer, it is just to summarize what has been demonstrated mathematically and it reveals the errors of Einstein's static and dead gravity model. You countered me early on saying it does have a reaction showing that Einstein does believe in the reaction - I stated I'm talking about a reaction that can be used to do work, you stated that gravity does not contribute to work and I mathematically proved that there is a lot of extra work happening that is a mathematical or logical impossibility to have come from the person lifting the ball.

So anyway, you counted me and I explained myself with mathematical proof. If someone calls you on any of your points, the courteous thing to do is to provide answers to questions to actually substantiate what you are saying instead of simply repeating things over and over that have nothing to do with the questions.

For anyone else reading this - the reason I am so adamant about this is because what I am saying is the truth and this forum is all about energy science. So many people have tried to find the truth about "overunity" devices and there are only a handful of people around the world that are showing anything real. And, everything that is authentic are all open dissipative systems that are able to have a free interchange with an influx of Potential Energy from the environment. The belief in potential energy that does work after someone lifts an object is a belief in isolation or closed system thermodynamics that are cut off to any other source of potential. Therefore, "overunity" is an impossibility under those models.

These principles are universal and do not just apply to the bouncing ball example.

When you charge a coil, you are expending x watt seconds per second in energy to charge the coil. What you get out of what you put in IS the charging of the coil against the wire's resistance, etc... it can push a magnet on a wheel or otherwise. What we got out of it was ALREADY received by us up to the time that we terminate the charge to the coil. When we shut it off, that magnetic field (which is polarized and condensed aether) has displaced a certain amount of non-polarized or symmetrical aether and that aether pushes back on this organized field - so when we turn off power to a coil, the rebound of the aether is pushing the organized and polarized aether (magnetic field) back through the windings and we get a spike. That spike is voltage with very little current and can be stored in a capacitor do do work. That spike is NOT the same energy that we used to charge the coil - it is new potential that came back to us by creating a potential difference in the environment between the coil and the local space that it is sitting in and that allowed the aetheric source potential to be sucked into the coil.

The Veljko oscillator is the same. The COP is calculated at about 5.0. Gravitational potential energy has been calculated to have contributed up to 80% meaning out of all work done, only 20% came from the person pushing the pendulum. That is a ratio of 1 in 5 out or 5.0 COP. It isn't a 1:1 so it is very blatant. Even if we just push the pendulum once, that is all the work we put into it. The rest comes from gravitational potential energy (aether) every time the system regauges itself or establishes a new dipole with its relationship between itself and its environment. During those transition points, gravitational potential energy is able to be used to perform work and has nothing to do with potential energy stored in the pendulum from our original push.

Bouncing ball same thing.

Heat pumps same thing - we expend just enough to operate the compressor and circulate the refrigerant. Environmental heat moves for free towards the cold and we get multiple units of heat movement worth of work compared to the btu equivelant in watt hours that we drew from the wall.

If work done after our contribution came from the operator of the system by storing potential by the work we do, if it were true, it would be a universal principle. But, in many of these examples, we see that it breaks down as a principle meaning that it is actually not a law, principle or fact at all but is simply an error in logic and judgement of the facts.

Using a comparison between 1 in and 1 out can confuse some people into thinking it must be from us - but that all changes the moment we have a system that asymmetrically resets itself and establishes a new dipole, which allows free environmental potential energy to enter and perform real work that is in excess of our contribution so that is prima facie evidence that any talk of "storing potential" is patently false 100% of the time.

I am really not trying to be confrontational to anyone - I am just committed that anyone that might be new to this field that are looking for answers are actually able to understand what the real parameters are that an "overunity" system operates by and the false belief that that work done after our contribution comes from potential energy that we magically contributed is not one of them.

