We’ve all heard of the claim of “settled science” when it comes to global warming/climate change, and we’ve all heard of the “Big Bang Theory”, and I’m not just talking about the popular TV show. The scientific theory goes all the way back to 1927.
This is an artist’s concept of the metric expansion of space, where space (including hypothetical non-observable portions of the universe) is represented at each time by the circular sections. Note on the left the dramatic expansion (not to scale) occurring in the inflationary epoch, and at the center the expansion acceleration. The scheme is decorated with WMAP images on the left and with the representation of stars at the appropriate level of development. Credit: NASA
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the birth of the universe. It states that at some moment all of space was contained in a single point from which the Universe has been expanding ever since. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe. After the initial expansion, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies. The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the Universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe going forward from that point on. (Source: Wikipedia)
Now, it seems there’s a challenge to this ‘settled’ science, and a new quantum equation predicts the universe has no beginning.
(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein’s theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.
The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a “Big Bang” did the universe officially begin.
Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.
“The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there,” Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.
Our “Crazy” Universe
~4% Normal Matter
~22% “Dark Matter”
~74% “Dark Energy”
Dr.S @ur momisugly vuk:
“Ignorance is no shame, but willful ignorance is an abomination”
Thanks. Abomination or not, I categorically state, I will wilfully ignore the nutter and all opinions that agree with the claim that the universe is “crazy”, and only 4% of it is reality but the rest (all of 96%) is dark stuff, an anthropogenic invention.
Well, you have never shown any willingness or ability to learn anything and have always demonstrated a total lack of knowledge of basic physics, so you display of willful ignorance is not a surprise, but it serves you ill to flaunt it at every occasion. Dark matter is very real as is plain to see from its gravitational influence, but that will presumably stay outside of your limited ‘understanding’. Your loss.
Not entirely so, I just like to question status quo.
One thing I learned from you is that old records should be investigated for accuracy. The SSN 300 year old record you are pursuing was an inspiration to look at how the 350 year long CET annual records are calculated. Found a small but important error, proposed alternative to the UK Met Office, which has not only accepted and implemented the method, but following it now by a huge task of correcting charts and rankings, annual minima, maxima etc for the CET, and also for many other UK and regional annual records, related not only temperature but rainfall, sunshine hours etc, i.e. all the annual records based on the monthly averaging.
with kind regards and all the best
vuk
All of this appears to confirm a theory that’s been floating around for awhile: Bang, Bang, Bang. In summary, there are intermittent and several bangs that have occurred. This theory helps explain why not all there are so many celestial bodies (including 37 detected galaxies) moving inconsistently with a single Big Bang. Donald Emon seems to be the source of this theory.
mpc755
February 13, 2015 12:37 pm
There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it’s what waves.
What is incorrect in mainstream physics today is the notion dark matter is a clump of stuff traveling with matter.
Dark matter is now understood to fill what would otherwise be considered to be empty space.
‘Cosmologists at Penn Weigh Cosmic Filaments and Voids’ http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/news/cosmologists-penn-weigh-cosmic-filaments-and-voids
“Dark matter … permeate[s] all the way to the center of the voids.”
‘No Empty Space in the Universe –Dark Matter Discovered to Fill Intergalactic Space’ http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/02/no-empty-space-in-the-universe-dark-matter-discovered-to-fill-intergalactic-space-.html
“A long standing mystery on where the missing dark matter is has been solved by the research. There is no empty space in the universe. The intergalactic space is filled with dark matter.”
Dark matter which fills ’empty’ space is otherwise known as the aether. Aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. Including ‘particles’ as large as galaxies and galaxy clusters.
In the following two articles the aether is what waves in a double slit experiment.
‘From the Newton’s laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others’ http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3900
“This medium, called also the aether, has mass and is populated by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it” …
… and displace it.
‘EPR program: a local interpretation of QM’ http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5612
“Wave particle duality is described as the compound system of point particle plus accompanying wave (in the æther).”
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.
Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.
The Milky Way’s halo is not a clump of stuff anchored to the Milky Way. The Milky Way is moving through and displacing the aether.
The Milky Way’s halo is the state of displacement of the aether.
The Milky Way’s halo is the deformation of spacetime.
What is referred to geometrically as the deformation of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.
What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the aether.
Einstein’s gravitational wave is de Broglie’s wave of wave-particle duality; both are waves in the aether.
Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
mpc755
February 13, 2015 12:41 pm
Our Universe is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.
‘Was the universe born spinning?’ http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688
“The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis”
Our Universe spins around a preferred axis because it is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.
‘Mysterious Cosmic ‘Dark Flow’ Tracked Deeper into Universe’ http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html
“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 our Universe is a larger version of a polar jet.
It’s not the Big Bang; it’s the Big Ongoing.
Dark energy is aether continuously emitted into the Universal jet.
mpc755
February 13, 2015 12:54 pm
The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through.
The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through.
At this time we have no idea if aether consists of parts, or not. That doesn’t mean it does, or doesn’t, consist of parts, just that there is no evidence of it.
‘Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein’ http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
“Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance – we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics – if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium.”
if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
‘Ether and the Theory of Relativity – Albert Einstein’ http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
“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. Particles of matter are condensations of aether. Aether has mass.
‘DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?’ A. EINSTEIN http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
“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.
GoFigure560
February 13, 2015 1:05 pm
It’s far beyond just a question. The current theory has all sorts of problems which lead to, among other things, dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, distant galaxy clusters traveling only 1 billion years old (and probably couldn’t attain that maturity in less than 10 + billion years. Stars revolving at unbelievable rates per second.
The entire theory rests on gravity and red shift.. No attention at all paid to electromagnetism (except for the trivial close by example – the Aurora Borealis) EM attraction/repulsion is many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.
It is folks like Halton Arp and the plasma physicists, among others, who are now only a step away from being called “deniers”. ? Perhaps “cosmological deniers” ?
Interesting in the light of what I wrote above regarding Michelson-Morley’s positive results.
MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENTS
REVISITED and the COSMIC BACKGROUND
RADIATION PREFERRED FRAME
Reginald T. Cahill and Kirsty Kitto
School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences
Flinders University
GPO Box 2100, Adelaide 5001, Australia
(Reg.Cahill@flinders.edu.au)
One fundamental assumption in physics is that the Michelson interferometer laboratory experiment
of 1881 [1], and repeated by Michelson and Morley in 1987 [2], by Miller in 1925 and
1933 [3, 4], and by Illingworth in 1927 [5], that were designed to detect absolute motion, gave a
null result, vindicating Einstein’s assumption that absolute motion (motion relative to space itself)
has no meaning; it is in principle not detectable in a laboratory situation. Motion of objects is
always relative to other objects, according to Einstein. Using this assumption Einstein went on
to construct the Special and General Theory of Relativity, which uses the notion of spacetime to
avoid any notion of absolute space. Of course Einstein’s formalism has been abundantly confirmed
both by the extensive use of the special theory in particle physics experiments and theory, and by
the general theory in various experimental and observational situations.
Nevertheless we report here experimental evidence that absolute motion is detectable in laboratory
experiments, such as those done by Michelson and Morley and the others, but that this
requires a re-analysis of the operation of their interferometer, as reported herein. This analysis
leads to a speed which agrees with that found from the NASA COBE satellite observations on
analysing the dipole anisotropy of the Cosmic Background Radiation. Together these results show
that absolute motion has been detected. New interferometer experiments are needed to confirm
that the direction of that motion is the same as the direction discovered by the COBE mission.
These results are profoundly significant to our understanding of reality. It follows from recent work
that these experimental outcomes will not be in conflict with the Einstein phenomenology, but
require a major re-assessment of what that phenomenology describes [6].
The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. Aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see a visual representation of the state of the aether. What is referred to as a twist in spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether.
“Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey,” says Francis Everitt of Stanford University in California, the mission’s chief scientist. “As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it’s the same with space and time.”
Honey has mass and so does the aether. The ‘swirl’ is more correctly described as the state of displacement of the aether.
jmorpuss
February 13, 2015 2:46 pm
What does the Hadron collider use to accelerate particles ?
BBC- 24news today has a short item on the universe’s ‘dark energy’
Bart
February 14, 2015 10:52 am
There is way too much, both crackpot and intriguing, to comment on in this thread.
Relativity, both Special and General, are applied in everyday technology which would not function either as well, or at all, without them. So, we know they are at least locally valid. Any competing theories would have to produce the same results at the local scale.
Extrapolating the theories beyond our local confines requires a measure of faith. Yes, they may be consistent with observations, but so might other theories. But, that is OK. As we further develop the theory, we can further test it, and eventually the truth will out.
The people involved are the sharpest tools in the shed. One must approach the subject with a certain measure of caution and respect. They are not necessarily right, but if they are wrong, they are not wrong in any simple or obvious way, and the edifice they have constructed is a fortress, not a house of cards.
But, getting back to the subject relevant to WUWT, climate scientists are not, generally speaking, the sharpest tools in the shed. Moreover, a large number of them are advocating wrenching changes to our lives which would result in wide-scale misery and death.
Whether Dark Matter and Dark Energy are valid concepts has no immediate impact on my life or anyone else’s. The climate debate does. The prognostications of a vocal contingent of activist scientists on that matter are not only hooey, but they are dangerous hooey.
“According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable” – Albert Einstein
Aether has mass and is what waves in a double slit experiment.
What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the aether.
Einstein’s gravitational wave is de Broglie’s wave of wave-particle duality; both are waves in the aether.
Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
Pace some commenters, the ether theory was never disproved, but it was rendered moot. As it was not needed to explain observed phenomena, there was no reason to complicate matters by speculating on how it might or might not fit the data.
I have not personally seen anything which needs, or would benefit, from its reintroduction. If you see some usefulness to it, more power to you.
There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it’s what waves.
If you can’t understand the particle is always detected passing through a single slit because it always passes through a single slit then you aren’t doing science.
Are you able to understand in a boat double slit experiment the boat travels through a single slit even when you close your eyes?
It’s not different for the particle in a double slit experiment.
In a boat double slit experiment the boat is always detected traveling through a single slit because it always travels through a single slit. It is the associated bow wave which passes through both.
In a double slit experiment the particle is always detected traveling through a single slit because it always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.
Saying aether is not necessary in order to explain physical phenomenon is more incorrect than saying water is not necessary in order for fish to breath.
“Aether has mass and is what waves in a double slit experiment.”
Spouting rubbish.
The “ether” he is talking about is not the ether of old, the medium against which absolute motion could be measured, which has been thoroughly debunked. Its called space-time. Nomenclatures were fuzzy then.
Spouting rubbish is whatever nonsense you make up trying to explain the observed behaviors in a doubled slit experiment when you are in denial of understanding the particle always travels through a single slit.
“The word ‘ether’ has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with ‘stuff’ that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.” – Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
Matter, solids, fluids, a piece of window glass and ‘stuff’ have mass and so does the aether.
Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.
@ur momisugly The Pompous Git
You can label it whatever you want. Aether, ether, dark matter, quintessence, quantum foam, quantum vacuum, plenum; it doesn’t matter. ‘It’ has mass. ‘It’ physically occupies three dimensional space. ‘It’ is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
‘It’ is what waves in a double slit experiment.
What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the mass which fills ’empty’ space.
Einstein’s gravitational wave is de Broglie’s wave of wave-particle duality; both are waves in the mass which fills ’empty’ space.
The mass which fills ’empty’ space displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
What is incorrect in mainstream physics is the notion dark matter is s clump of stuff anchored to matter.
Matter moves through and displaces the mass which fills ’empty’ space.
“Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?”
It is not untill it is measured
“A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.”
No when it is measured then the wave disappears. Why should the wave, which according to you is created in the aether, once created disappear?
@ur momisugly Richard
Are you able to understand in a boat double slit experiment the boat travels through a single slit even when you don’t observe it?
The aether wave does not disappear. It is turned into ‘chop’ and becomes part of the energy associated with the background.
In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the aether passes through both. As the wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave guiding the particle. Detecting the particle strongly exiting a single slit destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave in the aether, the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling and does not form an interference pattern.
mpc755 I have no idea what a boat double slit experiment is. What is “chop”?
“In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the aether passes through both. As the wave exits the slits it creates wave interference.”
If the particle(s) travel through a well defined path why dont they display themselves on the plate?
“As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. ” Why? Which direction? Why does it not display itself?
“Detecting the particle strongly exiting a single slit destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave in the aether, the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling and does not form an interference pattern.”
What? What is “the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave in the aethe” cohesion? why is it destroyed?
A boat double slit experiment is a boat and two slits. The boat always travels through a single slit and the bow wave passes through both. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/chop
4.
a. A short irregular motion of waves.
b. An area of choppy water, as on an ocean.
