Aether?
François Bourassa
the McgrawHill bookstore.
It is a review of theories about relativity up to 1960 or so. Aether seems a
turning point in the understanding of earky relativity...
Wich brings me to my point... what is Aether? I have heard of it vaguely and
I know it is some kind of matter which envelop everything. But I can't
understand quite the concepts associated to it as he takes for granted that
we know for sure.
Can somebody direct me to something about Aether?
island
François Bourassa <franc...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:8_rV4.3785$tP6....@weber.videotron.net...
> In my recent trip to NYC (rulez btw) I bought an excellent book by Pauli
at
> the McgrawHill bookstore.
> It is a review of theories about relativity up to 1960 or so. Aether seems
a
> turning point in the understanding of earky relativity...
>
> Wich brings me to my point... what is Aether?
Aether, or Ether is a supposed medium, (like water, etc.), that permeates
all of space, and transmits transverse waves through space. How can light
travel in waves if there is nothing in space to wave?
Newton's corpuscle theory explained straight light rays and sharp shadows,
but could not explain the emr spectrum, e.g., how white light can be split
up int a spectrum of colors when it is refracted through a prism.
Einstein showed that these apparent contradictory result could be explained
by thinking of light as packets of light energy, similar to Plank's quanta,
(photons). Einstein kind of revived Newton's light corpuscles, but
Einstein's photons aren't particles, they can also behave as waves, and they
also explain how light can travel through "empty" space.
They did an experiment back in the late 1900's, (the Michelson-Morley
experiment), to settle the argument once and for all, but the results didn't
satisfy Aether proponents, since failure to detect something doesn't
necessarily prove didley. It just proves that you can't detect anything
with whatever available technology.
The battle rages on, and there are extremists on both sides of the issue
that argue vehemently for, and against, the Ether.
It's really funny as heck to watch, if you can just stand back and not take
sides.
I personally believe that both sides are equally wrong/right since it is
historically proven that truth lies in the middle of such extreme opposites.
I have heard of it vaguely and
> I know it is some kind of matter which envelop everything. But I can't
> understand quite the concepts associated to it as he takes for granted
that
> we know for sure.
>
> Can somebody direct me to something about Aether?
Try Pete Brown's page @ http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/tubelink.html
island
Mark Samokhvalov <samokh...@mtu-net.ru> wrote in message
news:8gaj7c$cuc$1...@gavrilo.mtu.ru...
> >>> >since light would move through Euclidean space in an absolute
> >>> >perfect straight line, and in one constant stream of motion,
> >>> >having no frequency of occurrence, rather than in packets or
> >>> >quanta of light energy. The fact that light occurs in gathered
> >>> >packets of related or similar energy, rather than as a single,
> >>> >unhindered, straight-line wave,
> There're no such facts - light interactions with matter are quantized in
> accordance with quantum states of matter. Thus, quanta emitted by atomic
> electrons can interact with conduction electrons of a mirror to produce
> sub-quanta of the former frequency.
Could you please explain this in greater detail? I don't see how it applies
to what I said.
Nathan Urban
> Einstein showed us that Michaelson's ether isn't necessary for light's
> propagation through "empty" space, via his quantified packets of
> light-energy, (photons),
Photons didn't have anything to do with the non-existence of aether.
> so why bother to argue for, or against, the Aether?
There are many specific aether models that may be argued against because
they are experimentally disproven or at best ill-defined.
island
Nathan Urban <nur...@crib.corepower.com> wrote in message
news:8gb9ju$lqt$1...@crib.corepower.com...
> In article <sig08j...@corp.supernews.com>, "island"
<isl...@sundial.net> wrote:
>
> > Einstein showed us that Michaelson's ether isn't necessary for light's
> > propagation through "empty" space, via his quantified packets of
> > light-energy, (photons),
>
> Photons didn't have anything to do with the non-existence of aether.
How do you figure that? Everything that I've ever read on the subject
argues counter to your statement. Einstein's photons don't need to wave
luminiferous ether in order for light to propagate through empty space,
whereas Huygens wave theory did. They came up with the invisible light
bearing aether in order to explain how Huygens waves could move through
empty space. Einstein's photons did away with the need for ether to explain
how light could propagate through empty space, which has a LOT to do with
the need for the existence or the non-existence of ether.
> > so why bother to argue for, or against, the Aether?
>
> There are many specific aether models that may be argued against because
> they are experimentally disproven or at best ill-defined.
We were talking about luminiferous ether which has NOT been disproved by any
experiment.
Nathan Urban
> Nathan Urban <nur...@crib.corepower.com> wrote in message
> news:8gb9ju$lqt$1...@crib.corepower.com...
> > In article <sig08j...@corp.supernews.com>, "island"
> <isl...@sundial.net> wrote:
> > > Einstein showed us that Michaelson's ether isn't necessary for light's
> > > propagation through "empty" space, via his quantified packets of
> > > light-energy, (photons),
> > Photons didn't have anything to do with the non-existence of aether.
> How do you figure that? Everything that I've ever read on the subject
> argues counter to your statement. Einstein's photons don't need to wave
> luminiferous ether in order for light to propagate through empty space,
> whereas Huygens wave theory did.
Einstein's photons were not a complete description of light,
merely an approximation that worked well in certain circumstances.
What Einstein did to kill the need for an aether on a classical level
was to develop special relativity. (This is also what finally convinced
his contemporaries working on aether theories, not his photon work.)
Later on, a true quantum (and relativistic) theory of light was developed
by Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga: quantum electrodynamics.
> Einstein's photons did away with the need for ether to explain
> how light could propagate through empty space, which has a LOT to do with
> the need for the existence or the non-existence of ether.
Newton had "corpuscles of light" too, but they didn't fully work as
descriptions for optical phenomena either. That's why the wave model
ultimately won out, and that's why later a fully quantum description of
light (that included a wave-like nature) was necessary before photons
could work.
> > > so why bother to argue for, or against, the Aether?
> > There are many specific aether models that may be argued against because
> > they are experimentally disproven or at best ill-defined.
> We were talking about luminiferous ether which has NOT been disproved by any
> experiment.
Allow me to repeat myself: there are many specific aether models that
may be argued against because they are experimentally disproven or at
best ill-defined. There is plenty of reason to argue against, say,
the aether crackpots in this newsgroup, because most of their claims
about the existence of an aether are simply wrong.
This is not a "difference of opinion"; it is an experimental/logical fact
(depending on whether there errors are in predicting something that
does not agree with experiment, or are merely mathematical errors).
While there are *some* aether models whose aethers have not been
disproven (precisely because they are operationally equivalent to special
relativity), there are plenty of models with "luminiferous aether"
that *have* been disproven.
Your error is in assuming that there is some well-defined unique thing
that is called "the luminiferous aether", which hasn't been disproven.
In fact, there are many different "luminiferous aether models", most
of which have been disproven by experiment. The ones that haven't been
disproven are precisely the ones that have aethers that are intrinsically
undetectable.
Mark Samokhvalov
island пишет в сообщении ...
(straight line), spherical, or planar. A narrow beam (line) is a
superposition of many coherent continuous waves. There are also waves
generated by individual electron transitions (quanta). The opinion was, that
they continue to propagate as such, i.e., the surface of a spherical wave
made up of few quanta at great distances from the source will become patchy:
the appearance of light at any of its points will no longer be continuous,
but will become a statistical event, but I don't know such exps. On the
other hand, there've been exps showing, that interaction with
semi-tansparent mirrors splits quanta into parts unable to activate a
photodetector by themselves (sub-quanta).
Luc Bourhis
(in message <8gajjn$df6$1...@gavrilo.mtu.ru>):
>> If you're going to refer to the vacuum as an ether, you'll have
>> to at least do it right. The vacuum is not a substance. It's
>> convenient to think of it that way, but it isn't necessary.
>
> But where do newly-born particles come from? And where do sink
> in after annihilation?
Very naively these are different ways of distributing the energy
and momentum of the system. For example if a transition between a
state made of two electrons and a state made of two muons does not
violate the conservation of 4-momentum there is a priori a non zero
probability it can occurs. Since we use quantum mechanics we are
only interested in knowing this probability because this is what we
can measure. Your question lies therefore outside our current
models.
> In crystal physics, the fermi surface is the result of the crystal's
> structure. In vacuum?
A Fermi surface is by definition the result of the total
antisymmetry of the wave function of a system of Fermions, a.k.a.
Pauli's exclusion principle. This is why it exists in perfect
Fermionic fluid, that is to say without interactions between
particles. By the way note that the Fermi sphere is well-defined
only at low temperature since this is the limit as T->0 of the
exact Fermi-Dirac distribution.
--
Luc Bourhis
Dennis McCarthy
>In article <sid1cb...@corp.supernews.com>, "island" <isl...@sundial.net>
>wrote:
>
>> I personally believe that both sides are equally wrong/right since it is
>> historically proven that truth lies in the middle of such extreme
>opposites.
>
>plain dead. Particularly when slain by an experiment.
Dennis: History is also filled with theories whose deaths had been greatly
exaggerated.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>
>
>island wrote:
>
>>
>> I did make a real mistake though, saying that the M-M experiment was done
>in
>> the late 1900's... should have been the late 19th century, or the late
>> 1800's, 1891, I think?
>
Kolker: >1885. There was an earlier interferometer, but it was so sensitive to
>surrounding vibrations as to make its readings meaningless. Michealson
>design his experiment to measure the movement of the earth relative to
>the Aether and he did not expect a null outcome. For the rest of his life
>he tried to refine his measurements to get what he was seeking. He never
>did.
Dennis: Michelson-Gale (which had light move around a rectangle) was decidedly
non-null.
Kolker: If Aether exists (I doubt it myself) it is such that it cannot be
>detected
Dennis: What relativists mean by "detected" is always interesting. Apparently,
they don't think a medium is "detected" even if you can observe the effects of
its drag, momentum, currents, and waves. Even if objects comprising the medium
suddenly become large enough to detect, they would rather believe that
particles pop out of nothingness than conser that as evidence of a background
material medium.
Ask a relativist just when and why he would have believed in the atmosphere
(or when the atmosphere was "detected"), and they usually won't admit any of
its effects were evidence for the atmosphere until the observed effects taking
place in the 20th century. Following the same logic, they also would have
denied the existence of germs, genes, etc.
>so we will be left in suspense. In the mean time theories which do no
>postulate the sort of aether that Michaelson had in mind serve physics
>quite well. Even if the Aether exists, we do not need to postulate its
>existence
>to get experimentally supported theories.
Dennis: We didn't have to postulate the existence of viruses, genes or the
molecules in order to get experimentally supported theories. Such hypothetical
substances are only important to people who believe in material causes of
material effects--people like Torricelli, Pasteur, Maxwell, Herapath, etc.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
Urban:
>may be argued against because they are experimentally disproven or at
>best ill-defined. There is plenty of reason to argue against, say,
>the aether crackpots in this newsgroup, because most of their claims
>about the existence of an aether are simply wrong.
>
>This is not a "difference of opinion"; it is an experimental/logical fact
>(depending on whether there errors are in predicting something that
>does not agree with experiment, or are merely mathematical errors).
>While there are *some* aether models whose aethers have not been
>disproven (precisely because they are operationally equivalent to special
>relativity),
Dennis: Actually ether models that predict the ECI as preferred frame (or drag
in space) are distinguishable from SR. And experiments or observations that
test the differences (like Brillet-Hall or Pioneer effect) are consistent with
the ether theory and not SR.
Urban: there are plenty of models with "luminiferous aether"
>that *have* been disproven.
>
>Your error is in assuming that there is some well-defined unique thing
>that is called "the luminiferous aether", which hasn't been disproven.
>In fact, there are many different "luminiferous aether models", most
>of which have been disproven by experiment. The ones that haven't been
>disproven are precisely the ones that have aethers that are intrinsically
>undetectable.
Dennis: What Urban means by "undetectable" is hard to imagine. Usually, people
say that something is "undetectable" when its theoretical effects can't be
detected. But this is not what Urban means, as obviously interference effects,
Doppler, Sagnac, frequency, magnetism, electricity, etc, are all observable
effects of the ether.
Usually, what they mean by "undetectable" is that despite all of the observed
media-type effects, a difference in speed of its waves can't be detected. But
even with this rather odd definition of "undetectable" the statement is still
false. Sagnac, of course, reveals a difference in speed of light waves.
Moreover, it is even possible (at least certainly not physically impossible)
that an MM moving wrt the surface of the Earth could reveal anisotropy.
This would "detect" an ether (even given the relativist defintion of the
word)--and such a possibility has not been disproven.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>
>On Mon, 22 May 2000 7:25:26 +0100, Mark Samokhvalov wrote
>(in message <8gajjn$df6$1...@gavrilo.mtu.ru>):
>
>>> If you're going to refer to the vacuum as an ether, you'll have
>>> to at least do it right. The vacuum is not a substance. It's
>>> convenient to think of it that way, but it isn't necessary.
>>
>> But where do newly-born particles come from? And where do sink
>> in after annihilation?
Bourhis: >Very naively these are different ways of distributing the energy
>and momentum of the system. For example if a transition between a
>state made of two electrons and a state made of two muons does not
>violate the conservation of 4-momentum there is a priori a non zero
>probability it can occurs. Since we use quantum mechanics we are
>only interested in knowing this probability because this is what we
>can measure. Your question lies therefore outside our current
>models.
Dennis: You miss the point. We first must clarify what would and would not be
evidence of an invisible underlying medium, so that we may use such criteria
for all situations where some scientist hypothesizes the existence of an
invisible medium.
Given all of the observed ether effects (including currents, drag,
interference, waves, Sagnac, Doppler, etc,) relativists have to deny that these
are examples of evidence of the medium. And often a relativist will latch onto
the liquefication of gasses as demonstrative that the gasses comprise an
underlying material medium. Here is an example of an old response to such a
point:
"Now, just as water is made up of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas
constituents, baryons are made up of baryon gas consitutents (aka "ether" or
"sub-quark-gluon plasma.") Now, why would the ripping of water out of an
apparent void be evidence of the fact that material constituents of water
always existed in undetectable states in the background void ...**AND YET** the
ripping of baryons out of an apparent void is not evidence of the...exact..
same...thing?
"This question is particularly relevant given the fact that after pressing you
[a relativist to remain nameless] for many posts about what you would declare
as definitive evidence for an invisible material medium , you eventually
offered the detection of particles (liquification) appearing from an apparent
background void (gas)."
Thus, it would appear the detection of particles from an apparent background
void would constitute as evidence of an invisible background medium to most
reasonable people--and relativists have even used such examples as evidence for
the molecular (ie, media) nature of gasses.
Dennis McCarthy
Daryl McCullough
>Dennis: What relativists mean by "detected" is always interesting. Apparently,
>they don't think a medium is "detected" even if you can observe the effects of
>its drag, momentum, currents, and waves.
Except that we *don't* observe ether drag, we *don't* observe ether
momentum, we *don't* observe ether currents. We do observe electromagnetic
waves, but there is no evidence that they are "ether waves".
Daryl McCullough
CoGenTex, Inc.
Ithaca, NY
Luc Bourhis
(in message <20000522174321...@ng-cr1.aol.com>):
> Dennis: You miss the point. We first must clarify what would
> and would not be evidence of an invisible underlying medium, so
> that we may use such criteria for all situations where some
> scientist hypothesizes the existence of an invisible medium.
One does at least need a model of this medium able to predict any
observable quantity predicted by our current best theories. Since
classical fluid mechanics is totally useless in particle physics
and very limited even in nuclear physics where many-bodies system
are common, game over unless Etherists becomes very^1000 lucky.
> "Now, just as water is made up of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas
> constituents, baryons are made up of baryon gas consitutents (aka "ether" or
> "sub-quark-gluon plasma.")
We have quantitative models of water which predicts its
liquefaction temperature in function of its pressure, the position
of its triple point, the crystal structure of its solid phase, the
heat capacity when it is gaseous, ...... Where is the equivalent
Ether model for baryons ? Anyway this is pure crackpotery because
of the terrific differences between a volume of water and a baryon.
--
Luc Bourhis
alan
> What relativists mean by "detected" is always interesting. Apparently,
> they don't think a medium is "detected" even if you can observe the effects of
> its drag, momentum, currents, and waves.
Or they have better interpretations of experiments you claim show and ether
drag, momentum, currents, or waves.
>Even if objects comprising the
> medium
> suddenly become large enough to detect, they would rather believe that
> particles pop out of nothingness than conser that as evidence of a background
> material medium.
No serious physicist believes that a particle pops out of nothingness (no
matter how well that matches your mis-interpretation of what they DO
believe.) There are no Feynman diagrams with nothing coming in and things
going out.
> Ask a relativist just when and why he would have believed in the atmosphere
> (or when the atmosphere was "detected"), and they usually won't admit any of
> its effects were evidence for the atmosphere until the observed effects taking
> place in the 20th century. Following the same logic, they also would have
> denied the existence of germs, genes, etc.
People were sailing ships before there was writing. I think that is pretty
clear evidence of an atmosphere. Where is my ship that sails on the aether
wind?
