Re: Three Modest Inquiries on the Aether
Spaceman
"Darwin123" <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b4f85ede-6e03-451d...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> A lot of people around here want to go back to the good old days
> before aether theory was discarded. In fact, many people here say that
> aether theory is somehow a substitute for relativity. Some say that
> electromagnetic waves can be modeled by a combination of Newtonian
> physics, Galilean invariance and aether. However, I don't know the
> mechanical properties of this aether. So I am making three modest
> inquiries.
Mechanics alone.
:)
Here goes again as simple as possible.
> 1) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
> eliminates the longitudinal and not the transverse polarizations?
a spinning wheel balanced statically but not dynamically
> 2) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
> explains the properties of static electric fields?
a pressure variance
> 3) What type of mechanical properties can the aether exist that
> explains the properties of static magnetic fields.
a gearing property.
> Yes, there are static electric fields. Those who don't believe it
> should try combing their hair on a dry, cold day.
I love static fields the most..
I have made static fields from rubbing my clothes on my couch that are
strong enough to hold a full pack of smokes to the wooden flat wall
for days.
It even stuck to glass for a few hours when I got a real good charge going.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
They aether is beyond any physical concept.
Time is a point in space moving in every direction 3 dimensionally. +
Spaceman
<mitch.nico...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:96bc76a7-57ab-4263...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>They aether is beyond any physical concept.
No it is not.
>Time is a point in space moving in every direction 3 dimensionally. +
No it is not.
In science, time is a non variant periodic counting method.
xxein
> A lot of people around here want to go back to the good old days
> before aether theory was discarded. In fact, many people here say that
> aether theory is somehow a substitute for relativity. Some say that
> electromagnetic waves can be modeled by a combination of Newtonian
> physics, Galilean invariance and aether. However, I don't know the
> mechanical properties of this aether. So I am making three modest
> inquiries.
>
> eliminates the longitudinal and not the transverse polarizations?
> explains the properties of static electric fields?
> explains the properties of static magnetic fields.
>
> should try combing their hair on a dry, cold day.
xxein1: Can you give me an example of #1? I truly don't know what
you are refering to.
2) and 3) are static only in the local sense. You should get out more
and view the aurora borealis.
Uncle Al
>
> A lot of people around here want to go back to the good old days
> before aether theory was discarded.
http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
<http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
No Lorentz violation
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Sam Wormley
> A lot of people around here want to go back to the good old days
> aether theory is somehow a substitute for relativity. Some say that
> electromagnetic waves can be modeled by a combination of Newtonian
> physics, Galilean invariance and aether. However, I don't know the
> mechanical properties of this aether. So I am making three modest
> inquiries.
>
> 1) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
> eliminates the longitudinal and not the transverse polarizations?
> 2) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
> explains the properties of static electric fields?
> 3) What type of mechanical properties can the aether exist that
> explains the properties of static magnetic fields.
>
> Yes, there are static electric fields. Those who don't believe it
> should try combing their hair on a dry, cold day.
Einstein's 1905 paper swept away the need of an aether that was
never detected experimentally.
Martin Hogbin
Here is a challenge from an aether supporter to other
aether supporters. Let us see how they do.
Martin Hogbin
Tom Roberts
> A lot of people around here want to go back to the good old days
> before aether theory was discarded. In fact, many people here say that
> aether theory is somehow a substitute for relativity. Some say that
> electromagnetic waves can be modeled by a combination of Newtonian
> physics, Galilean invariance and aether. However, I don't know the
> mechanical properties of this aether. So I am making three modest
Your questions are OK, but don't really get to the heart of the matter.
The question aether advocates must answer before anybody takes them
seriously is:
How does the aether induce quantum effects in electromagnetism?
And another is:
How does the aether relate to strong and weak interactions? In
particular, how is it that the constant c in their equations is
numerically equal to the constant c in E&M? How does the aether relate
to the standard model and make it correspond to thousands of particle
experiments?
Tom Roberts
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Rw72k.3797$N87....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
| Darwin123 wrote:
| > A lot of people around here want to go back to the good old days
| > before aether theory was discarded. In fact, many people here say that
| > aether theory is somehow a substitute for relativity. Some say that
| > electromagnetic waves can be modeled by a combination of Newtonian
| > physics, Galilean invariance and aether. However, I don't know the
| > mechanical properties of this aether. So I am making three modest
| > inquiries.[...]
|
Yes they fucking do, mind you own business and shut your trap.
--
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
where
A = (0,0,0,t)
A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
x' = x-vt
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.
Androcles
kenseto
All your questions are answered in the paper entitled "Unification of
Physics" in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
Also visit my website for other papers on my theory:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Surfer
<drose...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>A lot of people around here want to go back to the good old days
>before aether theory was discarded. In fact, many people here say that
>aether theory is somehow a substitute for relativity. Some say that
>electromagnetic waves can be modeled by a combination of Newtonian
>physics, Galilean invariance and aether. However, I don't know the
>mechanical properties of this aether. So I am making three modest
>inquiries.
>
>1) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
>eliminates the longitudinal and not the transverse polarizations?
>2) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
>explains the properties of static electric fields?
>3) What type of mechanical properties can the aether exist that
>explains the properties of static magnetic fields.
>
It might be easier to let an ether have non-mechanical properties to
support such phenomena.
Eg.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0611002v1
"One of the putative key tests of the GR formalism was the
gravitational bending of light. This also immediately follows from the
new space dynamics once we also generalise the Maxwell equations so
that the electric and magnetic fields are excitations of the dynamical
space."
kenseto
> A lot of people around here want to go back to the good old days
> before aether theory was discarded. In fact, many people here say that
> aether theory is somehow a substitute for relativity. Some say that
> electromagnetic waves can be modeled by a combination of Newtonian
> physics, Galilean invariance and aether. However, I don't know the
> mechanical properties of this aether. So I am making three modest
> inquiries.
>
> 1) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
> eliminates the longitudinal and not the transverse polarizations?
The aether is called the E-Matrix. The E-Matrix is composed of
compressed E-Strings. These E-Strings are repulsive to each other.
They transmit transverse waves but not longitudinal waves. A complete
description of the E-Matrix is available in the paper entitled
"Unification of Physics" in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
> 2) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
> explains the properties of static electric fields?
A static electric field is merely a distortion in the local E-Matrix.
> 3) What type of mechanical properties can the aether exist that
> explains the properties of static magnetic fields.
A static magnetic field is merely a distortion in the local E-Matrix.
Ken Seto
Eric Gisse
Ken who do you think you are fooling? Your derivations consist of
"well first I take the SR equations..."
Timo A. Nieminen
> A lot of people around here want to go back to the good old days
> before aether theory was discarded. In fact, many people here say that
> aether theory is somehow a substitute for relativity. Some say that
> electromagnetic waves can be modeled by a combination of Newtonian
> physics, Galilean invariance and aether. However, I don't know the
> mechanical properties of this aether. So I am making three modest
> inquiries.
>
> 1) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
> eliminates the longitudinal and not the transverse polarizations?
> 2) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
> explains the properties of static electric fields?
> 3) What type of mechanical properties can the aether exist that
> explains the properties of static magnetic fields.
Well, Maxwell came up with the differential equations describing the
required mechanical properties. While that's not the same as a
"mechanical" description of the properties, perhaps it will suffice?
Perhaps it must suffice.
The issue of moving bodies would prove a little troublesome for a while.
Anyway, you have a number of interesting replies, especially from Florian
and Tom Roberts.
Firstly, I'd note that a crisis point in ether theory was essentially the
ultraviolet catastrophe (see http://www.aip.org.au/Congress2006/627.pdf),
which is intimately tied in with this issue of quantisation of
electromagnetic phenomena. I've yet to see any serious claim of how this
fails to rule out pretty much any ether that behaves like a continuous
classical solid or liquid.
Thus, one can look towards "atomic" ethers, with the atomicity giving a
high-frequency cut-off for vibrations. Whether a reasonable cut-off is
defensible in view of observed gamma energies is another story, but let us
ignore that for now. A "simple" atomic ether, composed of ether atoms that
interact only through classical collision, a la Huygens, simply fails
because it doesn't support transverse waves. What then?
I have seen it claimed many times that a superfluid can give the right
kind of behaviour. This kind of behaviour is seen in _real_ superfluids,
made up of atoms. So, is this the solution? If the superfluid-ether
supporters are correct, it can explain the properties of electromagnetism.
(What about moving bodies? See also Tom Roberts' reply.)
_But_ doesn't this superfluidity depend on _long-range_ interactions
between the atoms in the superfluid? Wouldn't this mean explaining a
long-range interaction (electromagnetism) by introducing an ether that
depends in turn on yet another long-range interaction? This is starting to
smell of turtles all the way down.
Also, while atomicity might avoid the ultraviolet catastrophe, other
aspects of quantisation of EM phenomena might be more troublesome. Take an
atomic dipole transition - the classical radiation pattern is that of a
dipole antenna, and yet the radiated energy (i.e., the photon) is detected
only in a single direction.
Ether theory was enormously productive in the 19th century, producing
classical electromagnetism, driving a lot of work in continuum
mechanics, resulting in elastodynamics and much progress in fluid
dynamics, and even leading to the first use of curved space in physics
(AFAIK), by Beltrami. What did 20th century theories of a mechanical ether
bring us?
One problem is that, with two known forces, EM and gravity, coupled with
the known inertia of EM energy, an electromagnetic explanation of all
known phenomena was attractive. With a much wider range of currently-known
phenomena, can a mechanical ether theory explain it all? Good luck to
those who wish to try (i.e., seriously try, not just spew crap on usenet)!
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Darwin123
> Darwin123 wrote:
> Here is a challenge from an aether supporter to other
> aether supporters. Let us see how they do.
>
> Martin Hogbin
I am not an aether supporter. I thought that was obvious. However,
I thought I would give some of the cranks to show their imagination. I
want to see if any of them can produce real thought in addition to
their ranting. If any of them produce a working model, it could be fun
as well as useful for certain applications. If a crank makes a real
effort, he might loose his crankiness and start becoming a scientist.
Darwin123
aether with the properties of a currently known material. However, I
thought it would more interesting to see a serious analysis of such a
model than to hear more name calling of scientists. If these guys are
so much smarter than Einstein et al, they should be able to answer the
simplest questions. In fact, I want them to explain the simplest
optical properties of a vacuum even without considering the motion of
the observer.
I believe the cranky skeptics should put up or shut up. I don't
expect a perfectly functioning model. Just something that would be
interesting to discuss.
Sue...
> A lot of people around here want to go back to the good old days
> before aether theory was discarded. In fact, many people here say that
> aether theory is somehow a substitute for relativity. Some say that
> electromagnetic waves can be modeled by a combination of Newtonian
> physics, Galilean invariance and aether. However, I don't know the
> mechanical properties of this aether. So I am making three modest
> inquiries.
>
> 1) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
> eliminates the longitudinal and not the transverse polarizations?
> 2) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
> explains the properties of static electric fields?
> 3) What type of mechanical properties can the aether exist that
> explains the properties of static magnetic fields.
All three are thoughtful questions.
Reverse them and the answers are much simpler.
1) What type of EM properties can the aether possess that
eliminates the transverse and not the longitudinal polarizations?
2) What type of EM properties can the aether possess that
explains the properties of gravity and inertia?
<< Already Newton recognized that the
law of inertia is unsatisfactory
in a context so far unmentioned in this
exposition, namely that it gives no
real cause for the special physical
position of the states of motion of the
inertial frames relative to all other
states of motion. It makes the observable
material bodies responsible for the
gravitational behaviour of a material
point, yet indicates no material cause
for the inertial behaviour of the material
point but devises the cause for it
(absolute space or inertial ether). This
is not logically inadmissible although
it is unsatisfactory. For this reason
E. Mach demanded a modification of the
law of inertia in the sense that the
inertia should be interpreted as an
acceleration resistance of the bodies
against one another and not against "space".
This interpretation governs the expectation
that accelerated bodies have concordant
accelerating action in the same
sense on other bodies (acceleration induction).
This interpretation is even more
plausible according to general relativity
which eliminates the distinction between
inertial and gravitational effects.
It amounts to stipulating that, apart
from the arbitrariness governed by the
free choice of coordinates, the
gm v -field shall be completely determined
by the matter. Mach's stipulation is favoured
in general relativity by the circumstance
that acceleration induction in accordance
with the gravitational field equations really
exists, although of such slight intensity
that direct detection by mechanical experiments
is out of the question. >>
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html
"The origin of gravity" [and inertia]
http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
3) What type of EM or mechanical properties can the
aether possess that explains the properties of static
magnetic fields.
Since magnetic fields aren't static the question is moot.
<< all magnetic fields encountered in nature are
generated by circulating currents. There is no
fundamental difference between the fields generated
by permanent magnets and those generated by currents
flowing around conventional electric circuits. In the
former, case the currents which generate the fields
circulate on the atomic scale, whereas, in the latter
case, the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale
(i.e., the scale of the circuit). >>
"Origin of Permanent Magnetism"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node77.html
>
> Yes, there are static electric fields. Those who don't believe it
> should try combing their hair on a dry, cold day.
...not sure we can prove that is static unless you have
combs and hair constructed of motionless leptons and
you can comb your hair without moving. :-)
Sue...
Darwin123
> On Jun 5, 8:10 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > 1) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
> > eliminates the longitudinal and not the transverse polarizations?
>
> The aether is called the E-Matrix. The E-Matrix is composed of
> compressed E-Strings. These E-Strings are repulsive to each other.
> They transmit transverse waves but not longitudinal waves. A complete
> description of the E-Matrix is available in the paper entitled
> "Unification of Physics" in my website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
See, someone rose to the challenge. A discussion of a persons
favorite model is much more interesting than ranting and raving. I'll
take a look at it. However, real analysis takes time so don't wait up
for me. I'll do it on my own time.
Darwin123
> Since magnetic fields aren't static the question is moot.
That is nonsense. A static magnetic field is one where its
magnitude and direction is constant over a long time. Although an
idealization, there are fields that are static which do no share the
properties of an electromagnetic wave. Electromagnetic fields in the
vacinity of an electric charge have some properties that aren't
adequately explained by a traveling wave mode. Therefore, I'll
rephrase the questions 2 and 3 more more technically.
2) What mechanical properties can the aether possess that explains the
electric fields near an electric charge?
3) What mechanical properties can the aether possess that explains the
magnetic fields near an electric charge?
Do a Google search on "near-field approximation" and "far field
approximation"? Most of the properties of light in a vacuum apply to
electromagnetic fields in the far field approximation. When talking to
laymen, I refer to electromagnetic fields in the near-field
approximation as static. The reason is that most layman have
experience with "static electricity," which really refers to electric
fields near an electric cahrge that is moving slowly compared to the
observer.
>
> << all magnetic fields encountered in nature are
> generated by circulating currents. There is no
> fundamental difference between the fields generated
> by permanent magnets and those generated by currents
> flowing around conventional electric circuits. In the
> former, case the currents which generate the fields
> circulate on the atomic scale, whereas, in the latter
> case, the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale
> (i.e., the scale of the circuit). >>
So the charges are moving. However, the summation of the fields
from the atoms adds up to a field that is almost constant in time.
>
> > Yes, there are static electric fields. Those who don't believe it
> > should try combing their hair on a dry, cold day.
>
> ...not sure we can prove that is static unless you have
> combs and hair constructed of motionless leptons and
> you can comb your hair without moving. :-)
>
It is very easy to prove these fields on a macroscopic scale are
static. Just place another charge next to the comb hanging by a
thread, and watch the charge tilt toward it. Yes, the comb will slowly
discharge. However, The charge won't oscillate.
