CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether
Laurent
to eliminate all local degrees of freedom (uncertainty); smoothout
spacetime, and you get theories like Relativity, String Theory,
TQFT... to work. But there really is a background of cosmic
radiation (CMBR) without which space can't exist (A. Guth).
According to Timothy Boyer, the CMBR (space) is constituted by al
least two different spectrums. One is noisy and expanding, while the
other is self-organized and condensing. One exhibits negative
gravitation, the other positive gravitation. From one space is
created, from the other, matter. Matter waves are contantly flowing
inwards into matter, while heat and light flow away from matter.
There is a continuos condensation and expansion of the substrate
(CMBR) taking place.
Space is made from two types of particles, one which resists
compression, or exhibits negative-gravitation (thermal radiation,
light), and the other which is infinitely compressible and exhibits
positive-gravitation (zero-point radiation, dark matter).
Boyer described the ZPR as fundamental to space, and thermal
radiation as a product generated by the motion of ZPR particles.
Which in turn were buffeted back into motion by this thermal
radiation which they themselves had produced, providing the basis
for a perpetual motion system, and solving the riddle of infinite
energies coming from space. [See Puthoff, Haisch and Rueda's papers]
Now, if space is made from particles, then it may be subject to
changes in pressure and density, like a gas. Therefore, if space
particles (dark matter), carried by matter waves, continuously
condense into material objects, that would mean that the closer you
get to the object the denser the space would be, as a function of
the object's mass and radius, explaining why gravitic pressure obeys
the inverse square law.
Space particles (dark matter) are carried by matter selective
inwardly flowing photons in an electrical current. Just like
electrons are moved by an electromotive force.
The gravitational field is continuos, what is quantized by
matter-waves is the CMBR. As the CMBR spins and cuts the
gravitational field in a circular motion, there is a friction which
creates matter-waves or inwardly flowing photons - just as
electromagnetic waves (photons) are created when you shake an
electron. This photons are moved by a force perpendicular to the
direction of rotation, inwardly carrying CMBR particles to the
center of the system. This quantization depends on the
characteristics of the matter-waves, which in turn depend on the
characteristics of the rotating material body. This model can
explain why some planets have greater concentrations of different
elements than others.
-----------------------------------------
I agree with most of what CMBR etherists say, but I think we still
need an immaterial aether which serves as the seat for the
electromagnetic and gravitational fields, a medium which helps
determine ratios like permittivity and permeability AND the
propagation vector of fields and light rays.
Einstein's relativistic aether is physical, but not material. It is
Newton's absolute space mixed with Mach's aether. It's an aether
enbued with physical properties that help determine the formation
and structure of fields, and where space is a product dependent on
the existence of matter.
Einstein presented a different concept in his 1920 essay "Ether
and the Theory of Relativity". What he termed the 'gravitational
ether' or the 'relativistic ether' came from a completely different
idea. Motion and particulation can't be applied as properties to
Einstein's aether.
Einstein said that matter and fields are made from the same basic
substance, and since, to me, space is synonymous to fields, then it
follows that matter and space are also made from the same basic
substance.
Matter is a product of the aether, and because the aether is
immaterial, it can't be quantized. The aether is before spacetime.
Einstein was correct in his claim of a background free universe, the
aether can't even be called a reference frame, it isn't material and
it lacks any landmarks. But Einstein himself said it (1920), it is a
physical but immaterial substratum, the seat to all fields, and he
called it the gravitational aether, or the relativistic aether.
Reality doesn't pop up because of tensor math, the math is only one
of the tools we use to describe it. A field can't come into
existence
getting its energy out of nothingness.
For reality to take place all physical laws must remain constant,
independently from the inertial frame, and because the aether is
physically finite, there must be space contractions and time
dilations in relation to slower moving inertial frames. Even though
proportions are kept, dimensions are constantly adjusted to fit the
inertial frame.
------------------------------------------
Existence starts with the field, and before that there is the
aether.
In a space full of bodies, field geometry depends on the spacetime
geometry as well as on the aether's electromagnetic properties. If
there were only one field, its geometry would be wholly determined
from the aether.
In Einstein's GTR space is 4-dimensional (spacetime), 3D space does
not exist as such. You take time and motion out of the theory and
you are left with Einstein's relativistic aether, which is not the
same as Newton's absolute 3D space.
--------------------------------------------
If space were primary, then spatial extensions couldn't be variable,
and that's what is claimed with Relativity, space-like separations
are supposed to be relative.
---------------------------------------------
How could a non-material aether represent a preferred frame if it
lacks any landmarks or coordinates?
---------------------------------------------
John Dobson asks - "Must we assume that in the absence of particles
and fields, and in the absence of space and time, there would be
nothing?"
And I ask, can space exist independently from matter? Is space
primary, not derivable from anything else, non-reducible, or is it a
product?
Is space real? I mean, if you were the only particle in space, how
could you tell if you were spinning, accelerating, or even worst,
how would you know how much space is out there, beyond your own
perimeter? There are some very ancient Eastern teachings in relation
to the meaning and definition of space. Remember, you can only call
space that which is contained.
Nothingness does not exist, that is also a very ancient teaching.
The aether is dimensionless, it is before geometry. Spacetime and
geometrization come after the aether. Aether is primary. Matter,
energy, space and time are not. The aether is changeless and eternal
because it is not bounded by the physical laws of spacetime.
Some go into mental shock when I describe a thing which is
immaterial and unobservable, then turn around and promote the
existence of space as such. As if space were here before matter and
could exist independently from the Universe. Isn't the classical
vacuum also immaterial and unobservable?
Others claim that space has no physical properties but if you
eliminate the notions of e0 and m0 (which represent the density and
elasticity of the medium) from Maxwell and Einstein's theories they
fall appart.
They believe in the reality of nothingness, and that, they'll have
to admit, sounds just a little idiotic. Yet they accept that notion
as an integral part of their physics... (just as I accept the aether
as integral part of mine.)
They believe that space as such is real, but can't even ascribe to
it any physical properties. At least Einstein's aether is real
BECAUSE of its physical nature.
All you need to be physical is to be able to act as a force. To be
real there is no need for dimensions or a geometry.
We need to think of the vacuum as a physical but immaterial
substance. Einstein called it the gravitational or the relativistic
aether.
Einstein's relativistic aether is physical, but not material. It is
Newton's absolute space mixed with Mach's aether. It's an aether
enbued with physical properties that help determine the formation
and structure of fields, and where space is a product dependent on
the existence of matter.
Physical because it helps determine ratios like the permittivity and
permeability of free space. Ratios on which the existence and
behaviour of all fields entirely depend, without fields you can't
have any type of matter/particle.
Immaterial because it lacks properties like extension or motion - it
does not move and it has no parts or components in the material
sense.
To exist it must be in spacetime, and the aether is not in
spacetime, so it doesn't exist, but it is, and because of this, it
is eternal, or not subject to process or time.
In Einstein's view your 'perfectly flat balanced vacuum state' does
not move, but helps determine ratios like permittivity, permeability
and the propagation vector of fields and light rays.
Einstein's space is 4-dimensional, time is included in the structure
of space, that's why he termed it spacetime.
Field structure depends on the properties of objects in spacetime as
much as on the electromagnetic properties of the aether.
Einstein said that matter and fields are made from the same basic
substance, and since, to me, space is synonymous to fields, then it
follows that matter and space are also made from the same basic
substance.
There can't be a Universe without an aether. The aether is the seat
to the electromagnetic and gravitational fields, and without fields
there can't be matter or space.
--
Laurent
_____________________________________
<< Such was the state of things when H. A. Lorentz entered upon the
scene. He brought theory into harmony with experience by means of a
wonderful simplification of theoretical principles. He achieved
this, the most important advance in the theory of electricity since
Maxwell, by taking from ether its mechanical, and from matter its
electromagnetic qualities. As in empty space, so too in the interior
of material bodies, the ether, and not matter viewed atomistically,
was exclusively the seat of electromagnetic fields. According to
Lorentz the elementary particles of matter alone are capable of
carrying out movements; their electromagnetic activity is entirely
confined to the carrying of electric charges. Thus Lorentz succeeded
in reducing all electromagnetic happenings to Maxwell's equations
for free space.
As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether, it may be said
of it, in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only
mechanical property of which it has not been deprived by H, A.
Lorentz. It may be added that the whole change in the conception of
the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about,
consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality,
namely, its immobility. >> --- A. Einstein
davidoff404
Laurent <cybe...@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:JNGdnfO9P7o...@comcast.com...
>
> Space is made from two types of particles, one which resists
> compression, or exhibits negative-gravitation (thermal radiation,
> light), and the other which is infinitely compressible and exhibits
> positive-gravitation (zero-point radiation, dark matter).
>
Ha ha..
davidoff404
davidoff
Uncle Al
>
> GTR is an idealization of reality, a method, a mathematicians trick
> to eliminate all local degrees of freedom (uncertainty); smoothout
> spacetime, and you get theories like Relativity, String Theory,
> TQFT... to work. But there really is a background of cosmic
> radiation (CMBR) without which space can't exist (A. Guth).
General Relativity works to spec, in any venue from particle physics
to cosmology, to as many decimal places as we can measure within
experimental error,
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system
For you to suggest otherwise without a definitive empirical experiment
to back your claims is the bleating of a particularly inferior ass.
Quoting physicists out of context is merely kneejerk plagiarism.
Aether is trivially disproven by empirical experiment. Aether cannot
be universal beacause it doesn't show in orthogonal local measurements
peformed in a non-inertial frame of reference accurate to 1.7x10(-15)
relative,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 060403 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 42(9) 549 (1979)
Phys. Bull. 21 255 (1970)
Aether cannot be local because it doesn't show in star displacement
measurements performed on Earth and by the Hipparcos satellite. There
is no third alternative. There is no aether.
Because GTR is a self-consistent axiomatic geometry, and because GTR's
founding postulate - the Equivalence Princple - is not intrinsic to a
theory of gravitation (e.g., affine/teleparallel theories), GTR can be
trivially falsified by empirical geometric experiment,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
but not by a refractorily ignorant bleating ass such as yourself.
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Bill Hobba
> GTR is an idealization of reality, a method, a mathematicians trick
> to eliminate all local degrees of freedom (uncertainty); smoothout
> spacetime, and you get theories like Relativity, String Theory,
> TQFT... to work. But there really is a background of cosmic
> radiation (CMBR) without which space can't exist (A. Guth).
Sure background radiation exists. But can it be screened out? You bet it
can. Can the aether of LET? No. See the difference?
BTW SR applies to inertial reference frames that conceptually have the
background radiation screened out. LET applies to frames whose aether in
principle can not be removed. Indeed it is required for the theory to work.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
Uncle Al wrote:
> Aether is trivially disproven by empirical experiment. Aether cannot
> be universal beacause it doesn't show in orthogonal local measurements
> peformed in a non-inertial frame of reference accurate to 1.7x10(-15)
> relative,
>
> Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002)
> Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 060403 (2003)
> Phys. Rev. Lett. 42(9) 549 (1979)
> Phys. Bull. 21 255 (1970)
>
> Aether cannot be local because it doesn't show in star displacement
> measurements performed on Earth and by the Hipparcos satellite. There
> is no third alternative. There is no aether.
>
I do not believe in an aether. But the aether of LET is not detectable.
Such an aether can exist. I do not believe in things that in principle can
not be detected and do not believe in LET, but scientific honesty forces me
to admit LET is a valid theory. It does not generalize elegantly to GR but
my understanding is that aether theories equivalent to GR within
experimental error have been proposed.
Thus I would say the evidence VERY STRONGLY supports the non existence of an
aether but proving beyond doubt it does not exist is another matter. Of
course the same is true for the tooth fairy and I put aether theories in the
same class.
Also these ****'s that equate background radiation with an aether should
learn the difference between something that can be screened out and
something that in principle can not. It is the latter that is generally
considered to be an aether.
Thanks
Bill
Paul R. Mays
"Bill Hobba" <bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f528...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Aether is trivially disproven by empirical experiment. Aether cannot
> > be universal beacause it doesn't show in orthogonal local measurements
> > peformed in a non-inertial frame of reference accurate to 1.7x10(-15)
> > relative,
> >
> > Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002)
> > Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 060403 (2003)
> > Phys. Rev. Lett. 42(9) 549 (1979)
> > Phys. Bull. 21 255 (1970)
> >
> > Aether cannot be local because it doesn't show in star displacement
> > measurements performed on Earth and by the Hipparcos satellite. There
> > is no third alternative. There is no aether.
> >
>
> I do not believe in an aether. But the aether of LET is not detectable.
> Such an aether can exist. I do not believe in things that in principle
can
> not be detected and do not believe in LET, but scientific honesty forces
me
> to admit LET is a valid theory. It does not generalize elegantly to GR
but
> my understanding is that aether theories equivalent to GR within
> experimental error have been proposed.
At least your intellectually honest about your position...
My only input is that with a tip of the hat to Unky AL (cause
he has shown a sharp mind , albeit a tad course and nasty at
times, for pragmatic physics.... We don't know a great deal
more than we know on the subject at this point in our young
evolution... But let me add that one should never believe.....
You should know, think you know or not know.... to believe
is to give credence to the mystical and religious....
My own view is of a novice and is based on descriptive
understandings of the observed universe rather than the
mathematical vision, which I honor as a tool of the human
to find answers to the unknown.
And the concept of a aether ( I prefer Quantum State i.e,
the remaining unified yet to be defined energy form that
was the Yet to be defined unified energy of BB fame
A singularity [Chaos Point{Alun Williams}, Quantum Point]
Which exist as an inverse tensor{elasticity form} between
all physical particlesand manifests as universally wide
gravitational base value whose value is based on total
separation of all matter in the universe and locally manifest
as a gravitational gradient in the area of massive objects. )
is a relative simple concept for me to grasp.. But I do
understand how some would have a hard time internally
imaging a field that is unobservable can be.. But I see
the local and distance effects of gravity and of EM
waves functions and see it gives a better explanation in
human terms than any I have heard from the no aether
side....
Laurent
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3F52732A...@hate.spam.net...
> Laurent wrote:
> >
> > GTR is an idealization of reality, a method, a mathematicians
trick
> > to eliminate all local degrees of freedom (uncertainty);
smoothout
> > spacetime, and you get theories like Relativity, String Theory,
> > TQFT... to work. But there really is a background of cosmic
> > radiation (CMBR) without which space can't exist (A. Guth).
> [snip]
>
> General Relativity works to spec, in any venue from particle
physics
> to cosmology, to as many decimal places as we can measure within
> experimental error,
I agree.
>
> http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
> GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
>
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-
4will/index.html>
> Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
>
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-
1ashby/index.html>
> http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
> Relativity in the GPS system
>
> For you to suggest otherwise without a definitive empirical
experiment
> to back your claims is the bleating of a particularly inferior
ass.
> Quoting physicists out of context is merely kneejerk plagiarism.
I was not suggesting otherwise, I was just saying that GTR is not
perfectly representative of physical reality, specially not of space
as such.
You don't even know what the post was about.
Laurent
Right. That's basically what Einstein said.
--
Laurent
Laurent
"davidoff404" <davidoff404@_NO_SPAM_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bitq71$ruf$1...@kermit.esat.net...
> Stop the stupid cross-posting you troll.
>
> davidoff
>
>
Why?
pst...@ix.netcom.com
<bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>Laurent
>> GTR is an idealization of reality, a method, a mathematicians trick
>> to eliminate all local degrees of freedom (uncertainty); smoothout
>> spacetime, and you get theories like Relativity, String Theory,
>> TQFT... to work. But there really is a background of cosmic
>> radiation (CMBR) without which space can't exist (A. Guth).
>
> Sure background radiation exists. But can it be screened out?
> You bet it can. ...
Can you cite an experiment that tested this? Just one please...
> ... Can the aether of LET? No. See the difference?
No... You're comparing apples to oranges...
> BTW SR applies to inertial reference frames that conceptually have
> the background radiation screened out. LET applies to frames whose
> aether in principle can not be removed. Indeed it is required for
> the theory to work.
Yeah, and your point is???
Dirk Van de moortel
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:l1g5lvctu7qqonpej...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 09:58:23 +1000, "Bill Hobba"
> <bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Laurent
> >> GTR is an idealization of reality, a method, a mathematicians trick
> >> to eliminate all local degrees of freedom (uncertainty); smoothout
> >> spacetime, and you get theories like Relativity, String Theory,
> >> TQFT... to work. But there really is a background of cosmic
> >> radiation (CMBR) without which space can't exist (A. Guth).
> >
> > Sure background radiation exists. But can it be screened out?
> > You bet it can. ...
>
> Can you cite an experiment that tested this? Just one please...
Every metal box you can imagine.
It hasn't been done?
Can you cite an experiment that tested whether
*you* fall down when we drop *you* from a
tower?
Dirk Vdm
pst...@ix.netcom.com
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
><pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:l1g5lvctu7qqonpej...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 09:58:23 +1000, "Bill Hobba"
>> <bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >Laurent
>> >> GTR is an idealization of reality, a method, a mathematicians trick
>> >> to eliminate all local degrees of freedom (uncertainty); smoothout
>> >> spacetime, and you get theories like Relativity, String Theory,
>> >> TQFT... to work. But there really is a background of cosmic
>> >> radiation (CMBR) without which space can't exist (A. Guth).
>> >
>> > Sure background radiation exists. But can it be screened out?
>> > You bet it can. ...
>>
>> Can you cite an experiment that tested this? Just one please...
>
> Every metal box you can imagine.
>
> It hasn't been done?
Bad control procedure, right...
> Can you cite an experiment that tested whether *you* fall down
> when we drop *you* from a tower?
Yes, "Drop Zone"...
Paul Stowe
Dirk Van de moortel
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:83m6lv0l6khikp723...@4ax.com...
Seriously now.
If the experiment *is* done, and the CMBR *is*
shielded, will you say goodbye to your ether?
