Curvature of Space/Time

[mpc755]

Dude,
What happened to the part where you don't lecture people??? Your information might be right but you can't shove it down my throat.
It is not crucial if the relativistic theory of an Aether WAS discussed ....I don't remember being part of those discussions. let's talk about what IS

Please let me know if English isn't your first language maybe I can meet you half way. On second thought I think I am going to stop responding to your posts.

NoFear

What is referred to geometrically as the curvature of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

Aether has mass. Maass defined as that which physically occupies three dimensional space.

The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.

[Nofear]

"The relativistic theory of an Aether was discussed several time, see for e.g. [8], [9]. In this paper, our hypothesis is different and gives a relativistic theory of the deformation of continuous media (for which the geometry is described by the metric field)."

Dude,
What happened to the part where you don't lecture people??? Your information might be right but you can't shove it down my throat.
It is not crucial if the relativistic theory of an Aether WAS discussed ....I don't remember being part of those discussions. let's talk about what IS

Please let me know if English isn't your first language maybe I can meet you half way. On second thought I think I am going to stop responding to your posts.

NoFear

[mpc755]

MPC???

I am a bit disappointed in the way you communicate. Respectable science has to be backup by observations and/or empirical experimentation. I believe your knowledge of the aether has neither but that doesn't stop you to speak with arrogant certitude. It's only a theory. You are giving lecture-style answers and this is not the place for that. Do I need to remind you what a FORUM is? Definition: (1)a meeting at which a subject can be discussed. (2) a place or opportunity for discussing a subject.

I haven't seen any discussion coming out of you nor a willingness to engage. Which make me wonder, what kick are you getting out of this?

It's OK to disagree, and the end game isn't to be right. If you would like to get people on-board you need to put it back into your pants and stop talking like a robot.

My two cents

NoFear

http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5759

"The relativistic theory of an Aether was discussed several time, see for e.g. [8], [9]. In this paper, our hypothesis is different and gives a relativistic theory of the deformation of continuous media (for which the geometry is described by the metric field)."

The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of continuous media.

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

What is referred to as the curvature of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

The pseudo-force associated with curved spacetime is the force associated with the displaced aether.

The following article describes the aether as that which produces resistance to acceleration and is responsible for the increase in mass of an object with velocity and describes the "space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611

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

The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object. The faster an object moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the greater the displacement of the aether by the object the greater the relativistic mass of the object.

The incompressible fluid described in the following article is the gravitational aether which "the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4176

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

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

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

[mpc755]

There is ZERO force being exerted by either the object or the aether when an object moves through space.

A projectile launched from a satellite for example will move through space forever unless something slows it down. An object in motion tends to stay in motion - that is because the INTRINSIC TENDENCY of the Universe IS perpetual motion. It states this clearly and this is the case case NOT until something opposes it, but UNLESS something opposes it so an opposition to the movement is NOT a requirement. This is very clear.

An object moving through empty space has MASS and it has DISTANCE.

In 0 G, there is no gravity and therefore, the mass cannot be multiplied by anything to equal anything other than 0 FORCE.

0 Force X any distance will always = 0 joules of work, period, end of story.

The object moving through space exerts 0 force to move through the aether.

An object moving with a force that is equal to a mythical aetheric force against the object means that the object cannot move since equal forces against each other will cause the object to be at a standstill.

There is ZERO RESISTANCE to an object moving through space - even as admitted by mpc that an object can move through a supersolid with zero resistance - therefore, there is ZERO FORCE being exerted to move through it.

mpc - give it up - you have so many multiple contradictions you are only embarrassing yourself.

Here it comes again everyone, you'll see 4-5 lines of text where he will reassert his points as if I never point out any logical fallacy about his claims.

You are mistaking resistance with friction. There is resistance to an object moving through a supersolid. However, there is no friction. The object physically displaces the supersolid. The supersolid physically displaces the object. Both occurs simultaneously with equal force.

[Nofear]

Hello Mikey,

Once you understand 'empty' space has mass you understand it is the mass of 'empty' space which waves in a double slit experiment and is what ripples when galaxy clusters collide.

Once you understand 'empty' space has mass you understand it is the mass of 'empty' space which relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Once you understand 'empty' space has mass you understand Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's physical wave of wave-particle duality; both are waves in the mass of 'empty' space.