Daryl McCullough
> "Now, just as water is made up of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas
>constituents, baryons are made up of baryon gas consitutents (aka "ether" or
>"sub-quark-gluon plasma.") Now, why would the ripping of water out of an
>apparent void be evidence of the fact that material constituents of water
>always existed in undetectable states in the background void ...**AND YET** the
>ripping of baryons out of an apparent void is not evidence of the...exact..
>same...thing?
Well, gases liquefy when you cool them to very low temperatures
(that is, when you take away energy). Particle production occurs
at very *high* energy. So, the two processes don't seem
very similar to me.
Particle production is more like boiling than it is like freezing.
I can't think of anything that is vaguely like freezing ether. Maybe
the ether is already frozen?
island
> In article <siic53...@corp.supernews.com>, "island"
<isl...@sundial.net> wrote:
>
> > Nathan Urban <nur...@crib.corepower.com> wrote in message
> > news:8gb9ju$lqt$1...@crib.corepower.com...
>
> > > In article <sig08j...@corp.supernews.com>, "island"
> > <isl...@sundial.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Einstein showed us that Michaelson's ether isn't necessary for
light's
> > > > propagation through "empty" space, via his quantified packets of
> > > > light-energy, (photons),
>
> > > Photons didn't have anything to do with the non-existence of aether.
>
> > How do you figure that? Everything that I've ever read on the subject
> > argues counter to your statement. Einstein's photons don't need to wave
> > luminiferous ether in order for light to propagate through empty space,
> > whereas Huygens wave theory did.
>
> Einstein's photons were not a complete description of light,
> merely an approximation that worked well in certain circumstances.
> What Einstein did to kill the need for an aether on a classical level
> was to develop special relativity. (This is also what finally convinced
> his contemporaries working on aether theories, not his photon work.)
> Later on, a true quantum (and relativistic) theory of light was developed
> by Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga: quantum electrodynamics.
Okay, now I see what you're getting at.
> > Einstein's photons did away with the need for ether to explain
> > how light could propagate through empty space, which has a LOT to do
with
> > the need for the existence or the non-existence of ether.
>
> Newton had "corpuscles of light" too, but they didn't fully work as
> descriptions for optical phenomena either. That's why the wave model
> ultimately won out, and that's why later a fully quantum description of
> light (that included a wave-like nature) was necessary before photons
> could work.
I thought that I'd said that in my first post to this thread?
> > > > so why bother to argue for, or against, the Aether?
>
> > > There are many specific aether models that may be argued against
because
> > > they are experimentally disproven or at best ill-defined.
>
> > We were talking about luminiferous ether which has NOT been disproved by
any
> > experiment.
>
> Allow me to repeat myself: there are many specific aether models that
> may be argued against because they are experimentally disproven or at
> best ill-defined. There is plenty of reason to argue against, say,
> the aether crackpots in this newsgroup, because most of their claims
> about the existence of an aether are simply wrong.
Okay.
> This is not a "difference of opinion"; it is an experimental/logical fact
> (depending on whether there errors are in predicting something that
> does not agree with experiment, or are merely mathematical errors).
Okay
> While there are *some* aether models whose aethers have not been
> disproven (precisely because they are operationally equivalent to special
> relativity), there are plenty of models with "luminiferous aether"
> that *have* been disproven.
That stands to reason too, okay.
> Your error is in assuming that there is some well-defined unique thing
> that is called "the luminiferous aether", which hasn't been disproven.
> In fact, there are many different "luminiferous aether models", most
> of which have been disproven by experiment. The ones that haven't been
> disproven are precisely the ones that have aethers that are intrinsically
> undetectable.
Okay, Nathan, points taken. I'm defining one thing, that I have
specifically in mind, but there are other approaches that don't work. I
have to admit that I've noticed that some posts do contain some
"interesting" postulates about something that doesn't match my idea of
ether. Some are close, but others... WHEW!!! ;-)
island
Dennis McCarthy <djm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000522170822...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
> >
> >
> >
> >island wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I did make a real mistake though, saying that the M-M experiment was
done
> >in
> >> the late 1900's... should have been the late 19th century, or the late
> >> 1800's, 1891, I think?
> >
> Kolker: >1885. There was an earlier interferometer, but it was so
sensitive to
> >surrounding vibrations as to make its readings meaningless. Michealson
> >design his experiment to measure the movement of the earth relative to
> >the Aether and he did not expect a null outcome. For the rest of his life
> >he tried to refine his measurements to get what he was seeking. He never
> >did.
>
> Dennis: Michelson-Gale (which had light move around a rectangle) was
decidedly
> non-null.
>
> Kolker: If Aether exists (I doubt it myself) it is such that it cannot be
> >detected
>
Apparently,
> they don't think a medium is "detected" even if you can observe the
effects of
medium
> suddenly become large enough to detect, they would rather believe that
> particles pop out of nothingness than conser that as evidence of a
background
> material medium.
atmosphere
> (or when the atmosphere was "detected"), and they usually won't admit any
of
> its effects were evidence for the atmosphere until the observed effects
taking
> place in the 20th century. Following the same logic, they also would have
> denied the existence of germs, genes, etc.
>
> >postulate the sort of aether that Michaelson had in mind serve physics
> >quite well. Even if the Aether exists, we do not need to postulate its
> >existence
> >to get experimentally supported theories.
>
> Dennis: We didn't have to postulate the existence of viruses, genes or the
> molecules in order to get experimentally supported theories. Such
hypothetical
> substances are only important to people who believe in material causes of
> material effects--people like Torricelli, Pasteur, Maxwell, Herapath, etc.
>
>
> Dennis McCarthy
There is some good practical argument for theorizing the existence of an
ether, and there are some good case histories where science initially denied
the existence of something, based on the current level of technology of the
time, that was later proven to exist. For example, bacteria that killed
people, or at least made them very sick. A bug that was not actually
measured until long after one radical scientist proved, (by irradicating the
bugs and making people better), that they did indeed exist. He was able to
prove that the bacteria existed because people got well when he killed them,
a very practical application and proof at the time.
The material relationship to the effects of drag, momentum, currents, and
waves, is very apparent, but are they otherwise explained, and/or are they
necessary for the theory to work?
In other words, does it matter? Is the theory any better because of the
idea? Is the theory any simpler, or more accurate in less steps, better in
concept in the same amount of steps, therefore, easier, or more practical to
use?
Does it kill bugs?
If it exactly matches the existing theory, and lends understanding too, then
that's got to be a good thing too, but it must bear out to prove itself
better in some manner or another, and without exception, if it is to replace
the existing model.
My own feeling is that there has to be a material connection to the
immaterial. The has to be a point where Relativity translates into our
reality. It would seem to me that this transition level is the domain where
the most practical theory fits.
How can light be both partical and wave?
It's that simple.
island
>
> island пишет в сообщении ...
> >
> >Mark Samokhvalov <samokh...@mtu-net.ru> wrote in message
> >news:8gaj7c$cuc$1...@gavrilo.mtu.ru...
> >
> >> >>> >since light would move through Euclidean space in an absolute
> >> >>> >perfect straight line, and in one constant stream of motion,
> >> >>> >having no frequency of occurrence, rather than in packets or
> >> >>> >quanta of light energy. The fact that light occurs in gathered
> >> >>> >packets of related or similar energy, rather than as a single,
> >> >>> >unhindered, straight-line wave,
> >
> >> There're no such facts - light interactions with matter are quantized
in
> >> accordance with quantum states of matter. Thus, quanta emitted by
atomic
> >> electrons can interact with conduction electrons of a mirror to produce
> >> sub-quanta of the former frequency.
> >
> >Could you please explain this in greater detail? I don't see how it
> applies
> >to what I said.
> There are continuous (unhindered) waves propagating in one direction
> (straight line),
That's arguable, and I don't buy it.
> ...spherical, or planar. A narrow beam (line) is a superposition of many
coherent continuous waves.
But that's not arguable, (in my opinion), and is also near-exactly what my
understanding is. There can, therfore be no perfect line, only
superimpositions of such, which also contradicts what you've just said.
There are also waves
> generated by individual electron transitions (quanta). The opinion was,
that
> they continue to propagate as such, i.e., the surface of a spherical wave
> made up of few quanta at great distances from the source will become
patchy:
> the appearance of light at any of its points will no longer be continuous,
> but will become a statistical event, but I don't know such exps. On the
> other hand, there've been exps showing, that interaction with
> semi-tansparent mirrors splits quanta into parts unable to activate a
> photodetector by themselves (sub-quanta).
That's essentially the same understanding that I get from my concept, and so
I'll buy into what you say, (above), because to date, the concept always
bears out to be predictively correct, or most accurate, even when I'm the
dummy, and am wrong about a given interpretation of it.
island
>While there are *some* aether models whose aethers have not been
> disproven (precisely because they are operationally equivalent to special
> relativity), there are plenty of models with "luminiferous aether"
> that *have* been disproven.
I'd have to ask then:
Wouldn't an ether model that is operationally equivalent to SR be preferred
over SR for its physical implication?
Paul Stowe
writes:
>
>djm...@aol.com (Dennis) says...
>
>> Dennis: What relativists mean by "detected" is always interesting.
>> Apparently, they don't think a medium is "detected" even if you
>> can observe the effects of its drag, momentum, currents, and waves.
>
>ether momentum, we *don't* observe ether currents. We do observe
>electromagnetic waves, but there is no evidence that they are "ether
>waves".
Bull, you meen that a magnetic or electric field can't do "no work'.
As for drag, it doesn't manifest itself in orbital motion, but for
anything no so confined it will. See the Pioneer Effect...
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
writes:
>
>Nathan Urban <nur...@crib.corepower.com> wrote in message
>news:8gbdo8$m5v$1...@crib.corepower.com...
>
thing
>> that is called "the luminiferous aether", which hasn't been
>> disproven. In fact, there are many different "luminiferous
>> aether models", most of which have been disproven by experiment.
>> The ones that haven't been disproven are precisely the ones that
>> have aethers that are intrinsically undetectable.
We note again, that this phrase 'intrinsically undetectable' as in, we
can't see the effects of, is flat out false. To even state this with
any modicum of sincerity is defacto evidence of unscientific bias.
>Okay, Nathan, points taken. I'm defining one thing, that I have
>specifically in mind, but there are other approaches that don't work.
>I have to admit that I've noticed that some posts do contain some
>"interesting" postulates about something that doesn't match my idea of
>ether. Some are close, but others... WHEW!!! ;-)
But that's the nature of exploration. In the end, quantifications by
observations sorts out what's possible or impossible. That which
remains possible, and matches observations, cannot be rejected on
scientific grounds.
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
writes:
>
>
>Nathan Urban <nur...@crib.corepower.com> wrote in message
>news:8gbdo8$m5v$1...@crib.corepower.com...
>
>> disproven (precisely because they are operationally equivalent to
special
>> relativity), there are plenty of models with "luminiferous aether"
>> that *have* been disproven.
>
>I'd have to ask then:
>
>Wouldn't an ether model that is operationally equivalent to SR be
>preferred over SR for its physical implication?
I hate to be the one to tell you this (as if you can't figure it out
for youself), you've asked the wrong person. You'll no more get an
objective answer than 2 + 2 equals 6.
Paul Stowe
François Bourassa
Mark>>> If you're going to refer to the vacuum as an ether, you'll have
>>> to at least do it right. The vacuum is not a substance. It's
>>> convenient to think of it that way, but it isn't necessary.
>>
>> But where do newly-born particles come from? And where do sink
>> in after annihilation?
>and momentum of the system. For example if a transition between a
>state made of two electrons and a state made of two muons does not
>violate the conservation of 4-momentum there is a priori a non zero
>probability it can occurs. Since we use quantum mechanics we are
>only interested in knowing this probability because this is what we
>can measure. Your question lies therefore outside our current
>models.
>
Mark was trying to make... "Where" does the "new" matter come from when you
have some sort of "reaction" was is argument in favor of the existence of an
aether.
This matter has got to come from somewhere... as he said;)
Wow, I didnt think my little question would trigger such a debate!
Most of which I dont understand, even if I try (with my litle bases I got as
an engineer, now switching to physics;-)
Mark Samokhvalov
island пишет в сообщении ...
>
>news:20000522170822...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >island wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I did make a real mistake though, saying that the M-M experiment was
>done
>> >in
>> >> the late 1900's... should have been the late 19th century, or the late
>> >> 1800's, 1891, I think?
>> >
>> Kolker: >1885. There was an earlier interferometer, but it was so
>sensitive to
>> >surrounding vibrations as to make its readings meaningless. Michealson
>> >design his experiment to measure the movement of the earth relative to
>> >the Aether and he did not expect a null outcome. For the rest of his
life
>> >he tried to refine his measurements to get what he was seeking. He never
>> >did.
>>
>> Dennis: Michelson-Gale (which had light move around a rectangle) was
>decidedly
>> non-null.
>>
>> Kolker: If Aether exists (I doubt it myself) it is such that it cannot be
>> >detected
>>
>Apparently,
>> they don't think a medium is "detected" even if you can observe the
>effects of
Sterilization & health results isn't proof of bacteria, but a good
phenomenologic solution. That's what SR does in physics, at least, in a RF
at rest wrt ether. Proof of bacteria is their electron photos and, better
still, bacterial cultures. Proof of ether are particle production &
anihilation, but best proof will come, when we learn to manipulate it.
Refusing to accept the bacteria hypothesis, we would now have no
biotechnology. Rejecting ether, we give up hope for artificial matter.
>
>The material relationship to the effects of drag, momentum, currents, and
>waves, is very apparent, but are they otherwise explained, and/or are they
>necessary for the theory to work?
>
>In other words, does it matter? Is the theory any better because of the
>idea? Is the theory any simpler, or more accurate in less steps, better in
>concept in the same amount of steps, therefore, easier, or more practical
to
>use?
>
> Does it kill bugs?
A phenomenological theory can kill bugs not knowing, what it kills.
>
>If it exactly matches the existing theory, and lends understanding too,
then
>that's got to be a good thing too, but it must bear out to prove itself
>better in some manner or another, and without exception, if it is to
replace
>the existing model.
>
>My own feeling is that there has to be a material connection to the
>immaterial.
That's a bad mixture - it's got to be consistently material.
The has to be a point where Relativity translates into our
>reality. It would seem to me that this transition level is the domain
where
>the most practical theory fits.
>
>How can light be both partical and wave?
It can't, and it isn't - it's a wave, but in some processes it can more
easily be treated as a particle.
>
>It's that simple.
>
>
Mark Samokhvalov
Dennis McCarthy пишет в сообщении
<20000522172152...@ng-cr1.aol.com> ...
>
>Urban:
>>Allow me to repeat myself: there are many specific aether models that
>>may be argued against because they are experimentally disproven or at
>>best ill-defined. There is plenty of reason to argue against, say,
>>the aether crackpots in this newsgroup, because most of their claims
>>about the existence of an aether are simply wrong.
>>
>>(depending on whether there errors are in predicting something that
>>does not agree with experiment, or are merely mathematical errors).
>>disproven (precisely because they are operationally equivalent to special
>>relativity),
>
drag
>in space) are distinguishable from SR. And experiments or observations
that
>test the differences (like Brillet-Hall or Pioneer effect) are consistent
with
>the ether theory and not SR.
>
>>that *have* been disproven.
>>
>>Your error is in assuming that there is some well-defined unique thing
>>that is called "the luminiferous aether", which hasn't been disproven.
>>In fact, there are many different "luminiferous aether models", most
>>of which have been disproven by experiment. The ones that haven't been
>>disproven are precisely the ones that have aethers that are intrinsically
>>undetectable.
>
people
>say that something is "undetectable" when its theoretical effects can't be
>detected. But this is not what Urban means, as obviously interference
effects,
>Doppler,
Doppler doesn't rely on ether (eg., in air), so do frequency, interference.
Be more careful.
Sagnac, frequency, magnetism, electricity, etc, are all observable
>effects of the ether.
> Usually, what they mean by "undetectable" is that despite all of the
observed
>media-type effects, a difference in speed of its waves can't be detected.
But
>even with this rather odd definition of "undetectable" the statement is
still
>false. Sagnac, of course, reveals a difference in speed of light waves.
>Moreover, it is even possible (at least certainly not physically
impossible)
>that an MM moving wrt the surface of the Earth could reveal anisotropy.
> This would "detect" an ether (even given the relativist defintion of the
>word)--and such a possibility has not been disproven.
This is Your weakest point - MM on the Earth, had it not been
methodologically flawed, would have detected at least Earth rotation.
>
>
>Dennis McCarthy
>
François Bourassa
Newton wasn'tsatisfied with is theory of gravitaion, even though it was
great, just because he didn't know WHY!
I think thats the spirit that too many lose from sight!
island a écrit dans le message ...
>
>Nathan Urban <nur...@crib.corepower.com> wrote in message
>news:8gbdo8$m5v$1...@crib.corepower.com...
