Spin plus aether equals mass

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
DarwinX
Posts: 1298
Joined: April 14th, 2013, 4:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Stephen Hurrell
Location: Australia

Re: Spin plus aether equals mass

Post by DarwinX » April 29th, 2015, 10:48 am

In regards to Mercury shrinking. The opposite could have happened to the earth. The metal core could have originally been solid and then liquefied about 70 million years ago which would account for the Earth doubling in size in such a short time span. Also note that water vapour may cause increased dust accumulation on the Earth's surface. Remember that you never see space dust falling because every raindrop has at least one speck of dust hidden inside it. There is also a theory that the Earth was once a sun and the metal core is the leftovers when the star exploded. Note - Some exploded stars have been observed to reignite again soon after. I wonder where these reignited stars get their fuel from? Oh, no! Not the aether! It must be just an illusion, surely!
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Beware! The devil wears the mask of a saint.

Cogito ergo sum
Moderator
Posts: 174
Joined: June 11th, 2014, 2:32 am
Favorite Philosopher: Karl Popper

Re: Spin plus aether equals mass

Post by Cogito ergo sum » April 29th, 2015, 2:45 pm

DarwinX wrote:
Cogito ergo sum wrote: I watched the videos and have to admit that they are compelling and nifty. That being said, I am having trouble with the connection between darwinx' thoery that spinning creates matter. I would have to agree that the earth is growing, I imagine it was much smaller 5 billion years ago. But this doesn't explain why Mercury is shrinking, unless Mercury dosnt spin? Also if this is the case that the spinning nature of classical objects causes the creation of matter we could, in thoery, creat an experiment where we cause a very tiny microscopic object to spin rapidly for a prolonged period of time and measure its weight and dimensions prior and after a specified amount of time. I know experiments are the bane of pseudoscietist but that's how science works.

1. Mercury is shrinking because it is made mostly of iron which shrinks when cooled.

2. Just spinning any object wont create matter. First you need a left and right ethon and an ethon that has stopped spinning to form matter. The left and right spin ethons will then spin around the no spin ethon to create an atom.

-- Updated April 29th, 2015, 10:27 am to add the following --
Cogito ergo sum wrote: Again you are misunderstanding the difference between Newtonian mechanics and general relativity. In Newtonian mechanics the earth would be pulling the moon and the effect of that "pulling" would fall off as the distance squared. The pulling would also be equal and opposite and from the center mass of the two objects, this idea is what we would call action at a distance. Relativity threw out that idea with the concept that Gravity is not a force in the conventional sense and is not action at a distance but a warp in the fabric of space time. I have explained, very simply that relativity has done away with the idea that gravity is a force, or as you would put it "magic". Will you know concede defeat or is general relativity wrong because Einstien was a Jew?
Warping space time is a false concept. Its the aether flow which pushes light sideways. Time is a constant and doesn't change with speed or acceleration.

No a group of particles would make up the atom not vice versa. I can't give dimensions to a particle because it has none. That is the whole point. In order for something to spin it has to have dimensions, the issue arises when you have, at a very small scale particles or entities that have no dimensions which when in a vast collection project itself in time space and causality and create a classical object that appears to be spinning. A star is indeed a group of particles and atoms so therefore it spins. What is baffling to me is that if it is indeed that case that on a subatomic scale we have collections of dimensionless points that when added up create something with dimensions. We find ourselves in a postion where 0+0=1. And if this is the case we have made a huge error in our mathmatics.

If you can't give dimensions to a particle, then the particle doesn't exist. Matter only forms when an ethon stops spinning or enters a state of half spin. The the left and right ethons rotate around the no spin or half spin ethons. The conditions for matter to come into existence is that one ethon has to stop spinning. This creates a black hole in space which the ethons rotate around. Think of a gyroscope.
Your thought processes is fascinating. You so easily say something is false or doesn't exist and then instantly regurgitate some other "thoery" that, like I have said many times before, has made no predictions, has no experimental ways of testing it and as far as I'm conserned until you make a prediction or an experiment then what your saying is like a child trying to convince someone he saw a unicorn.

DarwinX
Posts: 1298
Joined: April 14th, 2013, 4:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Stephen Hurrell
Location: Australia

Re: Spin plus aether equals mass

Post by DarwinX » April 29th, 2015, 7:31 pm

Cogito ergo sum wrote: Your thought processes is fascinating. You so easily say something is false or doesn't exist and then instantly regurgitate some other "thoery" that, like I have said many times before, has made no predictions, has no experimental ways of testing it and as far as I'm conserned until you make a prediction or an experiment then what your saying is like a child trying to convince someone he saw a unicorn.
It is the science community that is childish and hasn't observed the evidence at hand.