If you place pilings at the exits to the slits in order to detect the boat the boat will get knocked around by the pilings and lose its cohesion with its bow wave.
If you perform a boat double slit experiment thousands of times and every time the boat always travels through a single slit are you able to deduce the boat travels through a single slit even when you have your eyes closed?
“f you perform a boat double slit experiment thousands of times and every time the boat always travels through a single slit are you able to deduce the boat travels through a single slit even when you have your eyes closed?:
Are you trying to make an analogy with the double slit experiment? Yes you could you dont have both your eyes closed. You have them both open and are observing the wave and the boat crash into wall behind the “slits”.
The boat double slit experiment is an analogy for a double slit experiment. In a boat double slit experiment the boat always travels through a single slit and the bow wave passes through both.
Are you able to deduce the boat travels through a single slit when the experiment is performed and you do not observe the boat?
mpc755 “Are you able to deduce the boat travels through a single slit when the experiment is performed and you do not observe the boat?”
I already answered your question – yes you can. Because although you have not observed the boat travelling through the slit you are observing the wall behind the slits where the boat and the wave crashes into. So yes in the case of a boat you will be able to see both the wave and the boat. and be able to deduce it travelled through one of the slits.
In the case of electrons and atoms though there in no evidence of the particles only the wave crashing into the wall behind the slits.
Then when you look at the electrons or atoms or molecules exiting the slits the wave disappears and only the crash of the electrons or atoms are observed.
There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it’s what waves.
The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid.
You are in a bowling alley filled with a supersolid. You roll the bowling ball. The bowling ball displaces the supersolid. As the supersolid fills-in where the bowling ball had been the supersolid displaces the bowling ball.
By definition, there is no loss of energy in the interaction of the bowling ball and the supersolid and the bowling ball rolls on forever through the supersolid.
Q. Is the bowling ball displacing the supersolid or is the supersolid displacing the bowling ball?
A. Both are occurring simultaneously with equal force.
You watch the boat double slit experiment a million times. Before the next experiment is performed you drive 100 miles away from experiment. You then drive back. When you get back you are told the experiment was performed again. You did not see the experiment performed. You did not see the boat or the wave associated with the experiment. Everything having to do with that iteration of the experiment is in the past. Are you able to understand the boat traveled through a single slit?
And no one tells you anything about the experiment. All you know is that the experiment was performed again. Are you able to figure out on your own that the boat traveled through a single slit?
In the case of macroscopic boat of course it goes though the “slit”. But this is not what happens in the double slit experiment. You analogy doesn’t hold good.
What you are saying an electron, atom etc are particles and there is no particle wave duality. The wave is created in the aether as the electron plows through it. You are also saying that the aether is a supersolid. The electron displaces the supersolid the supersolid fills-in where the electron travels.
1. Not sure if aether is a supersolid, that aether should create any waves.
2. Here’s an experiment. If it does create waves, fire one electron, or atom etc at the solid bit between the slits. We should be able to see the wave on the back screen
3, Here’s another experiment.Fire a round bullet at the solid bit between both the slits which is strong enough to stop it dead. We should be able to see the wave on the back screen.
If your hypothesis is correct.
If it is remember me for the Nobel Prize for suggesting these experiments.
We have yet to detect the wave of wave-particle duality at the microscopic scale.
We detect the wave of wave-particle duality at the macro scale. The aether is what waves when galaxy clusters collide. In this case the galaxy clusters are the ‘particle’
We have yet to directly detect the wave of wave-particle duality at the microscopic scale. There is evidence of it every time a double slit experiment is performed; it’s what waves.
mpc755 “We have yet to directly detect the wave of wave-particle duality at the microscopic scale. There is evidence of it every time a double slit experiment is performed; it’s what waves.”
Are you dyslexic? You seem to get everything by the tail. The double slit experiment seems to detect the the wave particle duality on the microscopic scale. If aether exists, as you claim, and it is what “waves” in the double-slit experiment, then it would be pretty simple to prove – just shoot an electron or atom through a hole on a screen and see if any wave patterns show up there.
I suspect you dont know what you are talking about. The quantum theory though weird does explain many things and predicts many things all of which have been tested and found to be true. It is on the basis of that that we have designed many sophisticated machines, computers and smart phones to name just a few. You are replacing one weird theory but one which has stood the rigorous tests with another one which has stood nothing.
One of the things that the quantum theory states is that space is not continuous but discrete. This aether would be contrary to that.
Particles of matter move through and displace the aether. Including ‘particles’ as large as galaxies and galaxy clusters.
What is referred to as the deformation of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.
The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter.
‘The aether-modified gravity and the G ̈del metric’ http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5654
“As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53−αg,6a2 so, it is positive if αg < 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval αg < 15 corresponds to the usual matter."
The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused by pressure or vorticity.
'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old Cosmological Constant Problem' http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955
"One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity."
The following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.
'From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum' http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.1155
"The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new form of matter. This is the real substance"
The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid, which is described in the following article as the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The article describes a 'back reaction' associated with the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. This is the displaced aether 'displacing back'.
'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction' http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458
"We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself. This "back-reaction" is quantified by the tendency of angular momentum flux threading across a surface."
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."
'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia' 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."
'Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy' 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 T'μν is the incompressible gravitational aether fluid. In vacuum, the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."
The following articles describe what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether.
'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale' http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3753
"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in our universe."
"mass of the aether"
'Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity' http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.5168
"the model obtained here gets closer to the aether theory of , which is shown therein to be an alternative to the cold dark matter."
'Unified model for dark matter and quintessence' http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.4758
"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the universe using superfluid aether is compatible."
'Vainshtein mechanism in Gauss-Bonnet gravity and Galileon aether' http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.1892
"the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of the presence of the background field"
'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum medium and the inertial motion of particles' http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0701155
"In this paper we shall show that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as a ubiquitous back ground field is a super fluid medium."
This is too lengthy for me to have a look at right now. Can you answer my questions in a simple manner
You claim “Particles of matter move through and displace the aether” why then cant we detect this aether?
You claim aeter has mass then matter should be slowed down as it plows through aether. Why doesnt it?
Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.
Now explain why the wave goes away when you detect the particle. It has been a while since I have studied that.
In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the aether passes through both. As the wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave guiding the particle. Detecting the particle strongly exiting a single slit destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave in the aether, the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling and does not form an interference pattern.