>
>>While there are *some* aether models whose aethers have not been
>> disproven (precisely because they are operationally equivalent to special
>> relativity), there are plenty of models with "luminiferous aether"
>> that *have* been disproven.
>
François Bourassa
Daryl McCullough a écrit dans le message
>Except that we *don't* observe ether drag, we *don't* observe ether
>momentum, we *don't* observe ether currents. We do observe electromagnetic
>waves, but there is no evidence that they are "ether waves".
It struck me, big time, while reading the FAQ theres an experiment noted
there goes like this:
"6: Thirring-Lenze
A balanced, freely rotating ring made from a highly dense material (such as
tungsten) is centered around a compass type, inertial needle. The ring does
not touch the needle. With this system in a vacuum, the ring is rotated at a
high rate of speed. Since the ring is balanced and in no way touches the
needle there should be no unbalanced forces acting on or through the needle
and the needle would not be expected to move. However, if a physical medium
pervades space, the rotation of the ring will result in a vortex forming at
the center of rotation. Since the needle exists in this vortex the needle
will experience rotational drag and assume the rotational speed of the ring.
This was a result predicted by general relativity (dragging the inertial
frame) and identified 1915."
Wow... if GR predicts it, then GR DOES implicitly say that there's an Aether
of some sort, unless you can find another explanation for that phenomenon.
However, I wonder why there is no drag in space?
My insight on this is as follow. As aether should be massless but has an
inertial mass (strange) as shown by the TL experiment.
By "classic" fluid mechanics we know
D=Dp+Df
1)Df=0 there *is* fluids with a friction coefficient=0 (liquid helium for
one) so aether must be too.
2) As the other part of the drag is pressure... aether, being massless must
be pressureless too.
(I throw this in theair) Ether currents... solar winds??
At first I thougth that Aether made absolutely nsense, because of the
notions we are thougth in school, now I wonder:)
Nathan Urban
> This was a result predicted by general relativity (dragging the inertial
> frame) and identified 1915."
> Wow... if GR predicts it, then GR DOES implicitly say that there's an Aether
> of some sort, unless you can find another explanation for that phenomenon.
"Dragging of the inertial frames" is not at all the same thing as
"aether drag", if that's what you're thinking. It's a well-understood
effect of the curvature of spacetime. GR can describe this phenomenon
but does not make use of an aether to do so.
Nathan Urban
> My own feeling is that there has to be a material connection to the
> immaterial.
I presume "matter" and "aether" are material, and "curvature" and
"spacetime" are immaterial? Do you think that a material aether is
required in order for geometric facts to be important to material objects?
> The has to be a point where Relativity translates into our reality.
I don't know what this means. Relativity is always part of our reality,
as far as we know. If you mean, where do human beings start easily
noticing the effects, that happens at high speeds, energies, etc.
> How can light be both partical and wave?
Do you think that has something to do with the aether too, or is that a
side question?
In any case, as Feynman, it's not that light is both a particle and a
wave, it is _neither_ a particle _nor_ a wave (but has aspects of both).
Specifically, in quantum mechanics we just have wavefunctions, which
give the probability of making some measurement within some region.
This *probability distribution* can be "wave-like", and when we make a
highly localized measurement the resul can be as if we'd seen a particle.
Nathan Urban
> Nathan Urban <nur...@crib.corepower.com> wrote in message
> news:8gbdo8$m5v$1...@crib.corepower.com...
> > While there are *some* aether models whose aethers have not been
> > disproven (precisely because they are operationally equivalent to special
> > relativity), there are plenty of models with "luminiferous aether"
> > that *have* been disproven.
> Wouldn't an ether model that is operationally equivalent to SR be preferred
> over SR for its physical implication?
When you have two models that are operationally equivalent, you are
perfectly free to choose whichever you prefer. Most physicists today
prefer special relativity for several reasons. The main reason is an
application of Occam's Razor: aether theories complicate themselves
by adding unnecessary entities. What is the sense of postulating
an aether with physical properties when you can't find out what any
of those properties are? Furthermore, how do you construct a material
model of the aether and test it? Either the aether has properties of
matter that we just can't detect in principle (so why do we need it?),
or we can detect them (but haven't, usually ruling out that aether model),
or it lacks properties of ordinary matter (and then what's the point?).
Moreover: why do you think the "physical implications" of aether theory
are preferable to the geometry of relativity? It's a fact that geometry
plays a role in the behavior of matter and our measurements of it. This
is what leads to certain queries between unnamed parties such as: "What
is the material (non-geometric) cause of the fact that a pole can't fit
through a doorway sideways but can upon being rotated?" To a physicist,
demanding an aether to explain relativistic effects is like demanding
an aether to answer the above question. And if the above question has
its answer in geometry (namely that the pole's length projected upon the
plane of the doorframe is foreshortened upon rotation) then why can't
other questions have their answers in the geometry of relativity?
Physicists may tend to feel that the aether proponents are being
somewhat hypocritical for this reason. In ordinary situations the
geometry around us is Euclidean, but we take this fact for granted so
much that we ignore the fact that this geometry plays a role in our
physical world. Relativity is merely the acknowledgement that geometry
can play a role in less obvious ways. Because some people don't even
recognize the role of Euclidean geomtry for what it is (even in flat,
Euclidean space you still can't do away with the fact that lengths and
angles are physically important), the role of geometry in relativity
becomes very bizarre to them; they can't accept that geometry can play
a role in physics because they're not accustomed to thinking about how
it influences physics even without relativity.
In short, relativity is a result of refusing to take for granted what
many people take for granted, and showing how this way of thinking
about things results in a both broader and simpler model than what
might otherwise be produced by someone still with the blinders on, so
to speak. Many modern physicists view it as rather Procrustean to try
to fit everything in physics into the bed of materialism -- they believe
that there is no reason to assume that the universe must work a certain
way (such as in a purely materialistic manner), so one might as well
take the simplest assumptions that work without regard to the theory's
"intuitiveness". Human beings are of course accustomed to thinking of
things in terms of materialistic models since that's what our minds
are most evolved to thinking about, but that doesn't mean that _our_
intuition for how the universe "should" be is correct.
Much of physics consists of retraining one's intuition to both
experimental facts and theory -- with the implicit recognition that
you will have to readjust one's intuitions as new theories come along.
You can probably imagine the difficulty that Einstein's contemporaries
had in adjusting to a non-aether description of things, particularly
when they themselves had produced aether theories (even ones equivalent
to Einstein's special theory, as with Lorentz). But they still did,
because once they saw the alternative they came to believe that the
aether was a kludge, a stopgap based on materialistic prejudices that
was no longer necessary once they saw that it was possible to transcend
those prejudices. (And replace them with new ones, the aether proponents
would be quick to add, but it's worth noting that a lot of these people
were originally staunch aether believers and switched for a reason.)
Now, as I've pointed out, special relativity and Lorentz ether theory
are experimentally indistinguishable. What I've been trying to explain
is not why special relativity is "right", but just the physicist's
perspective on aether theory (and theorists) and why they don't think
that an aether theory is preferable. Of course I don't speak for all
physicists but I think the stated views are fairly close to most of
those on this newsgroup.
I might also add that Lorentz ether theory does not appear to
provide a ready explanation for why relativistic effects appear in
non-electromagnetic phenomena, nor is it obvious how to make any kind of
aether work in a way that's compatible not only with special relativity
but also with experimentaly verified facts from general relativity.
But I'm sure that some people think they have an idea of how to do that.
Mark Samokhvalov
Nathan Urban пишет в сообщении <8gdkb3$umm$1...@crib.corepower.com> ...
>In article <sijm1a...@corp.supernews.com>, "island"
<isl...@sundial.net> wrote:
>
>> My own feeling is that there has to be a material connection to the
>> immaterial.
>
>I presume "matter" and "aether" are material, and "curvature" and
>"spacetime" are immaterial?
Yes, without matter they can exist only as abstract ideas (but then, again,
in material heads). Curvature of what? Space? But its only property is that
it can contain matter. "Spacetime" is just nonsense - there can be no time
without matter. These concepts can be defined to be used in algorithms, as
in relativity, but they're devoid of physical meaning.
Do you think that a material aether is
>required in order for geometric facts to be important to material objects?
Facts of geometry of matter (=ether), to be exact.
>
>> The has to be a point where Relativity translates into our reality.
>
>I don't know what this means. Relativity is always part of our reality,
>as far as we know. If you mean, where do human beings start easily
>noticing the effects, that happens at high speeds, energies, etc.
>
>> How can light be both partical and wave?
>
>Do you think that has something to do with the aether too, or is that a
>side question?
>
>In any case, as Feynman, it's not that light is both a particle and a
>wave, it is _neither_ a particle _nor_ a wave (but has aspects of both).
>Specifically, in quantum mechanics we just have wavefunctions, which
>give the probability of making some measurement within some region.
>This *probability distribution*
Of what? Particles, or E(x..,t)? This can be resolved experimentally.
can be "wave-like", and when we make a
>highly localized measurement the resul can be as if we'd seen a particle.
That's right - when we measure the result of a wave's interaction with an
object, whose dimensions are much smaller, than the wavelength - in this
case, the rest of the wave doesn't interest us.
Mark Samokhvalov
FranГois Bourassa пишет в сообщении
>
>Daryl McCullough a Иcrit dans le message
>>Except that we *don't* observe ether drag, we *don't* observe ether
>>momentum, we *don't* observe ether currents. We do observe electromagnetic
>>waves, but there is no evidence that they are "ether waves".
>
>
>It struck me, big time, while reading the FAQ theres an experiment noted
>there goes like this:
>
>"6: Thirring-Lenze
>A balanced, freely rotating ring made from a highly dense material (such as
>tungsten) is centered around a compass type, inertial needle. The ring does
>not touch the needle. With this system in a vacuum, the ring is rotated at
a
>high rate of speed. Since the ring is balanced and in no way touches the
>needle there should be no unbalanced forces acting on or through the needle
>and the needle would not be expected to move. However, if a physical medium
>pervades space, the rotation of the ring will result in a vortex forming at
>the center of rotation. Since the needle exists in this vortex the needle
>will experience rotational drag and assume the rotational speed of the
ring.
>frame) and identified 1915."
>
>Wow... if GR predicts it, then GR DOES implicitly say that there's an
Aether
>of some sort, unless you can find another explanation for that phenomenon.
>
Ether drag by the predominant gravitational field of a body (nearby objects
are attracted to it) seems highly probable to me, but not the explanation of
the Thirring effect, for which I'd look for an alternative explanation.
>
>My insight on this is as follow. As aether should be massless but has an
>inertial mass (strange)
Not at all. With the ether crystal concept, etherons making up the regular
crystal (vacuum) aren't attracted to anything (have no gravitational mass),
but have an inertial mass, which accounts for the kinetic energy and
determines c.
Mark Samokhvalov
Nathan Urban пишет в сообщении <8gbdo8$m5v$1...@crib.corepower.com> ...
>In article <siic53...@corp.supernews.com>, "island" <isl...@sundial.net>
>
>> > In article <sig08j...@corp.supernews.com>, "island"
>> <isl...@sundial.net> wrote:
>
>> > > Einstein showed us that Michaelson's ether isn't necessary for
light's
>> > > propagation through "empty" space, via his quantified packets of
>> > > light-energy, (photons),
>
>> > Photons didn't have anything to do with the non-existence of aether.
>
>> How do you figure that? Everything that I've ever read on the subject
>> argues counter to your statement. Einstein's photons don't need to wave
>> luminiferous ether in order for light to propagate through empty space,
>> whereas Huygens wave theory did.
>
>Einstein's photons were not a complete description of light,
>merely an approximation that worked well in certain circumstances.
>What Einstein did to kill the need for an aether on a classical level
>was to develop special relativity. (This is also what finally convinced
>his contemporaries working on aether theories, not his photon work.)
>Later on, a true quantum (and relativistic) theory of light was developed
>by Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga: quantum electrodynamics.
>
>> how light could propagate through empty space, which has a LOT to do with
>> the need for the existence or the non-existence of ether.
>
>Newton had "corpuscles of light" too, but they didn't fully work as
>descriptions for optical phenomena either. That's why the wave model
>ultimately won out, and that's why later a fully quantum description of
>light (that included a wave-like nature) was necessary before photons
>could work.
>
>
because
>> > they are experimentally disproven or at best ill-defined.
>
any
>> experiment.
>
>may be argued against because they are experimentally disproven or at
>best ill-defined. There is plenty of reason to argue against, say,
>the aether crackpots in this newsgroup, because most of their claims
>about the existence of an aether are simply wrong.
If one claim is correct, who's the crackpot?
>
>This is not a "difference of opinion"; it is an experimental/logical fact
>(depending on whether there errors are in predicting something that
>does not agree with experiment, or are merely mathematical errors).
>While there are *some* aether models whose aethers have not been
>disproven (precisely because they are operationally equivalent to special
>relativity), there are plenty of models with "luminiferous aether"
>that *have* been disproven.
There's a profound difference between a phenomenological theory, that aims
only at establishing true mathematical relationships between known
phenomena - sometimes, with heuristic results-, and a model compatible with
these phenomena - the latter, if not perfect, disproves itself, whereas the
former cannot disprove a model and can disprove itself (given, it's
mathematically correct) only, when it comes up against new facts, as was the
case with relativity and Sagnac effect; the latter is much more complex &
difficult, but, when successfully achieved, sparks off a technological
revolution, which the former never does. And then, of course, ether, being
off-stream, is pursued mostly by disorganized crackpots & pensioners,
whereas, to be successfull, it needs co-ordination and the resources of a
Manhatan project.
>
>Your error is in assuming that there is some well-defined unique thing
>that is called "the luminiferous aether", which hasn't been disproven.
>In fact, there are many different "luminiferous aether models", most
>of which have been disproven by experiment. The ones that haven't been
>disproven are precisely the ones that have aethers that are intrinsically
>undetectable.
The favourite relativistic lie. When detected, an appropriate algorithm
appearing to be compatible with RT formalism will be devised and imposed as
a better alternative, even if the ends don't meet, as is the case with
Sagnac, which in RT is explained as a measurable difference of CW & CCW
travel times with constant c over over unmeasurable different paths
Mark Samokhvalov
Luc Bourhis пишет в сообщении
<01HW.B54F18A90...@news.freeserve.net> ...
>On Mon, 22 May 2000 7:25:26 +0100, Mark Samokhvalov wrote
>(in message <8gajjn$df6$1...@gavrilo.mtu.ru>):
>
>>> to at least do it right. The vacuum is not a substance. It's
>>> convenient to think of it that way, but it isn't necessary.
>>
>> But where do newly-born particles come from? And where do sink
>> in after annihilation?
>and momentum of the system.
What system? Of electrons in an atom, a crystal. And in vacuum?
For example if a transition between a
>state made of two electrons and a state
State, IMO, of the ether crystal.
made of two muons does not
>violate the conservation of 4-momentum there is a priori a non zero
>probability it can occurs. Since we use quantum mechanics we are
>only interested in knowing this probability because this is what we
>can measure. Your question lies therefore outside our current
>models.
There've been such in ancient times: wind without air, fire without
combustibles.
>
>
>> In crystal physics, the fermi surface is the result of the crystal's
>> structure. In vacuum?
>A Fermi surface is by definition the result of the total
>antisymmetry of the wave function of a system of Fermions, a.k.a.
>Pauli's exclusion principle. This is why it exists in perfect
>Fermionic fluid, that is to say without interactions between
>particles.
Trash. If they don't interact, how does everyone of them know, whether a
state is occupied?
By the way note that the Fermi sphere is well-defined
>only at low temperature since this is the limit as T->0 of the
>exact Fermi-Dirac distribution.
>
>--
>Luc Bourhis
>
alan
>
> Nathan Urban <nur...@crib.corepower.com> wrote in message
> news:8gbdo8$m5v$1...@crib.corepower.com...
>
>> While there are *some* aether models whose aethers have not been
>> disproven (precisely because they are operationally equivalent to special
>> relativity), there are plenty of models with "luminiferous aether"
>> that *have* been disproven.
>
> I'd have to ask then:
>
> Wouldn't an ether model that is operationally equivalent to SR be preferred
> over SR for its physical implication?
>
>
No. It requires an unproven postulate -- the aether.
Matter234
>
>Daryl McCullough a écrit dans le message
>>Except that we *don't* observe ether drag, we *don't* observe ether
>>momentum, we *don't* observe ether currents. We do observe electromagnetic
>>waves, but there is no evidence that they are "ether waves".
>
>
>It struck me, big time, while reading the FAQ theres an experiment noted
>there goes like this:
>
>"6: Thirring-Lenze
>A balanced, freely rotating ring made from a highly dense material (such as
>tungsten) is centered around a compass type, inertial needle. The ring does
>not touch the needle. With this system in a vacuum, the ring is rotated at a
>high rate of speed. Since the ring is balanced and in no way touches the
>needle there should be no unbalanced forces acting on or through the needle
>and the needle would not be expected to move. However, if a physical medium
>pervades space, the rotation of the ring will result in a vortex forming at
>the center of rotation. Since the needle exists in this vortex the needle
>will experience rotational drag and assume the rotational speed of the ring.
