Space Vs Aether
Laurent
relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,
therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of
relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space
there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no
possibility of existence for standards of space and time
(measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals
in the physical sense. **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.** >> ------ Albert Einstein
http://www.blavatsky.net/confirm/ev/ether/etherEinstein.htm
<< Free space can be characterised by the fact that the velocity of
light through it is always = to c. It also has the electrical
properties of capacitive and inductive capacity. That is space
can store or transmit energy. The velocity of light in free space
can be calculated using these two electrical properties.
c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep).....Uo is the permeability and Ep is the
permittivity.
An additional characteristic of space which is also a definite
physical constant is that of impedance. The impedance, has the
dimensions of resistance as given by Zr = sqr(Uo/Ep). >>
----- M. Wales
http://michaelwales.members.beeb.net/PhilosophicalBasis.htm
The aether is not synonymous to space. Without an aether there can't
be any space, space is material and the aether is not.
Space (CBR) is a medium with mechanical properties (pressure and
density). It is observable, hence measurable, and unlike Einstein's
aether, it possesses material, mechanical properties.
The empty space we are able to perceive, in spacetime, is there
because of background radiation. You take the background radiation
away and you can't have an empty space.
Einstein's Equivalency Principle says that a physical system
accelerated through the vacuum has the same equilibrium properties
as an unaccelerated system immersed in a gravitational field.
And Timothy Boyer said - 'A physical system accelerated through the
vacuum has the same equilibrium properties as an unaccelerated
system immersed in thermal radiation at a temperature above absolute
zero.'
And - 'At a temperature of absolute zero a harmonic oscillator in a
frame of reference at rest or moving with constant velocity is
subject only to zero-point oscillations. In an accelerated frame the
oscillator responds as if it were at a temperature greater than
zero.'
And this is how gravity is explained; space flow manifests as
gravitic pressure. Pressure goes higher as we get closer to the
source because space is denser. And this flow is caused by an
electromotive force.
How about that Monsieur Bilge?
--
Laurent
---------------------------------------------
<< Interplanetary debris tends to drift on the electric flow
toward equatorial orbits around the Earth. Although the Moon is the
only visible evidence of the transmagnetic drift, the phenomenon is
amply evident in the planetary orbits around the Sun. Since the
velocity of the equatorial current varies inversely with radius,
each planetary body settles into the line of least resistance after
continuous midcourse corrections until it drifts with the very
orbital current that is going the same way at the same speed. The
dynamics of the annular gravitic orbits are most clearly revealed in
the rings of Saturn.
The equatorial drift of bodies in a field was explained by Newton as
the resultant of centripetal gravitation and centrifugal force.
Einstein made the concept of centripetal gravity unnecessary by
conceiving orbital velocity as a function of space instead of a
resultant of forces. By exercising more genius than the problem
needed, both of them overshot their objective with explanations
that obscure more than they reveal. The gravitational orbit is
simply *a current flowing* in an annular standing-wave on the
stellar scale *of the electric vector*. >>
[...]
<< ...The radial vector is known to electrical engineers as
the *electromotive force* in America, the Fleming Force in Britain,
the Poynting Vector and the Lorentz Force in Europe, according to
national pride. The centrifugal phase of the radial vector is
manifest as radiant electromagnetic waves; the centripetal phase is
manifest as gravitic pressure. >>
<< The photonic frequencies tuned to nuclear dimensions are
manifest as gravity; the photonic frequencies tuned to
electronic-atomic dimensions are manifest as the familiar
electromagnetic wave. *The electromotive force is tuned to molecular
dimensions, making the electromotive force material selective*.
Whereas the latitudinal drift varies as a inverse function of
radius, maintaining constant momentum, the radial pressure is
accelerated as a direct function of field **density**, increasing
centripetally by the inverse square of radius. >> --- Pawles
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Laurent" <cyberd...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:b43qi0$3l2$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
...
> Space (CBR) is a medium with mechanical properties (pressure and
> density). It is observable, hence measurable, and unlike Einstein's
> aether, it possesses material, mechanical properties.
The CBR was *perhaps* such a medium. What we see now, died 12.3 Gy ago.
David A. Smith
Hayek
Laurent wrote:
> << ...we may say that according to the general
> theory of relativity space is endowed with physical
> qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists
> an ether. According to the general theory of relativity
> space without ether is unthinkable; for in such
> space there not only would be no propagation of
> light, but also no possibility of existence for
> standards of space and time (measuring-rods and
> clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in
> the physical sense. **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.** >>
> ------ Albert Einstein
>
>
http://www.blavatsky.net/confirm/ev/ether/etherEinstein.htm
>
You should read that lecture again, but first learn
Mach's Principle.
These are the key paragraphs :
"
But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be
adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the
ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no
physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of
mechanics do not harmonize with this view. For the
mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering
freely in empty space depends not only on relative
positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also
on its state of rotation, which physically may be taken
as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in
itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of
the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton
objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space
together with real things, for him rotation relative to
an absolute space is also something real. Newton might
no less well have called his absolute space "Ether";
what is essential is merely that besides observable
objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must
be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or
rotation to be looked upon as something real.