Your thoughts seem to be a somewhat inchoate form of Pilot Wave theory. The ether is not actually needed even in your description, except as a crutch to enable visualization of causal connections. Needless to say, this would not be the luminiferous ether of yore since the double slit experiment works equally well mutatis mutandis with material objects as with light.
Nothing you are proposing is something which hasn’t been thought of before, or has been suppressed by nefarious forces. There is simply no conclusion as to which interpretation is “right”, as there is not enough evidence to make a generalized conclusion. No major difference in the outcome of one viewpoint versus the other. You may feel passionate about your own conceptualization, but in the end, it has no practical application. If you, or someone, were to find a way in which your conceptualization produced some new, testable insight, then you could gain the upper hand. Until then, it is just basically bluster.
What is incorrect in mainstream physics today is the notion dark matter is a clump of stuff traveling with matter.
Dark matter is now understood to fill what would otherwise be considered to be empty space.
‘Cosmologists at Penn Weigh Cosmic Filaments and Voids’ http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/news/cosmologists-penn-weigh-cosmic-filaments-and-voids
“Dark matter … permeate[s] all the way to the center of the voids.”
‘No Empty Space in the Universe –Dark Matter Discovered to Fill Intergalactic Space’ http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/02/no-empty-space-in-the-universe-dark-matter-discovered-to-fill-intergalactic-space-.html
“A long standing mystery on where the missing dark matter is has been solved by the research. There is no empty space in the universe. The intergalactic space is filled with dark matter.”
Dark matter which fills ’empty’ space is otherwise known as the aether. Aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. Including ‘particles’ as large as galaxies and galaxy clusters.
In the following two articles the aether is what waves in a double slit experiment.
‘From the Newton’s laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others’ http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3900
“This medium, called also the aether, has mass and is populated by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it” …
… and displace it.
‘EPR program: a local interpretation of QM’ http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5612
“Wave particle duality is described as the compound system of point particle plus accompanying wave (in the æther).”
NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION by LOUIS DE BROGLIE
“Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of [the wave-function wave], arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space”.”
The “subquantic medium” is the dark matter.
‘Fluid mechanics suggests alternative to quantum orthodoxy’ http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/fluid-systems-quantum-mechanics-0912
“The fluidic pilot-wave system is also chaotic. It’s impossible to measure a bouncing droplet’s position accurately enough to predict its trajectory very far into the future. But in a recent series of papers, Bush, MIT professor of applied mathematics Ruben Rosales, and graduate students Anand Oza and Dan Harris applied their pilot-wave theory to show how chaotic pilot-wave dynamics leads to the quantumlike statistics observed in their experiments.”
A “fluidic pilot-wave system” is the dark matter.
The chaotic nature of the dark matter and it being the associated wave guiding the particle is responsible for the swerves in the particle’s trajectory.
I recommend you watch all of the following video. At the 2:10 mark it discusses an ‘Exposed Variable Theory’.
‘The pilot-wave dynamics of walking droplets’
Due to conservation of momentum, when a downconverted photon pair are created they are created with opposite angular momentums.
Each of the pair can determine the position and momentum of the other based upon their own position and momentum. Their position and momentum are exposed to one another.
Entanglement is each of the pair being able to determine the state of the other.
Bart – February 15, 2015 at 10:06 am
Makes the salient point: There is simply no conclusion as to which interpretation is “right”, as there is not enough evidence to make a generalized conclusion. No major difference in the outcome of one viewpoint versus the other.
Can I do good engineering with the current concept? Yes. Can I do better engineering with the new concept? No. Does it change anything? No. Are there points it covers that are not already well covered? No.
Does it make you feel better that you can deal with particles and not wavicles? I’m fine with that. But it is not proof. I am perfectly comfortable with wavicles. But if the new theory is proven more correct or it answers questions the old theory does not I’m more than willing to change. I’m an engineer.
Are you able to understand in a boat double slit experiment the boat always travels through a single slit?
Is this more correct than the Copenhagen Boat interpretation where you aren’t allowed to deduce which slit the boat entered, when you detect it in a slit, if you did not observe it entering the slit?
Is this more correct than the Many-Worlds Boat interpretation where the boat exists in infinite worlds prior to your observing it?
There is a more correct answer.
The boat is always detected traveling through a single slit in a boat double slit experiment because the boat always travels through a single slit. The bow wave passes through both.
The particle is always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment because it always travels through a single slit. The associated wave in the aether passes through both.
In a double slit experiment, when you detect the particle exiting a slit you are allowed to deduce it entered that slit.
Any interpretation which does not allow you to deduce the obvious is less correct.
I have to weigh in on this one. The Big Bang is just the other end of a mathematical equation. It is based on observations of pulsars, most of which had a red shift in their spectrum, indicating that they were receding. They did the math, and voila: the expanding universe HAD to have begun at a single point approximately 14 billion years ago (now, after refining: 13.7 BYA). What imagination! With a teaspoonful they analyzed the whole ocean.
Science provides for new ideas and modifications. So, what is your alternative to the Big Bang? I am sure that if it has merit, smart people will adopt it. So? Let us in on your insight.
Our Universe is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.
‘Was the universe born spinning?’ http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688
“The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis”
Our Universe spins around a preferred axis because it is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.
‘Mysterious Cosmic ‘Dark Flow’ Tracked Deeper into Universe’ http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html
“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 our Universe is a larger version of a polar jet.
It’s not the Big Bang; it’s the Big Ongoing.
Dark energy is aether continuously emitted into the Universal jet.
davidswuk
February 23, 2015 7:28 am
some say that one man`s Dark Matter is another mans light…………………
davidswuk
February 23, 2015 at 8:22 am
davidswuk
February 23, 2015 at 8:10 am
In The Begining there was No End. Infinite is something else.
However, the Photons we “see” are right here before our very eyes after being rattled by the Domino Effect set in motion far, far away and rather long ago and which remain Dark Matter if not nudged in our direction even if they are from every other.
Get it pals (aimed at Isvalgard but he`s not receivin`.up above)
[lot’s of duplicates here. Do you really want it said this way? .mod]
My replies were not appearing in the selected slot under the relevant comment so I rounded them up and stuck at the foot. ok?
Saw a response from DrS when I first tuned in but cannot find it now anywhere – but LTop has been to the fixers and may be playing up stil…
He found my comments “unintelligable” as I recall.
He must be on Auto-pilot or reading something I cannot find.
The Void is endless but not Infinite hilst The Universe is definitely finite as will be proven hen gravity takes over as energy runs out.