>This was a result predicted by general relativity (dragging the inertial
>frame) and identified 1915."
>
>Wow... if GR predicts it, then GR DOES implicitly say that there's an Aether
>of some sort, unless you can find another explanation for that phenomenon.
>
>However, I wonder why there is no drag in space?
>
>My insight on this is as follow. As aether should be massless but has an
>inertial mass (strange) as shown by the TL experiment.
>
>By "classic" fluid mechanics we know
>D=Dp+Df
>
>1)Df=0 there *is* fluids with a friction coefficient=0 (liquid helium for
>one) so aether must be too.
>2) As the other part of the drag is pressure... aether, being massless must
>be pressureless too.
>
>(I throw this in theair) Ether currents... solar winds??
>
>At first I thougth that Aether made absolutely nsense, because of the
>notions we are thougth in school, now I wonder:)
I think, maybe, you found out the common sense way of looking at things.
Etherists see a material effect (like Thirring-Lenze), and know a substance
(ether) has to cause the material effect. Relativists, on the other hand, see
no need for a substance in their explanation of the cause of the material
effect. They see descriptions (space and time), as causing the differences in
their calculations of space and time, in experiments. Which seems like circular
reasoning to me.
Louis Savain
da...@cogentex.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
> djm...@aol.com (Dennis) says...
>
> >Dennis: What relativists mean by "detected" is always interesting.
> > Apparently, they don't think a medium is "detected" even if you
> >can observe the effects of its drag, momentum, currents, and waves.
>
> momentum, we *don't* observe ether currents. We do observe
> electromagnetic waves, but there is no evidence that they are "ether
> waves".
Ether drag is a stupid concept, a legacy of the crackpot minds of the
last two centuries. The aether does not inhibit motion, it facilitates
it! I am saying, in effect, that *acausal* motion (a darling of the
con establishment) is pure crackpottery. No aether = no motion. The
primary purpose of the aether is to serve as a causal energetic field
for motion, including the motion of photons. It is not, as the
aetherists claim, a fluid for the propagation of waves.
The electrostatic field of an electron is proof of the existence of a
particulate aether. Leave it to the con establishment to come up with
something as lame and chicken shit as "virtual" photons to explain the
charge of an electron. One can easily extrapolate from observing the
charge of the electron that the aether is organized as a regular 4-D
lattice of photons. At each discrete position in the lattice there is
a huge number of photons of various energies, from the minimum Planck
energy to photons having energies equivalent to those of the most
massive particles in existence.
Louis Savain
-100 years of relativity and still not a fucking clue as to the causal
mechanism of gravity. What's up with that?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
François Bourassa
>>My insight on this is as follow. As aether should be massless but has an
>>inertial mass (strange)
>
>crystal (vacuum) aren't attracted to anything (have no gravitational mass),
>but have an inertial mass, which accounts for the kinetic energy and
>determines c.
Thats exactly what I was trying to say:)
François Bourassa
>"Dragging of the inertial frames" is not at all the same thing as
>"aether drag", if that's what you're thinking. It's a well-understood
>effect of the curvature of spacetime. GR can describe this phenomenon
>but does not make use of an aether to do so.
Well, what is the dragging of the inertial frames anyways, whats the
physical explanation to that?
Dennis McCarthy
>
>
>On Mon, 22 May 2000 22:43:21 +0100, Dennis McCarthy wrote
>(in message <20000522174321...@ng-cr1.aol.com>):
>
>> Dennis: You miss the point. We first must clarify what would
>> and would not be evidence of an invisible underlying medium, so
>> that we may use such criteria for all situations where some
>> scientist hypothesizes the existence of an invisible medium.
Bourhis: >One does at least need a model of this medium able to predict any
>observable quantity predicted by our current best theories.
Dennis: You are now arguing that **no observed effect* can be evidence of a
medium if "current best theories" predict observable quantities not predicted
by a medium theory?
>> "Now, just as water is made up of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas
>> constituents, baryons are made up of baryon gas consitutents (aka "ether"
>or
>> "sub-quark-gluon plasma.")
Bourhis: >We have quantitative models of water which predicts its
>liquefaction temperature in function of its pressure,
Dennis: Sorry. That was predicted by Boscovish theory (a non-Material
theory)--and equations first. Then atomists (atmospherists) argued that the
unobservable molecules were responsible for the effect. Etherists like 19th
century atomists think it's quite comical to believe that matter can pop out of
nothingness.
Bourhis: Anyway this is pure crackpotery because
>of the terrific differences between a volume of water and a baryon.
Dennis: Today, pseudo-positivists such as yourself thinks baryons can pop out
of nothingness. At the end of the 19th century, postivists like Mach thought
water could pop out of nothingness.
That seems like magic to me no matter who believes it.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>
>djm...@aol.com (Dennis) says...
>
>>Dennis: What relativists mean by "detected" is always interesting.
>Apparently,
>>they don't think a medium is "detected" even if you can observe the effects
>of
>>its drag, momentum, currents, and waves.
>
ether
>momentum,
Dennis: Gravity, magnetism, and the Pioneer effect are all examples of drag or
momentum effects of the ether. And before you say that modern physicists have
other non-material explanations for such phenomena (except for Pioneer
effect--they're stumped there), scientists of the past had other non-material
explanations for wind, pressure and atmospheric drag as well.
Just because you think gravity and magnetic forces are bodiless (as past
physicists thought drag and pressure were bodiless), doesn't mean that they are
not also predictions and evidence of an underlying material medium.
--Dennis
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>
>Daryl McCullough a écrit dans le message
>>waves, but there is no evidence that they are "ether waves".
>
>
noted
>there goes like this:
>
>"6: Thirring-Lenze
>A balanced, freely rotating ring made from a highly dense material (such as
>tungsten) is centered around a compass type, inertial needle. The ring does
>not touch the needle. With this system in a vacuum, the ring is rotated at a
>high rate of speed. Since the ring is balanced and in no way touches the
>needle there should be no unbalanced forces acting on or through the needle
>and the needle would not be expected to move. However, if a physical medium
>pervades space, the rotation of the ring will result in a vortex forming at
>the center of rotation. Since the needle exists in this vortex the needle
>will experience rotational drag and assume the rotational speed of the ring.
>This was a result predicted by general relativity (dragging the inertial
>frame) and identified 1915."
>
>Wow... if GR predicts it, then GR DOES implicitly say that there's an Aether
>of some sort, unless you can find another explanation for that phenomenon.
Dennis: Great use of a quote.
Francois: >However, I wonder why there is no drag in space?
Dennis: Well, there is a tremendous drag on all objects that try to move upward
or away from an object--as if it were trying to move upstream. The only
difference is that the ether predicts an extra drag effect due to velocity wrt
this space. Such a drag effect has been observed in space (even more than the
drag of gravity) on the Pioneers.
Francois: >My insight on this is as follow. As aether should be massless but
has an
>inertial mass (strange) as shown by the TL experiment.
Dennis: Ether doesn't have to be massless, particularly since it affects the
momentum of observed objects, as with magnetism or gravity.
Francois: >By "classic" fluid mechanics we know
>D=Dp+Df
>
>1)Df=0 there *is* fluids with a friction coefficient=0 (liquid helium for
>one) so aether must be too.
>2) As the other part of the drag is pressure... aether, being massless must
>be pressureless too.
>
>(I throw this in theair) Ether currents... solar winds??
>
>At first I thougth that Aether made absolutely nsense, because of the
>notions we are thougth in school, now I wonder:)
Dennis: You seem to have an open mind--so be prepared to be attacked by
relativists.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
Matter: >I think, maybe, you found out the common sense way of looking at
things.
>Etherists see a material effect (like Thirring-Lenze), and know a substance
>(ether) has to cause the material effect. Relativists, on the other hand, see
>no need for a substance in their explanation of the cause of the material
>effect. They see descriptions (space and time), as causing the differences in
>their calculations of space and time, in experiments. Which seems like
>circular
>reasoning to me.
Dennis: Way to go, matter.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>
>djm...@aol.com (Dennis) says...
>
>> "Now, just as water is made up of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas
>>constituents, baryons are made up of baryon gas consitutents (aka "ether" or
>>apparent void be evidence of the fact that material constituents of water
>>always existed in undetectable states in the background void ...**AND YET**
>the
>>ripping of baryons out of an apparent void is not evidence of the...exact..
>>same...thing?
>
McCullough: >Well, gases liquefy when you cool them to very low temperatures
>(that is, when you take away energy). Particle production occurs
>at very *high* energy. So, the two processes don't seem
>very similar to me.
Dennis: 1) The reason why Democritus, Huygens, Herapath, Boyle, etc., thought
molecules existed was **not** because cold was the culprit in solidification.
Instead, they simply thought it was laughably absurd to argue that matter
disappeared or popped out of nothingness--no matter what the reason. That's
what witches do on TV. They disappear and pop out of nothing.;-)
2) Add energy to a background gas of hydrogen and oxygen and out pops
detectable water.
McCullough: >Particle production is more like boiling than it is like freezing.
Dennis: It's more like creating water out of hydrogen and oxygen.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>In article <sijm1a...@corp.supernews.com>, "island" <isl...@sundial.net>
>wrote:
>
>> My own feeling is that there has to be a material connection to the
>> immaterial.
>
Dennis: Usually when people say an object is "material" they mean it has
extension and inertial mass (or comprised of particles that do.)
Urban: and "curvature" and
>"spacetime" are immaterial? Do you think that a material aether is
>required in order for geometric facts to be important to material objects?
Dennis: If I may answer for Island: Geometry is obviously important. It's just
that you need material (defined above) to create a material effect (ie, an
acceleration, or a physical change.) I'd rather be hit in the head with the
Pythagorean theorem or an equation than something large and material.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>Dennis McCarthy said:
>
>> What relativists mean by "detected" is always interesting. Apparently,
>> they don't think a medium is "detected" even if you can observe the effects
>of
>> its drag, momentum, currents, and waves.
>
ether
>drag, momentum, currents, or waves.
Dennis: Only if you think immaterial ghost
forces pushing magnets around are "better interpretations" than material
contact explanations of a medium theory. And you obviously don't think these
are better interpretations because below you argue that the push of a sail boat
is "clear evidence" of a material medium.
>>Even if objects comprising the
>> medium
>> suddenly become large enough to detect, they would rather believe that
>> particles pop out of nothingness than conser that as evidence of a
>background
>> material medium.
>
>No serious physicist believes that a particle pops out of nothingness (no
>matter how well that matches your mis-interpretation of what they DO
>believe.) There are no Feynman diagrams with nothing coming in and things
>going out.
Dennis: Allegedly they create matter out of masslessness.
>
>> Ask a relativist just when and why he would have believed in the atmosphere
>> (or when the atmosphere was "detected"), and they usually won't admit any
>of
>> its effects were evidence for the atmosphere until the observed effects
>taking
>> place in the 20th century. Following the same logic, they also would have
>> denied the existence of germs, genes, etc.
>
Alan: >People were sailing ships before there was writing. I think that is
pretty
>clear evidence of an atmosphere. Where is my ship that sails on the aether
>wind?
Dennis: LOL. Another relativist argues that the push of a sailboad is "clear
evidence" of an invisible material medium. While what you say is certainly and
obviously true, relativists can't argue that because of course they could
always be convinced that wind is a bodiless field force that responds to
certain equations.
I mean, we can create magnetic sails--and magnetic sail boats, flowing across
the water being pushed by magnetism. We can also create thin iron stalks that
wave in a magnetic wind.
Thus, unless you just have had a revelation, I take it you no longer think such
effects are "clear evidence" of an invisible material medium.
Dennis McCarthy
François Bourassa
>Francois: >However, I wonder why there is no drag in space?
>
>Dennis: Well, there is a tremendous drag on all objects that try to move
upward
>or away from an object--as if it were trying to move upstream. The only
>difference is that the ether predicts an extra drag effect due to velocity
wrt
>this space. Such a drag effect has been observed in space (even more than
the
>drag of gravity) on the Pioneers.
Never heard of that effect, knew about the gravity drag though no one would
believe me:)
>
>Francois: >My insight on this is as follow. As aether should be massless
but
>has an
>>inertial mass (strange) as shown by the TL experiment.
>
>Dennis: Ether doesn't have to be massless, particularly since it affects
the
>momentum of observed objects, as with magnetism or gravity.
Well it can possibly have an inertial mass yet having no gravitationnal
mass. I don't remeber who I think it was Newton who said that he was
surprised that the inertial mass and gravitationnal masses are always the
same...
>
>Francois: >By "classic" fluid mechanics we know
>>D=Dp+Df
>>
>>1)Df=0 there *is* fluids with a friction coefficient=0 (liquid helium for
>>one) so aether must be too.
>>2) As the other part of the drag is pressure... aether, being massless
must
>>be pressureless too.
>>
>>(I throw this in theair) Ether currents... solar winds??
>>
>>At first I thougth that Aether made absolutely nsense, because of the
>>notions we are thougth in school, now I wonder:)
>
>Dennis: You seem to have an open mind--so be prepared to be attacked by
>relativists.
They can, I'm ready:)
Nathan Urban
> >"Dragging of the inertial frames" is not at all the same thing as
> >"aether drag", if that's what you're thinking. It's a well-understood
> >effect of the curvature of spacetime. GR can describe this phenomenon
> >but does not make use of an aether to do so.
> Well, what is the dragging of the inertial frames anyways,
Roughly, it's the tendency for an object in free fall to be carried with
the rotation of a gravitating body. Outside a rotating black hole,
it's possible (within the ergosphere) for this effect to be so strong
that you can't *not* orbit in the direction of rotation of the hole.
> whats the physical explanation to that?
It's due to how the curvature in spacetime "twists" around a rotating
body. Personally, I find the four-dimensional geometry of the situation
hard to visualize (like most 4D geometry), but it falls directly out of
GR's predictions about spacetime curvature.
Paul Stowe
Urban) writes:
>
>In article <BHDW4.3292$BD1.1...@weber.videotron.net>, "François
Bourassa" <franc...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> >"Dragging of the inertial frames" is not at all the same thing
>> >as "aether drag", if that's what you're thinking. It's a
>> >well-understood effect of the curvature of spacetime. GR can
>> >describe this phenomenon but does not make use of an aether to
>
>> Well, what is the dragging of the inertial frames anyways,
>
>Roughly, it's the tendency for an object in free fall to be carried
Translation, in other words its like what would naturally happen in any
physical medium when something within it is rotating...
>Outside a rotating black hole, it's possible (within the ergosphere)
>for this effect to be so strong that you can't *not* orbit in the
>direction of rotation of the hole.
Sound familiar, think water flowing into a sink drain...
>> whats the physical explanation to that?
>
>It's due to how the curvature in spacetime "twists" around a
>rotating body.
Bwah ha ha ha. I truly love to se GRist squirm when they *try* to
explain this. In physical terms it's the transfer of angular momentum
from the spinning body to the physical field that's interacting with
it.
>Personally, I find the four-dimensional geometry of the situation
>hard to visualize (like most 4D geometry), but it falls directly
>out of GR's predictions about spacetime curvature.
Translation, I don't know but it comes out of GR's equations.
Paul Stowe
MLuttgens
(Dennis McCarthy) wrote :
>Subject : Re: Aether?
>From : djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy)
>Date : 24 May 2000 01:32:13 GMT
>
>>
>>
>>Daryl McCullough a écrit dans le message
>>>Except that we *don't* observe ether drag, we *don't* observe ether
>>>momentum, we *don't* observe ether currents. We do observe electromagnetic
>>>waves, but there is no evidence that they are "ether waves".
>>
>>
>Francois: >It struck me, big time, while reading the FAQ theres an experiment
>noted
>>there goes like this:
>>
>>"6: Thirring-Lenze
>>A balanced, freely rotating ring made from a highly dense material (such as
>>tungsten) is centered around a compass type, inertial needle. The ring does
>>not touch the needle. With this system in a vacuum, the ring is rotated at a
>>high rate of speed. Since the ring is balanced and in no way touches the
>>needle there should be no unbalanced forces acting on or through the needle
>>and the needle would not be expected to move. However, if a physical medium
>>pervades space, the rotation of the ring will result in a vortex forming at
>>the center of rotation. Since the needle exists in this vortex the needle
>>will experience rotational drag and assume the rotational speed of the ring.
>>This was a result predicted by general relativity (dragging the inertial
>>frame) and identified 1915."
>>
>>Wow... if GR predicts it, then GR DOES implicitly say that there's an Aether
>>of some sort, unless you can find another explanation for that phenomenon.
>
>Dennis: Great use of a quote.
>
>Francois: >However, I wonder why there is no drag in space?
>
>Dennis: Well, there is a tremendous drag on all objects that try to move
>upward
>or away from an object--as if it were trying to move upstream. The only
>difference is that the ether predicts an extra drag effect due to velocity
>wrt
>this space. Such a drag effect has been observed in space (even more than the
>drag of gravity) on the Pioneers.
