Big-Bang falacies and the Occult Aetheric Physics reality.

[gravitational_aether]

You're preaching to the choir. I've been explaining that for years and have explained that exactly multiple times in this thread. NASA is not discovering anything new and you're not telling me anything I didn't already know. Mass displaces aether and the rebounding aether pushes back on the mass. That is what gravity is. That is what holds a solar system together, galaxy, etc... doesn't matter, the principle is universal. I've never said anything to the contrary.

Where we differ is that I have already showed the elementary child's math that demonstrates that the potential energy comes externally from the person that lifted the object. You somehow believe without demonstrating any logic or math to back it up that the aether pushes an object to the ground with force, yet it contributes no potential energy. How can there be a force without potential energy doing work as real work energy? It can't.

Being that the displacement effect it is a universal principle, it applies to ANYTHING with mass.

You said aether not only has mass, but occupies 3D space. To occupy space is to have a certain volume of displacement. That means according to your claim that aether has both mass and can occupy 3d space, it displaces space, which will thereby displace the surrounding aether in its environment and every other bit of aether will do the same.

Yet, although your aether occupies 3D space, it is somehow immune to displacing anything even though it has volume.

Can you explain that one? How can the aether occupy 3D space yet it does not displace anything?

Whoah oh oh it's Magic

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.

[Aaron Murakami]

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.

You're preaching to the choir. I've been explaining that for years and have explained that exactly multiple times in this thread. NASA is not discovering anything new and you're not telling me anything I didn't already know. Mass displaces aether and the rebounding aether pushes back on the mass. That is what gravity is. That is what holds a solar system together, galaxy, etc... doesn't matter, the principle is universal. I've never said anything to the contrary.

Where we differ is that I have already showed the elementary child's math that demonstrates that the potential energy comes externally from the person that lifted the object. You somehow believe without demonstrating any logic or math to back it up that the aether pushes an object to the ground with force, yet it contributes no potential energy. How can there be a force without potential energy doing work as real work energy? It can't.

Being that the displacement effect it is a universal principle, it applies to ANYTHING with mass.

You said aether not only has mass, but occupies 3D space. To occupy space is to have a certain volume of displacement. That means according to your claim that aether has both mass and can occupy 3d space, it displaces space, which will thereby displace the surrounding aether in its environment and every other bit of aether will do the same.

Yet, although your aether occupies 3D space, it is somehow immune to displacing anything even though it has volume.

Can you explain that one? How can the aether occupy 3D space yet it does not displace anything?

Whoah oh oh it's Magic

[gravitational_aether]

You have a double standard and contradict yourself.

1. You claim aether occupies 3D space.
2. You claim aether has mass.
3. You therefore admit that the aether is physical substance because it both has mass and occupies space and is therefore by definition = matter.

Being that it occupies 3D space according to you, it is displacing space and would therefore displace other aether and the aether would rebound back to where it was displaced from, which IS gravity.

Yet, the aether is mysteriously somehow immune to displacing other aether even though you simultaneously claim aether occupies 3d space with its mass.
It's magic!

The natural principles of nature only happen to apply when it benefits your argument, yet the principles of nature conveniently don't apply when it defeats your argument.

It is obvious you actually have no idea what you believe and are very confused by all the double standards and contradictions in your claims.

'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]

Aether and matter have mass.

Particles of matter are condensations of aether. Particles of matter exist in and displace the aether. The displaced aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward the particles of matter.

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

You have a double standard and contradict yourself.

1. You claim aether occupies 3D space.
2. You claim aether has mass.
3. You therefore admit that the aether is physical substance because it both has mass and occupies space and is therefore by definition = matter.

Being that it occupies 3D space according to you, it is displacing space and would therefore displace other aether and the aether would rebound back to where it was displaced from, which IS gravity.

Yet, the aether is mysteriously somehow immune to displacing other aether even though you simultaneously claim aether occupies 3d space with its mass.
It's magic!

The natural principles of nature only happen to apply when it benefits your argument, yet the principles of nature conveniently don't apply when it defeats your argument.

It is obvious you actually have no idea what you believe and are very confused by all the double standards and contradictions in your claims.

[gravitational_aether]

Matter is defined as that which has mass & volume.

You claim Aether has mass and occupies space, therefore, you claim Aether is matter.

Therefore, since you claim that Aether is matter, Aether would therefore be capable of displacing other Aether, which would be pushing back on itself causing gravity.

