|
|
| User: "Gerald L. OBarr" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Got Rid of the Ather? He also brought it back. |
17 Jun 2005 10:35:04 AM |
|
|
In <tfOdnQ79Tv5UVS_fRVnyrQ@pipex.net>
T Wake <taswak...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Nick <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In the 1920's he recinsidered it. He said that if
it exists it must be immaterial; and likened it to
his curved space-time.
T Wake <taswak...@hotmail.com> wrote:
If it exists and is immaterial then what is it?
Nick <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am an Aether man.
After all how can emptiness curve?
You gotta give it substance!
T Wake <taswak...@hotmail.com> wrote:
How does your immaterial "thing" have substance?
Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) comments:
In looking back at history (that is, the history
of science), we can now clearly see where some of the
big steps were taken. There was a time when we
switched from using just logic to decide the truth of
things, to using tests to decide on the truth of
things. This was certainly a big and an important
step or change. There was a time when we switched
from an earth-center perspective to a non-earth
center perspective. This was a big and an important
step or change.
The following step has already happened, but its
real importance has not yet been totally fixed: There
was a time when we believed that what was measured
was exactly what existed, at least within the
accuracy of the measurement. But with the MMX, we
should soon come to know and to appreciate more fully
that what is measured with our tools, is being
measured with changeable tools. And thus, we must
think before we believe what we measure. We cannot
believe SR measurements, unless and until we learn to
think, as we think in LET. This required type of
thinking will occur, and has now in fact taken root
here on this very net.
And the last and to me the biggest change of all
will be when we understand spalls. Today, and for
all times that have existed up to today, any concept
that included a collision was only one way: Object A
hits object B and then object A bounces away from
object B. This is what happens when a basketball
bounces off the basketball floor, or when a bat hits
a baseball. And in our physics book, when we study
collisions, this is all that is considered. We
consider collisions where there is a bounce. And
when you have collisions with a bounce, you have
collisions where there are strong and obvious changes
in the motions of the particles experiencing these
collisions. And these changes always include a large
exchange of momentum and energy, etc.
This normal or standard collision approach has
been very fruitful! We get our PV = nRT relationship
out of this, and all of our science of rockets and
projectiles and everything else we do. But on the
deeper levels of science, where we go beyond where we
now exist, spalls will be found to be the normal
collision process.
In spalls, there are no bounces. And on the
deepest levels of our reality, all particles are
composed of the same intrinsic matter. And when
object A hits object B, they collapse upon each
other, and a new division occurs, so that they
separate at a point (at an interface surface) where
there are no first order changes. In fact, a spall
effect can results with the same amount of mass A
moving away in the same original direction as A, and
the same amount of mass B moving in the same original
direction as B. The result of all this is as if they
did not even hit each other. It is as if they went
through each other. It is as if they were not even
there. This is the answer you are looking for, where
you think you need an immaterial mass.
Now of course spalls do not always have to be
perfect spalls, where there is a perfect exchange of
mass such that there appears no changes at all. But
all first order effects or changes are often non-
effective under certain conditions. And when we see
open (free) space, that is an area where all the
first order effects are non-effective. Now of course
all the higher order results are there, as is
reflected by any space reaching force fields, or QM
activities.
Let me encourage you to examine my at theory. It
uses spalls. And they are the answer to our ether
problem. They are the answer to everything, once we
become at home with this new approach.
Thanks!
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com>
+ Remove 3 dots for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Got Rid of the Ather? He also brought it back. |
17 Jun 2005 09:44:34 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:57:36 +0100, "T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118963961.004197.238880@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
In the 1920's he recinsidered it. He said that if it
exists it must be immaterial; and likened it to his
curved space-time.
If it exists and is immaterial then what is it?
Now that would depend on your definition of material, wouldn't
it?
I am an Aether man.
After all how can emptiness curve?
You gotta give it substance!
How does your immaterial "thing" have substance?
See above...
Is it,
1. physical: relating to or consisting of solid physical
matter the material universe
1 a (1) : relating to, derived from, or consisting of
matter;
1. Of, relating to, or composed of matter.
Or something else? If something else, what?
Aether is not made of matter, matter is fluidic harmonic
structure of aether. IOW, material as defined above come
FROM the inmaterial...
Thus, by the definitions above, aether can be both substanative
AND 'inmaterial'.
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
|