Dirk Vdm
Mark Palenik
When they measured CMBR, they had to block it as well, to get a good idea of
how much was there. In front of one of the detectors they had some sort of
sponge-like thing soaked in liquid nitrogen, which they used as 0.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mark Palenik" <markp...@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message news:mOCdnXLHPfB...@wideopenwest.com...
How can you measure something by blocking it?
> to get a good idea of how much was there. In front of one
> of the detectors they had some sort of sponge-like thing
> soaked in liquid nitrogen, which they used as 0.
Am I getting this right? Do these ether fanatics really need
an exception to Faraday's cage for their ether to exist?
Dirk Vdm
luke
> >
> > GTR is an idealization of reality, a method, a mathematicians trick
> > to eliminate all local degrees of freedom (uncertainty); smoothout
> > spacetime, and you get theories like Relativity, String Theory,
> > TQFT... to work. But there really is a background of cosmic
> > radiation (CMBR) without which space can't exist (A. Guth).
> [snip]
>
> General Relativity works to spec, in any venue from particle physics
> to cosmology, to as many decimal places as we can measure within
> experimental error,
>
> Aether is trivially disproven by empirical experiment.
Which aether? I can tell you don't mean GR, which could be called
an aether model. Are you suggesting that there is no zero point
energy? That empty space cannot have any physical properties? No,
you are siting excellent work disproving certain aether models. An
important distinction I maintain.
-luke
Mark Palenik
see below
>
> > to get a good idea of how much was there. In front of one
> > of the detectors they had some sort of sponge-like thing
> > soaked in liquid nitrogen, which they used as 0.
>
> Am I getting this right? Do these ether fanatics really need
> an exception to Faraday's cage for their ether to exist?
>
> Dirk Vdm
>
I'm not sure what exactly you were saying in this post, but if you're
calling me an Aether (ether. . .either. . . whatever) fanatic, I'm nothing
of the sort. I was merely trying to help your argument by saying that CMBR
can be and has been blocked.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mark Palenik" <markp...@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message news:6NCdneWoU8q...@wideopenwest.com...
I know :-)
> I was merely trying to help your argument by saying that CMBR
> can be and has been blocked.
Indeed, thanks...
So, any idea why they always ask "Can you cite an experiment
that tested this? Just one please...", when someone says that
their ether cannot be shielded while the CMBR *can* be?
See also
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=stowe+OR+greywolf42+cmb+OR+cmbr+shield+OR+shielding
and specially the thread
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=0B_w7.96680$6x5.21...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be
where you can see Barry Mingst's (grewolf42) multiple
nervous replies to my question about dropping him from
a tower :-)
Never got a serious answer to this question. Bizarre.
Dirk Vdm
pst...@ix.netcom.com
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Mark Palenik" <markp...@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message news:6NCdneWoU8q...@wideopenwest.com...
>>
>> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
>> in message news:J8K4b.13286$bM1.6...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>>>
>>> "Mark Palenik" <markp...@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
>> news:mOCdnXLHPfB...@wideopenwest.com...
[Snip ...]
>>>>
>>>> When they measured CMBR, they had to block it as well,
>>>
>>> How can you measure something by blocking it?
>>
>> see below
>>
>>>
>>>> to get a good idea of how much was there. In front of one
>>>> of the detectors they had some sort of sponge-like thing
>>>> soaked in liquid nitrogen, which they used as 0.
>>>
>>> Am I getting this right? Do these ether fanatics really need
>>> an exception to Faraday's cage for their ether to exist?
>>>
>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what exactly you were saying in this post, but
>> if you're calling me an Aether (ether. . .either. . . whatever)
>> fanatic, I'm nothing of the sort.
>
> I know :-)
>
>> I was merely trying to help your argument by saying that CMBR
>> can be and has been blocked.
But you never provided a distinct reference...
BTW at 2.73 K unless the liquid Nitrogen is less than this, how can
they do this? The answer awaits the reference...
> Indeed, thanks...
> So, any idea why they always ask "Can you cite an experiment
> that tested this? Just one please...", when someone says that
> their ether cannot be shielded while the CMBR *can* be?
Simple, the fundamental question is, from where does the CMBR
originate? If from a far field it can indeed be blocked. If from
matter itself (specifically electrons of matter) the you'd see their
hum from the surrounding material (like the antenna itself). Either
way, even IF one assumes the far field case, good science gets the
baseline the control...
You say it been done, great. I'd like to see the reference, details,
& results.
If someone is going to claim, scientifically, that something CAN be
done, they damned well better be able to show it! Otherwise the're
going on faith (religon) not objective science.
[Snip of pure ad hominem...]
Paul Stowe
Bilge
><bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Laurent
>>> GTR is an idealization of reality, a method, a mathematicians trick
>>> to eliminate all local degrees of freedom (uncertainty); smoothout
>>> spacetime, and you get theories like Relativity, String Theory,
>>> TQFT... to work. But there really is a background of cosmic
>>> radiation (CMBR) without which space can't exist (A. Guth).
>>
>> Sure background radiation exists. But can it be screened out?
>> You bet it can. ...
>
> Can you cite an experiment that tested this? Just one please...
a wavelength of 5 mm. The only reason to publish an article about
shielding 56 GHz with a faraday cage would be if it didn't work.
While I haven't considered the entire planck distribution, it
shouldn't be hard to guess the size of the mesh required to
shield higher (or lower) frequencies, since it's approximately
proportional to the wavelength. This is a property of conductors.
Bilge
>"Mark Palenik" <markp...@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
>news:mOCdnXLHPfB...@wideopenwest.com...
>>
>> When they measured CMBR, they had to block it as well,
>
>How can you measure something by blocking it?
Sounds like a zero calibration relative to the system noise.
That would help identify the noise source as external rather
than in the electronics.
>> to get a good idea of how much was there. In front of one
>> of the detectors they had some sort of sponge-like thing
>> soaked in liquid nitrogen, which they used as 0.
>
>Am I getting this right? Do these ether fanatics really need
>an exception to Faraday's cage for their ether to exist?
That would certainly be a new wrinkle even if it is obviously
wrong, especially since it would put them at odds with maxwell.
Dirk Van de moortel
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:pf17lvob72iridii5...@4ax.com...
So, in order to have an objective scientific basis for the
otherwise undetectable ether of your religion, *you*
would like the CMBR to originate in the machine that
measures it, and then you want *us* to prove that it
doesn't.
Same thing goes from my dropping *you* out of *my*
specific window. The experiment has not been done.
Don't try to weasel out of it with your Drop Zone. Cite
me one experiment please. Otherwise you float when
I drop you and there is nothing you can do about it.
I think I'm beginning to understand why this makes you
and your buddy so jumpy ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Paul B. Andersen
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> skrev i melding
news:h9L4b.13420$Gw1.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>
> "Mark Palenik" <markp...@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message news:6NCdneWoU8q...@wideopenwest.com...
> >
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> > in message news:J8K4b.13286$bM1.6...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> > >
> > > "Mark Palenik" <markp...@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
> > news:mOCdnXLHPfB...@wideopenwest.com...
> > > >
> > > > of the detectors they had some sort of sponge-like thing
> > > > soaked in liquid nitrogen, which they used as 0.
Since liquid nitrogen has a temperature of 70K, the detector
would see a noise temperature of 70K.
So how could they "use it as 0"?
They may however have used it as a calibrated noise source
to measure the noise temperature of the detector itself.
> > > Am I getting this right? Do these ether fanatics really need
> > > an exception to Faraday's cage for their ether to exist?
Well, Dirk.
A Faraday's cage would obviously keep the CMBR out,
but inside a Faraday's cage there is a black body spectrum
with temperature equal to the temperature of the cage.
This principle is used to make an ideal black body source.
At higher temperatures, an oven is used. The inner walls
are held at a known temperature. The trick is that
the radiation inside the oven will be an ideal black
body spectrum regardless of the albedo of the walls.
A hole in the oven is then an ideal black body source.
This principle woks at any temperature, however.
> > I was merely trying to help your argument by saying that CMBR
> > can be and has been blocked.
>
> Indeed, thanks...
> So, any idea why they always ask "Can you cite an experiment
> that tested this? Just one please...", when someone says that
> their ether cannot be shielded while the CMBR *can* be?
There is very simple to block the CMBR, any metal shield will do.
But the problem is that whatever you use to block the detector
(or antenna) with, it will radiate more than the CMBR you have
blocked, so you will measure a (much) higher signal.
A metal shield in front of a horn (or parabolic) antenna will
be disastrous, you will measure 300K radiation in your receiver.
(Or whatever temperature the antenna has. In a satellite it can
be much lower, of course.)
The only way to block the antenna and get zero noise is to
block it with something that is at 0K. (Even worse, the whole
antenna must be at 0K.) It isn't feasible. A terminator
cooled by liquid helium could possibly bring the noise down
to 4K, but that's still more than the CMBR.
That was exactly why Wilson&Penzias pointed their antenna
out in space. They attempted to measure the noise generated
in the antenna itself. So they asked themself, where do we find
a "terminator" for the antenna which is at 0K?
They thought deep space would do the trick.
Their surprise when they found that wasn't so is well known.
The CMBR is easy to block.
But to make an experiment which directly proves that
by measureing a lower signal when the CMBR is blocked,
is probably very hard (practically impossible) to make.
It is however very little doubt that the 3.87K measured
by COBE is generated outside of the antenna, and not
in the antenna/detector itself.
It IS possible to measure the noise temperature of
of the antenna/detector without having a terminator
at 0K. The noise temperature of the WMAP receiver
is 35uK (micro K).
Paul
RL Gerl
> Such an aether can exist. I do not believe in things that in principle
can
> not be detected and do not believe in LET, but scientific honesty forces
me
> to admit LET is a valid theory. It does not generalize elegantly to GR
but
> my understanding is that aether theories equivalent to GR within
> experimental error have been proposed.
>
> Thus I would say the evidence VERY STRONGLY supports the non existence of
an
> aether but proving beyond doubt it does not exist is another matter. Of
> course the same is true for the tooth fairy and I put aether theories in
the
> same class.
We must also remember that "LET" is purely an ad-hoc theory. There are no
equations describing the space-filling medium and its interactions with
matter. The attempt to do so had so many problems that Einstein found that
the entire approach had to be abandoned, see Einstein's remarks below. (The
whole idea of a space-filling medium, causing electromagnetic,
"relativistic", and other effects, is known as the mechanical view.)
"But what is the medium through which light spreads and what are its
mechanical properties? There is no hope of reducing the optical phenomena
to the mechanical ones before this question is answered. But the
difficulties in solving this problem are so great that we have to give it up
and thus give up the mechanical view as well."
Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld: The Evolution of Physics, page 122.
"...the all-penetrating ether had to be assumed as the carrier of the waves,
but no known phenomenon suggested the way in which the ether was built up
from material points. One could never get a clear picture of the internal
forces governing the ether, nor of the forces acting between the ether and
ponderable matter. The foundations of this theory remained, therefore,
eternally in the dark."
Albert Einstein: Ideas and Opinions, page 304.
Thus, in addition to solid experimental evidence against the existence of an
aether, there isn't even a theoretical description of the proposed aether.
So it's safe to say there is no aether and "LET" is false.
Bill Hobba
> Every metal box you can imagine.
> It hasn't been done?
> Can you cite an experiment that tested whether
> *you* fall down when we drop *you* from a
> tower?
Thanks Dirk; saves me the trouble. I wish these guys would learn a little
electromagnetic theory.
Besides the aether was supposed to the medium through which light traveled;
not a form of light itself which is what the background radiation is.
Thanks
Bill
pst...@ix.netcom.com
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
><pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:pf17lvob72iridii5...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 17:15:57 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
[Snip...]
>> Simple, the fundamental question is, from where does the CMBR
>> originate? If from a far field it can indeed be blocked. If from
>> matter itself (specifically electrons of matter) the you'd see their
>> hum from the surrounding material (like the antenna itself). Either
>> way, even IF one assumes the far field case, good science gets the
>> baseline, the control...
>>
>> You say it been done, great. I'd like to see the reference, details,
>> & results.
>>
>> If someone is going to claim, scientifically, that something CAN be
>> done, they damned well better be able to show it! Otherwise the're
>> going on faith (religon) not objective science.
>
> So, in order to have an objective scientific basis for the otherwise
> undetectable ether of your religion, *you* would like the CMBR to
> originate in the machine that measures it, and then you want *us* to
> prove that it doesn't.
No, I'd like a simple answer to the above. Repeating,
I'd like to see a reference, detailing, 'ANY' control experiment that
was specifically done to 'rule out' near field sources for the CMBR.
That's all... It should have been ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS DONE!
It is neither a like or dislike, there exists an equation,
T = hq/3km
Where in SI units h is Planck's constant, q is elemental charge,
k is Boltzmann's constant, and m the electron's mass... Since
this value is 2.8 K, it 'suggests' a possiblity. Thus it is valid
to ask this simple question. All that is required to answer it is
to say, yes, it has been measured, here's the the reference...
Paul Anderson said,
"It IS possible to measure the noise temperature of
the antenna/detector without having a terminator
at 0K. The noise temperature of the WMAP receiver
is 35uK (micro K)."
This suggest that it possibly HAS been done. All that remains for
the rather simple request is a reference to the article... Now how
hard is that???
> Same thing goes from my dropping *you* out of *my* specific window.
> The experiment has not been done. Don't try to weasel out of it with
> your Drop Zone. Cite me one experiment please. Otherwise you float
> when I drop you and there is nothing you can do about it. I think I'm
> beginning to understand why this makes you and your buddy so jumpy ;-)
Do you know what the "Drop Zone" is Dirk? Beside, NEVER measuring
something is quite different than repeating something done
uncountable times from time immortal...
But given you demonstrable shallow mindset, it is most certainly
expected behavior.
Paul Stowe
pst...@ix.netcom.com
<bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Every metal box you can imagine.
>> It hasn't been done?
>> Can you cite an experiment that tested whether
>> *you* fall down when we drop *you* from a
>> tower?
>
> Thanks Dirk; saves me the trouble. I wish these guys would learn a
> little electromagnetic theory.
How about it Bill, enlighten us all on how easy it is to do the
control experiment and why it was NEVER done as a baseline if it
IS soooooo... easy!
> Besides the aether was supposed to the medium through which light
> traveled; not a form of light itself which is what the background
> radiation is.
Explain this in term of a basic aether theory then Billy Boy!
Paul Stowe
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7qs7lvcg3is1ru7ag...@4ax.com...
It has a "spectrum" of hydrogen gas at nearly 3000K. The spectrum is lower
than *any* atomic spectrum, yet is still quantized. It has been measured
from near the Earth's surface, from thousands of miles from the Earth's
surface, and hundreds of thousands, the appearance is the same. It's
temperature was 9K some "billion" years ago. Its anisotropy is the same as
the various galaxies mapped to within a degree or so. What "exclusionary"
evidence would you accept?
If I had a star drive, we could go to some distant galaxy (assuming we
could locate it ;>}), and see if the CMBR looked the same from there.
Would that be satisfactory?
David A. Smith
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Really, and here I thought it was a nearly perfect black body...
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stars_vs_cmb.html
> The spectrum is lower than *any* atomic spectrum, yet is still quantized.
Really, and here I thought it was a nearly perfect black body...
> It has been measured from near the Earth's surface, from thousands
> of miles from the Earth's surface, and hundreds of thousands, the
> appearance is the same. It's temperature was 9K some "billion" years
> ago. Its anisotropy is the same as the various galaxies mapped to
> within a degree or so. What "exclusionary" evidence would you accept?
>
> If I had a star drive, we could go to some distant galaxy (assuming we
> could locate it ;>}), and see if the CMBR looked the same from there.
> Would that be satisfactory?
So David, [IF] the CMBR was a phenomena coupled to a qunatized hum
of electrons (given all them-thar virtual ones) what might I expect
to find a in a distant galaxy, eh? Probably exactly what we see here
don't'ya think?
Paul Stowe
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:vn18lvkv6ftvqpj4m...@4ax.com...
You are correct. A number of hits indicate that the temperature attributed
to the hydrogen that emitted the CMBR is "stable". I had misunderstood yet
again...
> > It has been measured from near the Earth's surface, from thousands
> > of miles from the Earth's surface, and hundreds of thousands, the
> > appearance is the same. It's temperature was 9K some "billion" years
> > ago. Its anisotropy is the same as the various galaxies mapped to
> > within a degree or so. What "exclusionary" evidence would you accept?
> >
> > If I had a star drive, we could go to some distant galaxy (assuming we
> > could locate it ;>}), and see if the CMBR looked the same from there.
> > Would that be satisfactory?
>
> So David, [IF] the CMBR was a phenomena coupled to a qunatized hum
> of electrons (given all them-thar virtual ones) what might I expect
> to find a in a distant galaxy, eh? Probably exactly what we see here
> don't'ya think?
It is my expectation (given the ability to be there *now*).
So you are challenging that *hydrogen* is the source? What mechanism would
allow an "electron cloud" (virtual or not) to express a temperature?
David A. Smith
Dirk Van de moortel
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:bj0e8i$2gc$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
Indeed it does...
3.87 K = 1.38 * 2.81 K
How could we modify T = hq/3km to accommodate
for this? ;-)
> It IS possible to measure the noise temperature of
> of the antenna/detector without having a terminator
> at 0K. The noise temperature of the WMAP receiver
> is 35uK (micro K).
>
> Paul
Thanks.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:7qs7lvcg3is1ru7ag...@4ax.com...
I must admit: it is a remarkable equation.
But there seems to be some controversy about it,
and even more so about how you derived it. Witness
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22hq%2F3km%22
for instance:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=adapme$6p9$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=slrn9a6m9...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=98ria7$76u$1...@news.fsu.edu
You seem to be the only person around (at least in these
newsgroups) who defends the equation.
So, maybe you have to cite one experiment [other than
the early CMBR measurements of course] where this
equation has explicitly been verified.