Everything you say is a contradiction.

Aether and matter have mass.

Particles of matter are condensations of aether. Particles of matter exist in and displace the aether. The displaced aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward the particles of matter.

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

[Aaron Murakami]

Matter is defined as that which has mass & volume.

You claim Aether has mass and occupies space, therefore, you claim Aether is matter.

Therefore, since you claim that Aether is matter, Aether would therefore be capable of displacing other Aether, which would be pushing back on itself causing gravity.

Everything you say is a contradiction.

[gravitational_aether]

Aether doesn't have gravity because it doesn't have mass.



Look at the nuclear density compared to the vacuum flux density. It is in that image.

That means if Aether has mass, then Aether is matter and if this is true, 1 cubic cm of space would have a gravitational attraction stronger than all the observable physical matter in the universe! It is beyond absurd to claim that Aether has mass.

If Aether has mass, it would displace itself and it would then be pushing back on itself and at the density that the Aether exists, there would be practically infinite resistance and nothing could move through the Aether.

You should join us in the year 2012 - space is pure massless charge.

What is presently postulated as non-baryonic dark matter is aether. Aether has mass.

Aether does not have gravitational attraction because displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter IS gravity.

[Aaron Murakami]

Aether doesn't have gravitational attraction.

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

Aether doesn't have gravity because it doesn't have mass.



Look at the nuclear density compared to the vacuum flux density. It is in that image.

That means if Aether has mass, then Aether is matter and if this is true, 1 cubic cm of space would have a gravitational attraction stronger than all the observable physical matter in the universe! It is beyond absurd to claim that Aether has mass.

If Aether has mass, it would displace itself and it would then be pushing back on itself and at the density that the Aether exists, there would be practically infinite resistance and nothing could move through the Aether.

You should join us in the year 2012 - space is pure massless charge.

[gravitational_aether]

That's rhetoric - I gave you references - one in Nature and one in Science News that clearly shows that the Aether is massless and that the vacuum IS pure massless charge - not filled with it, but IS what space is made of. Space IS pure massless charge and you cannot show otherwise.

You don't provide any references, because it is disinformation that you are pushing. Whether intentional or not, I don't know but disinformation nonetheless.

I provided ample resource and evidence that you can follow up on to see that the Aether is indeed massless. You have provided ZERO references giving any evidence that Aether has mass other than your belief that "stuff must have mass".

A pure high voltage electrostatic potential at two dielectric plates with water in between can cause mass to move (electrons from water bonds) - meaning the electrons can be ripped from the water and be caused to split and the electrons are electrostatically attracted to the positive hv plate. That is because it doesn't require mass to displace mass - pure massless charge can get mass to move or be displaced - indisputable experimentally proven fact.

You also contradict yourself repeatedly.

- you claim Einstein is all about the Aether when in reality, in 1905, he moved to prove that space is actually empty making the aether obsolete. So selectively taking things Einstein said out of the context of his entire work is a manipulation and a contradiction of what Einstein was really moving towards. This is common sense, look at all of the denial of Dayton Miller's experiments. He said if they were accurate, relativity is flushed down the drain. You are misrepresenting the facts and are taking everything out of the real historical context.

- you keep quoting Einstein saying "space without Aether is unthinkable." I like to quote that too - however, you miss the logic that if there is no Aether, there is no space. That means that space IS made of Aether, it doesn't occupy space. You see space as a container, but it is not a container. Can we say, "A fishtank without water is unthinkable"? Of course not, that is ridiculous because the fishtank exists whether there is water in it or not - that is because in that case, the fishtank is a container and a fishtank without water IS absolutely "thinkable". But can we say the same about space and Aether? No - and Einstein even says so - to think there can be space without Aether is UNTHINKABLE. If there is no Aether, there is no space.

- quoting Newton as if you are both on the same page about the Aether is dishonest. Newton admits the Aether could be either material or immaterial meaning it could be massless from his point of view - meaning, you cannot use Newton as a reference to prove your point because he leaves it open for the reader to decide and it is disinformation to infer anything else.

- you admit that gravity exerts a force on mass as it falls to the ground, yet the gravitational potential does no work. Hmmm, a force from something that has no potential energy to do work - that's funny. That is like saying a baseball player swung a bat and hit a ball, yet there was no potential energy from the batter that could do any work to hit that ball. It is also like saying the inductive spike coming back from a collapsing magnetic field in a coil can do no work. But the fact is that we can put it in a capacitor with a measurable amount of joules of potential energy and we can discharge it and light a bulb, power a coil, etc... Essentially, you are claiming that reactive energy can do no work, yet it is an indisputable fact that it can and does and is why you are afraid to discuss potential energy because it exposes your claims as false.