The entire concept here is one of the most important underlying principles of occult aether physics because the questions always is - "how do we tap the aether to power our devices" - well, it is not a mystery or occult at all - again: every time the system regauges itself or establishes a new dipole with its relationship between itself and its environment. During those transition points, gravitational potential energy is able to be used to perform work

I just hope this doesn't fall on deaf ears and that new comers see that it is a known principle and is not a mystery at all and I'm not just talking from a theory viewpoints, I have working experience building things that that are completely in alignment with everything I have posted. Therefore, I'm not a desk jockey, I build things that work. That is only possible when we understand the real principles. The only kind of devices that can be built that have a foundation of isolation or closed system equilibrium thermodynamics where the belief is that any work done must have come from potential energy that we somehow stored will only result in a machine that kills itself off steadily until it is in equilibrium with its environment since external potential cannot contribute.

A kid on a swing being pushed by his friend is demonstrating more about the nature of the aether in 1 minute than Einstein did in his entire life.

[gravitational_aether]

Everything you say is 100% irrelevant to the questions asked.

You ignored 100% of everything and went back to your conventional talking points like a politician.

You also contradict yourself - you claim Aether occupies space and must therefore have mass and you turn around and quote Einstein saying space without aether is unthinkable. That means if there is no aether, there is no space because like I said, it is the aether that defines space. Aether doesn't occupy space, aether makes up the space. As Einstein said: "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable."

So please stop playing politician and answer this:

If we only put in 9.81 joules as an indisputable mathematically calculable fact, where did the other 23.92659 joules of potential energy came from? Did we store that too when we lifted the ball to 1 meter and expended only 9.81 joules of potential energy? We input 9.81 joules and 23.92659 joules were covertly smuggled into the ball when we weren't looking in a fashion that is so slick that the math formula couldn't even see it coming. Or, is the most simple and rational explanation that on each bounce, a dipole is formed, which lets gravitational potential energy do work, which is completely independent and different from the work we expended to lift it to begin with?

You started a thread in order to discuss the potential energy of the aether. The topic of this thread has to do with the big bang falacy and aether theory.

The was no such thing as a big bang.

The universe, or the local universe, is a larger version of a black hole polar jet.

Dark energy is aether emitted into the universal jet.

[Aaron Murakami]

General relativity is an aether theory.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' Einstein: "Ether and Relativity"

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable"

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

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.

Curved space time is the state of displacement of the aether.

The geometrical representation of gravity as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as displaced aether.

Everything you say is 100% irrelevant to the questions asked.

You ignored 100% of everything and went back to your conventional talking points like a politician.

You also contradict yourself - you claim Aether occupies space and must therefore have mass and you turn around and quote Einstein saying space without aether is unthinkable. That means if there is no aether, there is no space because like I said, it is the aether that defines space. Aether doesn't occupy space, aether makes up the space. As Einstein said: "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable."

So please stop playing politician and answer this:

If we only put in 9.81 joules as an indisputable mathematically calculable fact, where did the other 23.92659 joules of potential energy came from? Did we store that too when we lifted the ball to 1 meter and expended only 9.81 joules of potential energy? We input 9.81 joules and 23.92659 joules were covertly smuggled into the ball when we weren't looking in a fashion that is so slick that the math formula couldn't even see it coming. Or, is the most simple and rational explanation that on each bounce, a dipole is formed, which lets gravitational potential energy do work, which is completely independent and different from the work we expended to lift it to begin with?

[gravitational_aether]

The basic formulas show that we used up everything in the lift as shown by W = Fd. Therefore, any potential energy that performs work after we let go in no way, shape or form can come from the person that lifted the object. Because we are no longer contributing any potential or work after we let go of the object at the peak of it's lift, it is completely common sense that potential energy that is put to work when the object hits the ground came from gravitational potential energy.

You have done nothing but evade the questions that if honestly answered would simply ignite Einstein's ideas into a puff of smoke. How convenient for you.

2 units of work are done. W = Fd shows clearly what our only contribution is - only 1 unit of work. We contribute nothing more after we let go yet magically, more work is done and that potential energy came from us, even though we used up all our contribution to lift the object?? You admit the aether pushes on an object, yet the work came from us to impact the object into the ground even though we aren't contributing anything else when we let go.

Therefore, to buy into the idea that the potential to do impact work when the ball hits the ground means that I am a magician and am involved with magical thinking. I performed 2 units of work, yet we can only mathematically calculate and account for the fact that I contributed only 1 when lifting the object.