Another thing is this. The electric field of the comb points
outwar from the comb at all times. This is not an electromagnetic
wave. If the charge doesn't move or change, the electric field always
points in the same direction. There is no direction of motion for this
field that exists independently of the position of electric charge.
The field of a charged comb is always "tied" to the comb. It is only
if the comb moves that the field oscillates. Therefore, the electric
field can not be considered a "free" electromagnetic wave.
Also, the fields tied to the static electric charge can have a
"longitudinal mode" of sorts. You can push the charge in the direction
of the field, and the change will propagate from the comb. However,
this change does not obey the inverse square law. Light if emitted
from the comb obeys an inverse square law. However, the changes in
the electric field don't propagate like light within a certain
distance from the comb.
For those of us that appreciate quantum mechanics, not the
following extension of wave particle duality. The electric field of
the comb, with a static electric charge, is considered to be carried
by virtual photons. Light emitted from an object is considered to be
carried by real photons. My challenge was aimed at people who don't
really like quantum mechanics, so I won't bring in these other issues.
"Static electricity" actually refers to a "static electric
charge." There are no properties of the aether known that can explain
how a charge that isn't accelerating (i.e., a static charge) can give
off both an electric field and a magnetic field. I would really be
interested in a model that explains this.
The aether model I want only needs to explain the polarization
properties of light, and the properties of electric charges that
aren't accelerating. SR explains a lot more, but I think an aether
model that goes this far would be interesting.
Spaceman
> I do not believe in the idea of a classical aether, meaning an
> aether with the properties of a currently known material.
Well, that would be wrong if you did since the material is the thing
that can not be found until we can see much smaller stuff than we can
today..
Funny though,
That dark matter stuff keeps getting in the way.
Eric Gisse
To be familiar with the evidence means you are not an aether
supporter.
The theory is easily validated by asking an aether supporter a
detailed question about any test that would supposedly reveal the
aether but doesn't.
hhc...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
James, not to worry, a whole flock managed to fly over and make their
natural excretory deposits on this thread. :-)
I tend to ignore noise like in this thread, since I have in my
lifetime made a living off of the physics and engineering that I was
taught back in the 1950s and 1960s. The strange thing is that every
single thing made based on these old concepts actually work, run, and
are in the the foundation of most high-technology and other goods sold
today. OK, some people will bring up computers and electronics that
did not yet exist during the 1950s. Actually, both did at the time, as
a Google search can reveal. Lasers emerged a bit later, but today
even these are not a pivotal component of daily life except within
our video disk and cd players.
Also, I know of no product of any value that is based on cold fusion,
cars running on water as fuel, the aether, dark matter, black holes,
psychic influences, Feng Shui, Otic Force, or any form of mysticism,
oriental or otherwise. I also know sadly the human bodies rot. smell
very badly for a few months, and return to the earth from whence they
came as God intends. Dead is dead. Humans never woal the earth after
death. When the brain ceases to function and the onset of decompositon
arrives, good old Aunt Edna or good old Uncle Harry is then only a
memory, and all of the brain cells that once fuctioned as their
personaity, memory, and character, are now simply worm food or, if you
elect crematon, ashes.
To me, life after death is not some mystical dream about being in
heaven with God, but about what we generate in live which will live
beyond us. It's all about little pieces of our knowledge and
character that will be passed along and will live beyond our lifetime.
We pass along our DNA because we can't avoid this, it's God's will.
What we do pass along is what often seems life trivial stuff from our
brains and experince; today how to tune or repair something as simple
as a car engine, and its brakes or steering. That kid learn from our
sharing of knowledge, but part of us still lives on within that child.
Our character is also passed down to that young child, and hopefully
he will learn from us to be a good citizen, and never wrong another
human. He or she may actually acuire some sense of our love for
animals, and our belief that they are simply inntelligent creatures
simply trying to survive and make some sort of a live for themselves,
no different than we are.
I try to convince young people about the need of quality education,
but I am not smart enough to do this on my own. Education is essential
for survival, and I don't really care if they they learn a skilled
trade, or become nuclear physicists. My point would be simply that
they learn some skill to pass along to their children. I consider this
basic to survival of the human species, for if they lack such skills
they will eventually become no different or more productive than the
native wildlife that surround them.
Harry C.
Harry C.
Sue...
> On Jun 6, 5:28 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Since magnetic fields aren't static the question is moot.
>
> That is nonsense. A static magnetic field is one where its
> magnitude and direction is constant over a long time. Although an
> idealization, there are fields that are static which do no share the
> properties of an electromagnetic wave. Electromagnetic fields in the
> vacinity of an electric charge have some properties that aren't
> adequately explained by a traveling wave mode. Therefore, I'll
> rephrase the questions 2 and 3 more more technically.
>
> 2) What mechanical properties can the aether possess that explains the
> electric fields near an electric charge?
> 3) What mechanical properties can the aether possess that explains the
> magnetic fields near an electric charge?
You missed my point. Mechanical properties are established by more
fundamental electrical properties. Not the other way round.
>
> Do a Google search on "near-field approximation" and "far field
> approximation"?
No approximation is required nor welcomed.
"Near-Field and Far-Field"
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
> Most of the properties of light in a vacuum apply to
> electromagnetic fields in the far field approximation. When talking to
> laymen, I refer to electromagnetic fields in the near-field
> approximation as static. The reason is that most layman have
> experience with "static electricity," which really refers to electric
> fields near an electric cahrge that is moving slowly compared to the
> observer.
I supppose you may need to consider asking your lay audience
rewrite the field equations to fit their misconceptions or
ask them to learn some physics:
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Sue...
Darwin123
Okay, let me put it another way. Electromagnetic waves exactly
obey the rules of optics only a significant distance away from the
electric charges that generate them. The critical distances can vary
depending on conditions. One estimate can be made by saying for an
isolated electromagnetic charge, the electromagnetic field within the
displacement of the electric charge can not be considered a true
wave.
For example, if you use a loop of wire for an antennae, the radio
waves only follow optical principles for distances greater than the
diameter of the loop of wire. The electromagnetic fields inside the
loop of wire have many nonoptical properties. There is a "longitudinal
polarization" within the antennae. Although one can in principle
calculate a "phase velocity" for disturbances inside the antennae,
inside the antennae these phase velocities can be faster than light.
The peak electric field and the peak magnetic field don't have to be
equal near the antennae.
At large distances that are very far compared to the diameter of
the antennae, the electromagnetic disturbances "settle down" to the
standard electromagnetic wave. At far distances, there is no
longitudinal polarization and only transverse polarization. The phase
velocity of the radio wave is in a vacuum equal to the speed of light
in a vacuum. The peak electric field and the peak magnetic field have
to be equal in magnitude far from the antennae.
All these properties of the electromagnetic disturbance, near and
far from the antennae, are described by Maxwell's equations. However,
Maxwell's equations aren't the same as an aether theory. What
mechanical properties of the aether give you this change between the
short distance and the large distance? I don't say that it can't be
done. I can't do it. If you like the idea of an aether, you can try it
yourself. However, talk about your theory rather than the "scientific
establishment." And expect criticism.
Darwin123
wrote:
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b4f85ede-6e03-451d...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > A lot of people around here want to go back to the good old days
> > before aether theory was discarded. In fact, many people here say that
> > aether theory is somehow a substitute for relativity. Some say that
> > electromagnetic waves can be modeled by a combination of Newtonian
> > physics, Galilean invariance and aether. However, I don't know the
> > mechanical properties of this aether. So I am making three modest
> > inquiries.
>
> Mechanics alone.
> :)
> Here goes again as simple as possible.
>
> > 1) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
> > eliminates the longitudinal and not the transverse polarizations?
>
> a spinning wheel balanced statically but not dynamically
the difference between static balancing and dynamic balancing? I
suspect that you can describe the difference in either words or
pictures. Do you know a reference where I can see a description of
your statically balanced wheel?
>
> > 2) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
> > explains the properties of static electric fields?
>
> a pressure variance
magnetic field pushes an electric charge at right angles to the
electric charges direction of motion. My visual ability doesn't enable
me to picture how a pressure variance can produce that property of a
magnetic field. Furthermore, my visual ability doesn't enable me to
picture how the same pressure variance can produce a magnetic field.
Note that I have tried to model the electromagnetic field that way.
I would really appreciate it if you can give us some details. You
change your description of the aether every time I raise a new
issue. Your complaining about modern cosmology is merely sand in the
eyes. Leave the modern cosmologists alone. I claim that the aether
theory failed well before the Michaelson-Morley experiment. You
haven't proved me wrong.
>
> > 3) What type of mechanical properties can the aether exist that
> > explains the properties of static magnetic fields.
>
> a gearing property.
sure that you could sell it as a toy with a profit, regardless of how
the scientific establishment feels about Einstein. However, its got to
work even if used as a toy. I bet you never handled a gear train in
your life.
>
Spaceman
> I don't think such a wheel would have such properties. What's
> the difference between static balancing and dynamic balancing? I
> suspect that you can describe the difference in either words or
> pictures. Do you know a reference where I can see a description of
> your statically balanced wheel?
I can not make it any more simple than this
http://www.physics.montana.edu/demonstrations/video/1_mechanics/demos/staticdynamicbalance.html
> > > 2) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
> > > explains the properties of static electric fields?
> >
> > a pressure variance
> Does that explain the electric field, or the magnetic field? A
> magnetic field pushes an electric charge at right angles to the
> electric charges direction of motion. My visual ability doesn't enable
> me to picture how a pressure variance can produce that property of a
> magnetic field.
I answered your electric field with that.
magnetic field would incorperate fields of spinning electrons
as an electron is pushed by the pressure it has to roll.
just like a tire would have to roll before it would slide unless
you have some magical brake system on that electron.
:)
> I would really appreciate it if you can give us some details. You
> change your description of the aether every time I raise a new
> issue.
I do no such thing,
You asked me to explain such if it existed.
so I am trying.
If you don't want me to try,
stop bothering with the simple questions that almost
any tire changer that knows what he is doing answer without
knowing much more about mechanics at all.
>Your complaining about modern cosmology is merely sand in the
> eyes. Leave the modern cosmologists alone. I claim that the aether
> theory failed well before the Michaelson-Morley experiment. You
> haven't proved me wrong.
MMX only proved that things in a constant motion inside
a basically closed box (Earth and it's atmosphere) will still
bounce the same angles as if they were at rest.
Do you need an example of that?
> Build or describe an array of gears that has that property. I am
> sure that you could sell it as a toy with a profit, regardless of how
> the scientific establishment feels about Einstein. However, its got to
> work even if used as a toy. I bet you never handled a gear train in
> your life.
Gearing trains are built almost everyday by little kids wth the advanced
legos sets.
You must have never had the Lego privlege as a kid huh?
BTW: they even build robots that have accelerometers and all
sorts of other goodies today with Lego kits.
I know I will not compete nor win against Lego, so I won't bother.
:)
Will three meshed gears meshed to all three at once turn at all?
No.
you really should go back to real basics if you truly want
to "try" and explain how an aether "could" work.
But as I can see, all you want to do is try to prove it can't work.
That is simply your negative problem and optimism is the only
cure for that.
I was doing some of the things at age 8 that you say are impossible
today.
LOL
FrediFizzx
> On Jun 6, 1:19 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 6, 4:41 am, Martin Hogbin <goatNOSP...@hogbin.org> wrote:
>
> > > Darwin123 wrote:
> > > Here is a challenge from anaethersupporter to other
>
> > > Martin Hogbin
>
> > I am not anaethersupporter. I thought that was obvious. However,
> > I thought I would give some of the cranks to show their imagination.
> > I
> > want to see if any of them can produce real thought in addition to
> > their ranting. If any of them produce a working model, it could be
> > fun
> > as well as useful for certain applications. If a crank makes a real
> > effort, he might loose his crankiness and start becoming a
> > scientist.
While it is true there are many aetherist cranks on these groups, I
don't think I would call people like Dirac, Volovik, Schmelzer, etc.
cranks.
> To be familiar with the evidence means you are not an aether
> supporter.
Eric, that is not exactly true. Did you read Timo's paper about aether?
A fairly objective viewpoint.
> The theory is easily validated by asking an aether supporter a
> detailed question about any test that would supposedly reveal the
> aether but doesn't.
It is an interpretational issue more than anything. One can take
existence of photons (and all gauge bosons) as proof of existence of a
relativistic quantum ether. Or not. Mainstream chooses to not because
it doesn't matter one way or the other for most all things. However,
quantum field theory of the Standard Model points to the Higgs field
that permeates all space to give mass to elementary fermions. Perhaps
we will find out more about that with LHC.
Volovik says it like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a
Helium Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion;
"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."
It is my own belief that a relativistic quantum ether is necessary to
explain the mysteries of physics that remain unexplained such as mass of
elementary fermions and total unification. I could easily be wrong.
Nature could have just given us all the elementary fermions as distinct
different entities and spacetime with the geometrical properties that we
notice. Perhaps we will be lucky enough to know the answer in our
lifetime.
Best,
Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations
Sue...
>
> > Sue...
>
> Okay, let me put it another way. Electromagnetic waves exactly
> obey the rules of optics only a significant distance away from the
> electric charges that generate them. The critical distances can vary
> depending on conditions. One estimate can be made by saying for an
> isolated electromagnetic charge, the electromagnetic field within the
> displacement of the electric charge can not be considered a true
> wave.
I think you are refering to geometric optics.
<< Geometric optics provides rules for propagating these rays
through an optical system, which indicates how the actual
wavefront will propagate. Note that this is a significant
simplification of optics, and fails to account for many
important optical effects such as diffraction and
polarization. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optics
> For example, if you use a loop of wire for an antennae, the radio
> waves only follow optical principles for distances greater than the
> diameter of the loop of wire. The electromagnetic fields inside the
> loop of wire have many nonoptical properties. There is a "longitudinal
> polarization" within the antennae. Although one can in principle
> calculate a "phase velocity" for disturbances inside the antennae,
> inside the antennae these phase velocities can be faster than light.
> The peak electric field and the peak magnetic field don't have to be
> equal near the antennae.
> At large distances that are very far compared to the diameter of
> the antennae, the electromagnetic disturbances "settle down" to the
> standard electromagnetic wave. At far distances, there is no
> longitudinal polarization and only transverse polarization. The phase
> velocity of the radio wave is in a vacuum equal to the speed of light
> in a vacuum. The peak electric field and the peak magnetic field have
> to be equal in magnitude far from the antennae.
No... you can't sense the magnetic field "far from an antenna" because
it requires an antenna. Attempts to alter the propagating wave with
magnetic fields give a null result absent matter to interact with
both the propagating wave and the disturbing magnetic field so we
can't separate it from a material dielectric for any pressure
attainible in "this" universe.
"Faraday Rotation"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node60.html
> All these properties of the electromagnetic disturbance, near and
> far from the antennae, are described by Maxwell's equations. However,
> Maxwell's equations aren't the same as an aether theory. What
> mechanical properties of the aether give you this change between the
> short distance and the large distance?
There are no "mechanical properties" which apply because they only
consider attractive couples. (gravity, inertia)
Electical properties have to be be considered to include the
repulsive properties of dissimilar charges.
Your description of near and far fields is inadaquate.
See:
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
> I don't say that it can't be
> done. I can't do it. If you like the idea of an aether, you can try it
> yourself. However, talk about your theory rather than the "scientific
> establishment." And expect criticism.
Hydrogen and helium seems adaquate for what we observe.
"What is the Interstellar Medium?"
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristic_impedance_of_vacuum
Sue...
Sue...
>
> There are no "mechanical properties" which apply because they only
> consider attractive couples. (gravity, inertia)
>
> Electical properties have to be be considered to include the
repulsive properties of [dis]similar charges.
>
> Your description of near and far fields is inadaquate.