>
>Francois: >My insight on this is as follow. As aether should be massless but
>has an
>>inertial mass (strange) as shown by the TL experiment.
>
>Dennis: Ether doesn't have to be massless, particularly since it affects the
>momentum of observed objects, as with magnetism or gravity.
>
>Francois: >By "classic" fluid mechanics we know
>>D=Dp+Df
>>
>>1)Df=0 there *is* fluids with a friction coefficient=0 (liquid helium for
>>one) so aether must be too.
>>2) As the other part of the drag is pressure... aether, being massless must
>>be pressureless too.
>>
>>(I throw this in theair) Ether currents... solar winds??
>>
>>At first I thougth that Aether made absolutely nsense, because of the
>>notions we are thougth in school, now I wonder:)
>
>Dennis: You seem to have an open mind--so be prepared to be attacked by
>relativists.
>
>
>Dennis McCarthy
Did you read the paper by Amitabha Gosh in Progress in
New Cosmologies: Beyond the Big Bang, 1993, pp.305-326,
entitled: Astrophysical and Cosmological Consequences of
Velocity-Dependent Inertial Induction:
"There has not been a single proof in favour of cosmological
expansion and the non-Euclidian nature of space."
The main objectives of his paper are as follows:
1. The gravitational interaction betweeen two particles will
be expended to include the dynamic terms depending on
relative velocity and acceleration.
2. It will be shown that such an interaction of a particle with
the rest of the universe (...) results in a small velocity-dependent
drag force over and above the acceleration-dependent force
ma. This yields also an exact equivalence between gravitational
and inertial masses. Furthermore, the small velocity-dependent
drag force will be shown to be responsible for the cosmological
redshifts.
etc...
Consequences of the theory:
Interaction of photons with matter:
Excess redshift in Solar Spectrum, redshift from white
dwarfs, redshift of photons grazing a massive object.
Interaction of matter with matter:
Secular retardation of Earth rotation, secular acceleration
of Phobos, transfer of angular momentum, radial matter
distribution in spiral galaxies, formation time of globular
clusters, etc...
Marcel Luttgens
Daryl McCullough
>Dennis: Gravity, magnetism, and the Pioneer effect are all examples of drag
No, they are not. Drag forces are in the opposite direction of the
velocity. Magnetic forces are perpendicular to velocity. Picky detail,
I suppose, but it rules out your idea that magnetism is a drag force.
Another difference: Drag forces are dissipative; eventually, a particle
will come to rest with respect to the medium. Magnetic forces, on the
other hand, have no effect on the kinetic energy of a particle. They
change the *direction* of the velocity, but not its magnitude (and
thus have no effect on kinetic energy).
Similarly, gravity is nothing like a drag force. As I said, a drag
force is in the opposite direction of the velocity. The force of
gravity is independent of the direction of velocity (at least in
the Newtonian limit).
Conclusion: There are no observed drag forces due to motion
through the ether.
Daryl McCullough
CoGenTex, Inc.
Ithaca, NY
Daryl McCullough
>Dennis: 1) The reason why Democritus, Huygens, Herapath, Boyle, etc., thought
>molecules existed was **not** because cold was the culprit in solidification.
So what? We're not talking about philosophical prejudices, we're talking
about empirical evidence. The point is that there is no observed
"freezing" of ether.
Paul Stowe
writes:
>Dennis says...
>
>> Dennis: 1) The reason why Democritus, Huygens, Herapath,
>> Boyle, etc., thought molecules existed was **not** because
>> cold was the culprit in solidification.
>
> So what? We're not talking about philosophical prejudices,
> we're talking about empirical evidence. The point is that
> there is no observed "freezing" of ether.
We'll give you that one Daryl, there's probably no way for
ether *to freeze*. This requires field effects (namely
electrostatic forces) and those are NOT present between
etherons. Liquification or solidification are not part of
the etheron interaction repertoire...
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
writes:
>
>Dennis says...
>
You failed to address Pioneer...
Paul Stowe
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis: Most theories use an "unproven postulate." Do you think constancy of c
wrt all inertial observers has been proved?
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>wrote:
>
>> Nathan Urban <nur...@crib.corepower.com> wrote in message
>> news:8gbdo8$m5v$1...@crib.corepower.com...
>
>> > While there are *some* aether models whose aethers have not been
>> > disproven (precisely because they are operationally equivalent to special
>> > relativity), there are plenty of models with "luminiferous aether"
>> > that *have* been disproven.
>
>> over SR for its physical implication?
>
>perfectly free to choose whichever you prefer. Most physicists today
>prefer special relativity for several reasons. The main reason is an
>application of Occam's Razor: aether theories complicate themselves
>by adding unnecessary entities.
Dennis: Arguing that the hypothesis of hidden material causes adds "unnecessary
entities" (and so should not be preferred) has led scientists of the past to
favor falsified theories over the presently-accepted approach throughout the
history of science. All other sciences have rejected such a philosophy, and
routinely posit hidden material explanations of phenomena. Such an attitude
would have led to arguments against the germ theory of disease ("why do we need
'germs' if we can systematize symptoms?") , arguments against the gene theory
of heredity ("why do we need material genes if the proabilistic equations
already predict the results of heredity"), and, of course, Mach's argument
against atoms ("Why do we need atoms and molecules when the equations already
predict the results"?)
I would not feel too comfortable following a method of reasoning that has
always led to the wrong conclusion in the past.
Urban: What is the sense of postulating
>an aether with physical properties when you can't find out what any
>of those properties are?
Dennis: We can find some of these properties out eventually--just as eventually
we were able to discover properties of the molecules and atoms of the
hypothesized "sea of air"--which is that "unnecessary" entity that serves as
the medium for wind, pressure, and sound.
Urban:
Furthermore, how do you construct a material
>model of the aether and test it?
Dennis: This is explained via etherists. I contend there will be less than
expected Sagnac effects in the orbits of the planets and most moons.
Urban: Either the aether has properties of
>matter that we just can't detect in principle (so why do we need it?)
Dennis: We can detect more properties of the ether today, then we could detect
of the atmosphere in the early 18th century.
Urban: >or we can detect them (but haven't, usually ruling out that aether
model),
>or it lacks properties of ordinary matter (and then what's the point?).
Dennis: I agree that a very magical ether would be pointless.
Urban: >Moreover: why do you think the "physical implications" of aether
theory
>are preferable to the geometry of relativity? It's a fact that geometry
>plays a role in the behavior of matter and our measurements of it.
Dennis: It has always been a superstition of man that their symbolic
descriptions of events (words, cave drawings, equations, geometry) actually can
have a physical effect (cause an acceleration a physical change, etc.) on those
events. 2000 years of accepted material causes of practicially all phenomena
throughout all science (biology, hydrodynamics, statistical mechanics,
evolution, etc.) should have put an end to that superstition, but alas it
hasn't.
Urban: This
>is what leads to certain queries between unnamed parties such as: "What
>is the material (non-geometric) cause of the fact that a pole can't fit
>through a doorway sideways but can upon being rotated?"
Dennis: I would hope no Etherist would ask that question. Obviously, material
causes are used for physical effects (ie, an acceleration or a physical change
of some sort.) One doesn't need a material cause for geometric
relationships--such as why is a rectangular doorway longer in one direction
than another. The etherist question is what is the material cause of the
physical differentiation of the clocks or twins in the twin paradox. Two
physically differentiated clocks is a physical effect. The fact that a
rectangle is longer in one direction than another is not a physical effect (the
way materialists define the term) but a geometric attribute. One doesn't
require material causes for geometric attributes.
To a physicist,
>demanding an aether to explain relativistic effects is like demanding
>an aether to answer the above question. And if the above question has
>its answer in geometry (namely that the pole's length projected upon the
>plane of the doorframe is foreshortened upon rotation) then why can't
>other questions have their answers in the geometry of relativity?
Dennis: If by "other questions," you mean "Why can't a physical effect( ie, an
acceleration or physical differentiation) have a purely geometric cause?" the
answer is that it is, of course, possible. It just happens that the premise
that all material effects have material causes has been empirically confirmed
throughout all scientific observations of the last few thousand years
(disregarding the subject of our dispute), so it's an extremely well
established and inductively probable premise.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>
>Dennis says...
>
>>Dennis: Gravity, magnetism, and the Pioneer effect are all examples of drag
>
>No, they are not. Drag forces are in the opposite direction of the
>velocity.
Dennis: You are right that is the common connotation, but I'm not sure that
it's specifically defined that way. An eastward 50 MPH wind blowing against an
eastward car moving 30 MPH feels a force to the East doesn't it? If you don't
want to call that force, "drag" fine. We'll call it the "momentum effect."
Either way, using your definition of drag (that it has to be against velocity),
the Pioneer effect is an example of a drag effect as is objects moving upward
against gravity.
McCullough: Magnetic forces are perpendicular to velocity. Picky detail,
>I suppose, but it rules out your idea that magnetism is a drag force.
Dennis: Magnetism is an example of "ether momentum." You had also written, "We
*don't* observe ether momentum." The Pioneer effect is an example of the "drag
effect" as you define it. Also moving upward against gravity is another
example of the drag effect.
McCullough: >Another difference: Drag forces are dissipative; eventually, a
particle
>will come to rest with respect to the medium.
Dennis: 1) The velocity of the Pioneers is heading toward zero wrt the medium.
2) A ball moves upward, stops, and accelerates downward, this is an example of
an object whose velocity continuously approaches the velocity of the medium.
McCullough: Magnetic forces, on the
>other hand, have no effect on the kinetic energy of a particle. They
>change the *direction* of the velocity, but not its magnitude (and
>thus have no effect on kinetic energy).
Dennis: Magnets also alter the magnitude of velocity of magnets (and so its
kinetic energy.)
McCullough: >Similarly, gravity is nothing like a drag force. As I said, a drag
>force is in the opposite direction of the velocity.
Dennis: When a ball moves upward, it's like a boat moving against current. It
suffers "drag"--according to your definition. When the ball stops and moves
downward, it's like a boat being stopped and then pushed with the current.
McCullough: The force of
>gravity is independent of the direction of velocity (at least in
>the Newtonian limit).
Dennis: Nope. Gravity has been observed to be slightly greater for objects
moving away from gravitational objects. You are forgetting the very drag-like
Pioneer effect.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
Also, it must be noted: The Materialistic corollary that all material effects
have material causes has predicted confirmed effects throughout all fields of
science, including biology, hydrodynamics, kinetic theory of gasses, atomic
theory, etc. As SR/QM and the relativist view of physics does not contain such
a prediction, then this scientific view is lacking all of these successful
predictions.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>>
>>>Dennis: Gravity, magnetism, and the Pioneer effect are all examples
>of drag
>>
>>No, they are not. Drag forces are in the opposite direction of the
>>I suppose, but it rules out your idea that magnetism is a drag force.
>>
>particle
>>other hand, have no effect on the kinetic energy of a particle. They
>>change the *direction* of the velocity, but not its magnitude (and
>>thus have no effect on kinetic energy).
>>
>>gravity is independent of the direction of velocity (at least in
>>the Newtonian limit).
>>
>>through the ether.
>
Dennis: He also neglected the obvious drag effects of gravity and magnetism.
"Drag" usually defined is simply the force that results when there is relative
velocity wrt the object and the medium. Thus, the force of 100 MPH eastward
wind on a 90 MPH eastward moving car is often defined as "drag"--even though
the force accelerates the object in the same direction as it is moving. But
even if we take McCullough's definition of drag (which is, in fact, how most
lay people think of it), gravity and magnetism exhibit drag effects. Propel a
boat against current, and then turn off the engine.
The boat slows when moving upstream (drag,) eventually stops, and then
accelerates in the opposite direction (in the direction of the current of the
stream.) The same thing happens when you throw a ball in the air or push two
like sides of a magnet together (assuming something prevents the magnets from
flipping.)
There's the slowing against velocity, the momentary rest, and then the
acceleration in the opposite direction.
But you are right that he neglected the Pioneer effect which is an obvious
example of drag that also works according to his definition: in the opposite
direction of their velocity.
Dennis McCarthy
alan
> Dennis: Only if you think immaterial ghost
> forces pushing magnets around are "better interpretations" than material
> contact explanations of a medium theory. And you obviously don't think these
> are better interpretations because below you argue that the push of a sail
> boat
> is "clear evidence" of a material medium.
No immaterial ghost forces. Just geometry. It may be geometry that is
unfamiliar to you, but it is geometry non-the-less.
As for sail boats, yes, the pushing of a sail boat is clear evidence of a
material medium, and it is this evidence that is lacking for the ether.
Like I said, where is my ether sailboat?
alan
>> No serious physicist believes that a particle pops out of nothingness (no
>> matter how well that matches your mis-interpretation of what they DO
>> believe.) There are no Feynman diagrams with nothing coming in and things
>> going out.
>
> Dennis: Allegedly they create matter out of masslessness.
More correctly, energy can be converted to matter. And vice versa.
Dennis McCarthy
>
>>Francois: >However, I wonder why there is no drag in space?
>>
>>Dennis: Well, there is a tremendous drag on all objects that try to move
>upward
>>or away from an object--as if it were trying to move upstream. The only
>>difference is that the ether predicts an extra drag effect due to velocity
>wrt
>>this space. Such a drag effect has been observed in space (even more than
>the
>>drag of gravity) on the Pioneers.
>
one would
>believe me:)
Dennis: Check LANL E-print archives. Search under "Pioneer Effect."
>>Francois: >My insight on this is as follow. As aether should be massless
>but
>>has an
>>>inertial mass (strange) as shown by the TL experiment.
>>
>>Dennis: Ether doesn't have to be massless, particularly since it affects
>the
>>momentum of observed objects, as with magnetism or gravity.
>
>
Francois: >Well it can possibly have an inertial mass yet having no
gravitationnal
>mass.
Dennis: The proportionality of inertial mass and gravitational mass has been
explained via various ether theories within the experimentally testable domain.
However, the ether (causing gravitation) would have interial mass--without
having any gravitational mass (ie, an inherent power to attract that is
proportional to its inherent mass.)
Francois: I don't remeber who I think it was Newton who said that he was
>surprised that the inertial mass and gravitational masses are always the
>same...
Dennis: Within the observed domain, this is true. But Newton I think addressed
this issue specifically--and did not expect gravitational mass to be an
inherent aspect to all matter.
>>
>>Francois: >By "classic" fluid mechanics we know
>>>D=Dp+Df
>>>
>>>1)Df=0 there *is* fluids with a friction coefficient=0 (liquid helium for
>>>one) so aether must be too.
>>>2) As the other part of the drag is pressure... aether, being massless
>must
>>>be pressureless too.
>>>
>>>(I throw this in theair) Ether currents... solar winds??
>>>
>>>At first I thougth that Aether made absolutely nsense, because of the
>>>notions we are thougth in school, now I wonder:)
>>
>>Dennis: You seem to have an open mind--so be prepared to be attacked by
>>relativists.
>
>
Francois:>They can, I'm ready:)
Dennis: Good luck. ;-)
Dennis McCarthy
Daryl McCullough
>An eastward 50 MPH wind blowing against an
>eastward car moving 30 MPH feels a force to the East doesn't it? If you don't
>want to call that force, "drag" fine.
No, it's not a drag force.
>We'll call it the "momentum effect."
>Either way, using your definition of drag (that it has
>to be against velocity), the Pioneer effect is an example
>of a drag effect as is objects moving upward
>against gravity.
I have no idea what the "Pioneer effect" is.
>McCullough: Magnetic forces are perpendicular to velocity. Picky detail,
>>I suppose, but it rules out your idea that magnetism is a drag force.
>
>Dennis: Magnetism is an example of "ether momentum."
No, it's not.
>Also moving upward against gravity is another
>example of the drag effect.
No, it's not. Energy "lost" due to gravity is
recovered when the object drops. That's the
difference between dissipative and nondissipative
forces.
Dennis McCarthy
>
>Dennis says...
>
>>Dennis: 1) The reason why Democritus, Huygens, Herapath, Boyle, etc.,
>thought
>>molecules existed was **not** because cold was the culprit in
>solidification.
>
talking
>about empirical evidence.
Dennis: So you think it was a "philosophical prejudice" for Democritus and
Materialists such as Boyle, Herapath, Waterston, etc, to use evaporation and
condensation as evidence of the molecular and atomic theory?
The point is that given the Materialism of Democritus, Torricelli, Boyle,
Herapath, etc, the sudden appearance of objects from a seeming background void
is "empirical evidence" of the fact that the material of the object existed in
an undetectable state in this seeming background void.
The same thing occurs with baryons--so Materialists consider this as evidence
of the existence of sub-baryon material in the vaccum.
Denying this is evidence obviously puts you squarely against the arguments for
the atomic theory made by past scientists.
You tried to counter by bringing up the irrelevant and inaccurate
difference that the formation of material from invisible gasses occurs for the
lowering of temperatures--while with baryons you have to add energy.
This is irrelevant because the fact that cold was the culprit in
solidification had nothing to do with the Materialist argument. (It was the
popping out of nothing that was germane.)