If we are to explore the Aether like grown ups, we have to actually discuss the relevant points that we can measure and discuss them in sequence of what happens. Talk is cheap and continuing to say you don't want to talk about potential energy, which is the very nature of the Aether in a thread about Aetheric physics is completely silly.

Basically, your claim that the potential energy comes from us fails to hold any water when we do discuss potential energy because the sequence of events and the math shows that there is potential energy available to the object falling and it enters the object after we stopped contributing any more work to the object meaning the rebounding aether IS the source of the Potential Energy that does work when the gravitational force against the object on the ground causes heat, etc... It isn't my opinion, it is a mathematical fact and that is what we can prove when we DO talk about potential energy.

This is why I say this is an argument that shows that "storing potential energy" is 100% false 100% of the time because when we do the calculations, it is self apparent.

Not wanting to talk about potential energy in regards to the aether is like saying that you don't want to talk temperatures if we're talking about heating elements. Potential energy is so intrinsic to the Aether and the only reason anyone discussing the aether wouldn't want to discuss potential energy is because it reveals that the idea that potential energy came from the person that lifted the object is fraudulent and it reveals that conventional physics has no idea what the difference is between potential and energy to begin with.

This isn't some ambiguous topic that we can't know the answer. We can take a piece of chalk and scribble the evidence right there on the chalkboard. When we are talking about WORK and POTENTIAL ENERGY that does work, these are concrete measurements that we can make to see the reality.

2 units of work are accomplished and we can only calculate that our contribution is W = Fd, which is 1 unit of work. There is no human being on the planet that can show with math or logic (rhetoric and belief systems don't count) how 2 units of work were accomplished by us lifting the object when only 1/2 of the total work came from us.

Further more, we can disintegrate entirely the mythical belief that the potential energy came from us if we have a bouncing ball. If we lift a ball to a meter and it is 90% efficient in bouncing, over a half a dozen bounces, it is already at a high COP. That is HUNDREDS of % more work compared to what we input. We only have to add the W = Fd each time the ball bounces up to sum the cumulative work done and it is WAY more than the lifting work we contributed.

If the potential energy that did work each time the ball lost 10% of each bounce when it hit the ground came from us, how did it multiply MANY TIMES MORE than what we contributed?

If we have a large 1kg rubber bouncing ball that is 90% efficient in bouncing and lift it to a meter, W = 1 x 9.81 x 1 = 9.81 joules of real work. That is the only contribution we gave and nothing more. We let go and it bounces to 90% of the height or 90 cm.

1st free bounce in lifting work = 1 x 9.81 x 0.9 = 8.829 joules work entropy

2nd bounce 90% of 90cm = 0.81 meters, w = 1 x 9.81 x 0.81 = 7.9461 joules of work entropy

3rd bounce 90% of 81cm = 0.729 meters, w = 1 x 9.81 x 0.729 = 7.15149 joules of work entropy

Total work done = our input 9.81 + 8.829 + 7.9461 + 7.15149 joules of total real energy that contributed to the entropy of the universe = 33.73659 joules of total mathematically calculable work done as an indisputable fact. Actually there is more work done than that since all the impact loss is still work, just not intended work.

33.73659 joules of intended work of lifting work with the ball bouncing divided by only our mathematically calculable work of 9.81 joules = 3.439 or COP of 3.439 or 343.9% net gain in real work energy that contributed to the entropy of the universe compared to our contribution.

It is easy to see how a conventional thinker can be confused and believe that potential energy came from the person that lifted if the object is 0% efficient in bouncing such as a ball of clay. We put in 1 unit to lift it, it drops and 1 unit of impact heat is created that is 2 total units of work so since the input and output work equal the same amount of work, some people can be deceived into believing that the potential energy that did the impact work came from us.

However, when we use an example where the object, machine, system can asymmetrical regauge itself, which establishes a new dipole repeatedly between itself and the ground, of course at diminishing heights since it is under 100% efficient (but still over 1.0 COP), we can see that we put in 9.81 joules but after only the 3rd self bounce, total work accomplished was 33.73659 joules.

