0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Can understand where you are coming from. Right in line with what I said about having the same observables if you couple that statement with the words I used in stipulation: we describe what we see in different words, and we explain what we see based on different explanations. Nothing wrong with that.Now Ranzan is unknown to me, except through your reference, and if he is a dynamic steady state thinker, he and I would have some common ground. Where it goes from here is based on evidence and logic. I gave you some of mine, and that thinking has me posting endless volumes of related word salad that people have no problem passing up, but that those same people give me a pass on because much of it is logic, and much of it is unfalsifiable. It just sort of sits there, and we wait to see if mold forms on it, lol.Now if you throw all the offerings out before they show mold, get falsified, or are refuted by some logic, and replace it with something that requires us to reinterpret the discovery of fire and ice, and other generally accepted science, you (and Ranzan) risk being left right off the menu.I need some more on what you mean, “Einstein refused to see that the MMX wasnt null”. Give me a link or something to at least think about. We can get to Hawking later if you want.
Cahill has about 40 papers on google re all aspects of lots of MMXs, including some of his own. No gas mode MMX has ever been null.Munera has some good papers on MMXs including a couple of his own.Ranzan has his own website with lots of articles, much of it from his books, but he doesnt get into the nittygritty of MMXs.De Meo's Orgone website has links to many good papers & websites.The best paper of all re any MMX is by Demjanov who did a first-order bi-dielectric MMX in 1970 in Obninsk (air & carbondisulphide), about 1000 times as sensitive as the old second-order 1887-1932 MMXs. His paper blows my mind. The best X in history.There is lots of stuff out there, despite the Einsteinian mafia's censorship.
OK, worth taking a look. One search leads here:https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75071.0So let me see if I like it .
That thread aint much good, but it has a couple of links, but best just google the names i mentioned, all links usually turn up on page 1.
(1) a body accelerating toward another body due to gravity seems driven only by the other body, i.e., something that the other body is influencing is causing it to move; and(2) bodies accelerated in space void of gravitational fields experience gravity-like pushes on them as a result of the acceleration per Einstein's equivalence theory in general relativity, i.e., when bodies are accelerated in space, something pushes against them; and
I’m getting up to speed with your meaning after doing the searches you suggested. MMX is Michelson Morley Experiments (Heel of hand strikes forehead), and when you say, “Einstein refused to see that the MMX wasn’t null” you are saying that there are objections to the generally accepted consensus that MM didn’t detect aether, explained by … http://vixra.org/pdf/1007.0038v1.pdfLet me spread some dressing on my own word salad by saying that I have no problem with the conclusion that MMX were not the definitive experiments to say there is no aether.Now our difference is in what we call the aether. We still don’t end up on the same page, but we get closer. I agree that all space is filled with … (I don’t call it aether because my version of reality says that when objects move through space, they are moving through the gravitational wave energy density of space, and what might correspond to aether to some enthusiasts, corresponds to the high energy density spots that have a hint of mass, and that form at the convergence of intersecting gravitational waves. Beyond that, you’d have to read some of my stuff, and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone who has anything else to do, lol. Suffice it to say, to the extent that we view the universe as infinite and eternal, a dynamic steady state, filled with matter and energy, and to the extent that the nature of the energy that fills all space can be called aether or called wave energy convergences that individually have a hint of mass, we do have some common ground for discussion in a casual encounter, two people pausing to chat. Thank you for that.
…Finally, there is one medium which is doing all this. Why, we could not get it means, our research, our activity is going on within this strong energy. We are taking this as base.This energy force is giving gravity on Earth and is making planets to attract and also to repel each other and to stay at an exact place.YoursPsreddy
…If u slowly work your way throo thems links etc, most papers giving a good further link, then after say 4 years u might sound like me.
The way I would put it is that if we were to discuss our views for four years, we might start sounding the same.We differ in what call “a thing”. Let me point to the examples you give in the following comments, “like photons or gravity fields or em fields etc just passing throo. To pass throo then it has to be a thing, ie an object. If it aint a thing, eg if it is a wave, then it nonetheless has to be the waving of some thing.”I don’t imagine being able to convince you of this, but I am convinced that waves are things, and I am specifically referring to gravitational waves. My position is that they are emitted and absorbed by mass, and so I say mass is composed two components, the inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy, and both enter and leave the particle in quantum increments. I’ll spare us both any long explanation and don’t recommend you read my thread on The Cause of Quantum Gravity unless you are an insomniac, but will make one comment you might pick up on:That comment is that photons have mass, and as such they fall into a category that I refer to as wave-particles (all particles with mass are wave-particles in my model), and so by my definition, they would absorb and emit gravitational wave energy.I mention the case of the photon because while reading some of your other threads, it is possible that we may have some more common ground there, aside from the universe being a dynamic stead state, etc. Photons emit light as they traverse space at the local speed of light and gravity. As I see it, those emitted light waves from photon particles are the outflowing gravitational wave energy component, one of the two components mentioned above that make up the photon wave particles.