It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as
real something which is not observable by endeavouring
to substitute in mechanics a mean acceleration with
reference to the totality of the masses in the universe
in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute
space. But inertial resistance opposed to relative
acceleration of distant masses presupposes action at a
distance; and as the modern physicist does not believe
that he may accept this action at a distance, he comes
back once more, if he follows Mach, to the ether, which
has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia. But
this conception of the ether to which we are led by
Mach's way of thinking differs essentially from the
ether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by
Lorentz. Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour
of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by
them.
Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of
the general theory of relativity. According to this
theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of
space-time differ in the environment of different points
of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter
existing outside of the territory under consideration.
This spacetime variability of the reciprocal relations
of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the
recognition of the fact that " empty space " in its
physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic,
compelling us to describe its state by ten functions
(the gravitation potentials g[greek subscript mu, nu]),
has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is
physically empty. But therewith the conception of the
ether has again acquired an intelligible content,
although this content differs widely from that of the
ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. The
ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium
which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical
qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and
electromagnetic) events.
"
Hayek.
--
The small particles wave at
the big stars and get noticed.
:-)
Uncle Al
>
> << ...we may say that according to the general theory of
> relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,
> therefore, there exists an ether.
Bullshit. GR is a tensor theory. A relativistic universe is
backgroundless - not even a coordinate system. You have exactly
disproven in your first sentence that which you sought to prove in 113
additional lines of drivel. Idiot.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Hayek
Uncle Al wrote:
> Laurent wrote:
>
>> << ...we may say that according to the general theory
>> of relativity space is endowed with physical
>> qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists
>> an ether.
>>
> [snip]
>
> Bullshit. GR is a tensor theory. A relativistic
universe
> is backgroundless - not even a coordinate system.
> You have exactly disproven in your first sentence
> that which you sought to prove in 113 additional lines
> of drivel. Idiot.
Let the record show, that UA just proclaimed Einstein an
idiot. This was quoted from Einstein's address delivered
on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden.
If Uncle Al would give up that nasty habit of reading
only the first sentence one of a post, and then start
insulting, he would have known, since the author neatly
states the origin of the words on the fifth line or so.
And Uncle All, your reaction is not even correct.
Once you fill in the masses in GR, you do have a
background reference.
Uncle Al
Ineducable idiot.
<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>
Relativity in the GPS system
Immortalist
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3E661A1E...@hate.spam.net...
I was looking through Stenger.... Does this agree with your statement?
...Based on all we know today, the complete library of data from across the
full
spectrum of the sciences is fully consistent with a surprisingly simple
model: the natural
universe is composed, at the elementary level, of localized material bodies
that interact
by colliding with one another. All these bodies move around in an otherwise
empty
void. No continuous, etheric medium, material or immaterial, need be
postulated to
occupy the space between bodies. Applying an insight more ancient than Plato
and
Aristotle, but continually ignored because of human propensities to wish
otherwise,
atoms and the void are sufficient to account for observations with the human
eye and the
most powerful telescopes, microscopes, or particle accelerators of today.
The four-dimensional space-time framework introduced by Einstein and
Minkowski, along with the associated rules of relativity and all the rest of
physics, are
adequate to describe the motion of these primal bodies. Furthermore, we find
that the
great foundational "laws" of physicsÐÐ the principles of energy, linear
momentum, and
angular momentum conservationÐÐ are not rules imposed on the universe from
outside. Rather they represent physicists' way of theoretically describing
the high
degree of symmetry and simplicity that the universe, on the whole, exhibits
to their
instruments....
http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Timeless/00-Preface.pdf
http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/void.html
greywolf42
Dear God, not another "apology" by Clifford Will! "Was Eistein Right" was
bad enough.
>
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/i
ndex.html>
> Relativity in the GPS system
>
Oy vey!
First Ashby claims the Sagnac effect as a "relativistic effect." Which
would probably make Sagnac spin in his grave (he know's he's spinning
because he sees Mach's body moving around him).
But the worst is that after noting:
"The Control Segment is comprised of a number of ground-based monitoring
stations, which continually gather information from the satellites. These
data are sent to a Master Control Station in Colorado Springs, CO, which
analyzes the constellation and projects the satellite ephemerides and clock
behaviour forward for the next few hours. This information is then uploaded
into the satellites for retransmission to users. "
The author then ignores the active correction of the system entirely.
Making the paper a complete waste of time.
The fun part is the key to the analysis: "I simplify by writing the velocity
in the ECI coordinate system". Which of course, immediately places the GPS
squarely in an aether-based system.
Of course, neither of "Uncle Al's" references bear on the subject under
discussion.
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Laurent
news:v6ces8r...@corp.supernews.com...
Whoever wrote this doesn't fully understand the nature, the origins
or the history behind General Relativity.
Take it from the theory's own creator, Einstein himself said -
<< ...we may say that according to the general theory of
relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,
therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of
relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space
there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no
possibility of existence for standards of space and time
(measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals
in the physical sense. 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. >> ------ Albert Einstein
>
> The four-dimensional space-time framework introduced by Einstein
and
> Minkowski, along with the associated rules of relativity and all
the rest of
> physics, are
> adequate to describe the motion of these primal bodies.
