Re: evidence for the existence of the ether
Dennis McCarthy
"Dennis McCarthy" <djm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:68aae149.04100...@posting.google.com...
> "robert j. kolker" <now...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:<2rvvi7F...@uni-berlin.de>...
>> Einsteinhoax wrote:
>>
>> > Evidence of the Existence of the Aether
>> >
>> > It is the currently accepted "truth" that there is no
>> > experimental
>> > evidence of the Aether. This seems surprising because, if the Aether
>> > made its
>> > presence any more obvious, physicists would have teeth marks on their
>> > butts
>> > from where the Aether had jumped up and bit them. A few examples:
>>
>> There is nothing explained WITH Aether that cannot be explained WITHOUT
>> Aether.
>
> Dennis: That's a statement of no importance. There is nothing
> explained with the atmosphere that cannot be "explained" without the
> atmosphere.
Smith: Please do so. Please include optical effects which identify the
presence
of a medium.
Dennis: Name any acoustic effect which provides evidence for the presence of a
particulate medium (atmosphere), and I will provide you with the optical
equivalent.
(How about the obvious fact that sound is a wave? Isn't that evidence of a
medium? Or that it reflects, refracts and interferes? Doppler effect? Etc...)
> Just invent bodiless wind and pressure fields -- and have
> sound be a "wave" without an actual physical medium. The equations
> stay the same.
> Now, I know what you are thinking: Why would anyone be so naive as
> to ignore all the obvious fluid characteristics of a region, and
> simply redescribe all of its effects with bodiless fields?
> And I agree.
Smith: So prove the evidence of an aether. Show us some anomalous effect that
aether is required to explain.
Dennis: All the well known obvious characteristics of fluids (e.g. gases and
media) , all of them, are on obvious display in the vacuum and in the
atmosphere. Both the atmosphere and the vacuum support waves that interfere
and refract and reflect, etc. Both have invisible forces and currents. Both
support vortices. Etc, etc., etc.. That's the point.
Obviously, I agree that every effect in the vacuum and in the atmosphere can be
explained by bodiless waves and bodiless fields. Indeed, given willingness to
believe in such bodiless effects, there is no "anomalous effect" that either
the aether or the atmosphere is required to explain.
IOW, such an argument doesn't suggest the vacuum or the atmosphere is devoid
of a medium.
Or to put it another way: You tell me what fluid characteristic of the
atmosphere provides evidence the atmosphere is a fluid (particulate medium),
and I'll provide you with the exact same characteristic in the vacuum.
--Dennis
Dennis McCarthy
Dirk Van de moortel
"Dennis McCarthy" <djm...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20041117090050...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> Dear Dennis McCarthy:
>
> "Dennis McCarthy" <djm...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:68aae149.04100...@posting.google.com...
> > "robert j. kolker" <now...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> > news:<2rvvi7F...@uni-berlin.de>...
Talking to yourself, Dennis Sue Jahn McCarthy?
Dirk Vdm
AllYou!
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:419b6728$0$7837$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
Kinda like when you talk to Hobba.
--
"Faster, Bill, faster.......I'm almost there!" -- DVM
Tom Roberts
> Dennis: Name any acoustic effect which provides evidence for the presence of a
> particulate medium (atmosphere), and I will provide you with the optical
> equivalent.
The behavior of sound waves in air as a function of temperature,
humidity, and pressure. Why is it that you cannot vary the corresponding
properties of "the ether"???
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
greywolf42
news:cnfotn$d...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
You can. Fill the aether with matter, and the speed of light changes. This
is the index of refraction. The same effect as in sound.
Only religious Relativists, such as yourself, assume that the speed of light
never changes. That's the function of the e-synch ritual.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}
Thomas Clarke
> Or to put it another way: You tell me what fluid characteristic of the
> atmosphere provides evidence the atmosphere is a fluid (particulate medium),
> and I'll provide you with the exact same characteristic in the vacuum.
I queried about the vacuum analog of Brownian motion.
Greywolf42 suggested zitterbewegung but this is
an effect related to the Dirac equation of the electron.
Tom Clarke
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
greywolf42
news:0162a0a6fda57fef6e1...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> "Dennis McCarthy" <djm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > Or to put it another way: You tell me what fluid characteristic of the
> > atmosphere provides evidence the atmosphere is a fluid (particulate
medium),
> > and I'll provide you with the exact same characteristic in the vacuum.
>
> I queried about the vacuum analog of Brownian motion.
>
> Greywolf42 suggested zitterbewegung but this is
> an effect related to the Dirac equation of the electron.
Only if you first exclusively define it as such. As you admitted. The
physical observable of the equation is the same as for thermal impact
(Brownian motion).
Thomas Clarke
> "Thomas Clarke" <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
> > I queried about the vacuum analog of Brownian motion.
> > Greywolf42 suggested zitterbewegung but this is
> > an effect related to the Dirac equation of the electron.
> Only if you first exclusively define it as such.
As I recall you stated:
"You are simply pursuing an
argument-by-definition (which is a fallacy)."
> As you admitted.
Did I? I wrote:
"I had thought [zitterbewegung to be]
just the effect of quantum zero-point fluctuations
of the vacuum on a particle's path. But apparently it is a
an effect related to the Dirac equation of the electron.
I gave a web site that shows a movie of the electron
wave function undergoing zitterbewegung:
http://www.kfunigraz.ac.at/imawww/vqm/pages/samples/206_01b.html
> The
> physical observable of the equation is the same as for thermal impact
> (Brownian motion).
This was in dispute and never resolved.
Bill Rowe
"greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:cnfotn$d...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> > Dennis McCarthy wrote:
> > > Dennis: Name any acoustic effect which provides evidence for the
> > > presence of a particulate medium (atmosphere), and I will provide
> > > you with the optical equivalent.
> > The behavior of sound waves in air as a function of temperature,
> > humidity, and pressure. Why is it that you cannot vary the corresponding
> > properties of "the ether"???
> You can. Fill the aether with matter, and the speed of light changes. This
> is the index of refraction. The same effect as in sound.
I can see how a change in pressure or humidity can be equated with
removing/adding matter. But a change of temperature requires no addition
or removal of matter. Propagation of sound is clearly altered when
temperature is changed. But there is no evidence to show propagation of
light in vacuum (which presumably requires the presence of an ether
according to ether theory) changes with temperature. So, what is the
optical analog to changes in sound propagation with temperature?
--
To reply via email subtract one hundred nine
Eric Gisse
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:cnfotn$d...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> > Dennis McCarthy wrote:
> > > Dennis: Name any acoustic effect which provides evidence for the
> presence of a
> > > particulate medium (atmosphere), and I will provide you with the optical
> > > equivalent.
> >
> > The behavior of sound waves in air as a function of temperature,
> > humidity, and pressure. Why is it that you cannot vary the corresponding
> > properties of "the ether"???
>
> You can. Fill the aether with matter, and the speed of light changes. This
> is the index of refraction. The same effect as in sound.
Ahh yes! The mystical ether that satisfies these properties:
Comoving with the Earth. So much for Copernicus' principle.
Does not give rise to a drag force against moving bodies.
Has managed to not collapse upon itself. Interesting, the universe
started as isotropic as you can get and it managed to coalesce and
collapse into planets, stars, and galaxies. What is keeping this
magical ether together so that it doesn't undergo gravitational
collapse? It only takes a little perturbation and WHAMMO.
Oh, where is the matter in hard vacuum?
>
> Only religious Relativists, such as yourself, assume that the speed of light
> never changes. That's the function of the e-synch ritual.
Yes. The good ol' "call it a religion" argument. Sure makes it easier
to vilify by those who can't or won't understand.
greywolf42
news:readnewscix-D181...@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <FQLmd.1651$mu4...@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,
> "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
>
> > "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:cnfotn$d...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
>
> > > Dennis McCarthy wrote:
> > > > Dennis: Name any acoustic effect which provides evidence for the
> > > > presence of a particulate medium (atmosphere), and I will provide
> > > > you with the optical equivalent.
>
> > > The behavior of sound waves in air as a function of temperature,
> > > humidity, and pressure. Why is it that you cannot vary the
corresponding
> > > properties of "the ether"???
>
> > You can. Fill the aether with matter, and the speed of light changes.
This
> > is the index of refraction. The same effect as in sound.
>
> I can see how a change in pressure or humidity can be equated with
> removing/adding matter. But a change of temperature requires no addition
> or removal of matter.
That is true. However, since I already disproved Tom Roberts' silly claim
with my above statement, what's the point of your comment?
> Propagation of sound is clearly altered when
> temperature is changed. But there is no evidence to show propagation of
> light in vacuum (which presumably requires the presence of an ether
> according to ether theory) changes with temperature. So, what is the
> optical analog to changes in sound propagation with temperature?
The "optical analog" to changes in sound speed with temperature would be
changes in light speed, of course. However, I'm not aware of any technical
means at our disposal at the moment that would allow us to change the
"local" temperature of the aether. Primarily because the "local" region of
the aether fluid must be parsecs in extent, and a tremendously high energy
content.
greywolf42
> "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > "Thomas Clarke" <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
>
> > > I queried about the vacuum analog of Brownian motion.
>
> > > Greywolf42 suggested zitterbewegung but this is
> > > an effect related to the Dirac equation of the electron.
>
> > Only if you first exclusively define it as such.
>
> As I recall you stated:
>
> "You are simply pursuing an
> argument-by-definition (which is a fallacy)."
Yes.
> > As you admitted.
>
> Did I?
I recalled an admission by abandoning the dispute below. However, I had not
recalled your specific wording, when you abandoned supporting your position.
As I now see, I didn't recall that you claimed "I do disagree." So I now
retract the above statement "as you admitted," with my apologies.
> I wrote:
>
> "I had thought [zitterbewegung to be]
> just the effect of quantum zero-point fluctuations
> of the vacuum on a particle's path. But apparently it is a
> an effect related to the Dirac equation of the electron.
>
> I gave a web site that shows a movie of the electron
> wave function undergoing zitterbewegung:
>
> http://www.kfunigraz.ac.at/imawww/vqm/pages/samples/206_01b.html
I don't believe you gave that specific link, in the exchange. There is no
need to recreate the discussion again. Simply go to the thread.
> > The
> > physical observable of the equation is the same as for thermal impact
> > (Brownian motion).
>
> This was in dispute and never resolved.
I believe that's because you admitted that you would not speak further on
the subject:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Mfzdd.1109%24sT4.622%40news.flashnewsgroup
s.com
Thomas:
"The first expression has an "i" in the exponent. Changes the value of the
expression even when h=kT. To determine where the particle is you have to
take square modulus (Born rule) which is the observation I was talking about
above."
greywolf:
"Which doesn't change the shape of the observable."
Thomas:
"|exp(iX)|=1>exp(-X) for X>0"
greywolf:
"Which doesn't change the shape of the observable. Only the relative
location."
Thomas:
"If you say so. I do disagree, but don't feel like arguing this now."
I took that as an indication that you could no longer support the
substantive point under discussion.
greywolf42
news:929ed0f8.04111...@posting.google.com...
> "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:<FQLmd.1651$mu4...@news.flashnewsgroups.com>...
> > "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:cnfotn$d...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> > > Dennis McCarthy wrote:
> > > > Dennis: Name any acoustic effect which provides evidence for the
> > presence of a
> > > > particulate medium (atmosphere), and I will provide you with the
optical
> > > > equivalent.
> > >
> > > The behavior of sound waves in air as a function of temperature,
> > > humidity, and pressure. Why is it that you cannot vary the
corresponding
> > > properties of "the ether"???
> >
> > You can. Fill the aether with matter, and the speed of light changes.
This
> > is the index of refraction. The same effect as in sound.
>
> Ahh yes! The mystical ether that satisfies these properties:
>
> Comoving with the Earth. So much for Copernicus' principle.
Wherever did you get this silly idea? The aether does not move with the
Earth. The current best guess for the Earth's motion through the aether is
circa 300 kps, from the CMBR dipole.
> Does not give rise to a drag force against moving bodies.
Another specious and false claim. The drag force is both predicted
("Feynman drag"), and is observed ("Pioneer drag").
> Has managed to not collapse upon itself.
???? Why would it "collapse?" Air doesn't "collapse" onto itself either.
No phyiscal fluids do.
> Interesting, the universe started as isotropic
What theory are you using to make this absurd claim? The Big Bang is not
needed in an aether theory.
> as you can get and it managed to coalesce and
> collapse into planets, stars, and galaxies.
You mean that one had *matter* coalesce into stars, etc. This is trivial.
Aether theories don't need "the universe" to collapse. Or aether to
collapse.
> What is keeping this
> magical ether together so that it doesn't undergo gravitational
> collapse? It only takes a little perturbation and WHAMMO.
Aether is the *cause* of the self-attraction of matter particles (gravity).
It is an aether momentum-shadowing effect. This in no way requires aether
to self-gravitate. Any more than the atmosphere collapses.
> Oh, where is the matter in hard vacuum?
Nowhere, of course. What is the point of this unrelated sleeve-ravelling?
> > Only religious Relativists, such as yourself, assume that the speed of
light
> > never changes. That's the function of the e-synch ritual.
>
> Yes. The good ol' "call it a religion" argument. Sure makes it easier
> to vilify by those who can't or won't understand.
I see that you never addressed the physical issue. Light speed is
experimentally determined to change all the time. In order to get around
experiment, the relativists invented e-synching. Where you do a 'pre-run'
of any experiment, and adjust your clocks to make sure they match the
assumptions of SR.
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message news:m95nd.2968$mu4...@news.flashnewsgroups.com...
Two more posts, and you will deploy one of your smokescreens.
Shall we bet?
#13 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=1090870...@corp.supernews.com
#12 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vuh3v91...@corp.supernews.com
#11 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vm1fb4d...@corp.supernews.com
#10 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=6ffd15bd.03081...@posting.google.com
#9 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vibm425...@corp.supernews.com
#8 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vhtma4h...@corp.supernews.com
#7 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vhm4f6r...@corp.supernews.com
#6 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vg0ndom...@corp.supernews.com
#5 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfrn4g1...@corp.supernews.com
#4 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfrlt15...@corp.supernews.com
#3 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfgtonn...@corp.supernews.com
#2 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfem054...@corp.supernews.com
#1 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vemlos4...@corp.supernews.com
Dirk Vdm
Thomas Clarke
> "Thomas Clarke" <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
Regarding an etherian analogy of Brownian motion.
> > > The
> > > physical observable of the equation is the same as for thermal impact
> > > (Brownian motion).
> > This was in dispute and never resolved.
> I believe that's because you admitted that you would not speak further on
> the subject:
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Mfzdd.1109%24sT4.622%40news.flashnewsgroup
> s.com
> Thomas:
> "The first expression has an "i" in the exponent. Changes the value of the
> expression even when h=kT. To determine where the particle is you have to
> take square modulus (Born rule) which is the observation I was talking about
> above."
> greywolf:
> "Which doesn't change the shape of the observable."
> Thomas:
> "|exp(iX)|=1>exp(-X) for X>0"
> greywolf:
> "Which doesn't change the shape of the observable. Only the relative
> location."
> Thomas:
> "If you say so. I do disagree, but don't feel like arguing this now."
> I took that as an indication that you could no longer support the
> substantive point under discussion.
I guess I should be more explicit in expressing sarcasm.
You may take that as an indication that I did not feel like
arguing that then.
I'm not sure I do now. If you don't know the significance
of the mathematical fact |exp(iX)|=1>exp(-X) for X>0
then I don't know what we could discuss.
In any case I was wrong that this sort of expression which
I get from the paths in Feynman path integrals had
to do with Zitterbewegung which is related to Dirac's
equation for the electron unless you are changing the
definition of the term.
Did you mean something along the lines of
http://ej.iop.org/links/q61/+cQjETlnXju8C+vT5k38bQ/ejv11i6p334.pdf
??
ste...@nomail.com
: Has managed to not collapse upon itself. Interesting, the universe
: started as isotropic as you can get and it managed to coalesce and
: collapse into planets, stars, and galaxies. What is keeping this
: magical ether together so that it doesn't undergo gravitational
: collapse? It only takes a little perturbation and WHAMMO.
To be fair, they advocate a different theory of gravity.
Aether particles do not attract each other. Instead there
are these other particles that are apparently continuously
produced at the far edges of the universe. These particles
collide with waves and vortices in the aether and push them.
Despite the fact that no disturbance can travel through the
aether faster than the speed of light, these other particles
travel at speeds far in excess of the speed of light. I am
not sure if they are fundamentally different than aether particles,
or how they move through the aether at such great speeds and
at the same time rarely interact with anything, or how they
are created and brought up to speed in the first place.
But apparently they do not have to worry about gravitational
collapse. :)
Stephen
Bill Rowe
"greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
> "Bill Rowe" <readn...@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:readnewscix-D181...@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> > In article <FQLmd.1651$mu4...@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,
> > "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
> > > "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > > news:cnfotn$d...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> > > > Dennis McCarthy wrote:
> > > > > Dennis: Name any acoustic effect which provides evidence for the
> > > > > presence of a particulate medium (atmosphere), and I will provide
> > > > > you with the optical equivalent.
> > > > The behavior of sound waves in air as a function of temperature,
> > > > humidity, and pressure. Why is it that you cannot vary the corresponding
> > > > properties of "the ether"???
> > > You can. Fill the aether with matter, and the speed of light changes. This
> > > is the index of refraction. The same effect as in sound.
> > I can see how a change in pressure or humidity can be equated with
> > removing/adding matter. But a change of temperature requires no addition
> > or removal of matter.
> That is true. However, since I already disproved Tom Roberts' silly claim
> with my above statement, what's the point of your comment?
Simply, you didn't do as you claim. Your stated reason, i.e., "fill the
aether with matter", isn't relevant to temperature.
> > Propagation of sound is clearly altered when
> > temperature is changed. But there is no evidence to show propagation of
> > light in vacuum (which presumably requires the presence of an ether
> > according to ether theory) changes with temperature. So, what is the
> > optical analog to changes in sound propagation with temperature?
> The "optical analog" to changes in sound speed with temperature would be
> changes in light speed, of course. However, I'm not aware of any technical
> means at our disposal at the moment that would allow us to change the
> "local" temperature of the aether. Primarily because the "local" region of
> the aether fluid must be parsecs in extent, and a tremendously high energy
> content.
Or in other words, you've no evidence to show any optical analog to the
effects of temperature on the propagation of sound. You merely assume
the existence of something you cannot observe. And that is the point
Roberts was making.
Eric Gisse
> "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:929ed0f8.04111...@posting.google.com...
> > "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:<FQLmd.1651$mu4...@news.flashnewsgroups.com>...
> > > "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > > news:cnfotn$d...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> > > > Dennis McCarthy wrote:
> > > > > Dennis: Name any acoustic effect which provides evidence for the
> presence of a
> > > > > particulate medium (atmosphere), and I will provide you with the
> optical
> > > > > equivalent.
> > > >
> > > > The behavior of sound waves in air as a function of temperature,
> > > > humidity, and pressure. Why is it that you cannot vary the
> corresponding
> > > > properties of "the ether"???
> > >
> > > You can. Fill the aether with matter, and the speed of light changes.
> This
> > > is the index of refraction. The same effect as in sound.
> >
> > Ahh yes! The mystical ether that satisfies these properties:
> >
> > Comoving with the Earth. So much for Copernicus' principle.
>
> Wherever did you get this silly idea? The aether does not move with the
> Earth. The current best guess for the Earth's motion through the aether is
> circa 300 kps, from the CMBR dipole.
It has to be coupled and comoving with the Earth as it goes around the
Sun becausse inferometer experiment's havent detected anything.
>
> > Does not give rise to a drag force against moving bodies.
>
> Another specious and false claim. The drag force is both predicted
> ("Feynman drag"), and is observed ("Pioneer drag").
I was thinking of planetary and sattelite orbits.
I don't know what Feynman drag is nor do I see how the Pioneer drag is
evidence for the ether. Especially considering what you said directly
above.
>
> > Has managed to not collapse upon itself.
>
> ???? Why would it "collapse?" Air doesn't "collapse" onto itself either.
