Big-Bang falacies and the Occult Aetheric Physics reality.

[Aaron Murakami]

You are in a bowling alley filled with a supersolid. You roll the ball toward the pins. What happens to the supersolid which exists in the path of the bowling ball?

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.

[gravitational_aether]

I know exactly what you're saying, its quite obvious. However, the premise of your argument is 100% false. And what it shows is that you are the one that actually does not know what a supersolid is and you do not even know that supersolids were disproven by the very people that believed they proved them in the past! You are making up your own definitions to words that do not need a new definition. You are saying friction and resistance are difference only to conveniently support your argument. Do you realize how dishonest that is or pathological?

You said:

Ummm, you keep quoting the supersolid concepts, but don't even know what it means and here you are acting like resistance and friction are two separate things because you accuse me of not knowing the difference between them.

Let's go to the heart of the matter and see what the very pioneers in supersolid science have to say:

Physics - Supersolid Discoverer

Focus: Supersolid Discoverer’s New Experiments Show No Supersolid

Published October 8, 2012 | Physics 5, 111 (2012) | DOI: 10.1103/Physics.5.111
"The first evidence of a superfluidlike state in solid helium came from 2004 experiments that, with improvements, now find no supersolidity."

Even when they thought the helium experiments were demonstrating supersolidity, let's see what they say in regards to what your imaginary difference is between friction and resistance:

Supersolids -- Can Atoms Unify And Flow Without Resistance?

@ALL, PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS REFERENCE ISN'T VALIDATING SUPERSOLIDS, KIM & CHAN ALREADY DISPROVED IT THIS YEAR - BELOW IS JUST AN OLDER STORY WHEN THEY THOUGHT THEY DID HAVE A SUPERSOLID.

Oh, my, what is the title there?
Supersolids -- Can Atoms Unify And Flow Without Resistance?


Wait a second, "without resistance"???

And: "Together with post-doctoral associate Eun-Seong Kim, Chan found that when a particular isotope of helium gas has frozen into a crystal at a fraction of a degree above absolute zero, part of it exhibits a property only seen before in superfluids: no friction."

Wait a second, "no friction"???

And: "To understand frictionless flow, says Chan, think of a bunch of kids sitting on a spinning merry-go-round."

Wait a second, "frictionless flow"???

And: "one percent of the solid helium begins to flow without resistance."

Wait a second, "flow without resistance"???


So, it is completely pathological to insist that resistance and friction has a difference. Friction is a resistance and resistance is a friction - it is so much the same in physics that it is even called "FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE". LOL

And your beloved supersolids that are shown to not exist by the very people who claimed they did to begin with (showing intellectual honesty) are 100% equating FRICTIONLESS FLOW AS FLOW WITHOUT RESISTANCE!
Again, one more of your attempts to sprinkle fairy dust in our eyes to make us believe that the two are not the same. Oooohh, oh, oh it's MAGIC!

I'm kidding around so much here because you CANNOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. Your logic and rationalization is an example of pure and simple intellectual dishonesty and these facts you discuss are only figments of your imagination.

The above is NOT open to interpretation - flowing without resistance IS flowing without friction. There are no two ways around it.

One thing you also miss is that even if there is a supersolid, it goes AROUND an object moving through it. The Aether is not just displaced, the Aether can move THROUGH the atomic matrix of the object. There are different dynamics involved that you have yet to consider.

You say it is frictionless and if so, that means that there is no resistance between the mass and the medium it is moving through. Therefore, it does NOT require energy to displace the medium since there is no friction or resistance to overcome.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Force

Frictional resistance to the relative motion of two solid objects is usually proportional to the force which presses the surfaces together as well as the roughness of the surfaces. Since it is the force perpendicular or "normal" to the surfaces which affects the frictional resistance, this force is typically called the "normal force" and designated by N. The frictional resistance force may then be written:

ffriction = μN

μ = coefficient of friction μk = coefficient of kinetic friction μs = coefficient of static friction

Standard model of friction

The frictional force is also presumed to be proportional to the coefficient of friction. However, the amount of force required to move an object starting from rest is usually greater than the force required to keep it moving at constant velocity once it is started. Therefore two coefficients of friction are sometimes quoted for a given pair of surfaces - a coefficient of static friction and a coefficent of kinetic friction. The force expression above can be called the standard model of surface friction and is dependent upon several assumptions about friction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, friction/resistance IS a force and if an object moves through a supersolid, even if supersolids existed, the object moves through it without encountering resistance or friction. If there is no resistance or friction, there is no opposing force. If there is no opposing force, THERE IS NO ENERGY REQUIRED since the distance travelled by the mass would be multiplied by ZERO!