>
> Paul Anderson said,
>
> "It IS possible to measure the noise temperature of
> the antenna/detector without having a terminator
> at 0K. The noise temperature of the WMAP receiver
> is 35uK (micro K)."
>
> This suggest that it possibly HAS been done. All that remains for
> the rather simple request is a reference to the article... Now how
> hard is that???
I'll leave this between you guys.
Perhaps you better reply directly to Paul's message.
>
> > Same thing goes from my dropping *you* out of *my* specific window.
> > The experiment has not been done. Don't try to weasel out of it with
> > your Drop Zone. Cite me one experiment please. Otherwise you float
> > when I drop you and there is nothing you can do about it. I think I'm
> > beginning to understand why this makes you and your buddy so jumpy ;-)
>
> Do you know what the "Drop Zone" is Dirk?
No, I didn't, but I think I do now. If your equation is
okay, you can safely use the Drop Zone for my analogon.
> NEVER measuring
> something is quite different than repeating something done
> uncountable times from time immortal...
Fair enough.
>
> But given you demonstrable shallow mindset, it is most certainly
> expected behavior.
I still wonder about that connection between your ether
and the CMBR, but after having had a look at
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=383A71BE...@hia.no
and what came before, I won't bother.
Dirk Vdm
Richard Saam
k t = h q / m ????
k t is energy (erg)
h is ( erg sec)
q is ( cm^(3/2) g^(1/2) / sec )
m is mass (g)
there is no way that h q / m = energy (erg)
Richard Saam
Laurent
Right, Einstein's aether is supposed to be the seat to all fields,
including the fields that make EMR and/or ZPR.
EMR is material, and Einstein's aether is physical but immaterial.
First there needs to be an aether before we can have fields,
spacetime, matter and even CMBR.
--
Laurent
Richard Saam
Richard Saam wrote:
When in doubt, revert to Gaussian units
k t = h q / m ????
k t is energy (erg)
h is ( erg sec)
q is ( cm^(3/2) g^(1/2) / sec )
m is mass (g)
there is no way that h q / m = energy (erg)
buth q rho^(1/2) / m = energy (erg)
where rho is density (g / cm^3)
does
and rho = 1.4 E -9 g/cc provides the observed CMBR of 2.8 K
1.4 E -9 g/cc is a lot higher than the dark matter value on the order of
1.0 E -29 g/cc
Richard Saam
Bill Hobba
Over the years after leaning the mathematics of relativity (the true theory
not the popularizations) I have given the issue of the aether a lot of
thought. To me the whole thing boils down to your belief in the Principle
of Relativity (POR). Now we know that physical objects are composed of
changed particles. Fields are supposed to be some sort of stress or strain
in the aether. Classical mechanics has the POR for mechanical phenomena.
To me it would be inconceivable that the interaction of the aether with the
fields inside matter should not have some kind of classical affect - yet
none is observed. Thus we should extend the POR to at least electromagnetic
phenomena. When this is done SR naturally follows.
Thanks
Bill
pst...@ix.netcom.com
<bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>
> Over the years after learning the mathematics of relativity (the
> true theory not the popularizations) I have given the issue of
> the aether a lot of thought. To me the whole thing boils down to
> your belief in the Principle of Relativity (POR). Now we know
> that physical objects are composed of charged particles. Fields
> are supposed to be some sort of stress or strain in the aether. ...
Error #1, fields are not stress or strain, they ARE the medium.
Grad, Div, Curl ARE aspects of said medium which related to stress
AND strain..., and we like to call THESE ALSO fields...
In aether theory there exist just ONE field, and then various
physical aspects of IT.
> Classical mechanics has the POR for mechanical phenomena.
Yup, as do ALL mundane media. They ARE, inherently, Lorentz
covariant...
> To me it would be inconceivable that the interaction of the aether
> with the fields inside matter should not have some kind of
> classical affect - yet none is observed.
Why?
> Thus we should extend the POR to at least electromagnetic phenomena.
> When this is done SR naturally follows.
Thus, it is inherrently obvious even for aether theory...
Paul Stowe
Bill Hobba
> How about it Bill, enlighten us all on how easy it is to do the
> control experiment and why it was NEVER done as a baseline if it
> IS soooooo... easy!
First experimental physics is not my thing. But the answer on how it would
be done is a Farday cage as Bigle and others have explained. Why has the
experiment not been done? How a grounded Faraday cage works is basic
electromagnetic theory that easily follows from Maxwells equations and the
fact that surface chages in conductors are mobile. See for example page 102
of Griffiths Introduction to Electrodynamics. My father was an elecrical
engineer and I can assure you Faraday cages are uused all the time to screen
out stray electromagnetic fields. It has been tested time and time again.
The fact it follows from basic theory and has beeb tested so many times
would make it an unteresting thing to experimentally verify.
But do not let what I say stop you. Figure out an experiment, have it
published and see if you can get an experimenter interestrested.
Bill hobba wrote:
> > Besides the aether was supposed to the medium through which light
> > traveled; not a form of light itself which is what the background
> > radiation is.
>
Paul Stowe wrote:
> Explain this in term of a basic aether theory then Billy Boy!
You want me to support an aether theory? Your barking up the wrong tree.
An aether as thought of in the 19th century was supposed to be the medium
through which light traveled. They could not conceive of waves without a
medium despite the fact that the mathematics of wave motion did not require
it. It only required something wave; and that something may not be a
medium. But they failed to see the last point and assumed it was. Later
when light was discovered to be a electromagnetic radiation rather than take
the view it was fields that waved and leave it at that; it was decided the
fields must somehow be connected with the aether. My understanding was all
sorts of models were proposed. For example from page 40 the Conceptual
Development of 20th Century Field Theories:
'the material particles we conceived either as smoke rings or vortical atoms
in the plenum as suggested by magnetic optical rotation or as centers of
rotation strain in the elastic aether'.
If you do not have a copy of the above book please do get a hold of one
where these matters are discussed in excruciating detail. Suffice to say
the aether had so many problems it was abandoned. We are now left with LET
which is a valid theory but at a cost - the existence of an undetectable
aether - hardly the best state of affairs. In the end it was realized its
existence is what allowed Lorentz to maintain the notion of absolute space
and time (see page 41 of the above book).
Now the cosmic background radiation is a form of light so can not be the
medium through which light travels. If you wish to use it as the basis for
choosing a special frame of reference then go ahead. But because it is
electromagnetic radiation it can be blocked. So for a physicist in a
laboratory where it has been blocked how would they determine if they were
at rest in the aether frame? Besides SR applies to inertial reference
frames which are theoretical constructs that are assumed not to contain this
background.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
> Right, Einstein's aether is supposed to be the seat to all fields,
> including the fields that make EMR and/or ZPR.
>
> EMR is material, and Einstein's aether is physical but immaterial.
> First there needs to be an aether before we can have fields,
> spacetime, matter and even CMBR.
>
The aether of Einstein? Not sure there is such a thing. Neither SR or Gr
requires one. Although of course it does not rule out one. But then you
would have Occams razor to worry about.
Thanks
Bill
pst...@ix.netcom.com
<bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
> Paul Stowe wrote:
>> How about it Bill, enlighten us all on how easy it is to do the
>> control experiment and why it was NEVER done as a baseline if it
>> IS soooooo... easy!
>
> First experimental physics is not my thing. But the answer on how
> it would be done is a Farday cage as Bigle and others have explained.
> Why has the experiment not been done? How a grounded Faraday cage
> works is basic electromagnetic theory that easily follows from
> Maxwells equations and the fact that surface chages in conductors are
> mobile. See for example page 102 of Griffiths Introduction to
> Electrodynamics. My father was an elecrical engineer and I can assure
> you Faraday cages are uused all the time to screen out stray
> electromagnetic fields. It has been tested time and time again.
> The fact it follows from basic theory and has beeb tested so many
> times would make it an unteresting thing to experimentally verify.
Hmmm, as I thought, shallow thinking... It is very easy, indeed
trival, to 'block' any far field EM radiation. Hell, simple metal
sheets will do (the ultimate Faraday cage). But there's an itsy
bitsy problem Billy Boy, unless that thar metal is less than the
temperature spectrum you want to block, you guess what might happen!
> But do not let what I say stop you. Figure out an experiment, have it
> published and see if you can get an experimenter interested.
>
> Bill hobba wrote:
>>> Besides the aether was supposed to the medium through which light
>>> traveled; not a form of light itself which is what the background
>>> radiation is.
>>
>
> Paul Stowe wrote:
>> Explain this in term of a basic aether theory then Billy Boy!
>
> You want me to support an aether theory? Your barking up the wrong tree.
No, I wanted you to show us that you understand it. You cannot
legitimately criticize that which you yourself do not understand.
> An aether as thought of in the 19th century was supposed to be the medium
> through which light traveled. They could not conceive of waves without a
> medium despite the fact that the mathematics of wave motion did not require
> it. It only required something to wave; and that something may not be a
> medium. But they failed to see the last point and assumed it was. Later
> when light was discovered to be a electromagnetic radiation rather than take
> the view it was fields that waved and leave it at that; it was decided the
> fields must somehow be connected with the aether. My understanding was all
> sorts of models were proposed. For example from page 40 the Conceptual
> Development of 20th Century Field Theories:
Yawn..., have the book, read it, in fact I've recommended it as good
reading.
> 'the material particles we conceived either as smoke rings or vortical atoms
> in the plenum as suggested by magnetic optical rotation or as centers of
> rotation strain in the elastic aether'.
>
> If you do not have a copy of the above book please do get a hold of one
> where these matters are discussed in excruciating detail. Suffice to say
> the aether had so many problems it was abandoned. We are now left with LET
> which is a valid theory but at a cost - the existence of an undetectable
> aether - hardly the best state of affairs. In the end it was realized its
> existence is what allowed Lorentz to maintain the notion of absolute space
> and time (see page 41 of the above book).
Yes the aether had problems, not the least of which was/is vortex
dynamics. Know anything about THAT topic Bill?
> Now the cosmic background radiation is a form of light so can not be the
> medium through which light travels.
??? What is "a natural source of sound" Bill? Otherwise known as
background noise... Where does it arise in mundane media? Does the
fact that the medium itself self generates it make it a 'cannot be'?
> If you wish to use it as the basis for choosing a special frame of
> reference then go ahead. But because it is electromagnetic radiation it
> can be blocked.
Maybe (far field sources, absolutely), but I'm from Missouri, show
me...
> So for a physicist in a laboratory where it has been blocked how would
> they determine if they were at rest in the aether frame?
Ah, unblock it...
> Besides SR applies to inertial reference frames which are theoretical
> constructs that are assumed not to contain this background.
Theoretical constructs do not reality make... Anyway so what?
Paul Stowe
>Thanks
>Bill
>
>
>
Old Physics
Honorable David,
I thought the CMB had the continous spectrum of blackbody
radiation. By quantized, do you mean it has the redshifted balmer
lines of hydrogen? What spacecraft measured it from hundreds of
thousands of miles (WMAP)? It seems a long way to go with liquid
helium to cool the imager (or is He just used for IRAS type probes).
I read that the galaxies toward Leo Virgo were going faster,
greater red shift, than in the opposite direction, where the CMB is
redshifted. But maybe that was refering to galaxies in excess of 50 M
LYs. It would be interesting to accelerate a detector to 1.3 millon
mph toward aquarius and see if the CMB anisotropy dissappears.
With respect,
Stephen Kearney
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Old Physics" <skea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13fd3446.03090...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:<qlT4b.42856$Qy4.5513@fed1read05>...
...
> > It has a "spectrum" of hydrogen gas at nearly 3000K. The spectrum is
lower
> > than *any* atomic spectrum, yet is still quantized. It has been
measured
> > from near the Earth's surface, from thousands of miles from the Earth's
> > surface, and hundreds of thousands, the appearance is the same. It's
> > temperature was 9K some "billion" years ago. Its anisotropy is the
same as
> > the various galaxies mapped to within a degree or so. What
"exclusionary"
> > evidence would you accept?
> >
> > If I had a star drive, we could go to some distant galaxy (assuming we
> > could locate it ;>}), and see if the CMBR looked the same from there.
> > Would that be satisfactory?
>
> Honorable David,
Gimme a break!
> I thought the CMB had the continous spectrum of blackbody
> radiation. By quantized, do you mean it has the redshifted balmer
> lines of hydrogen?
I would say I was having a "senior" moment, only I never realized they
"identified" the source as hydrogen with no such lines. I guess it just
"had to be" hydrogen! ;>} With whatever magic wand such things are
decided. At least it wasn't Dark Matter.
> What spacecraft measured it from hundreds of
> thousands of miles (WMAP)? It seems a long way to go with liquid
> helium to cool the imager (or is He just used for IRAS type probes).
I was not well informed.
> I read that the galaxies toward Leo Virgo were going faster,
> greater red shift, than in the opposite direction, where the CMB is
> redshifted. But maybe that was refering to galaxies in excess of 50 M
> LYs. It would be interesting to accelerate a detector to 1.3 millon
> mph toward aquarius and see if the CMB anisotropy dissappears.
It would disappear, without a doubt. The question is, would more proper
time elapse for this frame? Actually the question is what is the source of
the CMBR, at least in this branch.
David A. Smith
Bilge
> Hmmm, as I thought, shallow thinking... It is very easy, indeed
> trival, to 'block' any far field EM radiation. Hell, simple metal
> sheets will do (the ultimate Faraday cage). But there's an itsy
> bitsy problem Billy Boy, unless that thar metal is less than the
> temperature spectrum you want to block, you guess what might happen!
Here, let me guess. What you'll see is the noise spectrum of the metal
making up the faraday cage. Why would the radiation corresponding to
the microwave background penertrate the conductor better than other
signal? Why is it a problem to simply calculate the blackbody spectrum
at room temperature and subtract it in software to see what's left?
[...]
>
>> Now the cosmic background radiation is a form of light so can not be the
>> medium through which light travels.
>
> ??? What is "a natural source of sound" Bill? Otherwise known as
> background noise...
Thermal fluctuations of the medium.
>Where does it arise in mundane media? Does the
> fact that the medium itself self generates it make it a 'cannot be'?
Are you claiming that your ether is made of atoms? If not, then what is
doing the radiating (which is caused by accelerated charges)? How do your
charges accelerate if there is no space between them? If there is space
between them, then obviously the medium doesn't fill space, in which case
you should be rewriting maxwell's equations to treat your medium in the
same way as any other dielectric by providing a set of equations with no
\epsilon_{0} or \mu_{0}.
Old Physics
> > Honorable David,
>
> Gimme a break!
>
> > I thought the CMB had the continous spectrum of blackbody
> > radiation. By quantized, do you mean it has the redshifted balmer
> > lines of hydrogen?
>
> I would say I was having a "senior" moment, only I never realized they
> "identified" the source as hydrogen with no such lines. I guess it just
> "had to be" hydrogen! ;>} With whatever magic wand such things are
> decided. At least it wasn't Dark Matter.
>
> > What spacecraft measured it from hundreds of
> > thousands of miles (WMAP)? It seems a long way to go with liquid
> > helium to cool the imager (or is He just used for IRAS type probes).
>
> I was not well informed.
>
> > I read that the galaxies toward Leo Virgo were going faster,
> > greater red shift, than in the opposite direction, where the CMB is
> > redshifted. But maybe that was refering to galaxies in excess of 50 M
> > LYs. It would be interesting to accelerate a detector to 1.3 millon
> > mph toward aquarius and see if the CMB anisotropy dissappears.
>
> It would disappear, without a doubt. The question is, would more proper
> time elapse for this frame? Actually the question is what is the source of
> the CMBR, at least in this branch.
>
> David A. Smith
Most Esteemed Mr. Smith,
By "would more proper time elapse" do you mean would time go
faster (I'm dyslexic)? If Mach was right and inertia is a result of
all the matter in the universe, then time would perhaps go faster
toward the cold pole and be dilated toward Leo, our relative direction
of travel. It would mean the end of SUper Dense Rigid Aether theory
(sudra as opposed to Brahmin), but it would be a great scientific
discovery. Remember the airliner experiment?
Isn't the source of the CMB the light that escaped when atoms
condensed out, some 370000 yrs AB, after the bang. And "branch" is a
bit cryptic in this context. Do you mean branch of the universe?
Always a pleasure to read you,
Stephen Kearney
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Old Physics" <skea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13fd3446.03090...@posting.google.com...
...
> > > I read that the galaxies toward Leo Virgo were going faster,
> > > greater red shift, than in the opposite direction, where the CMB is
> > > redshifted. But maybe that was refering to galaxies in excess of 50
M
> > > LYs. It would be interesting to accelerate a detector to 1.3 millon
> > > mph toward aquarius and see if the CMB anisotropy dissappears.
> >
> > It would disappear, without a doubt. The question is, would more
proper
> > time elapse for this frame? Actually the question is what is the
source of
> > the CMBR, at least in this branch.
>
> Most Esteemed Mr. Smith,
In the words of Jack Benny: "Now cut that out."
> By "would more proper time elapse" do you mean would time go
> faster (I'm dyslexic)?
We're pirating the thread. Sorry. For the dyslexic: "er'eW gnitarip eht
daerht."
Compared to an Earth-bound frame, would this clock run faster.
> If Mach was right and inertia is a result of
> all the matter in the universe, then time would perhaps go faster
> toward the cold pole and be dilated toward Leo, our relative direction
> of travel. It would mean the end of SUper Dense Rigid Aether theory
> (sudra as opposed to Brahmin), but it would be a great scientific
> discovery. Remember the airliner experiment?
I knew you'd come back to it. It is a question, and the GPS raw data may
hold some form of answer, if it can be coerced...
> Isn't the source of the CMB the light that escaped when atoms
> condensed out, some 370000 yrs AB, after the bang. And "branch" is a
> bit cryptic in this context. Do you mean branch of the universe?
Branch of the thread (we are on currently) that someone initiated by title.
> Always a pleasure to read you,
And you.
David A. Smith
Bill Hobba
> Error #1, fields are not stress or strain, they ARE the medium.