> No phyiscal fluids do.
Uh, look at the sun. A cloud of matter is going to collapse upon
itself. Unless ether is not made of matter or is for whatever reason
does not gravitate.
>
> > Interesting, the universe started as isotropic
>
> What theory are you using to make this absurd claim? The Big Bang is not
> needed in an aether theory.
COBE, WMAP. Isotropic as you can get.
>
> > as you can get and it managed to coalesce and
> > collapse into planets, stars, and galaxies.
>
> You mean that one had *matter* coalesce into stars, etc. This is trivial.
So ether isn't made of matter?
>
> Aether theories don't need "the universe" to collapse. Or aether to
> collapse.
>
> > What is keeping this
> > magical ether together so that it doesn't undergo gravitational
> > collapse? It only takes a little perturbation and WHAMMO.
>
> Aether is the *cause* of the self-attraction of matter particles (gravity).
> It is an aether momentum-shadowing effect. This in no way requires aether
> to self-gravitate. Any more than the atmosphere collapses.
What evidence do you have for this?
Why does ether manage cause gravity but does not itself gravitate?
Why does ether couple to matter and not to itself?
>
> > Oh, where is the matter in hard vacuum?
>
> Nowhere, of course. What is the point of this unrelated sleeve-ravelling?
~~~
> > > You can. Fill the aether with matter, and the speed of light changes.
> This
> > > is the index of refraction. The same effect as in sound.
~~~
How do you fill the ether with matter?
>
> > > Only religious Relativists, such as yourself, assume that the speed of
> light
> > > never changes. That's the function of the e-synch ritual.
> >
> > Yes. The good ol' "call it a religion" argument. Sure makes it easier
> > to vilify by those who can't or won't understand.
>
> I see that you never addressed the physical issue. Light speed is
> experimentally determined to change all the time. In order to get around
> experiment, the relativists invented e-synching. Where you do a 'pre-run'
> of any experiment, and adjust your clocks to make sure they match the
> assumptions of SR.
Uh, since when does the speed of light change outside the context of
GR?
If I didn't know better, I would say you have a preconcieved notion of
the universe and are crafting evidence to make it true even when none
exists. What is the point of the ether? Where do our current theories
fail where the ether theory does not?
Dennis McCarthy
> > Dennis: Name any acoustic effect which provides evidence for the presence of a
> > particulate medium (atmosphere), and I will provide you with the optical
> > equivalent.
Tom:
> The behavior of sound waves in air as a function of temperature,
> humidity, and pressure. Why is it that you cannot vary the corresponding
> properties of "the ether"???
Dennis: Hi Tom. Changes in the velocity of light as it passes through
a significant gravitational field is the analogy.
Dennis McCarthy
>
>"greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
>news:<FQLmd.1651$mu4...@news.flashnewsgroups.com>...
>> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
>> news:cnfotn$d...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
>> > Dennis McCarthy wrote:
>> > > Dennis: Name any acoustic effect which provides evidence for the
>> presence of a
>> > > particulate medium (atmosphere), and I will provide you with the
>optical
>> > > equivalent.
>> >
>> > The behavior of sound waves in air as a function of temperature,
>> > humidity, and pressure. Why is it that you cannot vary the corresponding
>> > properties of "the ether"???
>>
>> You can. Fill the aether with matter, and the speed of light changes.
>This
>> is the index of refraction. The same effect as in sound.
>
>Ahh yes! The mystical ether that satisfies these properties:
>
>Comoving with the Earth. So much for Copernicus' principle.
Dennis: The atmosphere comoves with the Earth. Do you think that violates
Copernicus principle as well? The Earth of course co moves with the ether only
locally -- as all objects tend toward the local velocity of fluids.
>
>Does not give rise to a drag force against moving bodies.
Dennis: Drag is the force a fluid exerts on an object which tends to accelerate
it to the local velocity of the fluid.
In the ether, this drag force is called "gravity." Use vectors to point in the
direction of the gravitational force all around the solar system (or galaxy or
universe) and you have identified the direction of the motion of the ether (and
the strength of its drag force).
>Has managed to not collapse upon itself.
Dennis: ? Not sure what that means. But there is condensation of ether into
local, highly dense dynamic systems. These are called atoms and molecules,
etc..
Interesting, the universe
>started as isotropic as you can get and it managed to coalesce and
>collapse into planets, stars, and galaxies.
Dennis: Is this an argument against Big Bang or ether? Anyway,
self-organizations are not uncommon in fluids. Take a look at hurricanes, for
example.
What is keeping this
>magical ether together so that it doesn't undergo gravitational
>collapse? It only takes a little perturbation and WHAMMO.
Dennis: Ether causes gravity.
>Oh, where is the matter in hard vacuum?
Dennis: The material nature of the ether is observed through all the currents
and forces and waves flowing through "empty space."
BTW, the original question wasn't answered:
Name an acoustic effect which provides evidence for the presence of a
particulate medium (atmosphere).
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>
>"Dennis McCarthy" <djm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
>> Or to put it another way: You tell me what fluid characteristic of the
>> atmosphere provides evidence the atmosphere is a fluid (particulate
>medium),
>> and I'll provide you with the exact same characteristic in the vacuum.
Clarke:
>I queried about the vacuum analog of Brownian motion.
Hi Tom,
Well, that's not an acoustic principle -- but to answer your question:
Quantum mechanics:
http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/mwbn.html
"Lee Smolin, in his paper Stochastic Mechanics and Hidden Variables, printed in
the book Quantum Concepts in Space and Time (Penrose and Isham, eds., Oxford
1986) describes Nelson's derivation of quantum mechanics as a Brownian motion
process..."
Small particles can be moved about by fluctuations in the ether (e.g. pilot
waves)
--D
Dennis McCarthy
Androcles
> BTW, the original question wasn't answered:
> Name an acoustic effect which provides evidence for the presence of a
> particulate medium (atmosphere).
>
> Dennis McCarthy
Surely you cannot be serious?
How about gunfire?
Let's see what that might provide evidence for.
1) A chemical discharge.
2) A hurtling missile.
3) Injury.
4) Death.
"I heard the shot, and that man was running away"
Would a jury accept that as evidence?
Androcles.
robert j. kolker
Dennis McCarthy wrote:
>
>
> Dennis: Ether causes gravity.
That is an interesting hypothesis. Have you worked out the theory so
that you can predict every gravitational effect using your hypothetical
aether that has been verified experimentally. What predictions can you
make which are not already made by non-aetheric theories. Have you
worked them out in full rigorous detail? He you proposed or actually
carried out experiments to corroberate your hypotheses. Have you
published your stuff and subjected it to a refreeing process?
Have you done a tenth of what Ilja Smeltzer has done. His theories may
be right or his theories may be wrong, but he has formulated them in
mathemtical rigorous and respectable manner. In short he has done
science in formulating a non-standard theory.
Have you done what he has done orO are you just bloviating?
Bob Kolker
jahn
A spherical hollow at the Earth-Moon barycenter will have
very short vectors pointing inward. Half of the systems
mass/~f(g) will lie on one side of any plane of symetry that halves
the hollow.
Sue Are you suggesting this "tired ether" should pile up
inside the hollow?
<<
BARYCENTER - Earth-Moon Mass Center; Revolves around Sun;
Earth Revolves around Barycenter 1/month
Moves 1,196 km./hr. in Earth Mantle; 1/81.3 distance from Earth to
Moon
4,727 km. from Earth Center; 1,650 km. below Earth Surface
Earth Center can be 456 km above/below Ecliptic
Barycenter Orbit defines Ecliptic
>>
http://www.amastro.org/at/mo/mod.html
>
> >Has managed to not collapse upon itself.
>
> Dennis: ? Not sure what that means. But there is condensation of ether into
> local, highly dense dynamic systems. These are called atoms and molecules,
> etc..
>
> Interesting, the universe
> >started as isotropic as you can get and it managed to coalesce and
> >collapse into planets, stars, and galaxies.
>
> Dennis: Is this an argument against Big Bang or ether? Anyway,
> self-organizations are not uncommon in fluids. Take a look at hurricanes, for
> example.
>
> What is keeping this
> >magical ether together so that it doesn't undergo gravitational
> >collapse? It only takes a little perturbation and WHAMMO.
>
> Dennis: Ether causes gravity.
>
> >Oh, where is the matter in hard vacuum?
>
> Dennis: The material nature of the ether is observed through all the currents
> and forces and waves flowing through "empty space."
>
> BTW, the original question wasn't answered:
> Name an acoustic effect which provides evidence for the presence of a
> particulate medium (atmosphere).
Sue: A sonic boom seems fair evidence for the atmosphere.
<< The extraction of a light signal becomes possible only by introducing
a second fluorescent material in which the ultraviolet light is
converted into visible light ("wavelength shifter"). This second
fluorescent substance is chosen in such a way that its absorption
spectrum is matched to the emission spectrum of the primary fluor, and
its emission should be adapted to the spectral dependence of the quantum
efficiency of the photocathode. >>
[...]
Cherenkov radiation is seen to be one of the manifestations of charged
particles in matter interactions. It is electromagnetic radiation
emitted by charged particles if their velocity v=bc exceeds the light
velocity c/n in the transparent medium with refractive index n traversed
by the particle. The classical theory of the effect attributes this
radiation to the asymmetric polarization of the medium in front of and
behind the charged particle, representing a net electric dipole moment
varying with time. In the same way as an acoustical shock wave generated
by a body moving with supersonic velocity, the Cherenkov wave front can
be constructed by the superposition of spherical elementary Huygens
waves produced by the particle along its trajectory; during the time
interval t the wave travels a distance tc/n, and the particle moves a
distance tbc. From these two distances the direction of propagation of
the Cherenkov wave is obtained:
>>
http://physics.indiana.edu/~quarknet/php/fox/research.htm
Do you have evidence of Cherenkov radiation in a vacuum?
Sue...
>
> Dennis McCarthy
>
|<-----80------Sue------------------------------------------------------------>|
Dirk Van de moortel
"jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:3084vrF...@uni-berlin.de...
Dennis, you're talking to yourself again.
People get put away for that.
See what happened with El Hemetis aka Lady Sanity
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LadySanity.html
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Dennis McCarthy" <djm...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20041119205238...@mb-m29.aol.com...
No Dennis, when you talk to yourself, you are supposed to talk
to Sue. This is even more silly.
Dirk Vdm
Eric Gisse
[snip]
I was going to go through this point by point then I realised that not
only are your theories about ether different than greywolf's but like
greywolf's, neither arguments are supported by experimental evidence.
> BTW, the original question wasn't answered:
> Name an acoustic effect which provides evidence for the presence of a
> particulate medium (atmosphere).
Sound, but sound is not like EM radiation in the ways you would
prefer.
>
> Dennis McCarthy
Thomas Clarke
> >> Or to put it another way: You tell me what fluid characteristic of the
> >> atmosphere provides evidence the atmosphere is a fluid (particulate
> >medium),
> >> and I'll provide you with the exact same characteristic in the vacuum.
> Clarke:
> >I queried about the vacuum analog of Brownian motion.
> Hi Tom,
> Well, that's not an acoustic principle --
It goes along with "fluid (particulate medium)".
> but to answer your question:
> Quantum mechanics:
> http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/mwbn.html
> "Lee Smolin, in his paper Stochastic Mechanics and Hidden Variables, printed in
> the book Quantum Concepts in Space and Time (Penrose and Isham, eds., Oxford
> 1986) describes Nelson's derivation of quantum mechanics as a Brownian motion
> process..."
> Small particles can be moved about by fluctuations in the ether (e.g. pilot
> waves)
That is what I thought Greywolf42 was getting at with his
mention of zitterbewegung but zitterbewegung turned out to be
something else.
If you read on you in that page you will see that
that theory requires that there is
a requirement that "The current velocity is irrotational"
which I think will cause problems for theories like Rado's that
try to account for gravity via a particulate ether.
Thomas Clarke
> >"Dennis McCarthy" <djm...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> Or to put it another way: You tell me what fluid characteristic of the
> >> atmosphere provides evidence the atmosphere is a fluid (particulate
> >medium),
> >> and I'll provide you with the exact same characteristic in the vacuum.
> Clarke:
> >I queried about the vacuum analog of Brownian motion.
> Hi Tom,
> Well, that's not an acoustic principle --
It goes along with "fluid (particulate medium)".
> but to answer your question:
> Quantum mechanics:
> http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/mwbn.html
> "Lee Smolin, in his paper Stochastic Mechanics and Hidden Variables, printed in
> the book Quantum Concepts in Space and Time (Penrose and Isham, eds., Oxford
> 1986) describes Nelson's derivation of quantum mechanics as a Brownian motion
> process..."
> Small particles can be moved about by fluctuations in the ether (e.g. pilot
> waves)
That is what I thought Greywolf42 was getting at with his
mention of zitterbewegung but zitterbewegung turned out to be
something else.
If you read on you will see that that theory requires that there is
a requirement that "The current velocity is irrotational"
which I think will cause problems for theories like Rado's that
try to account for gravity via a particulate ether.
Tom Clarke
Titan Point
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:419b6728$0$7837$ba62...@news.skynet.be...> news:20041117090050...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> > > Dear Dennis McCarthy:> > > news:68aae149.04100...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "robert j. kolker" <now...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:<2rvvi7F...@uni-berlin.de>...
> >
> > Talking to yourself, Dennis Sue Jahn McCarthy?
>
> Kinda like when you talk to Hobba.
"Attack instead of explain or ignore" - AllYou!
ste...@nomail.com
:>
:>
:>"Dennis McCarthy" <djm...@aol.com> wrote in message
: http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/mwbn.html
But in your theory small particles are nothing but fluctuations in
the ether. In Brownian motion small particles are being hit
by even smaller particles. Or is it the case in your theory
that ether particles actually 'bind' together to form atoms
and the like, as opposed to atoms, like water waves, being
just a disturbance in the ether and the actual ether particles
that 'compose' an atom change from moment to moment.
Can a water vortex or wave be moved about by the motion of water molecules?
Stephen
TomGee
> Dear Dennis McCarthy:
>
All of the requirements for evidence are met in my model, part of
which is posted here from my essay, "The Time And Motion Relationship"
by Thomas Garcia, copyright 1996. The excerpt below includes content
from several different sections of different parts of the entire work,
so it leaves out content from between paragraphs, just in the interest
of saving space and reading time:
"We know that matter travels in the so-called "vacuum" of space, but
experience tells us that waves should have a different medium besides
a vacuum in which to travel. Since they could not detect the ether,
some scientists argued that there is none, and soon light in the form
of waves in empty space became the only exception to nature's
otherwise inflexible rule that all waves require a medium in which to
propagate. Today, it has been shown that space is not empty, that
there are in space particles which are invisible to us until some of
them are trans-formed into observable objects. Therefore, I contend
that there are some things invisible to us which exist in space and
which act as a medium for light. For that to be true, though, such
in-visible matter must fill all space in the universe, even including
the spaces found in many solids, because it seems that light can fill
almost any space. That means space must be filled with invisible
particles which become visible to us as light. It is evident
scientists have not yet figured out just exactly how light works to
light up the universe, but perhaps the following ideas can help us out
of that particular predicament...."
"The problem with trying to prove that an ether exists is that
everyone seems to agree that there has to be an ether "wind" produced
by the motion of objects in what is presumed to be a non-moving
medium. The ether wind can be likened to the water waves created as a
boat moves through water. Therefore, if we could detect the ether
wind, that would prove the ex-istence of the ether. Several
experiments were invented and performed to detect it, but to no avail.
Finally, for many scientists, the consensus became that there is no
ether. For others, it was felt that the experiments were not properly
constructed or construed, so for them, it was not shown that "no ether
exists." And yet, if we think of the ether as a particle-sea medium
which is invisible to us, that may explain why it could not be found
by those looking for the ether wind, and that is, obviously, because
the ether "wind" cannot be seen by us...."
"Our model proposes that virtual particles are "space" in the sense
that they completely fill absolute space, and that they exist
practically stationary in place and that the expansion of the universe
is achieved by the continuing addition of such particles to the
surface or area of the universe. That idea could have far-reaching
consequences in the debate regarding the final outcome in the life of
the universe. Our model proposes that the universe is growing
some-what like a fire grows on a forest floor, burning outward by
using up available materials, except that in our case, the universe is
growing by depositing into empty space particles having positive and
negative mass and energy. Presumably, beyond the edges of our
universe, there is only absolute space; but within our universe, there
is only filled space. Filled space is made up of matter and virtual
particles, and if there is space between and within the particles, it
should be filled with more-elementary particles which make up the real
and virtual particles. Our space is filled with invisible matter
particles as well as with visible matter particles...."
"Our model proposes that particles are "activated" by wave forces
which transform in-visible matter into observable matter by adding
positive energy to them. Thus, there is no need for photon particles
to be massless in order to travel at lightspeed, simply because there
is no need to think that particles must travel through space at all.
That is the basic idea behind my explanation of light, and we shall of
course discuss that further as we get to that subject..."
"Part Three
The media in which waves travel does not move along with the waves;
instead, the me-dia may move around somewhat, but it normally stays in
about the same place. Inside a water wave, for example, the water is
forced into a short-range rotary motion with its "spin" axis aligned
in a direction perpendicular to that of the wave's movement, like the
horizontal axis of a car's wheel is at ninety degrees to the car's
direction of travel. Water molecules are pushed and pulled about by
wave forces in what are essentially up and down movements with
circular motions, but they normally keep their place in the same
general location where they were when the waveforce first struck them.
A wave disturbs the media in which it moves, but as it moves on, the
motion of the me-dia behind it subsides. As the force of a wave is
spent, the wave dissipates into non-existence, but the medium remains,
available for propagation of the same type of waves again. Waves are
seen as a force radiating outward from the point of, and as the effect
of, a causative event,
and the radiation dies out when the cause no longer exists. Once
emitted, waves continue to expand through their medium for only a
short time after their energy source ends, and after their wave force
is used up. Lightwaves, on the other hand, continue to propagate
where un-obstructed long after their source has stopped emitting
waves, even seemingly forever...."
" How is it possible for waves to move through a medium without the
media having to travel along with it? We know the answer to that.
Waves are a disturbance that transfers en-ergy progressively in a
medium, and that may take the form of an elastic deformation or of a
variation of pressure, electric or magnetic intensity, electric
potential, or temperature. Thus waves - any waves - are a progressive
transfer of energy through a medium whenever such en-ergy is created
by a causative event...."
"Yet, the phenomenon we call "light" is said to travel through space
both as a wave and as a particle. Now, that hardly seems possible, so
some of us have had to consider the possibility that photons may
contain no mass, since if they did, they couldn't travel at the speed
of light. Some of us must argue that photons are massless and thus,
that there can exist energy without mass. However, it may be that the
formula E=mc2, forbids us to say that. Since the formula does not
specifically exclude energy from being massless, some believe that
there can be energy without mass. On the other hand, however, and by
the same token, as it were, the formula strongly infers that energy
must have mass in order for it to be energy.
If that is so, then we must consider a different proposition, one
where we must say that light particles cannot travel along with
lightwaves through space. If we can accept that as true, then there
is no contradiction to E=mc2 and thus no dilemma is involved.
However, that also certainly forces us to wonder that if photons
contain matter and so cannot travel at the speed of light, then just
how does light travel through space?
Well, the photon particles themselves could be the "ether" in which
lightwaves travel; that is to say, photon particles may be the medium
through which the lightwave moves. The particles may be like water
molecules are to water waves, a media that remains generally in the
same position while the lightwaves move through it. If that is so,
then lightwaves are basi-cally like other waves in that they also
require a medium, as do all other waves, and they are also a force.
That idea is more relevant than it may appear at first, because light
is electro-magnetic radiation which includes movement through
so-called "fields". Thus, the ether concept could also overthrow or
at the least change significantly our current concept of fields.
If the lightwave travels through a medium of photon particles,
though, and photons are of course visible to us, why is the media not
there except when photons are "emitted" (read: why can't we see the
ether all the time?)? It seems the answer can only be that the media
is invisible to us until it becomes a photon, which is a particle we
can see.