WORK (energy required) needed for an object to move against the Aether in gravity for example is W = Fd or Work = Force x distance but we can use the same equation for an object moving through space at constant velocity.

IF THERE IS NO FORCE (FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE) OF AN OBJECT MOVING THROUGH THE AETHER, THEN THE DISTANCE TRAVELLED BY THE MASS THROUGH THE AETHER WILL BE MULTIPLIED BY 0 UNITS OF FORCE MEANING DISTANCE X 0 FORCE = 0 WORK OR 0 JOULES OF ENERGY EXPENDED.

Even if there is 100% recovery, nothing will ever be recovered because nothing was expended to begin with. An object moving at constant velocity through space can move forever since there is no resistance and pretending that it takes energy but recovers energy is a farce.

An object moving at constant velocity through the aether way out in space is in EQUILIBRIUM with the Aether. The Aether is moving through it relatively just like the Aether is moving through us as we stand on the ground. But we are in EQUILIBRIUM with it. There is NO rate of change between the mass and the Aether. Being that an object moving through the aether is in Equilibrium, that means there is NO POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE available for work to be performed to begin with! The potential difference is only there if the object accelerates or decelerates. Then, there is finally energy required to overcome the counter inductive effect and there WILL be a loss.

But at constant velocity where the mass is in equilibrium, there is no potential difference and there is NO ENERGY REQUIRED to displace the Aether. It is in a state of EQUILIBRIUM with it!

Yes, there is an interaction between the mass and the Aether, but interaction does not mean it requires energy. We are standing on the surface of the Earth in a state of equilibrium where there is no potential difference. It does NOT require any energy for us to stand here under the influence of gravity - rebounding Aether pushing us to the ground.

You are in a bowling alley filled with a supersolid. You roll the ball toward the pins. What happens to the supersolid which exists in the path of the bowling ball?

[Aaron Murakami]

I am saying an objects interaction with a superfluid or a supersolid is frictionless. That does not mean no interaction. I am saying an object moving through the aether physically displaces the aether. I am saying the object does not slow down because the aether is also displacing the object. Both are occurring simultaneously with equal force.

You really should understand what a supersolid is before you respond. Just ask yourself what happens to the supersolid which exists in front of the moving bowling ball. You are able to understand the supersolid does not simply disappear, correct? You are able to understand where the rolling bowling ball exists the supersolid is displaced from that location, correct? You are able to understand the definition of supersolid means the bowling ball will roll forever through the supersolid, correct? The reason why the bowling ball is able to roll forever through the supersolid is because the supersolid is pushing the bowling ball as it fills-in where the bowling ball had been. The bowling ball never speeds up or slows down. The bowling ball continues to displace the supersolid forever. The supersolid displaces the bowling ball forever.

I know exactly what you're saying, its quite obvious. However, the premise of your argument is 100% false. And what it shows is that you are the one that actually does not know what a supersolid is and you do not even know that supersolids were disproven by the very people that believed they proved them in the past! You are making up your own definitions to words that do not need a new definition. You are saying friction and resistance are difference only to conveniently support your argument. Do you realize how dishonest that is or pathological?

You said:

You do not understand the difference between resistance and friction.

Ummm, you keep quoting the supersolid concepts, but don't even know what it means and here you are acting like resistance and friction are two separate things because you accuse me of not knowing the difference between them.

Let's go to the heart of the matter and see what the very pioneers in supersolid science have to say:

Physics - Supersolid Discoverer

Focus: Supersolid Discoverer’s New Experiments Show No Supersolid

Published October 8, 2012 | Physics 5, 111 (2012) | DOI: 10.1103/Physics.5.111
"The first evidence of a superfluidlike state in solid helium came from 2004 experiments that, with improvements, now find no supersolidity."

Even when they thought the helium experiments were demonstrating supersolidity, let's see what they say in regards to what your imaginary difference is between friction and resistance:

Supersolids -- Can Atoms Unify And Flow Without Resistance?