> Grad, Div, Curl ARE aspects of said medium which related to stress
> AND strain..., and we like to call THESE ALSO fields...
>
> In aether theory there exist just ONE field, and then various
> physical aspects of IT.
>
Which aether theory are you referring to? As quoted in another thread from
page 40 the Conceptual Development of 20th Century Field Theories:
'the material particles we conceived either as smoke rings or vortical atoms
in the plenum as suggested by magnetic optical rotation or as centers of
rotation strain in the elastic aether'.
Thus aether theories existed where electromagnetic forces were considered
'strain in the elastic aether'. That is historical fact. So are you
referring to the aether of Lorentz as advanced in LET? If so then I can not
argue because the aether of Lorentz is not detectable and its properties are
fully in accord with experiment - hardly surprising for something that can't
be detected.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
> > Hmmm, as I thought, shallow thinking... It is very easy, indeed
> > trival, to 'block' any far field EM radiation. Hell, simple metal
> > sheets will do (the ultimate Faraday cage). But there's an itsy
> > bitsy problem Billy Boy, unless that thar metal is less than the
> > temperature spectrum you want to block, you guess what might happen!
>
>
Bilge replied:
> Here, let me guess. What you'll see is the noise spectrum of the metal
> making up the faraday cage. Why would the radiation corresponding to
> the microwave background penertrate the conductor better than other
> signal? Why is it a problem to simply calculate the blackbody spectrum
> at room temperature and subtract it in software to see what's left?
>
Was it screened out or not? So you have noise from the faraday cage. So
what? Because it has a different form than background radiation it is
experimentally able to be accounted for. Would the same apply if the cage
was made of superconducting material near absolute zero? As I said get an
experimenter interested - if you can. I suggest the reason the experiment
has not been carried out is that it will not tell us anything we do not
already know. I stand by my analysis - background radiation can be screened
out.
Bill Hobba wrote:
> >> Now the cosmic background radiation is a form of light so can not be
the
> >> medium through which light travels.
> >
Paul Stowe replied:
> > ??? What is "a natural source of sound" Bill? Otherwise known as
> > background noise...
Bilge replied:
> Thermal fluctuations of the medium.
Of course.
And it in no way addresses my argumnent. The bacground radiation consists
of photons. Photons travel through the hypothetical aether and do not form
it just as atoms of air form the medium through which sound travels with
each atom not being a wave of atoms that forms sound.
Paul Stowe wrote:
> >Where does it arise in mundane media? Does the
> > fact that the medium itself self generates it make it a 'cannot be'?
>
Bilge replied:
> Are you claiming that your ether is made of atoms? If not, then what is
> doing the radiating (which is caused by accelerated charges)? How do your
> charges accelerate if there is no space between them? If there is space
> between them, then obviously the medium doesn't fill space, in which case
> you should be rewriting maxwell's equations to treat your medium in the
> same way as any other dielectric by providing a set of equations with no
> \epsilon_{0} or \mu_{0}.
The exact form of the aether is not relevant. Since I suspect Paul is
referring to the aether of LET it is undetectable and any form you give it
consistent with LET works. In fact is it can not be a material like we know
in everyday life. According to LET it is states of that aether that form
the material we see in everyday life. Since Paul has a copy of the book I
quoted he would know that the aether of LET does not have the properties of
a material substance (from page 41):
'His aether was divested of all mechanical properties and thus was separated
from matter completely. The electromagnetic fields in this scheme were
taken to be the states of the aether'
The fact remains is that the background radiation, if an aether did exist,
could not constitute an aether because being an electromagnetic field is a
state of the aether and not the aether itself.
If Paul is not referring to the aether of LET then I would like to know
exactly which aether model he is proposing.
Thanks
Bill
pst...@ix.netcom.com
dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
> pst...@ix.netcom.com:
>
>> Hmmm, as I thought, shallow thinking... It is very easy, indeed
>> trival, to 'block' any far field EM radiation. Hell, simple metal
>> sheets will do (the ultimate Faraday cage). But there's an itsy
>> bitsy problem Billy Boy, unless that thar metal is less than the
>> temperature spectrum you want to block, you guess what might happen!
>
>
> Here, let me guess. What you'll see is the noise spectrum of the metal
> making up the faraday cage.
Bingo...
> Why would the radiation corresponding to the microwave background
> penertrate the conductor better than other signal?
NEVER said it would...
> Why is it a problem to simply calculate the blackbody spectrum at room
> temperature and subtract it in software to see what's left?
Try answering you own question...
>[...]
>>
>>> Now the cosmic background radiation is a form of light so can not be the
>>> medium through which light travels.
>>
>> ??? What is "a natural source of sound" Bill? Otherwise known as
>> background noise...
>
> Thermal fluctuations of the medium.
More fundamental, density fluctuations of the medium, which BTW, is
all sound waves are.
>> Where does it arise in mundane media? Does the fact that the medium
>> itself self generates it make it a 'cannot be'?
>
> Are you claiming that your ether is made of atoms? ...
On the contrary David, atoms are made of aether...
> If not, then what is doing the radiating (which is caused by accelerated
> charges)? ...
The aether of space is hypothesised to be the medium of space. A
compressible medium will incur density fluctuations, which will be
a source for both destructive and constructive interference. Those
that persist, and constructively couple, will manifest in a
background 'noise'. For air, this is a natural backround 'noise'.
For the aether, ditto, but for it, the waves are manifested in the
vortex sponge manifold as waves of light.
> How do your charges accelerate if there is no space between them? If
> there is space between them, then obviously the medium doesn't fill
> space, in which case you should be rewriting maxwell's equations to
> treat your medium in the same way as any other dielectric by providing
> a set of equations with no \epsilon_{0} or \mu_{0}.
This I take as a fundamental misunderstanding...
Paul Stowe
pst...@ix.netcom.com
<bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>Paul stowe wrote:
>>> Hmmm, as I thought, shallow thinking... It is very easy, indeed
>>> trival, to 'block' any far field EM radiation. Hell, simple metal
>>> sheets will do (the ultimate Faraday cage). But there's an itsy
>>> bitsy problem Billy Boy, unless that thar metal is less than the
>>> temperature spectrum you want to block, you guess what might happen!
>
> Bilge replied:
>> Here, let me guess. What you'll see is the noise spectrum of the
>> metal making up the faraday cage. Why would the radiation
>> corresponding to the microwave background penertrate the conductor
>> better than other signal? Why is it a problem to simply calculate
>> the blackbody spectrum at room temperature and subtract it in software
>> to see what's left?
>
> Was it screened out or not?
The $1,000,000 question, don't know since it has, to my knowledge,
NEVER being measured...
> So you have noise from the faraday cage.
Yup... Bingo Jimbo
> So what? Because it has a different form than background radiation it is
> experimentally able to be accounted for. Would the same apply if the cage
> was made of superconducting material near absolute zero?
Now THATS the only way to know for sure. Surround a microwave
detector with a enclosure sphere held at as close to absolute zero as
is possible to maintain. If the electrons hum at 2.8, you won't be
able to get rid of all the characteristic signal... Now that WILL
discriminate out the possibility of electron hum...
> As I said get an experimenter interested - if you can.
But that's NOT the issue, the issue is claiming, with any evidence,
that the CMBR (in particular) CAN be shielded. You're simply going
on blind faith, not science!
> I suggest the reason the experiment has not been carried out is that it
> will not tell us anything we do not already know. I stand by my analysis
> - background radiation can be screened out.
Yup, without any observational evidence to back it up. There in lies
the problem, and its in the same class as all of the ones people like
to call kooks & crackpots, making claims without a shred of evidence
to support the claim...
>Bill Hobba wrote:
>>>> Now the cosmic background radiation is a form of light so can not be
>>>> the medium through which light travels.
>
>Paul Stowe replied:
>>> ??? What is "a natural source of sound" Bill? Otherwise known as
>>> background noise...
>
> Bilge replied:
>> Thermal fluctuations of the medium.
>
> Of course.
>
> And it in no way addresses my argument.
Sure it does, you just don't get it...
> The bacground radiation consists of photons.
Yup, it is the particular wave phenomena of the aether of space...
> Photons travel through the hypothetical aether and do not form it just as atoms
> of air form the medium through which sound travels with each atom not being a
> wave of atoms that forms sound.
Yes Bill, but just like the air, any compressible medium WILL self
generate waves... In the aether's case, that's light. In the air's
case, background noise.
>
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>>> Where does it arise in mundane media? Does the fact that the medium
>>> itself self generates it make it a 'cannot be'?
>
> Bilge replied:
>> Are you claiming that your ether is made of atoms? If not, then what is
>> doing the radiating (which is caused by accelerated charges)? How do your
>> charges accelerate if there is no space between them? If there is space
>> between them, then obviously the medium doesn't fill space, in which case
>> you should be rewriting maxwell's equations to treat your medium in the
>> same way as any other dielectric by providing a set of equations with no
>> \epsilon_{0} or \mu_{0}.
>
> The exact form of the aether is not relevant. Since I suspect Paul is
> referring to the aether of LET it is undetectable and any form you give it
> consistent with LET works. In fact is it can not be a material like we know
> in everyday life. According to LET it is states of that aether that form
> the material we see in everyday life. Since Paul has a copy of the book I
> quoted he would know that the aether of LET does not have the properties of
> a material substance (from page 41):
I'm referring to the aether of Maxwell, which Lorentz inherited by
assuming the validity of the resulting equations.
> 'His aether was divested of all mechanical properties and thus was separated
> from matter completely. The electromagnetic fields in this scheme were
> taken to be the states of the aether'
Yes indeed. But that in no way speaks to the issue of detecting or
the 'observability' of the rest frame.
> The fact remains is that the background radiation, if an aether did exist,
> could not constitute an aether because being an electromagnetic field is a
> state of the aether and not the aether itself.
The background radiation would, in aether theory, be part and parcel
of the basic state of the medium. In fact, given compressibility, it
is an inevitable prediction of the system.
> If Paul is not referring to the aether of LET then I would like to know
> exactly which aether model he is proposing.
Paul Stowe
Bill Hobba
> >>> Hmmm, as I thought, shallow thinking... It is very easy, indeed
> >>> trival, to 'block' any far field EM radiation. Hell, simple metal
> >>> sheets will do (the ultimate Faraday cage). But there's an itsy
> >>> bitsy problem Billy Boy, unless that thar metal is less than the
> >>> temperature spectrum you want to block, you guess what might happen!
> >
> > Bilge replied:
> >> Here, let me guess. What you'll see is the noise spectrum of the
> >> metal making up the faraday cage. Why would the radiation
> >> corresponding to the microwave background penertrate the conductor
> >> better than other signal? Why is it a problem to simply calculate
> >> the blackbody spectrum at room temperature and subtract it in software
> >> to see what's left?
> >
Bill Hobba wrote:
> > Was it screened out or not?
>
Paul Stowe replied:
> The $1,000,000 question, don't know since it has, to my knowledge,
> NEVER being measured...
>
I do not know the aether of Maxwell but I do know something of the aether of
Lorentz. And that aether can not be detected because it results in exactly
the same predictions as SR. Caveat: Since the fundamental basis of LET and
SR are different it may be possible in principle to figure out some
difference but I have not seen any proposals. If Paul is claiming that the
penetration of the background radiation into a faraday gage would be an
indication of an aether then I would need to know the exact reasoning. It
is the mobility of charged particles in a conductor and Maxwell's equations
that make a faraday cage work. Since both LET and SR have Maxwell's
equations; both theories predict it will be screened out. Thus the
penetration of the background radiation would be something quite interesting
but not proof of the existence of an aether. What it would be poof of I do
not know (possibly some wierd quantum effect - but that is just a guess).
Bill Hobba wrote:
> > So you have noise from the faraday cage.
>
Paul Stowe replied:
> Yup... Bingo Jimbo
Again Paul I do not know exactly what your objection is. The noise from a
faraday cage has a certain statistical signature. The background radiation
has another. They are different. Thus to a physicist in a screened frame
of reference, will, according to any theory based on Maxwell's equations,
havenoise from the screen and not the background radiation. That being the
case my comment still stands. The background radiation can not be taken as
an aether. If you believe in Maxwell's equations you must believe it is
screened out.
Bill Hobba wrote:
> > So what? Because it has a different form than background radiation it
is
> > experimentally able to be accounted for. Would the same apply if the
cage
> > was made of superconducting material near absolute zero?
>
Paul Stowe replied
> Now THATS the only way to know for sure. Surround a microwave
> detector with a enclosure sphere held at as close to absolute zero as
> is possible to maintain. If the electrons hum at 2.8, you won't be
> able to get rid of all the characteristic signal... Now that WILL
> discriminate out the possibility of electron hum...
I would like the opinion of a competent experimenter on that - statistical
differences in the two signatures may make them separable. My argument is
based on well known physical principles while I have no idea what yours is
based on.
Bill Hobba said:
> > As I said get an experimenter interested - if you can.
>
Paul Stowe replied
> But that's NOT the issue, the issue is claiming, with any evidence,
> that the CMBR (in particular) CAN be shielded. You're simply going
> on blind faith, not science!
>
I believe it is the issue Paul. My claim is based on well known principles.
I drew an inference from that. Your claim that due to technical
difficulties such as noise from the cage my claim is bogus. I claim that
the technical problems your alluding to are unimportant to the principle
involved. Remember this is a thought experiment. But even so I claim that
I would need verification from a competent experimentalist that your
practical objection stands up ie I claim the statistical signatures are
different.
Bill Hobba wrote:
> > I suggest the reason the experiment has not been carried out is that it
> > will not tell us anything we do not already know. I stand by my
analysis
> > - background radiation can be screened out.
>
Paul Stowe replied
> Yup, without any observational evidence to back it up. There in lies
> the problem, and its in the same class as all of the ones people like
> to call kooks & crackpots, making claims without a shred of evidence
> to support the claim...
>
And your claim is it can't be screened out due to noise - again where is
your evidence that the statistical signatures of the two types of noise will
not allow them to be differentiated. Your claim is just as bogus.
To cut to the chase of course since the experiment has not been done I can
not claim for sure; but I can claim that Maxwell's equations and charge
mobility imply it should. So I have firm ground to base my opinion. My
understanding is that experiments do not perform experiments on 'whim'.
Some fundamental principle must be involved. Exactly what fundamental
principle are you calling into question? Maxwell's equations or charge
mobility? Or are you claming that the background radiation is not really
radiation. Or are you indulging in (as Landau would say) 'empty
philosophizing or vapidity and futility cloaked in pseudo-scientific
sophistries'. Or is it to simply point out the obvious; since the
experiment has not been done then I can't use well accepted scientific
principles to determine a priori the outcome. If that is the case then I
must say; well you got me. That is the very basis of science.
Bill Hobba wrote:
> > 'His aether was divested of all mechanical properties and thus was
separated
> > from matter completely. The electromagnetic fields in this scheme were
> > taken to be the states of the aether'
>
Paul Stowe replied:
> Yes indeed. But that in no way speaks to the issue of detecting or the
'observability' of the rest frame.
I believe it does. If well known principles predict it can be screened out
then you need some reason to believe otherwise. Just saying the experiment
has not been done is not good enough.
Bill hobba wrote:
> > The fact remains is that the background radiation, if an aether did
exist,
> > could not constitute an aether because being an electromagnetic field is
a
> > state of the aether and not the aether itself.
>
Paul Stowe replied:
> The background radiation would, in aether theory, be part and parcel
> of the basic state of the medium. In fact, given compressibility, it
> is an inevitable prediction of the system.
Not so. The aether of LET has Maxwell's equations and charge mobility
exactly the same as conventional theory. It is those that predict the
screening of the background radiation. Again which one are you calling into
question? And can you point me to a paper describing the exact aether model
you are using? If it is the aether of LET then why do you believe it will
give results different from Maxwell's equations?
Thanks
Bill
Old Physics
My server has been having problems and some of my posts haven't
been making it, so I'll make this short.
"The question is would more proper time for this frame"? I am awe
struck that YOU are actually asking the question. It would be well
worth being wrong to find that it does (in the opposite direction of
my prediction). BTW the GPS satellites have twelve hour orbits (or
was it 11h 58m?). Maybe if we could convince someone like Carlip,
Roberts or Bilge that it's a worthy question, the powers that be would
find the answer "for all mankind (humankind...PC)".
Let the data mining be done,
Stephen Kearney
Laurent
> Laurent
> > Right, Einstein's aether is supposed to be the seat to all
fields,
> > including the fields that make EMR and/or ZPR.
> >
> > EMR is material, and Einstein's aether is physical but
immaterial.
> > First there needs to be an aether before we can have fields,
> > spacetime, matter and even CMBR.
> >
>
> The aether of Einstein? Not sure there is such a thing.
Yes there is, but not in spacetime. Einstein's space is
4-dimensional, but not his aether. In Einstein's view, space can't
exist without time, process, or change, so he calls it spacetime.
There is no space as such, therefore no preferred frame or absolute
frame. His aether is NOT a material reference frame. In Einstein's
view, we have a background free Universe, in the material sense.
Fields, not the aether, are seen as synonymous to spacetime.
--
Laurent
------------------------------------------------
<< The space-time theory and the kinematics of the special theory of
relativity were modelled on the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of the
electromagnetic field. This theory therefore satisfies the
conditions of the special theory of relativity, but when viewed from
the latter it acquires a novel aspect. For if K be a system of
co-ordinates relatively to which the Lorentzian ether is at rest,
the Maxwell-Lorentz equations are valid primarily with reference to
K. But by the special theory of relativity the same equations
without any change of meaning also hold in relation to any new
system of co-ordinates K' which is moving in uniform translation
relatively to K. Now comes the anxious question: Why must I in the
theory distinguish the K system above all K' systems, which are
physically equivalent to it in all respects, by assuming that the
ether is at rest relatively to the K system? For the theoretician
such an asymmetry in the theoretical structure, with no
corresponding asymmetry in the system of experience, is intolerable.