The medium in which light travels, then, may be a sea of "potential"
photon particles that exists in all of the "empty spaces" in our
universe. I use the term potential in quotes above so as to
distinguish those particles that we see as light emanating or
reflected from mat-ter and which we call photons, from particles that
have the potential to become the packets of light we call photons but
which for some reason are not yet photons nor are they in a state of
being visible to us. Why can we not see these particles until they
become photons? It may be that they turn "on" only when struck by the
lightwave force, and when they are "on," we are looking at them and we
seem to be seeing "through" them, but when they are turned "off," we
can see them only as "darkness." This idea requires further
explanation, and indeed, it will be further discussed later in the
final chapter, on page 61...."
"According to Dirac, et al, some things do indeed exist without
+energy, they are just not visible to us. If ordinary matter is not
invisible to us but "extraordinary" matter is, then matter having no
+energy may be "potential matter", like "potential electricity" stored
in batteries. Stored energy is not "working", or "in use", and so it
is not then involved in the process of
matter overcoming resistance. It is instead existing in what we may
call a "potential kinetic energy" state. Stored energy is not visible
to us since it is not creating additional heat but may be, like
positrons, in the most stable of states. So if positrons can exist as
matter particles without +mass/energy, we may have a simple solution
as to why some matter is invisible to us.
Why are positrons invisible to us? Because the only way we can see
anything is by light impinging upon our retinas, and light must have
energy in it for it to be light, so any particle having no +energy
cannot be "lit up" for us to see it, and, fortunately for us, it seems
we can only see "through it" when it is lit up (otherwise, why have
eyes?). If the energy of the light-wave, in its collision with such a
"massless" invisible-to-us-particle, causes the transfer of some of
its energy or mass to the particle sufficient to make it "cross over"
into a state of matter having +energy, and thus having +mass, it
should then become visible to us as a photon particle, and as such, we
cannot see through it, we can only see it as whatever optical/brain
"signal" the particle represents to us...."
"We have not yet found an exception to the constant speed of light in
the so-called vac-uum of deep space. We have not yet discovered why
the speed of light appears to be constant; we just currently believe
that it is in the nature of light to always travel at about 186,000
miles per second in space. However, we have found exceptions to the
constant speed of light when it is not traveling in the so-called
vacuum of space.
If lightwaves travel in a medium, that can explain why lightspeed is
or appears to be in-variant in space but not invariant in various
other mediums. A wave moving through a medium has restrictions and/or
limitations imposed upon its motion by the particular characteristics
of the medium (For example, sound waves travel at different speeds
when they move through air than when moving through water). The
reason why the speed of light appears constant to us could be
explained with the notion that the "ether" makes it so...."
"A property of the media sea in all of space of potential photon
particles may be that light waves can move through them only at
approximately 186,000 mps because the particular char-acteristics of
latent particles are essentially the same for all latent particles in
relation to the speed at which lightwaves may pass through them. That
is to say, all latent particles, individu-ally or in combination, may
offer a given resistance to the passage of lightwaves.
We must argue then that the lightwave's velocity is subject to the
resistance of matter just like ordinary waves; therefore, if deep
space maintains mostly an even density of particle media, we should
expect that the speed of light in space would look to us as if it were
invari-ant. Even if latent particle media were to contain some mass,
which Gamow calls negative mass, that mass would be consistent
throughout space and so the speed of light would still ap-pear to us
to be invariant, and we could misconstrue that effect as a property of
light...."
" We know that the higher a given energy is increased, the higher the
frequency of an atom's vibrations, and so the higher the number of
electrons that will be freed from the atoms of a substance. However,
if it is so that photons do not travel with RE, how is it that RE
(heat) alone can displace electrons? It is the application of
increased energy (heat) to atoms that causes electrons to "move up"
their particular preset increments until there is sufficient energy
(heat) applied to cause the electrons to "derail," as it were, and to
"escape" from their par-ticular atoms when there are no more energy
levels or increments for them into which to move. The fact that
photons (RE) can displace electrons is a simple display of the latent
power which Einstein calculated exists in matter. Of course, none of
the above necessarily means that the particles are moving, only that
they appear to us to be moving, like the characters on an electronic
signboard appear to us to move across its face...."
TomGee 112004
jahn
"TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.0411...@posting.google.com...
> djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) wrote in message
news:<20041117090050...@mb-m11.aol.com>...
> > Dear Dennis McCarthy:
> >
> All of the requirements for evidence are met in my model, part of
> which is posted here from my essay, "The Time And Motion Relationship"
> by Thomas Garcia, copyright 1996. The excerpt below includes content
> from several different sections of different parts of the entire work,
> so it leaves out content from between paragraphs, just in the interest
> of saving space and reading time:
>
> "We know that matter travels in the so-called "vacuum" of space, but
> experience tells us that waves should have a different medium besides
> a vacuum in which to travel.
Experience only tells us this if we are prone to conclude that all
options have been considerd when in fact, only the options we
can imagine have been considered. Einstein was a master at
jumping to conclusions on this basis. It is the reason a good
software writer ends a list of conditionals with a error handler even
if all conditiions are tested.
Consider a *field* of rock ballast in the hold of a ship. If the
first mate barks 'heave ho' the crew can move the ballast in
unison to new positions. The captain will see a wave motion in
the field and he will know *work* was done because his ships
trim is altered. No medium is involved. Only the ability to
exert a force on the rocks.
Similarly, sailors that rush from one end of a submarine to
the other to alter trim will be seen as a wave motion but
they are not interacting with the ship's medium, water.
AFAIK, photons don't 'displace' matter. If they are coherrent and
out of phase, a pair of counter propagatng photons can pass through
or over an electron with all three entities emerging unalterd.
...Just a few additional things to ponder the next time you move
a chess piece on 'field' of squares and consider the rules that apply
to the piece in the old vs. the new position.
Kind regards,
Sue...
Tom Roberts
> AFAIK, photons don't 'displace' matter. If they are coherrent and
> out of phase, a pair of counter propagatng photons can pass through
> or over an electron with all three entities emerging unalterd.
This depends by what you mean by "unaltered". As you mention "photons"
you are obviously trying to think quantum-mechanically, and in QM this
is definitely not true. That is, these diagrams are different:
| ~ ~ \ ~ ~
| ~ ~ \ ~ ~
| ~ ~ \~ ~
| ~ ~ | ~
| ~ ~ ~\ ~ + other diagrams...
| ~ ~ ~ \~
| ~ ~ ~ |
| ~ ~ ~ /~
| ~ ~ ~ / ~
The left diagram is an electron with two non-interacting photons, and
the right one is the electron interacting with two photons coming in and
going out ("coherent" and "out of phase" are irrelevant because those
phrases do not apply to individual photons, or even pairs -- they are
probabilistic statements about an ensemble of photons). Of course these
diagrams are indistinguishable and must be added together to obtain the
amplitude for the overall process; so it is not really possible to speak
of "unaltered" vs "altered"....
But you said "can pass through or over an electron with all three
entities emerging unalterd", and if you mean there is non-zero
probability for a subsequent measurement of the electron to be in the
same place as a measurement on the electron without the photons being
present, then that is possible. I don't know what you might be trying to
say when you apply "unaltered" to photons.... QM is _NOT_ classical
mechanics, and photons are _NOT_ "tiny little particles like miniature
BBs".... Nor are electrons....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Consider a *field* of rock ballast in the hold of a ship.
That is not a field in any ordinary sense of the word. Before attempting
to use words of the technical vocabulary, you should learn what they
actually mean. Just generating PUNS for your own amusement is not
science....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Paul Stowe
wrote:
>"greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
>> "Thomas Clarke" <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
>
> Regarding an etherian analogy of Brownian motion.
I think the suggestion was more literal than just an analogy...
>>>> The physical observable of the equation is the same as for thermal
>>>> impact (Brownian motion).
>
>>> This was in dispute and never resolved.
>
>> I believe that's because you admitted that you would not speak further
>> on the subject:
>> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Mfzdd.1109%24sT4.622%40news.flashnewsgroups.com
[Snip...]
>> greywolf: "Which doesn't change the shape of the observable. Only
>> the relative location."
>
>> Thomas: "If you say so. I do disagree, but don't feel like arguing
>> this now."
>
>> I took that as an indication that you could no longer support the
>> substantive point under discussion.
>
> I guess I should be more explicit in expressing sarcasm.
>
> You may take that as an indication that I did not feel like
> arguing that then.
>
> I'm not sure I do now. If you don't know the significance
> of the mathematical fact |exp(iX)|=1>exp(-X) for X>0
> then I don't know what we could discuss.
Is {||} in |exp(iX)| = 1 to mean the absolute value of???
Given that i is the representation of Sqrt(-1) such that
i^2 = -1
and iX is the Sqrt(-X^2) the issue is more complicated than
simply iX = -X for X > 0, since squaring any value results in
a positive value. But it appears you quibble...
> In any case I was wrong that this sort of expression which
> I get from the paths in Feynman path integrals had to do
> with Zitterbewegung which is related to Dirac's equation for
> the electron unless you are changing the definition of the
> term.
>
> Did you mean something along the lines of
>http://ej.iop.org/links/q61/+cQjETlnXju8C+vT5k38bQ/ejv11i6p334.pdf
This seems to be an invalid link...
Paul Stowe
TomGee
> > experience tells us that waves should have a different medium besides
> > a vacuum in which to travel.
>
> Experience only tells us this if we are prone to conclude that all
> options have been considerd when in fact, only the options we
> can imagine have been considered.
My reference was to the fact that all waves have a medium through
which they move, and I see no reason for light waves to require none.
When we have reached the limits of our imagination, Jahn, all our
options have been considered, as no more options are within our
imagination. Also, I don't see why it should be that "experience only
tells us this if we are prone to conclude...." that we are out of
ideas about that, since experience tells us at first to expect that
all waves should have a medium, including light waves.
> Einstein was a master at
> jumping to conclusions on this basis. It is the reason a good
> software writer ends a list of conditionals with a error handler even
> if all conditiions are tested.
>
> Consider a *field* of rock ballast in the hold of a ship. If the
> first mate barks 'heave ho' the crew can move the ballast in
> unison to new positions. The captain will see a wave motion in
> the field and he will know *work* was done because his ships
> trim is altered. No medium is involved. Only the ability to
> exert a force on the rocks.
>
> Similarly, sailors that rush from one end of a submarine to
> the other to alter trim will be seen as a wave motion but
> they are not interacting with the ship's medium, water.
I did say that matter has space as a medium, and the ballast and the
crew are matter and they all exist in the medium of space. In
Theoretical Physics it is proposed that everything can be considered
via its "wave function", including the whole universe. That may allow
one to view matter as a wave, but it hardly can be expected to provide
valid assumptions when viewing matter as matter and waves as waves.
>
> AFAIK, photons don't 'displace' matter. If they are coherrent and
> out of phase, a pair of counter propagatng photons can pass through
> or over an electron with all three entities emerging unalterd.
>
For photons to be "coherrent (sic) and out of phase" requires light
which does not ordinarily occur in nature. It is well-known that
photons displace electrons, as in the photo-electric effect.
> ...Just a few additional things to ponder the next time you move
> a chess piece on 'field' of squares and consider the rules that apply
> to the piece in the old vs. the new position.
>
> Kind regards,
> Sue...
>
>
Your input is appreciated. Before we move a chess piece, we must
consider the consequences of the move beforehand.
TomGee 112104
Bill Hobba
> "jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:<30ajqpF...@uni-berlin.de>...
> > "TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:cc2dde17.0411...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > "We know that matter travels in the so-called "vacuum" of space, but
> > > experience tells us that waves should have a different medium besides
> > > a vacuum in which to travel.
> >
> > Experience only tells us this if we are prone to conclude that all
> > options have been considerd when in fact, only the options we
> > can imagine have been considered.
>
>
> My reference was to the fact that all waves have a medium through
> which they move, and I see no reason for light waves to require none.
Let me get this straight. We have no evidence of a medium that light waves
are undulations of yet you claim 'all waves have a medium through which they
move'. Then you use this false assertion to base the idea that light
requires one. It might make some weird kind sense if light was the only
wave phenomena that we are unable to find a medium for but even that is not
the case eg electron waves.
> When we have reached the limits of our imagination, Jahn, all our
> options have been considered, as no more options are within our
> imagination.
Yet you seem to not allow your imagination to follow that path light is not
waves in a medium - bizarre.
> Also, I don't see why it should be that "experience only
> tells us this if we are prone to conclude...." that we are out of
> ideas about that, since experience tells us at first to expect that
> all waves should have a medium, including light waves.
The point is of course experience does not tell us that at all eg we have
not found a medium light and electron waves
>
>
> > Einstein was a master at
> > jumping to conclusions on this basis. It is the reason a good
> > software writer ends a list of conditionals with a error handler even
> > if all conditiions are tested.
> >
> > Consider a *field* of rock ballast in the hold of a ship. If the
> > first mate barks 'heave ho' the crew can move the ballast in
> > unison to new positions. The captain will see a wave motion in
> > the field and he will know *work* was done because his ships
> > trim is altered. No medium is involved. Only the ability to
> > exert a force on the rocks.
> >
> > Similarly, sailors that rush from one end of a submarine to
> > the other to alter trim will be seen as a wave motion but
> > they are not interacting with the ship's medium, water.
>
>
> I did say that matter has space as a medium, and the ballast and the
> crew are matter and they all exist in the medium of space.
You are using words in appalling ways to try and infer things that we have
no evidence for.
Rest of rubbish mercifully snipped.
Bill
Androcles
> "jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:<30ajqpF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>> "TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:cc2dde17.0411...@posting.google.com...
>> >
>> > "We know that matter travels in the so-called "vacuum" of space,
>> > but
>> > experience tells us that waves should have a different medium
>> > besides
>> > a vacuum in which to travel.
>>
>> Experience only tells us this if we are prone to conclude that all
>> options have been considerd when in fact, only the options we
>> can imagine have been considered.
>
>
> My reference was to the fact that all waves have a medium through
> which they move, and I see no reason for light waves to require none.
You assume that light is a wave.
What evidence do you offer for that assumption?
Have you not heard of photons?
> When we have reached the limits of our imagination, Jahn, all our
> options have been considered, as no more options are within our
> imagination.
OUR imagination?
Here is an option that is within my imagination. An electric field,
changing, will produce a magnetic field. Study a bar magnet.
Is is strange? I think it is. It sticks to metals, notably iron and its
alloys. Wave it past a coil of copper wire, and you can heat a strip
of metal inside a vacuum until it glows. We call that a generator and
a light bulb. If we place an electric field across a copper wire, we
have a magnetic field and it will move the bar magnet. We call that
a motor.
Strip away all the metal, and concentrate on the fields only.
A changing magnetic field produces an electric field.
A changing electric field produces a magnetic field.
Ever played leapfrog?
One person remains stationary and the other jumps over him.
Then they exchange roles.
Light's leapfrog in a vacuum is no longer a mystery, once you
accept that a field can exist in a vacuum.
We OBSERVE light traversing a vacuum.
We OBSERVE the existence of gravitational, electric and magnetic fields.
The conclusion is obvious.
> so, I don't see why it should be that "experience only
> tells us this if we are prone to conclude...." that we are out of
> ideas about that, since experience tells us at first to expect that
> all waves should have a medium, including light waves.
The magnetic field DOES have a medium, just as the first
leapfrogger has a back to jump over. It is the electric field.
The electric field DOES have a medium, just as the second
leapfrogger has a back to jump over. It is the magnetic field.
Each exists when the other is non-existent, and each creates the other.
Light is not one wave, it is two.
Is there any magic to this? Well, yes, because we don't know what
a field IS, we only know how it behaves. But we do NOT need
any superfluous aether.
Now, how hard is it to imagine that?
>
>> Einstein was a master at
>> jumping to conclusions on this basis. It is the reason a good
>> software writer ends a list of conditionals with a error handler even
>> if all conditiions are tested.
>>
>> Consider a *field* of rock ballast in the hold of a ship. If the
>> first mate barks 'heave ho' the crew can move the ballast in
>> unison to new positions. The captain will see a wave motion in
>> the field and he will know *work* was done because his ships
>> trim is altered. No medium is involved. Only the ability to
>> exert a force on the rocks.
>>
>> Similarly, sailors that rush from one end of a submarine to
>> the other to alter trim will be seen as a wave motion but
>> they are not interacting with the ship's medium, water.
>
>
> I did say that matter has space as a medium, and the ballast and the
> crew are matter and they all exist in the medium of space. In
> Theoretical Physics it is proposed that everything can be considered
> via its "wave function", including the whole universe. That may allow
> one to view matter as a wave, but it hardly can be expected to provide
> valid assumptions when viewing matter as matter and waves as waves.
Think of two waves, not one. Think not of what others have thought,
leaving a confusing quagmire of contradictory ideas, but of what we
can observe. Then put it together, for yourself. That way you can
progress.
>>
>
>> AFAIK, photons don't 'displace' matter. If they are coherrent and
>> out of phase, a pair of counter propagatng photons can pass through
>> or over an electron with all three entities emerging unalterd.
>>
>
> For photons to be "coherrent (sic) and out of phase" requires light
> which does not ordinarily occur in nature. It is well-known that
> photons displace electrons, as in the photo-electric effect.
Actually, a photon has to have a particular wavelength or above
to dislodge an electron. A one kilowatt electric cooker ring won't do
it.
You can cut metal with high pressure water jet, but billions of gallons
falling over a dam won't do it.
Leapfroggers are always out of phase, btw. They can't jump over
each other at the same instant in time. What can happen is two teams
crossing, then two leapers can jump over two backs side my side.
>
>
>> ...Just a few additional things to ponder the next time you move
>> a chess piece on 'field' of squares and consider the rules that apply
>> to the piece in the old vs. the new position.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Sue...
>>
>>
> Your input is appreciated. Before we move a chess piece, we must
> consider the consequences of the move beforehand.
Don't play chess on this newsgroup. The relativists will see your move
coming, throw the pieces up in the air and call you the idiot for
playing
en-passant or castling.
Certain moves are outside their "domain of applicability" and many of
of them are spoilt brats. If Maxwell says the E and B fields are in
phase
so that he can have his aether and eat it too, it is written on the
stone
tablets and a law of Nature.
Only those who write papers can reason, the rest of us are all cretins.
Androcles.
jahn
> jahn wrote:
> > AFAIK, photons don't 'displace' matter. If they are coherrent and
> > out of phase, a pair of counter propagatng photons can pass through
> > or over an electron with all three entities emerging unalterd.
>
> This depends by what you mean by "unaltered". As you mention "photons"
> you are obviously trying to think quantum-mechanically, and in QM this
> is definitely not true. That is, these diagrams are different:
QM is a mathematical formalism so little of it is true.
It isn't a good way to think so I don't even try.
>
> | ~ ~ \ ~ ~
> | ~ ~ \ ~ ~
> | ~ ~ \~ ~
> | ~ ~ | ~
> | ~ ~ ~\ ~ + other diagrams...
> | ~ ~ ~ \~
> | ~ ~ ~ |
> | ~ ~ ~ /~
> | ~ ~ ~ / ~
>
> The left diagram is an electron with two non-interacting photons, and
> the right one is the electron interacting with two photons coming in
and
> going out ("coherent" and "out of phase" are irrelevant because those
> phrases do not apply to individual photons, or even pairs -- they are
> probabilistic statements about an ensemble of photons). Of course
these
> diagrams are indistinguishable and must be added together to obtain
the
> amplitude for the overall process; so it is not really possible to
speak
> of "unaltered" vs "altered".
It most certainly is possible.
Observe the detector of a north beamed path.
Excite the emitter of a west beamed path.
Do they interfere at the point of intersection?
Now, phase lock the two emitters so they
null at the point of intersection.
Does introducing matter at a null point alter the
matter or the beam?
That is why your microwave oven has a little
turntable in the bottom or a rotating reflector in
the top. A cheese danish with hot and cold
spots can be a real eye opener. 8-O
...