Furthermore, we find
> that the
> great foundational "laws" of physicsÐÐ the principles of energy,
linear
> momentum, and
> angular momentum conservationÐÐ are not rules imposed on the
universe from
> outside. Rather they represent physicists' way of theoretically
describing
> the high
> degree of symmetry and simplicity that the universe, on the whole,
exhibits
> to their
> instruments....
>
> http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Timeless/00-Preface.pdf
> http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/void.html
>
The Universe doesn't need us to exist.
--
Laurent
Laurent
"Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3E65A14...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
>
>
> Laurent wrote:
>
> > << ...we may say that according to the general
> > theory of relativity space is endowed with physical
> > qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists
> > an ether. According to the general theory of relativity
> > space without ether is unthinkable; for in such
> > space there not only would be no propagation of
> > light, but also no possibility of existence for
> > standards of space and time (measuring-rods and
> > clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in
> > the physical sense. **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.** >>
> > ------ Albert Einstein
> >
> >
> http://www.blavatsky.net/confirm/ev/ether/etherEinstein.htm
> >
>
>
>
> You should read that lecture again, but first learn
> Mach's Principle.
What is it that I need to better understand? Please explain.
> physically empty. **But therewith the conception of the
> ether has again acquired an intelligible content,
> although this content differs widely from that of the
> ether of the mechanical ondulatory theory of light. The
> ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium
> which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical
> qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and
> electromagnetic) events.**
That last line you just quoted basically repeats what he says at the
end of the essay.
It says that without an aether there can't be a process such as
spacetime, there can't be any continuity, hence no causality or
process. This is also what Mach believed, resistance to motion, he
thought, could only be the product of unity among all the masses (or
objects). He believed that there is a constant dependence
(reciprocity) between matter and the space that surrounds it, and
that this unity could only be expained by the existence of an
aether.
--
Laurent
bill...@netscape.erasethis.net
> L'il Al wrote:
> > Bullshit. GR is a tensor theory. A relativistic universe
> > is backgroundless - not even a coordinate system.
> > You have exactly disproven in your first sentence
> > that which you sought to prove in 113 additional lines
> > of drivel. Idiot.
> Let the record show, that UA just proclaimed Einstein an
> idiot. This was quoted from Einstein's address delivered
> on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden.
snip
Out of his element, as usual.
"A little bit of knowledge is dangerous." See also spaceman.
William J. Vajk
Techny, Illinois
Immortalist
I was refering to his assumption that space is plain empty. How could
bookhouses allow an author to become so popular when he doesn't fully
understand relativity?
When he claims that space is void is this an implication that it needs us to
exist?
> --
> Laurent
>
>
Hayek
Immortalist wrote:
For 'motion' you need inertia.
around in an otherwise
> empty
> void.
And for inertia you need masses.
For an empty void too.
Mass creates space.
How do you get to an empty void ?
No continuous, etheric medium, material or immaterial, need be
> postulated to
> occupy the space between bodies. Applying an insight more ancient than Plato
> and
> Aristotle, but continually ignored because of human propensities to wish
> otherwise,
> atoms and the void are sufficient to account for observations with the human
> eye and the
> most powerful telescopes, microscopes, or particle accelerators of today.
>
> The four-dimensional space-time framework introduced by Einstein and
> Minkowski, along with the associated rules of relativity and all the rest of
> physics, are
> adequate to describe the motion of these primal bodies. Furthermore, we find
> that the
> great foundational "laws" of physicsÐÐ the principles of energy, linear
> momentum, and
> angular momentum conservationÐÐ are not rules imposed on the universe from
> outside. Rather they represent physicists' way of theoretically describing
> the high
> degree of symmetry and simplicity that the universe, on the whole, exhibits
> to their
> instruments....
>
> http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Timeless/00-Preface.pdf
> http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/void.html
bill...@netscape.erasethis.net
> I was looking through Stenger.... Does this agree with your statement?
> ...Based on all we know today, the complete library of data from
> across the full spectrum of the sciences is fully consistent with
> a surprisingly simple model: the natural universe is composed, at
> the elementary level, of localized material bodies that interact
> by colliding with one another. All these bodies move around in
> an otherwise empty void. No continuous, etheric medium, material
> or immaterial, need be postulated to occupy the space between bodies.
snip
Then the inconsistency:
> The four-dimensional space-time framework introduced by Einstein and
> Minkowski, along with the associated rules of relativity and all the
> rest of physics, are adequate to describe the motion of these primal
> bodies.
Distance (spatial curvature or linearity not considered) is real
between the "localized material bodies" otherwise (1) how would
we determine when they collide and (2) attraction decreases as a
square of distance, providing distance with another place to
hang its hat. There are other hooks as well, of course.
In this suppositional "empty void" is a structure containing, at
any moment, both gravity and electromagnetic radiation of all
sorts. Attending that are, to say the least, density and distance
related considerations.
Further, Hayek would argue here that this "void" has inertia
while I argue against it, until "local matter" actually occupies
a designated frame.