That looks to me to imply that energy is a thing, but a different kind of thing to every other thing, & can travel at the speed of light, & can have a wavy property. If so then what sorts of properties does it have. And how many kinds of energy of that transmitted kind & praps wavy kind might exist. How & where is it stored. Can it be created. Can it have mass. Can it be destroyed.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 21/01/2019 01:32:42That looks to me to imply that energy is a thing, but a different kind of thing to every other thing, & can travel at the speed of light, & can have a wavy property. If so then what sorts of properties does it have. And how many kinds of energy of that transmitted kind & praps wavy kind might exist. How & where is it stored. Can it be created. Can it have mass. Can it be destroyed.Consider the concept of a light wave, which is one variety of a gravitational wave that is continually emitted by the photon wave-particle, and carries energy, if you invoke my model of inflowing and out flowing wave energy from mass. The light wave travels at the speed of light spherically from the photon wave-particle, as the photon travels through space, and the light waves carry energy (wave energy) through space at the speed of light.
In that case i wonder what is that light wave, is it made of photons, or is the wave a part of a photon, etc.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 21/01/2019 01:49:35In that case i wonder what is that light wave, is it made of photons, or is the wave a part of a photon, etc.The light wave is a series of wave intersections, called "third waves", that are advanced through space by the oscillating wave energy background that you would know about if you read any of my material, but try to avoid that if you want to stay awake, lol. The oscillating wave energy background advances meaningful waves, much like Christian Huygen's wavelets propagate waves through space.https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_21_10_17_4_48_15.jpegLook at Reply #130 in one of my main threads for an introduction to the oscillating wave energy background:https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg525839#msg525839
Yes i had a quick read of #130. The question still exists what is waving, what is oscillating, does the photon emit something & that something waves. Re fields of various sorts, what makes the fields. I dont see how a wave is simply a wave, its a bit like saying a force is simply a force, or energy is simply energy -- all three need a thing, & that thing needs to be doing something. U cant have temperature sitting somewhere on its own. U cant put love in a box & sell it (anyhow i have the patent). U can have stink on its own -- ie after the stinker has left -- but here the stink is made of things (in the air).
Yes i had a quick read of #130. The question still exists what is waving, what is oscillating, does the photon emit something & that something waves. Re fields of various sorts, what makes the fields. I dont see how a wave is simply a wave, its a bit like saying a force is simply a force, or energy is simply energy -- all three need a thing, & that thing needs to be doing something. …
“What waves, what is waving?” The initial response is that there is only one commodity in the ISU, and it is gravitational wave energy. It fills all space, and is coming and going at the speed of light, to and from all directions, at all points in space, at all times, and every object with mass is composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments. There is an infinite amount of it, everything in the ISU is composed of it, and so the answer to “What is waving” is gravitational wave energy. Gravitational wave energy has a characteristic that allows it to seem like the medium of space is waving, at all times, everywhere. My intention is to describe that characteristic of gravitational wave energy, but I know, OMG, the explanation so far must just leave you cold.
Energy needs a something if energy is to exist, u cant put energy in a box. Just like a wave needs a something, u cant buy a box of wave.
Gravity going at the speed of light or c doesnt work. Einsteinologists say that gravity is instantaneous & that GWs travel at c.Aetherists say that gravity travels at over 20 billion c (me myself i think 500 billion c). And there are no such things as GWs, or if there is something like that then it must travel at over 20 billion c (or 500 billion c).Aetherists say that gravity is due to the acceleration of the aether inflow into mass where aether is annihilated. Photons & every other quantum thing that we readily see & feel is due to an excitation vibration spin swirl of aether.In a sense everything depends on a movement of aether, but only one class of movement gives gravity. Aetherists cant say that gravity gives that class of movement (it dont work that way)(ie arse about)(ie effect & cause). And certainly Aetherists cant say that gravity gives all of the other classes of movement. But at a micro level praps gravity does play a part in how electrons & quarks form subatomic particles & atomic particles (we dont really know)(extropolating macro gravity stuff that we dont even understand to the micro world where we dont even see is LaLa Land)(not a problem for Einsteinologists).
For sure, you need something that waves if a wave is to carry energy. I would follow on with the facts surrounding the LIGO detection of gravitational waves, but it sounds like you already know the details of the apparatus and have concluded that gravitational waves don’t exist. I wonder what they detected if it wasn’t gravitational waves. Any ideas?
It seems to a layman like me that the speed of gravity to an Aetherist defies logic. Can you show how 500 billion c is indicated; any observations or experiments that support it? How does it even make sense?
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 21/01/2019 22:59:47For sure, you need something that waves if a wave is to carry energy. I would follow on with the facts surrounding the LIGO detection of gravitational waves, but it sounds like you already know the details of the apparatus and have concluded that gravitational waves don’t exist. I wonder what they detected if it wasn’t gravitational waves. Any ideas?Possibly harmonics from their calibration signals. I think that there is a thread back there that goes into other possibilities. Plus i think that there is a conspiracy. LIGO have already admitted that their lovely chirps were drawn by their PR people.