>
> But you said "can pass through or over an electron with all three
> entities emerging unalterd", and if you mean there is non-zero
> probability for a subsequent measurement of the electron to be in the
> same place as a measurement on the electron without the photons being
> present, then that is possible. I don't know what you might be trying
to
> say when you apply "unaltered" to photons.... QM is _NOT_ classical
> mechanics, and photons are _NOT_ "tiny little particles like miniature
> BBs".... Nor are electrons....
QM can be both... but with some rules.
Here is how you add those two diagrams:
<< Another common way to infer the fundamental events and associated
amplitudes is to determine the amplitudes for fundamental processes from
the requirement that the Feynman formulation always give the same
results as an already established approach, such as Schrödinger
formulation. This latter procedure is referred as construction of
Feynman rules, and is also how we determine that the Feynman approach is
indeed equivalent to the other formulations of quantum mechanics. We
shall follow this procedure in the next section.
>>
http://people.ccmr.cornell.edu/~muchomas/8.04/Lecs/lec_FeynmanDiagrams/n
ode3.html
Kind regards,
Sue...
>
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
jahn
I was not speaking in the "ordinary sense of the word".
Mathematically a field is just an array of imaginary points.
Just because you subscribe to a set of physical laws that assigns
physical properties to such points in no way precludes
my correct use of the term.
jahn
> "jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:<30ajqpF...@uni-berlin.de>...
> > "TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:cc2dde17.0411...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > "We know that matter travels in the so-called "vacuum" of space,
but
> > > experience tells us that waves should have a different medium
besides
> > > a vacuum in which to travel.
> >
> > Experience only tells us this if we are prone to conclude that all
> > options have been considerd when in fact, only the options we
> > can imagine have been considered.
>
>
> My reference was to the fact that all waves have a medium through
> which they move, and I see no reason for light waves to require none.
The absence of evidence is not evidence.
> When we have reached the limits of our imagination, Jahn, all our
> options have been considered, as no more options are within our
> imagination.
Exhausted resources don't alter rules.
> Also, I don't see why it should be that "experience only
> tells us this if we are prone to conclude...." that we are out of
> ideas about that, since experience tells us at first to expect that
> all waves should have a medium, including light waves.
We are prone to conclude a burglar has visited if we see
muddy footprints on the floor.
We are not prone to conclude a burglar has visited if our
Ming dynasty vase is beyond our field of vision.
>
>
> > Einstein was a master at
> > jumping to conclusions on this basis. It is the reason a good
> > software writer ends a list of conditionals with a error handler
even
> > if all conditiions are tested.
> >
> > Consider a *field* of rock ballast in the hold of a ship. If the
> > first mate barks 'heave ho' the crew can move the ballast in
> > unison to new positions. The captain will see a wave motion in
> > the field and he will know *work* was done because his ships
> > trim is altered. No medium is involved. Only the ability to
> > exert a force on the rocks.
> >
> > Similarly, sailors that rush from one end of a submarine to
> > the other to alter trim will be seen as a wave motion but
> > they are not interacting with the ship's medium, water.
>
>
> I did say that matter has space as a medium, and the ballast and the
> crew are matter and they all exist in the medium of space. In
> Theoretical Physics it is proposed that everything can be considered
> via its "wave function", including the whole universe. That may allow
> one to view matter as a wave, but it hardly can be expected to provide
> valid assumptions when viewing matter as matter and waves as waves.
I'll consider that a wave is a spatial and temporal fluctuation of some
quantity. If there is no substance, quantity or entity which cannot
fluctuate spatially and temporally, then the observation that something
is wave-like, really doesn't take anything off the table.
I think you are using a broader definition of medium than I.
I consider air a medium for sound, but a dielectric for light.
Removing air or glass breaks an acoustic path but there is
nothing we know of whose removal will break a light path.
Again...
The absence of evidence is not evidence.
Over a 100 years of bending and warping that for which there
is no evidence seem's to have resulted only in confusion about
which twin has a busted watch.
>
> > AFAIK, photons don't 'displace' matter. If they are coherrent and
> > out of phase, a pair of counter propagatng photons can pass through
> > or over an electron with all three entities emerging unalterd.
> >
>
> For photons to be "coherrent (sic) and out of phase" requires light
> which does not ordinarily occur in nature.
Oh? Do extraterrestials bring us sodium light?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/michel.html
> It is well-known that
> photons displace electrons, as in the photo-electric effect.
Read the original paper. It makes six assumptions, three you'll
recognize as patently false.
Any number of things can cause the atomic ejection of an electron.
Electomagnetic illumination at atomic wavelengths increases the
probabilty of ejecton but does not necessarly correspond to a
specific site of ejection. Review Young's experiment again and
see if that isn't what it shows.
> > ...Just a few additional things to ponder the next time you move
> > a chess piece on 'field' of squares and consider the rules that
apply
> > to the piece in the old vs. the new position.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Sue...
> >
> >
> Your input is appreciated. Before we move a chess piece, we must
> consider the consequences of the move beforehand.
I wasn't refering to the strategy of a particular move. I was
refering to the constraints on all possible moves. IE a knight
can't move like a pawn just as a positron can't swap places
with a proton.
Nah... Nature just feels her way around an then takes the path of
least resistance. Which probably is more than we ever wanted
to know about politics. ;-)
Kind regards,
Sue...
Bilge
>"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
>news:bi5od.30865$Qv5....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>> jahn wrote:
>> > AFAIK, photons don't 'displace' matter. If they are coherrent and
>> > out of phase, a pair of counter propagatng photons can pass through
>> > or over an electron with all three entities emerging unalterd.
>>
>> This depends by what you mean by "unaltered". As you mention "photons"
>> you are obviously trying to think quantum-mechanically, and in QM this
>> is definitely not true. That is, these diagrams are different:
>No..
>QM is a mathematical formalism so little of it is true.
valid, since quantum mechanics explains newtonian mechanics as well
as all of the phenomena for which newtonian mechanics gives the wrong
predictions. Since quantum mechanics is the best theory of mechanics
yet proposed, whatever it is, it's a better description of nature than
any other theory of mechanics.
jahn
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrncq3lqb....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
a mathematical machine for predicting the behaviors of microscopic
particles -- or, at least, of the measuring instruments we use to
explore those behaviors -- and in that capacity, it is spectacularly
successful: in terms of power and precision, head and shoulders above
any theory we have ever had. >>
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/
Sue...
>
>
>
Bill Hobba
Notice the heading of the article:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Without wishing to poke fun at genuine philosophers, who believe it or not I
actually have respect for, they have been known to be less than exact in
their writings on physics. The above quote unfortunately is an example of
that. The fact of the matter is what QM says (ie the interpretation of the
formalism) has quite a few different takes none of which has been proven
'correct' Only some of those different interpretations have an issue with
'observation' ie the collapse of the wave function. For example the
Consistent (Decoherent) Histories interpretation
(http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/histories.html) specifically does away with
measurement as a fundamental principle:
'In textbook quantum theory measurements are used to introduce probabilities
into the theory, and this feature is the source of many conceptual
difficulties and paradoxes. In particular, it gives the misleading
impression that one cannot apply statistical ideas to quantum processes in
the absence of measuring devices, e.g., to the decay of unstable particles
in the center of the sun, or in interstellar space. In addition, a great
deal of fruitless effort has been expended in an effort to resolve the
quantum "measurement problem" that arises when one wants to treat the
measuring apparatus itself as a quantum system. By contrast, in the
consistent histories approach probabilities are introduced as part of the
axiomatic foundations of quantum theory, with no necessary connection with
measurements. Quantum dynamical processes are inherently stochastic, and the
probabilities can be calculated using a generalization of the rule
originally introduced by Born. Because it does not employ measurement as a
fundamental principle, the consistent histories approach allows one to
analyze, from a fully quantum-mechanical perspective, what actually goes on
in a physical measurement process. For example, one can show that a properly
constructed measuring apparatus will reveal a property that the measured
system had before the measurement, and might well have lost during the
measurement process. The probabilities calculated for measurement outcomes
(pointer positions) are identical to those obtained by the usual rules found
in textbooks. What is different is that by employing suitable families of
histories one can show that measurements actually measure something that is
there, rather than producing a mysterious collapse of a wave function.'
Bill
AllYou!
"Titan Point" <titan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c642197.04112...@posting.google.com...
"Defend instead of lay down' me
Thomas Clarke
> > Regarding an etherian analogy of Brownian motion.
> I think the suggestion was more literal than just an analogy...
I suppose greywolf42 meant identity, but I don't think an ether
exists and if it existed I'm not convinced it must be particulate
so "analogy" is about right to me.
> > .... If you don't know the significance
> > of the mathematical fact |exp(iX)|=1>exp(-X) for X>0
> > then I don't know what we could discuss.
> Is {||} in |exp(iX)| = 1 to mean the absolute value of???
Yes.
Also exp() means the exponential function of the contents
of the ().
> Given that i is the representation of Sqrt(-1) such that
> i^2 = -1
> and iX is the Sqrt(-X^2) the issue is more complicated than
> simply iX = -X for X > 0, since squaring any value results in
> a positive value. But it appears you quibble...
The Euler identity expresses exp(iX) in terms of
since and cosine exp(iX)=cos(X)+isin(X).
|cos(X)+isin(X)|=cos^2(X)+sin^2(X)=1 according
to a well-known trig indentity.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_identity]
A cute corrollary is that exp(i times pi) = -1
The probability of observing in QM at a given point in space
are given by the square of the wave function so
|exp(iX)|=1>exp(-X) for X>0 is relevant as it shows
the probabilities are different for the two cases,
QM vs Brownian.
> > Did you mean something along the lines of
> >http://ej.iop.org/links/q61/+cQjETlnXju8C+vT5k38bQ/ejv11i6p334.pdf
> This seems to be an invalid link...
I found it via google search now it has a different URL.
The article is:
Brownian representation of fractal quantum paths by Didier Sornette
Searching with google on the file name:
ejv11i6p334.pdf
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ejv11i6p334.pdf&btnG=Google+Search
seems to give a unique URL that can be followed.
Harry
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:929ed0f8.04111...@posting.google.com...news:<FQLmd.1651$mu4...@news.flashnewsgroups.com>...
> > > Dennis McCarthy wrote:
> > presence of a
> > > > particulate medium (atmosphere), and I will provide you with the
optical
> > > > equivalent.
> > >
> > > The behavior of sound waves in air as a function of temperature,
> > > humidity, and pressure. Why is it that you cannot vary the
corresponding
> > > properties of "the ether"???
> >
> > You can. Fill the aether with matter, and the speed of light changes.
This
> > is the index of refraction. The same effect as in sound.
>
> Ahh yes! The mystical ether that satisfies these properties:
>
> Comoving with the Earth. So much for Copernicus' principle.
>
You are confused, attacking a concept that Newton already rejected - a
strawman.
Have you never heard of Lorentz' theory and the Lorentz transformations?
Harald
Thomas Clarke
> |cos(X)+isin(X)|=cos^2(X)+sin^2(X)=1 according
Oops
that should be
|cos(X)+isin(X)|=sqrt[cos^2(X)+sin^2(X)]=1
Tom
jahn
"Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:srkod.44886$K7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
A mathematician will tell you the toss of a coin is a stochasic process,
and prove it.
A physisicst will write aerodynamic equations from the raw data of the
coin toss, build an airplane from the equations and then demonstrate
ways to make the coin land heads-up 99% of the time. ;-)
Kind regards,
Sue...
>
>
greywolf42
news:929ed0f8.04111...@posting.google.com...
> "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:929ed0f8.04111...@posting.google.com...
> > > "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > news:<FQLmd.1651$mu4...@news.flashnewsgroups.com>...
> > > > > Dennis McCarthy wrote:
> > > > > > Dennis: Name any acoustic effect which provides evidence for the
> > presence of a
> > > > > > particulate medium (atmosphere), and I will provide you with the
> > optical
> > > > > > equivalent.
> > > > >
> > > > > The behavior of sound waves in air as a function of temperature,
> > > > > humidity, and pressure. Why is it that you cannot vary the
> > corresponding
> > > > > properties of "the ether"???
> > > >
> > > > You can. Fill the aether with matter, and the speed of light
changes.
> > This
> > > > is the index of refraction. The same effect as in sound.
> > >
> > > Ahh yes! The mystical ether that satisfies these properties:
> > >
> > > Comoving with the Earth. So much for Copernicus' principle.
> >
> > Earth. The current best guess for the Earth's motion through the aether
is
> > circa 300 kps, from the CMBR dipole.
>
> It has to be coupled and comoving with the Earth as it goes around the
> Sun becausse inferometer experiment's havent detected anything.
This silly notion was disproved in 1904, by Lorentz. Interferometer
experiments assume that matter is completely unaffected by it's passage
through the aether. So the MMX experiments (and other wave interference
experiments) can only disprove aether theories that assume that matter is
unaffected.
> > > Does not give rise to a drag force against moving bodies.
> >
> > Another specious and false claim. The drag force is both predicted
> > ("Feynman drag"), and is observed ("Pioneer drag").
>
> I was thinking of planetary and sattelite orbits.
So was I.
> I don't know what Feynman drag is
Then you don't know much about planetary or satellite orbits.
> nor do I see how the Pioneer drag is
> evidence for the ether.
Because a small drag force on matter is predicted by all aether theories.
Specifically, Pioneer drag was predicted by aetherists a few centuries ago.
Feynman was one of the top proponents of drag (hence the name, Feynman drag)
as a disproof of aether. Then it had to go and get observed with Pioneer.
:)
> Especially considering what you said directly above.
What did I say above that confused you?
> > > Has managed to not collapse upon itself.
> >
> > ???? Why would it "collapse?" Air doesn't "collapse" onto itself
> > either. No phyiscal fluids do.
>
> Uh, look at the sun. A cloud of matter is going to collapse upon
> itself.
Why? It doesn't do it in the atmosphere.
> Unless ether is not made of matter or is for whatever reason
> does not gravitate.
The reason that the aether does not self-gravitate is the same reason that
any other particulate fluid does not collapse.
> > > Interesting, the universe started as isotropic
> >
> > What theory are you using to make this absurd claim? The Big Bang is
> > not needed in an aether theory.
>
> COBE, WMAP. Isotropic as you can get.
COBE and WMAP do not measure the universe (past or present). They measure
the CMBR background EM radiation. Aether theories explain the CMBR as a
product of the local aether. Hence the CMBR dipole.
You have simply accepted an ad hoc theory. Yet you don't understand the
data.
> > > as you can get and it managed to coalesce and
> > > collapse into planets, stars, and galaxies.
> >
> > You mean that one had *matter* coalesce into stars, etc. This is
> > trivial.
>
> So ether isn't made of matter?
Correct. Matter is made of aether. Hence, aether cannot be made of matter.
(Aether is primary. Matter is standing waves in aether.)
> > Aether theories don't need "the universe" to collapse. Or aether to
> > collapse.
> >
> > > What is keeping this
> > > magical ether together so that it doesn't undergo gravitational
> > > collapse? It only takes a little perturbation and WHAMMO.
> >
> > Aether is the *cause* of the self-attraction of matter particles
> > (gravity). It is an aether momentum-shadowing effect. This in
> > no way requires aether to self-gravitate. Any more than the
> > atmosphere collapses.
>
> What evidence do you have for this?
The atmosphere hasn't collapsed. We think this has been the case for about
4.5 billion years.
> Why does ether manage cause gravity but does not itself gravitate?
There is no theoretical or physical reason that it should. It is not
matter.
> Why does ether couple to matter and not to itself?
Who said that aether didn't 'couple' to itself? Aether corpuscles interact
via simple elastic collisions.
Aether interacts with matter because matter is a standing wave in the
aether.
> > > Oh, where is the matter in hard vacuum?
> >
> > Nowhere, of course. What is the point of this unrelated
> > sleeve-ravelling?
>
> ~~~
No point, I see.
> > > > You can. Fill the aether with matter, and the speed of light
> > > > changes. This is the index of refraction. The same effect
> > > > as in sound.
> ~~~
>
> How do you fill the ether with matter?
Put some matter into a region that is otherwise essentially devoid of matter
(a vacuum).
> > > > Only religious Relativists, such as yourself, assume that the speed
> > > > of light never changes. That's the function of the e-synch ritual.
> > >
> > > Yes. The good ol' "call it a religion" argument. Sure makes it easier
> > > to vilify by those who can't or won't understand.
> >
> > I see that you never addressed the physical issue. Light speed is
> > experimentally determined to change all the time. In order to get
> > around experiment, the relativists invented e-synching. Where
> > you do a 'pre-run' of any experiment, and adjust your clocks
> > to make sure they match the assumptions of SR.
>
> Uh, since when does the speed of light change outside the context of
> GR?
Everywhere.
> If I didn't know better, I would say you have a preconcieved notion of
> the universe and are crafting evidence to make it true even when none
> exists.
Mirror, mirror.
> What is the point of the ether?
The scientific method.
> Where do our current theories
> fail where the ether theory does not?
They don't correctly predict the regions where equations fail. For example,
the results of the MMX, and the ultraviolet catastrophe could have been
predicted from Maxwell's aether (it can easily be explained). But because
the then-current theory was a mathematical chimera -- instead of a physical
model -- the theories failed. Current models still fail to predict
astronomical and laboratory observations.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}
greywolf42
news:readnewscix-8DE5...@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <k95nd.2966$mu4....@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,
> "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
>
> > "Bill Rowe" <readn...@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:readnewscix-D181...@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> > > In article <FQLmd.1651$mu4...@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,
> > > "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:cnfotn$d...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
>
> > > > > Dennis McCarthy wrote:
> > > > > > Dennis: Name any acoustic effect which provides evidence for the
> > > > > > presence of a particulate medium (atmosphere), and I will
provide
> > > > > > you with the optical equivalent.
>
> > > > > The behavior of sound waves in air as a function of temperature,
> > > > > humidity, and pressure. Why is it that you cannot vary the
corresponding
> > > > > properties of "the ether"???
>
> > > > You can. Fill the aether with matter, and the speed of light
changes. This
> > > > is the index of refraction. The same effect as in sound.
>
> > > removing/adding matter. But a change of temperature requires no
addition
> > > or removal of matter.
>
> > That is true. However, since I already disproved Tom Roberts' silly
claim
> > with my above statement, what's the point of your comment?
>
> Simply, you didn't do as you claim. Your stated reason, i.e., "fill the
> aether with matter", isn't relevant to temperature.
True. But temperature was not the only assertion in the list. Tom asserted
that it was not possible to vary either the analog of temperature, the
anolog of humidity, or the analog of pressure in the aether. I demonstrated
that the analog of humidity is seen all the time. Thus proving Tom's silly
statement false.
> > > Propagation of sound is clearly altered when
> > > temperature is changed. But there is no evidence to show propagation
> > > of light in vacuum (which presumably requires the presence of an ether
> > > according to ether theory) changes with temperature. So, what is the
> > > optical analog to changes in sound propagation with temperature?
>
> > The "optical analog" to changes in sound speed with temperature would be
> > changes in light speed, of course. However, I'm not aware of any
> > technical means at our disposal at the moment that would allow us to
> > change the "local" temperature of the aether. Primarily because the
> > "local" region of the aether fluid must be parsecs in extent, and a
> > tremendously high energy content.
>
> Or in other words, you've no evidence to show any optical analog to the
> effects of temperature on the propagation of sound. You merely assume
> the existence of something you cannot observe. And that is the point
> Roberts was making.
First, that wasn't Tom's point. Tom's (invalid) claim was that one "cannot
vary the corresponding properties of 'the ether.'"
Second, while I don't show evidence for variations in local temperature, it
is obvious why that evidence is hard to come by.
Third, variations in temperature *are* observable. Even if I haven't yet
observed them.
greywolf42
>
> "TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cc2dde17.04112...@posting.google.com...
> > "jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:<30ajqpF...@uni-berlin.de>...
> > > "TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:cc2dde17.0411...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > "We know that matter travels in the so-called "vacuum" of space, but
> > > > experience tells us that waves should have a different medium
> > > > besides a vacuum in which to travel.
> > >
> > > Experience only tells us this if we are prone to conclude that all
> > > options have been considerd when in fact, only the options we
> > > can imagine have been considered.
> >
> > My reference was to the fact that all waves have a medium through
> > which they move, and I see no reason for light waves to require none.