So we put in 9.81 joules and if we take that away from total work done, that means 23.92659 joules of total potential energy performed 23.92659 joules of EXTRA actual mathematically calculable work. We put in 9.81 but 23.92659 EXTRA potential energy was able to perform work.

If we only put in 9.81 joules as an indisputable mathematically calculable fact, where did the other 23.92659 joules of potential energy came from? Did we store that too when we lifted the ball to 1 meter and expended only 9.81 joules of potential energy? We input 9.81 joules and 23.92659 joules were covertly smuggled into the ball when we weren't looking in a fashion that is so slick that the math formula couldn't even see it coming. Or, is the most simple and rational explanation that on each bounce, a dipole is formed, which lets gravitational potential energy do work, which is completely independent and different from the work we expended to lift it to begin with?

Remember Prigogine winning the Noble Prize here: "Prigogine has called these systems dissipative systems, because they are formed and maintained by the dissipative processes which take place because of the exchange of energy between the system and its environment."

General relativity is an aether theory.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' Einstein: "Ether and Relativity"

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable"

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

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.

Curved spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether.

The geometrical representation of gravity as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as displaced aether.

[Aaron Murakami]

Of course the displaced aether still pushes down on the object when it is on the ground.

As I have said repeatedly, if I was interested in discussing the potential energy associated with the displaced aether I would be posting in your thread you started to discuss it.

The basic formulas show that we used up everything in the lift as shown by W = Fd. Therefore, any potential energy that performs work after we let go in no way, shape or form can come from the person that lifted the object. Because we are no longer contributing any potential or work after we let go of the object at the peak of it's lift, it is completely common sense that potential energy that is put to work when the object hits the ground came from gravitational potential energy.

You have done nothing but evade the questions that if honestly answered would simply ignite Einstein's ideas into a puff of smoke. How convenient for you.

2 units of work are done. W = Fd shows clearly what our only contribution is - only 1 unit of work. We contribute nothing more after we let go yet magically, more work is done and that potential energy came from us, even though we used up all our contribution to lift the object?? You admit the aether pushes on an object, yet the work came from us to impact the object into the ground even though we aren't contributing anything else when we let go.

Therefore, to buy into the idea that the potential to do impact work when the ball hits the ground means that I am a magician and am involved with magical thinking. I performed 2 units of work, yet we can only mathematically calculate and account for the fact that I contributed only 1 when lifting the object.

If we are to explore the Aether like grown ups, we have to actually discuss the relevant points that we can measure and discuss them in sequence of what happens. Talk is cheap and continuing to say you don't want to talk about potential energy, which is the very nature of the Aether in a thread about Aetheric physics is completely silly.

Basically, your claim that the potential energy comes from us fails to hold any water when we do discuss potential energy because the sequence of events and the math shows that there is potential energy available to the object falling and it enters the object after we stopped contributing any more work to the object meaning the rebounding aether IS the source of the Potential Energy that does work when the gravitational force against the object on the ground causes heat, etc... It isn't my opinion, it is a mathematical fact and that is what we can prove when we DO talk about potential energy.

This is why I say this is an argument that shows that "storing potential energy" is 100% false 100% of the time because when we do the calculations, it is self apparent.

Not wanting to talk about potential energy in regards to the aether is like saying that you don't want to talk temperatures if we're talking about heating elements. Potential energy is so intrinsic to the Aether and the only reason anyone discussing the aether wouldn't want to discuss potential energy is because it reveals that the idea that potential energy came from the person that lifted the object is fraudulent and it reveals that conventional physics has no idea what the difference is between potential and energy to begin with.

This isn't some ambiguous topic that we can't know the answer. We can take a piece of chalk and scribble the evidence right there on the chalkboard. When we are talking about WORK and POTENTIAL ENERGY that does work, these are concrete measurements that we can make to see the reality.

2 units of work are accomplished and we can only calculate that our contribution is W = Fd, which is 1 unit of work. There is no human being on the planet that can show with math or logic (rhetoric and belief systems don't count) how 2 units of work were accomplished by us lifting the object when only 1/2 of the total work came from us.

