Big-Bang falacies and the Occult Aetheric Physics reality.

[gravitational_aether]

'Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image'
NASA - Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image

"This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected into a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. "This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results available online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter.""

The dark matter core does not defy explanation. The dark matter core is not a puzzle. The dark matter core is not difficult to explain. It is obviously clear what is going on.

Non-baryonic dark matter and galaxies are not anchored together. There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by 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 passes through both.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

The Milky Way's halo is what Einstein referred to as curved spacetime.

Curved spacetime physically exists in nature as displaced aether.

'Was the universe born spinning?'
Was the universe born spinning? - physicsworld.com

"The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis"

The Universe spins around a preferred axis because the Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet; a larger version of a black hole polar jet.

'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
NASA - Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe

'The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said.'

The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet.

The following is an image analogous of the Universal jet.

Smoot Cosmology Group

The reason for the 'expansion' of the universe is the continual emission of aether into the Universal jet. Three dimensional space associated with the Universe itself is not expanding. What we see in our telescopes is the matter associated with the Universe moving outward and away from the Universal jet emission point. In the image above, '1st Stars' is where aether condenses into matter.

Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.

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

[Aaron Murakami]

Faraday,

What do you mean by this? "solve the shaffel based on the Magnetic Monopole concept and a full Regauge method"

Virtually every over 1.0 cop system is already asymmetrically re-gauging itself whether it is magnetic or not.

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

Bearden says:

Regauging is Free Electrical or Magnetic "Refueling"

A-regauging a sector of a rotary electromagnetic engine is just like refueling a car by putting gas in its gas tank: During the regauging operation, the system is an "open" system receiving an injection of excess potential (stored) energy from the surrounding vacuum -- except in the electromagnetic case the refueling is free. (See Figure 3). The excess stored energy injected into the system from the "refueling" jump due to A-regauging, can then be dissipated in the load during the remainder of the rotary cycle -- just as a refueled automobile can dissipate its additional fuel energy in powering the car, until it is time for refueling again.
By using one or both of these two master principles (i) A-regauging the potential energy of the system, and (ii) use of a multivalued potential for A-regauging, electromagnetic engines can permissibly exhibit COP>1.0, without any violation of the laws of physics, thermodynamics, Maxwell's equations, or advanced electrodynamics. And a totally-permanent-magnet motor can power itself and its load.

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

The speech by Professor Stig Claesson of the Royal Academy of Sciences of Sweden that introduced Prigogine when he received the Nobel Prize says:

Prigogine has called these systems dissipative systems, because they are formed and maintained by the dissipative processes which take place because of the exchange of energy between the system and its environment and because they disappear if that exchange ceases. They may be said to live in symbiosis with their environment.

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

With regauging, Bearden is focused primarily on electromagnetics because that is the context that regauging is usually used in. Regauging definition of Regauging in the Free Online Encyclopedia.

However, when we look at the universal principle, it is actually universal in all over 1.0 cop systems that are open with their environment.

Professor Claesson's comment here: "formed and maintained by the dissipative processes which take place because of the exchange of energy between the system and its environment" is exactly describing the principle of regauging - just not with electromagnetics, but any open dissipative system.

The entire key to regauging is: Through the process of dissipation, a new dipole is established that allows new environmental Potential Energy to enter the system to perform more work.

For example, a bouncing ball is asymmetrically regauging itself. Through the process of dissipating energy, it regauges itself at a certain efficiency and re-establishes a new dipole every time it bounces up. That allows this dissipate system to be - "maintained by the dissipative processes which take place because of the exchange of energy between the system and its environment."

The Veljko 2-stage mechanical oscillator is the same thing. Through it's own dissipation of energy (work), it is constantly establishing a new dipole where new gravitational Potential Energy enters to do more work over and over.

Obviously the dipole gets less and less on each cycle, but that is because the efficiency is under 100% but the COP is way over 1.0.

What that shows us is if a ball is lifted to a meter and it is 90% efficient in bouncing or regauging itself, when it bounces up to 90 cm, all we have to do is provide enough work to lift it 10cm on every cycle to continuously have 100cm worth of lifting work accomplished (W = Fd).