>
> Let me get this straight. We have no evidence of a medium that light
> waves are undulations
Bill resorts to his usual Big Lie. We have much evidence of a light medium.
What Bill means is that Bill can write down equations without understanding
them.
> of yet you claim 'all waves have a medium through which
> they move'.
Well, yes. That is true of all "other" waves known to science.
> Then you use this false assertion to base the idea that light
> requires one.
It is not a false assertion at all. Bill simply refuses to acknowledge that
"only" light is presumed to have this magical independence from physical
reality.
> It might make some weird kind sense if light was the only
> wave phenomena that we are unable to find a medium for but even that is
> not the case eg electron waves.
Umm, Bill. Electrons are not measured. Electron charge is measured.
> > When we have reached the limits of our imagination, Jahn, all our
> > options have been considered, as no more options are within our
> > imagination.
>
> Yet you seem to not allow your imagination to follow that path light is
> not waves in a medium - bizarre.
Imagination is fine. But in the scientific method, we need some reality.
Not just hallucinations.
> > Also, I don't see why it should be that "experience only
> > tells us this if we are prone to conclude...." that we are out of
> > ideas about that, since experience tells us at first to expect that
> > all waves should have a medium, including light waves.
>
> The point is of course experience does not tell us that at all eg we have
> not found a medium light and electron waves.
But we have found a medium for both. Just because Bill wants to ignore the
evidence is his problem.
> > > Einstein was a master at
> > > jumping to conclusions on this basis. It is the reason a good
> > > software writer ends a list of conditionals with a error handler even
> > > if all conditiions are tested.
> > >
> > > Consider a *field* of rock ballast in the hold of a ship. If the
> > > first mate barks 'heave ho' the crew can move the ballast in
> > > unison to new positions. The captain will see a wave motion in
> > > the field and he will know *work* was done because his ships
> > > trim is altered. No medium is involved. Only the ability to
> > > exert a force on the rocks.
> > >
> > > Similarly, sailors that rush from one end of a submarine to
> > > the other to alter trim will be seen as a wave motion but
> > > they are not interacting with the ship's medium, water.
> >
> > I did say that matter has space as a medium, and the ballast and the
> > crew are matter and they all exist in the medium of space.
>
> You are using words in appalling ways to try and infer things that we have
> no evidence for.
I see Bill has no substantive reply.
> Rest of rubbish mercifully snipped.
The classic Relativist snip-and-ignore.
greywolf42
> > I believe that's because you admitted that you would not speak further
on
> > the subject:
> >
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Mfzdd.1109%24sT4.622%40news.flashnewsgroup
> > s.com
> >
> > Thomas:
> > "The first expression has an "i" in the exponent. Changes the value of
the
> > expression even when h=kT. To determine where the particle is you have
to
> > take square modulus (Born rule) which is the observation I was talking
about
> > above."
> >
> > greywolf:
> > "Which doesn't change the shape of the observable."
> >
> > Thomas:
> > "|exp(iX)|=1>exp(-X) for X>0"
> >
> > greywolf:
> > "Which doesn't change the shape of the observable. Only the relative
> > location."
> >
> > Thomas:
> > "If you say so. I do disagree, but don't feel like arguing this now."
> >
> > I took that as an indication that you could no longer support the
> > substantive point under discussion.
>
> Two more posts, and you will deploy one of your smokescreens.
> Shall we bet?
Sorry, you're too much of a coward to bet on physics.
> #13
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=1090870...@corp.supernews.co
m
> #12
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vuh3v91...@corp.supernews.com
> #11
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vm1fb4d...@corp.supernews.com
> #10
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=6ffd15bd.0308191548.79f09a30@post
ing.google.com
> #9
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vibm425...@corp.supernews.com
> #8
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vhtma4h...@corp.supernews.com
> #7
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vhm4f6r...@corp.supernews.com
> #6
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vg0ndom...@corp.supernews.com
> #5
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfrn4g1...@corp.supernews.com
> #4
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfrlt15...@corp.supernews.com
> #3
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfgtonn...@corp.supernews.com
> #2
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfem054...@corp.supernews.com
> #1
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vemlos4...@corp.supernews.com
>
Why, hello again, coward.
Still not willing to post any physics?
Still not willing to take those bets?
Bye again.
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:fy5od.30870$Qv5....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>> attempting
>>to use words of the technical vocabulary, you should learn what they
>>actually mean. Just generating PUNS for your own amusement is not
>>science....
> Mathematically a field is just an array of imaginary points.
I repeat: Before attempting to use words of the technical vocabulary,
you should learn what they actually mean.
Your statement is wrong IN THIS CONTEXT.
IN THIS CONTEXT a field is a function on a manifold, and it is the
manifold that could be LOOSELY described as "an array of imaginary points".
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
greywolf42
the
> > >> atmosphere provides evidence the atmosphere is a fluid (particulate
> > >medium),
> > >> and I'll provide you with the exact same characteristic in the
vacuum.
>
> > Clarke:
> > >I queried about the vacuum analog of Brownian motion.
>
> > Hi Tom,
> > Well, that's not an acoustic principle --
>
>
> > but to answer your question:
> > Quantum mechanics:
>
> > http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/mwbn.html
>
> > "Lee Smolin, in his paper Stochastic Mechanics and Hidden Variables,
> > printed in the book Quantum Concepts in Space and Time (Penrose
> > and Isham, eds., Oxford 1986) describes Nelson's derivation of
> > quantum mechanics as a Brownian motion process..."
>
> > pilot waves)
>
> That is what I thought Greywolf42 was getting at with his
> mention of zitterbewegung but zitterbewegung turned out to be
> something else.
Actually, there is no physical difference. You simply refuse to abandon the
argument-by-definition. And you insist on defining zitterbewegung as solely
pertaining to QM.
> If you read on you in that page you will see that
> that theory requires that there is
> a requirement that "The current velocity is irrotational"
Yes. Maxwell's fluid is like that. Just like any other superfluid.
> which I think will cause problems for theories like Rado's that
> try to account for gravity via a particulate ether.
Your bald assertion is incorrect. Particulate aethers do not need to be
rotational.
greywolf42
And Thomas' repeated attempts to simply argue by definition.
> > > > The physical observable of the equation is the same as for
> > > > thermal impact (Brownian motion).
>
> > > This was in dispute and never resolved.
>
> > I believe that's because you admitted that you would not speak further
> > on the subject:
> >
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Mfzdd.1109%24sT4.622%40news.flashnewsgroup
s.com
>
> > Thomas:
> > "The first expression has an "i" in the exponent. Changes the value of
> > the expression even when h=kT. To determine where the particle is
> > you have to take square modulus (Born rule) which is the observation
> > I was talking about above."
>
> > greywolf:
> > "Which doesn't change the shape of the observable."
>
> > Thomas:
> > "|exp(iX)|=1>exp(-X) for X>0"
>
> > greywolf:
> > "Which doesn't change the shape of the observable. Only the relative
> > location."
>
> > Thomas:
> > "If you say so. I do disagree, but don't feel like arguing this now."
>
> > I took that as an indication that you could no longer support the
> > substantive point under discussion.
>
> I guess I should be more explicit in expressing sarcasm.
Sarcasm is fine.
> You may take that as an indication that I did not feel like
> arguing that then.
That's fine, too. However, it doesn't support your point. And it looks bad
to make a physical claim, then abandon the argument.
> I'm not sure I do now. If you don't know the significance
> of the mathematical fact |exp(iX)|=1>exp(-X) for X>0
> then I don't know what we could discuss.
Perhaps we could discuss physics. How about discussing whether
zitterbewegung has ever been directly observed?
> In any case I was wrong that this sort of expression which
> I get from the paths in Feynman path integrals had
> to do with Zitterbewegung which is related to Dirac's
> equation for the electron unless you are changing the
> definition of the term.
Then I'm still waiting for a substantive, physical discussion of why you
think that zitterbewgung is fundamentally different from Brownian motion.
Something different from your simply defining the two as different.
> Did you mean something along the lines of
> http://ej.iop.org/links/q61/+cQjETlnXju8C+vT5k38bQ/ejv11i6p334.pdf
> ??
That's a "404 not found" link.
greywolf42
news:cnipq0$118k$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
> Eric Gisse <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> : Has managed to not collapse upon itself. Interesting, the universe
> : started as isotropic as you can get and it managed to coalesce and
> : collapse into planets, stars, and galaxies. What is keeping this
> : magical ether together so that it doesn't undergo gravitational
> : collapse? It only takes a little perturbation and WHAMMO.
The above is completely incorrect, as noted in parallel post.
> To be fair, they advocate a different theory of gravity.
> Aether particles do not attract each other. Instead there
> are these other particles that are apparently continuously
> produced at the far edges of the universe.
What "other particles" are you referring to?
A false statement. Aether theories don't need other particles" to be
continuously produced. Either locally or at the far edge of the universe.
> These particles
> collide with waves and vortices in the aether and push them.
Um, no. Aether corpuscles do all the colliding necessary.
> Despite the fact that no disturbance can travel through the
> aether faster than the speed of light,
Whatever gave you that idea? The rms speed of an aether corpuscle should be
about sqrt(3) times the speed of light. This is fundamental particle and
wave dynamics. There is no SR limitation on speeds. Just like there is no
prohibition on faster-than-sound speed.
> these other particles
> travel at speeds far in excess of the speed of light.
What "other particles" are you referring to?
> I am
> not sure if they are fundamentally different than aether particles,
> or how they move through the aether at such great speeds and
> at the same time rarely interact with anything, or how they
> are created and brought up to speed in the first place.
What "other particles" are you referring to?
> But apparently they do not have to worry about gravitational
> collapse. :)
greywolf42
news:cno5p4$2mmr$3...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
> Dennis McCarthy <djm...@aol.com> wrote:
> :>
> :>"Dennis McCarthy" <djm...@aol.com> wrote in message
> :>
> :>> Or to put it another way: You tell me what fluid characteristic of the
> :>> atmosphere provides evidence the atmosphere is a fluid (particulate
> :>medium),
> :>> and I'll provide you with the exact same characteristic in the vacuum.
>
> : Clarke:
> :>I queried about the vacuum analog of Brownian motion.
>
> : Hi Tom,
> : Quantum mechanics:
>
> : http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/mwbn.html
>
> : "Lee Smolin, in his paper Stochastic Mechanics and Hidden Variables,
printed in
> : the book Quantum Concepts in Space and Time (Penrose and Isham, eds.,
Oxford
> : 1986) describes Nelson's derivation of quantum mechanics as a Brownian
motion
> : process..."
>
> : Small particles can be moved about by fluctuations in the ether (e.g.
pilot
> : waves)
>
> the ether.
Small *matter* particles are fluctuations in the aether. Aether corpuscles
are not fluctuations in the aether.
> In Brownian motion small particles are being hit
> by even smaller particles.
Yes. It may be easier to use the (original) term "corpuscle", to describe
the aether components. This distinguishes them from matter "particles."
> Or is it the case in your theory
> that ether particles actually 'bind' together to form atoms
> and the like,
Aether resonances are not bound. They remain a standing wave. And they
form elementary particles. Elementary particles are matter. And matter can
interact to form stable patterns, like atoms and molecules.
> as opposed to atoms, like water waves, being
> just a disturbance in the ether and the actual ether particles
> that 'compose' an atom change from moment to moment.
The aether corpuscles that are interacting in the standing wave are not the
same from moment to moment. Just like a water wave.
> Can a water vortex or wave be moved about by the motion of water
> molecules?
Yes. Take a boat out rowing and play a little to see how.
jahn
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:fy5od.30870$Qv5....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> jahn wrote:
> > Consider a *field* of rock ballast in the hold of a ship.
>
> That is not a field in any ordinary sense of the word. Before
attempting
> to use words of the technical vocabulary, you should learn what they
> actually mean. Just generating PUNS for your own amusement is not
> science....
What kind of field do you play chess on?
I was not speaking in the "ordinary sense of the word".
Mathematically a field is just an array of imaginary points.
Thomas Clarke
> > That is what I thought Greywolf42 was getting at with his
> > mention of zitterbewegung but zitterbewegung turned out to be
> > something else.
> Actually, there is no physical difference. You simply refuse to abandon the
> argument-by-definition. And you insist on defining zitterbewegung as solely
> pertaining to QM.
So demonstrate that zitterbewegung is the same as quantum zero
point motion.
Every reference on the web and in print that I have consulted
says they are different.
> > If you read on you in that page you will see that
> > that theory requires that there is
> > a requirement that "The current velocity is irrotational"
> Yes. Maxwell's fluid is like that. Just like any other superfluid.
Again with the superfluid, totally out of context. Maxwell's
frictionless fluid had the characteristics of a quantum fluid
nearly 100 years before anyone had any idea what that meant!
But one sect of the etherist religion (Rado's ether theory)
seems to require a rotating fluid to explain the motion of the
planets.
> > which I think will cause problems for theories like Rado's that
> > try to account for gravity via a particulate ether.
> Your bald assertion is incorrect. Particulate aethers do not need to be
> rotational.
Tell that to Rado et al.
"As Rado points out in Aethrokinematics, gas and fluid
flows into sinks are almost never purely radial. Instead,
_all_ such sinks are accompanied by the rotation of a vortex.
.... This both creates and maintains the tangential
component and stability of the orbit."
[My emphasis on "all"]
http://hometown.aol.com/Dennis2020/grav.html
Tom Clarke
Thomas Clarke
> "Thomas Clarke" <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
> Then I'm still waiting for a substantive, physical discussion of why you
> think that zitterbewgung is fundamentally different from Brownian motion.
> Something different from your simply defining the two as different.
Shall we begin with a defnition by greywolf42 of what he means
by zitterbewegung?
At this point I'm not even sure of what he is talking about.
Every reference to the term I have found shows it to
be different from Brownian motion.
http://www.kfunigraz.ac.at/imawww/vqm/pages/samples/206_01b.html
http://ej.iop.org/links/q35/ki,8e6m2pyNqoyt77MFt8Q/ej0201.pdf
http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/pdf/ZBW_mod.pdf
> > Did you mean something along the lines of
> > http://ej.iop.org/links/q61/+cQjETlnXju8C+vT5k38bQ/ejv11i6p334.pdf
> > ??
> That's a "404 not found" link.
Another poster noted that.
The article can be reached via a google search on "ejv11i6p334.pdf"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ejv11i6p334.pdf
and then clicking on the resulting link.
I guess I could capture it and put on a personal web site claiming
scholarly reasons if that doesn't work.
Dirk Van de moortel
"jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:30f0lnF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:cntdpc$b...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
[snip]
> > That is not a field in any ordinary sense of the word. Before attempting
> > to use words of the technical vocabulary, you should learn what they
> > actually mean. Just generating PUNS for your own amusement is not
> > science....
> What kind of field do you play chess on?
>
> I was not speaking in the "ordinary sense of the word".
> Mathematically a field is just an array of imaginary points.
> Just because you subscribe to a set of physical laws that assigns
> physical properties to such points in no way precludes
> my correct use of the term.
> Kind regards,
> Sue...
Dennis McCarthy at his best :-)
Dirk Vdm
robert j. kolker
jahn wrote:
>
> I was not speaking in the "ordinary sense of the word".
> Mathematically a field is just an array of imaginary points.
> Just because you subscribe to a set of physical laws that assigns
> physical properties to such points in no way precludes
> my correct use of the term.
> Kind regards,
> Sue...
A field is a mapping from a manifold into its tangent bundle.
Bob Kolker
Tom Roberts
> A field is a mapping from a manifold into its tangent bundle.
Hmmm. That is a vector field. But there are scalar fields, covector
fields, tensor fields, ....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Bill Hobba
And a BS artist will make inane irrelevant comments like the above and try
an pass it of as insight.
Bill
> Kind regards,
> Sue...
>
> >
> >
>
>
Bill Hobba
Wigner proved that mathematically a field is always represented by tensor -
not an array of imaginary points whatever that might be.
> Just because you subscribe to a set of physical laws that assigns
> physical properties to such points in no way precludes
> my correct use of the term.
Or I suppose of knowledge of Wingers proof.
Bill
Bill Hobba
> "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:naaod.44315$K7.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:cc2dde17.04112...@posting.google.com...
> > > "jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:<30ajqpF...@uni-berlin.de>...
> > > > "TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:cc2dde17.0411...@posting.google.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "We know that matter travels in the so-called "vacuum" of space,
but
> > > > > experience tells us that waves should have a different medium
> > > > > besides a vacuum in which to travel.
> > > >
> > > > Experience only tells us this if we are prone to conclude that all
> > > > options have been considerd when in fact, only the options we
> > > > can imagine have been considered.
> > >
> > > My reference was to the fact that all waves have a medium through
> > > which they move, and I see no reason for light waves to require none.
> >
> > Let me get this straight. We have no evidence of a medium that light
> > waves are undulations
>
> Bill resorts to his usual Big Lie.
Then provide that evidence.
Bill
Bill Rowe
"greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
> "Bill Rowe" <readn...@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:readnewscix-8DE5...@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> > In article <k95nd.2966$mu4....@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,
> > "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
> > Simply, you didn't do as you claim. Your stated reason, i.e., "fill the
> > aether with matter", isn't relevant to temperature.
> True. But temperature was not the only assertion in the list. Tom asserted
> that it was not possible to vary either the analog of temperature, the
> anolog of humidity, or the analog of pressure in the aether. I demonstrated
> that the analog of humidity is seen all the time. Thus proving Tom's silly
> statement false.
Actually, I don't agree you've achieved this. I do agree you might be
able to make a case for everything but temperature with quite a bit more
work. It isn't sufficient to say pressure is equivalent to adding matter
as is the case with sound since with sound you aren't adding a foreign
material. The true analog with an ether would be to somehow pressurize
that ether and show the propagation of light was altered. This isn't the
same as adding some matter and saying light propagation changed.
> > Or in other words, you've no evidence to show any optical analog to the
> > effects of temperature on the propagation of sound. You merely assume
> > the existence of something you cannot observe. And that is the point
> > Roberts was making.
> First, that wasn't Tom's point. Tom's (invalid) claim was that one "cannot
> vary the corresponding properties of 'the ether.'"
You've yet to show that claim invalid.
> Second, while I don't show evidence for variations in local temperature, it
> is obvious why that evidence is hard to come by.
> Third, variations in temperature *are* observable. Even if I haven't yet
> observed them.
Your second and third aren't physics. They are no different than my
making a theory of friction explaining it as a unobservable demon
pushing against you. In physics, unobservable is equivalent to
nonexistent.
--
To reply via email subtract one hundred nine
TomGee
> "TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cc2dde17.04112...@posting.google.com...
> > "jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:<30ajqpF...@uni-berlin.de>...
> > > "TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:cc2dde17.0411...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > "We know that matter travels in the so-called "vacuum" of space,
> but
> > > > experience tells us that waves should have a different medium
> besides
> > > > a vacuum in which to travel.
> > >
> > > Experience only tells us this if we are prone to conclude that all
> > > options have been considerd when in fact, only the options we
> > > can imagine have been considered.
> >
> >
> > My reference was to the fact that all waves have a medium through
> > which they move, and I see no reason for light waves to require none.
>
I did not say it was, I said that our experience with waves SHOULD
tell us to expect the same for light waves.
>
> > When we have reached the limits of our imagination, Jahn, all our
> > options have been considered, as no more options are within our
> > imagination.
>
> Exhausted resources don't alter rules.
>
I did not say it does. I said that once we have gone as far as our
imaginations can take us, all the options available to our
imaginations have already been considered, so there are no other
options for us to consider. That was in response to your inference
that all the options our imaginations can possibly come up with may
still not be the correct one. When we run out of options, we may be
prone to think there are no others, but that is not due to experience.
If anything, experience tells us there may be other options which we
cannot think of today. Thinking that nothing else could be an option
is for fools with closed minds, the kind which seems to populate this
ng whenever I post my ideas. They are the ones who think there are no
options other than those we have considered. My effort at posting my
new ideas is quite the opposite of that as it endeavors to show there
are other options to consider.
