MASSIVELY upgraded LHC Ready to hunt down MYSTERY Dark Matter Particles

originally posted by: ImaFungi
There must be a substance that exists, which warps in the presence of mass.

You cannot deny this.

Challenge accepted. I deny it. There is no substance. Empty space is not flat, and is less so in the presence of mass.

Euclid is for beginners. Learn math, join us, brother.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
There must be a substance that exists, which warps in the presence of mass.

You cannot deny this.

Einstein said the "new aether" of relativity has "no substance", and I haven't found any reason to disagree with him, so far. What evidence do you have as proof of a "substance"?

There's a theory about particles called gravitons, but they are only a hypothesis at this point. Even if they exist, they are thought to be likely massless, so would you call something that's "massless" a "substance"?

Can you quote me Einstein saying there is no substance as the new aether? Because what you quoted appears to be the writer of the article putting words in Einsteins mouth

"but one may not speak of motion in relation to that aether. This was further elaborated by Einstein in some semi-popular articles (1918, 1920, 1924, 1930)...

So the only similarity of this relativistic aether concept with the classical aether models lies in the presence of physical properties in space. Therefore, as historians such as John Stachel argue, Einstein's views on the "new aether" are not in conflict with his abandonment of the aether in 1905. For, as Einstein himself pointed out, no "substance" and no state of motion can be attributed to that new aether."

He is saying Einstein pointed out no "substance", but he is not showing that einstein did. He said Einstein responded saying one may not speak of motion in relation to that aether. And then that is how the writer concluded the aether had no substance.

Do you think the photon field is of no substance? One cannot speak of motion in relation to the unexcited photon field...?

There is obviously motion in relation to the new aether. You know how nature proves this to us? Meteorites traveling towards earth...erm...the very existence of the force of gravity is objects motions in relation to the new aether.

Perhaps he meant that you cannot talk about motion in relation to the aether because they couldnt measure and did not know the components of the aether, so they had to assume it was uniform at all points, and base the values of the aether off of the values of mass, and masses motion? Yeah I think that sounds about right.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi
There must be a substance that exists, which warps in the presence of mass.

You cannot deny this.

Challenge accepted. I deny it. There is no substance. Empty space is not flat, and is less so in the presence of mass.

Euclid is for beginners. Learn math, join us, brother.

The sun is moving. The earth is following the sun. What physical occurrence causes the earth to follow the sun? What are the minimal ingredients to the recipe you need, I will start you off;

1. the sun
2. the earth
3.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

The sun is moving. The earth is following the sun. What physical occurrence causes the earth to follow the sun? What are the minimal ingredients to the recipe you need, I will start you off;

1. the sun
2. the earth

3. bent geodesics that cause the Earth to accelerate toward the Sun. Through empty space. That's free of "aether".

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

The sun is moving. The earth is following the sun. What physical occurrence causes the earth to follow the sun? What are the minimal ingredients to the recipe you need, I will start you off;

1. the sun
2. the earth

3. bent geodesics that cause the Earth to accelerate toward the Sun. Through empty space. That's free of "aether".

geodesic: (adjective) of, relating to, or denoting the shortest possible line between two points on a sphere or other curved surface.
(noun) a geodesic line or structure.

1. the sun
2. the earth
3. empty space

How do you explain empty space having geodesics?

a reply to: Arbitrageur



"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the General Theory of Relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether. According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." - www.aetherometry.com...

Einstein was wrong and he would agree with this statement. When he says the idea of motion may not be applied to it, he is so obviously wrong. This is why;

The solar system is moving, lets say the earth is moving. The earth has its inverse square law field. A meteorite is heading towards earth. The meteorite has its inverse square law field. If the meteorite is approaching earth, that means the meteorites square of the distance field is approaching earth, that means motion can be applied to the aether. But wait, theres more, call right now and everything I have ever argued against you wherein I sensed you were incorrect I was justified and right... ahem; I mean; If you want to say, the total aether does not move, the earth moves, and the meteorite moves towards the earth, but the total aether is stationary in relation to these bodies movements, I can play that game and still beat you (ahem, einstein), by obviously noting, that if the aether field value is altered due to the nature of gravity, the inverse square law field surrounding the bodies exists at point A, and the meteorite is closing its distance towards earth which is at point Z, so the meteorite is at point B, now point C, now point D, now point E, and the total aether is not moving, yet the meteorite still has an inverse square law field surrounding it, this means the values of gravity field surrounding the meteorite must always be composed or sourced from new points of the aether, point F, and G, and H, and I, and J, meaning that before the meteorite was at point F and G and H and I, the value of the aether was at value X, and as the meteorite embodied point F and then G and H and I, value X was altered. This alteration of the aether at value X can be deemed motion. I win, like always. Truth reigns supreme eternally. The only place false exists is in mind and mind like system. There is only truth, and then what is in mind, there can be truth in mind, but that is much harder than there being its opposite.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
How do you explain empty space having geodesics?