In the end, the "void" cannot be nothing after all.
We're pretty good at ignoring reality in order to generate
certain mathematical models which work best by avoiding some
naturally ocurring aspect or other. Einstein's "ether" most
certainly exists while bearing almost no relationship to
the earlier ideation which has been quite properly deconstructed
and debunked and rebuilt to make sense in a properly coordinated
mathematical description of the universe.
Knee jerk reactions need badly to be overcome by the community
at large in order to allow Einsteinlike understandings to help
drive science progress.
Hayek
greywolf42 wrote:
>
> Dear God, not another "apology" by Clifford Will! "Was Eistein Right" was
> bad enough.
Why ? I liked it. I had not realized it was written by
Will. Thanks for pointing that out. I read it several
times, then borrowed it, never got it back.
This book made me understand Mach's Principle.
I still have to see the first person here who
understands it. They say so, but will not argue or
reason with the principle, they outright avoid the
subject or even completely reject it. Not bad for
relativists because GR was based on it. So they actually
do not have a clue what they are doing.
>
> Oy vey!
>
> First Ashby claims the Sagnac effect as a "relativistic effect." Which
> would probably make Sagnac spin in his grave (he know's he's spinning
> because he sees Mach's body moving around him).
Good one. But he should check his own invention first.
>
> But the worst is that after noting:
>
> "The Control Segment is comprised of a number of ground-based monitoring
> stations, which continually gather information from the satellites. These
> data are sent to a Master Control Station in Colorado Springs, CO, which
> analyzes the constellation and projects the satellite ephemerides and clock
> behaviour forward for the next few hours. This information is then uploaded
> into the satellites for retransmission to users. "
>
> The author then ignores the active correction of the system entirely.
> Making the paper a complete waste of time.
>
> The fun part is the key to the analysis: "I simplify by writing the velocity
> in the ECI coordinate system". Which of course, immediately places the GPS
> squarely in an aether-based system.
But the GR inertial field, the space-time metric, is an
aether. Only SR 'technicians' who think they are
physiscists will dispute that.
> Of course, neither of "Uncle Al's" references bear on the subject under
> discussion.
We have gotten used to that.
Its seems this can be aspartame induced... :-)
Hayek
bill...@netscape.net wrote:
> Hayek wrote:
>
>> L'il Al wrote:
>
>
>> > Bullshit. GR is a tensor theory. A relativistic universe
>> > is backgroundless - not even a coordinate system.
>> > You have exactly disproven in your first sentence
>> > that which you sought to prove in 113 additional lines
>> > of drivel. Idiot.
>
>
>> Let the record show, that UA just proclaimed Einstein an
>> idiot. This was quoted from Einstein's address delivered
>> on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden.
>
>
> snip
>
> Out of his element, as usual.
Explain.
> "A little bit of knowledge is dangerous." See also spaceman.
Hayek.
Hayek
bill...@netscape.net wrote:
It has gotten worse : no inertia, no void.
The inertia makes the objects shrink, and creates the
void in between them. You should think along these lines
for what happened at the big bang. Mass that starts
creating inertia, shrinks the matter, and starts
creating voids inbetween it. Call it inflation, but do
not deny the fact that objects shrink in a gravitational
well.
So it is not 'this "void" has inertia' it is
'this "void" was *created* and *sustained* by inertia.
> while I argue against it, until "local matter" actually occupies
> a designated frame.
If this test mass, lets say a hydrogen atom, fills all
of your void, your void contained no inertia. If it
small and insignificant, your void contains a lot of
inertia.
The day you wake up your head touching our Galaxy and
your toes the Andromeda, it is me pulling your dick, by
switching of your inertia, as a practical joke.
> In the end, the "void" cannot be nothing after all.
You just need to know its inertia. That's why they call
it space-time metric. Then you can predict, if you put
in matter, what size it is going to be, so distances are
already known, before you put a test mass in.
> We're pretty good at ignoring reality in order to generate
> certain mathematical models which work best by avoiding some
> naturally ocurring aspect or other. Einstein's "ether" most
> certainly exists while bearing almost no relationship to
> the earlier ideation which has been quite properly deconstructed
> and debunked and rebuilt to make sense in a properly coordinated
> mathematical description of the universe.
That is correct.
>
> Knee jerk reactions need badly to be overcome by the community
> at large in order to allow Einsteinlike understandings to help
> drive science progress.
Sigh...
Laurent
> >
> > << ...we may say that according to the general theory of
> > relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,
> > therefore, there exists an ether.
> [snip]
>
> Bullshit. GR is a tensor theory. A relativistic universe is
> backgroundless - not even a coordinate system. You have exactly
> disproven in your first sentence that which you sought to prove in 113
> additional lines of drivel. Idiot.
Tensor analysis has been a very successful mathematical method in
predicting a physical system's behavior in spacetime (its
worldline), but it doesn't explain where is the tension supposed to
be coming from? What is being stressed?
--
Laurent
Mitchell Jones
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> Laurent wrote:
> >
> > << ...we may say that according to the general theory of
> > relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,
> > therefore, there exists an ether.