> > Also, I don't see why it should be that "experience only
> > tells us this if we are prone to conclude...." that we are out of
> > ideas about that, since experience tells us at first to expect that
> > all waves should have a medium, including light waves.
>
> We are prone to conclude a burglar has visited if we see
> muddy footprints on the floor.
> We are not prone to conclude a burglar has visited if our
> Ming dynasty vase is beyond our field of vision.
>
> >
But we see light waves; they are not beyond our field of vision.
> >
> > > Einstein was a master at
> > > jumping to conclusions on this basis. It is the reason a good
> > > software writer ends a list of conditionals with a error handler
> even
> > > if all conditiions are tested.
> > >
> > >
SNIP
>
>
> I'll consider that a wave is a spatial and temporal fluctuation of some
> quantity. If there is no substance, quantity or entity which cannot
> fluctuate spatially and temporally, then the observation that something
> is wave-like, really doesn't take anything off the table.
>
Ok.
> I think you are using a broader definition of medium than I.
> I consider air a medium for sound, but a dielectric for light.
> Removing air or glass breaks an acoustic path but there is
> nothing we know of whose removal will break a light path.
>
> Again...
> The absence of evidence is not evidence.
But yet the absence of evidence which would show that the "removal of
something will break a light path" is sufficient evidence for you that
nothing like that exists or can exist? Even if it is an option of my
imagination (even though not one of yours)?
> Over a 100 years of bending and warping that for which there
> is no evidence seem's to have resulted only in confusion about
> which twin has a busted watch.
>
> >
That may seem to be the case for you, but I understood it almost right
away. The evidence of the time dilation effect is aptly presented in
the Twin Paradox and in my example of a moving train.
> > > AFAIK, photons don't 'displace' matter. If they are coherrent and
> > > out of phase, a pair of counter propagatng photons can pass through
> > > or over an electron with all three entities emerging unalterd.
> > >
> >
> > For photons to be "coherrent (sic) and out of phase" requires light
> > which does not ordinarily occur in nature.
>
> Oh? Do extraterrestials bring us sodium light?
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/michel.html
Light is ordinarily not coherent, but that does not mean it does not
occur at all.
>
> > It is well-known that
> > photons displace electrons, as in the photo-electric effect.
> Read the original paper. It makes six assumptions, three you'll
> recognize as patently false.
>
> Any number of things can cause the atomic ejection of an electron.
> Electomagnetic illumination at atomic wavelengths increases the
> probabilty of ejecton but does not necessarly correspond to a
> specific site of ejection. Review Young's experiment again and
> see if that isn't what it shows.
>
My reference was to Einstein's experiment where a beam of light knocks
electrons out of metal material. That seemed to have been
well-accepted enough to use for reference since it was such a basic
experiment.
> > >
> > >
> I wasn't refering to the strategy of a particular move. I was
> refering to the constraints on all possible moves. IE a knight
> can't move like a pawn just as a positron can't swap places
> with a proton.
Yes, I know, but you seemed to be saying that each piece once moved
acquires new rules due to its new position.
TomGee 112204
>
> Nah... Nature just feels her way around an then takes the path of
> least resistance. Which probably is more than we ever wanted
> to know about politics. ;-)
>
> Kind regards,
> Sue...
jahn
Yes... the notion of a "squeezable" tangent bundle
let's you model magnetic force lines in 2D where
you can visualise it, then, rotate to 3D and model
the gravitational force lines to a barycenter, which
is not so easy to visualize but seems easy enough
for nature to accomplish.
Sue...
TomGee
> "TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cc2dde17.04112...@posting.google.com...
> > "jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:<30ajqpF...@uni-berlin.de>...
> > > "TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:cc2dde17.0411...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > "We know that matter travels in the so-called "vacuum" of space, but
> > > > experience tells us that waves should have a different medium besides
> > > > a vacuum in which to travel.
> > >
> > > Experience only tells us this if we are prone to conclude that all
> > > options have been considerd when in fact, only the options we
> > > can imagine have been considered.
> >
> >
> > My reference was to the fact that all waves have a medium through
> > which they move, and I see no reason for light waves to require none.
>
> move'. Then you use this false assertion to base the idea that light
> requires one.
Well, if Einstein can claim curved space exists having no evidence,
why is it I cannot? One can make any assertion one wishes upon which
to base an idea. All scientists do that, except perhaps you, since
you think that is wrong.
> It might make some weird kind sense if light was the only
> wave phenomena that we are unable to find a medium for but even that is not
> the case eg electron waves.
Whether or not light has medium is not determined by the number of
mediums not found as yet.
>
> > When we have reached the limits of our imagination, Jahn, all our
> > options have been considered, as no more options are within our
> > imagination.
>
> Yet you seem to not allow your imagination to follow that path light is not
> waves in a medium - bizarre.
>
I tried, but I can make no sense of what you're saying just above.
> > Also, I don't see why it should be that "experience only
> > tells us this if we are prone to conclude...." that we are out of
> > ideas about that, since experience tells us at first to expect that
> > all waves should have a medium, including light waves.
>
> The point is of course experience does not tell us that at all eg we have
> not found a medium light and electron waves
>
> >
If experience does not tell you that at the beginning of the study of
light, why did all those scientists then build one of the most famous
experiments (famous because it failed to prove what everyone was
expecting), and countless arguments have been put forth regarding
whether or not light has a medium. I have posted my model regarding
what I believe is the medium for light, but instead of you making
logical arguments to overthrow it, you mouth inanities hardly if at
all related to the subject. You obviously disagree light has a medium
or requires one, fine. We have heard all the arguments from your
side, unless you have an original one to offer here, but none of them
obviate my ideas any better than Relativity makes classical physics
unnecessary.
> >
> >
> > I did say that matter has space as a medium, and the ballast and the
> > crew are matter and they all exist in the medium of space.
>
> You are using words in appalling ways to try and infer things that we have
> no evidence for.
>
>
Make all the wild claims you wish to make without reference to or
support for your arguments, but saying it don't make it so, no matter
how many stars you wish upon or how many fingers you cross behind your
back.
TomGee 112304
Eric Gisse
[snip]
If you wish for discussion to continue, you must first understand how
a planetary atmosphere is different from a star.
Your basic misconceptions about astrophysics make discussion
impossible. Either you are faking the misconceptions as an arguing
tactic, or you really are that stupid - either way the result is the
same.
greywolf42
>
> "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:Zlqod.205$jP6...@news.flashnewsgroups.com...
> > "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:naaod.44315$K7.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
{snip higher levels}
> > > We have no evidence of a medium that light
> > > waves are undulations of
> >
> > Bill resorts to his usual Big Lie.
>
> Then provide that evidence.
In this case, Bill is using the Big Lie tactic of propaganda. Which is
simply the repetition of a false statement ... if repeated often enough the
target begins to believe the statement. Here are a few somewhat recent
variations of the big lie that there is 'no evidence' of a luminiferous
aether:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vg8i6iks675af7%40corp.supernews.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vg6f3mhjhap3e%40corp.supernews.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=100r4kd19cmkrcf%40corp.supernews.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vrqhktikl61he9%40corp.supernews.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vraigbrr95kd99%40corp.supernews.com
> > We have much evidence of a light medium.
> > What Bill means is that Bill can write down equations without
> > understanding them.
{snip stuff uncommented by Bill}
greywolf42
> "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > "Thomas Clarke" <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
>
> > > That is what I thought Greywolf42 was getting at with his
> > > mention of zitterbewegung but zitterbewegung turned out to be
> > > something else.
>
> > Actually, there is no physical difference. You simply refuse to abandon
> > the argument-by-definition. And you insist on defining zitterbewegung
> > as solely pertaining to QM.
>
> So demonstrate that zitterbewegung is the same as quantum zero
> point motion.
No one is talking about quantum zero-point motion. We're discussing the
similarities between zitterbewegung and brownian motion.
> Every reference on the web and in print that I have consulted
> says they are different.
Different from what? None of you links even mentions Brownian motion. How
does this support your claim that they explicitly "say" they are different?
> > > If you read on you in that page you will see that
> > > that theory requires that there is
> > > a requirement that "The current velocity is irrotational"
>
> > Yes. Maxwell's fluid is like that. Just like any other superfluid.
>
> Again with the superfluid, totally out of context.
Not out of context in the least. Maxwell's fluid had a viscosity of zero.
Which is the definition of the modern term "superfluid."
> Maxwell's
> frictionless fluid had the characteristics of a quantum fluid
> nearly 100 years before anyone had any idea what that meant!
Not 100 years before Maxwell had an idea of what that meant. :)
Among other things, Maxwell derived the existence of superconductivity in
that work.
> But one sect of the etherist religion (Rado's ether theory)
> seems to require a rotating fluid to explain the motion of the
> planets.
Rotation can happen in fluids, if driven. Even in superfluids. Did you
have a substantive point to make?
Irrotational fluid does not mean that rotation is not possible.
> > > which I think will cause problems for theories like Rado's that
> > > try to account for gravity via a particulate ether.
>
> > Your bald assertion is incorrect. Particulate aethers do not need to be
> > rotational.
>
> Tell that to Rado et al.
Rado does not speak for all aether theories. However, *your* position was
an argument against *all* aether theories. And it looks like you
misunderstand Rado's theory, to boot.
> "As Rado points out in Aethrokinematics, gas and fluid
> flows into sinks are almost never purely radial. Instead,
> _all_ such sinks are accompanied by the rotation of a vortex.
> .... This both creates and maintains the tangential
> component and stability of the orbit."
>
> [My emphasis on "all"]
It doesn't matter what your emphasis is on. You apparently confuse an
'irrotational fluid' with a fluid that can't rotate.
greywolf42
> In article <Xlqod.203$jP6...@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,
> "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
>
> > "Bill Rowe" <readn...@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:readnewscix-8DE5...@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> > > Simply, you didn't do as you claim. Your stated reason, i.e., "fill
> > > the aether with matter", isn't relevant to temperature.
>
> > True. But temperature was not the only assertion in the list. Tom
> > asserted that it was not possible to vary either the analog of
> > temperature, the anolog of humidity, or the analog of pressure
> > in the aether. I demonstrated that the analog of humidity is seen
> > all the time. Thus proving Tom's silly statement false.
>
> Actually, I don't agree you've achieved this.
How can you disagree? Tom gave an inclusive list of three assertions. I
proved one wrong, thus proving his premise incorrect.
> I do agree you might be
> able to make a case for everything but temperature with quite a bit more
> work. It isn't sufficient to say pressure is equivalent to adding matter
I never said that. Nor implied it. I said that adding matter was
equivalent to adding humidity to air.
> as is the case with sound since with sound you aren't adding a foreign
> material.
Water *is* a foreign material to otherwise dry air.
> The true analog with an ether would be to somehow pressurize
> that ether and show the propagation of light was altered. This isn't the
> same as adding some matter and saying light propagation changed.
Again, the analog of adding humidity to air is adding matter to an otherwise
vacuum.
The analog of pressure and temperature was addressed separately. You've
long ago snipped the discussion.
> > > Or in other words, you've no evidence to show any optical analog to
> > > the effects of temperature on the propagation of sound. You merely
> > > assume the existence of something you cannot observe. And that is
> > > the point Roberts was making.
>
> > First, that wasn't Tom's point. Tom's (invalid) claim was that one
> > "cannot vary the corresponding properties of 'the ether.'"
>
> You've yet to show that claim invalid.
I take it that you agree that you misrepresented Tom's point, then?
However, I've shown that you *can* vary one corresponding property of
aether, by adding matter to the vacuum. Hence, I've disproved Tom's
assertion. (Explained again, above.)
> > Second, while I don't show evidence for variations in local temperature,
> > it is obvious why that evidence is hard to come by.
> >
> > Third, variations in temperature *are* observable. Even if I haven't
> > yet observed them.
>
> Your second and third aren't physics. They are no different than my
> making a theory of friction explaining it as a unobservable demon
> pushing against you.
I see you simply ignored the distinction between 'not yet observed' and
'unobservable.' Something theoretically observable (like aether temperature
and pressure) are not unobservable if we have not yet figured out how to
directly modify them.
And I provided the physics for the reason the observation is difficult.
(Though not theoretically impossible.) But you've snipped that discussion.
> In physics, unobservable is equivalent to nonexistent.
You mean like quarks and virtual particles? ;)
greywolf42
> "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > "Thomas Clarke" <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
Ah! The classic, Relativist, "invisible" snip-and-ignore! Usually invoked
whenever the evil word "observation" is raised.
{some of the 'invisible' snip replaced}
======================
> > > I'm not sure I do now. If you don't know the significance
> > > of the mathematical fact |exp(iX)|=1>exp(-X) for X>0
> > > then I don't know what we could discuss.
> >
> > Perhaps we could discuss physics. How about discussing whether
> > zitterbewegung has ever been directly observed?
> >
> > > In any case I was wrong that this sort of expression which
> > > I get from the paths in Feynman path integrals had
> > > to do with Zitterbewegung which is related to Dirac's
> > > equation for the electron unless you are changing the
> > > definition of the term.
======================
> > Then I'm still waiting for a substantive, physical discussion of why you
> > think that zitterbewgung is fundamentally different from Brownian
> > motion. Something different from your simply defining the two as
> > different.
>
> Shall we begin with a defnition by greywolf42 of what he means
> by zitterbewegung?
No, because we're already done with your argument-by-definition attempts.
> At this point I'm not even sure of what he is talking about.
>
> Every reference to the term I have found shows it to
> be different from Brownian motion.
Only if you define it as such. But then, I already tired of repetition of
the argument-by-definition.
> http://www.kfunigraz.ac.at/imawww/vqm/pages/samples/206_01b.html
A 'visual' site, with minimal info, and a claim that zitterbewegung is a
gaussian distribution.
> http://ej.iop.org/links/q35/ki,8e6m2pyNqoyt77MFt8Q/ej0201.pdf
Another '404 not found' error.
> http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/pdf/ZBW_mod.pdf
Better. But the author religiously references only his own prior papers.
Doesn't mention 'brownian motion' at all. Perhaps you would identify where
the author supports your point. (Equation number.)
> > > Did you mean something along the lines of
> > > http://ej.iop.org/links/q61/+cQjETlnXju8C+vT5k38bQ/ejv11i6p334.pdf
> > > ??
>
> > That's a "404 not found" link.
>
> Another poster noted that.
Good. Why don't you check your links, before you post them?
> The article can be reached via a google search on "ejv11i6p334.pdf"
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ejv11i6p334.pdf
> and then clicking on the resulting link.
Not available to non-subscribers.
> I guess I could capture it and put on a personal web site claiming
> scholarly reasons if that doesn't work.
Why don't you try posting the substance of what in the reference you claim
supports your point? Instead of simply throwing citations around?
greywolf42
news:fd0fc2fa.04112...@posting.google.com...
> "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:<Wlqod.202$jP6...@news.flashnewsgroups.com>...
>
> [snip]
The classic snip-and-ignore.
> If you wish for discussion to continue, you must first understand how
> a planetary atmosphere is different from a star.
What a pathetic attempt to avoid the issue.
> Your basic misconceptions about astrophysics make discussion
> impossible.
We weren't discussing astrophysics. We are discussing why the
atmosphere hasn't self-collapsed in 4.5 billion years.
> Either you are faking the misconceptions as an arguing
> tactic, or you really are that stupid - either way the result is the
> same.
Mirror, mirror.
Thomas Clarke
> "Thomas Clarke" <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
> Ah! The classic, Relativist, "invisible" snip-and-ignore!
This seems to greywolf's phrase du jour.
> ... Usually invoked
> whenever the evil word "observation" is raised.
> {some of the 'invisible' snip replaced}
And resnipped.
If greywolf42 has an observation of zitterbewegung in mind,
perhaps he should mention it. Such an observation would
go a long way toward defining what he means by the term.
...
> > Shall we begin with a defnition by greywolf42 of what he means
> > by zitterbewegung?
> No, because we're already done with your argument-by-definition attempts.
We can't have a discussion if we don't agree on what is being
discussed.
> > At this point I'm not even sure of what he is talking about.
> > Every reference to the term I have found shows it to
> > be different from Brownian motion.
> Only if you define it as such.
I thought you wanted a substantive physics discussion.
Is it a matter of definition that the paths in Feynman path
integrals are governed by exp(iX) whereas the paths in
the Weiner (Brownian motion) integrals are governed
by exp(-X)?
> > http://www.kfunigraz.ac.at/imawww/vqm/pages/samples/206_01b.html
> A 'visual' site, with minimal info, and a claim that zitterbewegung is a
> gaussian distribution.
It is an intuitive site.The gaussian is not the zitterbewegung but the
intial distribution of the particle's wave function. The zitterbewegung
is the oscillation of the particle's wave function away from the
initial gaussian.
> > http://ej.iop.org/links/q35/ki,8e6m2pyNqoyt77MFt8Q/ej0201.pdf
> Another '404 not found' error.
Doesn't work for me either, now. Some of these article URLs
seem to come and go with activity in their archive sites or somesuch.
> > http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/pdf/ZBW_mod.pdf
> Better. But the author religiously references only his own prior papers.
> Doesn't mention 'brownian motion' at all. Perhaps you would identify where
> the author supports your point. (Equation number.)
Equation 1.4 is exp(-i phi over h-bar). A complex exponential much like
the Feynman integral paths. Much different from the exponentials of
negative real valued argument that occur in analysis of Brownian
motion.
But regarding the definitional thing, these author says
"The main motivation for analyzing zitterbewegung (ZBW)
models is to explain the electron's spin S and magnetic
moment ¹ as generated by a local circulation of mass and charge."
Thus ZBW is concerned not with random motions as in Brownian
motion, but rather with internal properties of a particle.
............
Regarding
"Brownian representation of fractal quantum paths"
by Didier Sornette
> Good. Why don't you check your links, before you post them?
I copied it straight out of my browser as it was displaying the
article. How much more can I check?
> > The article can be reached via a google search on "ejv11i6p334.pdf"
> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ejv11i6p334.pdf
> > and then clicking on the resulting link.
> Not available to non-subscribers.
I'm at a university. Maybe our computers are proxied to allow
access.
> > I guess I could capture it and put on a personal web site claiming
> > scholarly reasons if that doesn't work.
> Why don't you try posting the substance of what in the reference you claim
> supports your point? Instead of simply throwing citations around?
I might snip something that you considered vital especially since I
don't know what your definition is.
For a limited time and for scholarly purposes only you may access
the article at:
http://members.aol.com/gradinc/BrownianFractal.pdf
[This is case sensitive so best to paste into a browser]
Thomas Clarke
> "Thomas Clarke" <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
> > > > That [quantum zero point motion]
> > > > is what I thought Greywolf42 was getting at with his
> > > > mention of zitterbewegung but zitterbewegung turned out to be
> > > > something else.
> > > Actually, there is no physical difference. You simply refuse to abandon
> > > the argument-by-definition. And you insist on defining zitterbewegung
> > > as solely pertaining to QM.
> > So demonstrate that zitterbewegung is the same as quantum zero
> > point motion.
> No one is talking about quantum zero-point motion. We're discussing the
> similarities between zitterbewegung and brownian motion.
Let's try again. You said zitterbewegung. I thought you meant
quantum zero point motion. I investigated and found they weren't the
same. You now say there is no difference, that is
ZW=QZP
So what is wrong with asking for a demonstration that
ZW=QZP since all the literature seems to say they are different?
> > Every reference on the web and in print that I have consulted
> > says they are different.
> Different from what?
From each other. Quantum zero point is not the same
as zitterbewegung.
> None of you links even mentions Brownian motion.
Why should they? Zitterbewegung is not the same as quantum
zero point and it is quantum zero point that has an analogy
(but not precise) with Brownian motion.
> How
> does this support your claim that they explicitly "say" they are different?
ZBW has to do with internal particle motions, with oscillations of
the wave function, not to do with motion of the particle. It can't be
much clearer.
But zero-point has an analogy to Brownian motion.
See the limited time posting of:
http://members.aol.com/gradinc/BrownianFractal.pdf
> > > > If you read on you in that page you will see that
> > > > that theory requires that there is
> > > > a requirement that "The current velocity is irrotational"
> > > Yes. Maxwell's fluid is like that. Just like any other superfluid.