- I said early on that Einstein doesn't account for a rebounding Aether that can do work. You said he does account for a rebounding Aether but you say it does no work - meaning that you did not actually refute what I said, you actually agree with what I said.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1033[/ATTACH]

Look at the nuclear density compared to the vacuum flux density. It is in that image.

If the Aether had mass, the collective mass of the Aether would have gravity that is so strong that it would implode the entire universe. If Aether had mass, no two planets would be able to be held apart because the mass of the ultra high density of the Aether between them would suck the planets together. It would have more gravity than nuclear mass ever could! I don't believe in the big bang but if Aether did have mass, it would implode the universe to an infinitesimal point. So if you believe the Aether has mass, then in reality, the logical conclusion is that you actually do believe the universe started at a single point and then somehow exploded even though you claim there was no big bang. Aether with mass can only be consistent with the big bang model. And if Aether had mass, the universal expansion must slow down due to entropy from the momentum of the Aether causing so much friction against other Aether since mass against mass would offer a strong resistance, but we see the opposite, the universe's expansion accelerating. That can only happen with massless Aether.

That means if Aether has mass, then Aether is matter and if this is true, 1 cubic cm of space would have a gravitational attraction stronger than all the observable physical matter in the universe! It is beyond absurd to claim that Aether has mass.

What is presently postulated as non-barhyonic dark matter is aether. There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter. There is evidence galaxies move through what is referred to as dark matter. Galaxies moving through dark matter is the same thing as galaxies moving through the aether where the aether has mass.

Aether physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by matter.

Aether doesn't have gravitational attraction.

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

[Aaron Murakami]

"It is filled with 'stuff'". Meaning space is filled with stuff. Meaning aether has mass.

'Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image'
NASA - Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image

"This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected into a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. "This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results available online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter.""

The dark matter core does not defy explanation. The dark matter core is not a puzzle. The dark matter core is not difficult to explain. It is obviously clear what is going on.

Non-baryonic dark matter and galaxies are not anchored together. There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether. Aether has mass.

That's rhetoric - I gave you references - one in Nature and one in Science News that clearly shows that the Aether is massless and that the vacuum IS pure massless charge - not filled with it, but IS what space is made of. Space IS pure massless charge and you cannot show otherwise.

You don't provide any references, because it is disinformation that you are pushing. Whether intentional or not, I don't know but disinformation nonetheless.

I provided ample resource and evidence that you can follow up on to see that the Aether is indeed massless. You have provided ZERO references giving any evidence that Aether has mass other than your belief that "stuff must have mass".

A pure high voltage electrostatic potential at two dielectric plates with water in between can cause mass to move (electrons from water bonds) - meaning the electrons can be ripped from the water and be caused to split and the electrons are electrostatically attracted to the positive hv plate. That is because it doesn't require mass to displace mass - pure massless charge can get mass to move or be displaced - indisputable experimentally proven fact.

You also contradict yourself repeatedly.

- you claim Einstein is all about the Aether when in reality, in 1905, he moved to prove that space is actually empty making the aether obsolete. So selectively taking things Einstein said out of the context of his entire work is a manipulation and a contradiction of what Einstein was really moving towards. This is common sense, look at all of the denial of Dayton Miller's experiments. He said if they were accurate, relativity is flushed down the drain. You are misrepresenting the facts and are taking everything out of the real historical context.

- you keep quoting Einstein saying "space without Aether is unthinkable." I like to quote that too - however, you miss the logic that if there is no Aether, there is no space. That means that space IS made of Aether, it doesn't occupy space. You see space as a container, but it is not a container. Can we say, "A fishtank without water is unthinkable"? Of course not, that is ridiculous because the fishtank exists whether there is water in it or not - that is because in that case, the fishtank is a container and a fishtank without water IS absolutely "thinkable". But can we say the same about space and Aether? No - and Einstein even says so - to think there can be space without Aether is UNTHINKABLE. If there is no Aether, there is no space.

- quoting Newton as if you are both on the same page about the Aether is dishonest. Newton admits the Aether could be either material or immaterial meaning it could be massless from his point of view - meaning, you cannot use Newton as a reference to prove your point because he leaves it open for the reader to decide and it is disinformation to infer anything else.