On a per cycle basis, that is 1/10 of the work in for 10/10 work done. That is a COP of 10.0 on each cycle or a 1000% net gain in work on a per cycle basis.

[Aaron Murakami]

Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

The Milky Way's halo is what Einstein referred to as curved spacetime.

Curved spacetime physically exists in nature as displaced aether.

Yes, but you point out the distinction about aether rebounding back to where it was displaced from which contradicts Einstein. That rebound allows for a reaction to take place and is accurate.

Einstein does not allow this, which is a blatant violation of one of the most obvious universal principles. His curved space is a mass simply curving space but the space gives no reaction to the mass "curving" it. Therefore, Einstein worshipers do not believe gravitational potential can contribute anything that does work. It just sits there static. It seems that his theories were very carefully crafted so that they intentionally do not violate conventional thermodynamics so everyone is still trapped in the mindset that everything is an isolated system blocked from environmental input.

Maybe Einstein really did know the truth and if he did, I believe he was never allowed to tell it because the establishment has to retain their "authority". There is a lot of evidence that shows he knew that Dayton Miller was right but was in a position to never officially admit it.

Since the Aether is the medium or propagation and motion, I think it is the Aether that defines space. So instead of Aether occupying space, the space with it's coordinate dimensions is there because of the Aether. Without Aether, it is a true void or true vacuum and there are no 3D coordinates possible and no propagation of light possible.

[gravitational_aether]

Yes, but you point out the distinction about aether rebounding back to where it was displaced from which contradicts Einstein. That rebound allows for a reaction to take place and is accurate.

Einstein does not allow this, which is a blatant violation of one of the most obvious universal principles. His curved space is a mass simply curving space but the space gives no reaction to the mass "curving" it.

I think you are mistaking the geometrical representation of gravity, which is curved spacetime, with what actually occurs physically in nature to cause gravity. To state "Einstein does not allow this" is incorrect.

Einstein's 'First Paper'
http://www.efiko.org/material/Albert...0Anonymous.pdf

"The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."

The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause its propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether displaced by these forces.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
Einstein: "Ether and Relativity"

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable"

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places ... "

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

Einstein was unable to determine what causes the state of the aether.

" ... disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The cause which conditions the state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is its displacement by the matter.

[Aaron Murakami]

But that is not even the proper geometric representation of what gravity is. That is like having a 2D diagram represent a 3D phenomena for example.

The proper geometric representation is straight lines moving towards the surface with an increasing in the density of the Aether the closer to the mass that is displacing the Aether.

When light moves past a large object, it doesn't change trajectories because space is curved, it changes trajectories because the region of space closer to the mass is compressed closer to the mass. Therefore, that Aether that light was propagating through has been pushed towards the mass thus changing its trajectories. It has absolutely nothing to do with curving space.

Space isn't curved, the Aether that makes up space in any particular location is either at a higher or lower density. That isn't a curvature and is in no way properly geometrically represented by Einstein's curved space drawing.

The below quotes are well after that paper.

I referenced this paper in the past myself and will look at it in detail again soon - but what you are quoting from it shows that the aether is offering a resistance to the mass that displaces it. That is not the reaction I'm talking about. I can push on a tennis ball and it is trying to push back on my finger. but it just stops there. The reactive potential in that case does not consider a flowing reaction that is constantly moving towards the center of the mass that displaced it, getting dissipated and leaving a lower potential there for the displaced Aether to constantly move towards since "nature abhors a vacuum" - the Aether is constantly trying to fill the low potential holes.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it still doesn't not answer the question. Where does Einstein allow for the elastic rebound of the Aether to act as a source of Potential Energy that will push a mass and then become dissipated by resistance. The aether is in a constant circulation from it's ambient symmetry to asymmetry by the displaced mass moving it towards the Earth, encountering resistances that dissipates it back to symmetry. It is an ongoing cycle. That is a constant free flowing movement of the Aether in the net direction towards the center of the mass.