And it's inaccurate because you can add energy to hydrogen and oxygen and make
detectable water.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>>
>>> Dennis: 1) The reason why Democritus, Huygens, Herapath,
>>> Boyle, etc., thought molecules existed was **not** because
>>> cold was the culprit in solidification.
>>
>> there is no observed "freezing" of ether.
>
>ether *to freeze*. This requires field effects (namely
>electrostatic forces) and those are NOT present between
>etherons. Liquification or solidification are not part of
>the etheron interaction repertoire...
Dennis: Exactly. But I think this is irrelevant to the side issure anyway: The
main issue is whether the sudden appearance of objects from a seeming
background void is "empirical evidence" of the fact that the material of the
object existed in an undetectable state in this seeming background void. If
they don't think it is, then they are rejecting yet another argument for the
atomic/molecular theory of matter and gasses.
Moreover, in the past, some relativists have argued that the "clincher" in
terms of evidence of the molecular theory of gasses would have been
liquefication of oxygen.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>
>
>Dennis McCarthy said:
>
>>> No serious physicist believes that a particle pops out of nothingness (no
>>> matter how well that matches your mis-interpretation of what they DO
>>> believe.) There are no Feynman diagrams with nothing coming in and things
>>> going out.
>>
>> Dennis: Allegedly they create matter out of masslessness.
Alan: >More correctly, energy can be converted to matter. And vice versa.
Dennis: And if you think of energy as a bodiless, massless aura (or if you
believe that energy does not necessarily describe or comprise a system of
particles with inertial mass), then inertial mass is somehow popping into
existence from a background location of inertial masslessness. This is also
what witches do on TV shows when they snap their fingers or wiggle their noses.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>
>Dennis McCarthy said:
>
>> Dennis: Only if you think immaterial ghost
>> forces pushing magnets around are "better interpretations" than material
>> contact explanations of a medium theory. And you obviously don't think
>these
>> are better interpretations because below you argue that the push of a sail
>> boat
>> is "clear evidence" of a material medium.
Alan: >No immaterial ghost forces. Just geometry. It may be geometry that is
>unfamiliar to you, but it is geometry non-the-less.
Dennis: Well, if you can believe geometry can accelerate a magnet or for that
matter a falling object, then you can obviously believe that geometry can
accelerate a sailboat. So the acceleration of a sailboat would not be
evidence, according to you, of a hypothetical underlying invisible material
system.
Alan: >As for sail boats, yes, the pushing of a sail boat is clear evidence of
a
>material medium, and it is this evidence that is lacking for the ether.
>Like I said, where is my ether sailboat?
Dennis: And like I answered: "We can create magnetic sails--and magnetic sail
boats, flowing across the water being pushed by magnetism." That's an example
of "ether sailboats." (Also, an object falling to the ground is an example of
an ether sailboat as well.)
So if you really still agree that the acceleration of an object (whether
sailboat or magnet) without any visible contact with a material object is
evidence of underlying invisible material system, then welcome to the winning
side.
Dennis McCarthy
alan
>> Alan: People were sailing ships before there was writing. I think that is
>> pretty
>> clear evidence of an atmosphere. Where is my ship that sails on the aether
>> wind?
>
> Dennis: LOL. Another relativist argues that the push of a sailboad is "clear
> evidence" of an invisible material medium. While what you say is certainly
> and
> obviously true, relativists can't argue that because of course they could
> always be convinced that wind is a bodiless field force that responds to
> certain equations.
??
Not likely. It does behave in a way that can be described by certain
equations, but they are the equations of fluid dynamics. Hence, without
knowing anything of gas molecules, or the chemical composition of the
atmosphere, or even of the possibility of pressures which are very different
from atmospheric pressure (such as a vacuum), one could conclude that the
atmosphere is a "material medium".
> I mean, we can create magnetic sails--and magnetic sail boats, flowing across
> the water being pushed by magnetism.
And the behavior (and equations of description) would be vastly different
from the fluid dynamics equations of the invisible material atmosphere with
its fluid dynamics equations.
> We can also create thin iron stalks that
> wave in a magnetic wind.
And their behavior is described by equations which are vastly different from
the fluid dynamics equations of the atmosphere.
> Thus, unless you just have had a revelation, I take it you no longer think
> such
> effects are "clear evidence" of an invisible material medium.
See above.
alan
>> No, they are not. Drag forces are in the opposite direction of the
>> velocity.
>
> Dennis: You are right that is the common connotation, but I'm not sure that
> it's specifically defined that way. An eastward 50 MPH wind blowing against
> an
> eastward car moving 30 MPH feels a force to the East doesn't it?
The velocity of the wind wrt the car is to the east. So, the velocity of
the car wrt the wind is to the west. The drag force is in the opposite
direction.
Nathan Urban
> I have no idea what the "Pioneer effect" is.
It's the effect discussed in gr-qc/9808081.
Daryl McCullough
>Dennis: So you think it was a "philosophical prejudice" for Democritus and
>Materialists such as Boyle, Herapath, Waterston, etc, to use evaporation and
>condensation as evidence of the molecular and atomic theory?
No, I said that I would consider evaporation and condensation
as evidence of a material ether. But there is no such evidence.
Daryl McCullough
>Dennis: And if you think of energy as a bodiless, massless aura (or if you
>believe that energy does not necessarily describe or comprise a system of
>particles with inertial mass), then inertial mass is somehow popping into
>existence from a background location of inertial masslessness. This is also
>what witches do on TV shows when they snap their fingers or wiggle their noses.
Yes, to a scientific illiterate, science is indistinguishable from magic.
Dennis McCarthy
>
>Dennis McCarthy said:
>
>>> No, they are not. Drag forces are in the opposite direction of the
>>> velocity.
>>
>> Dennis: You are right that is the common connotation, but I'm not sure
>that
>> it's specifically defined that way. An eastward 50 MPH wind blowing
>against
>> an
>> eastward car moving 30 MPH feels a force to the East doesn't it?
Alan: >The velocity of the wind wrt the car is to the east. So, the velocity
of
>the car wrt the wind is to the west. The drag force is in the opposite
>direction.
Dennis: It's in the opposite direction of the velocity of the object relative
to the medium, yes. This is a good definition of "drag." Now, that we are
agreed on terminology, as I said, gravity and the Pioneer effects are examples
of ether drag.
Dennis McCarthy
alan
>>>> No serious physicist believes that a particle pops out of nothingness (no
>>>> matter how well that matches your mis-interpretation of what they DO
>>>> believe.) There are no Feynman diagrams with nothing coming in and things
>>>> going out.
>>>
>>> Dennis: Allegedly they create matter out of masslessness.
>
> Alan: >More correctly, energy can be converted to matter. And vice versa.
>
> Dennis: And if you think of energy as a bodiless, massless aura
No, that is the New-Age Mystic view of energy, not the physicist definition.
> (or if you
> believe that energy does not necessarily describe or comprise a system of
> particles with inertial mass), then inertial mass is somehow popping into
> existence from a background location of inertial masslessness.
More correctly, energy can be converted to matter. And vice versa.
> This is also
> what witches do on TV shows when they snap their fingers or wiggle their
> noses.
No it isn't.
Dennis McCarthy
>
>Dennis McCarthy said:
>
>>> No, they are not. Drag forces are in the opposite direction of the
>>> velocity.
>>
>> Dennis: You are right that is the common connotation, but I'm not sure
>that
>> it's specifically defined that way. An eastward 50 MPH wind blowing
>against
>> an
>> eastward car moving 30 MPH feels a force to the East doesn't it?
Alan: >The velocity of the wind wrt the car is to the east. So, the velocity
of
>the car wrt the wind is to the west. The drag force is in the opposite
>direction.
Dennis: BTW, I agree this is an example of drag. It's McCullough who is
arguing that the example above is not a drag force.
Dennis McCarthy
Matter234
>
>>Dennis: And if you think of energy as a bodiless, massless aura (or if you
>>believe that energy does not necessarily describe or comprise a system of
>>particles with inertial mass), then inertial mass is somehow popping into
>>what witches do on TV shows when they snap their fingers or wiggle their
>noses.
>
Why would anybody think that the magical thinking in modern physics is science?
Dennis McCarthy
>>An eastward 50 MPH wind blowing against an
>don't
>>want to call that force, "drag" fine.
>
Dennis:
"When an object moves relative to a fluid, the fluid exerts a force on the
object. This force, which is referred to as a drag force..." --Giancoli,
General Physics, p. 253. Prentice-Hall Inc, NJ. (1984)
Even Alan (Darkcloud) has explained that the above car-wind is in fact an
example of a drag force. It's just that the force acts in the opposite
direction of the objects velocity **wrt the medium.**
D: >>We'll call it the "momentum effect."
>>Either way, using your definition of drag (that it has
>>to be against velocity), the Pioneer effect is an example
>>of a drag effect as is objects moving upward
>>against gravity.
>
Mccullough: >I have no idea what the "Pioneer effect" is.
Dennis: Well perhaps after you check out
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9808081, we will be able to honestly agree that
there is some evidence for drag.
>>McCullough: Magnetic forces are perpendicular to velocity. Picky detail,
>>>I suppose, but it rules out your idea that magnetism is a drag force.
>>
>>Dennis: Magnetism is an example of "ether momentum."
>
McCullough: >No, it's not.
Dennis: A statement is not an argument. According to ether theory, the
acceleration of magnets is due to the pressures and motion of the ether, so, by
definition, magnetism obviously is an example of the effects of "ether
momentum" according to ether theory.
But regardless of this point, certainly you must see that just a flat denial
is not really a valid argument, right? I mean, if someone argued that the
motion of leaves on a windy day is an example of "atmosphere momentum," do you
think the counter-argument, "No, it's not" is either convincing or rational?
D: >>Also moving upward against gravity is another
>>example of the drag effect.
McCullough:
>No, it's not. Energy "lost" due to gravity is
>recovered when the object drops. That's the
>difference between dissipative and nondissipative
>forces.
Dennis: Such potential/kinetic energy analyses taught to high-school students
are just retrofitted book-keeping methods used to gloss over the embarrassing
fact that both modern and classical action-at-a-distance analyses of gravity
violate conservation of momentum and energy (as classically defined.) Fire a
rocket up from the Earth (and naturally it doesn't have to fall back to Earth.)
As the rocket moves upward it steadily slows--losing kinetic energy. Where
did it go--and how is energy conserved? Enter the concept "potential energy'"
which is simply defined in such a way so that it exactly balances out the loss
of kinetic energy.
But, of course, the same exact analysis could be used for a boat that is
pushed upstream--and then released. The boat, like the upward moving ball,
steadily slows against the current, until it stops and returns, accelerating in
the opposite direction. If you just concentrate on the boat (and ignore the
river,) you could use the same mathematical kinetic energy (and potential
energy arguments)--saying that the energy "lost" as the boat moves upstream is
recovered when the object turns around and "falls" downstream.
However, and quite obviously, the drag force is still taking place with the
boat on the river--and the motion of the boat against the river is evidence of
this drag force (regardless of other ad hoc analyses and what others may want
to believe.)
Dennis McCarthy
Daryl McCullough
>
>>>djm...@aol.com (Dennis) says...
>>>An eastward 50 MPH wind blowing against an
>>>eastward car moving 30 MPH feels a force to the East doesn't it? If you
>>>don't want to call that force, "drag" fine.
>>
>McCullough: >No, it's not a drag force.
Never mind, you are right.
>Mccullough: >I have no idea what the "Pioneer effect" is.
>
>Dennis: Well perhaps after you check out
>http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9808081,
>we will be able to honestly agree that
>there is some evidence for drag.
I just looked at the abstract, but it sure doesn't
seem like evidence for a drag force to me. The force
was directed towards the sun, not opposite the velocity
of the spacecraft.
>>>Dennis: Magnetism is an example of "ether momentum."
>>
>McCullough: >No, it's not.
>
>Dennis: A statement is not an argument.
Sigh. The force of magnetism is perpendicular to the
velocity and proportional to the charge. How is that
like the force of any medium you've ever heard of?
>According to ether theory, the acceleration of
>magnets is due to the pressures and motion of
>the ether, so, by definition, magnetism obviously
>is an example of the effects of "ether
>momentum" according to ether theory.
That's a case of rationalization, not confirmed
prediction.
>D: >>Also moving upward against gravity is another
>>>example of the drag effect.
>
>McCullough:
>>No, it's not. Energy "lost" due to gravity is
>>recovered when the object drops. That's the
>>difference between dissipative and nondissipative
>>forces.
>
>Dennis: Such potential/kinetic energy analyses taught
>to high-school students
I think that you missed out when you were in high
school.
>are just retrofitted book-keeping
>methods used to gloss over the embarrassing
>fact that both modern and classical
>action-at-a-distance analyses of gravity
>violate conservation of momentum and energy
>(as classically defined.)
I couldn't care less. The fact is that there *is*
a conserved quantity in the motion of particles
under the influence of gravity, namely
1/2 mv^2 + gh
I couldn't care less whether you call it
"energy" or not. In contrast, there is
no known conserved quantity associated
with drag forces.
>Fire a rocket up from the Earth (and
>naturally it doesn't have to fall back to Earth.)
> As the rocket moves upward it steadily slows--losing kinetic
>energy. Where did it go--and how is energy conserved? Enter
>the concept "potential energy'" which is simply defined in
>such a way so that it exactly balances out the loss
>of kinetic energy.
>
> But, of course, the same exact analysis
>could be used for a boat that is
>pushed upstream--and then released.
No, the same analysis does not apply. You need to study
high school physics. Drag forces are not conservative,
while gravitational forces are conservative.
I can never tell whether you are *really* as ignorant
of physics as you seem, or whether you just pretend for
rhetorical purposes.
>If you just concentrate on the boat (and ignore the
>river,) you could use the same mathematical kinetic
>energy (and potential energy arguments)--saying that
>the energy "lost" as the boat moves upstream is
>recovered when the object turns around and "falls" downstream.
Please go back to high school. That is not true.
The difference is this: throw a ball into the air with
kinetic energy K corresponding to a velocity v. The ball
will slow to a stop and reverse itself. When the ball
returns to its initial position, the kinetic energy will
once again be K, corresponding to a velocity of -v.
Now, consider a boat on a river going upstream. Let
the velocity of the river be V. The boat has some
initial kinetic energy K (corresponding
to an initial velocity v). Let's assume v > V.
The boat slows to a stop and reverses itself. When
the boat returns to its initial position, its velocity
will be V. The initial kinetic energy is gone into the
water. The boat does not recover it.
Talk to me about drag forces when you have mastered
high school physics.
Paul Stowe
<dark...@mac.SendMeSpam.not.com> writes:
>
>> I mean, we can create magnetic sails--and magnetic sail boats,
>> flowing across the water being pushed by magnetism.
>
> And the behavior (and equations of description) would be vastly
> different from the fluid dynamics equations of the invisible
> material atmosphere with its fluid dynamics equations.
Really? Can you disignate these *vast* differences...
Paul Stowe
Dennis McCarthy
>>
>>>>djm...@aol.com (Dennis) says...
>>>>An eastward 50 MPH wind blowing against an
>>>>eastward car moving 30 MPH feels a force to the East doesn't it? If you
>>>>don't want to call that force, "drag" fine.
>>>
>>McCullough: >No, it's not a drag force.
>
>
>>Mccullough: >I have no idea what the "Pioneer effect" is.
>>
>>Dennis: Well perhaps after you check out
>>http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9808081,
>>we will be able to honestly agree that
>>there is some evidence for drag.
>
>seem like evidence for a drag force to me. The force
>was directed towards the sun, not opposite the velocity
>of the spacecraft.
Dennis: The spacecraft are moving away from the sun, and,(according to either
Le Sagian or IGS views) the ether is moving toward it. The velocity of all
objects wrt the background gravitational ether medium is always greatest away
from the gravitating object. If objects are moving away from the gravitating
object this velocity is even greater.
>
>>>>Dennis: Magnetism is an example of "ether momentum."
>>>
>>McCullough: >No, it's not.
>>
>>Dennis: A statement is not an argument.
>
McCullough; >Sigh. The force of magnetism is perpendicular to the
>velocity and proportional to the charge. How is that
>like the force of any medium you've ever heard of?
Dennis: 1) You missed the point completely. But to answer your question, lift
(as with airplanes) is a media force that acts perpendicular to velocity.
2) But that's not the point. Think of two magnets with the same signs facing
each other. Send the two magnets toward each other. They begin to slow, stop
and propel each other, right?
D:
>>According to ether theory, the acceleration of
>>magnets is due to the pressures and motion of
>>the ether, so, by definition, magnetism obviously
>>is an example of the effects of "ether
>>momentum" according to ether theory.
>
McCullough: That's a case of rationalization, not confirmed
>prediction.
Dennis: Maxwell's ether theory as well as all ether theories I know of predict
that the motion of magnets in magnetic fields is caused by the movement of the
ether. According to ether theory, this is an obvious example of "ether
momentum"
>>D: >>Also moving upward against gravity is another
>>>>example of the drag effect.