More to say later……………………………
Regards to all
The intelligibility has not improved, actually gotten worse…
davidswuk
February 24, 2015 6:53 am
lsvalgaard
February 23, 2015 at 1:38 pm
The intelligibility has not improved, actually gotten worse…
And with all due respect for you too sir
I have to say that you appear to be cast in that typical boffinesque position from which you cannot see the light so to speak let alone determine its true nature.
So, for now, I`ll sit on my heels and await similar opportunity to wax a little more lyrically I hope about how I believe things are stacked out there in the beyond because measuring your height in gallons, whether US or Imperial, like you are doing relatively, ain`t np way to unzip this particular banana let alone consume it.
Our “Crazy” Universe
~4% Normal Matter
~22% “Dark Matter”
~74% “Dark Energy”
Dr.S @ur momisugly vuk:
“Ignorance is no shame, but willful ignorance is an abomination”
Thanks. Abomination or not, I categorically state, I will wilfully ignore the nutter and all opinions that agree with the claim that the universe is “crazy”, and only 4% of it is reality but the rest (all of 96%) is dark stuff, an anthropogenic invention.
Well, you have never shown any willingness or ability to learn anything and have always demonstrated a total lack of knowledge of basic physics, so you display of willful ignorance is not a surprise, but it serves you ill to flaunt it at every occasion. Dark matter is very real as is plain to see from its gravitational influence, but that will presumably stay outside of your limited ‘understanding’. Your loss.
Not entirely so, I just like to question status quo.
One thing I learned from you is that old records should be investigated for accuracy. The SSN 300 year old record you are pursuing was an inspiration to look at how the 350 year long CET annual records are calculated. Found a small but important error, proposed alternative to the UK Met Office, which has not only accepted and implemented the method, but following it now by a huge task of correcting charts and rankings, annual minima, maxima etc for the CET, and also for many other UK and regional annual records, related not only temperature but rainfall, sunshine hours etc, i.e. all the annual records based on the monthly averaging.
with kind regards and all the best
vuk
Even in our small corner of universe we occasionally get images which may amuse or scare; this is our life giving sun today:
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/f_211_193_171_1024.jpg
All of this appears to confirm a theory that’s been floating around for awhile: Bang, Bang, Bang. In summary, there are intermittent and several bangs that have occurred. This theory helps explain why not all there are so many celestial bodies (including 37 detected galaxies) moving inconsistently with a single Big Bang. Donald Emon seems to be the source of this theory.
There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it’s what waves.
What is incorrect in mainstream physics today is the notion dark matter is a clump of stuff traveling with matter.
Dark matter is now understood to fill what would otherwise be considered to be empty space.
‘Cosmologists at Penn Weigh Cosmic Filaments and Voids’
http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/news/cosmologists-penn-weigh-cosmic-filaments-and-voids
“Dark matter … permeate[s] all the way to the center of the voids.”
‘No Empty Space in the Universe –Dark Matter Discovered to Fill Intergalactic Space’
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/02/no-empty-space-in-the-universe-dark-matter-discovered-to-fill-intergalactic-space-.html
“A long standing mystery on where the missing dark matter is has been solved by the research. There is no empty space in the universe. The intergalactic space is filled with dark matter.”
Dark matter which fills ’empty’ space is otherwise known as the aether. Aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. Including ‘particles’ as large as galaxies and galaxy clusters.
In the following two articles the aether is what waves in a double slit experiment.
‘From the Newton’s laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others’
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3900
“This medium, called also the aether, has mass and is populated by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it” …
… and displace it.
‘EPR program: a local interpretation of QM’
http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5612
“Wave particle duality is described as the compound system of point particle plus accompanying wave (in the æther).”
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.
Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.
The Milky Way’s halo is not a clump of stuff anchored to the Milky Way. The Milky Way is moving through and displacing the aether.
The Milky Way’s halo is the state of displacement of the aether.
The Milky Way’s halo is the deformation of spacetime.
What is referred to geometrically as the deformation of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.
What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the aether.
Einstein’s gravitational wave is de Broglie’s wave of wave-particle duality; both are waves in the aether.
Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
Our Universe is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.
‘Was the universe born spinning?’
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688
“The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis”
Our Universe spins around a preferred axis because it is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.
‘Mysterious Cosmic ‘Dark Flow’ Tracked Deeper into Universe’
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html
“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 our Universe is a larger version of a polar jet.
It’s not the Big Bang; it’s the Big Ongoing.
Dark energy is aether continuously emitted into the Universal jet.
The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through.
The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through.
mpc755
I believe aether is [made] up of different flavours http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavour_(particle_physics) Which form the electric universe
At this time we have no idea if aether consists of parts, or not. That doesn’t mean it does, or doesn’t, consist of parts, just that there is no evidence of it.
‘Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein’
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
“Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance – we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics – if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium.”
if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
mpc755 Thanks for that .
How long before we smash 2 electrons together to find out if they brake down to smaller or combine to form flavours ?
‘Ether and the Theory of Relativity – Albert Einstein’
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
“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. Particles of matter are condensations of aether. Aether has mass.
‘DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?’ A. EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
“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.
It’s far beyond just a question. The current theory has all sorts of problems which lead to, among other things, dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, distant galaxy clusters traveling only 1 billion years old (and probably couldn’t attain that maturity in less than 10 + billion years. Stars revolving at unbelievable rates per second.
The entire theory rests on gravity and red shift.. No attention at all paid to electromagnetism (except for the trivial close by example – the Aurora Borealis) EM attraction/repulsion is many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.
It is folks like Halton Arp and the plasma physicists, among others, who are now only a step away from being called “deniers”. ? Perhaps “cosmological deniers” ?
I never believed in Big Bang. It was logically impossible. http://youtu.be/ot5OyZSuU34?t=42m50s
Interesting in the light of what I wrote above regarding Michelson-Morley’s positive results.
Something new to learn every day 🙂
The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. Aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see a visual representation of the state of the aether. What is referred to as a twist in spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether.
“Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey,” says Francis Everitt of Stanford University in California, the mission’s chief scientist. “As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it’s the same with space and time.”
Honey has mass and so does the aether. The ‘swirl’ is more correctly described as the state of displacement of the aether.
What does the Hadron collider use to accelerate particles ?
BBC- 24news today has a short item on the universe’s ‘dark energy’
There is way too much, both crackpot and intriguing, to comment on in this thread.