If we assume the ether to be at rest relatively to K, but in motion
relatively to K', the physical equivalence of K and K' seems to me
from the logical standpoint, not indeed downright incorrect, but
nevertheless inacceptable. >>
[...]
<< What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of
relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that
the state of the former is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places,
which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations;
whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of
electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and
is everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of
relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if
we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe
the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus
we may also say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of
relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through
relativation. >>
[...]
<< If we consider the gravitational field and the electromagnetic
field from the standpoint of the ether hypothesis, we find a
remarkable difference between the two. There can be no space nor any
part of space without gravitational potentials; for these confer
upon space its metrical qualities, without which it cannot be
imagined at all. The existence of the gravitational field is
inseparably bound up with the existence of space. On the other hand
a part of space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic
field; thus in contrast with the gravitational field, the
electromagnetic field seems to be only secondarily linked to the
ether, the formal nature of the electromagnetic field being as yet
in no way determined by that of gravitational ether. From the
present state of theory it looks as if the electromagnetic field, as
opposed to the gravitational field, rests upon an entirely new
formal motif, as though nature might just as well have endowed the
gravitational ether with fields of quite another type, for example,
with fields of a scalar potential, instead of fields of the
electromagnetic type.
Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than
condensations of the electromagnctic field, our present view of the
universe presents two realities which are completely separated from
each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely,
gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or as they might also
be called space and matter. >>
[...]
<< But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may
be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to
it. >> --- Einstein, 1920
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
-------------------------------------------------
<< Finally, concerning space having intrinsic reality in the absence
of a defining field, consider the following two cases involving the
electric and magnetic static fields.
1. If a dielectric such as solid beeswax be placed between the metal
plates of a capacitor and a voltage is applied across the plates
such that the charge is stored as and energy field in the
dielectric, the dielectric may be removed and set aside until later.
Then, when the dielectric is placed back between the free plates of
the capacitor, the voltage which will appear across the plates will
be the same as the voltage originally applied across those plates.
This proves that the energy related to the electric field is stored
in the physical entity of the molecules and atoms of the dielectric.
I ask the reader to now attempt the same with the vacuum of space.
2. If a flat disk if metal be spun between the opposite poles of a
magnet where those poles form a field 90 degrees to the surface of
the disk and the poles are also circular and completely cover the
surface of the disk, a voltage will appear between the center of the
disk and its outside edge. If the reverse is attempted, and the
magnet is spun instead of the disk, no voltage will be generated in
the disk. This proves that the intrinsic field of space cannot be
moved with the relative motion of the magnetic field so that there
is no physical essence of space for that purpose.
In summation, space cannot hold energy since it has no physical
essence that will allow it to do so. It is therefore the field and
its own energy that defines space and thus space is characterized
and given substance by the nature and energy of the field. This
allows for the concept of 'photon space' as applied to the
electromagnetic field. Since it defines the space, it also fixes the
way we see space.
The purpose of the reprints above is to clarify my position
concerning fields and space relative to contemporary thinking where
space is assumed to have some sort of essence apart from the fields
that exist in it. >> -- Jerry E. Bayles.
http://www.electrogravity.com/index7.html
Bilge
><bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Paul stowe wrote:
>>>> Hmmm, as I thought, shallow thinking... It is very easy, indeed
>>>> trival, to 'block' any far field EM radiation. Hell, simple metal
>>>> sheets will do (the ultimate Faraday cage). But there's an itsy
>>>> bitsy problem Billy Boy, unless that thar metal is less than the
>>>> temperature spectrum you want to block, you guess what might happen!
>>
>> Bilge replied:
>>> Here, let me guess. What you'll see is the noise spectrum of the
>>> metal making up the faraday cage. Why would the radiation
>>> corresponding to the microwave background penertrate the conductor
>>> better than other signal? Why is it a problem to simply calculate
>>> the blackbody spectrum at room temperature and subtract it in software
>>> to see what's left?
>>
>> Was it screened out or not?
>
> The $1,000,000 question, don't know since it has, to my knowledge,
> NEVER being measured...
That is obviously not true. If the radiation penetrated everything,
then it would constitute a heat bath, which would make it impossible
to cool _anything_ below 2.7 K, in which case we would define that to
be 0 K rather than 2.7 K. Furthermore, arguing that it can't be
sheilded against is like arguing that a faraday cage can't shield
microwaves. The cosmic ray background radiation is nothing but
ordinary electromagnetic radiation. If a faraday cage can't shield
the cosmic ray background radiation, then the screen on the door of
your microwave oven can't shield you from the radiation inside the oven.
[...]
>> I suggest the reason the experiment has not been carried out is that it
>> will not tell us anything we do not already know. I stand by my analysis
>> - background radiation can be screened out.
>
> Yup, without any observational evidence to back it up. There in lies
> the problem, and its in the same class as all of the ones people like
> to call kooks & crackpots, making claims without a shred of evidence
> to support the claim...
Being able to cool something to a few millikelvin is plenty of proof.
What you are suggesting about the microwave radiation would require
the ability to cool something without being able to insulate from a
heat bath which surrounds every atom in the object.
Bilge
>dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
>
>> Why is it a problem to simply calculate the blackbody spectrum at room
>> temperature and subtract it in software to see what's left?
>
> Try answering you own question...
I did and the answer was that you are wrong.
[...]
>> Thermal fluctuations of the medium.
>
> More fundamental, density fluctuations of the medium, which BTW, is
> all sound waves are.
What's your point? Those fluctuations are longitudinal - they are
moving masses. Electromagnetic radiation is transverse.
>>> Where does it arise in mundane media? Does the fact that the medium
>>> itself self generates it make it a 'cannot be'?
>>
>> Are you claiming that your ether is made of atoms? ...
>
> On the contrary David, atoms are made of aether...
I could replace your word "aether" with "stuff" without affecting
anything you've said, because you never have defined your "aether"
any better than that. Since the point of doing physics is to quantify
"stuff", not merely rename it, your claim about atoms is nothing but
empty semantics.
>> If not, then what is doing the radiating (which is caused by accelerated
>> charges)? ...
>
> The aether of space is hypothesised to be the medium of space.
As such, you should be able to give it properties which result
in the physics it's supposed to explain. Since the reason it was
developed goes all the back to electromagnetism, the first thing
it should explain is transverse radiation. Sound waves are long-
itudinal. You can't support vortices in fluid with no viscosity,
which is why models of superfluids contain both super and normal
components.
> A compressible medium will incur density fluctuations, which will be
> a source for both destructive and constructive interference. Those
> that persist, and constructively couple, will manifest in a
> background 'noise'.
That is not so. Noise is random.
[...]
>> How do your charges accelerate if there is no space between them? If
>> there is space between them, then obviously the medium doesn't fill
>> space, in which case you should be rewriting maxwell's equations to
>> treat your medium in the same way as any other dielectric by providing
>> a set of equations with no \epsilon_{0} or \mu_{0}.
>
> This I take as a fundamental misunderstanding...
On your part.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Old Physics" <skea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13fd3446.03090...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:<4_u5b.43042$Qy4.10292@fed1read05>...
...
> > > If Mach was right and inertia is a result of
> > > all the matter in the universe, then time would perhaps go faster
> > > toward the cold pole and be dilated toward Leo, our relative
direction
> > > of travel. It would mean the end of SUper Dense Rigid Aether theory
> > > (sudra as opposed to Brahmin), but it would be a great scientific
> > > discovery. Remember the airliner experiment?
> >
> > I knew you'd come back to it. It is a question, and the GPS raw data
may
> > hold some form of answer, if it can be coerced...
> "The question is would more proper time for this frame"? I am awe
> struck that YOU are actually asking the question. It would be well
> worth being wrong to find that it does (in the opposite direction of
> my prediction). BTW the GPS satellites have twelve hour orbits (or
> was it 11h 58m?). Maybe if we could convince someone like Carlip,
> Roberts or Bilge that it's a worthy question, the powers that be would
> find the answer "for all mankind (humankind...PC)".
I understand that this is the question you would have asked. The SR POV is
that it "shouldn't" have more proper time, if I've got it right. If there
is more proper time, then Mach is right, in some sense.
It would show that there is a "maximum proper time" frame, which should
delight kenseto to no end.
It will still not prove or disprove an aether.
And there will still be red shift and blue shift related to emissions from
this frame. After all, relative velocity is still involved, and the Devil
must have his due.
I personally think that it would be a good grad student project (review of
GPS data). With a good close of review of the setup of course. It would
have to be raw data, and the time calibration would have to occur on
satellites that had (supposedly) averaged minimum differences wrt the
Earth's frame and NOT include the orbital-set of interest.
We won't know if we don't look. And it may be that it has been looked at
and the resolution just isn't there.
David A. Smith
FrediFizzx
news:slrnblf63v....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
I am not so sure that is really proof. If the source of the CMBR is right
there where you are cooling something down, then the source is being
cooled down also. It just means that it is also possible to cool down the
vacuum source of the CMBR. Imagine a hydrogen atom that is in a vacuum
spin matrix and the electron and proton are "heavily" interacting with the
spin matrix. When you cool down the atom, it will transfer to the spin
matrix and it will become cooled down also next to the atom.
FrediFizzx
Bill Hobba
> I could replace your word "aether" with "stuff" without affecting
> anything you've said, because you never have defined your "aether"
> any better than that. Since the point of doing physics is to quantify
> "stuff", not merely rename it, your claim about atoms is nothing but
> empty semantics.
>
You hit it in one. In legit aether theories like LET the aether is not
given precise mechanical properties. During the 19th century all sorts of
models were proposed and all found wanting. 'It was always assumed by the
aether theorists that the electromagnetic laws could be reduced to the
mechanical laws although the failure to design a convincing mechanical model
postponed that task to the future' (page 41 the Conceptual Development of
Field Theories)
The great breakthrough of Lorentz was (page 41 the Conceptual Development of
Field Theories):
'In contrast to the British physicists who were interested in the mechanical
construction of the ether underlying the electromagnetic field, Lorentz gave
his attention to the electric constituents of material bodies and of the
ether that was thought to be perfectly transparent to uncharged matter'
'He first separated the ether completely from matter'
'His ether was divested of all mechanical properties and thus were separated
from matter completely'
Thus to make the aether idea work history indicates you can not go down the
road you are trying to take Paul. It would seem the aether can not be given
precise mechanical properties but mathematical ones necessary to make the
theory work. But there is a price to pay - devising an experiment that is
able to detect this aether. None has ever worked.
Now we seem to have this idea that the aether is somehow associated with
background radiation. I have never been able to understand this. The
reason is simple - electromagnetic radiation is supposed to be a state of
the ether - not the aether itself. Also, despite Paul's claim that the
required experiment has not been carried out, fundamental considerations
indicate it can be screened out.
What Paul's claim reminds me of is those that propose perpetual motion
machines. We know from statistical mechanics that they are not possible.
If you point this out to those that claim they are then they can reply 'have
you built my machine and tested it'. When you say no - fundamental
considerations forbid it working. Then they say - your unscientific - the
experiment has not been done how can you say it will not work. The answer
is the same - fundamental considerations forbid it. It is you that are
proposing those considerations are in error thus it is you that needs to
carry out the experiment not me. If you can not interest a competent
experimenter enough to carry it out then the evidence is the idea is
worthless. But of course in science we do not accept things on faith and
when backed into a corner we must admit that the required experiment has not
been done and can not say for 100% sure we are correct. Thus they are
basically counting on the scientific integrity of others to maintain their
claim. However such is a very tenuous basis for a theory.
Thanks
Bill
RL Gerl
> pst...@ix.netcom.com:
>
> I could replace your word "aether" with "stuff" without affecting
> anything you've said, because you never have defined your "aether"
> any better than that. Since the point of doing physics is to quantify
> "stuff", not merely rename it, your claim about atoms is nothing but
> empty semantics.
Well said Bilge. "LET" is purely an ad-hoc theory and that's its biggest
problem. Sombody might claim that length contraction, time dilation, and so
on, is the work of gremlins and correctly point out that this ad-hoc theory
makes all the same predictions as relativity. So "LET" is really no better
than gremlins because "LET"'s aether, like gremlins, has no theoretical
description and its foundations, therefore, remain "eternally in the dark".
"...the all-penetrating ether had to be assumed as the carrier of the waves,
but no known phenomenon suggested the way in which the ether was built up
from material points. One could never get a clear picture of the internal
forces governing the ether, nor of the forces acting between the ether and
ponderable matter. The foundations of this theory remained, therefore,
eternally in the dark."
Albert Einstein: Ideas and Opinions, page 304.
pst...@ix.netcom.com
<bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>Bill Hobba wrote:
>> > Was it screened out or not?
>
>Paul Stowe replied:
>> The $1,000,000 question, don't know since it has, to my knowledge,
>> NEVER being measured...
>
> I do not know the aether of Maxwell but I do know something of the
> aether of Lorentz.
Then one should not attempt to comment or criticize that which they
neither know, or understand.
> And that aether can not be detected because it results in exactly
> the same predictions as SR. Caveat: Since the fundamental basis
> of LET and SR are different it may be possible in principle to
> figure out some difference but I have not seen any proposals. If
> Paul is claiming that the penetration of the background radiation
> into a faraday cage ...
<roll-eyes, deep breath, exhale slowly, 1,., 2., ...10>
Get it through your apparently thick skull, NOT PENETRATE...,
T = hq/3km
but PRESENT in any and ALL electrons of mass m and charge q, even
virtual ones...
> ...would be an indication of an aether then I would need to know the exact
> reasoning. It is the mobility of charged particles in a conductor and
> Maxwell's equations that make a faraday cage work. Since both LET and SR
> have Maxwell's equations; both theories predict it will be screened out.
How can you screen out the electrons in the material making up the
antenna Bill, or the cage itself, etc?
> Thus the penetration of the background radiation would be something quite
> interesting but not proof of the existence of an aether. What it would be
> poof of I do not know (possibly some weird quantum effect - but that is just
> a guess).
>
>Bill Hobba wrote:
>>> So you have noise from the faraday cage.
>>
>
>Paul Stowe replied:
>> Yup... Bingo Jimbo
>
> Again Paul I do not know exactly what your objection is. ...
Bill, until about now I gave you more credit than you appear to
deserve...
> The noise from a faraday cage has a certain statistical signature.
> The background radiation has another. They are different. Thus to a
> physicist in a screened frame of reference, will, according to any theory
> based on Maxwell's equations, have noise from the screen and not the
> background radiation.
OK Bill, is this true?
w = zT^4
Where w is in power flux (watts/m^2) and z is Stefan-Boltzmann's
constant. Is it also true that,
E = h(nu)
So, if the energy of the photons increases linearly with frequency
and,
E = nkT
thus also linearly with temperature,
yet the flux density is a function of T^4, what happens to the
photonic spectrum of the 2.8 K part of say, a 273 K spectrum
verses a true 2.8 K?
Question Bill, can you compute precisely enough to discriminate this
tail from the 273 K spectrum from a true 2.8 K signal? What would be
your uncertainty (no experiment needed here). Now show me your
stuff...
> That being the case my comment still stands. The background radiation can
> not be taken as an aether. If you believe in Maxwell's equations you must
> believe it is screened out.
I'll ask you, what part of,
"It is very easy, indeed trival, to 'block' any far field EM
radiation. Hell, simple metal sheets will do (the ultimate
Faraday cage). ..."
was not claer to you?
> Bill Hobba wrote:
>>> So what? Because it has a different form than background radiation it
>>> is experimentally able to be accounted for. Would the same apply if the
>>> cage was made of superconducting material near absolute zero?
>
> Paul Stowe replied
>>
>> Now THATS the only way to know for sure. Surround a microwave
>> detector with a enclosure sphere held at as close to absolute zero as
>> is possible to maintain. If the electrons hum at 2.8, you won't be
>> able to get rid of all the characteristic signal... Now that WILL
>> discriminate out the possibility of electron hum...
>
> I would like the opinion of a competent experimenter on that - statistical
> differences in the two signatures may make them separable. My argument is
> based on well known physical principles while I have no idea what yours is
> based on.
Physical principles Bill, the very same ones I might add...
>Bill Hobba said:
>
>>> As I said get an experimenter interested - if you can.
>>
>
>Paul Stowe replied
>> But that's NOT the issue, the issue is claiming, with any evidence,
>> that the CMBR (in particular) CAN be shielded. You're simply going
>> on blind faith, not science!
>>
>
> I believe it is the issue Paul. My claim is based on well known principles.
Of what Bill? Do you not agree that the materials (ANY) used to
attempt to shield ANY far field thermal spectrum, will in turn, emit
their own thermal signature (by definition, a 'near field')? I have
NEVER claimed that far field sources could not be screened out. In
fact, quite the contrary. I claimed that there 'might' be a near
field (a.k.a. on the inside side of any such screen) source, given
the equation above. To scientifically discriminate and RULE OUT such
a possibilty it needs to BE EXPERIMENTALLY tested, and THAT'S ALL!
Thus the rather simple question. And the statement of an obvious
truth, YOU DO NOT AND CANNOT KNOW IF YOU DO NOT LOOK! Therefore you,
nor anyone else, can claim positively that the CMBR can be screened
out, it remains an open question.
> I drew an inference from that. Your claim that due to technical
> difficulties such as noise from the cage my claim is bogus. I claim
> that the technical problems your alluding to are unimportant to the
> principle involved.
On the contrary, I claim that, due to such obvious technical
difficulty NO ONE BOTHERED TO LOOK!
> Remember this is a thought experiment. But even so I claim that
> I would need verification from a competent experimentalist that your
> practical objection stands up ie I claim the statistical signatures are
> different.
I do not dispute this. Answer my question above...
>Bill Hobba wrote:
>>> I suggest the reason the experiment has not been carried out is that it
>>> will not tell us anything we do not already know. I stand by my
>>> analysis - background radiation can be screened out.