The reaction you seem to be mentioning is just a stable or steady reaction or tension and is in effect static as I mentioned - Einstein's gravity is essentially dead or non-dynamic. Einstein is still not accounting for a dynamic flowing reaction that is not static. Please show me the exact reference because I'm open to correction.

The distinction I'm making is also evident in the fact that there is no mass=energy equivalence, which Einstein first proposed in 1905 in his paper: Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?

That means Einstein does indeed believe that gravitational reaction can no way provide Potential Energy to a mass to to do real work since he says energy is an intrinsic property of the mass. That means, he is indeed believing that gravity is static and has no reaction that is usable as potential energy.





"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." — Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)


"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926.


"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)


"You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track."
— Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday, in a letter to Maurice Solovine, 28 March 1949 (in B. Hoffman Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel 1972, p.328)

and from Tesla - not everything Tesla said was correct, but he is very clear in this:

The "two great discoveries" to which Tesla referred, were:

1. The Dynamic Theory of Gravity - which assumed a field of force which accounts for the motions of bodies in space; assumption of this field of force dispenses with the concept of space curvature (ala Einstein); the ether has an indispensable function in the phenomena (of universal gravity, inertia, momentum, and movement of heavenly bodies, as well as all atomic and molecular matter); and,

2. Environmental Energy - the Discovery of a new physical Truth: there is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment.

[gravitational_aether]

Einstein's 'First Paper'

"The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."

The 'elastic forces' is the aether's ability to 'displace back'.

Superfluid Is Shown To Have Property Of A Solid

"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."

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfliud with properties of a solid; a supersolid. It does not have a significant variable density.

Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein

"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field"

The electromagnetic field is a state of the aether. Matter is condensations of aether.

'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A. EINSTEIN

"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2."

The mass of the body does diminish. However, the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished; it still exists, as aether. Matter evaporates into aether. As matter evaporates into aether it expands into neighboring places; which is energy. Mass is conserved.

When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.

[dragonborn]

Perhaps I can rock this boat slightly

Actual real experiment that falsifies the current mathematical wave-particle model of photons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB2teqigcBA

Observation contradicts theory, this falsifies both The Quantum Mechanics model and Einstein's theory of relativity. Feel free to repeat the easy to reproduce experiment.

In addition to that the relativistic model is logically falsified as:
Three brothers paradox (layman's terms)

1. three brothers are on Earth in the same rest frame
2. two of the brothers hop on a ship and accelerate to 0.5*c away form Earth
3. the two brothers on the ship still share the same rest frame
4. one brother on the ship hops into a shuttle and accelerates from the ship to 0.5*c towards Earth
5. the shuttle has entered into Earth's rest frame and is stationary relative to Earth, therefore the shuttle must now observe the same proper time rate as observed on Earth
6. acceleration of the ship caused the ship's proper time rate to slow down
7. acceleration of the shuttle caused the shuttle's proper time rate to speed up
8. Einstein's theory of relativity is shown to be false


The above paradox modified and expressed in relativistic terms:

Two observers (o1 and o2) share a rest frame. The observers are one light week away from each other. A ship is in the same rest frame right beside o1.

1. the ship accelerates towards o2 to 0.3*c relative speed

2. at spacetime point P1 (which is spatially in the center between observers o1 and o2) a shuttle departs from the cargo hold of the ship and accelerates back towards o1 to slightly above 0.6*c speed relative to the ship (slightly above 0.3*c relative to o1 and o2)

3. both observers o1 and o2 agree on the time when the departure of the shuttle occurred because it occurred right in the middle between them, their timestamped records confirm this

4. the shuttle arrives to o1 and the ship to o2 and they decelerate to stop near the observers

5. records from the observers show that both the ship and the shuttle arrived at their destination at the same time as observed by the observers in their rest frame

The relativistic solution to the twins paradox dictates that those who experience most acceleration between two separate shared rest frames must have aged the least when all involed are joined together in the second shared rest frame.

Therefore the relativistic solution in this case must dictate that the shuttle that experienced the most acceleration must have aged less than the ship. This of course causes a logical contradiction within the relativistic model in this particular case. Einstein's theory of relativity is shown to be false in relativistic terms.

