Big-Bang falacies and the Occult Aetheric Physics reality.

[gravitational_aether]

Again, they are specifically talking about a SUDDEN CHANGE. Inertia. The EFFECT of that induction is what they are talking about. You keep equating with gravity. You don't understand what you're reading. Displacement of the Aether is one thing. Having the counter force being induced by sudden movement is another. They are not identical. Related, yes, but the counter induction is NOT defining mass displacing aether - it is related to a rate of change!

"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. This "back-reaction" ... " is the definition of the aether displacing back when an object changes state with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists.

[Aaron Murakami]

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:

"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.

[Aaron Murakami]

"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. This "back-reaction" ... " is the definition of the aether displacing back when an object changes state with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists.

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.

The back reaction they're talking about is related to what gravity is but the distinction that evades your comprehension is they are talking about the back reaction that happens upon sudden movement - just like back emf in a coil when charged.

You tried to equate the back reaction they're talking about as being exactly what your gravity definition is, which is pretty much like mine, but equating them is either fraud or a lack of comprehension.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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