>>
>
>Paul Stowe replied
>> Yup, without any observational evidence to back it up. There in lies
>> the problem, and its in the same class as all of the ones people like
>> to call kooks & crackpots, making claims without a shred of evidence
>> to support the claim...
>
> And your claim is it can't be screened out due to noise - again where is
> your evidence that the statistical signatures of the two types of noise
> will not allow them to be differentiated. Your claim is just as bogus.
T = hq/3km
> To cut to the chase of course since the experiment has not been done I can
> not claim for sure; but I can claim that Maxwell's equations and charge
> mobility imply it should. So I have firm ground to base my opinion. My
> understanding is that experiments do not perform experiments on 'whim'.
> Some fundamental principle must be involved. Exactly what fundamental
> principle are you calling into question? Maxwell's equations or charge
> mobility? Or are you claming that the background radiation is not really
> radiation. Or are you indulging in (as Landau would say) 'empty
> philosophizing or vapidity and futility cloaked in pseudo-scientific
> sophistries'. Or is it to simply point out the obvious; since the
> experiment has not been done then I can't use well accepted scientific
> principles to determine a priori the outcome. If that is the case then I
> must say; well you got me. That is the very basis of science.
Dance around all you want, the fact remains, the exist a possibilty
that there 'could' be a near field component. You simply do not
understand the issue here. And after all that has been presented,
that's pretty difficult to fathom... Thus we have,
1. You're too dense to 'get it'
2. You've been superfically reading without really thinking
I'd like to think its the later...
>Bill Hobba wrote:
>>> 'His aether was divested of all mechanical properties and thus was
>>> separated
>> > from matter completely. The electromagnetic fields in this scheme were
>> > taken to be the states of the aether'
>>
>
>Paul Stowe replied:
>> Yes indeed. But that in no way speaks to the issue of detecting or the
>> 'observability' of the rest frame.
>
> I believe it does. If well known principles predict it can be screened out
> then you need some reason to believe otherwise. Just saying the experiment
> has not been done is not good enough.
[Snip of repetitive material...]
> Paul Stowe replied:
>> The background radiation would, in aether theory, be part and parcel
>> of the basic state of the medium. In fact, given compressibility, it
>> is an inevitable prediction of the system.
>
> Not so. The aether of LET has Maxwell's equations and charge mobility
> exactly the same as conventional theory. It is those that predict the
> screening of the background radiation. Again which one are you calling into
> question? And can you point me to a paper describing the exact aether model
> you are using? If it is the aether of LET then why do you believe it will
> give results different from Maxwell's equations?
OK fine Bill, what are the known physical characterisitics of all
compressible medium?
I'll give you a few obvious ones,
Density,
Viscosity,
Action,
Finite wave speed,
...???
fill in the others...
Paul Stowe
pst...@ix.netcom.com
<fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrnblf63v....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
[Snip...]
>> Being able to cool something to a few millikelvin is plenty of proof.
>> What you are suggesting about the microwave radiation would require
>> the ability to cool something without being able to insulate from a
>> heat bath which surrounds every atom in the object.
>
> I am not so sure that is really proof. If the source of the CMBR is right
> there where you are cooling something down, then the source is being
> cooled down also. It just means that it is also possible to cool down the
> vacuum source of the CMBR. Imagine a hydrogen atom that is in a vacuum
> spin matrix and the electron and proton are "heavily" interacting with the
> spin matrix. When you cool down the atom, it will transfer to the spin
> matrix and it will become cooled down also next to the atom.
It's a red herring Fred. The equation
w = UAdT
applies. Where U is the overall heat transfer coefficient, A the
area, dT the differential temperature, and w the thermal power
transfer. Thus, given CMBR input w' is,
w' = zT^4
Then, for a steady state condition we'd need,
w = w'
Or
UA = zT^3
For any fixed temperature T we have only one variable, A. Therefore,
A = zT^3/U
Let zT^3/U = k
For A <= k the system cannot be cooled and for A > k the system can
be cooled...
Surprising that Bilgey boy doesn't know this...
Paul Stowe
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:ul0glvc02ska11dts...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 17:02:05 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
> <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
> applies. Where U is the overall heat transfer coefficient, A the
> area, dT the differential temperature, and w the thermal power
> transfer. Thus, given CMBR input w' is,
>
> w' = zT^4
>
> Then, for a steady state condition we'd need,
>
>
> w = w'
Big assumption. You are stating that there is no possible insulation.
This is clearly not true.
...
> Surprising that Bilgey boy doesn't know this...
And I'm surprised you didn't know this.
David A. Smith
FrediFizzx
[snip]
|
| Thus to make the aether idea work history indicates you can not go down
the
| road you are trying to take Paul. It would seem the aether can not be
given
| precise mechanical properties but mathematical ones necessary to make
the
| theory work. But there is a price to pay - devising an experiment that
is
| able to detect this aether. None has ever worked.
Well, it is certainly a tough road. I think the whole problem is that we
need to realize that a concentration of pure energy with spin can have
mechanical properties also. When I try to model what is going on, I too
get the sense that charge is a purely mechanical thing. The big trick is
to get rid of any singularities that could be making the concentration of
pure energy with spin. The only way I can see for this to happen is for
the vacuum to be heavily involved.
| Now we seem to have this idea that the aether is somehow associated with
| background radiation. I have never been able to understand this. The
| reason is simple - electromagnetic radiation is supposed to be a state
of
| the ether - not the aether itself. Also, despite Paul's claim that the
| required experiment has not been carried out, fundamental considerations
| indicate it can be screened out.
Am I confused here? I swear Paul is saying the vacuum is the source of
the CMBR, not that the vacuum is the CMBR. If the vacuum is the source,
then you can only screen out the radiation coming from a distance. You
won't be able to really screen out the local source. However, it will be
effected right along with whatever you are trying to do.
FrediFizzx
Laurent
funk420
<cyber...@starpower.net> wrote:
>"Bill Hobba" <bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
>news:3f553ee2$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>> Laurent
>> > Right, Einstein's aether is supposed to be the seat to all
>fields,
>> > including the fields that make EMR and/or ZPR.
>> >
>> > EMR is material, and Einstein's aether is physical but
>immaterial.
>> > First there needs to be an aether before we can have fields,
>> > spacetime, matter and even CMBR.
>> >
>>
>> The aether of Einstein? Not sure there is such a thing.
>
>
>Yes there is, but not in spacetime. Einstein's space is
>4-dimensional, but not his aether. In Einstein's view, space can't
>exist without time, process, or change, so he calls it spacetime.
>
>There is no space as such, therefore no preferred frame or absolute
>frame. His aether is NOT a material reference frame. In Einstein's
>view, we have a background free Universe, in the material sense.
>
>Fields, not the aether, are seen as synonymous to spacetime.
Call it what you will.
You said "his aether is not a material reference frame".
However, it posesses inherent preferred frames.
Fields do posess a reference frame, one can say "take the frame of
reference such that the magnetic field vanishes".
Old Physics
This is the advantage of the airliner experiment, the resolution
is effectively cumulative since both legs of the round trip are always
in the same cosmic direction. The orbital set of interest would be
the one parallel to the CMB, why would this not be included?
"We won't KNOW if we don't LOOK." Great sound bite for a
campaign. It is the ultimate test. By putting atomic clocks on
commertial flights the costs could be kept way down. A million to one
chance for a lot less than a million dollars.
Press on,
Stephen Kearney
Mark Palenik
"Laurent" <cyber...@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:Dh6dnej2nJ1...@comcast.com...
>
>
> Yes there is, but not in spacetime. Einstein's space is
> 4-dimensional, but not his aether. In Einstein's view, space can't
> exist without time, process, or change, so he calls it spacetime.
>
Wow, you *really* don't understand relativity.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Old Physics" <skea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13fd3446.03090...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:<h9Q5b.44487$Qy4.21617@fed1read05>...
...
> > We won't know if we don't look. And it may be that it has been looked
at
> > and the resolution just isn't there.
>
> This is the advantage of the airliner experiment, the resolution
> is effectively cumulative since both legs of the round trip are always
> in the same cosmic direction. The orbital set of interest would be
> the one parallel to the CMB, why would this not be included?
> "We won't KNOW if we don't LOOK." Great sound bite for a
> campaign.
Copyrighted by Uncle Al, most likely.
> It is the ultimate test. By putting atomic clocks on
> commertial flights the costs could be kept way down. A million to one
> chance for a lot less than a million dollars.
The GPS satellite raw data is already there, can be accessed, and totalized
over years, if necessary. Atomic clocks already in place, and flying
faster than any jet. Paid for except for the thought to bring it home.
David A. Smith
Bill Hobba
> Am I confused here? I swear Paul is saying the vacuum is the source of
> the CMBR, not that the vacuum is the CMBR. If the vacuum is the source,
> then you can only screen out the radiation coming from a distance. You
> won't be able to really screen out the local source. However, it will be
> effected right along with whatever you are trying to do.
It was not clear to me from the writing that this is the case. I hope it is
because that at least would have some logic to it.
That being the case the idea may be that if the aether is the source of the
background radiation then while we can screen it out via Maxwell's equations
it will still remain since the aether is left inside the screened out area.
I hope so because at least it has some logic to it and a test would actually
be testing some fundamental principle.
If my above interpretation is correct then why Paul or others did not
immediately correct me is a mystery. It was obvious from what I was writing
that is not the way I was interpreting it.
Slightly Confused
Bill
Bill Hobba
> Well said Bilge. "LET" is purely an ad-hoc theory and that's its biggest
> problem. Sombody might claim that length contraction, time dilation, and
so
> on, is the work of gremlins and correctly point out that this ad-hoc
theory
> makes all the same predictions as relativity. So "LET" is really no
better
> than gremlins because "LET"'s aether, like gremlins, has no theoretical
> description and its foundations, therefore, remain "eternally in the
dark".
>
> "...the all-penetrating ether had to be assumed as the carrier of the
waves,
> but no known phenomenon suggested the way in which the ether was built up
> from material points. One could never get a clear picture of the internal
> forces governing the ether, nor of the forces acting between the ether and
> ponderable matter. The foundations of this theory remained, therefore,
> eternally in the dark."
> Albert Einstein: Ideas and Opinions, page 304.
I do not believe in an aether either. But I do not believe it existence is
entirely ad-hoc. If you want an underlying reality with an absolute time
then you need an aether. But that comes at a price - so far it is not
detectable. So you have a choice between two counter intuitive ideas - non
absolute time and an undetectable aether. I choose the former but it is
obvious from the writings in the newsgroup the later is preferable to some.
Thanks
Bill
Paul R. Mays
The only point I would make is that the
aether is not "built up from material points"
it was rather the material points were "built up"
from the aether... The aether of Einstein's musings
is the same yet to be defined unified energy form
that was the yet to be defined unified energy form
that was the Singularity ( Quantum Point[ Mays],
Chaos Point [Williams] ) that was the energy
that matter was converted out of at time 0+
of the BB and exists as a remnant of that finite
energy source. No more than you can
define the true nature of a singularity can you define
the true nature of the aether using rules that only
apply to matter in motion in relation to other matter
in motion.. Which are all existing rules of physics..
though QM is getting a bit closer but we are just
at the beginning of the learning curve in QM...
>
pst...@ix.netcom.com
<fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[Snip...]
> Am I confused here? I swear Paul is saying the vacuum is the source of
> the CMBR, not that the vacuum is the CMBR. If the vacuum is the source,
> then you can only screen out the radiation coming from a distance. You
> won't be able to really screen out the local source. However, it will be
> effected right along with whatever you are trying to do.
You are most certainly not confused here, this is what I said, and am
saying. I'm saying that the CMBR 'might' be a result of vacuum
fluctuations. 'If so', then it cannot be completely screened out.
It is a prediction of aether theory (not just mine). It is
testable...
Paul Stowe
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Can U ever be zero David???
Paul Stowe
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:g5hilv0e6adbavsrr...@4ax.com...
Look at the evidence. What happens to matter when you reach the very cold.
Can it be localized? I think that it cannot. Meaning any control volume
you try and define is meaningless. So U may very well be zero.
David A. Smith
RL Gerl
> > Well said Bilge. "LET" is purely an ad-hoc theory and that's its
biggest
> > problem. >
is
> entirely ad-hoc. If you want an underlying reality with an absolute time
> then you need an aether. But that comes at a price - so far it is not
> detectable. So you have a choice between two counter intuitive ideas -
non
> absolute time and an undetectable aether. I choose the former but it is
> obvious from the writings in the newsgroup the later is preferable to
some.
>
> Thanks
> Bill
Thanks for the reply Bill, this has been a very interesting thread. I
haven't seen anything to suggest that the aether idea, and "LET" in
particular, is anything other than purely ad-hoc. If we replace the word
"gremlins" with "aether", in my original post, we basically have the best
"aether" theory there is. It seems the point that Bilge was getting at was
the same as Einstein's: there is no description at all of the space-filling
medium. The "aether" is completely mysterious just like the statement
"gremlins tweak the cosmos to mimick relativistic effects" is completely
silent on the inner workings of gremlins -- (and the physics of their
interactions with the cosmos). I don't know if an undetectable aether is
counter intuitive or not but it is certainly no better than gremlins. Thus,
the general idea of a space filling medium is vastly inferior to
relativity -- (especially in light of the fact that there's lots of
experimental evidence against the existence of the "aether").
All the best,
Randy
http://www.rlgerl.com
RL Gerl
is
> entirely ad-hoc. If you want an underlying reality with an absolute time
> then you need an aether. But that comes at a price - so far it is not
> detectable. So you have a choice between two counter intuitive ideas -
non
> absolute time and an undetectable aether. I choose the former but it is
> obvious from the writings in the newsgroup the later is preferable to
some.
Thanks for the reply Bill, this has been a very interesting thread. I
Bill Hobba
> The only point I would make is that the
> aether is not "built up from material points"
> it was rather the material points were "built up"
> from the aether... The aether of Einstein's musings
> is the same yet to be defined unified energy form
> that was the yet to be defined unified energy form
> that was the Singularity ( Quantum Point[ Mays],
> Chaos Point [Williams] ) that was the energy
> that matter was converted out of at time 0+
> of the BB and exists as a remnant of that finite
> energy source. No more than you can
> define the true nature of a singularity can you define
> the true nature of the aether using rules that only
> apply to matter in motion in relation to other matter
> in motion.. Which are all existing rules of physics..
> though QM is getting a bit closer but we are just
> at the beginning of the learning curve in QM...
>
Exactly what aether model do you subscribe to and precisely how is it
detectable?
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
> You are most certainly not confused here, this is what I said, and am
> saying. I'm saying that the CMBR 'might' be a result of vacuum
> fluctuations. 'If so', then it cannot be completely screened out.
>
> It is a prediction of aether theory (not just mine). It is
> testable...
The aether of Lorentz had no structure other than that required to support
Maxwell's equations. He had no vortices rings or anything else. If you
believe otherwise please provide the quote from his 1904 paper supporting
your view. Exactly what properties of Lorentz's aether predict that it
causes the background radiation? If it is not Lorentz's aether you are
refereeing to exactly what model are you proposing and why?
Thanks
Bill
Bilge
><fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>[Snip...]
>
>> Am I confused here? I swear Paul is saying the vacuum is the source of
>> the CMBR, not that the vacuum is the CMBR. If the vacuum is the source,
>> then you can only screen out the radiation coming from a distance. You
>> won't be able to really screen out the local source. However, it will be
>> effected right along with whatever you are trying to do.
>
> You are most certainly not confused here, this is what I said, and am
> saying. I'm saying that the CMBR 'might' be a result of vacuum
> fluctuations. 'If so', then it cannot be completely screened out.
It certainly can't be the result of a vacuum fluctuation in the
sense of any quantum theory.
> It is a prediction of aether theory (not just mine). It is
> testable...
Assuming someone first proposes a definition for it that can be
tested in some other way than merely being a synonym for cosmic
ray background radiation.
Bill Hobba
> > I do not know the aether of Maxwell but I do know something of the
> > aether of Lorentz.
>
Paul Stowe wrote:
> Then one should not attempt to comment or criticize that which they
> neither know, or understand.
Am I to take this as meaning you do not refer to the aether of Lorentz? In
that case what aether do you use?
Bill Hobba wrote:
> > And that aether can not be detected because it results in exactly
> > the same predictions as SR. Caveat: Since the fundamental basis
> > of LET and SR are different it may be possible in principle to
> > figure out some difference but I have not seen any proposals. If
> > Paul is claiming that the penetration of the background radiation
> > into a faraday cage ...
>
Paul Stowe wrote:
> <roll-eyes, deep breath, exhale slowly, 1,., 2., ...10>
>
> Get it through your apparently thick skull, NOT PENETRATE...,
>
> T = hq/3km
>
> but PRESENT in any and ALL electrons of mass m and charge q, even
> virtual ones...
I now understand that you are not proposing that the background radiation is
not the aether but rather an effect of the aether.
Paul Stowe wrote:
> Of what Bill? Do you not agree that the materials (ANY) used to
> attempt to shield ANY far field thermal spectrum, will in turn, emit
> their own thermal signature (by definition, a 'near field')?
Of course - unarguable.
Paul Stowe wrote:
'I have NEVER claimed that far field sources could not be screened out. In
> fact, quite the contrary. I claimed that there 'might' be a near
> field (a.k.a. on the inside side of any such screen) source, given
> the equation above. To scientifically discriminate and RULE OUT such
> a possibilty it needs to BE EXPERIMENTALLY tested, and THAT'S ALL!'
>
OK I now understand that your proposing now. The question is by what
reasoning you believe an aether theory leads to such an effect.
Bill Hobba wrote:
> > Not so. The aether of LET has Maxwell's equations and charge mobility
> > exactly the same as conventional theory. It is those that predict the
> > screening of the background radiation. Again which one are you calling
into
> > question? And can you point me to a paper describing the exact aether
model
> > you are using? If it is the aether of LET then why do you believe it
will
> > give results different from Maxwell's equations?