[Aaron Murakami]

The 'elastic forces' is the aether's ability to 'displace back'.

Superfluid Is Shown To Have Property Of A Solid

"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."

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfliud with properties of a solid; a supersolid. It does not have a significant variable density.

Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein

"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field"

The electromagnetic field is a state of the aether. Matter is condensations of aether.

'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A. EINSTEIN

"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2."

The mass of the body does diminish. However, the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished; it still exists, as aether. Matter evaporates into aether. As matter evaporates into aether it expands into neighboring places; which is energy. Mass is conserved.

When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.

Yes, that is the very nature of anything elastic - I agree. However, that still does not answer the question.

In Einstein's world - let's say the Earth is displacing Aether, the Aether as an elastic medium resists the displacement and tries to push back - the question is: Does the Aether simply stay frozen there being displaced around the Earth with a tendency to push back on the mass as if you are pushing your finger into a tennis ball? And if so, we are in a situation where the Aether is completely static.

Or, is the Aether dynamically flowing back to where it was displaced from by moving through the atomic matrix of the mass meaning that even as the Earth sits there, the Aether is actively and dynamically flowing through in a non-static mode?

A tennis ball is elastic but if I push my finger into it, it resists my push but it in no way, shape or form is moving back through my finger dynamically - even though it is still elastic.

If Einstein agrees that it is dynamically flowing, then that is the only way it can be said that Einstein agrees that gravity's dynamic reaction can provide potential energy to mass to perform work. If not, then it remains he believes in a dead-static gravitational field that can't perform any work.

Also, if Einstein believes that it is dynamic as described, then Einstein is also agreeing that closed system thermodynamics is a fraud because a mass being moved about on the surface of Earth indeed does have an interaction from the external gravitational force.

But if he does not, then it means he does believe in closed system thermodynamics and that a mass moving about on the surface of the Earth has no interaction with gravitational forces.

The Aether as an incompressible fluid is one of the basic tenets of it's nature that has been believed by many people in this field for ages.

But it does act as a gas under pressure, which means it is compressible due to the fact that there are varying densities of it. You say not a significant varying in density but significant is a relative or subjective term. It does increase and decrease in density and that is what counts. The Bedini SG circuits for example are actually gas pumps for this fluid. The Heaviside flow over a wire is polarized and condensed Aether and a magnetic field in an electromagnetic coil is condensed aether with a density that displaces symmetrical aether at a level that is higher than what mass can do. So when the coil is turned off, the displaced symmetrical aether pushes back on this electromagnetic field (elastic rebound) causing it to be squeezed in the opposite direction causing it to come out as a spike. The spike is only possible because of the extremely high density of the magnetic field displacing the aether. There are countless evidences all around that the Aether varies in densities over a very wide range.

That helium example says it flows without resistance but the aether is very different. It does offer a resistance. Otherwise, mass would be unable to exert a push on it to have it displaced to begin with and any objected lifted off the surface of the Earth would never be pushed back down. Every single observable force in the universe relies on the fact that the aether, the source potential, gives resistance to mass and then dissipates back to equilibrium. On the surface, I agree the helium example does look like the aether but is not an analogy since there are differences.

I agree, matter is condensed aether but that is possible because aether is has high degrees of varying densities - the very nature of what it means to condense it.

"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." - Einstein

There is no such thing as energy that can be given off. There is only the source potential of the aether. When there is a potential difference that causes the polarized aether to move from a high potential to a low potential by meeting resistances, that is work and that is what energy is. Energy is nothing more than an adjective to describe the dissipation of the aetheric source potential that moves from a high to low potential. And the only reason the potential difference ever reduces is because of the resistance that is encountered and dissipates back to symmetry.

When a mass is accelerated for example, the amount of resistance encountered by the mass from the aether is what energy is - it is work or the dissipation of that aetheric potential. Aether resists the mass and then dissipates. As the amount of aether per unit of time for that particular mass increases, that is an increase in the work or energy, but the mass does not change. The mass of an object is identical at 1 MPH as it is at 99% the speed of light. The energy that increases is only the amount of resistance per unit of time that mass encounters from the aether and it completely external from the mass and is not of the mass itself.