> [snip]
>
> Bullshit. GR is a tensor theory. A relativistic universe is
> backgroundless - not even a coordinate system. You have exactly
> disproven in your first sentence that which you sought to prove in 113
> additional lines of drivel. Idiot.
***{Curvature is a physical quality--specifically: a quality of a physical
object. To say that space is curved, therefore, is to endow space with
physical qualities. In that sense, therefore, general relativity asserts
the existence of an aether. (If not, why not? :-)
By the way, Al, the guy you called an idiot--the guy who made the
statement to which you responded--was Albert Einstein, not Laurent. (You
responded to a quote.) While some here, myself included, may be open to
the possibility that Einstein was an idiot, I don't think you believe
that. The implication: you are too quick on the trigger.
Therefore, repeat after me:
"I, Uncle Al, do solemnly swear, that I will be nice to people in the future."
See how easy that was? :-)
--Mitchell Jones}***
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
> (Do something naughty to physics)
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
================================================
Sci.physics crackpot list and suggested killfile: Charles Cagle, Stephen
Speicher, Mati Meron, Franz Heymann, Mike Varney, Dirk Van de
moortel, Bob Zombiewoof, Old Man, Big Bird, Greg Neill.
bill...@netscape.erasethis.net
> "Laurent" <cyberd...@netscape.com> wrote in message
> news:b45kn2$5mg$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>>Whoever wrote this doesn't fully understand the nature, the origins
>>or the history behind General Relativity.
> I was refering to his assumption that space is plain empty. How could
> bookhouses allow an author to become so popular when he doesn't fully
> understand relativity?
Publishers aren't in the peer review business, they're in the
making a profit business.
bill...@netscape.erasethis.net
Laurent
Space isn't just full of photons and matter fields, it is the
photons and the matter fields.
According to Einstein's GTR and Boyer's QED, space, matter and
EM fields are all synonymous. Matter and space are inseparable. It
is physically impossible to obtain a perfect vacuum, there will
always remain a measurable spectrum.
Do a search for Dark Matter + LIGO + Alan Guth + Inflationary
Universe + CBR + gravitational waves, as a start.
Also, take a quick look at this easy to read articles -
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/11/8
www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/01/23/science.gravity.reut/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/29/science/29QUAN.html
http://www.calphysics.org/haisch/publications.html
No, but it seems to be implied when he says that the rules of our
Universe - " represent physicists' way of theoretically describing
the high degree of symmetry and simplicity that the universe, on the
whole, exhibits to their instruments.... "
But I may be wrong (I haven't read any of it). In any case, whatever
their instruments may register are observable features of reality
which can exist independently from the human observer.
--
Laurent
>
> > --
> > Laurent
> >
> >
>
>
Laurent
More supporting quotes from Timothy Boyer's paper:
" The discovery of a connection between thermal radiation and the
structure of the classical vacuum reveals an unexpected unity in the
laws of physics, but it also complicates our view of what was once
considered mere empty space. Even with its pattern of electric and
magnetic fields in continual fluctuation, the vacuum remains the
simplest state of nature. "
...
" One way of understanding the effect of acceleration on the
harmonic oscillator is to ask what additional electromagnetic
spectrum could be added to the zero-point radiation to cause
the extra motion. To answer this question one can turn to the
equivalence principle on which Einstein founded his theory of
gravitation. The principle states that an observer in a small
laboratory supported in a gravitational field makes exactly the
same measurements as an observer in a small accelerating
rocket. The laws of thermodynamics are found to hold in a
gravitational field. From the equivalence principle one
therefore expects the laws of thermodynamics to hold in an
accelerating rocket. There is then only one possible
equilibrium spectrum that can be added to the zero-point
radiation: the additional radiation must have a thermal
spectrum. With any other spectrum the oscillator would not be
in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, and so it could
serve as the basis of a perpetual-motion machine. By this route
one is led to a remarkable conclusion: a physical system
accelerated through the vacuum has the same equilibrium
properties as an unaccelerated system immersed in thermal
radiation at a temperature above absolute zero. "
...
" If one again invokes the equivalence principle relating an
observer in a gravitational field with an accelerating observer, one
concludes that there is a minimum attainable temperature in a
gravitational field. "
greywolf42
>
>
> greywolf42 wrote:
>
{Note: Hayek snipped Will reference}
> >
> > Dear God, not another "apology" by Clifford Will! "Was Eistein Right"
was
> > bad enough.
>
>
> Why ? I liked it. I had not realized it was written by
> Will. Thanks for pointing that out. I read it several
> times, then borrowed it, never got it back.
I personally found it exceedingly sloppy and overtly fawning over GR and
Einstein. No adequate references. Much proof by assertion. Precision was
inconsistent. Disrespected and misrepresented all non-Einsteinian theories.
> This book made me understand Mach's Principle.
> I still have to see the first person here who
> understands it. They say so, but will not argue or
> reason with the principle, they outright avoid the
> subject or even completely reject it. Not bad for
> relativists because GR was based on it. So they actually
> do not have a clue what they are doing.