MPC???

I am a bit disappointed in the way you communicate. Respectable science has to be backup by observations and/or empirical experimentation. I believe your knowledge of the aether has neither but that doesn't stop you to speak with arrogant certitude. It's only a theory. You are giving lecture-style answers and this is not the place for that. Do I need to remind you what a FORUM is? Definition: (1)a meeting at which a subject can be discussed. (2) a place or opportunity for discussing a subject.

I haven't seen any discussion coming out of you nor a willingness to engage. Which make me wonder, what kick are you getting out of this?

It's OK to disagree, and the end game isn't to be right. If you would like to get people on-board you need to put it back into your pants and stop talking like a robot.

My two cents

NoFear

[Aaron Murakami]

As an object moves through a supersolid it displaces the supersolid. As the supersolid fills-in where the object had been the supersolid displaces the object.

Q. Is the object displacing the supersolid or is the supersolid displacing the object.
A. Both are occurring simultaneously with equal force.

A boat has a bow wave. The bow wave is the boat's water displacement wave.

An ocean wave displaces the surfer.

An object moving through a supersolid is both boat and surfer.

There is ZERO force being exerted by either the object or the aether when an object moves through space.

A projectile launched from a satellite for example will move through space forever unless something slows it down. An object in motion tends to stay in motion - that is because the INTRINSIC TENDENCY of the Universe IS perpetual motion. It states this clearly and this is the case case NOT until something opposes it, but UNLESS something opposes it so an opposition to the movement is NOT a requirement. This is very clear.

An object moving through empty space has MASS and it has DISTANCE.

In 0 G, there is no gravity and therefore, the mass cannot be multiplied by anything to equal anything other than 0 FORCE.

0 Force X any distance will always = 0 joules of work, period, end of story.

The object moving through space exerts 0 force to move through the aether.

An object moving with a force that is equal to a mythical aetheric force against the object means that the object cannot move since equal forces against each other will cause the object to be at a standstill.

There is ZERO RESISTANCE to an object moving through space - even as admitted by mpc that an object can move through a supersolid with zero resistance - therefore, there is ZERO FORCE being exerted to move through it.

mpc - give it up - you have so many multiple contradictions you are only embarrassing yourself.

Here it comes again everyone, you'll see 4-5 lines of text where he will reassert his points as if I never point out any logical fallacy about his claims.

[Aaron Murakami]

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

Particles of matter displace the aether.

The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.

you will see him repeat that until he is blue in the face and you will see him constantly repeat that mass displaces aether, which is correct, but the psychology behind his method is to subtly imply that someone is disagreeing with him (me) even though I believe the same thing. And he will repeat until he is blue in the face that aether has mass, which he cannot prove. I believe it is a massless source charge, but on this issue, I'm open to the aether having mass, but it has yet to be proven and most of the logic shows that there is no mass in the aether.

As I predicted. History is the best indicator of future results.

It is irrelevant that the conventional definition says that mass occupies 3d space - there is no such thing as 3 dimensions of space - those are coordinates (x,y,z) and space has ONE dimension. It is mathematically indisputable.

@All, if lifting work is calculated, it is force x distance and force = mass x gravity. When you lift an object from the ground, you are lifting it in space and you are lifting it up along one single coordinate axis. The SINGLE dimension of space that you are calculating it, with math, is distance and that is ONE SINGLE DIMENSION. And if it is moving in a different direction, you are still only calculating it moving in space in ONE DIMENSION. When you calculate these things, you do not multiple it by all 3 coordinates of where it is relevant to some fixed reference point because a triple x,y,z, system are only coordinates within a SINGLE ONE DIMENSION of space. Mass does NOT occupy 3 dimensions of space. Mass occupies ONE single dimension of space. When you do the calculations, the COORDINATES are not multiplied because those are NOT dimensions, period.

Nobody reading this right now is in a different dimension of space than I am just because we are at different coordinates. We are in the SAME dimension.

[Aaron Murakami]

Transformation of energy and re gauging....

Aaron thank you for your insight, through your writings... I am beginning to see things somewhat better now.

I think water can be a prime example of the ball example Aaron used.