1. Dayton Miller experiments stop Einstein from receiving Nobel Prize for Special Relativity. 2. Fritz Zwicky proves GR wrong by observing the speed of rotating galaxies. 3. 1992. The National Science Foundation spends $365 million on LIGO. Result - Nothing! 4. 2002. Ruyong Wang constructs fibre-optic gyroscope with opposing curves to disprove "rotational effect" explanation of sagnac effect. It proves light constancy false. 5. 1851. Hippolyte Fizeau designs an experiment to prove that a moving dispersive medium should create a partial offset in the speed of any light moving through it because of an aether drag. Result - 100% successful!

Ref - http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/06/07/ ... n-paradox/
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Beware! The devil wears the mask of a saint.

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Spin plus aether equals mass

Post by Atreyu » May 2nd, 2015, 1:13 am

Obvious Leo wrote:Mercury has a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance which means it rotates three times for every orbit around the sun. This means it is almost but not quite tidally locked like our earth's moon.
Thx for the clarification, but I still think it's an interesting observation. I would think that a reduction in spin would occur in parallel with the "death" of a planet....

Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Spin plus aether equals mass

Post by Obvious Leo » May 2nd, 2015, 1:43 am

I just noticed I'd made a mistake with that statement. A 3:2 spin-orbit resonance means Mercury rotates three times for every TWO orbits around the sun. This means a day on Mercury lasts twice as long as its year.

Steve3007
Posts: 5541
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Spin plus aether equals mass

Post by Steve3007 » May 2nd, 2015, 6:24 am

A while ago I promised to watch the videos about Expanding Earth by that cartoonist guy that Atreyu posted on here. I watched them and made some notes, but didn't bother posting them because they were just a bunch of thoughts that occurred to me at the time. I'll post them here now if you're interested. Most of them are just snippets of his comments without, yet, any analysis of them.

There were 7 video clips in all.

Video 1: Earth

He says there is a conspiracy to hide the fact that the plates fit across the Pacific and not just the Atlantic. Geologists say that this is expected by both plate tectonics and Expanding Earth. No conspiracy. No surprise.

The ocean floor is less than 70 million years old. Fish fossils are found on land.

Most of the oceans are less than 70 million years old.

He says: "The ocean floor is sliding onto a magma that is twice as dense as granite. This is a totally unsupportable and scientifically unsound idea." He offers no support for this assertion.

He says: "It's important to remember that science should and must be easier to understand." No justification is given for this assertion. Why should it? Easier for who? Geologists? Cartoonists? Or everyone?

He says: "Half of the Earth's growth has happened since the extinction of the dinosaurs". He never explains what means by size, but I presume he means surface area.

He says: "185 million years ago there were no oceans. So the Earth's surface area was 1/3 of its current value."

He says: Raising and lowering of landmasses is impossible because "it's hell in the form of magma down there". This comment is left unjustified. I've no idea how he expects the assertion "it's hell in the form of magma down there" to even mean anything.

He simply keeps asserting "it can't happen". He asserts that the landmasses don't move.

He says: "National Geographic says the trees in North America and Northern Asia are the same".

He asserts that there must be spreading on Mars.

He seems to suggest that geologists claim that the Earth is unique.

Video 2: Mars

For some reason he thinks that sedimentary rocks on mars slid apart.

His animation shows that land elevation on one side of a valley is the same as land elevation on the other side of a valley. Not really surprising. He shows this with the example of one section of the Martian surface.


Video 3: Moon

He proposes that the Mare ("seas") on the moon are evidence of spread. He claims that they're too big to be impact craters. But they aren't claimed to be impact craters. They're claimed to be basaltic plains caused by ancient volcanic eruptions.

He says: "Wouldn't the gravitational pull of the Earth cause most of the eruptive growth to occur on the Earth-side of the moon?"

No. That's a misunderstanding of how the tidal forces on an orbiting body work. There is a tidal bulge on both the near and far side of the moon.

Video 4: Europa

He says: "If this isn't growth of this moon, where is this material going? Maybe it's subducting! Huh, kidding!"

Why? If this is a layer of ice over a liquid water interior which is subject to tidal forces, why wouldn't it do this?

He says: "This moon, just like all moons, all planets and all suns is growing".

We've seen Earth, Moon, Mars and Europa. That's 4. Where's the evidence on the other dozens of bodies in the solar system? Where, for example, are the seas - evidence of spreading - on Mercury?

Video 5:

Mountain growth

Video 6:

"It is not true that the great lakes and other lakes were carved out by glaciers."