>
Paul Stowe wrote:
> OK fine Bill, what are the known physical characteristics of all
> compressible medium?
>
> I'll give you a few obvious ones,
>
> Density,
> Viscosity,
> Action,
> Finite wave speed,
>
Now we are getting somewhere. Are you claiming that the aether must be a
compressible medium? That this must be the case is not clear to me. For
example in Lorent'z 1904 paper I can find no mention of such properties
being attributed to an aether. Indeed it is my understanding from a number
of sources that Lorentz deliberately shied away from attributing any
structure other than that required to support Maxwell's equations. If you
are claiming the aether is a compressible medium what is your reasoning
linking that fact to the background radiation being 'PRESENT in any and ALL
electrons of mass m and charge q, even
virtual ones'; unless of course I still do not understand what your trying
to say.
Thanks
Bill
Laurent
"Mark Palenik" <markp...@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:wOGcnUOfxpn...@wideopenwest.com...
Right. But you do, don't you?
What is it that indignates you so? Is it the fact that Newton's
absolute space is an old, outdated concept, or is it that Einstein's
space isn't a primary or fundamental property of physical reality.
Do you know?
Old Physics
> Dear Old Physics:
>
> "Old Physics" <skea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13fd3446.03090...@posting.google.com...
> > "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
> news:<h9Q5b.44487$Qy4.21617@fed1read05>...
> ...
> > > We won't know if we don't look. And it may be that it has been looked
> at
> > > and the resolution just isn't there.
> >
> > This is the advantage of the airliner experiment, the resolution
> > is effectively cumulative since both legs of the round trip are always
> > in the same cosmic direction. The orbital set of interest would be
> > the one parallel to the CMB, why would this not be included?
>
> > "We won't KNOW if we don't LOOK." Great sound bite for a
> > campaign.
>
> Copyrighted by Uncle Al, most likely.
Or Dwain.
>
> > It is the ultimate test. By putting atomic clocks on
> > commertial flights the costs could be kept way down. A million to one
> > chance for a lot less than a million dollars.
>
> The GPS satellite raw data is already there, can be accessed, and totalized
> over years, if necessary. Atomic clocks already in place, and flying
> faster than any jet. Paid for except for the thought to bring it home.
>
> David A. Smith
But remember, a GPS satellite will only be going in the direction
of interest for four or five hours, after which the results will be
undone by the other side of its orbit. Using commertial flights,
hundreds of trips could be made, all with the fast segments in the
same cosmic direction.
Totalized over years if necessary. sk
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:<wY86b.45781$Qy4.17169@fed1read05>...
> > > It is the ultimate test. By putting atomic clocks on
> > > commertial flights the costs could be kept way down. A million to
one
> > > chance for a lot less than a million dollars.
> >
> > The GPS satellite raw data is already there, can be accessed, and
totalized
> > over years, if necessary. Atomic clocks already in place, and flying
> > faster than any jet. Paid for except for the thought to bring it home.
>
> of interest for four or five hours, after which the results will be
> undone by the other side of its orbit. Using commertial flights,
> hundreds of trips could be made, all with the fast segments in the
> same cosmic direction.
> Totalized over years if necessary. sk
The data stream from the GPS can be read multiple times in any given orbit.
So you could record elapsed time "heading toward" and "receding from" Leo,
and store these time accumulations in two different places. 30 minutes
worth of travel in each direction (if 12 hours/per orbit is correct).
Record the start and end raw times for some fixed Earth-period, and
accumulate the difference to maximum precision. Four satellites a day
would run this for you. Keep the running totals on a backed up hard drive.
Data structure could include satellite ID, base time, Start or End flag,
raw data received, and some indication which direction you thought it was
heading. You could and should make an entry, indicating what satellites
you had zero'd time against, and when.
With aircraft you'd have inclement weather affecting landings and flight,
changes in velocity at take off and landing, changes in altitude. All
requiring operator invention to decide when to start clocking, and when to
stop. All data which would have to be accounted for in final totals. This
would require periodic recording of flight data, which would not be a
simple agreement to carry an atomic clock through security!
You could have firm data with minimum manipulation overhead in days, or
maximum sources for error in years.
I'm giving you the easy way. It looked like the data aquisition equipment
in the link I provided was about $300. So it is cheaper than buying
multiple atomic clocks. And results could be had *now*.
Unless you're selling atomic clocks...
David A. Smith
Mark Palenik
>
> "Mark Palenik" <markp...@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
> news:wOGcnUOfxpn...@wideopenwest.com...
> >
> > "Laurent" <cyber...@starpower.net> wrote in message
> > news:Dh6dnej2nJ1...@comcast.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes there is, but not in spacetime. Einstein's space is
> > > 4-dimensional, but not his aether. In Einstein's view, space
> can't
> > > exist without time, process, or change, so he calls it
> spacetime.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Wow, you *really* don't understand relativity.
> >
> >
>
> Right. But you do, don't you?
>
It's called Physics 225.
> What is it that indignates you so? Is it the fact that Newton's
> absolute space is an old, outdated concept, or is it that Einstein's
> space isn't a primary or fundamental property of physical reality.
>
> Do you know?
>
If you would like to ask a question that means something, I'd be more than
happy to answer it.
pst...@ix.netcom.com
<bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
> Bill Hobba wrote:
>
>> > I do not know the aether of Maxwell but I do know something of the
>> > aether of Lorentz.
>>
>
>> Paul Stowe wrote:
>>
>> Then one should not attempt to comment or criticize that which they
>> neither know, or understand.
>
> Am I to take this as meaning you do not refer to the aether of
> Lorentz? In that case what aether do you use?
(Lecture mode on [again])
Regardless of what particular variant of aether one chooses the
premise itself has an inherent physical nature. All aethers, be
they conceived as continuous solid, particulate irrotational fluid,
particulate vortexual superfluidic, ... etc. HAVE (or share) certain
basic characteristics. The nay-sayers ALWAY ask for these. These
include at a minimum, density, viscosity, energy (thus some form of
speed), wave speed, ... etc. As you keep focusing on Lorentz's 1904
paper, the fact is, that paper defines NO aether theory per-se, it
attempts to explain the results of experiments in terms of Lorentz's
idea of electrons... It assumes the validity of Maxwell's equations
which in turn, the inherits Maxwell's physical vortex model on which
those equations were derived. The simple salient fact is, if there
is ONLY the aether medium and no forces except those generated by
dynamic processes of same, Lorentz covariance of ALL processes are an
inevitable result...
>Bill Hobba wrote:
>>> And that aether can not be detected because it results in exactly
>>> the same predictions as SR. Caveat: Since the fundamental basis
>>> of LET and SR are different it may be possible in principle to
>>> figure out some difference but I have not seen any proposals. If
>>> Paul is claiming that the penetration of the background radiation
>>> into a faraday cage ...
>>
>
> Paul Stowe wrote:
>> <roll-eyes, deep breath, exhale slowly, 1,., 2., ...10>
>>
>> Get it through your apparently thick skull, NOT PENETRATE...,
>>
>> T = hq/3km
>>
>> but PRESENT in any and ALL electrons of mass m and charge q, even
>> virtual ones...
>
> I now understand that you are not proposing that the background radiation
> is not the aether but rather an effect of the aether.
Whew, that took long enough... Yes!
> Paul Stowe wrote:
>> Of what Bill? Do you not agree that the materials (ANY) used to
>> attempt to shield ANY far field thermal spectrum, will in turn, emit
>> their own thermal signature (by definition, a 'near field')?
>
> Of course - unarguable.
>
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>' I have NEVER claimed that far field sources could not be screened out. In
>> fact, quite the contrary. I claimed that there 'might' be a near
>> field (a.k.a. on the inside side of any such screen) source, given
>> the equation above. To scientifically discriminate and RULE OUT such
>> a possibilty it needs to BE EXPERIMENTALLY tested, and THAT'S ALL!'
>
> OK I now understand that your proposing now. The question is by what
> reasoning you believe an aether theory leads to such an effect.
Consider the following,
The basic continuity equation of Continuum Mechanics is given as :
d(rho)/dt + (rho)Div v = 0 [Eq. 1]
Where rho is the field density, and v is the mean velocity. If the
field is incompressible this simplifies to:
(rho)Div v = 0 [Eq. 2]
Since with the incompressible assumption, there can be no change in'
density. We can further simplify the equation by removing density
(dividing it from both sides) we then get:
Div v = 0 [Eq. 3]
This is a equation of state, given an incompressible medium the above
MUST BE SATISFIED!
There is a problem here however, if we have equation 3, then we have
for,
c^2 = 1/uz [Eq. 4]
Where u is the coefficient of compressibility and z density,
u = 0 [Eq. 5]
In other words, this definition requires infinite propagation speeds
of any perturbations in such incompressible systems, eliminating any
possibility of wave activity!
Thus, for c to be finite, u cannot be zero, Eq. 3 is ruled out...
Conversely, in compressible mediums we see that (rho)Div v equals the
time rate of change in the density d(rho)/dt. For the limit, as a
volume element [s] go to zero, we get:
s(rho)Div v = s(d(rho)/dt) [Eq. 6]
This is based on the observation that for the two terms to sum to
zero, and therefore must have opposite signs. This leads directly
to:
mDiv v = dm/dt [Eq. 7]
And cannot be zero. This is an important finding, it describes a
unique characteristic of all compressible systems. The result of
this is a fixed finite propagation speed for any perturbations in the
resulting continuum, leading directly to standard acoustic behavior.
So, what is the above equation saying? It appears to be saying that
compressible medium will have a basic oscillation of density
fluctuation occurring continuously. Moreover, given a generally
uniform density and velocity, this fluctuation will have a
distinctive frequency associated with this activity. This is clearly
demonstrated by the relationship:
Div v = d/dt [Eq. 8]
Obviously, d/dt is a frequency... So, what is this???
When applied to the Continuum Mechanics of Electromagnetism where is
this? There is a fundamental property that has remained undefined
(and given arbitrary units), this is charge [q]. So, if we assign to
charge the units [kg/sec] and let's now assume it is a result of the
definition above, what is the result?
In Coulomb's law, the force resulting from the interaction of two
charges is given to be:
F = [1/4pi(eps)][qq/r^2] [Eq. 9]
Following that assumption we find that permitivitty [eps] must have
units of density to get a result in units of force.
If we can associate permitivitty with density, we find that standard
acoustic equation matches that given for light propagation exactly.
In standard acoustics wave speed c is given by the relationship:
c^2 = Y/z [Eq. 10]
Where Y is proportional to pressure and the specific heats in a gas,
the bulk modulus of a liquid, or Young's modulus in a solid. For a
solid we have the further complication of whether we are evaluating
the compression <p wave> or shear <Sv, Sh waves>. The relationship
between these two in a perfect elastic medium is that the shear wave
travel at a speed Sqrt(3) time slower than the compression wave.
We can of course write the above equation in terms of inverse Y [u]
(in the standard literature this is known as the coefficient of
compressibility see Eq. 4 above), and as can be seen:
c^2 = 1/u(eps) = 1/uz [Eq. 11]
This provides us with confirmation that this definition is, at least,
internally consistent for Coulomb's law and the Maxwell/Heavyside
relationship to wave speed.
We can now look elsewhere for other possible correlations.
As shown above, Div v = nu (a characteristic frequency in Hertz).
With our definition, the charge to mass ratio would suggest that the
mass, seen in matter, could be some sort of resulting stable
manifestation of this harmonic oscillation in the field.
Exploring this idea, lets look at the thermal (as in black body)
frequency which, given the above definitions, results from this
relationship. Given:
E = h(nu) = 3kT [Eq. 12]
and, as defined,
nu = q/m. [Eq. 13]
We have:
E = hq/m = 3kT [Eq. 14]
And the resulting temperature T for this relationship is
T = hq/3km [Eq. 15]
For the smallest stable elemental particle, the electron, this
calculates to be 2.8 degrees Kelvin.
> Bill Hobba wrote:
>>> Not so. The aether of LET has Maxwell's equations and charge mobility
>>> exactly the same as conventional theory. It is those that predict the
>>> screening of the background radiation. Again which one are you calling
>>> into question? And can you point me to a paper describing the exact
>>> aether model you are using? If it is the aether of LET then why do you
>>> believe it will give results different from Maxwell's equations?
>
> Paul Stowe wrote:
>> OK fine Bill, what are the known physical characteristics of all
>> compressible medium?
>>
>> I'll give you a few obvious ones,
>>
>> Density,
>> Viscosity,
>> Action,
>> Finite wave speed,
>>
>
> Now we are getting somewhere. Are you claiming that the aether must be a
> compressible medium?
Yes, by definition, see above...
> That this must be the case is not clear to me. For example in Lorent'z
> 1904 paper I can find no mention of such properties being attributed to an
> aether. Indeed it is my understanding from a number of sources that Lorentz
> deliberately shied away from attributing any structure other than that required
> to support Maxwell's equations. If you are claiming the aether is a
> compressible medium what is your reasoning linking that fact to the background
> radiation being 'PRESENT in any and ALL electrons of mass m and charge q, even
> virtual ones'; unless of course I still do not understand what your trying
> to say.
>
> Thanks
Hopefully, I've answered your questions...
Paul Stowe
Robert J. Kolker
pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Hopefully, I've answered your questions...
If the aether is a substance, how come the planets do not interact with
it, exchange energy, heat up, slow down and spiral into the sun.
If the aether is a fluid it must be very stiff (the speed of light is
high) in which case ponderous bodies would have to slug their way
through it.
Bob Kolker
Laurent
If space were primary, non derivable, not a product... why is it
that relativity considers it as relative? How can, depending on the
observer's point of view, the distance between two objects be
variable?
--
Laurent
Laurent
If space is primary, then explain non-local quantum effects.
--
Laurent
pst...@ix.netcom.com
<bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
> pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Hopefully, I've answered your questions...
>
> If the aether is a substance, how come the planets do not interact with
> it, exchange energy, heat up, slow down and spiral into the sun.
They do heat up...
They do spiral in, just very, very slowly... Even GR predicts that
orbit decay...
> If the aether is a fluid it must be very stiff (the speed of light is
> high) in which case ponderous bodies would have to slug their way
> through it.
How 'stiff' are H, He3, or He4 superfluids?
If a marble is moving thru an He 3 superfluid how much resistance is
it encountering?
"Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How
efficient of you!"
Paul Stowe
Starblade Darksquall
How about this: Space and Time are not seperate effects.
Hypoethetically, any given particle has as much freedom in time as
they do in space. What is keeping them going in one direction in time,
then? Simple: Certain symmetry patterns in the universe make things
more dependent on their past than they are of their future, meaning
that time only goes one way. The Lorentz Symmetry Pattern is such a
pattern. However, at energy scales beyond the Lorentz Symmetry
Pattern, there is no such thing as a unique direction from which
causality 'flows'. All directions, not only in space, but in time, are
equal at the fundamental energy scale.
It actually makes sense what you think about it.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Donald G. Shead
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:bjdfgg$hv2h3$1...@ID-76471.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
Cut<
>
> If the aether is a substance, how come the planets do not interact with
> it, exchange energy, heat up, slow down and spiral into the sun.
>
> If the aether is a fluid it must be very stiff (the speed of light is
> high) in which case ponderous bodies would have to slug their way
> through it.
>
> Bob Kolker
>
existence of an aether on that exact basis.
What you people will not even try to understand is that aether is not a
static medium that ponderous bodies have to slug their way _through_; it
consists of multitudes of dynamically moving vortices, which sweep the
planets around the sun: As the sun too is swept around in the galaxy.
This is the theory of Descartes, which was "proved wrong" by the great
Newton; who didn't himself believe in action at a distance; but said that
bodies "acted" as if they did; inversely as the square of their distances
apart.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:p6vklvc9m55h8934s...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 16:19:26 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
> <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hopefully, I've answered your questions...
> >
> > If the aether is a substance, how come the planets do not interact with
> > it, exchange energy, heat up, slow down and spiral into the sun.
>
> They do heat up...
>
> They do spiral in, just very, very slowly... Even GR predicts that
> orbit decay...
Only one planet in the solar system is not *receding* from the Sun. This
means they are getting more energy, not less.
David A. Smith
Richard
Are you sure?
Now explain to me, in detail, why the perfect reverse of a sequence is
physically impossible, provided that at any given instant we could
exactly reverse the velocities of the involved particles?
The answer is very simple. The interaction between electromagnetic
particles occurs according to the very definite general law that 'like
charges repel and unlike charges attract'. So for any given process the
perfect reversal of that process requires a perfect reversal of that
general law of charges. Reversing the velocity vectors will not change
the direction of the interaction between the charges, i.e. it will not
change the vector potential developed between the relatively moving
particles. IOW, in general, all processes will continue more or less
exactly as
before, entropy will still increase according to exactly the same
thermodynamic law that applies in the universe of our experience.
As for time itself, on a more fundamental level, it is just the
successive intervals of change that occur according to the existing law
of charges. It is irreversible by reason of that physical law and no
other laws are relevant to the argument. It sufficient in itself.
Time isn't a flow, it isn't a movement through some 'thing', it is just
the measure of movement through (or change in position within )the three
spatial dimensions of space wrt some uniform standard of motion that we
have arbitrarily designated as a 'clock'. The concept 'clock' is in turn
synonymous with 'a device for registering changes in position of some
point or group of points with a system that is undergoing regular
change', i.e. change occurring within a system that is held in
equilibrium.
In hindsight, now that you have this knowledge in hand, now be honest,
isn't all of the above rather obvious? ;)
Richard Perry
Old Physics
> > > > It is the ultimate test. By putting atomic clocks on
> > > > commertial flights the costs could be kept way down. A million to
> one
> > > > chance for a lot less than a million dollars.
> > >
> > > The GPS satellite raw data is already there, can be accessed, and
> totalized
> > > over years, if necessary. Atomic clocks already in place, and flying
> > > faster than any jet. Paid for except for the thought to bring it home.