Lets pick a place to start, 1) We have a 50' water fall with water continuously flowing down into the basin that then disperses into a much larger body water. 2) The energy ( or what ever you want to call it) from the sun, heats up the water's surface. 3) Water eventually evaporates or becomes much smaller particles of water (there is no transformation into some thing different, water vapour is still composed of H2O) and rises into the atmosphere high above the water fall it previously came from. 4) These very small, warm, light particles of water vapour that used a different form or energy source, the sun, to elevate themselves high above into the atmosphere. That was work being done. 5) Now the energy given from the sun is now dissipated and the water vapour has now very much cooled and begins to collect on certain particles of atmospheric dust and form droplets that reach a certain mass and begin to fall back to earth, as the difference in gravitational potential is to great to be sustained, without work. It should be the same as the example Aaron used when you let go of a raised ball. 6) The rain droplet, that was composed of many particles of water vapour fall back to Earth and land, perhaps back into the same body of water that supplied our waterfall in the first place and now goes back over the water fall again to fully complete the cycle. The sun actually reguages and supplies a continuous reguaging mechanism in this system.

There we have the cycle with no work being done by the water or water vapour, it only has the potential to do work but has not done any so far, the only outside source to impart any work or energy into the system was the external environment, which was the sun.

Now in order to get the water to do some work? What do we have to do? How do we attach a device to the wheel work of nature in order to do some real resistive work, after all we do have an enormous constantly regauging potential energy source at our finger tips in this example? How about a simple water wheel interacting directly with the water fall.

Purposefully I left out the oscillating component of the ball when it bounces and fully realize a water droplet dropped into a body of water will exhibit much the same.

I know this example may be crude, but I do believe it is an accurate description of the topic at hand.

Dave Wing

Hi Dave,

It's a perfect example. The water wheel has a COP of "infinite" since any work done is divided by 0 since we supply no input work to turn it. Just like a solar cell or wind generator.

I'm looking for a quote from a speech. I don't recall if it was from Prigogine himself or someone that introduced him when he was going to give his Nobel Prize speech.

The one sentence was very elegant but I can share the concept of what it said and it was basically stating that in an open dissipative system, the dissipative process itself delays entropy.

With a flashlight and a battery, when it is turned on, the dipole or potential difference of the battery is diminishing but the dissipative energy of the heat, light, etc... are NOT creating a new dipole, they are simply winding down in one direction. That is a closed system.

With a Bedini SG, bouncing ball, Veljko 2 stage oscillator, etc... all the dissipation that happens on each cycle actually goes into simply creating a new dipole (regauging) and what that does is simply delay entropy.

That is the entire key - create a system where the dissipation in the system is dissipated through the creation of a new dipole. That pretty much sums up the "secret" to creating a "free energy" machine that produces more work total than we have to personally provide since the regauging process allows environmental free potential to enter and do more work. It doesn't prevent entropy, it delays it.

[mpc755]

Hello MPC

Keep studying and thinking about it and you will get what Aaron is saying. We all understand your current classical views as established by our university heads.

It is those long hours sitting in class year after year that creates the block keeping us from receiving another model of our universe.

See the word "Universe"? And the word "University"? See them? They are the same word almost and the establishment is controlled by leaders who look at the populous as their enemies. We are a threat to their control because any human being is very capable of thinking clearly and well able to see through mistrust.

As the Elites enemy we are told conflicting things yet using all of the same physical things such as a boat or a surfboard to declare their model of existence. When I was in class many time myself or other students would stop the instructor to ask why we were now throwing out the old way of looking at things for a new one.

The teacher had little time, telling students this is in another class or we can't cover that material now, always putting off the questions from the young minds that knew that the change was contrary to clear thinking..

I saw students who were very high in class work exit the classes and the building never to return because these intellectuals were being asked to think and do things against their previous number of years training.

These schools leave people hanging til the NEXT class when the students are promised MORE.

The "more" never came and will never be explained.

Mikey

Hello Mikey,

Once you understand 'empty' space has mass you understand it is the mass of 'empty' space which waves in a double slit experiment and is what ripples when galaxy clusters collide.

Once you understand 'empty' space has mass you understand it is the mass of 'empty' space which relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Once you understand 'empty' space has mass you understand Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's physical wave of wave-particle duality; both are waves in the mass of 'empty' space.

[Branch Gordon]

Can you guys just play rock, paper, scissors or something and be done? . J/k

[mpc755]

...that mass displaces aether...