As I understand it, GR is not based on Mach's principle. That is, Mach's
principle exists nowhere in the mathematics of GR (see Einstein's derivation
of same). Application of GR (after the fact) sometimes relies on Mach's
principle to avoid the choice between the rotation paradox and a local
reference (aether) frame.
{Note: Hayek snipped Ashby reference}
I won't argue the point.
> > Of course, neither of "Uncle Al's" references bear on the subject under
> > discussion.
>
>
> We have gotten used to that.
> Its seems this can be aspartame induced... :-)
>
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
TomGee
> Laurent wrote:
>
> > ......... According to the general theory of relativity
> > space without ether is unthinkable; for in such
> > space there not only would be no propagation of
> > light, but also no possibility of existence for
> > standards of space and time (measuring-rods and
> > clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in
> > the physical sense.
>
reality like massless photons that can propagate in a space without
ether.
>
> > **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.** >>
> > ------ Albert Einstein
> >
>
knowing about this quote. I quoted other physicists who supported the
development of my model, not knowing about Einstein's support for it.
>
> You should read that lecture again, but first learn
> Mach's Principle.
>
> adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the
> ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no
> physical qualities whatever.
>
>
overthrown before we can imagine otherwise than that an ether exists.
>
>
> ....What is essential is merely that besides observable
> objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must
> be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or
> rotation to be looked upon as something real.
>
>
debatable. For one thing, the thing's imperceptibility does not
prevent us from knowing its there by the effect it has on visible
objects.
>
>
> It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as
> real something which is not observable by endeavouring
> to substitute in mechanics a mean acceleration with
> reference to the totality of the masses in the universe
> in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute
> space.
>
>
Gamow, whom I have quoted here in the past. In supporting Dirac's
theory about positrons, he asserted that there are particles in space
that are not visible to us and that exist as a sea of tightly packed
particles of negative mass.
>
>
> .... Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour
> of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by
> them.
>
> has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is
> physically empty. But therewith the conception of the
> ether has again acquired an intelligible content,
> although this content differs widely from that of the
> ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. The
> ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium
> which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical
> qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and
> electromagnetic) events.
>
>
of such qualities? I know your posit about inertia increases,
although you have not explained the why of it to my satisfaction, but
just like my model does not require the invisible matter in space to
have mech'l and kinematical qualities, if your so-called inertial
fields were to become "activated" only when something activates them,
that would be consistent with my model up to this point. The
particles in my model are "turned on" by lightwaves and the result is
light. Otherwise, they lie in place in space having only negative
mass/energy, and thus no motion, and thus not having the property of
time.
Hayek
bill...@netscape.net wrote:
> Hayek wrote:
>
>> bill...@netscape.net wrote:
>
>
>>> Out of his element, as usual.
>>
>
>> Explain.
>
>
> And spoil it?
Yeah, why would you run the danger
of realizing that you are out of your element yourself...
Keep it cryptical.
Hayek
greywolf42 wrote:
> Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3E6665D0...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
>
>
>>
>> greywolf42 wrote:
>>
>>
>
> {Note: Hayek snipped Will reference}
Sorry, I did not know you where sensitive to that.
It was without any specific intend.
Let me quote from the text from "gravitation"(MTW) p
546 : "Nevertheless, it is a fact that Mach's principle
- that matter there governs inertia here - and Riemann's
idea - that the geometry of space responds to physics -
where the two great currents of thought which Einstein,
by means of the powerful equivalence principle, brought
together into the present-day geometric description of
gravitation and motion."
The chapter concludes (p549):
"Einstein acknowledged a debt of parentage for his
theory to Mach's principle (fig 21.5)[letter to Mach].
It is therefore only justice that Mach's Principle
should in return today owe his elucidation to Einstein's
theory."
I also struggled with the question of where one finds
the inertia in GR, but then got the idea that a clock is
actually an inertiameter. So Einstein's GR describes
proper time which is nothing else than inertia.
You might be interesting in this.
When I meet an DHR, Die Hard Relativist,
I treat them with the "full absolute monty"
or "full frontal relativist absolute Aetherism".
http://www.mathpages.com/home/albro/albro2.htm
"
I must say, this entire discussion has a strong ironic
element, because in the age-old debate between absolute
and relational theories of space, time, and motion, the
theory of relativity represents the absolute side. It's
well known (outside of internet discussions) that the
theory of relativity is most definitely NOT a relational
theory of motion, i.e., it does not attribute all
physical effects to the relations between material
bodies. The effects are ultimately determined by the
absolute background metric, which is affected by, but is
not determined by, the distribution of material objects
(except arguably in some specific cosmological models
that are not currently in favor among cosmologists).
Thus, relativity, no less than Newtonian mechanics,
relies on space(time) as an absolute entity in itself,
exerting influence on material bodies. (This is
typically introduced to relativistic treatments by a set
of boundary conditions necessary to determine a solution
of the field equations.)