- you admit that gravity exerts a force on mass as it falls to the ground, yet the gravitational potential does no work. Hmmm, a force from something that has no potential energy to do work - that's funny. That is like saying a baseball player swung a bat and hit a ball, yet there was no potential energy from the batter that could do any work to hit that ball. It is also like saying the inductive spike coming back from a collapsing magnetic field in a coil can do no work. But the fact is that we can put it in a capacitor with a measurable amount of joules of potential energy and we can discharge it and light a bulb, power a coil, etc... Essentially, you are claiming that reactive energy can do no work, yet it is an indisputable fact that it can and does and is why you are afraid to discuss potential energy because it exposes your claims as false.

- I said early on that Einstein doesn't account for a rebounding Aether that can do work. You said he does account for a rebounding Aether but you say it does no work - meaning that you did not actually refute what I said, you actually agree with what I said.



Look at the nuclear density compared to the vacuum flux density. It is in that image.

If the Aether had mass, the collective mass of the Aether would have gravity that is so strong that it would implode the entire universe. If Aether had mass, no two planets would be able to be held apart because the mass of the ultra high density of the Aether between them would suck the planets together. It would have more gravity than nuclear mass ever could! I don't believe in the big bang but if Aether did have mass, it would implode the universe to an infinitesimal point. So if you believe the Aether has mass, then in reality, the logical conclusion is that you actually do believe the universe started at a single point and then somehow exploded even though you claim there was no big bang. Aether with mass can only be consistent with the big bang model. And if Aether had mass, the universal expansion must slow down due to entropy from the momentum of the Aether causing so much friction against other Aether since mass against mass would offer a strong resistance, but we see the opposite, the universe's expansion accelerating. That can only happen with massless Aether.

That means if Aether has mass, then Aether is matter and if this is true, 1 cubic cm of space would have a gravitational attraction stronger than all the observable physical matter in the universe! It is beyond absurd to claim that Aether has mass.

[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.

[gravitational_aether]

There is a difference between mass and charge and that the Aether IS the source charge and you have not demonstrated that you know the difference. This "stuff" IS the charge and does not fill space, it IS the space.

Go back to the references I gave you instead of quoting giving a very general statement which is in no way a technical discussion that actually defines stuff as having mass. You are making that up out of thin air and are putting words into his mouth.

You create your own definition of what stuff means. "Stuff has mass." That is silly. Everyone's minds are filled with stuff, but that doesn't mean it has any mass. What is the stuff that dreams are made of? Tasks on a to-do list is "stuff to do" but the doing of the task itself is no something with mass. In your perception, if something is called "stuff" it must be a physical thing that occupies space but that is only your subjective perception that is creating that - there is no intrinsic mass to the concept of stuff. Stuff is one of the most ambiguous words in the English language and can mean basically anything we want it to mean. Laughlin is giving an analogy.

Instead of providing an ambiguous reference where you are defining something on behalf of the person who didn't define it themselves, provide a real reference that shows that Aether has mass. The only ones you can find if any are ones rooted in conventional beliefs but all of that has been overturned for many years. This is 2012, not 1900.



This is not ambiguous - Vacuum has no mass, but it has great massless charge and virtual particle charge flux. For proof that a charged vacuum is the seat of something in motion, see G.M. Graham and D.G. Lahoz, "Observation of static electromagnetic angular momentum in vacuo," Nature, Vol. 285, 15 .May 1980, pp. 154-155

Either is this: "A Spector Haunting Physics," Science News, Vol. 119, January 31, 1981, pp. 68-69

And in this field of vacuum energy, Tom Bearden is an authoritative reference himself and I'll quote him: "In present electromagnetics theory, charge and charged mass are falsely made identical"

"Vacuum, spacetime, and massless charge are all identical."

"spacetime is identically massless charge. (It is not "filled" with charge; rather, it is charge!)"

"Vacuum has no mass, but it has great massless charge"

"The speed of light in vacuum is assumed to be a fundamental constant of nature. Instead it is a function of the intensity of the massless charge flux"

"Indeed, since vacuum and massless charge are one and the same"

"Indeed, charge is not necessarily quantized just as it is not necessarily locked to mass"



Tesla's longitudinal impulses prove indisputably that the Aether has no mass. Can you show any experiments that disprove that? You can't because the evidence is overwhelming that the Aether, the source charge, which is independent of mass, has no mass.