The mass or number of protons itself doesn't determine how much energy there is, that only determines how much resistance it can encounter by moving through the aether - in an inertial example for example.

Resistance or work is based on the positive polarity of the aether having an electrostatic push or resistance against the positive proton in an atom. So the aether can offer resistance to mass by electrostatics without having to have mass or even fractional mass.

Coming this far, it is obvious that by Einstein again stating that mass gives off energy thereby reducing mass that he actually has absolutely no idea what energy actually is.

[gravitational_aether]

Perhaps I can rock this boat slightly

Actual real experiment that falsifies the current mathematical wave-particle model of photons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB2teqigcBA

Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional. Aether is physically displaced by matter.

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 aehter passes through both. As the wave in the aether exits the slits it creates wave interference which alters the direction the particle travels. This is the wave piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Strongly detecting the particle turns the associated wave into chop, there is no wave interference, the particle gets knocked around by the chop and continues on the path it is traveling.

[gravitational_aether]

Coming this far, it is obvious that by Einstein again stating that mass gives off energy thereby reducing mass that he actually has absolutely no idea what energy actually is.

Aether and matter have mass.

A change in state of that which has mass is energy.

[Aaron Murakami]

In addition to that the relativistic model is logically falsified as:
Three brothers paradox (layman's terms)

1. three brothers are on Earth in the same rest frame
2. two of the brothers hop on a ship and accelerate to 0.5*c away form Earth
3. the two brothers on the ship still share the same rest frame
4. one brother on the ship hops into a shuttle and accelerates from the ship to 0.5*c towards Earth
5. the shuttle has entered into Earth's rest frame and is stationary relative to Earth, therefore the shuttle must now observe the same proper time rate as observed on Earth
6. acceleration of the ship caused the ship's proper time rate to slow down
7. acceleration of the shuttle caused the shuttle's proper time rate to speed up
8. Einstein's theory of relativity is shown to be false

I'm with you up to point #5.

All 8 steps are not sequential - 6 and 7 are just explaining steps 2 and 4 - is that correct?

The question of importance is - if in step 4 the shuttle leaves the ship and also goes at 0.5*c, is the shuttle not then traveling at the exact same speed as the ship but just in opposite directions assuming the density of the Aether they are both traveling through is the same?

In #7, how does the shuttle's time speed up if it accelerates towards 1/2 the speed of light? Since the shuttle is moving with the ship at 1/2 the speed of light it is going that same speed, when it exists the ship, it will be going that same speed and then will slow down to a stop in order to then speed up and accelerate towards the Earth in the opposite direction at 1/2 the speed of light. So the only time that the shuttle's time would speed up is during the deceleration to a dead stop in order for it to then speed up in the opposite direction. However long that takes is the only time the shuttle's time would be sped up compared to the ship and once it is at 1/2 the speed of light, the time would be ticking just as slow as the ship compared to an absolute observation point.

Just wondering.

Time is just motion and is 100% based on the density of the aether that anything is moving through.

High density aether or relative high density aether from a very fast moving object through the aether has high resistance to motion and light speed is slowed down proportionately from an absolute reference point.

And in low density aether or from a slow moving object through the aether, there is low resistance to motion and light speed is faster proportionately from an absolute reference point.

In both cases of the ship and the shuttle, the time is the same when they are both going 0.5*c if they are both moving through areas where the density of the aether is the same.

If one of them is moving at 0.5*c through a region of abnormally high gravity, the speed of light is then very slow compared to an absolute reference point and therefore, time would be very slow for them compared to someone moving through a low density area at 0.5*c compared to each other. Simply, 0.5*c from an absolute reference point in both of these examples is actually not the same speed from an absolute reference point.

[Aaron Murakami]

Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional. Aether is physically displaced by matter.

Maybe you can state the premise for your belief that aether has mass - that would clarify a lot.

I agree aether is physically displaced by matter, but that doesn't mean aether has to have mass.