> See:http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
>
Like charges repel Eh? <:)
Sue...
Darwin123
> On Jun 7, 12:31 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 8:05 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 6, 5:57 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 6, 5:28 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Okay, let me put it another way. Electromagnetic waves exactly
> > obey the rules of optics only a significant distance away from the
> > electric charges that generate them. The critical distances can vary
> > depending on conditions. One estimate can be made by saying for an
> > isolated electromagnetic charge, the electromagnetic field within the
> > displacement of the electric charge can not be considered a true
> > wave.
>
> I think you are refering to geometric optics.
Geometric optics is a limiting case of wave optics where interference
and diffraction are negligible. The behavior of electromagnetic fields
near the charge that generates them does not precisely conform to what
would be expected from a wave. For example, the energy flux near an
antennae does not have to travel in a straight line even for single
frequency disturbances. A single frequency wave in a vacuum has to
travel in a straight line. There are other differnces.
You already know lots of electromagnetic phenomena that don't
conform to wave optics. In other words, near field phenomena. A
magnetic field from a bar magnet and an electric field from a comb
does not conform to wave optics or geometric optics. Add to that the
magnetic field around a straight wire with a constant current,
electric field in a capacitor, etc. These are as fundamental as radio
waves, which do obey wave optics.
The near field phenomena merge continuously into the
electromagnetic waves. For example, radio waves are generated from an
antennae. For example, the magnetic field around a straight wire with
alternating current merge continuously with radio waves from that
antennae. In fluorescence theory, the electric fields near an excited
molecule merge continuously into the light wave emitted from that
molecule.
One consequence of near field phenomenon is that for an observer
in an inertial field, the electric fields have an appearance that is
superficially different from magnetic fields. I say superficially
because Einstein showed that the same field can appear different for
different observers. If aether theory is so fundamental, it should be
able to explain the superficial difference between electric field and
magnetic fields as seen by an inertial observer. If you are really
comfortable with aether theory as opposed to SR, then obviously you
understand how the same aether can support the fields from an
electrified comb, a bar magnetic, the region very close to an
antennae, and the region very far from the antennae.
The aether doesn't have to explain the Michaelson Morley
experiment. Come up with an aether explains all antennae phenomena
without SR. We can then modify this theory slightly to accomodate the
Michaelson Morley experiment. Just give me an aether that can explain
a radio antennae.
>
> << Geometric optics provides rules for propagating these rays
> through an optical system, which indicates how the actual
> wavefront will propagate.
mouth, and then attack those words I never said. I was the one who
brought up polarization. Geometric optics easily accommodates
polarization theory, since one can discuss the polarization of a light
ray. I do want an explanation as to why a radio-wave ray has to travel
in a straight line far from its source, but very close to its source
(i.e., in the antennae) can curve.
>
>
>
> No... you can't sense the magnetic field "far from an antenna" because
> it requires an antenna.
the first antennae. The second antennae is in the receiver, the first
antennae is the transmitter. I was originally talking about the
antennae in the transmitter. Thank you for mentioning the receiver.
The same problems apply to the receiver antennae as well. The aether
theory explains how the radio wave travels between one antennae and
another antennae, but doesn't seem to do so well near the antennae.
As an example, consider a transformer. That is a device where the
two antennae (i.e., coils) are very close together. If the two coils
of wire were miles apart, one would be able to use the laws of
geometric optics and wave mechanics with no problem. However, the two
coils in a transformer are intertwined. I would like an aether
description of the behavior of a transformer.
Note: I have gone through Jackson (a classic textbook on EM) and
loads of electronic books. I am comfortable with both transformers and
antennae. There is no contradiction between their behaviors, not in
modern EM theory. Perhaps you can find an aether theory that does just
as well.
> Attempts to alter the propagating wave with
> magnetic fields give a null result absent matter to interact with
> both the propagating wave and the disturbing magnetic field so we
> can't separate it from a material dielectric for any pressure
> attainible in "this" universe.
Which is precisely NOT my point. The law of superposition has
nothing to do with what I am talking about.
The law of superposition works fine in both the near and far
field. The superposition principle has nothing to do with my point
since the fields ARE being effected by the electric charges.
The aether Spaceman, and a few others describe supports
disturbances in the electric field. The law of superposition applies
to two electromagnetic fields, and does not in any way apply to
electric charges. There is no description of how it interacts with
electric charges.
How does aether interact with electric charges? No one, including
H. A. Lorentz, was able to figure it out. I am inviting the aether-
heads in this forum to figure it out. Stop bashing Einstein and do
something useful.
> > Maxwell's equations aren't the same as an aether theory. What
> > mechanical properties of the aether give you this change between the
> > short distance and the large distance?
>
> There are no "mechanical properties" which apply because they only
> consider attractive couples. (gravity, inertia)
I have no idea what you are talking about. What is an attractive
couple? And how did gravity get in here? Look, I did not ask for
anything that explains gravity. I believe it will be difficult enough
to come up with an aether that explains electric fields and magnetic
fields separately.
I said that the aether theory does not have to include
relativity. Your ether can be Galilean invariant if you wish, thus
violating the MM experiment. If your aether theory includes gravity
too, then your model will start violating the Mossbaeur experiments.
Why are you making things hard on yourself? Just show me how you
aether theory models electromagnetic phenomenon as observed up to the
Maxwell's equations.
We can modify this wonderful aether model once you explain basic,
third grade science experiments. Remember the experiment where you
wrapped a wire around a nail, connected the ends of the wire to the
electrodes of a battery, and picked up paper clips? You then used a
bar magnet to pick up the same paper clips? I want an aether theory
that can describes that (without the chemistry of the battery, of
course).
> > I don't say that it can't be
> > done. I can't do it. If you like the idea of an aether, you can try it
> > yourself. However, talk about your theory rather than the "scientific
> > establishment." And expect criticism.
>
> Hydrogen and helium seems adaquate for what we observe.
What?
>
> "What is the Interstellar Medium?"http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristic_impedance_of_vacuum
>
Interstellar medium? I would be happy if you could explain a
magnet picking up paper clips. Why do you want to try modeling the
interstellar medium? The aether model failed before we even knew
there was an interstellar medium.
Darwin123
Gee, you didn't take very long. I am rather slow in these areas,
but you got right to it.
Sue...
[...]
>
> > There are no "mechanical properties" which apply because they only
> > consider attractive couples. (gravity, inertia)
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about. What is an attractive
> couple?
The coupling between the earth and moon which we can observe
as the ocean tides is a good example.
> And how did gravity get in here?
Gravity and inertia are the same. It "got in" when
you mentioned inertia.
> Look, I did not ask for
> anything that explains gravity. I believe it will be difficult enough
> to come up with an aether that explains electric fields and magnetic
> fields separately.
Then a rewrite your orginal post so the influence of inertia
is not a factor.
> I said that the aether theory does not have to include
> relativity. Your ether can be Galilean invariant if you wish, thus
> violating the MM experiment. If your aether theory includes gravity
> too, then your model will start violating the Mossbaeur experiments.
> Why are you making things hard on yourself? Just show me how you
> aether theory models electromagnetic phenomenon as observed up to the
> Maxwell's equations.
I never mentioned a aether theory. I simply pointed out that
your are asking for the fundamental forces to be expressed in terms
of a more complex forces.
> We can modify this wonderful aether model once you explain basic,
> third grade science experiments. Remember the experiment where you
> wrapped a wire around a nail, connected the ends of the wire to the
> electrodes of a battery, and picked up paper clips? You then used a
> bar magnet to pick up the same paper clips? I want an aether theory
> that can describes that (without the chemistry of the battery, of
> course).
Pretend you have a brick constructed of thousands of tiny houses then
study the floor plan of each tiny house and see if you can learn from
the floor plan what makes a brick useful to a brick-mason.
The questions of your original post are a simialar folly.
>
> > > I don't say that it can't be
> > > done. I can't do it. If you like the idea of an aether, you can try it
> > > yourself. However, talk about your theory rather than the "scientific
> > > establishment." And expect criticism.
>
> > Hydrogen and helium seems adaquate for what we observe.
> What?
>
> > "What is the Interstellar Medium?"http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
>
> Interstellar medium? I would be happy if you could explain a
> magnet picking up paper clips.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applications
<< Why do you want to try modeling the
interstellar medium? >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
The aether model failed before we even knew
there was an interstellar medium.
You should learn to preach before you try
preaching to the choir. ;-)
Sue...
Darwin123
wrote:
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
No it doesn't. Light does not interact with dark matter, by
definition. So the dark matter can't get in the way. The dark matter
is obviously not the aether. Light travels between the galaxies, where
there is no dark matter. So obviously the dark matter can't be
carrying the matter.
Spaceman
> No it doesn't. Light does not interact with dark matter, by
> definition.
Oh ya, I forgot you have mathematical rubber sheets that
make the light curve in gravity instead of a pressure differential
that a ark matter could be causing.
No biggy.
> So the dark matter can't get in the way. The dark matter
> is obviously not the aether. Light travels between the galaxies, where
> there is no dark matter. So obviously the dark matter can't be
> carrying the matter.
No dark matter?
so tell me this.
How does light speed back up to the speed of light again after
it passes through a gas cloud and exits such if it is supposedly constant?
Darwin123
wrote:
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0237b1a7-0e83-417f...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I don't think such awheelwould have such properties. What's
> > the difference between static balancing and dynamic balancing? I
> > suspect that you can describe the difference in either words or
> > pictures. Do you know a reference where I can see a description of
> > your statically balancedwheel?
>
>
Very good. I looked at that link. It took me a while before I
could figure out what you thought it had to do with anything. Its a
very interesting system but I don't think it has the properties
necessary for a component of the aether.
The wheel spins stably if it is not rotated relative to the
axis, while it makes irregular gyrations if it is rotated relativie to
the aether. I conjecture that you think the instability in someway
suppresses the longitudinal mode. However, you are wrong.
Just to be specific, I suppose an entire latticework of such
wheels all throughout a plane, with axes of the wheel all lined up. If
we set one wheel in motion, in any way whatsoever, a "wave" will
propagate through the plane. The exact mode of vibration corresponds
in your "mechanical" imagination to a polarization.
Although the aether would have to be three dimensional, I think
this is sufficient to show a major flaw in your assumptions.
The rotation of the wheel (i.e., rotating rod), either out of
the axis or in the axis, corresponds to a transverse-like
polarization. It does not correspond to a longitudinal-like vibration.
The disturbance propagates, but the motion of the wheel is
perpendicular to the direction of the wave vector.
That instability that you read about corresponds to a coupling
between two degrees of freedom. In other words, when the rotating rod
is rotated off-axis, energy is exchanged between the rotation in axis
and the rotation off-axis. Really, it is a fancy type of "beat"
between two modes of different frequency. It doesn't exactly
correspond to beats, since the oscillation frequency of the wheel
isn't fixed to begin with.
A similar system does exist in optics. An unpolarized optical
fiber supports two transverse modes: clockwise and counterclockwise.
Small birefringences in the wire cause a coupling between the two
modes. Thus, the polarization of light through an optical fiber that
isn't made for carrying polarization signals is unstable, and
oscillates irregularly very rapidly. This is light, not sound. It is
an electromagnetic disturbance, not a mechanical disturbance. However,
the sound wave passing through your array of "statically stable"
wheels behaves just like a light ray in the fiber optic.
However, the fiber optic can not support a true longitudinally
polarized light wave. Your "statically stable wheels" can support a
longitudinally polarized sound wave.
Imagine this type of vibration. The axle in the array of wheels
is displaced parallel to it own axis, either right or left. The wheel
isn't rotated, nor does it turn. Let the axle go. It will bob back and
forth, without the wheel turning. The disturbance will propagate in
the direction of the axle. One has the wave propagating in the
direction of motion for components. This is the definition of
longitudinal. The array of "statically stable" wheels most definitely
can support a longitudinal wave.
A person with a "mechanical imagination," such as yourself,
should have considered all the modes of vibration for the system shown
in your link. It should have been obvious that there was a stable mode
of vibration that didn't involve any rotation of the rod attached to
the axle. Of course it can support a longitudinally polarized wave.
The article that you cite was only referring to transverse modes of
vibration. The transverse modes of vibration couple, and thus are
unstable. The longitudinal polarization is probably the most stable
mode of vibration in your system.
Obviously, it doesn't have the properties of the electromagnetic
aether. The electromagnetic aether should suppress longitudinal
polarized light and propagate transverse polarized light. If anything,
your proposed medium does the opposite.
Please think about your model next time before you propose it.
You don't want future generations to call you "the imbecile, the
thief, and the liar."
I'll bet you don't want to answer this. However, I'll wait.
John C. Polasek
<drose...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>A lot of people around here want to go back to the good old days
>before aether theory was discarded. In fact, many people here say that
>aether theory is somehow a substitute for relativity. Some say that
>electromagnetic waves can be modeled by a combination of Newtonian
>physics, Galilean invariance and aether. However, I don't know the
>mechanical properties of this aether. So I am making three modest
>inquiries.
>
>1) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
>eliminates the longitudinal and not the transverse polarizations?
>2) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
>explains the properties of static electric fields?
>3) What type of mechanical properties can the aether exist that
>explains the properties of static magnetic fields.
>
> Yes, there are static electric fields. Those who don't believe it
>should try combing their hair on a dry, cold day.
I have already worked out the properties of "aether". See Table 1 in
my Permittivity paper at www.dualspace.net.
I found that in order for vacuum to have permitivity 8.8e-12F/meter
you must have an electron positron pair in a cell whose size is lambda
as the first item in the table, the charges spring loaded to the
center with K Newt/m, resulting in a Youngs modulus (stiffness as in
steel) and density rho such that Y/rho = c^2. The mechanical
transmission speed is c just as you have with eps0*mu0 = 1/c^2.
The density of such a material for the electron half alone is very
high, 2.5Million times that of iron so it must be another space, pair
space. The cell is the fine structure constant alpha (1/137) times the
Compton wave length, so released electrons expand by alpha^3 giving
them the density of iron and the speed of light. That's the star
material; forget about Big Bang.
You cannot explain gravity without pairspace. Read the paper.
John Polasek
Darwin123
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 17:10:17 -0700 (PDT), Darwin123
>
>
>
> <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >A lot of people around here want to go back to the good old days
> >before aether theory was discarded. In fact, many people here say that
> >aether theory is somehow a substitute for relativity. Some say that
> >electromagnetic waves can be modeled by a combination of Newtonian
> >physics, Galilean invariance and aether. However, I don't know the
> >mechanical properties of this aether. So I am making three modest
> >inquiries.
>
> >1) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
> >eliminates the longitudinal and not the transverse polarizations?
> >2) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
> >explains the properties of static electric fields?
> >3) What type of mechanical properties can the aether exist that
> >explains the properties of static magnetic fields.
>
> > Yes, there are static electric fields. Those who don't believe it
> >should try combing their hair on a dry, cold day.
>
> I have already worked out the properties of "aether". See Table 1 in
> my Permittivity paper atwww.dualspace.net.
> I found that in order for vacuum to have permitivity 8.8e-12F/meter
> you must have an electron positron pair in a cell whose size is lambda
Going back to my original question: How does your aether suppress the
longitudinal polarization but propagate the transverse polarizations?
> forget about Big Bang.
Thank you, I'll try. Can you answer the polarization question?
Sue...
Any fluid with the possibilty of both attractive and repulsive
couples does this. When an positive charge is pushed, a negative
charge is pulled. So the net longitudinal displacement of mass
is zero.
Sue...
Aetherist
What makes think it does? The magnetic component is one transverse element
the electic the other. An EM wave is fully defined by this and matches
Maxwell's Physical model? There may be a P=wave but it won't be manifested
by EM phenomena. Perhaps its gravatic.