Relativity, both Special and General, are applied in everyday technology which would not function either as well, or at all, without them. So, we know they are at least locally valid. Any competing theories would have to produce the same results at the local scale.
Extrapolating the theories beyond our local confines requires a measure of faith. Yes, they may be consistent with observations, but so might other theories. But, that is OK. As we further develop the theory, we can further test it, and eventually the truth will out.
The people involved are the sharpest tools in the shed. One must approach the subject with a certain measure of caution and respect. They are not necessarily right, but if they are wrong, they are not wrong in any simple or obvious way, and the edifice they have constructed is a fortress, not a house of cards.
But, getting back to the subject relevant to WUWT, climate scientists are not, generally speaking, the sharpest tools in the shed. Moreover, a large number of them are advocating wrenching changes to our lives which would result in wide-scale misery and death.
Whether Dark Matter and Dark Energy are valid concepts has no immediate impact on my life or anyone else’s. The climate debate does. The prognostications of a vocal contingent of activist scientists on that matter are not only hooey, but they are dangerous hooey.
“According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable” – Albert Einstein
Aether has mass and is what waves in a double slit experiment.
What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the aether.
Einstein’s gravitational wave is de Broglie’s wave of wave-particle duality; both are waves in the aether.
Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
Pace some commenters, the ether theory was never disproved, but it was rendered moot. As it was not needed to explain observed phenomena, there was no reason to complicate matters by speculating on how it might or might not fit the data.
I have not personally seen anything which needs, or would benefit, from its reintroduction. If you see some usefulness to it, more power to you.
There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it’s what waves.
If you can’t understand the particle is always detected passing through a single slit because it always passes through a single slit then you aren’t doing science.
Are you able to understand in a boat double slit experiment the boat travels through a single slit even when you close your eyes?
It’s not different for the particle in a double slit experiment.
In a boat double slit experiment the boat is always detected traveling through a single slit because it always travels through a single slit. It is the associated bow wave which passes through both.
In a double slit experiment the particle is always detected traveling through a single slit because it always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.
Saying aether is not necessary in order to explain physical phenomenon is more incorrect than saying water is not necessary in order for fish to breath.
“Aether has mass and is what waves in a double slit experiment.”
Spouting rubbish.
The “ether” he is talking about is not the ether of old, the medium against which absolute motion could be measured, which has been thoroughly debunked. Its called space-time. Nomenclatures were fuzzy then.
Spouting rubbish is whatever nonsense you make up trying to explain the observed behaviors in a doubled slit experiment when you are in denial of understanding the particle always travels through a single slit.
“The word ‘ether’ has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with ‘stuff’ that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.” – Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
Matter, solids, fluids, a piece of window glass and ‘stuff’ have mass and so does the aether.
Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.
@ur momisugly mpc755
This is not the lumeniferous ether that Michelson and Morley were testing for.
@ur momisugly The Pompous Git
You can label it whatever you want. Aether, ether, dark matter, quintessence, quantum foam, quantum vacuum, plenum; it doesn’t matter. ‘It’ has mass. ‘It’ physically occupies three dimensional space. ‘It’ is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
‘It’ is what waves in a double slit experiment.
What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the mass which fills ’empty’ space.
Einstein’s gravitational wave is de Broglie’s wave of wave-particle duality; both are waves in the mass which fills ’empty’ space.
The mass which fills ’empty’ space displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
What is incorrect in mainstream physics is the notion dark matter is s clump of stuff anchored to matter.
Matter moves through and displaces the mass which fills ’empty’ space.
“Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?”
It is not untill it is measured
“A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.”
No when it is measured then the wave disappears. Why should the wave, which according to you is created in the aether, once created disappear?
@ur momisugly Richard
Are you able to understand in a boat double slit experiment the boat travels through a single slit even when you don’t observe it?
The aether wave does not disappear. It is turned into ‘chop’ and becomes part of the energy associated with the background.
In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the aether passes through both. As the wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave guiding the particle. Detecting the particle strongly exiting a single slit destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave in the aether, the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling and does not form an interference pattern.
mpc755 I have no idea what a boat double slit experiment is. What is “chop”?
“In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the aether passes through both. As the wave exits the slits it creates wave interference.”
If the particle(s) travel through a well defined path why dont they display themselves on the plate?
“As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. ” Why? Which direction? Why does it not display itself?
“Detecting the particle strongly exiting a single slit destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave in the aether, the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling and does not form an interference pattern.”
What? What is “the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave in the aethe” cohesion? why is it destroyed?
A boat double slit experiment is a boat and two slits. The boat always travels through a single slit and the bow wave passes through both.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/chop
4.
a. A short irregular motion of waves.
b. An area of choppy water, as on an ocean.
If you place pilings at the exits to the slits in order to detect the boat the boat will get knocked around by the pilings and lose its cohesion with its bow wave.
If you perform a boat double slit experiment thousands of times and every time the boat always travels through a single slit are you able to deduce the boat travels through a single slit even when you have your eyes closed?
“f you perform a boat double slit experiment thousands of times and every time the boat always travels through a single slit are you able to deduce the boat travels through a single slit even when you have your eyes closed?:
Are you trying to make an analogy with the double slit experiment? Yes you could you dont have both your eyes closed. You have them both open and are observing the wave and the boat crash into wall behind the “slits”.
The boat double slit experiment is an analogy for a double slit experiment. In a boat double slit experiment the boat always travels through a single slit and the bow wave passes through both.
Are you able to deduce the boat travels through a single slit when the experiment is performed and you do not observe the boat?
mpc755 “Are you able to deduce the boat travels through a single slit when the experiment is performed and you do not observe the boat?”
I already answered your question – yes you can. Because although you have not observed the boat travelling through the slit you are observing the wall behind the slits where the boat and the wave crashes into. So yes in the case of a boat you will be able to see both the wave and the boat. and be able to deduce it travelled through one of the slits.
In the case of electrons and atoms though there in no evidence of the particles only the wave crashing into the wall behind the slits.
Then when you look at the electrons or atoms or molecules exiting the slits the wave disappears and only the crash of the electrons or atoms are observed.
There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it’s what waves.
The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid.
You are in a bowling alley filled with a supersolid. You roll the bowling ball. The bowling ball displaces the supersolid. As the supersolid fills-in where the bowling ball had been the supersolid displaces the bowling ball.
By definition, there is no loss of energy in the interaction of the bowling ball and the supersolid and the bowling ball rolls on forever through the supersolid.