@ALL, PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS REFERENCE ISN'T VALIDATING SUPERSOLIDS, KIM & CHAN ALREADY DISPROVED IT THIS YEAR - BELOW IS JUST AN OLDER STORY WHEN THEY THOUGHT THEY DID HAVE A SUPERSOLID.

Oh, my, what is the title there?
Supersolids -- Can Atoms Unify And Flow Without Resistance?


Wait a second, "without resistance"???

And: "Together with post-doctoral associate Eun-Seong Kim, Chan found that when a particular isotope of helium gas has frozen into a crystal at a fraction of a degree above absolute zero, part of it exhibits a property only seen before in superfluids: no friction."

Wait a second, "no friction"???

And: "To understand frictionless flow, says Chan, think of a bunch of kids sitting on a spinning merry-go-round."

Wait a second, "frictionless flow"???

And: "one percent of the solid helium begins to flow without resistance."

Wait a second, "flow without resistance"???


So, it is completely pathological to insist that resistance and friction has a difference. Friction is a resistance and resistance is a friction - it is so much the same in physics that it is even called "FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE". LOL

And your beloved supersolids that are shown to not exist by the very people who claimed they did to begin with (showing intellectual honesty) are 100% equating FRICTIONLESS FLOW AS FLOW WITHOUT RESISTANCE!
Again, one more of your attempts to sprinkle fairy dust in our eyes to make us believe that the two are not the same. Oooohh, oh, oh it's MAGIC!

I'm kidding around so much here because you CANNOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. Your logic and rationalization is an example of pure and simple intellectual dishonesty and these facts you discuss are only figments of your imagination.

The above is NOT open to interpretation - flowing without resistance IS flowing without friction. There are no two ways around it.

One thing you also miss is that even if there is a supersolid, it goes AROUND an object moving through it. The Aether is not just displaced, the Aether can move THROUGH the atomic matrix of the object. There are different dynamics involved that you have yet to consider.

You say it is frictionless and if so, that means that there is no resistance between the mass and the medium it is moving through. Therefore, it does NOT require energy to displace the medium since there is no friction or resistance to overcome.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Force

Frictional resistance to the relative motion of two solid objects is usually proportional to the force which presses the surfaces together as well as the roughness of the surfaces. Since it is the force perpendicular or "normal" to the surfaces which affects the frictional resistance, this force is typically called the "normal force" and designated by N. The frictional resistance force may then be written:

ffriction = μN

μ = coefficient of friction μk = coefficient of kinetic friction μs = coefficient of static friction

Standard model of friction

The frictional force is also presumed to be proportional to the coefficient of friction. However, the amount of force required to move an object starting from rest is usually greater than the force required to keep it moving at constant velocity once it is started. Therefore two coefficients of friction are sometimes quoted for a given pair of surfaces - a coefficient of static friction and a coefficent of kinetic friction. The force expression above can be called the standard model of surface friction and is dependent upon several assumptions about friction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, friction/resistance IS a force and if an object moves through a supersolid, even if supersolids existed, the object moves through it without encountering resistance or friction. If there is no resistance or friction, there is no opposing force. If there is no opposing force, THERE IS NO ENERGY REQUIRED since the distance travelled by the mass would be multiplied by ZERO!

WORK (energy required) needed for an object to move against the Aether in gravity for example is W = Fd or Work = Force x distance but we can use the same equation for an object moving through space at constant velocity.

IF THERE IS NO FORCE (FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE) OF AN OBJECT MOVING THROUGH THE AETHER, THEN THE DISTANCE TRAVELLED BY THE MASS THROUGH THE AETHER WILL BE MULTIPLIED BY 0 UNITS OF FORCE MEANING DISTANCE X 0 FORCE = 0 WORK OR 0 JOULES OF ENERGY EXPENDED.

Even if there is 100% recovery, nothing will ever be recovered because nothing was expended to begin with. An object moving at constant velocity through space can move forever since there is no resistance and pretending that it takes energy but recovers energy is a farce.

An object moving at constant velocity through the aether way out in space is in EQUILIBRIUM with the Aether. The Aether is moving through it relatively just like the Aether is moving through us as we stand on the ground. But we are in EQUILIBRIUM with it. There is NO rate of change between the mass and the Aether. Being that an object moving through the aether is in Equilibrium, that means there is NO POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE available for work to be performed to begin with! The potential difference is only there if the object accelerates or decelerates. Then, there is finally energy required to overcome the counter inductive effect and there WILL be a loss.