Eric Gisse
...because no longitudinal electromagnetic waves have ever been
observed, in addition to the more basic fact that nobody has found
credible and repeatable evidence of the aether?
> The magnetic component is one transverse element
> the electic the other. An EM wave is fully defined by this and matches
> Maxwell's Physical model? There may be a P=wave but it won't be manifested
> by EM phenomena. Perhaps its gravatic.
You do know there is a difference between E&M and gravitation, and
that the Maxwell equation model for gravity doesn't work. Right?
John C. Polasek
Aetherist covered it and you weren't paying attention. I just told you
that the MECHANICAL transmission speed sqrt(Y/rho) also equals the
speed of light. Try it out. That would be a P wave defined by the
geometry in table 1 with speed c, just as the electrical one is. I did
not tamper with mu and eps.
Pairspace is a solid with the properties I listed, and further is an
alpha-reduced model of the Compton wavelength for 1 electron.
I did not model for mu0, just eps0, which is open and shut.
I tried to find a tensor Z that would generate H from E as H = E/Z
numerically.
These are the same coefficients that the quantum crowd is vaguely
referring to in their omni-present but abjectly undefined quantum
vacuum.
You are much more qualified than I to figure out the polarization of
which you are so enamored, starting with the fact that eps0 is
perfectly modeled as I showed, as spring loaded mass pair.
John Polasek
Eric Gisse
Mechanical waves are longitudinal. Which is the entire fucking point.
> Pairspace is a solid with the properties I listed, and further is an
> alpha-reduced model of the Compton wavelength for 1 electron.
> I did not model for mu0, just eps0, which is open and shut.
> I tried to find a tensor Z that would generate H from E as H = E/Z
> numerically.
I bet it was hard, since you can't divide by a tensor.
> These are the same coefficients that the quantum crowd is vaguely
> referring to in their omni-present but abjectly undefined quantum
> vacuum.
Intellectual dishonesty is annoying. There is a huge difference
between a vacuum with certain properties and an all-encompassing
mechanical substance that does everything.
Martin Hogbin
> On Jun 6, 4:41 am, Martin Hogbin <goatNOSP...@hogbin.org> wrote:
>> Darwin123 wrote:
>
>>
>> Martin Hogbin
>
> I am not an aether supporter. I thought that was obvious. However,
> I thought I would give some of the cranks to show their imagination. I
> want to see if any of them can produce real thought in addition to
> their ranting. If any of them produce a working model, it could be fun
> as well as useful for certain applications. If a crank makes a real
> effort, he might loose his crankiness and start becoming a scientist.
We live in hope.
Martin Hogbin
John C. Polasek
Your exasperation is noted, your eloquence also, but I have trouble
descrying the exact nature of your non-sequitur.
You don't find it remarkable that I deduced the absolutely necessary
and sufficient conditions for the actual existence of permittivity,
and that in its further development, it intrinsically and inescapably
produces a solid medium having the precise modulus and density to
deliver c mechanically as well as electrically? Why don't you go for
the polarization thing?
>> Pairspace is a solid with the properties I listed, and further is an
>> alpha-reduced model of the Compton wavelength for 1 electron.
>> I did not model for mu0, just eps0, which is open and shut.
>> I tried to find a tensor Z that would generate H from E as H = E/Z
>> numerically.
>
>I bet it was hard, since you can't divide by a tensor.
How trivial of you. Obviously GH = E, but then I can't talk about Z.
H = E/Z. (377 ohms).
>> These are the same coefficients that the quantum crowd is vaguely
>> referring to in their omni-present but abjectly undefined quantum
>> vacuum.
>
>Intellectual dishonesty is annoying. There is a huge difference
>between a vacuum with certain properties and an all-encompassing
>mechanical substance that does everything.
The biggest boast from QM is that vacuum may be the source of
unlimited zero point energy and that pairs pop out from time to time.
They never shut up about it.
skip
>> John Polasek
John Polasek
Darwin123
Wrong. Taking your words literally, the longitudinal displacement
of charge is zero. The longitudinal displacement of mass is positive.
Both the positive and negative charges have a positive mass associated
with them.
Also, the way you describe it, the transverse polarizations are
also suppressed.
Oh, I guess I better confess. I don't know what you are talking
about.
I don't know any fluid in nature that has the property that you
are describing. Every mechanical vibration propagating through a fluid
has a longitudinal mode. The presence of electric charges doesn't
change this. Monopoles, dipoles, quadropoles, and octopoles in the
fluid don't change this. Even plasmas have longitudinal modes of
mechanical vibration. Charges are arranged in all sorts of
configurations without suppressing the longitudinal mechanical modes.
You claim to "any fluid that has both attractive and repulsive
charge couples has this." It seems to me that every know fluid has
attractive and repulsive charge couples. None of them completely
suppress the longitudinal mode. Therefore, I suspect that either you
or I don't know what these words mean. It could be both of us.
Darwin123
wrote:
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1c27c377-070d-4918...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > No it doesn't. Light does not interact with dark matter, by
> > definition.
>
> Oh ya, I forgot you have mathematical rubber sheets that
> make the light curve in gravity instead of a pressure differential
> that a ark matter could be causing.
> No biggy.
>
> > So the dark matter can't get in the way. The dark matter
> > is obviously not the aether. Light travels between the galaxies, where
> > there is no dark matter. So obviously the dark matter can't be
> > carrying the matter.
>
> No dark matter?
> so tell me this.
galaxy together. Dark matter supposedly is part of all galaxies,
enveloping and even extending past the galaxy by a significant amount.
This explains the orbital speeds seen in galaxies. However, for this
model to work the dark matter can't extend far past the galaxies. It
interacts with the material in the galaxies gravitationally. If the
material extended to other galaxies, the individual galaxies couldn't
stick together.
The Milky Way galaxy would fall apart if its dark matter extended
all the way to Andromeda. The Milky Way and Andromeda each have to
have their own lump of dark matter. Otherwise, they couldn't maintain
that nice pinwheel structure.
> How does light speed back up to the speed of light again after
> it passes through a gas cloud and exits such if it is supposedly constant?
the glass, and speeds up on the other side of the glass. There are
several ways to picture this. Since you are so mechanically minded,
and working hard on the theory of the aether, I will leave it to you
to explain how light travels through glass.
Read the fine print. The constant c is "the speed of light in a
vacuum." Light slows down in a material medium. When the aether is
mixed with a material like a gas, the speed of light slows down in
that mixture. Provided there is an aether.
You claim to be mechanically minded. You obviously don't know
beans about astronomy. So I recommend you stick to a mechanical
problem. Please explain the mechanical properties of an aether
necessary to explain the polarization of light, and the difference
between electric and magnetic fields. Since the rest of us don't have
your profound mechanical insight, try to engage us in a mechanical
discussion.
John C. Polasek
I'm sorry to see you did not take the time to look at my model and try
to understand it. To deal with this polarization fixation, you can
see from my model that when transverse E and H fields arrive, the
electron and positron deflect transversely and oppositely.
When a mechanical pressure wave comes through it affects both electron
and positron non-preferentially, each stretching its own spring K
(which would be where electrical energy would be stored but not in a
mechanical P wave).
This pairspace is a solid that is 2.5e6 x as dense as iron and 2.5e16
times as stiff.
The charges have a spring mass resonance of 1.7e22 rad/sec. If such a
frequency could be generated, space would "come apart" as postulated
by Schwinger.
John Polasek
Androcles
"John C. Polasek" <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:h9ir44h26mqnospdn...@4ax.com...
Typical... always the other person's fault that they don't understand
your fucking stooopid crankiness.
Sue...
> On Jun 8, 8:25 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 7:52 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 8, 7:48 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 17:10:17 -0700 (PDT), Darwin123
>
> > > > <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Going back to my original question: How does your aether suppress the
> > > longitudinal polarization but propagate the transverse polarizations?
>
> > Any fluid with the possibilty of both attractive and repulsive
> > couples does this. When an positive charge is pushed, a negative
> > charge is pulled. So the net longitudinal displacement of mass
> > is zero.
>
> Wrong. Taking your words literally, the longitudinal displacement
> of charge is zero. The longitudinal displacement of mass is positive.
> Both the positive and negative charges have a positive mass associated
> with them.
Do electrons fall?
> Also, the way you describe it, the transverse polarizations are
> also suppressed.
> Oh, I guess I better confess. I don't know what you are talking
> about.
> I don't know any fluid in nature that has the property that you
> are describing.
You are breathing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
> Every mechanical vibration propagating through a fluid
> has a longitudinal mode.
No... if you could someway arrange for every push to
have a complimentary pull the net longitudinal displacement
is zero.
The dielectric of free_space seems to have that quality.
If you make a conductive sphere more positive,
then remote protons will be repelled. Remote electrons
will be attracted and neutral atoms will rotate, absorbing
some angular momentum. But the atom is not displaced wrt
the conductive sphere.
> The presence of electric charges doesn't
> change this. Monopoles, dipoles, quadropoles, and octopoles in the
> fluid don't change this. Even plasmas have longitudinal modes of
> mechanical vibration. Charges are arranged in all sorts of
> configurations without suppressing the longitudinal mechanical modes.
Again... you are building a brick with little houses, instead of
building a house with little bricks.
> You claim to "any fluid that has both attractive and repulsive
> charge couples has this." It seems to me that every know fluid has
> attractive and repulsive charge couples. None of them completely
> suppress the longitudinal mode. Therefore, I suspect that either you
> or I don't know what these words mean. It could be both of us.
So tell us, is the longitudinal radiation from your local television
station attracting or repelling your receiving set. My set doesn't
seem to be moving toward or away from the transmitter but I
suppose it is possible that free_space works a little different
there at your house. :o)
Sue...
Robert J. Kolker
>
> You are breathing it.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
Free Space is not a substance.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
> The gravitation of the dark matter is part of what holds each
> galaxy together. Dark matter supposedly is part of all galaxies,
> enveloping and even extending past the galaxy by a significant amount.
> This explains the orbital speeds seen in galaxies. However, for this
> model to work the dark matter can't extend far past the galaxies. It
> interacts with the material in the galaxies gravitationally. If the
> material extended to other galaxies, the individual galaxies couldn't
> stick together.
> The Milky Way galaxy would fall apart if its dark matter extended
> all the way to Andromeda. The Milky Way and Andromeda each have to
> have their own lump of dark matter. Otherwise, they couldn't maintain
> that nice pinwheel structure.
Why not?
If anything a massive sea of dark matter could keep such going
better since The entire Universe full of dark matter is helping it along.
> The same way a light wave entering a plate of glass slows down in
> the glass, and speeds up on the other side of the glass. There are
> several ways to picture this. Since you are so mechanically minded,
> and working hard on the theory of the aether, I will leave it to you
> to explain how light travels through glass.
The medium for light is on both sides. (the aether)
re-enter the same medium, and tada.. back up to the old speed
again.
Without a medium, the light could not speed up again
to it's "constant" speed.
> Read the fine print. The constant c is "the speed of light in a
> vacuum." Light slows down in a material medium. When the aether is
> mixed with a material like a gas, the speed of light slows down in
> that mixture. Provided there is an aether.
How would vacuum make the light go back to c again if
it passed through something that physically slowed it down?
Aether is a great medium to find the cause for such
non constant jumping back to a constant.
> You claim to be mechanically minded. You obviously don't know
> beans about astronomy. So I recommend you stick to a mechanical
> problem. Please explain the mechanical properties of an aether
> necessary to explain the polarization of light, and the difference
> between electric and magnetic fields. Since the rest of us don't have
> your profound mechanical insight, try to engage us in a mechanical
> discussion.
You should take your insults and shove them right back up
your smart ass that they came from.
So far, you have shown a lack in any mechanical thoughts
whatsoever.
If you want such stuff, why are you ignoring the posts of others
that are giving you great links that explain lots of the stuff.
You seem to just want to ignore a few other posters in this thread.
that would be your problem, not mine.
Spaceman
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kI-dnXs5NNcC6tPV...@comcast.com...
It also can't be a perfect vacuum that keeps all from entering
and destroying it.
:)
John C. Polasek
That's why my theory is called Dual Space. The pairspace (Table 1)
that you think of fuzzily as 'aether' is the storehouse of material
from which everything in our universe is made of. Our universe is
nearly empty; its "dual" is the nearly full pairspace.
Our stars came from electrons launched from pairspace. The positron
mates remained behind in pairspace. It answers the old QED stumper
"what happened to all the antiparticles?".
There is real physics in pairspace, in contrast to the chimerical
fields in our vacuum. The positrons obey the rules that are
transmitted 1:1 to the particle electron world we occupy. (QED:
"entanglement").
Pairspace is under extreme pressure but balanced, see Table 1. When
electrons are removed, pressure gradients occur in pairspace, causing
gravity. My equation for this is -cdc/dr = MG/r^2 = g. That is the
source of gravity: removal of electrons to form e.g. the earth. The
denuded region is obviously weaker and deforms.
Curved space is Minkowski's wet dream.
John Polasek
The Ghost In The Machine
<spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote
on Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:07:19 -0400
<UbKdnfR2XN5R4dPV...@comcast.com>:
And it's not. The density varies but is around 1
atom per cubic centimeter at most, and may be
as low as 1 atom per meter in spots, assuming my
memory's accurate here.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #7878218:
class C { private: virtual void stupid() = 0; };
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Spaceman
> That's why my theory is called Dual Space. The pairspace (Table 1)
> that you think of fuzzily as 'aether' is the storehouse of material
> from which everything in our universe is made of. Our universe is
> nearly empty; its "dual" is the nearly full pairspace.
> Our stars came from electrons launched from pairspace. The positron
> mates remained behind in pairspace. It answers the old QED stumper
> "what happened to all the antiparticles?".
> There is real physics in pairspace, in contrast to the chimerical
> fields in our vacuum. The positrons obey the rules that are
> transmitted 1:1 to the particle electron world we occupy. (QED:
> "entanglement").
> Pairspace is under extreme pressure but balanced, see Table 1. When
> electrons are removed, pressure gradients occur in pairspace, causing
> gravity. My equation for this is -cdc/dr = MG/r^2 = g. That is the
> source of gravity: removal of electrons to form e.g. the earth. The
> denuded region is obviously weaker and deforms.
So, let me get this straight,
You have no curvature of space, or time?
and basically a "matrix" of electrons and smaller stuff.
sounds like a great thought.. ( I think of it as that also)
:)
and it can predict everything you throw at it?
Can I give you a simple thing to figure out using your theory?
Spaceman
news:8ge2i5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> And it's not. The density varies but is around 1
> atom per cubic centimeter at most, and may be
> as low as 1 atom per meter in spots, assuming my
> memory's accurate here.
that amount of vacuum surrounding our planet
would "suck our atmosphere out like a gigantic vacuum."
:)
Try again,
:)
it never becomes "that actually empty"
there has to be something else with a pressure
in it's tiny world stopping the transfer of larger pressures.
:)
how many psi's at the outer edge of our atmosphere?
between space, what cause of a pressure difference
occurs that would negate the "vacuum of 0 psi" in space
Greg Neill
news:SdadnY2ieuZyCtPV...@comcast.com
> message news:8ge2i5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>> And it's not. The density varies but is around 1
>> atom per cubic centimeter at most, and may be
>> as low as 1 atom per meter in spots, assuming my
>> memory's accurate here.
>
> that amount of vacuum surrounding our planet
> would "suck our atmosphere out like a gigantic vacuum."
It does. But the atmosphere is held back by gravity.
Smaller planets (like Mars for example) have lost
most of their original atmospheres over time due to
it bleeding off into space.
> :)
> Try again,
> :)
> it never becomes "that actually empty"
> there has to be something else with a pressure
> in it's tiny world stopping the transfer of larger pressures.