If Aether had mass, there would be no planetary motion and the planets would be dragged to a standstill.

You only repeat yourself that Aether has mass because you believe it but you don't provide any references to back it up. Again, Laughlin is giving a general analogy and you are overlaying your definition of stuff on top of what he is saying. Electrostatic charges is stuff, but has no mass.

"It is filled with 'stuff'". Meaning space is filled with stuff. Meaning aether has mass.

'Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image'
NASA - Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image

"This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected into a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. "This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results available online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter.""

The dark matter core does not defy explanation. The dark matter core is not a puzzle. The dark matter core is not difficult to explain. It is obviously clear what is going on.

Non-baryonic dark matter and galaxies are not anchored together. There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether. Aether has mass.

[Aaron Murakami]

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

"matter pervading the universe". Matter has mass.

"It is filled with 'stuff'" - Stuff has mass.

What is presently postulated as non-baryonic dark matter is aether. Aether has mass.

There is a difference between mass and charge and that the Aether IS the source charge and you have not demonstrated that you know the difference. This "stuff" IS the charge and does not fill space, it IS the space.

Go back to the references I gave you instead of quoting giving a very general statement which is in no way a technical discussion that actually defines stuff as having mass. You are making that up out of thin air and are putting words into his mouth.

You create your own definition of what stuff means. "Stuff has mass." That is silly. Everyone's minds are filled with stuff, but that doesn't mean it has any mass. What is the stuff that dreams are made of? Tasks on a to-do list is "stuff to do" but the doing of the task itself is no something with mass. In your perception, if something is called "stuff" it must be a physical thing that occupies space but that is only your subjective perception that is creating that - there is no intrinsic mass to the concept of stuff. Stuff is one of the most ambiguous words in the English language and can mean basically anything we want it to mean. Laughlin is giving an analogy.

Instead of providing an ambiguous reference where you are defining something on behalf of the person who didn't define it themselves, provide a real reference that shows that Aether has mass. The only ones you can find if any are ones rooted in conventional beliefs but all of that has been overturned for many years. This is 2012, not 1900.



This is not ambiguous - Vacuum has no mass, but it has great massless charge and virtual particle charge flux. For proof that a charged vacuum is the seat of something in motion, see G.M. Graham and D.G. Lahoz, "Observation of static electromagnetic angular momentum in vacuo," Nature, Vol. 285, 15 .May 1980, pp. 154-155

Either is this: "A Spector Haunting Physics," Science News, Vol. 119, January 31, 1981, pp. 68-69

And in this field of vacuum energy, Tom Bearden is an authoritative reference himself and I'll quote him: "In present electromagnetics theory, charge and charged mass are falsely made identical"

"Vacuum, spacetime, and massless charge are all identical."

"spacetime is identically massless charge. (It is not "filled" with charge; rather, it is charge!)"

"Vacuum has no mass, but it has great massless charge"

"The speed of light in vacuum is assumed to be a fundamental constant of nature. Instead it is a function of the intensity of the massless charge flux"

"Indeed, since vacuum and massless charge are one and the same"

"Indeed, charge is not necessarily quantized just as it is not necessarily locked to mass"



Tesla's longitudinal impulses prove indisputably that the Aether has no mass. Can you show any experiments that disprove that? You can't because the evidence is overwhelming that the Aether, the source charge, which is independent of mass, has no mass.

If Aether had mass, there would be no planetary motion and the planets would be dragged to a standstill.

You only repeat yourself that Aether has mass because you believe it but you don't provide any references to back it up. Again, Laughlin is giving a general analogy and you are overlaying your definition of stuff on top of what he is saying. Electrostatic charges is stuff, but has no mass.

[gravitational_aether]

Aether has no mass...