So he's suggesting the great lakes were formed tens of millions of years ago. If they were glacial, then they were formed at the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. If they're 1000 times older than we thought, there would be evidence for this.


Video 7:

He says Northern India and Northern Italy were stretched sideways. The middle parts of these two landmasses stopped stretching. No explanation given for this.

In this model, the Himalayas were never underwater. So why do they contain marine fossils, including whales? How did the fossilized remains of ocean going creatures find their way to the top of a mountain range that was never underwater?

DarwinX
Posts: 1298
Joined: April 14th, 2013, 4:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Stephen Hurrell
Location: Australia

Re: Spin plus aether equals mass

Post by DarwinX » May 4th, 2015, 3:44 am

Because fossils of sea shells were found on Mount Everest doesn't automatically mean that India migrated from the South Pole to its present position. It is far more logical to say that India was once part of a shallow sea which rose up to become a mountainous area in the north. Note - The fossils are dated at 400 million years and were formed in Tethy's Sea which ran around the equator. If you observe Mar's surface you will see a similar equatorial rift valley which runs around the equator of Mars. This equatorial rift occurs as a precursor to later mountain and continent formation. As Mars lacks adequate temperature and atmosphere, it didn't follow the same evolution as Earth processes.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Beware! The devil wears the mask of a saint.

Wayne92587
Posts: 1756
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Spin plus aether equals mass

Post by Wayne92587 » May 12th, 2015, 12:17 pm

A particle can not exist if it has no dimensions?

True, a particle does not exist in the material, physical, sense of the word, exist.

A particle has no relative, numerical value, is not readily apparent is not measurable as to location and momentum in either Space-Time, nor before the beginning there of, the existence or the non-existence of a Particle being Uncertain.

A Particle can only be surmised to exist; a particle being and individuality, an Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity, a Monad.

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Spin plus aether equals mass

Post by Atreyu » May 14th, 2015, 3:08 am

I think it would be useful to compare the modern scientific theory of mountain formation with the infinitely simpler explanation of a growing Earth causing "wrinkles" to form on its surface.

How about if Steve (our resident science expert) gives us a brief rundown of the contemporary view, and then let us consider Occam's razor?

Then, I'd suggest we compare the modern explanation for the downsizing of animal size the last few hundred million years with the infinitely simpler explanation of increasing g-force. I'm sure Steve would be happy to explain to us the modern theory of how decreasing oxygen levels in the atmosphere caused this....

Cogito ergo sum
Moderator
Posts: 174
Joined: June 11th, 2014, 2:32 am
Favorite Philosopher: Karl Popper

Re: Spin plus aether equals mass

Post by Cogito ergo sum » May 15th, 2015, 11:15 pm

Atreyu wrote:I think it would be useful to compare the modern scientific theory of mountain formation with the infinitely simpler explanation of a growing Earth causing "wrinkles" to form on its surface.

How about if Steve (our resident science expert) gives us a brief rundown of the contemporary view, and then let us consider Occam's razor?

Then, I'd suggest we compare the modern explanation for the downsizing of animal size the last few hundred million years with the infinitely simpler explanation of increasing g-force. I'm sure Steve would be happy to explain to us the modern theory of how decreasing oxygen levels in the atmosphere caused this....
Just to be clear, I am not doubting the possibility of the earth expanding which in turn caused and still causes "wrinkles." That being said, I am still unclear as to how this has anything to do with Darwinx's original post on matter creation caused by either the spin or sudden stopping of that action by a "ethon" through aether. I would like to hear a clean, clear and precise example of how these two are related and how you would go about makeing an experiment to test it.

As of today the scientific community, as a whole,would agree that the downsizing of earths animals over the past couple hundred million years is due to lower levels of oxygen among a plethora of other variables e.g. Predator/prey dynamics, the rise of warm blooded animals, lack of readily available and abundant food and energy ect. There is no doubt, experimentaly, that higher levels of oxygen produce a greater level of blood flow which in turn allows the organism to supply nutrients to larger and further away muscles and tissues from the heart. That's not to say that a giant lizard living in an oxygen rich environment will continue to grow and grow and in turn pass those characteristics to his offspring. If, for example, there is not enough food to feed such a large body they will most likely die and therefore not pass on the "giant" gene. There could also be the dynamic of predator/prey. It could become difficult to evade large carnivores of you yourself have become to large. The variables involved in what drives evolution are as numerous as the variables that effect gravitational forces between bodies.