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

Particles of matter displace the aether.

The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.

[mpc755]

Please stop with the snake talk.

Don't tell me I am incorrect because that is not my belief. This is your historical pattern of twisting what others are saying to pursue your perpetually robotic method of communicating your propaganda.

What I said about putting energy into the ball is me discussing YOUR belief and you have already admitted that in the past and here you are trying to make it look like I said that and am wrong. That is beyond ridiculous.

You are the one that believes the superfluid "gives back energy" to an object moving through it and that energy comes from putting that energy into it to begin with. You claimed this from the beginning so don't try to deny it.

It is a matter of very simple common sense that my sentence here: "But what you are pushing a completely conventional and completely erroneous interpretation of the facts and you believe that the energy the ball demonstrates when it hits the ground is from the energy we put into lifting it." is discussing YOUR belief that you are trying to weasel out of now.

As an object moves through a supersolid it displaces the supersolid. As the supersolid fills-in where the object had been the supersolid displaces the object.

Q. Is the object displacing the supersolid or is the supersolid displacing the object.
A. Both are occurring simultaneously with equal force.

A boat has a bow wave. The bow wave is the boat's water displacement wave.

An ocean wave displaces the surfer.

An object moving through a supersolid is both boat and surfer.

[Aaron Murakami]

It is madness to do away with the 8th grade mathematical expressions of the basics to explain existence and exchange it for something else in a college level course. That is not how a foundation for thinking should be laid.

We can see that Eric Dollard uses only 9th grade algebra for everything - threw out calculus, etc...

[Aaron Murakami]

Gravity is not an attraction.

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

The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.

You are a snake.

I have said from the beginning that gravity is a PUSH.

It is common sense that the term gravitational attraction I'm using, especially based on the entire context that I have laid out, is that I'm simply referring to two large masses moving together and I have ALREADY stated that they are PUSHED together from the outside in. You ignore this and take the opportunity to spread your disinformation making it look like I'm saying something else.

You are an anonymous snake who is trying to deceive people.

@ALL - mpc is obviously a fan of Hitler's propaganda methods by constantly repeating things over and over in a robotic manner because anyone who is a zombie that lives in a passive autopilot state of mind will start to actually believe what is repeated.

Here he is - constantly stating this fairytale about "three dimensional space" - you will see him repeat that until he is blue in the face and you will see him constantly repeat that mass displaces aether, which is correct, but the psychology behind his method is to subtly imply that someone is disagreeing with him (me) even though I believe the same thing. And he will repeat until he is blue in the face that aether has mass, which he cannot prove. I believe it is a massless source charge, but on this issue, I'm open to the aether having mass, but it has yet to be proven and most of the logic shows that there is no mass in the aether.

Again - you will all see him repeat these points over and over and over and over and over.

Where have I said that gravity is an attraction? Never. "Gravitational attraction" is what everyone commonly refers to with two large object moving towards each other and mtc uses this to correct me and claim that gravity is not an attraction. It is completely pathetic.

I'll probably bow out soon from this thread and anyone that wants to be subject to this lunacy can have at it.

[Aaron Murakami]

Incorrect. No energy is put into anything by lifting the ball. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter the Earth and the bowling ball consist of. If you pick the bowling ball up the aether displaced by the Earth pushing back toward the Earth forces the bowling ball to the ground. If you lift the bowling ball far enough away from the Earth the aether displaced by the Earth pushing back toward the Earth is no longer capable of pushing the bowling ball back toward the Earth.

Please stop with the snake talk.

Don't tell me I am incorrect because that is not my belief. This is your historical pattern of twisting what others are saying to pursue your perpetually robotic method of communicating your propaganda.

What I said about putting energy into the ball is me discussing YOUR belief and you have already admitted that in the past and here you are trying to make it look like I said that and am wrong. That is beyond ridiculous.

You are the one that believes the superfluid "gives back energy" to an object moving through it and that energy comes from putting that energy into it to begin with. You claimed this from the beginning so don't try to deny it.

It is a matter of very simple common sense that my sentence here: "But what you are pushing a completely conventional and completely erroneous interpretation of the facts and you believe that the energy the ball demonstrates when it hits the ground is from the energy we put into lifting it." is discussing YOUR belief that you are trying to weasel out of now.