The Tom Bearden Website

(1) In present electromagnetics theory, charge and charged mass are falsely made identical. Actually, on a charged particle, the "charge" is the flux of virtual particles on the "bare particle" of observable mass. The charged particle is thus a "system" of true massless charge coupled to a bare chargeless mass. The observable "mass" is static, three-dimensional, and totally spatial. "Charge" is dynamic, four-dimensional or more, virtual and spatiotemporal. Further, the charge and observable mass can be decoupled, contrary to present theory. Decoupled charge -- that is, the absence of mass -- is simply what we presently refer to as "vacuum." Vacuum, spacetime, and massless charge are all identical. Rigorously, we should utilize any of these three as an "ether," as suggested for vacuum by Einstein himself (see Max Born, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Revised Edition, Dover Publications, New York, 1965, p. 224). And all three of them are identically anenergy -- not energy, but more fundamental components of energy. - Tom Bearden

"Empty" space is really a plenum - a full abundance of, so "vacuum" is not really accurate, but we know what is meant by vacuum. The vacuum is created of the Aetheric source potential. The quantum people would call it the virtual photon flux of the quantum mechanical vacuum, which has both negative and positive photon charges that cancel each other out. Regardless of the flavor that we want to use to describe the Aether, that fact of the matter is that it is MASSLESS. If it had mass, longitudinal impulses would be impossible.

(2) Electrostatic potential is regarded as a purely 3-dimensional spatial stress. Instead, it is the intensity of a many-dimensional (at least four-dimensional) virtual flux and a stress on all four dimensions of spacetime. This is easily seen, once one recognizes that spacetime is identically massless charge. (It is not "filled" with charge; rather, it is charge!) Just as, in a gas under pressure, the accumulation of additional gas further stresses the gas, the accumulation of charge (spacetime) stresses charge (spacetime). Further, if freed from its attachment to mass , charge can flow exclusively in time, exclusively in space, or in any combination of the two. Tesla waves -- which are scalar waves in pure massless charge flux itself -- thus can exhibit extraordinary characteristics that ordinary vector waves do not possess. And Tesla waves have extra dimensional degrees of freedom in which to move, as compared to vector waves. Indeed, one way to visualize a Tesla scalar wave is to regard it as a pure oscillation of time itself. - Tom Bearden

As mentioned before, Aether IS spacetime. Aether does not occupy space as Bearden mentions, spacetime is "not 'filled' with charge; rather it is charge". And this charge is the electrostatic potential energy as mentioned before and it is massless.

(4) The charge of vacuum spacetime is assumed to be zero, when in fact it is a very high value. Vacuum has no mass, but it has great massless charge and virtual particle charge flux. For proof that a charged vacuum is the seat of something in motion, see G.M. Graham and D.G. Lahoz, "Observation of static electromagnetic angular momentum in vacuo," Nature, Vol. 285, 15 .May 1980, pp. 154-155. In fact, vacuum IS charge, identically, and it is also "spacetime" and at least four-dimensional. - Tom Bearden

(8) The speed of light in vacuum is assumed to be a fundamental constant of nature. Instead it is a function of the intensity of the massless charge flux (that is, of the magnitude of the electrostatic potential) of the vacuum in which it moves. (Indeed, since vacuum and massless charge are one and the same, one may say that the speed of light is a function of the intensity of the spatiotemporal vacuum!). - Tom Bearden


(14) "Charge" is assumed to be quantized, in addition to always occurring with -- and locked to -- mass. Indeed, charge is not necessarily quantized just as it is not necessarily locked to mass. Ehrenhaft discovered and reported fractional charges for years, in the 30's and 40's, and was ignored. See P.A.11. Dirac, "Development of the Physicist's Conception of Nature," Symposium on the Development of the Physicist's Conception of NatureScience News, Vol. 119, January 31, 1981, pp. 68-69. Indeed, Dirac in his referenced article points out that Millikan himself -- in his original oildrop experiments -- reported one measurement of fractional charge, but discounted it as probably due to error. - Tom Bearden

The Aether is the source charge and again is shown to NOT be mass. Ehrenhaft was the one that showed magnetic current, the inverse to electron current.

Anyway, if anyone follows Bearden's references, anyone can see that it has been absolutely experimentally shown that the aetheric source charge is MASSLESS. Any claim to the contrary is incompatible with reality. Also Bearden is showing that space is not filled with Aether - meaning the Aether does NOT occupy space, the Aetheric source charge IS space. Seeing that everything arises from the Aether, if Aether had mass, everything would have to have mass, but it does not and that starts with the Aether itself.

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

"matter pervading the universe". Matter has mass.

"It is filled with 'stuff'" - Stuff has mass.

What is presently postulated as non-baryonic dark matter is aether. Aether has mass.

[Aaron Murakami]

Aether has no mass...