> >
> > But remember, a GPS satellite will only be going in the direction
> > of interest for four or five hours, after which the results will be
> > undone by the other side of its orbit. Using commertial flights,
> > Totalized over years if necessary. sk
>
> The data stream from the GPS can be read multiple times in any given orbit.
> So you could record elapsed time "heading toward" and "receding from" Leo,
> and store these time accumulations in two different places. 30 minutes
> worth of travel in each direction (if 12 hours/per orbit is correct).
> Record the start and end raw times for some fixed Earth-period, and
> accumulate the difference to maximum precision. Four satellites a day
> would run this for you. Keep the running totals on a backed up hard drive.
>
> Data structure could include satellite ID, base time, Start or End flag,
> raw data received, and some indication which direction you thought it was
> heading. You could and should make an entry, indicating what satellites
> you had zero'd time against, and when.
>
> With aircraft you'd have inclement weather affecting landings and flight,
> changes in velocity at take off and landing, changes in altitude. All
> requiring operator invention to decide when to start clocking, and when to
> stop. All data which would have to be accounted for in final totals. This
> would require periodic recording of flight data, which would not be a
> simple agreement to carry an atomic clock through security!
Note, the whole idea behind the airliner experiment is that the
clocks continue clocking, totaling cumulative flights. This is
important since the experimental error will be almost twelve times
greater than the experimental result being sought (one more reason to
use GPS data). Corrections would have to be made for the variables
you site. It would have to be explained to passengers that an atomic
clock is not a radioactive device.
>
> You could have firm data with minimum manipulation overhead in days, or
> maximum sources for error in years.
>
> I'm giving you the easy way. It looked like the data aquisition equipment
> in the link I provided was about $300. So it is cheaper than buying
> multiple atomic clocks. And results could be had *now*.
>
> Unless you're selling atomic clocks...
Maybe I should take this up with Agilent. ;-)
>
> David A. Smith
Either way, I'm in over my head. Is there a Penzius or Wilson out
there.
Stephen Kearney
Bill Hobba
> If the aether is a substance, how come the planets do not interact with
> it, exchange energy, heat up, slow down and spiral into the sun.
>
> If the aether is a fluid it must be very stiff (the speed of light is
> high) in which case ponderous bodies would have to slug their way
> through it.
>
Ah but it is assumed to be transparent to ordinary matter. Of course when
you a pile assumption on assumption you end up with a pretty marvelous
medium indeed - the problem is showing all these various assumptions are
consistent with each other. I have not read widely enough to pull then
apart to see if they are.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
> (Lecture mode on [again])
>
> Regardless of what particular variant of aether one chooses the
> premise itself has an inherent physical nature. All aethers, be
> they conceived as continuous solid, particulate irrotational fluid,
> particulate vortexual superfluidic, ... etc. HAVE (or share) certain
> basic characteristics. The nay-sayers ALWAY ask for these. These
> include at a minimum, density, viscosity, energy (thus some form of
> speed), wave speed, ... etc. As you keep focusing on Lorentz's 1904
> paper, the fact is, that paper defines NO aether theory per-se, it
> attempts to explain the results of experiments in terms of Lorentz's
> idea of electrons... It assumes the validity of Maxwell's equations
> which in turn, the inherits Maxwell's physical vortex model on which
> those equations were derived. The simple salient fact is, if there
> is ONLY the aether medium and no forces except those generated by
> dynamic processes of same, Lorentz covariance of ALL processes are an
> inevitable result..
Here I must disagree. Many sources including the Conceptual Foundations of
20th Century Field Theories, a copy of which you state you have, clearly
state the aether of Lorentz had no structure other than that required to
support Maxwell's equations. In particular he did not propose that the
aether had 'density, viscosity, energy (thus some form of speed), wave
speed, ... etc' Your statement 'it assumes the validity of Maxwell's
equations which in turn, the inherits Maxwell's physical vortex model on
which those equations were derived' is not an inference that can be made
because Maxwell's equations stand independent of any model. Indeed they can
be derived from simply assuming linearity in the interaction term of the
lagrangian and linearity in the field equations (see chapter 3 Landau
Classical Theory of Fields) or even from Columbus Law and SR (I do not have
a complete reference for this but an outline of one approach can be found in
Chapter 1 - Schwinger - Classical Electrodynamics).
Paul Stowe wrote:
> The basic continuity equation of Continuum Mechanics is given as :
>
> d(rho)/dt + (rho)Div v = 0 [Eq. 1]
>
> Where rho is the field density, and v is the mean velocity. If the
> field is incompressible this simplifies to:
To be precise rho is the density and v the velocity of the medium - the term
field density would imply it has something to do with electric or magnetic
fields the aether is supposed to be related to in some way. So your making
the assumption that the aether has the property of density. But density of
what? For a fluid that is mass density. Thus your assuming the aether has
mass. All of space filled with a substance with mass. Interesting
consequences for gravity.
>
> (rho)Div v = 0 [Eq. 2]
>
> Since with the incompressible assumption, there can be no change in'
> density. We can further simplify the equation by removing density
> (dividing it from both sides) we then get:
>
> Div v = 0 [Eq. 3]
Of course this is the well known continuity equation of an incompressible
medium.
Again this is another assumption your making - that the permitivitty of
electromagnetic theory is the same as the density of the medium.
>
> Where Y is proportional to pressure and the specific heats in a gas,
> the bulk modulus of a liquid, or Young's modulus in a solid. For a
> solid we have the further complication of whether we are evaluating
> the compression <p wave> or shear <Sv, Sh waves>. The relationship
> between these two in a perfect elastic medium is that the shear wave
> travel at a speed Sqrt(3) time slower than the compression wave.
>
> We can of course write the above equation in terms of inverse Y [u]
> (in the standard literature this is known as the coefficient of
> compressibility see Eq. 4 above), and as can be seen:
>
> c^2 = 1/u(eps) = 1/uz [Eq. 11]
>
> This provides us with confirmation that this definition is, at least,
> internally consistent for Coulomb's law and the Maxwell/Heavyside
> relationship to wave speed.
>
> We can now look elsewhere for other possible correlations.
What your doing is trying to draw inferences from a particular model of the
aether (that is a medium that can be modeled by the continuity equation of
fluid dynamics) and hypnotizing relationships between that model and known
electromagnetic properties. Using this approach the assumptions just keep
mounting.
>
> As shown above, Div v = nu (a characteristic frequency in Hertz).
> With our definition, the charge to mass ratio would suggest that the
> mass, seen in matter, could be some sort of resulting stable
> manifestation of this harmonic oscillation in the field.
>
> Exploring this idea, lets look at the thermal (as in black body)
> frequency which, given the above definitions, results from this
> relationship. Given:
>
> E = h(nu) = 3kT [Eq. 12]
>
> and, as defined,
>
> nu = q/m. [Eq. 13]
>
> We have:
>
> E = hq/m = 3kT [Eq. 14]
>
> And the resulting temperature T for this relationship is
>
> T = hq/3km [Eq. 15]
>
> For the smallest stable elemental particle, the electron, this
> calculates to be 2.8 degrees Kelvin.
>
What I have seen you do is make a number of assumptions about the aether eg
that the permeativy of electromagnetic theory is the same as the density.
But density of what? Mass? That a massive medium would fill all space
would have gravitational consequences. If it is not mass then exactly what
basis do you have for using the equations of fluid dynamics? All I can see
you have done Paul is make a number of bold conjectures none of which I find
physically compelling.
Now an experiment has not been conducted to test you predicted effect so you
can maintain it may still be valid. Continuum mechanics however is not my
field so I would really like the comments of someone who knows a lot more
than me on the consequences of the assumptions you have made. For me this
material must be a pretty magical to have the same properties of a fluid yet
posses no detectable mass (mass as would be indicated by gravitational
effects). This would mean to it have to be so tenuous I have difficulty
seeing how it could exist at all.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
> Thanks for the reply Bill, this has been a very interesting thread. I
> haven't seen anything to suggest that the aether idea, and "LET" in
> particular, is anything other than purely ad-hoc. If we replace the word
> "gremlins" with "aether", in my original post, we basically have the best
> "aether" theory there is. It seems the point that Bilge was getting at
was
> the same as Einstein's: there is no description at all of the
space-filling
> medium. The "aether" is completely mysterious just like the statement
> "gremlins tweak the cosmos to mimick relativistic effects" is completely
> silent on the inner workings of gremlins -- (and the physics of their
> interactions with the cosmos). I don't know if an undetectable aether is
> counter intuitive or not but it is certainly no better than gremlins.
Thus,
> the general idea of a space filling medium is vastly inferior to
> relativity -- (especially in light of the fact that there's lots of
> experimental evidence against the existence of the "aether").
>
On the non existence of an aether your preaching to the converted. But the
fact is LET is a valid theory (with all sorts of problems such as how the
aether generalizes to GR) so in the spirit of scientific virtue I will not
go so far as to say with scientific certainty it does not exist. I just
believe it does not and I am sure that to this point its existence has
proven superfluous.
Thanks
Bill
Another Wise Guy - Macon, GA USA
bho...@iprimus.com.au says...
Has anyone tried aether that is dragged along with the planet like any
other fluid would be but with zero viscosity? That way the aether
would be stationary relative to the earth until you got far enough
away from the planet.... (and no, I am not serious.)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Just Another Internet Wise Guy Macon, GA USA |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
pst...@ix.netcom.com
<bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>> (Lecture mode on [again])
>>
>> Regardless of what particular variant of aether one chooses the
>> premise itself has an inherent physical nature. All aethers, be
>> they conceived as continuous solid, particulate irrotational fluid,
>> particulate vortexual superfluidic, ... etc. HAVE (or share) certain
>> basic characteristics. The nay-sayers ALWAY ask for these. These
>> include at a minimum, density, viscosity, energy (thus some form of
>> speed), wave speed, ... etc. As you keep focusing on Lorentz's 1904
>> paper, the fact is, that paper defines NO aether theory per-se, it
>> attempts to explain the results of experiments in terms of Lorentz's
>> idea of electrons... It assumes the validity of Maxwell's equations
>> which in turn, the inherits Maxwell's physical vortex model on which
>> those equations were derived. The simple salient fact is, if there
>> is ONLY the aether medium and no forces except those generated by
>> dynamic processes of same, Lorentz covariance of ALL processes are an
>> inevitable result..
>
> Here I must disagree. Many sources including the Conceptual Foundations of
> 20th Century Field Theories, a copy of which you state you have, clearly
> state the aether of Lorentz had no structure other than that required to
> support Maxwell's equations. ...
"I shall start from the fundamental equations of the theory
of electrons[23]. Let D be the dielectric displacement in
the ether, H the magnetic force, rho the volume density of
the charge of an electron, v the velocity of a point of
such a particle, and F the ponderomotive force, i.e. the
force, reckoned per unit charge, which is exerted by the
ether on a volume element of an electron. Then, if we use
a fixed system of co-ordinates, ..."
Again READ THE ABOVE! Now I said,
"As you keep focusing on Lorentz's 1904 paper, the fact is,
that paper defines NO aether theory per-se, it attempts to
explain the results of experiments in terms of Lorentz's
idea of electrons..."
Now re-read it with comprehension. You'll find numerous references
to those charges being 'physically distorted'.
> In particular he did not propose that the aether had 'density, viscosity,
> energy (thus some form of speed), wave speed, ... etc' ...
There's not much disagreement on Lorentz's paper EXCEPT that if I
write a paper to discuss a particular issue in the framework of a
larger theory, of say for example GR. Since I 'assume' GR's validity
and make my point do I need redundantly recreate and state all of GR,
or can I just reference GR?
> Your statement 'it assumes the validity of Maxwell's equations which in
> turn, the inherits Maxwell's physical vortex model on which those
> equations were derived' is not an inference that can be made because
> Maxwell's equations stand independent of any model. Indeed they can be
> derived from simply assuming linearity in the interaction term of the
> lagrangian ...
What Lagrangian?
> and linearity in the field equations (see chapter 3 Landau Classical Theory
> of Fields) or even from Coulomb's Law and SR (I do not have a complete
> reference for this but an outline of one approach can be found in Chapter 1
> - Schwinger - Classical Electrodynamics).
Really, explain Maxwell's main contribution to EM, the vector
potential. Is it solonoidal? How does it match vortex dynamics?
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>> The basic continuity equation of Continuum Mechanics is given as :
>>
>> d(rho)/dt + (rho)Div v = 0 [Eq. 1]
>>
>> Where rho is the field density, and v is the mean velocity. If the
>> field is incompressible this simplifies to:
>
> To be precise rho is the density and v the velocity of the medium - the term
> field density would imply it has something to do with electric or magnetic
> fields the aether is supposed to be related to in some way. So your making
> the assumption that the aether has the property of density. But density of
> what? For a fluid that is mass density. Thus your assuming the aether has
> mass. All of space filled with a substance with mass. Interesting
> consequences for gravity.
You're quibbling. In aether theories fields are affects in the
physical medium. Grad, Div, Curl and all that... Yes, I assume all
of space has a momentum density p. The question of 'rest mass' is
not yet resolved... Can you stop an aether particle for me so I can
measure its mass?
>>
>> (rho)Div v = 0 [Eq. 2]
>>
>> Since with the incompressible assumption, there can be no change in'
>> density. We can further simplify the equation by removing density
>> (dividing it from both sides) we then get:
>>
>> Div v = 0 [Eq. 3]
>
> Of course this is the well known continuity equation of an incompressible
> medium.
Yup, and for it to be realized the system cannot sustain wave
activity. Thus the requirement of compressibility! Do you agree now
that, in the framework of ANY aether theory that the incompressible
state is physically ruled out?
[Snip...]
>> If we can associate permitivitty with density, we find that standard
>> acoustic equation matches that given for light propagation exactly.
>> In standard acoustics wave speed c is given by the relationship:
>>
>> c^2 = Y/z [Eq. 10]
>
> Again this is another assumption your making - that the permitivitty of
> electromagnetic theory is the same as the density of the medium.
Not just I, Maxwell made the same one...
[Snip...]
>> We can now look elsewhere for other possible correlations.
>
> What your doing is trying to draw inferences from a particular model of the
> aether (that is a medium that can be modeled by the continuity equation of
> fluid dynamics) and hypnotizing relationships between that model and known
> electromagnetic properties. Using this approach the assumptions just keep
> mounting.
Again, not just I, Maxwell did precisely the same thing... You know
the old saying "if it quacks like a Duck...", Ockham's Razor & all
that...
>> As shown above, Div v = nu (a characteristic frequency in Hertz).
>> With our definition, the charge to mass ratio would suggest that the
>> mass, seen in matter, could be some sort of resulting stable
>> manifestation of this harmonic oscillation in the field.
>>
>> Exploring this idea, lets look at the thermal (as in black body)
>> frequency which, given the above definitions, results from this
>> relationship. Given:
>>
>> E = h(nu) = 3kT [Eq. 12]
>>
>> and, as defined,
>>
>> nu = q/m. [Eq. 13]
>>
>> We have:
>>
>> E = hq/m = 3kT [Eq. 14]
>>
>> And the resulting temperature T for this relationship is
>>
>> T = hq/3km [Eq. 15]
>>
>> For the smallest stable elemental particle, the electron, this
>> calculates to be 2.8 degrees Kelvin.
>
> What I have seen you do is make a number of assumptions about the aether eg
> that the permittivity of electromagnetic theory is the same as the density.
> But density of what? Mass?
No, it should be rather obvious, the EM medium!
> That a massive medium would fill all space would have gravitational
> consequences.
Not if this medium is also the source (a.k.a. the root cause) of the
gravitational effect! You'd need to know the process by which the
effect called gravitation comes about within this base medium. The
base field, since it is the cause, may not contribute, or if it
does, weakly...
> If it is not mass then exactly what basis do you have for using the equations
> of fluid dynamics?
It Quacks like a Duck, swims like a Duck, Looks like a Duck... Ah,
perhaps its a frog in disguise.
> All I can see you have done Paul is make a number of bold conjectures none of
> which I find physically compelling.
Good, then point to the error.
> Now an experiment has not been conducted to test you predicted effect so you
> can maintain it may still be valid. ...
Thus, after ALL of this, my original point.
> Continuum mechanics however is not my field so I would really like the
> comments of someone who knows a lot more than me on the consequences of the
> assumptions you have made.
It doesn't change Maxwell model or equations one iota... It does
bring clarity to the model and provides a means of getting to
otherwise unknown relationships (since charge is now mapped to
physical units). For example,
k = h/qc
Where k is Boltzmann's constant, h Planck's Constant (the aether's
Action), q elemental charge, and c light speed. In MKS units, of
course.
> For me this material must be a pretty magical to have the same properties
> of a fluid yet posses no detectable mass (mass as would be indicated by
> gravitational effects).
Magic has NOTHING to do with it. Failure to think and consider
possibilities does not constitute magic...
> This would mean to it have to be so tenuous I have difficulty
> seeing how it could exist at all.
The density of the aether in this model is defined, 8.854E-12 kg/m^3.
The term Dark Matter comes to mind in this context... How it all
fits together is not yet is not yet fully defined. Hell even if I
knew ALL of the answers (which I don't) no one would believe it if
those answers did not match their preconceived notions as to how they
fit...
Paul Stowe
Robert J. Kolker
Donald G. Shead wrote:
> This is the theory of Descartes, which was "proved wrong" by the great
> Newton; who didn't himself believe in action at a distance; but said that
> bodies "acted" as if they did; inversely as the square of their distances
> apart.
Newton was not happy with the idea of action at a distance, but by
massaging Kepler's laws he realized that the inverse square law would
give correct predictions of the motion of bodies due to gravity. And
that is all that counts: correct predictions. Of gravity, Newton said
very definitely --- I feign no hypothesis. Newton did not know what
causes gravity and neither does anyone else (including Einstein). But
not knowing a cause, does not prevent accurate description and
prediction, as history has borne out.
Newton rejected Caresian vortices because they did not predict motion
correctly, which is a damned good reason.
Bob Kolker