Hey James, why then doesn't the ISS have screen doors?
> how many psi's at the outer edge of our atmosphere?
Define the outer edge. The pressure drops continuously
and doesn't have a hard edge. At best we can declare an
arbitrary pressure or height at which the atmosphere is
said to end and space begin.
Low orbit spacecraft (like the ISS) are still running
through the wispy dregs of the outer atmosphere, which
is why they need periodic boosts to compensate for
frictional slowing. Geostationary satellites, on the
other hand, are in much higher orbits and don't suffer
to the same degree (there are other issues for them,
like the gravitational influence of the Sun and Moon).
By the time you get a few Earth radii away from the
planet, the pressure is for all intents and purposes
zero, and we usually talk instead about the density
in terms of atoms per cubic centimeter or per cubic
meter.
> between space, what cause of a pressure difference
> occurs that would negate the "vacuum of 0 psi" in space
Huh?
John C. Polasek
No I don't think you'd understand the answer, judging by your naive
concept of atmospheric pressure and vacuum of outer space. Air has a
definite weight and mass. Think of air as a stack of pillows up to
infinity. The bottom one is most squashed (14.7 psi) and up a few 1000
feet it's way less. Gravity does it all. You have the naive idea that
a vacuum is a suction; it isn't; it's a lack of resistance to
pressure.
Spaceman
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:484e97fa$0$22390$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>It does. But the atmosphere is held back by gravity.
>Smaller planets (like Mars for example) have lost
>most of their original atmospheres over time due to
>it bleeding off into space.
So gravity is an opposite of vacuum?
:)
>Hey James, why then doesn't the ISS have screen doors?
:P
Greg, If that was truly 0 pressure surrouding them,
Why have they not exploded?
Have we created magical matals that can hold a true
0 vacuum yet?
NO!
gotta be some pressure out there.
:)
>By the time you get a few Earth radii away from the
>planet, the pressure is for all intents and purposes
>zero, and we usually talk instead about the density
>in terms of atoms per cubic centimeter or per cubic
>meter.
Yes, but at that true density, nothing known to man could
hold such a difference in pressure if it truly existed.
How many psi difference is calculated for free space (0 psi)
and pressure needed for humans to breath correctly(???)
Greg Neill
> news:484e97fa$0$22390$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>> It does. But the atmosphere is held back by gravity.
>> Smaller planets (like Mars for example) have lost
>> most of their original atmospheres over time due to
>> it bleeding off into space.
>
> So gravity is an opposite of vacuum?
> :)
>
>> Hey James, why then doesn't the ISS have screen doors?
>
>> P
> Greg, If that was truly 0 pressure surrouding them,
> Why have they not exploded?
> Have we created magical matals that can hold a true
> 0 vacuum yet?
> NO!
> gotta be some pressure out there.
Think about what you just said. Air pressure
here at the surface of the planet is about
14.7 psi. We regularly inflate normal rubber
tires to 32 psi above that. That's a greater
pressure difference than the ISS has to
withstand.
>> By the time you get a few Earth radii away from the
>> planet, the pressure is for all intents and purposes
>> zero, and we usually talk instead about the density
>> in terms of atoms per cubic centimeter or per cubic
>> meter.
>
> Yes, but at that true density, nothing known to man could
> hold such a difference in pressure if it truly existed.
See above.
>
> How many psi difference is calculated for free space (0 psi)
> and pressure needed for humans to breath correctly(???)
About 14.7 psi is one atmosphere. We can make do with
somewhat less (at high altitudes in the mountains, for
example).
Spaceman
> No I don't think you'd understand the answer, judging by your naive
> concept of atmospheric pressure and vacuum of outer space. Air has a
> definite weight and mass. Think of air as a stack of pillows up to
> infinity. The bottom one is most squashed (14.7 psi) and up a few 1000
> feet it's way less. Gravity does it all. You have the naive idea that
> a vacuum is a suction; it isn't; it's a lack of resistance to
> pressure.
No,
I have the unique idea that vacuum can not exist without pressure.
and I look for the pressure that could keep a vacuum as a vacuum.
since that is how "humans have to make vacuums also.
:)
anyway.
I do understand your "pillow" thing and I actually think it
also occurs in the electron and it will occur in stuff
way smaller than electrons that we probably do not even see yet.
and when my stuff is thought about correctly,
It also "causes" gravity"
Spaceman
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
>Think about what you just said. Air pressure
>here at the surface of the planet is about
>14.7 psi. We regularly inflate normal rubber
>tires to 32 psi above that. That's a greater
>pressure difference than the ISS has to
>withstand.
big diference Greg,
Having something hold a pressure higher than outside pressure
is easy. (that is why we don't have the screens on ISS of course)
but holding against a 0 pressure is a much different task.
there is no force pushing back at all greg.
you don't have the thing that is stopping the tire from exploding
when you say 0psi vacuum
About 14.7 psi is one atmosphere. We can make do with
somewhat less (at high altitudes in the mountains, for
example).
so you have 14psi pushing against 0
and the metal can hold 14 psi vs 0?
simple out in space huh?
hmm
How come in a big enough vacuum chamber
on Earth.. that does not work.
LOL
You are ignoring the pressure of space Greg.
:)
Greg Neill
> news:484ea289$0$28082$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>> Think about what you just said. Air pressure
>> here at the surface of the planet is about
>> 14.7 psi. We regularly inflate normal rubber
>> tires to 32 psi above that. That's a greater
>> pressure difference than the ISS has to
>> withstand.
>
> big diference Greg,
> Having something hold a pressure higher than outside pressure
> is easy. (that is why we don't have the screens on ISS of course)
> but holding against a 0 pressure is a much different task.
What? It's the same thing! In both cases, inside is
higher pressure. Further, the pressure difference is
about the same. It's the pressure diference that
results in net force on the structure.
> there is no force pushing back at all greg.
Only pressure *difference* matters to net force.
> you don't have the thing that is stopping the tire from exploding
> when you say 0psi vacuum
James, the space shuttle's tires are in vacuum while
in orbit (their storage bays are not pressurized).
Think about it.
A vacuum is not a pulling force in and of itself.
It's pressure difference that does the work.
>> About 14.7 psi is one atmosphere. We can make do with
>> somewhat less (at high altitudes in the mountains, for
>> example).
>
> so you have 14psi pushing against 0
> and the metal can hold 14 psi vs 0?
> simple out in space huh?
> hmm
> How come in a big enough vacuum chamber
> on Earth.. that does not work.
It works fine. The problem is in engineering the
seals and structural loads over large volumes at
reasonable cost. Large scale vacuum chambers do
exist on Earth for testing satellites and so on,
but they are few and very costly to build and
operate. Multiply the pressure difference by the
volume to get lower bound on the energy needed to
evacuate the chamber.
Part of the reason that spacecraft are so expensive
is the engineering requirement to hold a breathable
atmosphere for the duration of a mission, despite
having hatches and doors that can pass cargo
and people.
By the way, a SCUBA tank can hold about 4500 psi
without causing problems. The compressor in your
workplace probably ran up to about 200 psi.
> LOL
> You are ignoring the pressure of space Greg.
Ignoring what isn't there?
Spaceman
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
>What? It's the same thing! In both cases, inside is
>higher pressure. Further, the pressure difference is
>about the same. It's the pressure diference that
>results in net force on the structure.
One has a force fighting back,
one does not.
It is not the same
Sheesh!
Nevermind Greg,
I can see nothing ever comes from conversations with you
anyway since you do not think about such simple
differential facts that are so obvious.
:(
Greg Neill
> news:484eb6ea$0$20391$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>> What? It's the same thing! In both cases, inside is
>> higher pressure. Further, the pressure difference is
>> about the same. It's the pressure diference that
>> results in net force on the structure.
>
> One has a force fighting back,
> one does not.
> It is not the same
James, it's the container itself that provides the
forces to resist the interior pressure. That's why
compressor tanks are made from steel and not
silly putty.
> Sheesh!
> Nevermind Greg,
> I can see nothing ever comes from conversations with you
> anyway since you do not think about such simple
> differential facts that are so obvious.
You mean you get frustrated when just about every
idea you have turns out to be incomplete, unjustified,
or just plane wrong?
Spaceman
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
>James, it's the container itself that provides the
>forces to resist the interior pressure. That's why
>compressor tanks are made from steel and not
>silly putty.
Greg,
when you compare an air tank in this atomospere
to something vs vacuum, I know you have not
seen the strength of vacuum.
the soemthing psi vs 0 psi makes a gigantic difference Greg.
and even at 0.00000000000000000000001psi vs 0
the vacuum loses and gets filled.
where are your walls that stop this?
Just say it..
there must be a freaken aether and think about it for fun
If you don't have fun,
what is reading the books all about to begin with.
read, think on your own, read,
maybe even make a better book.
Don't just sit here and bark like a puppy huh?
sheesh!
Greg Neill
> news:484ec478$0$12474$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>> James, it's the container itself that provides the
>> forces to resist the interior pressure. That's why
>> compressor tanks are made from steel and not
>> silly putty.
>
> Greg,
> when you compare an air tank in this atomospere
> to something vs vacuum, I know you have not
> seen the strength of vacuum.
Apparently you know nothing about fluid dynamics.
There is no such thing as "strength of vacuum".
Zero pressure is the end of the line. Pressure
is an absolute scale.
The force on the wall of a container is given by
the psi of the fluid or gas on that side of the
wall. Add up the square inches of wall and
multiply by the psi to get the total force on that
side. Do the same for the other side. If it's
zero psi, there's zero force applied to that side.
The force that the wall must resist in order not
to fail is the difference in the two forces.
In a vacuum, then, it is just the force due to
the interior pressure.
>
> the soemthing psi vs 0 psi makes a gigantic difference Greg.
X minus zero is X. If X is gigantic, sure. If it's
just 14 psi, that's not gigantic. It's just 14 psi.
> and even at 0.00000000000000000000001psi vs 0
> the vacuum loses and gets filled.
> where are your walls that stop this?
> Just say it..
Um, the spacecraft has walls. It's the walls of
the spacecraft that hold in the interior air. I'm
surprised you didn't think of that.
> there must be a freaken aether and think about it for fun
> If you don't have fun,
> what is reading the books all about to begin with.
> read, think on your own, read,
> maybe even make a better book.
> Don't just sit here and bark like a puppy huh?
> sheesh!
Well, that was certainly amusing.
Darwin123
You are assuming that I don't have cable TV. Okay, for this
discussion I aassume that my TV is receiving radio waves from my
antennae, located on the roof of my house. I remember my dad fixing
the roof antennae when I was a child. Lets go back to my childhood.
The radiation that I received from the local television station
is transverse polarized. Outside of the transmitting antennae itself,
there there was no longitudinally polarized radio wave. My television
set was located several hundred antennae lengths from the TV station.
The transverse polarization of the TV signal was very obvious.
When adjust the TV, the optimal configuration for the antennae was
orthogonal to the direction of the TV station. The reason was that the
electric field of the radio wave was perpendicular to the direction of
the radio wave. The wires of the antennae had to be oriented in the
direction of the electric field in order for the field to generate
sufficient current for our TV to function.
Ahh, the nostalgia! We had poor reception. So my daddy connected a
motor to the roof antennae. We had a separate dial on top of our TV
that controled the direction of the antennae. When we changed
channels, the reception sometimes disappeared. However, we could bring
back the reception by rotating the antennae.
Basically, we were measuring the polarization of the radio wave
when we rotated the antennae. Unless EM has changed significantly
since I was young, the polarization of a radio wave far from an
antennae is always transverse.
> Yes, I was speaking of longitudinally polarized electromagnetic
>My set doesn't seem to be moving toward or away from the >transmitter but I suppose it is possible that free_space works a >little different there at your house. :o)
I don't know what you are referring to. Moving the set closer or
farther from the transmitter doesn't effect on polarization. If one
moves a microphone closer or farther from a source of sound, the
polarization of the sound isn't affected. The polarization of sound in
air is always longitudinal, in regions that are far from the
microphone that generates it. Inside the microphone, there are eddies
and strange effects that can be considered a type of "transverse
polarization." There are near-field phenomena in acoustics, too.
However, sound radiating through the air over significant distances is
always longitudinally polarized.
Back to the TV station. If you have a narrow TV antennae, close to
a single line, the worse reception one has is aiming the antennae
directly toward the radio station. Some antennae are founder, etc., so
it is harder to tell. However, the basic principle of adjusting an
antennae is that the polarization of a radio wave is transverse. It
can be transverse horizontal, transverse diagonal, transverse
circular, etc. No matter how one looks at it, the electric field is
perpendicular to the direction of propagation. Similiarly, the
magnetic field is perpendicular to the direction of polarization.
The best direction of a standard linear antennae is in the
direction of the electric field. Induction from the magnetic field is
weaker.
In any case, you obviously don't have an aether that can
suppress a longitudinal polarization. There is no longitudinal
polarization for electromagnetic radiation in free space. Therefore,
you don't have a viable model for an aether.
Darwin123
wrote:
> "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:484ec478$0$12474$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>
> the soemthing psi vs 0 psi makes a gigantic difference Greg.
> and even at 0.00000000000000000000001psi vs 0
> the vacuum loses and gets filled.
> where are your walls that stop this?
Its called a pressure gradient, Spaceman. If a steel wall is
holding air in, the pressure changes very rapidly. Suppose that the
minimum thickness of steel necessary to hold 15 psi is 5 mm. The
pressure gradient is 3 psi per millimeter. The change in pressure is
distributed through the thickness in steel.
However, suppose the pressure gradient of the atmosphere is
distributed over estimate to be 100 km. The pressure gradient is then
15x10^-8 psi per millimeter. The gravity, which is distributed
throughout the atmosphere, has an easier time.
The trick is to realize that the time necessary for the
atmosphere to bleed off is inversely proportional to the pressure
gradient, not the pressure. So there is no aether necessary to "hold
the atmosphere" in, just gravity.
A better question to ask if if gravity is so strong as to hold
the atmosphere on the earth to begin with, why doesn't gravity squash
the atmosphere into a thin sheet. It's the pressure gradient.
If the aether could interact with the atmosphere like you say,
holding the aether in, then the aether wind would be fatal. The aether
wind would blow away the air from the surface of the earth. The only
way to justify the aether was to assume it interacted very weakly with
the atmosphere.
Jerry
wrote:
> "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
I think you are confusing the difficulty of -achieving- ultrahigh
vacuums with the pressure difference that exists between the
inside and the outside of a vacuum chamber.
Certainly it is difficult to achieve vacuums of better than, say,
10^-9 torr in large chambers. The slightest leak, a minute bit of
outgassing, and your vacuum is useless for, say, molecular beam
epitaxy or auger electron spectroscopy purposes.
The best man-made vacuums are in the sub 10^-13 Torr range. That
is a 100 times better vacuum than you find on the Moon's surface,
only about a thousand molecules of air per cubic cm.
Sophisticated equipment, specially selected materials, and
exceedingly great cleanliness are all required in achieving such
levels of vacuum.
But regardless whether one is dealing with an easily achievable
medium vacuum of 10^-2 Torr, or an extremely high vacuum in the
sub 10^-13 Torr range, the pressure difference between the inside
and outside of the vacuum chamber is a plain old ordinary 14.7
pounds per square inch, about 760 Torr. An ordinary bell jar
does fine for either vacuum. It does not have to be especially
strong.
> LOL
> You are ignoring the pressure of space Greg.
> :)
Jerry
The Ghost In The Machine
<spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote
<SdadnY2ieuZyCtPV...@comcast.com>:
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
> news:8ge2i5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>> And it's not. The density varies but is around 1
>> atom per cubic centimeter at most, and may be
>> as low as 1 atom per meter in spots, assuming my
>> memory's accurate here.