But at constant velocity where the mass is in equilibrium, there is no potential difference and there is NO ENERGY REQUIRED to displace the Aether. It is in a state of EQUILIBRIUM with it!

Yes, there is an interaction between the mass and the Aether, but interaction does not mean it requires energy. We are standing on the surface of the Earth in a state of equilibrium where there is no potential difference. It does NOT require any energy for us to stand here under the influence of gravity - rebounding Aether pushing us to the ground.

[Tom C]

I am saying an objects interaction with a superfluid or a supersolid is frictionless. That does not mean no interaction. I am saying an object moving through the aether physically displaces the aether. I am saying the object does not slow down because the aether is also displacing the object. Both are occurring simultaneously with equal force.

You really should understand what a supersolid is before you respond. Just ask yourself what happens to the supersolid which exists in front of the moving bowling ball. You are able to understand the supersolid does not simply disappear, correct? You are able to understand where the rolling bowling ball exists the supersolid is displaced from that location, correct? You are able to understand the definition of supersolid means the bowling ball will roll forever through the supersolid, correct? The reason why the bowling ball is able to roll forever through the supersolid is because the supersolid is pushing the bowling ball as it fills-in where the bowling ball had been. The bowling ball never speeds up or slows down. The bowling ball continues to displace the supersolid forever. The supersolid displaces the bowling ball forever.

I am way out of my league here in this discussion, but a question

so where did the energy come from that moved the bowling ball.........

supersolids require very specific environments to be created which in and of themselves require a huge amount of energy to initiate and maintain. the aether is charged by the dynamo in the core of stars, our solar system included. the sun will burn out as will the dirac sea eventually I believe. entropy my friend is inviolate. heat loss is heat loss. of course I am probably completely wrong here, would not be the first time.

www.thesurfaceofthesun.com


Tom C

[gravitational_aether]

Anytime work is done (positive work in forward time), organized high potential will be dissipated to lower potential when the mass that it is acting on meets resistance. Resistance is what disorders the potential. That disordering process is work and work is what energy is.

Up above, you say the Aether returns energy to the object in the same amount.

Your explanation is claiming that the object encounters resistance with the Aether and requires energy to overcome that resistance.

Then, the system regauges itself to establish a new dipole (potential difference) so that the higher potential Aether now has a has a lower potential difference to move towards while meeting resistance, which is doing work or "giving energy", as it fills in where the object was.

And you're saying this is happening with 100% recovery.

Correct?

I am saying an objects interaction with a superfluid or a supersolid is frictionless. That does not mean no interaction. I am saying an object moving through the aether physically displaces the aether. I am saying the object does not slow down because the aether is also displacing the object. Both are occurring simultaneously with equal force.

You really should understand what a supersolid is before you respond. Just ask yourself what happens to the supersolid which exists in front of the moving bowling ball. You are able to understand the supersolid does not simply disappear, correct? You are able to understand where the rolling bowling ball exists the supersolid is displaced from that location, correct? You are able to understand the definition of supersolid means the bowling ball will roll forever through the supersolid, correct? The reason why the bowling ball is able to roll forever through the supersolid is because the supersolid is pushing the bowling ball as it fills-in where the bowling ball had been. The bowling ball never speeds up or slows down. The bowling ball continues to displace the supersolid forever. The supersolid displaces the bowling ball forever.

[Aaron Murakami]

There is resistance AND there is no loss of energy. There is no loss of energy because there is 100% recovery in the energy that it takes for the moving object to displace the aether. The aether resists being displaced. The object displacing the aether IS the energy that it takes. However, once displaced the aether returns to the object the same amount of energy as the aether fills-in where the object had been and 'displaces back'.

Anytime work is done (positive work in forward time), organized high potential will be dissipated to lower potential when the mass that it is acting on meets resistance. Resistance is what disorders the potential. That disordering process is work and work is what energy is.

Up above, you say the Aether returns energy to the object in the same amount.

Your explanation is claiming that the object encounters resistance with the Aether and requires energy to overcome that resistance.

Then, the system regauges itself to establish a new dipole (potential difference) so that the higher potential Aether now has a has a lower potential difference to move towards while meeting resistance, which is doing work or "giving energy", as it fills in where the object was.

And you're saying this is happening with 100% recovery.

Correct?

[gravitational_aether]

Answer this - Is your claim in #1 and #2 because of A or B?

