Big-Bang falacies and the Occult Aetheric Physics reality.

[Aaron Murakami]

When you pick up the object you are using energy to lift the object against the force of the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the earth. When you let go of the object the aether pushes the object to the earth.

You can lift the object high enough that it will no longer be pushed toward the earth.

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?

[gravitational_aether]

Thank you for finally answering that.

It has been established that that you claim that although the elastic aether is rebounding back towards Earth when the mass of the Earth displaces the aether that the rebounding reaction of the aether is not what supplies potential energy to an object - the potential energy is from us lifting the object and storing the potential there, therefore gravity can do no work.

At least you have answered the question. I disagree but that is ok - you have clarified yourself and I can respect that you have your own opinion.

Because you believe the potential energy is from us lifting the object, my original claim appears to be accurate and still stands. Einstein does not account for a reaction of the aether that can contribute potential to doing work and gravity is thus, static. You claim that simultaneously that aether is rebounding as a reaction but that rebound has no ability to supply potential to mass to perform work.

So to clarify, you are here in support of Einstein's views. That is totally fine and welcome.

If you're up to a second question, I'll ask it here and you can choose if you can answer it or not.

Lifting an object requires real work to be performed which contributes entropy to the universe. The amount of work is derived by: W = Fd or W = Force x distance.

If we lift an object to a certain height, we contribute to the entropy of the universe in an amount equal to the Force x distance of the object lifted.

When the lift is finished, PE or Potential Energy for that object at that height is PE = mgh or Potential Energy = mass x gravity x height.

When the object is released, it will hit the ground and there will be heat, etc... in real actual work equal to the PE that was predicted.

The lifting and the impact upon falling are equal amounts of work.

My question to you is: Did BOTH 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 us?

You did say the potential energy to create work when the object is dropped is from us lifting the object, but I just want to get it explicitly discussed.

Did BOTH 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 us?

When you pick up the object you are using energy to lift the object against the force of the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the earth. When you let go of the object the aether pushes the object to the earth.

You can lift the object high enough that it will no longer be pushed toward the earth.

[Faraday88]

i Read Tom bearden a lot and like him I too view and follow Super-Electromagnetic Theory of unification of all the forms of forces in nature.
To emphasize a bit more on the PCM or Phase Conjugate Mirror which is the basis of the Teslaian Wave (Time wave) describes Longitudal Electromagnetism. (Stanley Meyer explains it beautifully in his Hydrogen Fracturing Process and the entire mechanism is based on the PCM).
in my opinion, Gravity is an 'Condensed' form of Electromagnetic field , it has its symmetry broken in the Temporal domain.
(so two masses will have their indepandent universes (hence Multiverses).
as is know to all here, Broken Symmetry of a Dipole (Electromagnetic) truely descibes the nature of interaction of the universe, whose defination is wrong in the first place. it infact is the Simulateneous presence of the open and closed Paths which are co-defining each other, this shows that nothing is 'created' or 'destroyed'.
an interaction in 'view' is very much the centre of its own Universe. Longitudally speaking Light Travel is different from mass travel. (it will be true to say that light does not travel light 'particle' is inherently associated with the source of it origin. this brings us on an entirely new 'defination' of travel or displacement.
the void of Space fills in matter and the viod of Matter fills in Time. Hence Mass is a node of Time exist.
Aetheris Physics seems to ask how much of the least and the how much of the huge is defined? paradoxically we search for the least in matter and huge in astrophysical scale, wherehas the reverse is true. Time quantity in spatial terms is massive.
and Spatial quantity in Time is 'Aetheric'.

Rgds,
Faraday88.

[Aaron Murakami]

The potential energy is from the lifting of the object.

What causes the object to fall to the earth when dropped is the aether displaced by the earth pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the earth.

Thank you for finally answering that.

It has been established that that you claim that although the elastic aether is rebounding back towards Earth when the mass of the Earth displaces the aether that the rebounding reaction of the aether is not what supplies potential energy to an object - the potential energy is from us lifting the object and storing the potential there, therefore gravity can do no work.