>
> that amount of vacuum surrounding our planet
> would "suck our atmosphere out like a gigantic vacuum."
You display a rather disappointing lack of understanding
regarding how a simple straw works, never mind largescale
atmospheric and interplanetary phenomena.
In brief...you don't suck; the atmosphere pushes.
Also, as others have already mentioned, gravity keeps the
atmosphere from flying away (except perhaps free hydrogen,
which is rare in our atmosphere as it turns out).
>:)
> Try again,
You first. In any event we've long since shown that
Flash Gordon would have needed a space suit.
>:)
> it never becomes "that actually empty"
> there has to be something else with a pressure
> in it's tiny world stopping the transfer of larger pressures.
And that something else would be ... ?
>:)
>
> how many psi's at the outer edge of our atmosphere?
There is no outer edge of atmosphere, actually. It's
more like a blurry region that peters out into
interplanetary space. (This is one reason the ISS has
to be occasionally boosted; the friction between it and
atmosphere slows it down, lowering its orbit.)
> between space, what cause of a pressure difference
> occurs that would negate the "vacuum of 0 psi" in space
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Error 16: Not enough space on file system to delete file(s)
The Ghost In The Machine
<spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote
<k96dneQMKOQ3StPV...@comcast.com>:
>
> "Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:484ec478$0$12474$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>>James, it's the container itself that provides the
>>forces to resist the interior pressure. That's why
>>compressor tanks are made from steel and not
>>silly putty.
>
> Greg,
> when you compare an air tank in this atomospere
> to something vs vacuum, I know you have not
> seen the strength of vacuum.
I'd be more worried about the strength of the surrounding
atmosphere. A simple experiment using boiling water and
an empty aluminum can is rather instructive.
(This is one reason canning jars have rather thick
glass sides. Greg has also mentioned steel-sided
pressurized tanks -- and the pressure can be considerable;
www.scubagear.com in particular sells 3300-psi tanks.
Given the right valving, these tanks could easily "hold"
vacuum, although I for one am not sure I see a lot of
point.)
>
> the soemthing psi vs 0 psi makes a gigantic difference Greg.
> and even at 0.00000000000000000000001psi vs 0
> the vacuum loses and gets filled.
> where are your walls that stop this?
> Just say it..
> there must be a freaken aether and think about it for fun
> If you don't have fun,
> what is reading the books all about to begin with.
> read, think on your own, read,
> maybe even make a better book.
> Don't just sit here and bark like a puppy huh?
> sheesh!
>
Oh yeah, there must be an aether because you don't understand
partial pressures.
Brilliant.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything(tm).
Spaceman
> The trick is to realize that the time necessary for the
> atmosphere to bleed off is inversely proportional to the pressure
> gradient, not the pressure. So there is no aether necessary to "hold
> the atmosphere" in, just gravity.
Ok, I tried to give you the hint of how the "pressure of the universe"
is the actualy cause of gravity but you don't care so nevermind.
:)
Go play with the rubber rulers and curved space-time joke.
:)
> If the aether could interact with the atmosphere like you say,
> holding the aether in, then the aether wind would be fatal. The aether
> wind would blow away the air from the surface of the earth. The only
> way to justify the aether was to assume it interacted very weakly with
> the atmosphere.
It does act weakly, but in a gigantic area of force that keeps the motion
mostly constant also.
the force is more like "free smaller than electron stuff that expanded
or even electrons themselves that expanded because of the lesser
pressure to begin with.
anyway,
I can play with my toys and you can borrow them if you want
and call them your own,
I don't care.. either way.
:)
Spaceman
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:e13f030f-2ea5-4dd6...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>I think you are confusing the difficulty of -achieving- ultrahigh
>vacuums with the pressure difference that exists between the
>inside and the outside of a vacuum chamber.
>Certainly it is difficult to achieve vacuums of better than, say,
>10^-9 torr in large chambers. The slightest leak, a minute bit of
>outgassing, and your vacuum is useless for, say, molecular beam
>epitaxy or auger electron spectroscopy purposes.
>The best man-made vacuums are in the sub 10^-13 Torr range. That
>is a 100 times better vacuum than you find on the Moon's surface,
>only about a thousand molecules of air per cubic cm.
>Sophisticated equipment, specially selected materials, and
>exceedingly great cleanliness are all required in achieving such
>levels of vacuum.
>But regardless whether one is dealing with an easily achievable
>medium vacuum of 10^-2 Torr, or an extremely high vacuum in the
>sub 10^-13 Torr range, the pressure difference between the inside
>and outside of the vacuum chamber is a plain old ordinary 14.7
>pounds per square inch, about 760 Torr. An ordinary bell jar
>does fine for either vacuum. It does not have to be especially
>strong.
Someone knows a lot about vacuums.
:)
Thanks man,
Greg Neill
> news:7ade2c98-2e92-4880...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> The trick is to realize that the time necessary for the
>> atmosphere to bleed off is inversely proportional to the pressure
>> gradient, not the pressure. So there is no aether necessary to "hold
>> the atmosphere" in, just gravity.
>
> Ok, I tried to give you the hint of how the "pressure of the universe"
> is the actualy cause of gravity but you don't care so nevermind.
Look up the Le Sage theory of gravity. It's been tried,
and it doesn't work for too many reasons to rehash again
here -- it can all be found on the web.
Spaceman
> You display a rather disappointing lack of understanding
> regarding how a simple straw works, never mind largescale
> atmospheric and interplanetary phenomena.
I was fishing for the best answer because I knew
most of the rubber ruler kings would not give such.
:)
and I thanked the guy that did give a real answer instead
of a crap answer like this one you just gave me.
but thanks anyway Ghost.
:)
Spaceman
> Oh yeah, there must be an aether because you don't understand
> partial pressures.
an aether could be the cause of gravity silly ghost.
to find such would be a real cause finally being found
instead of a "math cause" that is used today.
(the rubber sheet universe)
It is thinking instead of "accepting a text from long ago
like a bible."
:)
The Ghost In The Machine
<spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote
<JpGdnUmylPsay9LV...@comcast.com>:
So OK then. Show that an aether causes gravity using a physical
experiment.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
GNU and improved.
Ilja Schmelzer
> Darwin123 wrote:
> > A lot of people around here want to go back to the good old days
> > before aether theory was discarded. In fact, many people here say that
> > aether theory is somehow a substitute for relativity. Some say that
> > electromagnetic waves can be modeled by a combination of Newtonian
> > physics, Galilean invariance and aether. However, I don't know the
> > mechanical properties of this aether. So I am making three modest
> > inquiries.
>
> > 1) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
> > eliminates the longitudinal and not the transverse polarizations?
> > 2) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
> > explains the properties of static electric fields?
> > 3) What type of mechanical properties can the aether exist that
> > explains the properties of static magnetic fields.
> Here is a challenge from an aether supporter to other
> aether supporters. Let us see how they do.
First, I don't want to go back to good old days. But I want to solve
the interesting problems of fundamental physics - quantization of
gravity, unification of SM and gravity, explanation of the SM.
2,3) My ether model is not about the EM field alone, but all fields.
Surprisingly, the EM field appears to be the most difficult of all
observed fields. It describes a combination of two types of defects,
moreover, combined with a symmetry breaking. I'm able to compute the
EM field as part of some maximal gauge field compatible with some
simple principles, but the necessary symmetry breaking itself is not
yet part of my theory, so I think it is too early to answer questions
2 and 3, except in very general words: They define deformations and
defects of the ether lattice.
1.) There is no need to eliminate the longitudinal modes. They simply
don't interact with other forms of matter, that's all.
Androcles
"Ilja Schmelzer" <ilja.sc...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:a14213f9-1769-4ad7...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| On 6 Jun., 10:41, Martin Hogbin <goatNOSP...@hogbin.org> wrote:
| > Darwin123 wrote:
| > > A lot of people around here want to go back to the good old days
| > > before aether theory was discarded. In fact, many people here say that
| > > aether theory is somehow a substitute for relativity. Some say that
| > > electromagnetic waves can be modeled by a combination of Newtonian
| > > physics, Galilean invariance and aether. However, I don't know the
| > > mechanical properties of this aether. So I am making three modest
| > > inquiries.
| >
| > > 1) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
| > > eliminates the longitudinal and not the transverse polarizations?
| > > 2) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
| > > explains the properties of static electric fields?
| > > 3) What type of mechanical properties can the aether exist that
| > > explains the properties of static magnetic fields.
|
| > Here is a challenge from an aether supporter to other
| > aether supporters. Let us see how they do.
|
| First, I don't want to go back to good old days. But I want to solve
| the interesting problems of fundamental physics - quantization of
| gravity, unification of SM and gravity, explanation of the SM.
|
| 2,3) My ether model
Failed at first hurdle.
--
Androcles
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
where
A = (0,0,0,t)
A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
x' = x-vt
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.
Darwin123
wrote:
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:13ce654b-7e1f-4164...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The gravitation of the dark matter is part of what holds each
> > galaxy together. Dark matter supposedly is part of all galaxies,
> > enveloping and even extending past the galaxy by a significant amount.
> > This explains the orbital speeds seen in galaxies. However, for this
> > model to work the dark matter can't extend far past the galaxies. It
> > interacts with the material in the galaxies gravitationally. If the
> > material extended to other galaxies, the individual galaxies couldn't
> > stick together.
> > The Milky Way galaxy would fall apart if its dark matter extended
> > all the way to Andromeda. The Milky Way and Andromeda each have to
> > have their own lump of dark matter. Otherwise, they couldn't maintain
> > that nice pinwheel structure.
>
> Why not?
> If anything a massive sea of dark matter could keep such going
> better since The entire Universe full of dark matter is helping it along.
If the entire universe were filled with homogenous dark matter,
then the dark matter outside Milky Way would be pulling the material
of the Milky Way outward with the same intensity as the dark matter
inside the Milky Way. There would be no net gravitational pull of dark
matter. Therefore, the dark matter couldn't affect the orbital
mechanics of the Milky Way.
The reason that dark matter was postulated was to explain why the
visible part of the Milky Way rotated like a solid plate, rather than
as a set of concentric wheels. The theory of dark matter stated that
to rotate like a rigid plate, the dark matter had to extend as a
sphere around the plate. However, this dark matter did not block any
of the light from stars in the Milky Way. Hence, it was dark matter.
Regardless of whether the dark matter exists or not, the
description of dark matter necessary to explain the orbital mechanics
of a galaxy is exactly the opposite of that aether you keep
describing. It does not interact with light, nor is it distributed
homogenously throughout the galaxy.
>
> > The same way a light wave entering a plate of glass slows down in
> > the glass, and speeds up on the other side of the glass. There are
> > several ways to picture this. Since you are so mechanically minded,
> > and working hard on the theory of the aether, I will leave it to you
> > to explain how light travels through glass.
>
> The medium for light is on both sides. (the aether)
> re-enter the same medium, and tada.. back up to the old speed
> again.
> Without a medium, the light could not speed up again
> to it's "constant" speed.
Okay, it works the same way for your gas cloud. It wouldn't be
different. Why did you mention the gas cloud anyway? The gas cloud has
nothing to do with the dark matter. The gas cloud is "light matter",
not dark matter. If it is cold, it sometimes has to be viewed at radio
wavelengths. However, it is ordinary matter (usually hydrogen).
FrediFizzx
news:a14213f9-1769-4ad7...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> Darwin123 wrote:
>> > A lot of people around here want to go back to the good old days
>> > before aether theory was discarded. In fact, many people here say
>> > that
>> > aether theory is somehow a substitute for relativity. Some say that
>> > electromagnetic waves can be modeled by a combination of Newtonian
>> > physics, Galilean invariance and aether. However, I don't know the
>> > mechanical properties of this aether. So I am making three modest
>> > inquiries.
>>
>> > 1) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
>> > eliminates the longitudinal and not the transverse polarizations?
>> > 2) What type of mechanical properties can the aether possess that
>> > explains the properties of static electric fields?
>> > 3) What type of mechanical properties can the aether exist that
>> > explains the properties of static magnetic fields.
>
>> Here is a challenge from an aether supporter to other
>> aether supporters. Let us see how they do.
The above was a mis-statement from Martin.
> First, I don't want to go back to good old days. But I want to solve
> the interesting problems of fundamental physics - quantization of
> gravity, unification of SM and gravity, explanation of the SM.
>
> 2,3) My ether model is not about the EM field alone, but all fields.
> Surprisingly, the EM field appears to be the most difficult of all
> observed fields. It describes a combination of two types of defects,
> moreover, combined with a symmetry breaking. I'm able to compute the
> EM field as part of some maximal gauge field compatible with some
> simple principles, but the necessary symmetry breaking itself is not
> yet part of my theory, so I think it is too early to answer questions
> 2 and 3, except in very general words: They define deformations and
> defects of the ether lattice.
I call 2 and 3 a "tilt" of the quantum ether lattice but "deformations
and defects" is good also. Simply think of a very small charge density
being surrounded by virtual fermionic pairs which comprise the quantum
ether lattice. A negative charge density, will have the positive member
of the fermionic pair attracted to it and this "tilt" becomes less the
further away you are from the neg. charge density. In the case of 3, it
works basically the same only with magnetic "charge" density instead of
electric.
> 1.) There is no need to eliminate the longitudinal modes. They simply
> don't interact with other forms of matter, that's all.
Is it possible for you to explain that in more detail? I don't know
exactly what you mean by "other forms of matter".
Best,
Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations
Ilja Schmelzer
> "Ilja Schmelzer" <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> > 1.) There is no need to eliminate the longitudinal modes. They simply
> > don't interact with other forms of matter, that's all.
> Is it possible for you to explain that in more detail? I don't know
> exactly what you mean by "other forms of matter".
I mean the fermions, other components of the same gauge fields, and
other gauge fields. With gravity, I think, they have to interact
because of the universality of gravity.
In the context of my theory (ilja-schmelzer.de/clm) all these fields
are, of course, only other properties of the same material.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
as nothing Bert
Spaceman
> If the entire universe were filled with homogenous dark matter,
> then the dark matter outside Milky Way would be pulling the material
> of the Milky Way outward with the same intensity as the dark matter
> inside the Milky Way. There would be no net gravitational pull of dark
> matter. Therefore, the dark matter couldn't affect the orbital
> mechanics of the Milky Way.
That is "your" dark mattter properties thoughts.
Others think differently about what dark matter does.
> The reason that dark matter was postulated was to explain why the
> visible part of the Milky Way rotated like a solid plate, rather than
> as a set of concentric wheels. The theory of dark matter stated that
> to rotate like a rigid plate, the dark matter had to extend as a
> sphere around the plate. However, this dark matter did not block any
> of the light from stars in the Milky Way. Hence, it was dark matter.
stuff to small to detect by todays equipment.
It is a very simple thought, you could even think about it too.
> Regardless of whether the dark matter exists or not, the
> description of dark matter necessary to explain the orbital mechanics
> of a galaxy is exactly the opposite of that aether you keep
> describing. It does not interact with light, nor is it distributed
> homogenously throughout the galaxy.
No, no opposites goign on here, only opposites occuring is in
your wrong thinking about the "stuff".
> Okay, it works the same way for your gas cloud. It wouldn't be
> different. Why did you mention the gas cloud anyway? The gas cloud has
> nothing to do with the dark matter. The gas cloud is "light matter",
> not dark matter. If it is cold, it sometimes has to be viewed at radio
> wavelengths. However, it is ordinary matter (usually hydrogen).
Stuff large enough to detect directly, stuff to small to detect directly.
It's simple but only if you wish to think on your own, and not think
with a closed textbook mind.
Robert J. Kolker
> Ether is something,because there is always some thing,and no such thing
> as nothing Bert
>
Word salad. Typical philosophical krapdoodle.
