Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Big-Bang falacies and the Occult Aetheric Physics reality.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • gravitational_aether
    replied
    'Toward a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories: experimental evidence for absolute simultaneity'
    [1301.4253] Toward a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories: experimental evidence for absolute simultaneity

    "Abstract. We have demonstrated spatially-discontinuous quantum jumps of electrons at a distance as long as about 1cm. The effect occurs in a modified integer quantum Hall system consisted of a great number of extended Laughlin-Halperin-type states. Our observations directly contradict the no-aether Einstein’s interpretation of special relativity together with the Minkowski’s model of spacetime. However they are consistent with the aether-related Lorentz-Poincare’s interpretation that allows absolute simultaneity. We thus strongly challenge the fundamental status of Lorentz invariance and hence break the basic argument against de Broglie-Bohm realistic quantum theory. We argue that both de Broglie-Bohm and Lorentz-Poincare theories are capable of providing a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories. This synthesis is of such kind that quantum theory appears the most fundamental physical theory for which relativity is only a limiting case. In accordance with this hierarchy, quantum theory naturally resolves the problem of aether in Lorentz-Poincare’s relativity. The role of aether could be played by a deeper Bohm-type undivided quantum pre-space, the relevance of which at any lengthscale directly follows from our observations."

    "The point is we break the basic argument against pilot-wave theory, that is, the lack of Lorentz invariance. We have thus got two quantum theories, standard QM and the pilot-wave theory, and both are equally successful in prediction of experimental observations. However, their principle difference is that the former rests on mysticism and indeterminism while the latter rests on realism and determinism which is the basis of all current physical theories. As a result, the former encounters serious conceptual problems and can hardly be unified with relativity theory. Conversely, the latter naturally avoids conceptual problems and can easily be unified with relativity or, more precisely, with the Lorentz-Poincare’s version of this theory. In this situation, the choice in favour of one of these theories seems self-evident though it clearly will take some courage to overcome the existing prejudices about quantum theory."

    What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.

    Leave a comment:


  • gravitational_aether
    replied
    [1212.4176] Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy

    "But why an incompressible fluid? The reason comes from an attempt to solve the (old) cosmological constant problem, which is arguably the most puzzling aspect of coupling gravity to relativistic quantum mechanics [13]. Given that the natural expectation value for the vacuum of the standard model of particle physics is ∼ 60 orders of magnitude heavier than the gravitational measurements of vacuum density, it is reasonable to entertain an alternative theory of gravity where the standard model vacuum decouples from gravity. Such a theory could be realized by coupling gravity to the traceless part of the quantum mechanical energy-momentum tensor. However, the consistency/covariance of gravitational field equations then requires introducing an auxiliary fluid, the so-called gravitational aether [14]. The simplest model for gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid (with vanishing energy density, but non-vanishing pressure), which is currently consistent with all cosmological, astrophysical, and precision tests of gravity [15, 16]:

    __3__
    32πGN Gμν = Tμν − Tα gμν + Tμν ,
    Tμν = p (uμ uν + gμν ), T μν;ν = 0,

    where GN is Newton’s constant, Tμν is the matter energy momentum tensor and Tμν is the incompressible gravitational aether fluid. In vacuum, the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

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

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

    [1202.4611] Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia

    "It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an increase of mass with velocity. ... The interaction between the particle and the entrained space flow gives rise to the observed properties of inertia and the relativistic increase of mass. ... Accordingly, in this framework the non resistance of a particle in uniform motion through an ideal fluid (D’Alembert’s paradox) corresponds to Newton’s first law. The law of inertia suggests that the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

    Leave a comment:


  • gravitational_aether
    replied
    The Universe, or our local Universe, is a larger version of one of these.



    Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.

    It's not the Big Bang; it's the Big Ongoing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom C
    replied
    Originally posted by Ron Hammar View Post
    This is a test.
    I am trying to see if I get a email from the fourm. I have not been able to get any posting and I have been on the list for about 4 months. Can any one give me any help in this.

    Ron Hammar
    Rlhammar@gmail.com
    are you subscribing to the threads?

    Tom C

    Leave a comment:


  • Ron Hammar
    replied
    Help me if you can!

    This is a test.
    I am trying to see if I get a email from the fourm. I have not been able to get any posting and I have been on the list for about 4 months. Can any one give me any help in this.

    Ron Hammar
    Rlhammar@gmail.com

    Leave a comment:


  • gravitational_aether
    replied
    Back to our regularly scheduled program...

