Big-Bang falacies and the Occult Aetheric Physics reality.

[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.

[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]

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]

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?

[Aaron Murakami]

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.

[gravitational_aether]

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'.

[Faraday88]

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

[Aaron Murakami]

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.

[Aaron Murakami]

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.

[Aaron Murakami]

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

[Faraday88]

Rgds,
Faraday88.

[gravitational_aether]

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.

[gravitational_aether]

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.

[Ron Hammar]

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

[Tom C]

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