Bob Kolker
Darwin123
wrote:
Then your ether model has to explain why the longitudinal modes
don't interact with other forms of matter. When I said "suppress," I
meant that in a very general way. We don't observe longitudinal
polarizations of light after propagating in a vacuum, but we do
observe transverse polarizations of light after propagating in a
vacuum. Whether you say "doesn't exist," "don't interact," "isn't
measurable," etc. doesn't matter. If the ether medium really provides
is a clear and useful description of light, then it has to be able to
explain why one polarization is observed and the other doesn't.
I don't need total elimination of the longitudinal modes, I just
want to know where and how they are hiding. The claim has been made
that the aether "obviously" explains the propagation of light better
than the more theories based on more abstract principles. In fact, the
claim by Spaceman et al. has been made that there are NO significant
differences between the propagation of light through the aether and of
sound through the air (or any mechanical material).
I disagree that there is no difference between sound and light,
other than the medium. There is a basic similarity in some properties
of these two types of waves. However, there is a big difference that
very roughly fall under the category of "symmetry properties." The
two waves transform differently under rotations, translations, etc.
etc. At least, that is what it looks like to me. In fact, special
relativity is a type of "symmetry property." I am getting at the point
that aether doesn't quite explain all the symmetry properties of
light.
Rotations are also symmetry operations. A sound wave in air can be
rotated around its direction of motion (i.e., wavevector) with no
effect on the sound wave. This is why the polarization is
longitudinal. A light wave can't be rotated around its wave vector
without changing the nature of the wave.
However, the light wave has yet another invariance property. The
light wave has a duality symmetry. The magnetic field and the electric
field are distinguishable. Exchange the electric and magnetic fields
in a light wave, one has a light wave with a different transverse
polarization. However, the light wave is invariant to an exchange
between electric and magnetic fields, followed by a right angle
rotation around the axis.
The sound wave does not have a duality operation to match the
light wave. A sound wave only has a strain field. There is no duality.
So one can't change the polarization of the light wave by exchanging
the analogs of electric and magnetic fields.
To put it another way, let us compare the field variable of lights
to the field variables of sound. Sound in air has a strain field
associated with it. Now which field is the strain field analogous to?
The electric field or the magnetic field? Is it analogous to both?
How? The two fields are distinguishable at least in some experiments.
Infrared radiation (IR) can be polarized with a mesh of conducting
wires, for example. This shows how the electric field is oriented.
Yet, IR still exerts radiation pressure. It can't do that unless it
has both electric and magnetic fields. Thus, I don't think the aether
theory is sufficient to explain the properties of IR.
I am not looking for big explanations of cosmic phenomenon. I am
not looking even for the most fundamental theory on a subquark level.
I am looking for an aether theory that explains all the basic optical
properties of light. The ones measured two hundred years ago. Forget
the Michaelson-Morley experiment. I just want to know how the aether
relates to eyeglasses.
Please prove me wrong. Explain the polarizations of light using an
aether based theory. Explain the difference between electric and
magnetic fields in aether theory.
Ilja Schmelzer
> On Jun 11, 1:51 pm, Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com>
> > don't interact with other forms of matter, that's all.
>
> Then your ether model has to explain why the longitudinal modes
> don't interact with other forms of matter. When I said "suppress," I
> meant that in a very general way. We don't observe longitudinal
> polarizations of light after propagating in a vacuum, but we do
> observe transverse polarizations of light after propagating in a
> vacuum. Whether you say "doesn't exist," "don't interact," "isn't
> measurable," etc. doesn't matter.
First, I think the difference is important. One of the IMHO main
problems with quantum gravity is that "doesn't exist" and "doesn't
interact" is confused.
> If the ether medium really provides
> is a clear and useful description of light, then it has to be able to
> explain why one polarization is observed and the other doesn't.
I agree. I only doubt that I'm able to explain this in a usenet
posting. Maybe I ask you some questions, with the aim to simplify this
job for me?
1.) Is it ok for you if, instead of the EM field, I use strong
interactions?
2.) Is the way from standard lattice gauge theory (Wilson gauge
fields) in its classical (nonquantum) version to the answer of the
question clear to you?
> I don't need total elimination of the longitudinal modes, I just
> want to know where and how they are hiding.
In the case of strong interactions, which are modelled in my theory as
Wilson gauge fields, the interaction term between the gauge fields and
the fermions has a natural lattice gauge symmetry. As a consequence,
the gauge fields which describe these gauge-symmetry degrees of
freedom do not interact with fermion fields.
In the case of weak fields, there is no exact lattice gauge symmetry
in my theory. But also the gauge fields themself are massive, thus,
also no exact gauge symmetry in the purely phenomenological theory.
> The claim has been made
> that the aether "obviously" explains the propagation of light better
> than the more theories based on more abstract principles.
Source independence of the speed of waves is a simple property of
material waves. The more abstract concepts simply postulate it. So,
indeed, I agree.
In my theory, the explanatory power is even much better, because I can
essentially compute the particle content of the SM together with
gravity.
> I disagree that there is no difference between sound and light,
> other than the medium. There is a basic similarity in some properties
> of these two types of waves. However, there is a big difference that
> very roughly fall under the category of "symmetry properties." The
> two waves transform differently under rotations, translations, etc.
> etc. At least, that is what it looks like to me. In fact, special
> relativity is a type of "symmetry property." I am getting at the point
> that aether doesn't quite explain all the symmetry properties of
> light.
"The ether" as proposed here by various people doesn't. My ether
theory does. For the derivation of the Einstein equivalence principle
(roughly speaking, the general covariance of the matter Lagrangian
L_matter(g_mn(x,t),phi_matter)) see ilja-schmelzer.de/glet .
> I am not looking for big explanations of cosmic phenomenon. I am
> not looking even for the most fundamental theory on a subquark level.
> I am looking for an aether theory that explains all the basic optical
> properties of light. The ones measured two hundred years ago. Forget
> the Michaelson-Morley experiment. I just want to know how the aether
> relates to eyeglasses.
It seems we are looking for different things, because I'm looking for
a theory which gives all fundamental fields observed in modern
physics. And what I'm trying is to fill the gap between my ether model
and the standard modern quantum field theory, the SM, and GR. I'm
quite successful here, but the work is not completely finished.
If you want to know how my ether relates to eyeglasses, you have a
simple way: See how the ether relates to QFT with the SM, and then
look how modern physics relates to eyeglasses. For the second part,
use standard physics textbooks.
Would that be appropriate for you? I think this is the most natural
way - the ether is the most fundamental thing, last not least. You
also don't search for explanations of human behaviour immediately in
terms of atoms. As well I don't search for explanations of eyeglasses
in terms of the ether.
Darwin123
wrote:
> On 12 Jun., 23:54, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 11, 1:51 pm, Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com>
> > > 1.) There is no need to eliminate the longitudinal modes. They simply
> > > don't interact with other forms of matter, that's all.
>
> > Then your ether model has to explain why the longitudinal modes
> > don't interact with other forms of matter. When I said "suppress," I
> > meant that in a very general way. We don't observe longitudinal
> > polarizations of light after propagating in a vacuum, but we do
> > observe transverse polarizations of light after propagating in a
> > vacuum. Whether you say "doesn't exist," "don't interact," "isn't
> > measurable," etc. doesn't matter.
>
> First, I think the difference is important. One of the IMHO main
> problems with quantum gravity is that "doesn't exist" and "doesn't
> interact" is confused.
>
> > If the ether medium really provides
> > is a clear and useful description of light, then it has to be able to
> > explain why one polarization is observed and the other doesn't.
>
> I agree. I only doubt that I'm able to explain this in a usenet
> posting. Maybe I ask you some questions, with the aim to simplify this
> job for me?
>
> 1.) Is it ok for you if, instead of the EM field, I use strong
> interactions?
"obvious, intuitive" nature of the aether theory. The "polarization"
of the strong field excitations is not readily observable as is the
polarization of a light wave. Strong field disturbances don't
propagate over large (e.g., light year) distances. They don't really
propagate outside of an atomic nucleus. So there are no "free
traveling waves" in the case of strong interactions. There is no "far
field approximation" for the strong nuclear force.
I don't know the nuclear force in detail. I would not catch you
with a mistake in nuclear force unless it was extremely obvious. It
would be very easy for you to outrageous claims that any nuclear
scientist would know to be wrong. Even if I catch you (and I may), you
can claim that I was ignorant and wrong. I suspect that you are not a
nuclear scientist, and have performed no experiments in with the
nuclear strong force. I suspect that you haven't even analyzed the raw
data from such an experiment. Therefore, you don't have any concrete
reference. You can make the most fuzzy and ambiguous claims, and then
change your vocabulary as it suits you. Making controversial theories
about something you know nothing about is extremely easy.
However, you can't do that as easily with regard to light because
light is more directly sensed even by nonscientists. You probably have
used polarized eyeglasses for 3D movies. What I said about
polarization isn't something that only an expert knows.
It happens to be that I am an expert in light. I know
electromagnetic radiation. I am an optical scientist. I worked with
lasers, lamps, polarizers, picosecond pulses and diffraction gratings.
I have performed experiments measuring the speed of light, measuring
the polarization of light scattered. I have even performed experiments
with waveguides at radio frequencies. I have measured the phase
velocity of an electromagnetic wave in a wave guide. This was merely
an undergraduate exercise. However, such exercises give a very
concrete picture of the "speed of light."
> 2.) Is the way from standard lattice gauge theory (Wilson gauge
> fields) in its classical (nonquantum) version to the answer of the
> question clear to you?
classical (nonquantum) version. However, I do know this. A gauge
theory is not an aether theory. A gauge theory is a symmetry theory.
There is no physical property of a material associated with "gauge."
Maybe you can explain the aether in terms of a Lorentz gauge, or a
Coulomb gauge, or any gauge that has been applied to light. If you
don't understand the Coulomb gauge as applied to light, how can you
tell me you understand the Wilson gauge field?
Maybe that will suffice. Give me the mechanical properties of
aether that are consistent with the "Coulomb gauge" or "Lorentz gauge"
in the theory of light.
I don't wish to talk about anything but electromagnetic waves.
Give me an aether that explains just light, the wave that aether
theory was originally designed for. If aether can't explain light,
then I don't trust it for anything else.
>
> > I don't need total elimination of the longitudinal modes, I just
> > want to know where and how they are hiding.
>
> In the case of strong interactions, which are modelled in my theory as
> Wilson gauge fields, the interaction term between the gauge fields and
> the fermions has a natural lattice gauge symmetry. As a consequence,
> the gauge fields which describe these gauge-symmetry degrees of
> freedom do not interact with fermion fields.
polarizations. You are making an invalid analogy.
The Pacific octopus doesn't interact with the desert scorpion
That does not show me how the aether suppresses longitudinal
vibrations.
>
> In the case of weak fields, there is no exact lattice gauge symmetry
> in my theory. But also the gauge fields themself are massive, thus,
> also no exact gauge symmetry in the purely phenomenological theory.
electromagnetic waves. Therefore, I demand it explain electromagnetic
waves.
If you got one that explains strong nuclear force waves, that is
very good. However, then you have to show me experimental data on
strong nuclear force waves.
You don''t know light, but you are analyzing gluons already?
Sheesh!
>
> > The claim has been made
> > that the aether "obviously" explains the propagation of light better
> > than the more theories based on more abstract principles.
>
> Source independence of the speed of waves is a simple property of
> material waves. The more abstract concepts simply postulate it. So,
> indeed, I agree.
property of material waves. Therefore, I disagree. Incidently, frame
independence of the speed of waves is not a simple property of
material waves. This is why Einstein disagreed. However, stick with
mine. How does a material suppress longitudinal, but not transverse,
polarizations.
>
> In my theory, the explanatory power is even much better, because I can
> essentially compute the particle content of the SM together with
> gravity.
>
> "The ether" as proposed here by various people doesn't. My ether
> theory does. For the derivation of the Einstein equivalence principle
> (roughly speaking, the general covariance of the matter Lagrangian
> L_matter(g_mn(x,t),phi_matter)) see ilja-schmelzer.de/glet .
defend these aether heads creates a certain bias. Also the fact that
you don't want to talk about light polarization.
You don't want to talk about light polarization, but the Wilson
gauge theory you want to talk about. I smell a rat (not a lab rat).
>
> > I am not looking for big explanations of cosmic phenomenon. I am
> > not looking even for the most fundamental theory on a subquark level.
> > I am looking for an aether theory that explains all the basic optical
> > properties of light. The ones measured two hundred years ago. Forget
> > the Michaelson-Morley experiment. I just want to know how the aether
> > relates to eyeglasses.
> way - the ether is the most fundamental thing, last not least. You
> also don't search for explanations of human behaviour immediately in
> terms of atoms.
optics. I am currently working on a theory of fish olfaction using
fluid dynamics. Sensory perception is studied on a fundamental physics
behavior.
>As well I don't search for explanations of eyeglasses
> in terms of the ether.
aether.
Spaceman
> The suppression of longitudinal polarizations is not a simple
> property of material waves. Therefore, I disagree. Incidently, frame
> independence of the speed of waves is not a simple property of
> material waves. This is why Einstein disagreed. However, stick with
> mine. How does a material suppress longitudinal, but not transverse,
> polarizations.
I am going to be crazy and try again for you.
Lets say north is forward, south is backward,
up is up and down is down and left is west and right is east.
(basics of a jets motion heading north)
The aeroplane pushes through the air making waves in the air.
(I am not talking about sound) just the air actually moving out of the way
and
then back in the way.
Lets call the air an aether for the jet,
Do you see the longitudinal waves moving in front of the
jet when it is doing the speed of sound.
You do see transverse waves from it don't you?
make any sense to you at all?
anyways.
Maybe that will make you think.
but still...
I have not gotten an answer about light from you
or for that matter from anyone that is a light expert.
so...
What makes light go back to lightspeed after
slowing in a medium and then back to a vacuum?
It sure seems like a medium would do this without a problem
at all.
But.. as you say. there is no medium in the vacuum,
so how can it speed back up in a vacuum?
bz
news:JcOdnXe3paZ7Ss_V...@comcast.com:
> What makes light go back to lightspeed after
> slowing in a medium and then back to a vacuum?
> It sure seems like a medium would do this without a problem
> at all.
> But.. as you say. there is no medium in the vacuum,
> so how can it speed back up in a vacuum?
One explanation is that it is ALWAYS traveling in a vacuum or being
absorbed and re-emitted.
The space between atoms and between molecules is a vacuum.
The absorption and re-emission takes time. That slows the light.
The slowdown that we observe comes from the number of absorb/emit events
taking place and the mechanism for absorption/emission.
No medium needed for it to 'speed up'.
It is the LACK of things to slow it down.
Light isn't like you and me.
It doesn't have to WORK to travel.
In fact it MUST travel as long as it lives.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Spaceman
"bz" <bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9ABCA60837568WQ...@130.39.198.139...
> "Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in
> news:JcOdnXe3paZ7Ss_V...@comcast.com:
>
> > What makes light go back to lightspeed after
> > slowing in a medium and then back to a vacuum?
> > It sure seems like a medium would do this without a problem
> > at all.
> > But.. as you say. there is no medium in the vacuum,
> > so how can it speed back up in a vacuum?
>
> One explanation is that it is ALWAYS traveling in a vacuum or being
> absorbed and re-emitted.
Still,
If absorbed, it would not speed up again without reason
such as a medium
> The space between atoms and between molecules is a vacuum.
The only proof of such, is lack of observation.
Yet, lack of observation is not proof of anything really and only
proof technology is more than likely limited to seeing such
stuff.
> The absorption and re-emission takes time. That slows the light.
Slowing the light is not the problem.
the increase in speed after it is slowed is the problem
that a non medium creates
> No medium needed for it to 'speed up'.