    The title of this thread says the big bang is a fallacy and there is an aetheric reality.

    What is mistaken as an expansion of the Universe is the matter in the Universe moving outward and away from the Universal jet emission point.

    The Universe is, or our local Universe is in, a larger version of a black hole polar jet.

    Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.

    It's not the Big Bang, it's the Big Ongoing.

    Take a look at the image on the right here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughnu...f_the_universe

    We currently have no evidence of a Universal black hole or another Universal jet.

    However, the image does correctly represent an ongoing process; a larger version of a black hole polar jet.
    Last edited by gravitational_aether; 11-14-2012, 07:59 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • gravitational_aether
    replied
    Originally posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
    You started this thread so I'll bow out - GP is a lost cause.

    But everyone is welcome to continue to listen to how resistance is different than friction, it requires energy/work when there is ZERO frictional resistance, etc...

    It's one thing to believe that you can't have overunity, but it is quite another to start claiming such ridiculous things that any 8th grader is capable of arguing against.
    When you place a bowling ball into a tank filled with a supersolid the bowling ball requires energy in order to displace the supersolid. The supersolid doesn't get pushed out of the way by magic. There is no friction in the interaction of the supersolid and the bowling ball. There is no loss of energy as the bowling ball interacts with the supersolid. That's what supersolid means.

    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.

    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.
    Last edited by gravitational_aether; 11-14-2012, 03:49 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Faraday88
    replied

    Rgds,
    Faraday88.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aaron Murakami
    replied
    Originally posted by Faraday88 View Post
    Hi,
    I feel Interpretation is Induvidualistic and so request both Aaron and GE for some here.
    rgds,
    Faraday88.
    You started this thread so I'll bow out - GP is a lost cause.

    But everyone is welcome to continue to listen to how resistance is different than friction, it requires energy/work when there is ZERO frictional resistance, etc...

    It's one thing to believe that you can't have overunity, but it is quite another to start claiming such ridiculous things that any 8th grader is capable of arguing against.

    Oh, ho, ho
    It's magic, you know
    Never believe it's not so
    It's magic, you know
    Never believe, it's not so



    Leave a comment:


  • Aaron Murakami
    replied
    Originally posted by Faraday88 View Post
    Hi,
    I feel Interpretation is Induvidualistic and so request both Aaron and GE for some here.
    rgds,
    Faraday88.
    To a point some things are open to interpretation.

    However, whether friction and resistance is the same is not open to interpretation. These aren't ambiguous terms. The definitions I posted about them are mutually agreed upon by both those that believe in classical physics and those that believe otherwise. GP however, expects everyone to be blind enough to buy into his own personal definitions that nobody agrees on but him. I can't find any references online that say anything different than what I've said about it.

    It is also not open to interpretation whether or not it takes energy when something encounters no friction or resistance since there is no force to oppose the moving object. Friction and resistance act as an opposing force. The very definition of energy or work is founded on the very need for friction or resistance to be present. When none is present, there is no energy or work being done.

    Those things are not subject to our opinion - we can measure whether there is a force or not.

    W = F x d.

    If there is 0 friction or resistance, then the distance the object travels is 0 meaning the W = 0 meaning 0 energy is dissipated.

    If GP had the slightest bit of intellectual honesty, he/she would show any evidence whatsoever that it takes energy to move something that encounters zero friction or resistance and not just give lip service.

    His claims intrinsically claim that multiplying distance by 0 will actually result in a positive number. Sorry, but I'm not stupid enough to buy this pure unadulterated garbage and I hope that nobody else is either.

    My stance is that I will call GP on everything bogus that he posts.

    I'm all for a peaceful argument, but when he is too much of a manipulator to address the points I bring up, that only shows he is here to cause trouble and actually has no intention to do anything other than that.

    Intellectual honesty is required in order to have a peaceful argument, but GP has been anything but. Countless contradictions that I called out - he addresses none of them and only asks questions in return to misdirect attention away from the fact that he has been caught with his/her pants down.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aaron Murakami
    replied
    Originally posted by gravitational_aether View Post
    The supersolid is displaced because of the energy associated with the rolling bowling ball.

    The supersolid returns to the bowling ball the same amount of energy as the supersolid 'displaces back'.
    After energy is expended to get it rolling, if no resistance or friction is encountered, NO MORE ENERGY IS USED.