> > Again with the superfluid, totally out of context.
> Not out of context in the least. Maxwell's fluid had a viscosity of zero.
> Which is the definition of the modern term "superfluid."
No one in the 1800's pre QM would have thought a superfluid
would have to be irrotational. The irrotationality of a superfluid
is a quantum phenomena.
............
> > But one sect of the etherist religion (Rado's ether theory)
> > seems to require a rotating fluid to explain the motion of the
> > planets.
> Rotation can happen in fluids, if driven. Even in superfluids. Did you
> have a substantive point to make?
[Maybe this link will work] This reference
http://www-matterwave.physics.ox.ac.uk/bec/research/Eleanor.pdf
says "The constraint of irrotational [del cross v=0] within a simply
connected condensate ..."
I suppose it is possible that Rado's vortices don't count as being
simply connected.
> > Tell that to Rado et al.
> Rado does not speak for all aether theories. However, *your* position was
> an argument against *all* aether theories.
It was a reply to Dennis McCarthy who is a Rado disciple.
I wrote:
"If you read on you in that page you will see that that theory
requires that there is a requirement that
""The current velocity is irrotational"" which I think
will cause problems for theories like Rado's that try to
account for gravity via a particulate ether."
> And it looks like you
> misunderstand Rado's theory, to boot.
There is little to understand. It is all hand-waving.
Bill Hobba
> "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:vEvod.45290$K7.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > news:Zlqod.205$jP6...@news.flashnewsgroups.com...
> > > "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > > news:naaod.44315$K7.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> {snip higher levels}
>
> > > > We have no evidence of a medium that light
> > > > waves are undulations of
> > >
> > > Bill resorts to his usual Big Lie.
> >
> > Then provide that evidence.
>
> In this case, Bill is using the Big Lie tactic of propaganda. Which is
> simply the repetition of a false statement ... if repeated often enough
the
> target begins to believe the statement. Here are a few somewhat recent
> variations of the big lie that there is 'no evidence' of a luminiferous
> aether:
>
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vg8i6iks675af7%40corp.supernews.com
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vg6f3mhjhap3e%40corp.supernews.com
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=100r4kd19cmkrcf%40corp.supernews.com
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vrqhktikl61he9%40corp.supernews.com
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vraigbrr95kd99%40corp.supernews.com
Unfortunatly for some reason I get a server error. But just to be sure we
understand what evidence for an aether would be:
1. Not a theory in accord with experiment that has an aether eg LET - it is
well known aether theories exist - such does not account as proof of an
aether since the theory does not predict how it can be detected - or at
least no one has figured out how.
2. Not of something that is contained in an inertial frame eg the CBMR. The
CBMR can be screened out - it needs to be something inherent to the frame
that the laws of physics depend upon and removal of it would invalidate the
laws of nature as we currently know it. The aether of LET would be such an
example.
3. Not simply calling the QFT vacuum the aether - it does not define a
preferred frame.
4. The evidence should be such that the only reasonable interpretation is
that an aether exists. This would be similar to the evidence Einstein and
others provided for the existence of atoms. Before Brownian motion effects
were 'explained' by the atomic hypothesis people were free to doubt that
atoms did not exist. After no other explanation could be found to account
for Brownian motion than the existence of atoms then it was reasonable to
assume atoms existed and from that point on most, if not all, scientists
believed they did. Note such evidence does not need to consist of Brownian
motion type effects of an aether - simply evidence whose only reasonable
interpretation is that an aether did exist.
I have yet to see a peer reviewed article that meets the above
considerations. I will even accept a non peer reviewed one where I reserve
the right to have it examine by the genuine physicists that post here and
can be sent to experts like Steve Carlip for appraisal if it passes that
scrutiny.
Bill
Bill Hobba
I am not against you conjecturing it may exist - I am against you stating
'and I see no reason for light waves to require none'. Since people have
gone looking for it and have not found it, and theories fully in accord with
experiment that do not require it exist, then that is pretty good evidence
it does not require one. As for curved space-time people have plenty of
evidence of its effects. Now I do not know if curved space-time is like an
electric field ie if theories exist that are also in accord with experiment
that do not assume it; but even if it is like the electric field and
theories of gravity may not require it that is a far cry from saying it does
not exist at least conceptually just like the existence of theories that
have an anther are a far cry from proof that an anther does exist.
> One can make any assertion one wishes upon which
> to base an idea. All scientists do that, except perhaps you, since
> you think that is wrong.
What I object to is 'and I see no reason for light waves to require none'
when such reasons do exist.
>
>
> > It might make some weird kind sense if light was the only
> > wave phenomena that we are unable to find a medium for but even that is
not
> > the case eg electron waves.
>
>
> Whether or not light has medium is not determined by the number of
> mediums not found as yet.
As explained above that is not what I object to.
>
> >
> > > When we have reached the limits of our imagination, Jahn, all our
> > > options have been considered, as no more options are within our
> > > imagination.
> >
> > Yet you seem to not allow your imagination to follow that path light is
not
> > waves in a medium - bizarre.
> >
>
> I tried, but I can make no sense of what you're saying just above.
You try to imagine theories like SR that do not require an aether but fail
to understand them?
>
>
> > > Also, I don't see why it should be that "experience only
> > > tells us this if we are prone to conclude...." that we are out of
> > > ideas about that, since experience tells us at first to expect that
> > > all waves should have a medium, including light waves.
> >
> > The point is of course experience does not tell us that at all eg we
have
> > not found a medium light and electron waves
> >
> > >
> If experience does not tell you that at the beginning of the study of
> light, why did all those scientists then build one of the most famous
> experiments (famous because it failed to prove what everyone was
> expecting), and countless arguments have been put forth regarding
> whether or not light has a medium.
You mean to say exprience with the MM expriment indicated there was an
aether?
In a recent reply to John Kennaugh Bilge said something I think applies to
you and similar cranks:
'It's really unfortunate that usenet allows you and the other kooks to avoid
being put on the spot. When I was in graduate school, my advisors simply
handed me a piece of chalk and sent me to the black- board to explain
whatever I wanted to claim about some result (and usually, not because they
disagreed but because we coudn't just spend thousands or tens of thousands
of dollars on a guess.) Unfortunately, neither you nor the other nutcases
seem to have ever been required to justify your opinions with a real
scientific argument that proves your case using concrete assumptions that
can be quantified. If your options were to either first come up with a
cogent argument or stand in front of a bunch of people and look stupid while
trying to fumble your way through your bullshit for several hours, my guess
is that you'd decide science isn't for you. Instead, usenet gives you the
opportunity to be an idiot and pretend you know enough physics to be taken
seriously by a physicist since you never have to support anything you say.'
Bill
Paul Stowe
>"Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
>news:vEvod.45290$K7.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
>> news:Zlqod.205$jP6...@news.flashnewsgroups.com...
>> > "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
>> > news:naaod.44315$K7.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> {snip higher levels}
>
>>>> We have no evidence of a medium that light
>>>> waves are undulations of
>>>
>>> Bill resorts to his usual Big Lie.
>>
>> Then provide that evidence.
>
> In this case, Bill is using the Big Lie tactic of propaganda. ...
No, it's his religous belief filters that screen out ANY 'evidence'
that's contrary to said religous beief!. This is nothing new, Drones
MUST be lead...
Look at the very definition of evidence (common usage),
"That which makes evident or manifest;
that which furnishes, or tends to furnish, proof;
any mode of proof;
the ground of belief or judgement;
as, the evidence of our senses;
evidence of the truth or falsehood of a statement.
Since in science it is general accepted that nothing can be 'proved'
only falsified we can restate the above removing the word proof,
"That which makes evident or manifest;
that which furnishes, or tends to furnish, 'support for';
any mode of 'support';
the ground of belief or judgement;
as, the evidence of our senses;
evidence of the truth or falsehood of a statement.
> Which is simply the repetition of a false statement ...
Of course, did you EXPECT anything else from Mr. Borg Drone?
> if repeated often enough the target begins to believe the statement.
> Here are a few somewhat recent variations of the big lie that there
> is 'no evidence' of a luminiferous aether:
>
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vg8i6iks675af7%40corp.supernews.com
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vg6f3mhjhap3e%40corp.supernews.com
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=100r4kd19cmkrcf%40corp.supernews.com
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vrqhktikl61he9%40corp.supernews.com
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vraigbrr95kd99%40corp.supernews.com
The best evidsence is,
1. Light speed finiteness & independence of source/receiver
2. Zero Point Energy
3. The so-called 'fabric' of space
4. The global NON constancy in light speed...
Paul Stowe
Eric Gisse
> "Eric Gisse" <fs...@uaf.edu> wrote in message
> news:fd0fc2fa.04112...@posting.google.com...
> > "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:<Wlqod.202$jP6...@news.flashnewsgroups.com>...
> >
> > [snip]
>
> The classic snip-and-ignore.
>
> > If you wish for discussion to continue, you must first understand how
> > a planetary atmosphere is different from a star.
>
> What a pathetic attempt to avoid the issue.
>
> > Your basic misconceptions about astrophysics make discussion
> > impossible.
>
> We weren't discussing astrophysics. We are discussing why the
> atmosphere hasn't self-collapsed in 4.5 billion years.
...and this is why.
Bill Rowe
"greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
> "Bill Rowe" <readn...@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:readnewscix-D38A...@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> > In article <Xlqod.203$jP6...@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,
> > "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
> > > True. But temperature was not the only assertion in the list. Tom
> > > asserted that it was not possible to vary either the analog of
> > > temperature, the anolog of humidity, or the analog of pressure
> > > in the aether. I demonstrated that the analog of humidity is seen
> > > all the time. Thus proving Tom's silly statement false.
> > Actually, I don't agree you've achieved this.
> How can you disagree? Tom gave an inclusive list of three assertions. I
> proved one wrong, thus proving his premise incorrect.
> > I do agree you might be able to make a case for everything but
> > temperature with quite a bit more work. It isn't sufficient to say
> > pressure is equivalent to adding matter
> I never said that. Nor implied it. I said that adding matter was
> equivalent to adding humidity to air.
> > as is the case with sound since with sound you aren't adding a foreign
> > material.
> Water *is* a foreign material to otherwise dry air.
Fine, I will agree adding humidity to air would be equivalent to adding
matter to a vacuum and observing the propagation of light changed. Which
means, I have to agree you have shown an analogy for *one* of the three
examples Tom Roberts gave.
But you seem to think showing an analogy for one is sufficient to
invalidate Tom's post. This isn't sufficient.
The challenge issued by McCarthy was to "name any acoustic effect which
provides evidence of a particulate medium (atmosphere) , and I will
provide you with the optical equivalent". Roberts needed to only provide
one example with no optical analog to refute this claim. To refute
Roberts you would need to show optical analogs to all three, not just
one.
> > > > Or in other words, you've no evidence to show any optical analog to
> > > > the effects of temperature on the propagation of sound. You merely
> > > > assume the existence of something you cannot observe. And that is
> > > > the point Roberts was making.
> > > First, that wasn't Tom's point. Tom's (invalid) claim was that one
> > > "cannot vary the corresponding properties of 'the ether.'"
> > You've yet to show that claim invalid.
> I take it that you agree that you misrepresented Tom's point, then?
No. At least not any more than you've done here. The excerpt you chose
was from a question rather than an assertion. Yes, your inference Tom is
making that claim appears reasonable. But my inference regarding the
point of the Tom's post is equally reasonable.
> However, I've shown that you *can* vary one corresponding property of
> aether, by adding matter to the vacuum. Hence, I've disproved Tom's
> assertion. (Explained again, above.)
Not good enough. See above.
> > Your second and third aren't physics. They are no different than my
> > making a theory of friction explaining it as a unobservable demon
> > pushing against you.
> I see you simply ignored the distinction between 'not yet observed' and
> 'unobservable.'
Yes, indeeed. 'not yet observed' is only distinct from 'unobservable'
when there is some theory or hope of making an observation. Viable ether
theories I am aware of preclude the possibility of observing the ether
in the manner in which they are formulated. Hence, for the hypothesized
ether, 'not yet observed' is equivalent to 'unobservable'
> Something theoretically observable (like aether temperature and
> pressure) are not unobservable if we have not yet figured out how to
> directly modify them.
And the basis for "theoretically observable" is ...? A meaningful basis
would be at least suggest what would be needed to make the observation.
I believe your "theoretically observable" here amounts to nothing more
than your desire,
Bill Hobba
"Paul Stowe" <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:6bi7q05akqb1sa1v7...@4ax.com...
????????? Sure you do not mean 'fabric of space-time'? But even that is
simply pictorial imagery not meant to be taken literally.
> 4. The global NON constancy in light speed...
>
> Paul Stowe
Anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with science knows what evidence
of an aether would be. The above obviously is not eg zero point energy does
not define an absolute frame.
Bill
Ilja Schmelzer
"Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> schrieb
> But just to be sure we
> understand what evidence for an aether would be:
>
> 1. Not a theory in accord with experiment that has an aether eg LET - it
is
> well known aether theories exist - such does not account as proof of an
> aether since the theory does not predict how it can be detected - or at
> least no one has figured out how.
>
> 2. Not of something that is contained in an inertial frame eg the CBMR.
The
> CBMR can be screened out - it needs to be something inherent to the frame
> that the laws of physics depend upon and removal of it would invalidate
the
> laws of nature as we currently know it. The aether of LET would be such
an
> example.
>
> 3. Not simply calling the QFT vacuum the aether - it does not define a
> preferred frame.
>
> 4. The evidence should be such that the only reasonable interpretation is
> that an aether exists. This would be similar to the evidence Einstein and
> others provided for the existence of atoms.
The only reasonable interpretations of QM have preferred frames.
(Here "reasonable" is interpreted as realistic in the sense used by EPR and
Bell.;-)))
My interpretation of the SM fermions as sections of the bundle
A(3)xCx/\(R^3) which appears as the continuous limit of
a lattice theory on A(3)xC(Z^3) needs a preferred frame.
There is no comparable four-dimensional geometric interpretations
of the SM fermions.
> I have yet to see a peer reviewed article that meets the above
> considerations. I will even accept a non peer reviewed one where I
reserve
> the right to have it examine by the genuine physicists that post here and
> can be sent to experts like Steve Carlip for appraisal if it passes that
> scrutiny.
No problem. The paper about A(3)xC(Z^3) is in preparation,
the older version of T x /\ x /\(R3) given in hep-th/0310241
can be used now.
Ilja
Tom Roberts
> The best evidsence is,
> 1. Light speed finiteness & independence of source/receiver
> 2. Zero Point Energy
> 3. The so-called 'fabric' of space
> 4. The global NON constancy in light speed...
Instead of looking for "evidence", why don't you do some science?
Science is NOT a detective novel....
That is, why don't you present a coherent and self-consistent ether
theory, look for experiments and measurements that test it, and analyze
them using the theory to see if they support or refute it?
Of course if you actually do that you will almost surely be forced to
either:
a) rely on irreproducible experiments with demonstrably poor
technique,
or
b) present a theory that is refuted by existing experiments,
or
c) present a theory that is locally indistinguishable from SR.
Note that (c) is not really bad (e.g. Lorentz did it a century ago). But
it is not ever going to get any sort of ether theory into the mainstream
of physics....
[If you take up this challenge, start a new thread.]
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
robert j. kolker
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Instead of looking for "evidence", why don't you do some science?
> Science is NOT a detective novel....
Yes and no. When Uranus was not "moving right" the question was
"whatdunit" or what Newton's theory wrong. So there was some aspect of
the search for The Solution. The presence of another planet (as yet
unseen) was abduced into a manner not totally disimilar to the contrived
solutions Sherlock Holmes cooked up. I say Leverrier! How do you know
there was another planet? You know my methods, Adams.
Bob Kolker
Thomas Clarke
> "Thomas Clarke" <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
> > If greywolf42 has an observation of zitterbewegung in mind,
> > perhaps he should mention it.
> ROTFLMAO!! Of course I mentioned it! That's why you "resnipped" it!
Can you be a little more explicit as to what observation you meant.
I'm afraid I missed it.
> > Such an observation would
> > go a long way toward defining what he means by the term.
> I take it that *you* have no actual observation of what you consider
> zitterbewegung? And I'm not interested in playing definitions games.
No. You are the one who brough up zitterbewegung.
......
> We are discussing the difference (if any) between zitterbewegung and
> brownian motion.
I need to know what you mean by zitterbewegung.
> > Is it a matter of definition that the paths in Feynman path
> > integrals are governed by exp(iX) whereas the paths in
> > the Weiner (Brownian motion) integrals are governed
> > by exp(-X)?
> No, it is not mere definition. You may have noted that the distribution
> equations follow from the physics. Not the words used.
Then why did you seem to imply there was no difference?
> > Doesn't work for me either, now. Some of these article URLs
> > seem to come and go with activity in their archive sites or somesuch.
> That's why you should test your links (like reading what they say), before
> posting.
Read slowly. I copied the link from my browser as I was successfully
reading the site.
> > > > http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/pdf/ZBW_mod.pdf
> > > Better. But the author religiously references only his own prior
> > > papers. Doesn't mention 'brownian motion' at all. Perhaps you
> > > would identify where the author supports your point. (Equation number.)
> > Equation 1.4 is exp(-i phi over h-bar). A complex exponential much like
> > the Feynman integral paths. Much different from the exponentials of
> > negative real valued argument that occur in analysis of Brownian
> > motion.
> The observable distribution is not substantively different, however.
Which equation shows this?
> > But regarding the definitional thing, these author says
> > "The main motivation for analyzing zitterbewegung (ZBW)
> > models is to explain the electron's spin S and magnetic
> > moment น as generated by a local circulation of mass and charge."
> > Thus ZBW is concerned not with random motions as in Brownian
> > motion, but rather with internal properties of a particle.
> The internal properties of a particle *are* random motions.
How do these motions require a Brownian effect for explanation?
> > ............
> >
> > Regarding
> > "Brownian representation of fractal quantum paths"
> > by Didier Sornette
> > > Good. Why don't you check your links, before you post them?
> > I copied it straight out of my browser as it was displaying the
> > article. How much more can I check?
> Your statement is patently false.
Are you calling me a liar?
> > For a limited time and for scholarly purposes only you may access
> > the article at:
> > http://members.aol.com/gradinc/BrownianFractal.pdf
> > [This is case sensitive so best to paste into a browser]
> Again, no specific location in the reference was given. Bye in this thread,
> Troll.
Coward.
greywolf42
> "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > "Thomas Clarke" <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
>
> > Ah! The classic, Relativist, "invisible" snip-and-ignore!
>
> This seems to greywolf's phrase du jour.
If Relativists didn't have to resort to the dishonesty, I wouldn't have to
point it out.
> > ... Usually invoked
> > whenever the evil word "observation" is raised.
>
> > {some of the 'invisible' snip replaced}
>
> And resnipped.
> If greywolf42 has an observation of zitterbewegung in mind,
> perhaps he should mention it.
ROTFLMAO!! Of course I mentioned it! That's why you "resnipped" it!
> Such an observation would
> go a long way toward defining what he means by the term.
I take it that *you* have no actual observation of what you consider
zitterbewegung? And I'm not interested in playing definitions games.
>
> ...
> > > Shall we begin with a defnition by greywolf42 of what he means
> > > by zitterbewegung?
>
> > No, because we're already done with your argument-by-definition
attempts.
>
> We can't have a discussion if we don't agree on what is being
> discussed.
We are discussing the difference (if any) between zitterbewegung and
brownian motion.
> > > At this point I'm not even sure of what he is talking about.
>
> > > Every reference to the term I have found shows it to
> > > be different from Brownian motion.
>
> > Only if you define it as such.
>
> I thought you wanted a substantive physics discussion.
I do. Will you please try to participate?
> Is it a matter of definition that the paths in Feynman path
> integrals are governed by exp(iX) whereas the paths in
> the Weiner (Brownian motion) integrals are governed
> by exp(-X)?
No, it is not mere definition. You may have noted that the distribution
equations follow from the physics. Not the words used.
> > > http://www.kfunigraz.ac.at/imawww/vqm/pages/samples/206_01b.html
>
> > A 'visual' site, with minimal info, and a claim that zitterbewegung is a
> > gaussian distribution.