> It is the LACK of things to slow it down.
No,
once slowed down,
Something needs to kick it back to that original speed.
Lack of things will not increase the speed back to original
if it slowed at all.
> Light isn't like you and me.
> It doesn't have to WORK to travel.
> In fact it MUST travel as long as it lives.
Sorry,
It has to "work" to increase from a slower to an original speed.
Sam Wormley
F- Spaceshit
Spaceman
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:EBC4k.207245$yE1.175656@attbi_s21...
Yes, his explanation was an F, it did not
give a proper cause for light to speed up again
after it has been slowed down.
:)
Darwin123
wrote:
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c885f7c1-6851-4e54...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The suppression of longitudinal polarizations is not a simple
> > property of material waves. Therefore, I disagree. Incidently, frame
> > independence of the speed of waves is not a simple property of
> > material waves. This is why Einstein disagreed. However, stick with
> > mine. How does a material suppress longitudinal, but not transverse,
> > polarizations.
>
> I am going to be crazy and try again for you.
> Lets say north is forward, south is backward,
> up is up and down is down and left is west and right is east.
> (basics of a jets motion heading north)
>
> The aeroplane pushes through the air making waves in the air.
> (I am not talking about sound) just the air actually moving out of the way
> and
> then back in the way.
> Lets call the air an aether for the jet,
> Do you see the longitudinal waves moving in front of the
> jet when it is doing the speed of sound.
traveling at or faster than the speed of sound. Therefore, the sound
can't possibly catch up. Thus, the wave traveling in front of the jet
can't be either longitudinally polarized or transversely polarized.
There is no such wave. A nonexistent wave doesn't have polarization at
all.
A mechanical mind such as yours should be able to recognize when a
sound wave DOESN'T exist. No sound wave exists in front of a sonic
jet.
One hears a sonic boom only after the plane has passed. There is
no way to acoustically detect the jet ahead of the jet itself. Many a
defense scientist would love to invent an ear for hearing a supersonic
jet before the jet has arrived. It can't be done.
All the waves from that supersonic jet are longitudinally
polarized. Even the sound waves that are moving perpendicular to the
motion of the jet. There are NO transverse sound waves coming from the
sonic or supersonic jet. When you hear the sonic boom, those are
longitudinally polarized waves. After the jet has passed.
The definition of longitudinal polarization is this. In a
longitudinally polarized wave, the motion of the medium carrying the
wave is in the direction of the propagation of the wave. This is not
the same as a transverse polarization. Transverse polarization is when
the motion of the medium carrying the wave is in the direction of the
polarization of the wave. Both definitions apply only to waves that
exist.
> You do see transverse waves from it don't you?
There are no transversely polarized sound waves coming from the
sonic jet. Therefore, I don't see hear the transversely polarized
waves. I definitely couldn't see such waves. I can't see sound waves,
I hear them |:-)
> make any sense to you at all?
Your statements only makes sense if I assume that you are not
thinking about sound waves mechanically. Your statements make sense if
you are using a mistaken picture of how the sound is generated. One
mistake is in assuming that the motion of the jet is the same as the
motion of the air. The air on the side of the jet is moving at an
angle to the direction of the jet. The wave is moving in the same
direction as the air.
> anyways.
> Maybe that will make you think.
> but still...
> I have not gotten an answer about light from you
> or for that matter from anyone that is a light expert.
> so...
> What makes light go back to lightspeed after
> slowing in a medium and then back to a vacuum?
The absence of electric charges and magnetic dipoles. The
medium contains electric charges and magnetic dipoles which generate
their own electromagnetic fields opposed to the electromagnetic fields
from the light in the vacuum. There is wave interference between the
electromagnetic fields from these charges and dipoles in the medium.
That slows down the light. The light leaves the medium, and goes back
into the vacuum where there are no charges or dipoles. Therefore,
there are no opposing fields. Therefore, the light snaps back to it
original speed.
> It sure seems like a medium would do this without a problem
> at all.
Irrelevant to the issue where the the restoration of speed was
brought up.
The original issue was with dark matter. Dark matter does not
extend between the galaxies. It is concentrated at the galaxies. If
dark matter were the aether that propagates light, then light couldn't
propagate between the galaxies.
> But.. as you say. there is no medium in the vacuum,
> so how can it speed back up in a vacuum?
It isn't the presence of aether that restores the speed, it is
the absence of charges and dipoles. There are no electric charges or
magnetic dipoles in the vacuum either. There are in the medium. It is
the absence of electric charges and dipoles that restores the speed of
light. It is not the presence of an aether that restores the speed of
light.
Spaceman
> There is no sound wave moving in front of the jet. The jet is
> traveling at or faster than the speed of sound. Therefore, the sound
> can't possibly catch up. Thus, the wave traveling in front of the jet
> can't be either longitudinally polarized or transversely polarized.
> There is no such wave. A nonexistent wave doesn't have polarization at
> all.
The waves are made at the Jet.
I said ignore looking for"sound waves" and follow what the air molecules
must do to allow the Jet to pass through them.
> A mechanical mind such as yours should be able to recognize when a
> sound wave DOESN'T exist. No sound wave exists in front of a sonic
> jet.
A smart person like you should have read that I said ignore the sound
wave thoughts.. we are only talking about what the air will do.
there will be no forward "wave being created" but there will be
waves to the sides and waves up and down...
<snipped more sound stuff>
> The absence of electric charges and magnetic dipoles. The
> medium contains electric charges and magnetic dipoles which generate
> their own electromagnetic fields opposed to the electromagnetic fields
> from the light in the vacuum. There is wave interference between the
> electromagnetic fields from these charges and dipoles in the medium.
> That slows down the light. The light leaves the medium, and goes back
> into the vacuum where there are no charges or dipoles. Therefore,
> there are no opposing fields. Therefore, the light snaps back to it
> original speed.
How does it "snap back"
It can't unless a medium is causing such an increase.
Sheesh man!
You are giving light a property it can not have on it's own.
nothing can just "snap back to original speed" if slowed at all
unless some physical force makes it "snap back"
C,mon man!
> Irrelevant to the issue where the the restoration of speed was
> brought up.
No it is not.
You have accepted a "magical" speed that can increase itself
without a force doing such.
That is real bad.
I can see you don't really want to think "on the other side"
so why are you bothering.
Ifyou are trying to find something, you must look for it.
If you are not "really" looking. chances are it will not hit you
on the head from out of nowhere.
:)
Ilja Schmelzer
> On Jun 13, 6:41 am, Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com>
> > interactions?
> No, it is not. The argument Spaceman et al. give concerns the
> "obvious, intuitive" nature of the aether theory.
Oh, sorry, but this is not my argument. The only "obvious" thing
related with an ether theory is the source independence of the speed
of light, which is typical for waves in a medium.
But let's add here another one related with the characteristic speed
c. If we want to explain the c of EM as some sort of sound speed of an
ether, than its clear that all other fields which have c in their
equations have to be explained as waves of this ether too. Thus, any
reasonable ether theory has to be universal, to cover all SM fields as
well as gravity.
> I don't know the nuclear force in detail. I would not catch you
> with a mistake in nuclear force unless it was extremely obvious. ...
> You can make the most fuzzy and ambiguous claims, and then
> change your vocabulary as it suits you. Making controversial theories
> about something you know nothing about is extremely easy.
I use only standard QCD, that means, essentially, only the fact that
the strong interaction is described by a gauge field with gauge group
SU(3), and the action of SU(3) on the fermions. AFAIK, this theory of
strong interactions is not controversial today.
The aim of my proposal to switch to strong forces is that in my ether
model they appear in much simpler form (as pure Wilson lattice gauge
fields), while the EM field is a combination of Wilson fields and
another, new, and clearly more controversial type of lattice gauge
fields, which, moreover, is combined with a symmetry breaking which
has not been worked out yet in detail.
> > 2.) Is the way from standard lattice gauge theory (Wilson gauge
> > fields) in its classical (nonquantum) version to the answer of the
> > question clear to you?
> No, I didn't know that standard lattice gauge theory had a
> classical (nonquantum) version.
Now, that's trivial. It's more complicate to quantize it ;-)
> However, I do know this. A gauge
> theory is not an aether theory. A gauge theory is a symmetry theory.
> There is no physical property of a material associated with "gauge."
> Maybe you can explain the aether in terms of a Lorentz gauge, or a
> Coulomb gauge, or any gauge that has been applied to light. If you
> don't understand the Coulomb gauge as applied to light, how can you
> tell me you understand the Wilson gauge field?
Sounds like you mingle me with someone else who has posted some
nonsense about the Coulomb gauge.
But, whatever: See the basic ether model in ilja-schmelzer.de/clm. The
Wilson gauge fields appear in this model as described popularly in
ilja-schmelzer.de/clm/Wilson.php and more for professionals in
http://ilja-schmelzer.de/clm/paper.pdf sec. 4.1
The interaction between Wilson gauge fields and fermions, therefore,
has the usual exact lattice gauge symmetry. That means, the gauge
degrees of freedom decouple from fermionic matter.
Is this sufficient to you?
> I don't wish to talk about anything but electromagnetic waves.
> Give me an aether that explains just light, the wave that aether
> theory was originally designed for. If aether can't explain light,
> then I don't trust it for anything else.
A really funny argumentation. On the other hand, it is indeed really
funny, that the field which gave the start for ether theory appears to
be the single most complex field.
In some sense, not the first irony of this type. Light has given the
start for quantum theory, but the quantum theory of particles was much
easier than QED. In this sense, I would compare your argument with
| Give me a quantum theory that explains just light, the wave that the
quantum
| theory was originally designed for. If quantum theory can't explain
light,
| then I don't trust it for anything else.
expressed in, say, 1926. ;-)
> > > I don't need total elimination of the longitudinal modes, I just
> > > want to know where and how they are hiding.
>
> > In the case of strong interactions, which are modelled in my theory as
> > Wilson gauge fields, the interaction term between the gauge fields and
> > the fermions has a natural lattice gauge symmetry. As a consequence,
> > the gauge fields which describe these gauge-symmetry degrees of
> > freedom do not interact with fermion fields.
>
> So what? Fermion fields aren't analogous to longitudinal
> polarizations. You are making an invalid analogy.
> The Pacific octopus doesn't interact with the desert scorpion
> That does not show me how the aether suppresses longitudinal
> vibrations.
It shows that if we observe only the behaviour of fermions, we will
never be able to observe directly longitudinal photons. Longitudinal
and transversal photons don't interact too, thus, longitudinal photons
are dark matter.
> > In the case of weak fields, there is no exact lattice gauge symmetry
> > in my theory. But also the gauge fields themself are massive, thus,
> > also no exact gauge symmetry in the purely phenomenological theory.
>
> Electromagnetic waves. The aether has been proposed for
> electromagnetic waves. Therefore, I demand it explain electromagnetic
> waves.
EM fields appear as a combination of strong and weak fields (strong
fields defined as acting in the same way on electroweak doublets, weak
fields as preserving doublets and acting on all doublets in the same
way).
> If you got one that explains strong nuclear force waves, that is
> very good. However, then you have to show me experimental data on
> strong nuclear force waves.
Sorry, but I believe into the subdivision of labor. We have the
standard model, with sufficiently simple standard equations. The job
of comparing this model with experimental data I leave to others.
AFAIK the agreement is quite fine.
My job is to derive the fields used in this model from my ether
(essentially finished) together with the equations of motion for them
(finished for fermions) and quantization (mainly finished for
fermions).
> You don''t know light, but you are analyzing gluons already?
> Sheesh!
Yep. Gluons are much simpler from point of view of my ether theory.
They are pure Wilson gauge fields. BTW, from point of view of the
standard SM too. Electroweak theory is chiral. Look at the strange
charges of Y, remember that Q itself does not commute with the weak
interaction, and google a little bit about "chiral" together with
"problem", as well as all this symmetry breaking, mass matrix and
Higgs stuff, and compare this with the simple picture of QCD charges.
Given this picture, it looks quite obvious that a fundamental theory
which get's the point will have more problems with EM.
> > > The claim has been made
> > > that the aether "obviously" explains the propagation of light better
> > > than the more theories based on more abstract principles.
> > Source independence of the speed of waves is a simple property of
> > material waves. The more abstract concepts simply postulate it. So,
> > indeed, I agree.
> The suppression of longitudinal polarizations is not a simple
> property of material waves.
Here I agree too. Some properties of the EM field (source independence
of its speed) are explained in a simple way by the ether, others
(polarization) are harder to understand. So, I see no disagreement
here.
> > In my theory, the explanatory power is even much better, because I can
> > essentially compute the particle content of the SM together with
> > gravity.
> Is it an aether model? Really?
Look at it: ilja-schmelzer.de/clm
Not an ether? Three-dimensional cells oscillating in a three-
dimensional absolute Newtonian space in absolute time. What else would
you name an ether theory?
> > "The ether" as proposed here by various people doesn't. My ether
> > theory does. For the derivation of the Einstein equivalence principle
> > (roughly speaking, the general covariance of the matter Lagrangian
> > L_matter(g_mn(x,t),phi_matter)) see ilja-schmelzer.de/glet .
> Hmm, I may be talking to a another physicist, here. The fact you
> defend these aether heads creates a certain bias.
No, I don't want to defend the ether cranks. I simply like to disagree
if some much more reasonable people use wrong arguments against
them ;-)
I have no problem with bias, but I have a problem with ignorance.
> Also the fact that you don't want to talk about light polarization.
Oh, its simply a little bit difficult to talk about light in my
theory. I have tried to explain you.
To talk about polarization is fine. Polarization is a consequence of
standard gauge-theoretical approach to the EM field. Essentially, you
can use Lorenz gauge (without t). It does not really fix the gauge (as
the name "gauge condition" suggests) but defines an evolution equation
for the gauge degree of freedom:
A_m -> A_m + d/dx^m w(x,t)
Lorenz gauge d/dx^m eta^mn A_n = 0
------------------------------------------------------
Box w(x,t) = 0.
And this longitudinal degree of freedom does not interact with other
fields, does not show up in E and H, thus, remains invisible, dark
matter. (Gravity is universal, thus, they will interact with
gravity.)
> You don't want to talk about light polarization, but the Wilson
> gauge theory you want to talk about. I smell a rat (not a lab rat).
Not that I don't want to talk about polarization. Simply, the way to
tell about polarization in my ether is to talk how lattice gauge
fields appear in my ether, and then, starting from the lattice gauge
fields, to derive polarization using standard math physics. I don't
understand what smells in this suggestion.
If you like to name a "rat" that my EM theory is not yet finished, so
I don't hide this. All I have been able to do derive in the gauge
sector is the gauge group and its action on fermions as a maximal
group compatible with some axioms. I hope what remains has to follow
from symmetry breaking and renormalization group equations, but above
are completely open issues.
What obviously smells like a rat is the other way: to try to develop
classical ether models, which give, if successful, the EM field, with
some transversal waves, but not more. This I would leave to the ether
cranks. I prefer to derive the full beauty of modern physics from my
ether model.
Aetherist
As well it should, since aether underpins it all... FYI I don't think
Darwin has any real interest in listening, he just wants a chamce to
show how smart he thinks he is by attempting to debunk 'ether cranks'.
Regards,
FrediFizzx
news:5d9854lekmp4655lo...@4ax.com...
Yeah, I am not sure why Darwin is harping so much on transverse
polarization. I do believe Timo said that even Maxwell had that figured
out with his mechanical classical aether. For me a bigger problem is
dispersion. IOW, when an atom emits a photon, how does that energy /
momentum stay "focused" instead of being spread out in a relativistic
quantum ether? I am supposing it might have something to do with "path
of least resistance" but really probably has more to do with how phonons
behave.