There actually have been attempts to create true
*relational* theories of motion, notably the interesting
work of Barbour and Bertotti in the 1970's. It's just
an unfortunate historical accident that the name
"relativity" was given to Einstein's theory. The word
actually refers to the covariance of spatial and
temporal intervals, not to any Leibnizian notion that
only the relations between material objects are
physically significant. Admittedly Einstein was
sympathetic to this philosophy, especially early in his
career, and entertained hopes of banishing absolute
space from physics, but like Newton before him he was
forced to abandon this hope in order to produce a theory
that satisfactorily represents our observations. It is
therefore doubly ironic to see Einstein daily excoriated
in this newsgroup for foisting a relational theory of
motion on the world.
"
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
4.7 The Inertia of Twins
"
The puzzling asymmetry of the spinning globes is
essentially just another form of the twins paradox,
where the twins separate and reconverge (one accelerates
away and back while the other remains stationary), and
they end up with asymmetric lapses of proper time. How
can the asymmetry be explained? According to Einstein:
"The only satisfactory answer must be that the physical
system consisting of S1 and S2 reveals within itself no
imaginable cause to which the differing behavior of S1
and S2 can be referred. The cause must therefore lie
outside the system. We have to take it that the general
laws of motion...must be such that the mechanical
behavior of S1 and S2 is partly conditioned, in quite
essential respects, by distant masses which we have not
included in the system under consideration."
"
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-01/7-01.htm
7.1 Is the Universe Closed?
"
Nevertheless, the idea of a closed finite universe is
still of interest, partly because of the historical role
it played in Einstein's thought, but also because it
remains (arguably) the model most compatible with the
spirit of general relativity. In an address to the
Berlin Academy of Sciences in 1921, Einstein said :
"I must not fail to mention that a theoretical argument
can be adduced in favor of the hypothesis of a finite
universe. The general theory of relativity teaches that
the inertia of a given body is greater as there are more
ponderable masses in proximity to it; thus it seems very
natural to reduce the total effect of inertia of a body
to action and reaction between it and the other bodies
in the universe... From the general theory of relativity
it can be deduced that this total reduction of inertia
to reciprocal action between masses - as required by E.
Mach, for example - is possible only if the universe is
spatially finite. On many physicists and astronomers
this argument makes no impression... "
"
http://www.mathpages.com/home/albro/albro16.htm
"
To put this in more familiar terms, Einstein would say
to all the people who claim that special relativity is
adequate to "handle" the twins paradox: We can say that
the twin who followed the unaccelerated worldline will
have aged the most, but if we are asked which twin had
the unaccelerated worldline we can only answer: the one
who aged the most! Accelerometers can't rescue us from
this circle, because the Equivalence Principle implies
that the lapse of proper time along a given worldline
cannot be inferred from the locally "felt"
accelerations. For example, both twins could spend the
entire interval from A to B experiencing 1g of local
acceleration, and yet the lapses of proper time could be
vastly different.
Thus, as soon as the Equivalence Principle is adopted,
it's clear that special relativity is epistemologically
unsatisfactory, and can only be salvaged by a suitable
theory of gravitation (e.g., general relativity), within
which SR may serve as a useful approximate
simplification in appropriate limiting cases. However,
we can only assess the appropiateness of SR in a given
circumstance by evaluating it in the context of GR. In
other words, SR can serve as a set of convenient
computational recipes for technicians who don't want or
need to understand what they are doing, but from an
epistemological standpoint there is only one modern
theory of relativity, and that is GENERAL relativity.
Special relativity had already been discarded as a
viable theory of knowledge by 1911.
I think it's also worth mentioning that when ordinary
non-physicists ask about relativity, they aren't hoping
to become technicians or computational experts, they are
asking from a broad philosophical and epistemological
standpoint, i.e., they are curious to know, in broad
terms, the basis of relativity as a theory of knowledge.
From this perspective, the custom of telling such
people that special relativity is "the answer" to the
twin's paradox is particularly unfortunate. (I say this
in spite of the undeniable fact that most people who
worry about the twins paradox have actually failed to
understand special relativity, and aren't even close to
the level of comprehension on which the actual
inadequacy of special relativity appears. On the other
hand, most of the people who DON'T worry about the twins
paradox are equally far from understanding the real
issues involved.)
"
Cheers!
>>>Of course, neither of "Uncle Al's" references bear
on the subject under
>>>discussion.
Because you said this I snipped them.
>>
>>We have gotten used to that.
>>Its seems this can be aspartame induced... :-)
>>
>>
>
> greywolf42
> ubi dubium ibi libertas
Where there doubt there is freedom.
I live in Europe, and nobody there doubts socialism. Go
figure.
eshal
> << ...we may say that according to the general theory of
> relativity space is endowed with physical qualities;
Yes.
> in this sense,
> therefore, there exists an ether.
Without name but by attribute alone.
Is it not by attribute alone
that the name of the rose is given.
> According to the general theory of
> relativity space without ether is unthinkable;
I think we can so assume at the now,
but then in the past such was not yet thought of.
But it seems Einstein did...
and it alarmed him so to hit the skid.
and pull around 180 degree.
And jump back in bed with Lorentz.