    The only time energy is used is when it encounters friction or resistance.

    If you take a space ship and take it into far outer space and launch it, the only energy ever dissipated is to push the probe from a dead stop (relative to the ship) since an object at rest tends to stay at rest. That push to get it going is energy used. After that, the probe maintains its momentum without loss because no other force is encountered.

    There can be solar winds, etc... that can slow it down, but that isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about just the Aether itself.

    What you are trying to do is rewrite reality to suit your purpose while addressing ZERO contradictions and patently false claims you posted.

    You have a complete misunderstanding of any of the fundamentals of physics that do accurately describe all the phenomena involved with something moving without encountering friction.

    You are completely lost and out of touch with reality by claiming that energy is required when no friction or resistance is met.

    Leave a comment:


  • Faraday88
    replied
    Hi,
    I feel Interpretation is Induvidualistic and so request both Aaron and GE for some here.
    rgds,
    Faraday88.

    Leave a comment:


  • gravitational_aether
    replied
    Originally posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
    Why are you unable to communicate without manipulation? You didn't answer to anything in regards to your dishonest claims that friction and resistance are different? I pointed out the facts and you think asking me a question to detract from the proof I posted that you are completely out of touch with reality is going to change anything?

    Get over it - friction and resistance is the same thing.

    And you are manipulating again trying to make it look like I am saying it wouldn't displace the hypothetical supersolid, which has never been proven to exist.

    Just because it displaces a supersolid, an interaction between the two, that does NOT inherently mean energy is required. There MUST BE a resistance or friction in order to have an opposing force for any work to be done. And for the FACT that there is no resistance or friction means NO ENERGY IS USED in order to displace the supersolid and move through it.

    The supersolid is displaced by the ball and moves over the surface of the ball without encountering any friction or resistance. Of course the supersolid will fill behind the object, that is a primary principle in nature that nature abhors a vacuum and will fill in any low potential spot.

    In other words - you are trying to tell us that if you have a ball in the water and you move the ball, it doesn't leave an empty spot behind it that has no water?

    You seem to think you somehow discovered something that nobody knows about. The discovers of the supersolid and the same discovers that later disproved the existence of the supersolid, agree with me on this - no friction is no resistance and an object moving through the supersolid therefore has no force to measure any energy used - meaning your claims are FALSE.

    Because no friction or resistance is encountered, the supersolid is displaced without any work required to displace it.
    The supersolid is displaced because of the energy associated with the rolling bowling ball.

    The supersolid returns to the bowling ball the same amount of energy as the supersolid 'displaces back'.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aaron Murakami
    replied
    Originally posted by gravitational_aether View Post
    It's very simple really. The bowling ball displaces the supersolid.

    Why are you unable to understand this?
    Why are you unable to communicate without manipulation? You didn't answer to anything in regards to your dishonest claims that friction and resistance are different? I pointed out the facts and you think asking me a question to detract from the proof I posted that you are completely out of touch with reality is going to change anything?

    Get over it - friction and resistance is the same thing.

    And you are manipulating again trying to make it look like I am saying it wouldn't displace the hypothetical supersolid, which has never been proven to exist.

    Just because it displaces a supersolid, an interaction between the two, that does NOT inherently mean energy is required. There MUST BE a resistance or friction in order to have an opposing force for any work to be done. And for the FACT that there is no resistance or friction means NO ENERGY IS USED in order to displace the supersolid and move through it.

    The supersolid is displaced by the ball and moves over the surface of the ball without encountering any friction or resistance. Of course the supersolid will fill behind the object, that is a primary principle in nature that nature abhors a vacuum and will fill in any low potential spot.

    In other words - you are trying to tell us that if you have a ball in the water and you move the ball, it doesn't leave an empty spot behind it that has no water?

    You seem to think you somehow discovered something that nobody knows about. The discovers of the supersolid and the same discovers that later disproved the existence of the supersolid, agree with me on this - no friction is no resistance and an object moving through the supersolid therefore has no force to measure any energy used - meaning your claims are FALSE.

    Because no friction or resistance is encountered, the supersolid is displaced without any work required to displace it.

    Leave a comment:


  • gravitational_aether
    replied
    Originally posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
    Do you know what a zero velocity barrier is?

    Don't post some reference - I want to hear you explain it in your words to see if you actually know.
    It's very simple really. The bowling ball displaces the supersolid.

    Why are you unable to understand this?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X