Mass is based on the proton in an atom and the positive component of aether (which aether is bi-polar with positive and negative charges), the positive polarity of the aether can push against the proton with electrostatic repulsion and this doesn't require mass to exert a push or resistance against mass.

For example, water can be split with electrostatics. If you have a small gap with high enough electrostatic voltage there, the positive plate can electrostatically rip the electrons with mass from the bonds and split the water without any electron current provided from the circuit. The only current is the internal current of the electrons moving to the positive plates but that current was not furnished by the power supply - only electrostatic potential. Just an example of an attraction or repulsion of something with mass without using mass.

[gravitational_aether]

Maybe you can state the premise for your belief that aether has mass - that would clarify a lot.

I agree aether is physically displaced by matter, but that doesn't mean aether has to have mass.

Mass is based on the proton in an atom and the positive component of aether (which aether is bi-polar with positive and negative charges), the positive polarity of the aether can push against the proton with electrostatic repulsion and this doesn't require mass to exert a push or resistance against mass.

For example, water can be split with electrostatics. If you have a small gap with high enough electrostatic voltage there, the positive plate can electrostatically rip the electrons with mass from the bonds and split the water without any electron current provided from the circuit. The only current is the internal current of the electrons moving to the positive plates but that current was not furnished by the power supply - only electrostatic potential. Just an example of an attraction or repulsion of something with mass without using mass.

'Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image'
NASA - Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image

"This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected into a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. "This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results available online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter.""

The dark matter core does not defy explanation. The dark matter core is not a puzzle. The dark matter core is not difficult to explain. It is obviously clear what is going on.

Non-baryonic dark matter and galaxies are not anchored together. There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

Mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether has mass.

[Aaron Murakami]

Mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether has mass.

Ok, you did say that before that it "occupies space" but I'm not sure how that requires mass.

An object with mass displaces the aether, it's not displacing space. Therefore aether defines the space as space is non-existent without aether.

Space is the existence of aether. Without aether, there is a void and there is no distance or light propagation and therefore no space.

If you have space (volume of aether) there is higher or lower densities of it. Higher density means less distance compared to an absolute reference point. Lower density means more distance compared to an absolute reference point. Distance is based entirely on the volume of aether that mass or light can propagate through.

If you have a region of space with 3 time the density and a region of space with 1/3 that density. If you are looking at it from an absolute reference point, it will take light 3 times as long to travel through the 3 times density compared to the 1/3 density at which light will travel 3 times faster. The density of the aether is what defines distance to begin with and therefore space.

So aether doesn't occupy 3-d space, aether is 3-d space. If you have a unit of "space" and it is at a 100x density, light can only travel at 1/100th the speed as light moving through a 1x density region compared to each other. Light cannot propagate through a true vacuum an a true vacuum has no dimensions or coordinates to it.

If you have 1/100th the density of 1x density, then light will travel at 100 times faster in that region compared to 1x. So the further out at the edge of the universe we go, the "space" is stretched very thin meaning the aetheric density is decreasing at a very rapid rate meaning that light and motion will accelerate from an absolute reference point and the outer edge would be defying entropy by accelerating - defeating the belief in the big bang that there is a central point of explosion because it would mean it would expand to a point and then contract but we see the opposite. Why? Because the rapid decrease in the density of the aether at the outer edges. Instead of entropy, it would be like reverse gravity where things are pulled outwards at a negative resistance and would accelerate the further out it gets.

[dragonborn]

Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional. Aether is physically displaced by matter.

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 aehter passes through both. As the wave in the aether exits the slits it creates wave interference which alters the direction the particle travels. This is the wave piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Strongly detecting the particle turns the associated wave into chop, there is no wave interference, the particle gets knocked around by the chop and continues on the path it is traveling.

To make that real science it has to be quantitative. Do you have an mathematical model?

As a scientist relying only on observable facts, here is my current understanding of wave-particles as a quantitative expression (simulation):
Rewriting physics: What is Light? Photons explained - YouTube

In the simulation part at the end you have spinning/oscillating point particles reflecting of the edges of the slit.