Further more, we can disintegrate entirely the mythical belief that the potential energy came from us if we have a bouncing ball. If we lift a ball to a meter and it is 90% efficient in bouncing, over a half a dozen bounces, it is already at a high COP. That is HUNDREDS of % more work compared to what we input. We only have to add the W = Fd each time the ball bounces up to sum the cumulative work done and it is WAY more than the lifting work we contributed.

If the potential energy that did work each time the ball lost 10% of each bounce when it hit the ground came from us, how did it multiply MANY TIMES MORE than what we contributed?

If we have a large 1kg rubber bouncing ball that is 90% efficient in bouncing and lift it to a meter, W = 1 x 9.81 x 1 = 9.81 joules of real work. That is the only contribution we gave and nothing more. We let go and it bounces to 90% of the height or 90 cm.

1st free bounce in lifting work = 1 x 9.81 x 0.9 = 8.829 joules work entropy

2nd bounce 90% of 90cm = 0.81 meters, w = 1 x 9.81 x 0.81 = 7.9461 joules of work entropy

3rd bounce 90% of 81cm = 0.729 meters, w = 1 x 9.81 x 0.729 = 7.15149 joules of work entropy

Total work done = our input 9.81 + 8.829 + 7.9461 + 7.15149 joules of total real energy that contributed to the entropy of the universe = 33.73659 joules of total mathematically calculable work done as an indisputable fact. Actually there is more work done than that since all the impact loss is still work, just not intended work.

33.73659 joules of intended work of lifting work with the ball bouncing divided by only our mathematically calculable work of 9.81 joules = 3.439 or COP of 3.439 or 343.9% net gain in real work energy that contributed to the entropy of the universe compared to our contribution.

It is easy to see how a conventional thinker can be confused and believe that potential energy came from the person that lifted if the object is 0% efficient in bouncing such as a ball of clay. We put in 1 unit to lift it, it drops and 1 unit of impact heat is created that is 2 total units of work so since the input and output work equal the same amount of work, some people can be deceived into believing that the potential energy that did the impact work came from us.

However, when we use an example where the object, machine, system can asymmetrical regauge itself, which establishes a new dipole repeatedly between itself and the ground, of course at diminishing heights since it is under 100% efficient (but still over 1.0 COP), we can see that we put in 9.81 joules but after only the 3rd self bounce, total work accomplished was 33.73659 joules.

So we put in 9.81 joules and if we take that away from total work done, that means 23.92659 joules of total potential energy performed 23.92659 joules of EXTRA actual mathematically calculable work. We put in 9.81 but 23.92659 EXTRA potential energy was able to perform work.

If we only put in 9.81 joules as an indisputable mathematically calculable fact, where did the other 23.92659 joules of potential energy came from? Did we store that too when we lifted the ball to 1 meter and expended only 9.81 joules of potential energy? We input 9.81 joules and 23.92659 joules were covertly smuggled into the ball when we weren't looking in a fashion that is so slick that the math formula couldn't even see it coming. Or, is the most simple and rational explanation that on each bounce, a dipole is formed, which lets gravitational potential energy do work, which is completely independent and different from the work we expended to lift it to begin with?

Remember Prigogine winning the Noble Prize here: "Prigogine has called these systems dissipative systems, because they are formed and maintained by the dissipative processes which take place because of the exchange of energy between the system and its environment."

[gravitational_aether]

Of course the displaced aether still pushes down on the object when it is on the ground.

As I have said repeatedly, if I was interested in discussing the potential energy associated with the displaced aether I would be posting in your thread you started to discuss it.

[Aaron Murakami]

Here is a very qualified anti-relativity theory:

http://www.energyscienceforum.com/eric-dollard/138-theory-anti-relativity-eric-dollard.html

It should be of interest to anyone that realizes the multiple flaws in Einstein's theories, which means they cannot be considered theories anymore. They don't just get relegated to the level of a hypothesis or postulate either, they should be tossed out as nothing more than a mistake.

[Aaron Murakami]

To calculate lifting work, W = Fd, W = Force x distance, W = (mass x gravity) (distance)

To calculate potential energy for an object at a certain height, PE = mgh, PE = mass x gravity x height

To calculate impact work, whatever PE is will be the W on impact.