Mathmatically the idea that the earths increase of mass and Gravity has caused the gradual shrinkage of animanl life is an interesting one but the consequences of that idea have not, as far as I can tell, been thougt out. How does the increase of mass and in turn earths gravity effect the earths surface temperature? How does it effect its rotation, axis and orbit? How does it effect the moons orbit? How does it effect the other planets orbits and their moons? Not all the planets are growing larger so you would imagine that there would be some change, and a relativly noticeable one, if the earth has almost doubled in size rather recently. Just to be clear I am of an open mind and I try my best to deal with empirical and testable ideas. I just believe that there are more implications other than animals getting smaller and mountains being formed if the earth was expanding as rapidly as you claim.

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Spin plus aether equals mass

Post by Atreyu » May 16th, 2015, 1:36 am

Cogito ergo sum wrote: Just to be clear, I am not doubting the possibility of the earth expanding which in turn caused and still causes "wrinkles." That being said, I am still unclear as to how this has anything to do with Darwinx's original post on matter creation caused by either the spin or sudden stopping of that action by a "ethon" through aether. I would like to hear a clean, clear and precise example of how these two are related and how you would go about makeing an experiment to test it.
Yes, we got off-topic a bit, Cogito. Happens a lot around here. But yes, I agree with you that Darwin needs to elaborate more on his idea. I don't endorse it, but I do feel he's making some interesting points and has some novel ideas.
Cogito ergo sum wrote: As of today the scientific community, as a whole,would agree that the downsizing of earths animals over the past couple hundred million years is due to lower levels of oxygen among a plethora of other variables e.g. Predator/prey dynamics, the rise of warm blooded animals, lack of readily available and abundant food and energy ect. There is no doubt, experimentaly, that higher levels of oxygen produce a greater level of blood flow which in turn allows the organism to supply nutrients to larger and further away muscles and tissues from the heart. That's not to say that a giant lizard living in an oxygen rich environment will continue to grow and grow and in turn pass those characteristics to his offspring. If, for example, there is not enough food to feed such a large body they will most likely die and therefore not pass on the "giant" gene. There could also be the dynamic of predator/prey. It could become difficult to evade large carnivores of you yourself have become to large. The variables involved in what drives evolution are as numerous as the variables that effect gravitational forces between bodies.

Mathmatically the idea that the earths increase of mass and Gravity has caused the gradual shrinkage of animanl life is an interesting one but the consequences of that idea have not, as far as I can tell, been thougt out. How does the increase of mass and in turn earths gravity effect the earths surface temperature? How does it effect its rotation, axis and orbit? How does it effect the moons orbit? How does it effect the other planets orbits and their moons? Not all the planets are growing larger so you would imagine that there would be some change, and a relativly noticeable one, if the earth has almost doubled in size rather recently. Just to be clear I am of an open mind and I try my best to deal with empirical and testable ideas. I just believe that there are more implications other than animals getting smaller and mountains being formed if the earth was expanding as rapidly as you claim.
Well, I agree that we need to work a lot on this new idea. Being a new hypothesis, many issues indeed still need to be worked out. But in relation to your questions, I'd propose that, generally speaking, the long-term trend is for the orbits of most planets to increase in size, i.e. the solar system grows in terms of both volume and mass. As far as the future of the Earth and Moon is concerned, the general idea is that rocky planets eventually grow into gas giants, so the future of Earth's system, given ideal conditions of growth, would be for it to become like the system of a gas giant planet, such as Jupiter or Saturn. Multiple satellites eventually will be acquired/formed as the Earth grows, and, according to our model, the increasing presence of more water/oceans on the Earth's surface over time corresponds with the eventual changing of its atmosphere into one more similar to that of a gas giant. We can generally imagine the surface of a planet going from a mostly rocky surface to a more liquid one, and then eventually to a more gaseous one.

Wayne92587
Posts: 1756
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Spin plus aether equals mass

Post by Wayne92587 » May 16th, 2015, 4:36 pm

Cogito ergo sum wrote;

Particles don't spin, therefore your theory doesn't explain how matter is produced if the stuff that makes up matter has no spin.

Gravity is not a force in the conventional sense and is not action at a distance but a warp in the fabric of space time.

how is there something rather than nothing. Religion has tried to answer that, science has tried to as well and I beleive that we are a long way from getting there. But your theory is not explaining the underlying causes of anything

What is baffling to me is that if it is indeed that case that on a subatomic scale we have collections of dimensionless points that when added up create something with dimensions. We find ourselves in a position where 0+0=1. And if this is the case we have made a huge error in our mathematics.
Wayne wrote;

A quantity of Particles Spinning creating Mass, Singular Particles having no mass no dimension do not Spin do not exist in the material sense of the word.