>
> It is an intuitive site.
That's what I said. Zero substance.
> The gaussian is not the zitterbewegung but the
> intial distribution of the particle's wave function. The zitterbewegung
> is the oscillation of the particle's wave function away from the
> initial gaussian.
>
> > > http://ej.iop.org/links/q35/ki,8e6m2pyNqoyt77MFt8Q/ej0201.pdf
>
> > Another '404 not found' error.
>
> Doesn't work for me either, now. Some of these article URLs
> seem to come and go with activity in their archive sites or somesuch.
That's why you should test your links (like reading what they say), before
posting. This broad-brush throwing of links, instead of addressing the
issue is a waste of time for everyone.
> > > http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/pdf/ZBW_mod.pdf
>
> > Better. But the author religiously references only his own prior
> > papers. Doesn't mention 'brownian motion' at all. Perhaps you
> > would identify where the author supports your point. (Equation number.)
>
> Equation 1.4 is exp(-i phi over h-bar). A complex exponential much like
> the Feynman integral paths. Much different from the exponentials of
> negative real valued argument that occur in analysis of Brownian
> motion.
The observable distribution is not substantively different, however.
> But regarding the definitional thing, these author says
> "The main motivation for analyzing zitterbewegung (ZBW)
> models is to explain the electron's spin S and magnetic
> moment น as generated by a local circulation of mass and charge."
> Thus ZBW is concerned not with random motions as in Brownian
> motion, but rather with internal properties of a particle.
The internal properties of a particle *are* random motions.
> ............
>
> Regarding
> "Brownian representation of fractal quantum paths"
> by Didier Sornette
>
> > Good. Why don't you check your links, before you post them?
>
> I copied it straight out of my browser as it was displaying the
> article. How much more can I check?
Your statement is patently false.
> > > The article can be reached via a google search on "ejv11i6p334.pdf"
> > > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ejv11i6p334.pdf
> > > and then clicking on the resulting link.
>
> > Not available to non-subscribers.
>
> I'm at a university. Maybe our computers are proxied to allow
> access.
I suspect so.
> > > I guess I could capture it and put on a personal web site claiming
> > > scholarly reasons if that doesn't work.
>
> > Why don't you try posting the substance of what in the reference you
> > claim supports your point? Instead of simply throwing citations around?
>
> I might snip something that you considered vital especially since I
> don't know what your definition is.
I tire of this constant evasion and pathetic attempts to base everything
upon argument-by-definition.
> For a limited time and for scholarly purposes only you may access
> the article at:
>
> http://members.aol.com/gradinc/BrownianFractal.pdf
> [This is case sensitive so best to paste into a browser]
Again, no specific location in the reference was given. Bye in this thread,
Troll.
--
greywolf42
> "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > "Thomas Clarke" <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
>
> > > point motion.
>
> > No one is talking about quantum zero-point motion. We're discussing the
> > similarities between zitterbewegung and brownian motion.
>
> Let's try again. You said zitterbewegung. I thought you meant
> quantum zero point motion.
Why did you think that?
> I investigated and found they weren't the
> same. You now say there is no difference, that is
> ZW=QZP
Nope. Never said it. Never implied it.
> So what is wrong with asking for a demonstration that
> ZW=QZP since all the literature seems to say they are different?
Why are you making up these pathetic lies?
> > > Every reference on the web and in print that I have consulted
> > > says they are different.
>
> > Different from what?
>
> From each other. Quantum zero point is not the same
> as zitterbewegung.
I know. What's your point?
> > None of you links even mentions Brownian motion.
>
> Why should they?
Because we are discussing the difference between Brownian motion and
zitterbewegung. And you posted these links to support your position that
there is a difference.
> Zitterbewegung is not the same as quantum
> zero point and it is quantum zero point that has an analogy
> (but not precise) with Brownian motion.
Please provide something substantive to support your point.
> > How
> > does this support your claim that they explicitly "say" they are
> > different?
>
> ZBW has to do with internal particle motions, with oscillations of
> the wave function, not to do with motion of the particle. It can't be
> much clearer.
The question is "HOW" do they have to do with particle motions. I don't
care if you call them "internal".
And Brownian motion has nothing to do with the motion of the particle, but
on the jittering arising from interaction with other entities.
> But zero-point has an analogy to Brownian motion.
> See the limited time posting of:
> http://members.aol.com/gradinc/BrownianFractal.pdf
And why would I care? Since the topic is about ZBW?
> > > > > If you read on you in that page you will see that
> > > > > that theory requires that there is
> > > > > a requirement that "The current velocity is irrotational"
>
> > > > Yes. Maxwell's fluid is like that. Just like any other superfluid.
>
> > > Again with the superfluid, totally out of context.
>/
> > Not out of context in the least. Maxwell's fluid had a viscosity of
> > zero. Which is the definition of the modern term "superfluid."
>
> No one in the 1800's pre QM would have thought a superfluid
> would have to be irrotational.
LOL! Your self-enforced ignorance is amusing. Why don't you actually read
Maxwell?
> The irrotationality of a superfluid is a quantum phenomena.
Nope. It's even a classical property when viscosity = 0.
> ............
> > > But one sect of the etherist religion (Rado's ether theory)
> > > seems to require a rotating fluid to explain the motion of the
> > > planets.
>
> > Rotation can happen in fluids, if driven. Even in superfluids. Did you
> > have a substantive point to make?
>
> [Maybe this link will work] This reference
> http://www-matterwave.physics.ox.ac.uk/bec/research/Eleanor.pdf
> says "The constraint of irrotational [del cross v=0] within a simply
> connected condensate ..."
Work for what? I never claimed that QM couldn't derive an irrotational
fluid. But Maxwell did the same, in 1861, with a simple particulate fluid
of viscosity = 0.
> I suppose it is possible that Rado's vortices don't count as being
> simply connected.
Perhaps Rado isn't doing QM. So he's not limited by QM's assumptions.
> > > Tell that to Rado et al.
>
> > Rado does not speak for all aether theories. However, *your* position
> > was an argument against *all* aether theories.
>
> It was a reply to Dennis McCarthy who is a Rado disciple.
It doesn't matter whether DMcC likes a given theory. *YOUR* statement was
universal. Not applied to Rado's theory.
> I wrote:
> "If you read on you in that page you will see that that theory
> requires that there is a requirement that
> ""The current velocity is irrotational"" which I think
> will cause problems for theories like Rado's that try to
> account for gravity via a particulate ether."
And I pointed out to you that your statement is flatly incorrect. Even
w.r.t. Rado's theory. One doesn't need QM to get an irrotational fluid.
> > And it looks like you
> > misunderstand Rado's theory, to boot.
>
> There is little to understand. It is all hand-waving.
Then you should have had no trouble understanding it. But you punted the
very basics.
Bill Hobba
"Ilja Schmelzer" <q686...@mailstore.fernuni-hagen.de> wrote in message
news:co23se$gug$1...@beech.fernuni-hagen.de...
Ilja has raised a valid point here. The trouble is unlike Einstein's
discovery of the explanation of Brownian motion it has not swept the
scientific communality and I believe there is good reason for that - other
interpretations than Bohm (or similar ones) exist. Indeed some claim
experiment has shown Bohm has been refuted - see
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206196 and
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0103100 I know Ilja does not agree with this
and has cited journal articles in support but people should be aware of the
issues involved.
>
> My interpretation of the SM fermions as sections of the bundle
> A(3)xCx/\(R^3) which appears as the continuous limit of
> a lattice theory on A(3)xC(Z^3) needs a preferred frame.
Ilja has produced what looks to me like valid aether theories that I believe
are worth a look.
>
> There is no comparable four-dimensional geometric interpretations
> of the SM fermions.
>
> > I have yet to see a peer reviewed article that meets the above
> > considerations. I will even accept a non peer reviewed one where I
> reserve
> > the right to have it examine by the genuine physicists that post here
and
> > can be sent to experts like Steve Carlip for appraisal if it passes that
> > scrutiny.
>
> No problem. The paper about A(3)xC(Z^3) is in preparation,
> the older version of T x /\ x /\(R3) given in hep-th/0310241
> can be used now.
All the best with the new article - let us know when it is finished. Have
downloaded the old one to my PDA and will read as time permits. Note however
by evidence I am talking of evidence whose only reasonable interpretation is
an aether must exist - having aether theories in accord with observation
does not prove an aether must exist - that would require evidence whose only
interpretation is the existence of an aether. My understanding is the
standard model, a non aether theory, has yet to find experimental
refutation. Thus at the most all I can see Ilja can claim is a competing
theory but will of course wait for the article before passing judgment.
What happened with Brownian motion was no one was able to come up with a
theory that could account for it without assuming the existence of atoms -
that is what would be required to prove the existence of an aether.
.
Thanks
Bill
>
> Ilja
>
>
Paul Stowe
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>> The best evidsence is,
>> 1. Light speed finiteness & independence of source/receiver
>> 2. Zero Point Energy
>> 3. The so-called 'fabric' of space
>> 4. The global NON constancy in light speed...
>
> Instead of looking for "evidence", why don't you do some science?
> Science is NOT a detective novel....
I'm not the one braying, claiming 'no evidence'. I'm simply stating
some of the rather obvious evidence.
> That is, why don't you present a coherent and self-consistent
> ether theory, look for experiments and measurements that test it,
> and analyze them using the theory to see if they support or refute
> it?
Being there, done that. In fact, as those who knew me then are
quite aware, my modeling predicted to within 5% the measured net
thermal emission of Neptune from the Voyager probe. That SAME
model predicted & matched the measured Pioneer drag magnitude.
> Of course if you actually do that you will almost surely be forced
> to either:
>
> a) rely on irreproducible experiments with demonstrably poor
> technique,
What irreproducible experiments???
> or
> b) present a theory that is refuted by existing experiments,
And those are???
> or
> c) present a theory that is locally indistinguishable from SR.
Ah, when we can actually GET an entire laboratory up to relativistic
speeds we might be able to discriminate.
> Note that (c) is not really bad (e.g. Lorentz did it a century ago).
> But it is not ever going to get any sort of ether theory into the
> mainstream of physics....
Ya'know what the say about saying never...
> [If you take up this challenge, start a new thread.]
Being there, done that!
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
OK, what did Einstein (the creator of the concept) say about this???
>> 4. The global NON constancy in light speed...
>>
>> Paul Stowe
>
> Anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with science knows what
> evidence of an aether would be.
Yes, they would. I guess that rules you out...
> The above obviously is not eg zero point energy does not define an
> absolute frame.
Any physical uniqueness of the so-called rest frame of the medium
is a modern myth, a red herring. If this is the 'absolute frame'
you referring to NO self contained medium known has it, even the
mundane ones like air.
Paul Stowe
greywolf42
>
> "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:6YKod.826$jP6...@news.flashnewsgroups.com...
> > "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:vEvod.45290$K7.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > >
> > > "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Zlqod.205$jP6...@news.flashnewsgroups.com...
> > > > "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > > > news:naaod.44315$K7.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > {snip higher levels}
> >
> > > > > We have no evidence of a medium that light
> > > > > waves are undulations of
> > > >
> > > > Bill resorts to his usual Big Lie.
> > >
> > > Then provide that evidence.
> >
> > In this case, Bill is using the Big Lie tactic of propaganda. Which is
> > simply the repetition of a false statement ... if repeated often enough
> > the target begins to believe the statement. Here are a few somewhat
> > recent variations of the big lie that there is 'no evidence' of a
> > luminiferous aether:
> >
> > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vg8i6iks675af7%40corp.supernews.com
> > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vg6f3mhjhap3e%40corp.supernews.com
> > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=100r4kd19cmkrcf%40corp.supernews.com
> > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vrqhktikl61he9%40corp.supernews.com
> > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vraigbrr95kd99%40corp.supernews.com
>
> Unfortunatly for some reason I get a server error.
ROTFLMAO!!!!! What a pathetic lie!
> But just to be sure we
> understand what evidence for an aether would be:
>
> 1. Not a theory in accord with experiment that has an aether eg LET - it
> is well known aether theories exist - such does not account as proof of an
> aether since the theory does not predict how it can be detected - or at
> least no one has figured out how.
The "big lie" again.
>
> 2. Not of something that is contained in an inertial frame eg the CBMR.
> The CBMR can be screened out - it needs to be something inherent to
> the frame that the laws of physics depend upon and removal of it
> would invalidate the laws of nature as we currently know it. The aether
> of LET would be such an example.
There are no "frames" (inertial or otherwise) in any aether theory.
Inertial frames are SR figments.
> 3. Not simply calling the QFT vacuum the aether - it does not define a
> preferred frame.
LOL! Come on, Bill, tell us what sort of evidence you'd accept. Not what
you won't look at.
> 4. The evidence should be such that the only reasonable interpretation is
> that an aether exists.
That isn't "evidence", Bill. That's "proof."
> This would be similar to the evidence Einstein and
> others provided for the existence of atoms.
But "evidence" for atoms existed long before Einstein ...and your
unmentioned "others." What specific "evidence" (experiment) do you think
this was. (The experiment, not the Prophet.)
> Before Brownian motion effects
> were 'explained' by the atomic hypothesis people were free to doubt that
> atoms did not exist.
LOL! Brownian motion effects were "explained" as soon as the atomic
hypothesis was made. It was the lack of observation of Brownian motion that
caused many troglodytes to claim that atoms couldn't exist.
> After no other explanation could be found to account
> for Brownian motion than the existence of atoms
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
What a pathetic rewrite of history!!!
> then it was reasonable to
> assume atoms existed and from that point on most, if not all, scientists
> believed they did.
Note that atoms existed -- and were observable -- regardless of the number
of "scientists" who believed in them (unlike fairies).
> Note such evidence does not need to consist of
> Brownian motion type effects of an aether - simply evidence whose
> only reasonable interpretation is that an aether did exist.
>
> I have yet to see a peer reviewed article that meets the above
> considerations.
Your own, self-enforced, ignorance is not a limit to the real world. Or to
science.
> I will even accept a non peer reviewed one where I
> reserve the right to have it examine by the genuine physicists that post
here and
> can be sent to experts like Steve Carlip for appraisal if it passes that
> scrutiny.
Science is not limited by your own personal list of wannabe cronies.
greywolf42
news:co298l$a...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> Paul Stowe wrote:
> > The best evidsence is,
> > 1. Light speed finiteness & independence of source/receiver
> > 2. Zero Point Energy
> > 3. The so-called 'fabric' of space
> > 4. The global NON constancy in light speed...
>
> Instead of looking for "evidence", why don't you do some science?
> Science is NOT a detective novel....
>
> That is, why don't you present a coherent and self-consistent ether
> theory, look for experiments and measurements that test it, and analyze
> them using the theory to see if they support or refute it?
Already done. By Maxwell, "On Physical Lines of Force," 1861.
> Of course if you actually do that you will almost surely be forced to
> either:
> a) rely on irreproducible experiments with demonstrably poor
> technique,
> or
> b) present a theory that is refuted by existing experiments,
> or
> c) present a theory that is locally indistinguishable from SR.
Tom, your pathetic repetition of your lies is really worthless. Your
SR-doppleganger "Absolute, Almost SR" has nothing to do with aether theories
at all. And limits aether theories not one bit.
> Note that (c) is not really bad (e.g. Lorentz did it a century ago).
Actually, Lorentz' 1904 theory is quite distinguishable from SR. All you
have to do is avoid e-synching and measure the speed of light in multiple
directions.
> But
> it is not ever going to get any sort of ether theory into the mainstream
> of physics....
That reflects more on the mainstream, than upon the theory.
> [If you take up this challenge, start a new thread.]
What challenge? Your pathetic lie is refuted by your own posts.
greywolf42
Excellent.
> But you seem to think showing an analogy for one is sufficient to
> invalidate Tom's post. This isn't sufficient.
>
> The challenge issued by McCarthy was to "name any acoustic effect which
> provides evidence of a particulate medium (atmosphere) , and I will
> provide you with the optical equivalent". Roberts needed to only provide
> one example with no optical analog to refute this claim. To refute
> Roberts you would need to show optical analogs to all three, not just
> one.
Tom's reply went beyond simply naming the analogs. Tom claimed: "The
behavior of sound waves in air as a function of temperature, humidity, and
pressure. Why is it that you cannot vary the corresponding properties of
'the ether'???"** His first sentence is the claim to which you are
referring. His second sentence, however, is a brand new assertion.
**Dennis provided "Changes in the velocity of light as it passes through a
significant gravitational field is the analogy."
> > > > > Or in other words, you've no evidence to show any optical analog
to
> > > > > the effects of temperature on the propagation of sound. You merely
> > > > > assume the existence of something you cannot observe. And that is
> > > > > the point Roberts was making.
>
> > > > First, that wasn't Tom's point. Tom's (invalid) claim was that one
> > > > "cannot vary the corresponding properties of 'the ether.'"
>
> > > You've yet to show that claim invalid.
>
> > I take it that you agree that you misrepresented Tom's point, then?
>
> No. At least not any more than you've done here. The excerpt you chose
> was from a question rather than an assertion. Yes, your inference Tom is
> making that claim appears reasonable. But my inference regarding the
> point of the Tom's post is equally reasonable.
Sounds reasonable. :)
> > However, I've shown that you *can* vary one corresponding property of
> > aether, by adding matter to the vacuum. Hence, I've disproved Tom's
> > assertion. (Explained again, above.)
>
> Not good enough. See above.
See above. Why don't we focus on the physical issue?
> > > Your second and third aren't physics. They are no different than my
> > > making a theory of friction explaining it as a unobservable demon
> > > pushing against you.
>
> > I see you simply ignored the distinction between 'not yet observed' and
> > 'unobservable.'
>
> Yes, indeeed. 'not yet observed' is only distinct from 'unobservable'
> when there is some theory or hope of making an observation.
Yes!
> Viable ether
> theories I am aware of preclude the possibility of observing the ether
> in the manner in which they are formulated.
Specifics, please.
> Hence, for the hypothesized
> ether, 'not yet observed' is equivalent to 'unobservable'
That may be true of your unspecified strawman theories.
> > Something theoretically observable (like aether temperature and
> > pressure) are not unobservable if we have not yet figured out how to
> > directly modify them.
>
> And the basis for "theoretically observable" is ...?
The theory, of course.
> A meaningful basis
> would be at least suggest what would be needed to make the observation.
> I believe your "theoretically observable" here amounts to nothing more
> than your desire,
The same was said a century ago, about the particulate theory of the
atmosphere. What was needed for the latter was a new technology.
greywolf42
>
> "Paul Stowe" <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
> news:6bi7q05akqb1sa1v7...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:03:46 GMT, "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com>
> wrote:
{snip higher levels}
> Anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with science knows what
> evidence of an aether would be.
Well, Bill, I guess that means that you don't have even passing aquaintance
with science. Because you have yet to provide a single observation of what
an aether would be.
> The above obviously is not eg zero point energy does
> not define an absolute frame.
No aether theory needs an absolute frame. That is a Relativist fiction.
greywolf42
news:fd0fc2fa.04112...@posting.google.com...
> "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:<3YKod.823$jP6...@news.flashnewsgroups.com>...
> > "Eric Gisse" <fs...@uaf.edu> wrote in message
> > news:fd0fc2fa.04112...@posting.google.com...
> > > "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > news:<Wlqod.202$jP6...@news.flashnewsgroups.com>...
> > >
> > > [snip]
> >
> > The classic snip-and-ignore.
> >
> > > If you wish for discussion to continue, you must first understand how
> > > a planetary atmosphere is different from a star.
> >
> > What a pathetic attempt to avoid the issue.
> >
> > > Your basic misconceptions about astrophysics make discussion
> > > impossible.
> >
> > We weren't discussing astrophysics. We are discussing why the
> > atmosphere hasn't self-collapsed in 4.5 billion years.
>
> ...and this is why.
Astrophysics has nothing to do with why gases don't self-collapse.
> > > Either you are faking the misconceptions as an arguing
> > > tactic, or you really are that stupid - either way the result is the
> > > same.
> >
> > Mirror, mirror.
--