At least you have answered the question. I disagree but that is ok - you have clarified yourself and I can respect that you have your own opinion.

Because you believe the potential energy is from us lifting the object, my original claim appears to be accurate and still stands. Einstein does not account for a reaction of the aether that can contribute potential to doing work and gravity is thus, static. You claim that simultaneously that aether is rebounding as a reaction but that rebound has no ability to supply potential to mass to perform work.

So to clarify, you are here in support of Einstein's views. That is totally fine and welcome.

If you're up to a second question, I'll ask it here and you can choose if you can answer it or not.

Lifting an object requires real work to be performed which contributes entropy to the universe. The amount of work is derived by: W = Fd or W = Force x distance.

If we lift an object to a certain height, we contribute to the entropy of the universe in an amount equal to the Force x distance of the object lifted.

When the lift is finished, PE or Potential Energy for that object at that height is PE = mgh or Potential Energy = mass x gravity x height.

When the object is released, it will hit the ground and there will be heat, etc... in real actual work equal to the PE that was predicted.

The lifting and the impact upon falling are equal amounts of work.

My question to you is: Did BOTH 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 us?

You did say the potential energy to create work when the object is dropped is from us lifting the object, but I just want to get it explicitly discussed.

Did BOTH 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 us?

[gravitational_aether]

Not interested in describing it in terms or potential energy? Or, not interested in having simple math show that Einstein is wrong? We only need to look at a silly little bouncing lifting/dropping experiment right here on the surface of planet Earth and not out if the far reaches of the Universe in order to prove the reality of where potential energy comes from.

Your statement about understanding that aether has mass is your opinion that I do not agree with. You're entitled to your opinion of course but Einstein did say, "space without ether is unthinkable", which is a quote that I have used myself. That means that there is no space without ether. It's pretty obvious. If you don't have aether, you have no space as I said.

You quote Einstein - yet you contradict that very quote by claiming it is aether that occupies 3d space. Einstein is saying that if there is no aether, there can be no space! Something I happen to agree with Einstein on.

Since "space without ether is unthinkable" that means that if there is no ether, there is no space, just like I said - it is the Aether that creates space with "dimensions" or coordinates to it.

Your proposals are 180 degrees in opposition with each other.

The rebound of the aether being potential energy or not will mathematically show whether the work comes from us or from gravity and will definitively show the truth but you are resisting going there and now you have made the reason obvious as to why.

I'll bow out from this conversation unless you want to continue but you quote Einstein only in selective ways as to support your argument but refuse to go into detail on some of these issues because if we show that mathematically, more work is done than we contribute, that it is coming from the aether and that gravity can and does act as potential energy that can do work, which would completely dismantle Einstein's delusion of mass=energy equivalence because the energy is obviously not an intrinsic property of mass but is of the potential coming from external forces that impact mass and cause work.

It isn't a matter of whether you are right or I'm right, it is a matter of 7 year old math skills showing that more entropy is happening than we contribute therefore the extra comes from external and is not tied to the mass. Therefore, a 7 year old's math skills is all that is needed in order to overturn relativity, Einstein's model of gravity and closed system thermodynamics. It is obvious you have evaded answer if the rebounding aether is potential energy that can do work or not so it has come time to end the obvious fact that you are unwilling to explore what needs to be explored in order to see if what you are saying has any value or is simply a regurgitation of what followers of Einstein are holding on to hoping that he will continue to be right. What is the point of discussion if you refuse to answer questions?

Again, I'm not concerned about being right or wrong, but I do appreciate intellectual honesty in these matters and we can only demonstrate intellectual honesty in these matters if we can answer simply that the aetheric rebound is or is not potential energy that can do work on a mass lifted within the gravitational "field" of Planet Earth.

To evade such an elementary question only calls into question the legitimacy or sincerity of your contribution to this discussion and to continue to evade it only build suspicion.