There is resistance AND there is no loss of energy. There is no loss of energy because there is 100% recovery in the energy that it takes for the moving object to displace the aether. The aether resists being displaced. The object displacing the aether IS the energy that it takes. However, once displaced the aether returns to the object the same amount of energy as the aether fills-in where the object had been and 'displaces back'.

[Aaron Murakami]

1. "An object moving through the aether requires energy to displace the aether. The aether returns the energy to the object as the aether fills-in where the object had been and the aether 'displaces back'." - GP

2. "there is no loss of energy in the interaction of the object and the supersolid." - GP


A. No energy loss because there is 100% recovery in energy that it took?

Or

B. No energy loss because it doesn't take energy to begin with and it travels with no resistance?

Answer this - Is your claim in #1 and #2 because of A or B?

[gravitational_aether]

Here, you are the one that doesn't know what a supersolid is since you claim it requires work for mass to move through it - you are claiming that with zero resistance, mass has to perform work=energy in order to move through it. I'd have to say you are completely lost in this and are spreading misinformation.

You also don't answer about experiments - you appear to be a pencil jockey whose entire experience is encompassed by google searches.

Don't ask me if I agree with you anymore - you are irrational, unreasonable, and dishonest. Look below - your entire fraud is revealed for what it is...


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just to be perfectly clear - further clarification on your disinformation:

1. "An object moving through the aether requires energy to displace the aether. The aether returns the energy to the object as the aether fills-in where the object had been and the aether 'displaces back'." - GP

2. "there is no loss of energy in the interaction of the object and the supersolid." - GP

You attempts are inherently subversive.

First of all, in point #2, you say there is no loss of energy when something moves through a supersolid.

A. No energy loss because there is 100% recovery in energy that it took?

Or

B. No energy loss because it doesn't take energy to begin with and it travels with no resistance?

It is point A, which expresses your opinion, which is evidenced by your claim in point #1.

You clearly describe an object moving through a "supersolid", it requires energy meaning there is resistance to overcome and then super solid's reaction gives all the energy back so there is no energy loss.

Here is where it becomes even more clear that you are spreading disinformation:

Originally Posted by gravitational_aether
"Northwestern University physicists have for the first time shown that superfluid helium-3 -- the lighter isotope of helium, which is a liquid that has lost all internal friction, allowing it to flow without resistance and ooze through tiny spaces that normal liquids cannot penetrate -- actually behaves like a solid in its ability to conduct sound waves."



When there is no friction, there is no resistance to overcome. That means there is no joules of energy per unit of time being dissipated since there is no resistance. And since there is no resistance and it takes no energy, there is no energy or reactive energy to be recovered back from the aether meaning that the quote you post about super solids is 180 degrees in opposition to your quote in point #1 above.

What is that about a dozen contradictions you have posted so far? And the references that you post actually support my argument and contradicts yours. The above is an example of that.

Because of your point in #1, it is 100% apparent, you don't even know what energy is.

You do not understand the difference between resistance and friction.

Maybe you should read the following article again.

'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction'
[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."

The 'fluidic' nature of space itself, the aether, resists such surges even through there is no friction.

You really might want to learn to understand objects move through and displace a supersolid and the supersolid returns to the object the same amount of energy as the supersolid 'displaces back'. Objects move through and interact with a supersolid.

Objects move through and interact with the aether. There is no loss of energy in the interaction. No loss of energy does not imply no interaction.

[Aaron Murakami]

Here, you are the one that doesn't know what a supersolid is since you claim it requires work for mass to move through it - you are claiming that with zero resistance, mass has to perform work=energy in order to move through it. I'd have to say you are completely lost in this and are spreading misinformation.

You also don't answer about experiments - you appear to be a pencil jockey whose entire experience is encompassed by google searches.

Don't ask me if I agree with you anymore - you are irrational, unreasonable, and dishonest. Look below - your entire fraud is revealed for what it is...


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just to be perfectly clear - further clarification on your disinformation:

1. "An object moving through the aether requires energy to displace the aether. The aether returns the energy to the object as the aether fills-in where the object had been and the aether 'displaces back'." - GP

2. "there is no loss of energy in the interaction of the object and the supersolid." - GP

You attempts are inherently subversive.

First of all, in point #2, you say there is no loss of energy when something moves through a supersolid.

A. No energy loss because there is 100% recovery in energy that it took?

Or

B. No energy loss because it doesn't take energy to begin with and it travels with no resistance?

It is point A, which expresses your opinion, which is evidenced by your claim in point #1.