>>
>>McCullough:
>>>No, it's not. Energy "lost" due to gravity is
>>>recovered when the object drops. That's the
>>>difference between dissipative and nondissipative
>>>forces.
>>
>>Dennis: Such potential/kinetic energy analyses taught
>>to high-school students
>
McCullough: >I think that you missed out when you were in high
>school.
Dennis: Pithy. ;-)
D: >>are just retrofitted book-keeping
>>methods used to gloss over the embarrassing
>>fact that both modern and classical
>>action-at-a-distance analyses of gravity
>>violate conservation of momentum and energy
>>(as classically defined.)
>
McCullough: >I couldn't care less. The fact is that there *is*
>a conserved quantity in the motion of particles
>under the influence of gravity, namely
>
> 1/2 mv^2 + gh
>
>I couldn't care less whether you call it
>"energy" or not. In contrast, there is
>no known conserved quantity associated
>with drag forces.
Dennis: Objects moving against a very fast moving medium (and so experiencing
drag) would behave exactly the same as objects moving up and down in a
gravitational field as I explain below:
M>>Fire a rocket up from the Earth (and
>>naturally it doesn't have to fall back to Earth.)
>> As the rocket moves upward it steadily slows--losing kinetic
>>energy. Where did it go--and how is energy conserved? Enter
>>the concept "potential energy'" which is simply defined in
>>such a way so that it exactly balances out the loss
>>of kinetic energy.
>>
D: >> But, of course, the same exact analysis
>>could be used for a boat that is
>>pushed upstream--and then released.
>
McCullough: >No, the same analysis does not apply. You need to study
>high school physics. Drag forces are not conservative,
>while gravitational forces are conservative.
>
>I can never tell whether you are *really* as ignorant
>of physics as you seem, or whether you just pretend for
>rhetorical purposes.
Dennis: Yes, you're feelings toward my knowledge and me are quite clear. You
also insulted me for my ignorance due to your beliefs that:
1) one-way speed is not meaningful and not measurable in Galilean relativity
2) Galilean ether violates Galilean relativity.
3) Esynching doesn't have experimental consequences.
4) Drag is not the force that a wind exerts on a car if they are both moving to
the East (top of post.)
But perhaps, when we disagree it's not always due to my ignorance.
D:>>If you just concentrate on the boat (and ignore the
>>river,) you could use the same mathematical kinetic
>>energy (and potential energy arguments)--saying that
>>the energy "lost" as the boat moves upstream is
>>recovered when the object turns around and "falls" downstream.
>
McCullough: >Please go back to high school. That is not true.
>The difference is this: throw a ball into the air with
>kinetic energy K corresponding to a velocity v. The ball
>will slow to a stop and reverse itself. When the ball
>returns to its initial position, the kinetic energy will
>once again be K, corresponding to a velocity of -v.
>
>Now, consider a boat on a river going upstream. Let
>the velocity of the river be V. The boat has some
>initial kinetic energy K (corresponding
>to an initial velocity v). Let's assume v > V.
Dennis: Actually, we can, of course, assume just the opposite. Let's assume
V>>v such that (V+v)^2 is not appreciably different from V^2. So we start
with a river of elastic particles moving at V, and we propel an object against
this river at -v. The force against the object at all times is approximately
proportional to pV^2 where p is the density of the river. When the object is
first propelled against the river it will have a kinetic energy K corresponding
to a velocity -v. The object will slow to a stop and reverse itself. When the
object returns to its initial position, the kinetic energy will once again be
K, corresponding to a velocity of v.
McCullough:
>The boat slows to a stop and reverses itself. When
>the boat returns to its initial position, its velocity
>will be V.
Dennis: For V>>v, the velocity of the object will have essentially the same
magnitude when it returns to its initial position (v) as the velocity with
which it was first propelled against the river.
McCullough:
>Talk to me about drag forces when you have mastered
>high school physics.
Dennis: Again, I'm pretty sure I'm right about this point--as I am about other
recent ones. Indeed, relativists have even come forward and agreed with me on
a few of them, and so corrected you. So I'm not sure that it's my lack of
knowledge that is the problem.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>
>djm...@aol.com (Dennis) says...
>
>>Dennis: So you think it was a "philosophical prejudice" for Democritus and
>>Materialists such as Boyle, Herapath, Waterston, etc, to use evaporation and
>>condensation as evidence of the molecular and atomic theory?
>
>as evidence of a material ether.
Dennis: Materialists considered that evidence because they deem it silly to
argue that matter just pops in and out of nothingness. But I can't figure out
why you would think that evaporation and condensation is evidence of an
invisible material medium.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>djm...@aol.com says...
>
>>Dennis: And if you think of energy as a bodiless, massless aura (or if you
>>believe that energy does not necessarily describe or comprise a system of
>>particles with inertial mass), then inertial mass is somehow popping into
>>existence from a background location of inertial masslessness. This is also
>>what witches do on TV shows when they snap their fingers or wiggle their
>noses.
>
magic.
Dennis: Actually the empical observations don't seem magical at all. It's the
explanation that is commonly accepted that, well, has massive objects popping
out of nothingness (ie, areas without an particles of inertial mass at all.)
;-)
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>Dennis McCarthy said:
>
>>>>> No serious physicist believes that a particle pops out of nothingness
>(no
>>>>> matter how well that matches your mis-interpretation of what they DO
>>>>> believe.) There are no Feynman diagrams with nothing coming in and
>things
>>>>> going out.
>>>>
>>>> Dennis: Allegedly they create matter out of masslessness.
>>
>> Alan: >More correctly, energy can be converted to matter. And vice versa.
>>
Alan; >No, that is the New-Age Mystic view of energy, not the physicist
definition.
Dennis: Well, I'm glad we're agreed that thinking of energy as a bodiless,
massless aura is New-age goofy. So do you think energy must comprises material
bodies (ie, objects with inertial mass.)?
>> This is also
>> what witches do on TV shows when they snap their fingers or wiggle their
>> noses.
Alan: >No it isn't.
Dennis: Well, Samantha Stevens has inertial mass, so when she pops from
nothingness on TV, there is the sudden appearance of extra inertial mass--where
before that inertial mass did not exist.
Do you or do you not agree that inertial mass can suddenly appear in a
location where previously there had been no inertial mass at all?
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>
>In <B55179A6.6197%dark...@mac.SendMeSpam.not.com> alan
><dark...@mac.SendMeSpam.not.com> writes:
>>
>>> I mean, we can create magnetic sails--and magnetic sail boats,
>>> flowing across the water being pushed by magnetism.
>>
>> And the behavior (and equations of description) would be vastly
>> different from the fluid dynamics equations of the invisible
>> material atmosphere with its fluid dynamics equations.
>
Dennis: Well, Paul, let's first make sure he clarifies. Alan seems to be
arguing now that if a particular phenomenon adheres to equations that are
common to fluid (ie media) systems, then this, in turn, is evidence of that the
phenomenon is a fluid (media) system.
Is that right, Alan? Or do you want to amend this?
I just want to get straight what is and is not evidence for a medium...
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>Dennis McCarthy said:
>
>>> Alan: People were sailing ships before there was writing. I think that is
>>> pretty
>>> clear evidence of an atmosphere. Where is my ship that sails on the
>aether
>>> wind?
>>
>> Dennis: LOL. Another relativist argues that the push of a sailboad is
>"clear
>> evidence" of an invisible material medium. While what you say is certainly
>> and
>> obviously true, relativists can't argue that because of course they could
>> always be convinced that wind is a bodiless field force that responds to
>> certain equations.
Alan: >??
>Not likely. It does behave in a way that can be described by certain
>equations, but they are the equations of fluid dynamics.
Dennis: 1) Your argument was **not* that evidence for the atmosphere was that
its equations can be described by fluid dynamics. Your argument was that, (and
I quote): "People were sailing ships before there was writing. I think that is
pretty clear evidence of an atmosphere." The equations of fluid dynamics were
not known before there was writing. So I take it you now want to make an
addendum to your statement. You think there is evidence of an invisible medium
only if objects are accelerated without visible material contact **and** the
equations regarding the force can be described by fluid dynamics. So merely
the observation of sailboats moving in the wind "before there was writing" was
not really evidence according to you, right?
2) So if gravity can be described by the equations of fluid or ideal gas
dynamics, then you think this is evidence of the ether, right?
D: >> I mean, we can create magnetic sails--and magnetic sail boats, flowing
>across
>> the water being pushed by magnetism.
Alan: >And the behavior (and equations of description) would be vastly
different
>from the fluid dynamics equations of the invisible material atmosphere with
>its fluid dynamics equations.
Dennis: 1) Well, you had been arguing that the existence of sailboats "before
writing" was evidence. While I agree that wind pushing sailboats or leaves is
obvious evidence of something material in the wind, you now have amended this
statement.
2) So if the force of gravity responds to fluid or ideal gas dynamic equations,
then you would consider that evidence that gravity may be the result of the
ether, right?
>> We can also create thin iron stalks that
>> wave in a magnetic wind.
Alan: >And their behavior is described by equations which are vastly different
from
>the fluid dynamics equations of the atmosphere.
Dennis Same statement as above.
>> Thus, unless you just have had a revelation, I take it you no longer think
>> such
>> effects are "clear evidence" of an invisible material medium.
Alan: >See above.
Dennis: I have. You have now added the caveat that they have to respond to
fluid dynamic equations, thus, you apparently wouldn't have believed there was
any evidence of the atmosphere "before there was writing" or for that matter at
least until the work of Bernoulli in the 18th century. Democritus and others
posited its existence more than two thousand years ago. And Materialists like
Torricelli were arguing for its existence in the 17th century.
Dennis McCarthy
Bilge
Re: Aether? to usenet:
>In <slrn8ih1v...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>
>ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) writes:
>>
>>Paul Stowe said some stuff about
>> >But a field or 'sea' of such matterless particles does constitute an
>> >etherial medium, as defined by ancients and classical physics.
>>
>> In any view, the vacuum does not consist of boson seas. That
>> doesn't work. Think fermi surface.
>
>Who said anything about bosons?
>
To what "'sea' of such matterless particles" would you be referring if
not photons? Now that the neutrino has been determined to be non-zero,
that leaves out your basic fermion as a candidate for a see constructed
from massless objects.
Bilge
Mark Samokhvalov said some stuff about
>
>But where do newly-born particles come from? And where do sink in after
>annihilation?
I can hardly touch this in a post, but I can tell you where to
find all you want to know plus all of the details that would be
missing from any such synopsis:
(1) Any quantum book should mention why the klein-gordon eqn.
failed when first proposed, primarily for the difficulty in
interpreting the second-order time derivative.
(2) Chapt 1 of bjorken and drell concisely motivates and obtains basic
solns for the dirac equn. It gives diracs initial argument that
the reason electrons do not fall into the negative energy states
is that pauli blocking prevents it if all of the states are filled.
The filled states are 0.511 MeV below the "surface" or vacuum.
Raising an electron from one of the states leaves a hole, which
became the prediction that a positron had to exist. [it might seem
that one could argue the sign of the charge in the dirac eqn. is
arbitrary and therefore nonsense, but it only means that the dirac
eqn describes electrons and positrons symmetrically and any "sea"
of one implies a sea of the other along with it. I leave it as
an exercise to provide a reason the two would not annihilate).
At this point, discussion of the hole states is differed
until later in the book. I forget where, but there is a chapter
devoted to it. (I suggest this, because I'm familiar with it and
it's a very concise book, so there isn't a lot of froof and frills
to obscures the basic points, the dirac eqn. probably takes all
of 3-5 pages including a brief discussion of the electron magnetic
moment).
(3) Later, in the same book, the klein-gordon eqn. is resurrected
in the context of feynman's formalism. Since both fermions and
bosons must be solutions to the k-g eqn, the necessity of the
dirac "seas" as a physical object is not required, but remains
a convenient mechanism for intuitive value and since it is
indistinguishable from any other interpretation, one is free
to choose it as the "real" physical situation. The photon cannot
be reinterpreted as an infinite sea, however, since there is no
way to fill up such a sea through a pauli-blocking argument.
(4) That should pretty much keep you busy for a bit, but you might
further look into the similarities between field theory,
symmetry breaking and traditionally solid-state methods
of describing the same basic thing, such as ginzburg-landau
theory of phase transitions. You cannot pick a topic in
physics that doesn't look like every other topic once you
strip the context from it. While ether proponents recognize
some similarities between waves in free space and waves in
crystals, they fail to appreciate and strip out the context
that biased them to needing a medium in the first place, not
the least of which was their external vantage point for which
no such vantage point exists for the universe and from which
no external knowledge will be forthcoming.
>
>In crystal physics, the fermi surface is the result of the crystal's
>structure. In vacuum?
>>
Yes and no. The crystal's structure is determined by the pauli-exclusion
principle. So is the vacuum. You can sit outside the crystal and look in.
You can use information from experiments to determine approximately what
the electrons think it looks like from the inside. You can look inside
the universe to determine what it looks like from the inside but you
cant even look outside to the same extent that an electron sees a
boundary at the crystal edge, much less ask anyone outside to give you
an objective opinion. The electrons in a metal, for example have mean
free paths at all is because they cannot interact with states below the
fermi-surface to scatter. The physical interpretation of "physical
proximity" is one we invented to explain the result, not describe the
exact physical nature of the mean free path. That leaves the collision
frequency dependent upon the density of the electrons in the conduction
band. Furthermore, while the groups diifer, the abstract mathematics
having nothing to do with the material in any way, limits the crystals
that may be constructed. (see point group in any solid state book).
Why should the physical structure of the universe be different in the
sense that the measurements we make might be used to infer that which
we cannot determine from an external view of the topology?
On the one hand you argue for a direct carryover of a tangible
elastic medium to represent the vacuum and on the other you dismiss
any mathematical abstractions as sleight-of-hand. It would appear
the real problem is forgetting and being constrained by, the bias of
an external vantage point in a finite medium when applying the
concepts in a different context that is the point where ether
and relativity part.
The fermi-surface in the metal is analogous to the vacuum. Shell levels
fill as spin 0 orbitals in the atoms and leave the outermost electron
in a 1/2 filled orbital as a quasi-free almost electron like particle
that acts just as a "real" particle would with those characteristics
and absent the medium. The vacuum is what it is and is responsible
for what we measure, so it's rather pointless to ask how the universe
would differ if it didn't exist. Any underlying structure is completely
indistinguishable from the effective masses that appear in the quasi-
particles seen by the particles above the fermi surface. That's why
the idea of hole states in semiconductors works so well. Without a
reference to the external world, there is no way to distinguish what
you describe as a hole from what the electron sees as a positive charge
with whatever effective mass the positive charge centers and the
rest of the underlying structure determine it to be.
The basic point is that, the only mechanism you have to determine what
is or isn't real, is an interaction. If you don't interact with an
object through one of the four known forces, it doesn't exist in
any way that will influence any aspect of the universe you can possibly
observe. Conversely, if you can find such an object that isn't one of
these four forces, by definition, you've discovered an interaction
to add to the list and can replace "four" with "five" collect your
nobel prize and go back to life as it was. In this context, the
fermi sea is easy to understand. The vacuum is defined as whatever it
has to be to produced what is observed. It's practically a tautology.
An ether which differs from this, then requires that some difference
exists in what's observed and reality which implies that either the
ether and vacuum are the same thing and there's no point in the
argument or the ether theory is wrong. While proponents of relativity
tend to dismiss the notion that the semantics are required to be
completely correct and modern, at least they have a point by virtue
of the fact that they get the right answers. It doesn't excuse the
inability to deal with another person's word choice in describing
the same thing, but that's not a scientific issue, it's a psychological
one that limits them to knowing only that which can be described
with the "correct" word choices. One reason that I have no problem
with people claim an ether, is that any difference from SR will either
have no physical meaning for this universe and the two are identical
or anyone that wants to assert a difference can point one out and
let measurements choose. I don't recall care what you call it beyond
a tag for what it represents.
People that call things vacuums, however, seem to be more willing to
allow it to take on whatever characteristics fit the data rather than
invent new phenomena to make the data fit the experiment. The endless
and totally useless argument over the michelson-morely experiment is
an example. If it was a big deal, it would have been discovered. If
it's so hard to discover, you need a different experiment. Period.
Rehashing something 100 years old to fish for ambiguities has to be
the ultimate in grasping at straws. In other words, ether theories
spend more time playing catch-up just to remain physically viable
than they do in anything that moves forward and makes predictions
of what isn't old news.
To any ether theorist: How does an infinitely rigid medium differ
in a measurable way from the case that it's realized via filling
an infinitely deep "sea" with fermions according to the same
exclusion principle that determines the structure of a real medium?
The stubbornness that leads ether proponents to reject what their
concepts imply prevents them from properly interpreting their own
theory in the only physically realizable way it will ever produce a
description of reality. The increasing legerdemain necessary to
maintain a difference only forestalls the day of reckoning.
Bilge
Re: Aether? to usenet:
>djm...@aol.com (Dennis) says...