Something rather than nothing exists, was caused to exist when a Singularity without dimension, having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0 was transfigured, was alchemically, as if by magic, converted into a Singularity having greater value, having relative, a numerical value of One-1; a Singularity of One-1 being an affect, being in a sense a product of particular State of Condition, being born of the Macrocosm filled with microcosm of an untold, of an Infinite omnipresent quantity of Individual, Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities having no relative, numerical value having a numerical value of Zero-0; a Singularity of Zero-0 being spontaneously, alchemically being reborn a Singularity having relative, a numerical value of One-1, a Singularity of One-1 in its natural state being any of the Fully Random Singularities that had originally existed within a Macrocosm of an untold quantity of Fully Random Quantum Singularities; existing as the Transcendental (Metaphysical) Fully Random Quantum state of Singularity.

0+0 not being equal to One-1; upon the Spontaneous conversion of a Singularity of Zero-0 into a Singularity of One-1, the Singularity of One-1 being an affect became the indirect cause of the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists in the material sense of the word; the Uncaused Cause, the Reality of First Cause being an Affect became the First Singularity to have relative, a Numerical value of One-1, being deemed to having been displaced, to having relative, a Numerical value of One-1; the displacement, the velocity of the speed and direction making a Singularity of One-1 the first in a series, the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary process, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time.

Singularity of One-1 having spontaneously, without cause, been displaced, attained velocity of speed and direct took off in an unknown direction, in a straight line, a straight line in space being Geodesic in Nature, becoming the Directed cause of the System of Chaos (as in the Butterfly Effect) that has made manifest the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists in material sense of the word.
DarwinX wrote; If you can't give dimensions to a particle, then the particle doesn't exist. It is only single items that can spin, like one atom, one galaxy, one sun and one planet. On the other-hand, groups of atoms can't spin, groups of planets can't spin, groups of galaxies can't spin. Spin is an individual characteristic, not a group characteristic
Wayne wrote;

True, a particle, a Singularity does not exist in the material, physical sense of the world.

One atom, one galaxy, one sun, do not a Singularity Make.

A mass One atom, one galaxy, one sun, exist as a group of Singularities in mass, spinning, are already acting as the whole of a Singular Mass, Reality.

Particles, Singularities do not have dimension and therefore existing but having no mass; as quantity of Particles, Singularities, begin to spin, a mass of High Energy is created.

The axis of a mass being a field of low energy, the motion of each particle existing as a negligible innate inner motion, oscillation, vibration, being meaningless, make a Humming sound, OHM; producing a negligible amount of Heat Energy at the center of spinning mass, the mass itself existing as a state of High Entergy, as a product of a mass of Particles, Singularities have dimension and therefore exist having mass; as quantity of Particles, Singularities, begin to spin, a mass of High Energy is created.

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Spin plus aether equals mass

Post by Atreyu » May 18th, 2015, 3:13 am

Cogito ergo sum wrote: What is baffling to me is that if it is indeed that case that on a subatomic scale we have collections of dimensionless points that when added up create something with dimensions. We find ourselves in a position where 0+0=1. And if this is the case we have made a huge error in our mathematics.
This is an interesting point, but there is no "error". It's a question of scale. The reason why dimensionless points can add up to create particles with dimensions is because they are only dimensionless from our perspective. When we "hone in" on what is going on at the subatomic level, when we can move around within the atom and move between electrons and protons, suddenly what was formerly cognized as a dimensionless geometric point becomes something directly perceived as having length, width, and height. The axiom also applies in ordinary geometry. In geometry, what is called a point is based on scale. If you "hone in" on the point, it becomes a small circle. Hone in more, and the circle grows larger. If you now "hone out", your circle gets smaller and smaller, until it again becomes a mere point. Continue "honing out", and even the point will completely disappear into nothingness.

Taking the very small as a point is not exactly accurate, but it's practical and it allows us to understand certain things which could never be understood without this cognition of a "point". Obviously, points with no dimensions cannot make up lines, but that's exactly how geometry models it. Similarly, geometric lines do not have any width, and yet they make up planes, while geometric planes, having no thickness, somehow make up solids. This apparent "error" is merely due to the principle of scale - what something is or isn't, at least cognitively speaking, depends upon the particular scale in which we are considering it at the moment. And all this is due to the fact that the human mind must artificially simplify things, (i.e. take them on various arbitrary scales), in order to understand their relations...

Shado
Posts: 17
Joined: May 30th, 2015, 4:31 pm

Re: Spin plus aether equals mass

Post by Shado » May 31st, 2015, 8:09 pm

The only thing Einstein didn't really appreciate was "spooky action at a distance." He wasn't a fan of Quantum Mechanics, yet found himself at a loss to explain them away, as do most at this point. Entanglement is interesting....

Post Reply