The Tom Bearden Website

(1) In present electromagnetics theory, charge and charged mass are falsely made identical. Actually, on a charged particle, the "charge" is the flux of virtual particles on the "bare particle" of observable mass. The charged particle is thus a "system" of true massless charge coupled to a bare chargeless mass. The observable "mass" is static, three-dimensional, and totally spatial. "Charge" is dynamic, four-dimensional or more, virtual and spatiotemporal. Further, the charge and observable mass can be decoupled, contrary to present theory. Decoupled charge -- that is, the absence of mass -- is simply what we presently refer to as "vacuum." Vacuum, spacetime, and massless charge are all identical. Rigorously, we should utilize any of these three as an "ether," as suggested for vacuum by Einstein himself (see Max Born, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Revised Edition, Dover Publications, New York, 1965, p. 224). And all three of them are identically anenergy -- not energy, but more fundamental components of energy. - Tom Bearden

"Empty" space is really a plenum - a full abundance of, so "vacuum" is not really accurate, but we know what is meant by vacuum. The vacuum is created of the Aetheric source potential. The quantum people would call it the virtual photon flux of the quantum mechanical vacuum, which has both negative and positive photon charges that cancel each other out. Regardless of the flavor that we want to use to describe the Aether, that fact of the matter is that it is MASSLESS. If it had mass, longitudinal impulses would be impossible.

(2) Electrostatic potential is regarded as a purely 3-dimensional spatial stress. Instead, it is the intensity of a many-dimensional (at least four-dimensional) virtual flux and a stress on all four dimensions of spacetime. This is easily seen, once one recognizes that spacetime is identically massless charge. (It is not "filled" with charge; rather, it is charge!) Just as, in a gas under pressure, the accumulation of additional gas further stresses the gas, the accumulation of charge (spacetime) stresses charge (spacetime). Further, if freed from its attachment to mass , charge can flow exclusively in time, exclusively in space, or in any combination of the two. Tesla waves -- which are scalar waves in pure massless charge flux itself -- thus can exhibit extraordinary characteristics that ordinary vector waves do not possess. And Tesla waves have extra dimensional degrees of freedom in which to move, as compared to vector waves. Indeed, one way to visualize a Tesla scalar wave is to regard it as a pure oscillation of time itself. - Tom Bearden

As mentioned before, Aether IS spacetime. Aether does not occupy space as Bearden mentions, spacetime is "not 'filled' with charge; rather it is charge". And this charge is the electrostatic potential energy as mentioned before and it is massless.

(4) The charge of vacuum spacetime is assumed to be zero, when in fact it is a very high value. Vacuum has no mass, but it has great massless charge and virtual particle charge flux. For proof that a charged vacuum is the seat of something in motion, see G.M. Graham and D.G. Lahoz, "Observation of static electromagnetic angular momentum in vacuo," Nature, Vol. 285, 15 .May 1980, pp. 154-155. In fact, vacuum IS charge, identically, and it is also "spacetime" and at least four-dimensional. - Tom Bearden

(8) The speed of light in vacuum is assumed to be a fundamental constant of nature. Instead it is a function of the intensity of the massless charge flux (that is, of the magnitude of the electrostatic potential) of the vacuum in which it moves. (Indeed, since vacuum and massless charge are one and the same, one may say that the speed of light is a function of the intensity of the spatiotemporal vacuum!). - Tom Bearden


(14) "Charge" is assumed to be quantized, in addition to always occurring with -- and locked to -- mass. Indeed, charge is not necessarily quantized just as it is not necessarily locked to mass. Ehrenhaft discovered and reported fractional charges for years, in the 30's and 40's, and was ignored. See P.A.11. Dirac, "Development of the Physicist's Conception of Nature," Symposium on the Development of the Physicist's Conception of NatureScience News, Vol. 119, January 31, 1981, pp. 68-69. Indeed, Dirac in his referenced article points out that Millikan himself -- in his original oildrop experiments -- reported one measurement of fractional charge, but discounted it as probably due to error. - Tom Bearden

The Aether is the source charge and again is shown to NOT be mass. Ehrenhaft was the one that showed magnetic current, the inverse to electron current.

Anyway, if anyone follows Bearden's references, anyone can see that it has been absolutely experimentally shown that the aetheric source charge is MASSLESS. Any claim to the contrary is incompatible with reality. Also Bearden is showing that space is not filled with Aether - meaning the Aether does NOT occupy space, the Aetheric source charge IS space. Seeing that everything arises from the Aether, if Aether had mass, everything would have to have mass, but it does not and that starts with the Aether itself.