"In mathematics, particularly differential geometry, a geodesic (/ˌdʒiːɵˈdiːzɨk/ JEE-o-DEE-zik or /ˌdʒiːɵˈdɛsɨk/ JEE-o-DES-ik) is a generalization of the notion of a "straight line" to "curved spaces". In the presence of an affine connection, a geodesic is defined to be a curve whose tangent vectors remain parallel if they are transported along it. If this connection is the Levi-Civita connection induced by a Riemannian metric, then the geodesics are (locally) the shortest path between points in the space."

"Certain types of world lines are called geodesics of the spacetime – straight lines in the case of Minkowski space and their closest equivalent in the curved spacetime of general relativity. In the case of purely time-like paths, geodesics are (locally) the paths of greatest separation (spacetime interval) as measured along the path between two events, whereas in Euclidean space and Riemannian manifolds, geodesics are paths of shortest distance between two points.[4][5] The concept of geodesics becomes central in general relativity, since geodesic motion may be thought of as "pure motion" (inertial motion) in spacetime, that is, free from any external influences."

You have to pick the definition that applies to spaces, not maps.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
If you want to say, the total aether does not move, the earth moves, and the meteorite moves towards the earth, but the total aether is stationary in relation to these bodies movements

You're right, there is only one truth, and that is that there is no aether, and thus it doesn't matter if it moves or no.

The only reason you so desperately want there to be one is that you can't visualize an empty space properly.

Yes, there can be empty space that has extent and duration. It's just empty. Vacuum. Void. Nothingness. Yet it occupies volume and has duration. It's easy if you try. There doesn't have to be an "aether" filling it so that you don't have this personal issue with not being able to conceive of a void.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi
How do you explain empty space having geodesics?

"In mathematics, particularly differential geometry, a geodesic (/ˌdʒiːɵˈdiːzɨk/ JEE-o-DEE-zik or /ˌdʒiːɵˈdɛsɨk/ JEE-o-DES-ik) is a generalization of the notion of a "straight line" to "curved spaces". In the presence of an affine connection, a geodesic is defined to be a curve whose tangent vectors remain parallel if they are transported along it. If this connection is the Levi-Civita connection induced by a Riemannian metric, then the geodesics are (locally) the shortest path between points in the space."

"Certain types of world lines are called geodesics of the spacetime – straight lines in the case of Minkowski space and their closest equivalent in the curved spacetime of general relativity. In the case of purely time-like paths, geodesics are (locally) the paths of greatest separation (spacetime interval) as measured along the path between two events, whereas in Euclidean space and Riemannian manifolds, geodesics are paths of shortest distance between two points.[4][5] The concept of geodesics becomes central in general relativity, since geodesic motion may be thought of as "pure motion" (inertial motion) in spacetime, that is, free from any external influences."

You have to pick the definition that applies to spaces, not maps.

That is the problem. You are taking the concept of abstract mathematics, which includes 1d points, and graph lines preexisting that you can term empty space which has the ability to have make believe geodesics drawn over it. I am smart enough where if you said something correct I would desire nothing more than to agree, you have not.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi
If you want to say, the total aether does not move, the earth moves, and the meteorite moves towards the earth, but the total aether is stationary in relation to these bodies movements

You're right, there is only one truth, and that is that there is no aether, and thus it doesn't matter if it moves or no.

The only reason you so desperately want there to be one is that you can't visualize an empty space properly.

Yes, there can be empty space that has extent and duration. It's just empty. Vacuum. Void. Nothingness. Yet it occupies volume and has duration. It's easy if you try. There doesn't have to be an "aether" filling it so that you don't have this personal issue with not being able to conceive of a void.

The only reason I know a material/energy dense medium is responsible for the existence of the force of gravity, the energy dense medium you can call the aether if you want, is because there must be a physical reason 2 objects at a distance can influence one another without their surfaces physically touching.

The only reason you do not want to believe this truth, is because you do not want to believe the scientists who wrote your scripture which included the throwing out of concept of aether to have been or seemed wrong. Cognitive dissonance on your part.

If pure empty space, has the potential to intrinsically be altered of itself in anyway, it was not and never was pure empty space. You lose. I win.

Because I am open minded, and your derangement has left me baffled, I have no other choice, but to consider that your beliefs stem from a government mandated propaganda of misinformation, birthed from the fear of the times of war, and making nuclear weapons, fear that if every nation on earth was given the truth about the physical universe, that it may give the enemy a dangerous upper hand in making weapon. This is a silly idea, but it is not as silly as the poots you are dribbling out of your numbskull beddendlamb

Peaceful pure science at the LHC is actually just a cover for a covert joint project by the USAF and Rand Corporation to harvest anti-protons for advanced nuclear weapons.

These anti-protons are gathered in a smaller collection ring at CERN which decelerates them so they can be stored in a cryogenically chilled magnetic bottle for transfer to Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Los Alamos, where USA is developing advanced 4th generation nuclear weapons.

Report of Andre Gsponer

originally posted by: [post=19062974]ImaFungi
If pure empty space, has the potential to intrinsically be altered of itself in anyway, it was not and never was pure empty space. You lose. I win.

Bravo. Its filled with time and dark matter coupled together