Q. Is the bowling ball displacing the supersolid or is the supersolid displacing the bowling ball?
A. Both are occurring simultaneously with equal force.
You watch the boat double slit experiment a million times. Before the next experiment is performed you drive 100 miles away from experiment. You then drive back. When you get back you are told the experiment was performed again. You did not see the experiment performed. You did not see the boat or the wave associated with the experiment. Everything having to do with that iteration of the experiment is in the past. Are you able to understand the boat traveled through a single slit?
And no one tells you anything about the experiment. All you know is that the experiment was performed again. Are you able to figure out on your own that the boat traveled through a single slit?
In the case of macroscopic boat of course it goes though the “slit”. But this is not what happens in the double slit experiment. You analogy doesn’t hold good.
What you are saying an electron, atom etc are particles and there is no particle wave duality. The wave is created in the aether as the electron plows through it. You are also saying that the aether is a supersolid. The electron displaces the supersolid the supersolid fills-in where the electron travels.
1. Not sure if aether is a supersolid, that aether should create any waves.
2. Here’s an experiment. If it does create waves, fire one electron, or atom etc at the solid bit between the slits. We should be able to see the wave on the back screen
3, Here’s another experiment.Fire a round bullet at the solid bit between both the slits which is strong enough to stop it dead. We should be able to see the wave on the back screen.
If your hypothesis is correct.
If it is remember me for the Nobel Prize for suggesting these experiments.
We have yet to detect the wave of wave-particle duality at the microscopic scale.
We detect the wave of wave-particle duality at the macro scale. The aether is what waves when galaxy clusters collide. In this case the galaxy clusters are the ‘particle’
We have yet to directly detect the wave of wave-particle duality at the microscopic scale. There is evidence of it every time a double slit experiment is performed; it’s what waves.
mpc755 “We have yet to directly detect the wave of wave-particle duality at the microscopic scale. There is evidence of it every time a double slit experiment is performed; it’s what waves.”
Are you dyslexic? You seem to get everything by the tail. The double slit experiment seems to detect the the wave particle duality on the microscopic scale. If aether exists, as you claim, and it is what “waves” in the double-slit experiment, then it would be pretty simple to prove – just shoot an electron or atom through a hole on a screen and see if any wave patterns show up there.
I suspect you dont know what you are talking about. The quantum theory though weird does explain many things and predicts many things all of which have been tested and found to be true. It is on the basis of that that we have designed many sophisticated machines, computers and smart phones to name just a few. You are replacing one weird theory but one which has stood the rigorous tests with another one which has stood nothing.
One of the things that the quantum theory states is that space is not continuous but discrete. This aether would be contrary to that.
The particle is guided by the wave. That’s why the particle forms an interference pattern.
Particles of matter move through and displace the aether. Including ‘particles’ as large as galaxies and galaxy clusters.
What is referred to as the deformation of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.
If its as you claim why cant we detect this aether? Matter should be slowed down as it plows through aether but it doesnt seem to be
The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter.
‘The aether-modified gravity and the G ̈del metric’
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5654
“As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53−αg,6a2 so, it is positive if αg < 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval αg < 15 corresponds to the usual matter."
The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused by pressure or vorticity.
'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old Cosmological Constant Problem'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955
"One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity."
The following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.
'From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.1155
"The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new form of matter. This is the real substance"
The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid, which is described in the following article as the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The article describes a 'back reaction' associated with the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. This is the displaced aether 'displacing back'.
'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458
"We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself. This "back-reaction" is quantified by the tendency of angular momentum flux threading across a surface."
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."
'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia'
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."
'Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy'
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 T'μν is the incompressible gravitational aether fluid. In vacuum, the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."
The following articles describe what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether.
'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3753
"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in our universe."
"mass of the aether"
'Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.5168
"the model obtained here gets closer to the aether theory of , which is shown therein to be an alternative to the cold dark matter."
'Unified model for dark matter and quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.4758
"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the universe using superfluid aether is compatible."
'Vainshtein mechanism in Gauss-Bonnet gravity and Galileon aether'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.1892
"the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of the presence of the background field"
'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum medium and the inertial motion of particles'
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0701155
"In this paper we shall show that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as a ubiquitous back ground field is a super fluid medium."
This is too lengthy for me to have a look at right now. Can you answer my questions in a simple manner
You claim “Particles of matter move through and displace the aether” why then cant we detect this aether?
You claim aeter has mass then matter should be slowed down as it plows through aether. Why doesnt it?
Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.
Now explain why the wave goes away when you detect the particle. It has been a while since I have studied that.
In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the aether passes through both. As the wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave guiding the particle. Detecting the particle strongly exiting a single slit destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave in the aether, the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling and does not form an interference pattern.
Your thoughts seem to be a somewhat inchoate form of Pilot Wave theory. The ether is not actually needed even in your description, except as a crutch to enable visualization of causal connections. Needless to say, this would not be the luminiferous ether of yore since the double slit experiment works equally well mutatis mutandis with material objects as with light.
Nothing you are proposing is something which hasn’t been thought of before, or has been suppressed by nefarious forces. There is simply no conclusion as to which interpretation is “right”, as there is not enough evidence to make a generalized conclusion. No major difference in the outcome of one viewpoint versus the other. You may feel passionate about your own conceptualization, but in the end, it has no practical application. If you, or someone, were to find a way in which your conceptualization produced some new, testable insight, then you could gain the upper hand. Until then, it is just basically bluster.
What is incorrect in mainstream physics today is the notion dark matter is a clump of stuff traveling with matter.
Dark matter is now understood to fill what would otherwise be considered to be empty space.
‘Cosmologists at Penn Weigh Cosmic Filaments and Voids’
http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/news/cosmologists-penn-weigh-cosmic-filaments-and-voids
“Dark matter … permeate[s] all the way to the center of the voids.”
‘No Empty Space in the Universe –Dark Matter Discovered to Fill Intergalactic Space’
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/02/no-empty-space-in-the-universe-dark-matter-discovered-to-fill-intergalactic-space-.html
“A long standing mystery on where the missing dark matter is has been solved by the research. There is no empty space in the universe. The intergalactic space is filled with dark matter.”
Dark matter which fills ’empty’ space is otherwise known as the aether. Aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. Including ‘particles’ as large as galaxies and galaxy clusters.
In the following two articles the aether is what waves in a double slit experiment.
‘From the Newton’s laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others’
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3900
“This medium, called also the aether, has mass and is populated by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it” …
… and displace it.