What we see is that the Potential Energy for an object at a certain height is based on mass x gravity x height. It just happens to be the same value as the formula to determine the lifting work because the work is against the downward force of gravity. Therefore, on the way down after the object is dropped, the force of gravity moving with the object now will perform the same amount of work when there is resistance to the object moving. That is obviously why the W and PE formulas show the same amount.

If 1 joule is used to lift it and there is 1 joule of potential at the peak of the lift and 1 joule in impact work are done, that is 2 joules of total work.

To address the conventional claim that potential energy comes from the person that lifted the object...

For the potential energy to have come from us in order to do an equal amount of work on impact, the lifting formula would actually have to show that we actually expended twice as much energy to lift the object 2W, yet only 1/2 was used to lift it while 1/2 was reserved for later work. If the potential energy came from us, it would have to have come from us during the time the object was lifted.

How can we exert a certain amount of work without all of it being used up?

If it takes 1 joule to lift the object to a certain height, we would actually have to exert 2 joules to lift it - 1 joule went to lifting work while 1 joule utilized ninja like tactics to avoid being used during the lift and somehow wound up "stored" in the object. This would have to be the case if potential energy that did work when the object dropped and hit the ground came from us. It obviously can't come from us after we let go of the object, which means it had to come from us during the lift. (If the potential came from us for impact work).

Again, if potential energy to do work on impact came from us, 2 joules, we would have to expend 2 joules of work to lift it even though 1 joule was needed for the lift - so that 1 joule of potential energy is there to do more work when the object drops.

The claim of storing potential falls apart. There are 2 measurable amounts of work, yet we expended 1 to lift it and we mysteriously also provided 1 unit of potential to do further work. Even if we did store potential energy in an object when we lifted it, how is that 2 units of work are being done and we expended 1?

It has been discussed that the aether pushes the object to the ground, yet the work done on impact comes from potential that didn't come from gravity but from us. I think it is obvious that this doesn't add up because believing that gravity pushes the object, yet gravity isn't contributing work are two diametrically opposed concepts. That is one of the major self-evident flaws in conventional physics.

They claim we store potential in an object but simply cannot account for the extra work done from our lift since the only thing we expend was to lift the object, yet another equal unit of work was done. "Storing potential" is only a myth that is repeated over and over without the ability to show why it mysteriously comes from the person lifting the object, yet we can't account for both units of work in the lift we did. It is magical faerie dust sprinkled in our eyes.

The stored potential is claimed to have magically appeared out of nowhere, came from the person that lifted the object, yet W = Fd shows that we only expended enough energy to lift the object, yet twice that amount of work in total are done, all while admitting gravity pushed the object down and impacted it to the ground, yet gravity didn't do work. Now, that's magic!

[Aaron Murakami]

I have said, at least ten times now, that it is the displaced aether which pushes the object to the ground.

If you lift the object high enough it is no longer pushed to the ground. By your definition of potential energy the further from the earth you get the more potential energy there should be so there is no distance from the earth you can lift the object and not have it return to the surface if the earth.

I have no interest in discussing this in terms of potential energy. You started another thread to discuss the potential energy associated with gravity. As you can see I have yet to post in that thread.

It is quite clear that you repeat yourself but you don't answer the question.

The aether pushing the object to the ground is one thing we both agree on. You have repeated this over and over as if that is actually answering anything. But it really doesn't answer anything. I have also said about ten times now that I agree with that. Why you keep repeating it makes no sense if I already agree with you that the displaced aether pushes the objects to the ground.

The question is not if the aether is pushing the object to the ground - the question is if that aetheric push is potential energy or not - the obvious answer from your perspective is no. You already said the potential came from the person lifting the object meaning the rebounding aether is not contributing anything - even though you admit it is what pushes the object back to the ground. I was only seeing if you were willing to explicitly state that both units of potential came from the person who lifted the object. I won't ask you again, it is obvious that is what you are stating.

And you stated the potential energy comes from us lifting the object. You already admitted this.