>
>>Dennis: So you think it was a "philosophical prejudice" for Democritus and
>>Materialists such as Boyle, Herapath, Waterston, etc, to use evaporation and
>>condensation as evidence of the molecular and atomic theory?
>
Unfortunately, those terms have been usurped by nuclear and particle
physics without first considering the hazard of waving a familiar term
in front of someone that's willing to replace the physics with their
own colloquial use of the term. Fortunately, much of physics doesn't
have the allure that drives people to the more chic topics. I can
imagine nuclear physics in which the terms proton and neutron drip
lines in the nuclear liquid drop model lead to places like keelynet
publishing "The 2973 Great Mistakes" with their description of a
stable nucleus as having a little dutch boy with his finger in the
outer shell of the nucleus to prevennt it from breaking and spilling
the neucleons. We would then be "closed minded" for not allocating
50% of the reasearch money to look for him and his family.
So yes. there's no evidence, but so far that doesn't seem to be a good
argument in many parts.
Bilge
>
>Wouldn't an ether model that is operationally equivalent to SR be preferred
>over SR for its physical implication?
>
>
If the two were equivalent and neither suffered any glaring deficiencies
in obtaining correct results in a self-consistent fashion, the smart person
would take advantage of the one that best represents the physical problem
at hand. So long as ether proponets define an ether theory by what special
relativity isn't and then stack on little tiny effects over which to debate
the non-existence of something they cant measure, ether theories will neve
predict the right results while making it increasingly difficult and time
consuming to calculate the wrong one as an approximation.
Bilge
>
>Dennis: Most theories use an "unproven postulate." Do you think constancy of c
>wrt all inertial observers has been proved?
>
Do you think it helps to add more unproven suppositions as a means of
hedging your bets?
Daryl McCullough
Also moving upward against gravity is another example of
the drag effect.
Daryl:
No, it's not. Energy "lost" due to gravity is
recovered when the object drops. That's the
difference between dissipative and nondissipative
forces.
The fact is that there *is* a conserved quantity
in the motion of particles under the influence of
gravity, namely
1/2 mv^2 + gh
I couldn't care less whether you call it
"energy" or not. In contrast, there is
no known conserved quantity associated
with drag forces.
Dennis:
Fire a rocket up from the Earth...
As the rocket moves upward it steadily slows--losing kinetic
energy. Where did it go--and how is energy conserved? Enter
the concept "potential energy'" which is simply defined in
such a way so that it exactly balances out the loss
of kinetic energy.
But, of course, the same exact analysis could be used
for a boat that is pushed upstream--and then released.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I have no idea how to respond. It really is not
a good idea to have a discussion of relativity with
someone who doesn't already understand Newtonian physics
to a certain extent. And the difference between conservative
and nonconservative forces is pretty fundamental to Newtonian
physics.
If a rock is thrown straight up into the air at speed v,
then when it returns to its original height, it will again
have speed v (ignoring drag due to the air). Gravity is an
example of a conservative force---one for which the total
energy of an object is constant. Kinetic energy lost in
working against the force is recovered when the object
turns around.
If you shove a canoe upstream so that it has initial speed v,
the canoe will eventually turn around and return to its initial
position. But the speed will then *not* be v, it will be whatever
speed the river has. The drag of moving water on a boat is an
example of a nonconservative force---one for which the total
energy is *not* constant. Kinetic energy lost in working against
the force is gone into the river for good. It is not recovered
when the object turns around.
Dennis, this difference is really pretty fundamental.
Dennis McCarthy
>Daryl McCullough said some stuff about
>Re: Aether? to usenet:
> >djm...@aol.com (Dennis) says...
> >
> >>Dennis: So you think it was a "philosophical prejudice" for Democritus and
> >>Materialists such as Boyle, Herapath, Waterston, etc, to use evaporation
>and
> >>condensation as evidence of the molecular and atomic theory?
> >
> >No, I said that I would consider evaporation and condensation
> >as evidence of a material ether. But there is no such evidence.
>
> physics without first considering the hazard of waving a familiar term
> in front of someone that's willing to replace the physics with their
> own colloquial use of the term. Fortunately, much of physics doesn't
> have the allure that drives people to the more chic topics. I can
> imagine nuclear physics in which the terms proton and neutron drip
> lines in the nuclear liquid drop model lead to places like keelynet
> publishing "The 2973 Great Mistakes" with their description of a
> stable nucleus as having a little dutch boy with his finger in the
> outer shell of the nucleus to prevennt it from breaking and spilling
> the neucleons. We would then be "closed minded" for not allocating
> 50% of the reasearch money to look for him and his family.
>
> So yes. there's no evidence, but so far that doesn't seem to be a good
> argument in many parts.
Dennis: The question here is what would you consider to be evidence of the
atmosphere, given known observations in say, 200 BC, 1600 AD, 1700 AD, etc. up
until the 20th century. And could you explain why this is evidence.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>
>Dennis McCarthy said some stuff about
>
> >
> >Dennis: Most theories use an "unproven postulate." Do you think constancy
>of c
> >wrt all inertial observers has been proved?
> >
>
> hedging your bets?
Dennis: No, and that's the point. The fewer arbitrary assumptions that are
consistent with all known observations, the better.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>a good idea to have a discussion of relativity with
>someone who doesn't already understand Newtonian physics
>to a certain extent. And the difference between conservative
>and nonconservative forces is pretty fundamental to Newtonian
>physics.
>
>If a rock is thrown straight up into the air at speed v,
>then when it returns to its original height, it will again
>have speed v (ignoring drag due to the air). Gravity is an
>example of a conservative force---one for which the total
>energy of an object is constant. Kinetic energy lost in
>working against the force is recovered when the object
>turns around.
>
>If you shove a canoe upstream so that it has initial speed v,
>the canoe will eventually turn around and return to its initial
>position. But the speed will then *not* be v, it will be whatever
>speed the river has.
Dennis: Again, not if V>>v. Again, assume
V>>v (where V is the velocity of the elastic river particles and v is the
velocity of the object sent upstream) such that (V+v)^2 is not appreciably
different from V^2. So we start
with a river of elastic particles moving at V, and we propel an object against
this river at -v. The force against the object at all times is approximately
proportional to pV^2 where p is the density of the river. When the object is
first propelled against the river it will have a kinetic energy K corresponding
to a velocity -v. The object will slow to a stop and reverse itself. When the
object returns to its initial position, the kinetic energy will once again be
K, corresponding to a velocity of v.
Do you really not understand this point. For very small v wrt V, the force
of the river on the object is effectively a constant (ie, we can make it as
arbitrarily close to a constant for any experimental bars imaginable.) We can
make it 9.8 m/s^2, if we want.
If you don't understand the simple fact that if the force remains
approximately constant, then the velocity of the object when it returns
downstream to point A will be the same as when it was moving upstream at point
A, that's okay. But as always, I would be very hesitant if I were you to both
challenge this basic point *and* insult the person trying to explain it to you
at the same time.
Dennis McCarthy
Daryl McCullough
>Dennis: The question here is what would you consider to be evidence of the
>atmosphere, given known observations in say, 200 BC, 1600 AD, 1700 AD, etc. up
>until the 20th century. And could you explain why this is evidence.
I would say the fact that you can fill up a bag with air
and the fact that there is viscous drag of something moving
through the air are two good clues that air is a substance.
Those observations have been known since well before the
20th century.
Daryl McCullough
>
>McCullough:
>>If you shove a canoe upstream so that it has initial speed v,
>>the canoe will eventually turn around and return to its initial
>>position. But the speed will then *not* be v, it will be whatever
>>speed the river has.
>
>Dennis: Again, not if V>>v.
Sorry, that's just not correct. Let's work in an inertial
frame in which the river is motionless. In this frame, we
shove a canoe forward at speed V+v. The canoe will move
forward a small distance, and eventually come to rest.
Its velocity at that time will be 0. Kinetic energy is lost.
This is a simple application of Galilean relativity, which
I thought you were familiar with.
>Again, assume V >>v (where V is the velocity of the elastic river
>particles and v is the velocity of the object sent upstream) such
>that (V+v)^2 is not appreciably different from V^2. So we start
>with a river of elastic particles moving at V, and we propel an
>object against this river at -v. The force against the object
>at all times is approximately proportional to pV^2
No, it's not. Viscous drag is *linearly* proportional to
the velocity difference between the object and the medium.
So, the equation governing the velocity v of the boat is
dv/dt = -p (v-V)
which has the solution
v = V + (v0 - V) exp(-pt)
where v0 = the velocity at time t=0.
>Do you really not understand this point. For very small v wrt V,
>the force of the river on the object is effectively a constant.
No, it's not. The force, as computed from the above equation,
is
F(t) = F(0) exp(-pt)
where F(0) = -p (v0 - V)
As t gets larger, F(t) goes exponentially to zero.
alan
>>> Dennis: I mean, we can create magnetic sails--and magnetic sail boats,
>>> flowing across the water being pushed by magnetism.
>>
>> Alan: And the behavior (and equations of description) would be vastly
>> different from the fluid dynamics equations of the invisible
>> material atmosphere with its fluid dynamics equations.
>
> Paul: Really? Can you disignate these *vast* differences...
Yes, of course, although the task is made much more difficult because, as
usual, I haven't been given the design for the "magnetic sail boat". But, I
suppose it is probably a boat with a big magnet on top, using the earth's
magnetic field for force.
First, with the magnetic boat, you usually wouldn't get much of a net force
at all. The south pole of your magnet would be attracted to the earth's
north pole, and the north pole of your magnet would be attracted to the
earth's south pole. Also, the earth's north pole would repel you magnet's
north pole, and like wise for both south poles. So, to get any force, you
have to rely on the slight differences in attractions and repulsions due to
the different positions of your north and south poles, and the net force
would be strongly dependent on how close you to the earth's pole as well.
Typically, the earth's magnetic field strength will not vary much from one
end of your magnet to the other, so you won't get much force. With wind, on
the other hand, when the wind is blowing you can get quite a strong force.
The size of the forces would be vastly different.
Second, the directions of the forces would be very different. The magnetic
sail boat would not be very useful, because in the north, you could only go
north, and in the south, you could only go south. If you try to align your
magnet along some other line besides north-south, you will simply torque
your boat until the magnet is aligned north-south again. You could align a
boat keel in a different direction, and travel at an angle to the
north-south line, but you could never ever get more than 90 degrees away
form the direction the magnet wanted to go, and you could probably not even
get close to 90 degrees. With a wind sail boat, however, with proper
trimming of the sails you can control the direction of the force that the
wind applies to your boat, (because wind can be described by the equations
of fluid dynamics), and you can sail up to about 45 degrees INTO the wind.
(Range of possible angles ~ 270 degrees). With a good captain and a good
boat design, you can sometimes get within 30 degrees from upwind (range of
angles ~300 degrees). Then by zig-zagging, you can effectively travel in
any direction, even upwind. So, with the magnetic boat, the range of
directions is less than 180 degrees, effectively on-way travel, not possible
to cross the magnetic equator. With wind, the range of directions is
unlimited, no trouble crossing the equator. The behavior is again vastly
different (as are the equations describing it.)
Third, on a global level, if one were to investigate the overall behavior of
the atmospheric wind versus the magnetic field, one would find that the
magnetic field strength could in large part be explained by the existence of
a north and south pole, with minor variations at a local level. The forces
due to the field could be completely described by a Coulomb's law type
equation with two opposite "charges" on the earth, and two more opposite
"charges" on the boat. For the wind, however, forces would have to be
calculated using a Bernoulli flow type equation, which is not like Coulomb's
law at all. In addition, one would not find ANY sources and sinks for the
wind as one does for the magnetic field. These are vast differences.
Dennis McCarthy
>trimming of the sails you can control the direction of the force that the
>wind applies to your boat, (because wind can be described by the equations
>of fluid dynamics), and you can sail up to about 45 degrees INTO the wind.
Dennis: Yes, but you would find it very difficult to use "underwater sails" to
move up to about 45 degrees against a current. Remember you are trying to
explain what the evidence is that the atmosphere is invisible material medium.
So there are some differences between wind and fluid currents. Indeed, you can
see water and can't see wind. Even more differences.
So why with these differences would you think the wind is part of a material
medium.
Also you seemed to be
arguing now that if a particular phenomenon adheres to equations that are
common to fluid (ie media) systems, then this, in turn, is evidence of that the
phenomenon is a fluid (media) system.
Is that right, Alan? Or do you want to amend this?
I just want to get straight what is and is not evidence for a medium...
Alan: The forces
>due to the field could be completely described by a Coulomb's law type
>equation with two opposite "charges" on the earth, and two more opposite
>"charges" on the boat.
Dennis: So if their are fluid dynamic analogies for "charges" and coulomb's
law, then this would be evidence of the medium, right?
Alan: > There are vast differences:
Dennis: Yes, there are vast differences between the atmosphere and the ocean as
well. In fact, the equations are not all the same--and particularly regarding
the equations of ideal gasses (as with Jupiter's atmosphere.) Yet, you think
if a few equations of the atmosphere resemble media equations, this is evidence
that the atmosphere is a medium (despite these other differences, right?)
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>djm...@aol.com (Dennis) says...
>>
>>McCullough:
>
>>>If you shove a canoe upstream so that it has initial speed v,
>>>the canoe will eventually turn around and return to its initial
>>>position. But the speed will then *not* be v, it will be whatever
>>>speed the river has.
>>
>>Dennis: Again, not if V>>v.
>
>frame in which the river is motionless. In this frame, we
>shove a canoe forward at speed V+v. The canoe will move
>forward a small distance, and eventually come to rest.
>Its velocity at that time will be 0. Kinetic energy is lost.
>
>This is a simple application of Galilean relativity, which
>I thought you were familiar with.
Dennis: Wow. And when you throw a ball in the air, the ball will move a small
distance eventually come to rest. Its velocity at that time will be 0. Kinetic
energy is lost. Then, the both ball and canoe will start accelerating back in
the other direction. In the situation I described, the canoe will return to
its initial velocity (within error bars) at the point where it was first pushed
against stream--like I said. This is exquisitely simple and uncontroversial.
D:>>Again, assume V >>v (where V is the velocity of the elastic river
>>particles and v is the velocity of the object sent upstream) such
>>that (V+v)^2 is not appreciably different from V^2. So we start
>>with a river of elastic particles moving at V, and we propel an
>>object against this river at -v. The force against the object
>>at all times is approximately proportional to pV^2
>
McCullough: >No, it's not. Viscous drag is *linearly* proportional to
>the velocity difference between the object and the medium.
Dennis: How many times are you going to try to correct something I have
written--and then later have to retract it before you stop doing it? 100 times?
200 times?
For viscous force and low reynolds number, the force is proportional to V.
For analyses of canoes in rivers or for air resistance or with perfectly
elastic particles (which are the situations we are discussing)--the drag force
is proportional to V^2. Either way it's irrelevant. Whether proportional to
V or V^2, the force remains approximately constant for v<<V during the time the
object moves upward and returns to its same spot.
McCullough: >So, the equation governing the velocity v of the boat is
>
> dv/dt = -p (v-V)
Dennis: We are assuming v<< V. So let's plug in numbers, shall we? The forces
for drag are:
F = 1/2 C A p (V+v)^2.
I'll give you the values C = .1, V = 2*10^ 7m/s, p = 1 kg/m^3, and A = 1
m^2. (Or if for some reason you want to use your low Reynolds number situation
use F = k(V +v). Either way it's irrelevant.
Now, if we propel the object against this river first at v= 1 m/s, then at 10
m/s and then 30 m/s, what are the velocities of these objects when they pass
us again?
Hint: It's approximately 1 m/s, 10 m/s and 30 m/s.
McCullough: >which has the solution
>
> v = V + (v0 - V) exp(-pt)
>
>where v0 = the velocity at time t=0.
>
>>Do you really not understand this point. For very small v wrt V,
>>the force of the river on the object is effectively a constant.
>
>No, it's not. The force, as computed from the above equation,
>is
>
> F(t) = F(0) exp(-pt)
>
>where F(0) = -p (v0 - V)
>
>As t gets larger, F(t) goes exponentially to zero.
Dennis: Sigh. The situation here was **not** concerned with t--> infinity, but
concerns the velocity of the object pushed upstream (at velocity v) when it
returns to the point where it was originally pushed. (All ether theories of
gravity predict that the
gravitational force -->0 the longer the object is accelerated and the faster it
moves toward the gravitating body.)
So allow me to clarify: For very small v wrt V (in the situation described
where we are only following the path of the object pushed at v against the
stream until it returns to the same point from where it was pushed), the force
of the river on the object is effectively a constant.
I'm sure if you make an effort at intellectual generosity and nobility, we can
agree on this very simple point. Certainly, you now agree to the following.
1) For V>>v, the drag force against an object moving with any velocity from v
to -v, the force against it is essentially constant.
2) If the force remains essentially constant and an object is pushed at
velocity v against this force, the velocity of the object will be -v when it
returns to the point where it was orignally propelled at v.
Dennis McCarthy