You clearly describe an object moving through a "supersolid", it requires energy meaning there is resistance to overcome and then super solid's reaction gives all the energy back so there is no energy loss.

Here is where it becomes even more clear that you are spreading disinformation:

Originally Posted by gravitational_aether
"Northwestern University physicists have for the first time shown that superfluid helium-3 -- the lighter isotope of helium, which is a liquid that has lost all internal friction, allowing it to flow without resistance and ooze through tiny spaces that normal liquids cannot penetrate -- actually behaves like a solid in its ability to conduct sound waves."



When there is no friction, there is no resistance to overcome. That means there is no joules of energy per unit of time being dissipated since there is no resistance. And since there is no resistance and it takes no energy, there is no energy or reactive energy to be recovered back from the aether meaning that the quote you post about super solids is 180 degrees in opposition to your quote in point #1 above.

What is that about a dozen contradictions you have posted so far? And the references that you post actually support my argument and contradicts yours. The above is an example of that.

Because of your point in #1, it is 100% apparent, you don't even know what energy is.

[gravitational_aether]

I've said plenty of times the basic concept of mass displacing the aether and having the aether reflex back to the mass is the source of the gravitational push. No doubt about it in my mind. This I agree with. It is in alignment with all observable and measurable universal principles.

We also agree that the aether is the unifying medium.

For me, the jury is out on slit experiments.

'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 a well defined path which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the aether passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Detecting the particle strongly exiting a single slit turns the associated aether wave into chop. The aether waves exiting the slits interact with the detectors and become many short waves with irregular motion. The waves are disorganized. There is no wave interference. The particle pitches and rolls through the chop. The particle gets knocked around by the chop and it no longer creates an interference pattern.

Basically, I agree with the basics that you have presented except for about 5-6 specific things, which are of foundational. I don't agree with aetheric mass, mass takes energy to move through aether, etc... Please don't rebuttal those - I'm just giving example of what I don't agree with.

Then you don't know what supersolid means.

But overall, the basic concepts that you state, I agree with them and to me they are overwhelmingly obvious.

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave. Both are waves in the aether.

Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity with quantum mechnics.

Agree?

[Aaron Murakami]

Let's see if we agree on anything.

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.

Agree?

I've said plenty of times the basic concept of mass displacing the aether and having the aether reflex back to the mass is the source of the gravitational push. No doubt about it in my mind. This I agree with. It is in alignment with all observable and measurable universal principles.

We also agree that the aether is the unifying medium.

For me, the jury is out on slit experiments.

Basically, I agree with the basics that you have presented except for about 5-6 specific things, which are of foundational. I don't agree with aetheric mass, mass takes energy to move through aether, etc... Please don't rebuttal those - I'm just giving example of what I don't agree with.

But overall, the basic concepts that you state, I agree with them and to me they are overwhelmingly obvious.

[gravitational_aether]

The unity is the aether - the reactive energy of the aether is just one aspect out of many of the unifying concept. But for the most part, I agree.

I appreciate greatly your enthusiasm about aetheric concepts but there are a few distinctions in your claims so far that are red flags to me.

Do you have any experiments that you can show in regards to your interest in this field or is it a purely intellectual pursuit for you?

Let's see if we agree on anything.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure towad 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.

Agree?

[Aaron Murakami]

"This work reveals a new concept of unity among the fundamental physics that govern classical mechanics and electrodynamics, from macroscopic to microscopic scales."

The new concept of unity is the displaced aether displacing back.

The unity is the aether - the reactive energy of the aether is just one aspect out of many of the unifying concept. But for the most part, I agree.

I appreciate greatly your enthusiasm about aetheric concepts but there are a few distinctions in your claims so far that are red flags to me.

Do you have any experiments that you can show in regards to your interest in this field or is it a purely intellectual pursuit for you?

[gravitational_aether]

Again, you have no idea how to comprehend the subject.

Gravity is the Earth displacing the aether and the aether rebounds back. You're standing on planet Earth, with gravity, and your relationship to the aether is at a CONSTANT VELOCITY. You are NOT experiencing the back-reaction they are talking about.

"This work reveals a new concept of unity among the fundamental physics that govern classical mechanics and electrodynamics, from macroscopic to microscopic scales."

The new concept of unity is the displaced aether displacing back.