Again - the question is: the aetheric rebound is or is not potential energy that can do work on a mass lifted within the gravitational "field" of Planet Earth?

Even if you say no, that is in obvious disagreement with what I believe and I'm ok with that. At least you are intellectually honest enough to state what you believe without playing games. That is all I'm asking.

The potential energy is from the lifting of the object.

What causes the object to fall to the earth when dropped is the aether displaced by the earth pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the earth.

[Aaron Murakami]

I'm not interested in describing things in terms of potential energy.

As far as I know, you aren't even able to understand aether has mass.

There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. There is evidence non-baryonic dark matter is not anchored to matter. Non-baryonic dark matter not anchored to matter is aether with mass.

Not interested in describing it in terms or potential energy? Or, not interested in having simple math show that Einstein is wrong? We only need to look at a silly little bouncing lifting/dropping experiment right here on the surface of planet Earth and not out if the far reaches of the Universe in order to prove the reality of where potential energy comes from.

Your statement about understanding that aether has mass is your opinion that I do not agree with. You're entitled to your opinion of course but Einstein did say, "space without ether is unthinkable", which is a quote that I have used myself. That means that there is no space without ether. It's pretty obvious. If you don't have aether, you have no space as I said.

You quote Einstein - yet you contradict that very quote by claiming it is aether that occupies 3d space. Einstein is saying that if there is no aether, there can be no space! Something I happen to agree with Einstein on.

Since "space without ether is unthinkable" that means that if there is no ether, there is no space, just like I said - it is the Aether that creates space with "dimensions" or coordinates to it.

Your proposals are 180 degrees in opposition with each other.

The rebound of the aether being potential energy or not will mathematically show whether the work comes from us or from gravity and will definitively show the truth but you are resisting going there and now you have made the reason obvious as to why.

I'll bow out from this conversation unless you want to continue but you quote Einstein only in selective ways as to support your argument but refuse to go into detail on some of these issues because if we show that mathematically, more work is done than we contribute, that it is coming from the aether and that gravity can and does act as potential energy that can do work, which would completely dismantle Einstein's delusion of mass=energy equivalence because the energy is obviously not an intrinsic property of mass but is of the potential coming from external forces that impact mass and cause work.

It isn't a matter of whether you are right or I'm right, it is a matter of 7 year old math skills showing that more entropy is happening than we contribute therefore the extra comes from external and is not tied to the mass. Therefore, a 7 year old's math skills is all that is needed in order to overturn relativity, Einstein's model of gravity and closed system thermodynamics. It is obvious you have evaded answer if the rebounding aether is potential energy that can do work or not so it has come time to end the obvious fact that you are unwilling to explore what needs to be explored in order to see if what you are saying has any value or is simply a regurgitation of what followers of Einstein are holding on to hoping that he will continue to be right. What is the point of discussion if you refuse to answer questions?

Again, I'm not concerned about being right or wrong, but I do appreciate intellectual honesty in these matters and we can only demonstrate intellectual honesty in these matters if we can answer simply that the aetheric rebound is or is not potential energy that can do work on a mass lifted within the gravitational "field" of Planet Earth.

To evade such an elementary question only calls into question the legitimacy or sincerity of your contribution to this discussion and to continue to evade it only build suspicion.

Again - the question is: the aetheric rebound is or is not potential energy that can do work on a mass lifted within the gravitational "field" of Planet Earth?

Even if you say no, that is in obvious disagreement with what I believe and I'm ok with that. At least you are intellectually honest enough to state what you believe without playing games. That is all I'm asking.

[gravitational_aether]

We already established we both agree on that. lol

So it seems that you do not believe that this aetheric rebounding push is considered potential energy that can do work though. Is that correct that you believe the aetheric rebound is not potential energy that can do work?

I'm not interested in describing things in terms of potential energy.

As far as I know, you aren't even able to understand aether has mass.

There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. There is evidence non-baryonic dark matter is not anchored to matter. Non-baryonic dark matter not anchored to matter is aether with mass.