‘EPR program: a local interpretation of QM’
http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5612
“Wave particle duality is described as the compound system of point particle plus accompanying wave (in the æther).”
NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION by LOUIS DE BROGLIE
“Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of [the wave-function wave], arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space”.”
The “subquantic medium” is the dark matter.
‘Fluid mechanics suggests alternative to quantum orthodoxy’
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/fluid-systems-quantum-mechanics-0912
“The fluidic pilot-wave system is also chaotic. It’s impossible to measure a bouncing droplet’s position accurately enough to predict its trajectory very far into the future. But in a recent series of papers, Bush, MIT professor of applied mathematics Ruben Rosales, and graduate students Anand Oza and Dan Harris applied their pilot-wave theory to show how chaotic pilot-wave dynamics leads to the quantumlike statistics observed in their experiments.”
A “fluidic pilot-wave system” is the dark matter.
The chaotic nature of the dark matter and it being the associated wave guiding the particle is responsible for the swerves in the particle’s trajectory.
So, pilot wave. Sure, maybe. But, the issue of nonlocality needs work.
I recommend you watch all of the following video. At the 2:10 mark it discusses an ‘Exposed Variable Theory’.
‘The pilot-wave dynamics of walking droplets’
Due to conservation of momentum, when a downconverted photon pair are created they are created with opposite angular momentums.
Each of the pair can determine the position and momentum of the other based upon their own position and momentum. Their position and momentum are exposed to one another.
Entanglement is each of the pair being able to determine the state of the other.
Bart – February 15, 2015 at 10:06 am
Makes the salient point:
There is simply no conclusion as to which interpretation is “right”, as there is not enough evidence to make a generalized conclusion. No major difference in the outcome of one viewpoint versus the other.
Can I do good engineering with the current concept? Yes. Can I do better engineering with the new concept? No. Does it change anything? No. Are there points it covers that are not already well covered? No.
Does it make you feel better that you can deal with particles and not wavicles? I’m fine with that. But it is not proof. I am perfectly comfortable with wavicles. But if the new theory is proven more correct or it answers questions the old theory does not I’m more than willing to change. I’m an engineer.
Are you able to understand in a boat double slit experiment the boat always travels through a single slit?
Is this more correct than the Copenhagen Boat interpretation where you aren’t allowed to deduce which slit the boat entered, when you detect it in a slit, if you did not observe it entering the slit?
Is this more correct than the Many-Worlds Boat interpretation where the boat exists in infinite worlds prior to your observing it?
There is a more correct answer.
The boat is always detected traveling through a single slit in a boat double slit experiment because the boat always travels through a single slit. The bow wave passes through both.
The particle is always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment because it always travels through a single slit. The associated wave in the aether passes through both.
In a double slit experiment, when you detect the particle exiting a slit you are allowed to deduce it entered that slit.
Any interpretation which does not allow you to deduce the obvious is less correct.
Big Bang disproved – Multiverse proved, experimentally & theoretically:
1) experimentally from 10+ billion 1Hz gravity measurements by (Canadian) superconducting gravimeter as Earth’s most accurate instrument (used for studying G);
2) mathematically, by expressing G (and thus g) via c on both quantum and mechanist scales, as first hinted by Maxwell and then Einstein in 1930s: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/97EO00295/abstract
3) multi-physically (w/o units since no one knows what they would be in another universe i.e. they have no multiversal meaning) as Newton attached units to G only in order to close his own (our universe’s) physics.
4) Paris Bureau of Weights & Measures confirmed Omerbashich (first and only) theoretical value of G
http://www.mynewsdesk.com/ba/pressreleases/an-experimental-estimate-of-newtonian-gravitational-constant-g-matches-modeled-value-of-g-1099733
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608026
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00808674
http://www.mynewsdesk.com/ba/pressreleases/as-big-bang-gets-downgraded-to-a-bang-the-first-scientific-proof-of-the-multiverse-claimed-975493
I have to weigh in on this one. The Big Bang is just the other end of a mathematical equation. It is based on observations of pulsars, most of which had a red shift in their spectrum, indicating that they were receding. They did the math, and voila: the expanding universe HAD to have begun at a single point approximately 14 billion years ago (now, after refining: 13.7 BYA). What imagination! With a teaspoonful they analyzed the whole ocean.
Science provides for new ideas and modifications. So, what is your alternative to the Big Bang? I am sure that if it has merit, smart people will adopt it. So? Let us in on your insight.
Our Universe is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.
‘Was the universe born spinning?’
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688
“The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis”
Our Universe spins around a preferred axis because it is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.
‘Mysterious Cosmic ‘Dark Flow’ Tracked Deeper into Universe’
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html
“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 our Universe is a larger version of a polar jet.
It’s not the Big Bang; it’s the Big Ongoing.
Dark energy is aether continuously emitted into the Universal jet.
some say that one man`s Dark Matter is another mans light…………………
davidswuk
February 23, 2015 at 8:22 am
davidswuk
February 23, 2015 at 8:10 am
In The Begining there was No End. Infinite is something else.
However, the Photons we “see” are right here before our very eyes after being rattled by the Domino Effect set in motion far, far away and rather long ago and which remain Dark Matter if not nudged in our direction even if they are from every other.
Get it pals (aimed at Isvalgard but he`s not receivin`.up above)
[lot’s of duplicates here. Do you really want it said this way? .mod]
No. Your comment is unintelligible.
My replies were not appearing in the selected slot under the relevant comment so I rounded them up and stuck at the foot. ok?
Saw a response from DrS when I first tuned in but cannot find it now anywhere – but LTop has been to the fixers and may be playing up stil…
He found my comments “unintelligable” as I recall.
He must be on Auto-pilot or reading something I cannot find.
The Void is endless but not Infinite hilst The Universe is definitely finite as will be proven hen gravity takes over as energy runs out.
More to say later……………………………
Regards to all
The intelligibility has not improved, actually gotten worse…
lsvalgaard
February 23, 2015 at 1:38 pm
The intelligibility has not improved, actually gotten worse…
And with all due respect for you too sir
I have to say that you appear to be cast in that typical boffinesque position from which you cannot see the light so to speak let alone determine its true nature.
So, for now, I`ll sit on my heels and await similar opportunity to wax a little more lyrically I hope about how I believe things are stacked out there in the beyond because measuring your height in gallons, whether US or Imperial, like you are doing relatively, ain`t np way to unzip this particular banana let alone consume it.