The distinction has also already been made by me that this push of the aether on an object to push it to the ground is inside of the influence Earth's gravity.

You are manipulating what I said about potential energy - your example is a non sequitur - false argument to state that based on my definition of potential energy that we can lift it to any height and still have it drop. That is downright ridiculous to deduce that from my definition of potential energy. We are talking about lifting objects inside of Earth's gravity where the aether is rebounding.

Actually, if the potential energy is from us lifting it and we impart that potential to the object, it would be the opposite. If the potential came from us as you claim, that means that there would be no distance from the Earth that you could lift the object and not have it return. You said so yourself, the potential energy came from us. Therefore, it would be independent of whether there is rebounding aether or not.

In my perspective, the potential comes from the rebounding of the aether and not from us. So in reality, according to what I said, that means that when the rebounding effect diminishes the further you get from the Earth's surface, there is a point where it will not return because there is no aether rebounding back towards the surface. This is because the potential energy to have an object and perform work actually is based on the aether rebounding and is not from us. If it is from us, we do not need the aether.

Basically, the argument you are making against what I said with the example of lifting an object to any distance would fall back down is actually a valid argument against your own statement that the potential comes from us. Think about it, if it is from us, then it would actually be independent of the rebounding of the aether. Again, your argument about that actually works against what you are claiming and actually proves my point.

Discussing the potential energy that you are so against is what is needed to mathematically show how much total work was done and to logically show that after our input ceases, there is more work done that didn't come from us. To discuss the potential energy and to show mathematical examples of it is an intellectually honest way to see what the obvious facts are. To avoid that is curiously suspicious.

Therefore, what you are suggesting is.

1. You claim the aether is elastic and rebounds back to where the mass displaced it from. (I agree - any further repeating of this from you over and over only shows you are avoiding answering the real questions that I asked).

2. You claim the potential energy comes from us when we lift the object. (I disagree but that is fine)

3. Therefore, you claim if we perform 1 unit of work to lift an object and when we drop the object an ADDITIONAL 1 unit of work is accomplished for a total of 2 units of work - because you claim the work that happens when an object hits the ground comes from us, you are therefore claiming that all the Potential Energy needed to perform these 2 units of work came from us. (The math shows 2 units of work are done and it also reveals that our input terminated after we let go of the object and let it drop - discussing the potential energy reveals that the work done when the object is dropped actually came from somewhere other than our contribution).

The question is: By what mechanism has our 1 unit of work input been multiplied 2-fold in order for all the potential to have come from us? It is commonly said that we are "storing potential energy in the object", but there is no evidence that there is any intrinsic change in the object itself to have this mysterious potential energy stored in it. The object on the ground or at 1 meter in the air remains unchanged. The mass of the object is still the same. The weight of object is also the same. Only the potential difference has changed between the object and the ground in terms of height. If you can answer this question, then you will be the first person in the history of the world to show how potential energy came from the person that lifted the object even though their contribution stopped after they expended energy to lift the object. They have no more input after that so if you can explain this, then you are the first to ever do so.

When the object is dropped, you even claim the aether is rebounding and is pushing the object to the ground. So, you admit mass is being pushed by gravity. When the object hits the ground, gravity applies a FORCE on this mass against the ground.

Admitting that the aether pushes the object to the ground white simultaneously claiming the potential came from us when gravity in fact does apply a force on the mass against the ground and that resistance is work, you are believing in two diametrically incompatible concepts at the same time.

[gravitational_aether]

You have stated that gravity cannot provide potential to do work on a mass being lifted from Earth in the gravitational "field".

Therefore, you are claiming that the work in joules of energy to lift the object and the work in joules of energy upon the impact with the ground come from the person lifting the object.

This is your claim - True or false?

I have said, at least ten times now, that it is the displaced aether which pushes the object to the ground.

If you lift the object high enough it is no longer pushed to the ground. By your definition of potential energy the further from the earth you get the more potential energy there should be so there is no distance from the earth you can lift the object and not have it return to the surface if the earth.

I have no interest in discussing this in terms of potential energy. You started another thread to discuss the potential energy associated with gravity. As you can see I have yet to post in that thread.