[Aaron Murakami]

I agree that it is the aether which is displaced by the Earth which pushes the object to the ground.

We already established we both agree on that. lol

So it seems that you do not believe that this aetheric rebounding push is considered potential energy that can do work though. Is that correct that you believe the aetheric rebound is not potential energy that can do work?

[gravitational_aether]

Yes, but that doesn't answer the question.

Is the rebounding aether acting as a source of potential energy that can do work?

I'm not going to assume that just because you say gravity pushes the object down, which I agree with, that you also see gravity as potential energy that does work. You could still agree that gravity pushes the object but you might believe that the source of potential energy that does work when the object impacts the ground came from us lifting it (storing potential).

So is gravity the source of potential energy that can do work?

If so, then you agree that the source of potential energy that did work by pushing the object into the ground and causing heat, etc... was external from the object.

I agree that it is the aether which is displaced by the Earth which pushes the object to the ground.

[Aaron Murakami]

As you hold the object in your hand you are keeping it from being pushed to the ground. When you release the object you allow it to be pushed to the ground by the aether which is displaced by the Earth.

Yes, but that doesn't answer the question.

Is the rebounding aether acting as a source of potential energy that can do work?

I'm not going to assume that just because you say gravity pushes the object down, which I agree with, that you also see gravity as potential energy that does work. You could still agree that gravity pushes the object but you might believe that the source of potential energy that does work when the object impacts the ground came from us lifting it (storing potential).

So is gravity the source of potential energy that can do work?

If so, then you agree that the source of potential energy that did work by pushing the object into the ground and causing heat, etc... was external from the object.

[gravitational_aether]

Ok, we're in agreement on that so far.

But is that push by the aether considered to be potential energy that performs work as the object impacts the ground causing heat, etc...?

Or, is the rebounding aether not performing work because the potential energy that did impact work is considered to be put there by us when we lifted it?

As you hold the object in your hand you are keeping it from being pushed to the ground. When you release the object you allow it to be pushed to the ground by the aether which is displaced by the Earth.

[Aaron Murakami]

When you lift the object the aether displaced by the Earth pushing back toward the Earth pushes the object to the ground.

Ok, we're in agreement on that so far.

But is that push by the aether considered to be potential energy that performs work as the object impacts the ground causing heat, etc...?

Or, is the rebounding aether not performing work because the potential energy that did impact work is considered to be put there by us when we lifted it?

[gravitational_aether]

You said that but the distinction isn't made. Trying to rebound back with only a tendency that stops at the surface of the Earth or actually rebounding back through the mass of the Earth in dynamic fashion where it is in constant circulation?

Basically, if you lift an object off the ground and let go, does Einstein believe that gravity is a source of potential energy that will actively push down on the object and when the object hits the ground and performs heat work on impact, did the potential energy that made that impact possible come from us "storing potential" in the object when we lifted it or did that Potential Energy come from an active rebounding or "displacing back" of the aether.

When you lift the object the aether displaced by the Earth pushing back toward the Earth pushes the object to the ground.

[Aaron Murakami]

I started my own thread specifically on gravitational potential energy to maintain clarity of my opinion of the nature of gravitational potential energy:

http://www.energyscienceforum.com/alternative-energy-general/364-gravitational-potential-energy.html

And so I don't get any focus off the topic of this thread relating to the "big bang".

[Aaron Murakami]

Einstein, in fact, described the elastic forces of the aether. The elastic forces, in fact, can account for the aether 'displacing back'.

You said that but the distinction isn't made. Trying to rebound back with only a tendency that stops at the surface of the Earth or actually rebounding back through the mass of the Earth in dynamic fashion where it is in constant circulation?

Basically, if you lift an object off the ground and let go, does Einstein believe that gravity is a source of potential energy that will actively push down on the object and when the object hits the ground and performs heat work on impact, did the potential energy that made that impact possible come from us "storing potential" in the object when we lifted it or did that Potential Energy come from an active rebounding or "displacing back" of the aether.