> for in such space
> there not only would be no propagation of light,
> but also no
> possibility of existence for standards of space and time
> (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals
> in the physical sense. **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.** >> ------ Albert Einstein
>
> http://www.blavatsky.net/confirm/ev/ether/etherEinstein.htm
>
>
>
> << Free space can be characterised by the fact that the velocity of
> light through it is always = to c. It also has the electrical
> properties of capacitive and inductive capacity. That is space
> can store or transmit energy. The velocity of light in free space
> can be calculated using these two electrical properties.
>
> c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep).....Uo is the permeability and Ep is the
> permittivity.
Humgh. Mr Laurent. You know. We really have a check mate here.
If the behaviour of a sequence is consistant with that of a given attribute.
Then it is fair physics to assume
one can assume the underlying attribute
by that of its external behaviour.
> An additional characteristic of space which is also a definite
> physical constant is that of impedance. The impedance, has the
> dimensions of resistance as given by Zr = sqr(Uo/Ep). >>
> ----- M. Wales
>
> http://michaelwales.members.beeb.net/PhilosophicalBasis.htm
Coundn't open that link.
>
> The aether is not synonymous to space. Without an aether there can't
> be any space, space is material and the aether is not.
>
> Space (CBR) is a medium with mechanical properties (pressure and
> density). It is observable, hence measurable, and unlike Einstein's
> aether, it possesses material, mechanical properties.
I do not know of (peace be upon him) Einstein's Aether. But if he deemed it
did not possess material properties, I would put my finger to where he err.
It seems he may not have overcome the conflict of its duality.
As with the particle wave duality, neither side is ever going to win. It
possess both qualities, that is the fact.
Now we have got to figure... how can that be so? hehehe. (figure that)!
> The empty space we are able to perceive, in spacetime, is there
> because of background radiation. You take the background radiation
> away and you can't have an empty space.
>
> Einstein's Equivalency Principle says that a physical system
> accelerated through the vacuum has the same equilibrium properties
> as an unaccelerated system immersed in a gravitational field.
Yes. This is both an endless behaviour and the key to its own riddle.
Somewhere along the line of definition, there must be a point where we can
determine that a system is either under the constant force of acceleration
or it is immersed in a gravitational field.
We should be able to perform a test which can reveal which whether way it
is.
> And Timothy Boyer said - 'A physical system accelerated through the
> vacuum has the same equilibrium properties as an unaccelerated
> system immersed in thermal radiation at a temperature above absolute
> zero.'
Thank's Mr Laurent. I haven't heard that one before. (-;
> And - 'At a temperature of absolute zero a harmonic oscillator in a
> frame of reference at rest or moving with constant velocity is
> subject only to zero-point oscillations. In an accelerated frame the
> oscillator responds as if it were at a temperature greater than
> zero.'
Oh... that shines some light of great revellation.... hey?
> And this is how gravity is explained; space flow manifests as
> gravitic pressure. Pressure goes higher as we get closer to the
> source because space is denser. And this flow is caused by an
> electromotive force.
Oh no.... I can not waltz with that one.
Your fingers are slipping from my grasp.
Space at the absolute levels can not increase in densities.
Densities is not a measure it can vary upon.
But it can accelerate.
It can only accelerate.
Its only variable it can diviate.
(not mentioning, and of cause spin.)
<shnip>
> Laurent
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> << Interplanetary debris tends to drift on the electric flow
> toward equatorial orbits around the Earth. Although the Moon is the
> only visible evidence of the transmagnetic drift, the phenomenon is
> amply evident in the planetary orbits around the Sun. Since the
> velocity of the equatorial current varies inversely with radius,
> each planetary body settles into the line of least resistance after
> continuous midcourse corrections until it drifts with the very
> orbital current that is going the same way at the same speed. The
> dynamics of the annular gravitic orbits are most clearly revealed in
> the rings of Saturn.
>
> The equatorial drift of bodies in a field was explained by Newton as
> the resultant of centripetal gravitation and centrifugal force.
> Einstein made the concept of centripetal gravity unnecessary by
> conceiving orbital velocity as a function of space instead of a
> resultant of forces. By exercising more genius than the problem
> needed, both of them overshot their objective with explanations
> that obscure more than they reveal.
Yes... go back to the drawing board on that one...!
rub rub rub.... scratchy scratchy scratch.
> The gravitational orbit is
> simply *a current flowing* in an annular standing-wave on the
> stellar scale *of the electric vector*. >>
rub that too.
But yeah we are making great headway.
doing well. I can not keep up.
Lee Pugh
In my humble opinion there are two types of dynamic electrical fields,
cyclic (light, ir, etc,) and non cyclic (the dynamic electrical fields that
support gravity and permanent magnetic field functions). The non cyclic
initially propagate much faster than C and set up a topology of static field
patterns in constraint, like a partially compressed spring. While these
electrical fields are not the dedicated fields of force yet as they require
a target to perform the function of re-direction of enertia on, it is the
static electrical field capable of generating gravitation that is the tensor
of AE's GR. So you can see that GR describes noncyclic dynamic electrical
fields and SR describes the cyclic dynamic electrical fields. Unless of
course you are an ostritch. I dont think you are, as your IQ reflects as
around 160 or higher.
Kind Regards, Lee Pugh
"Laurent" <cyber...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d5a39ff6.03030...@posting.google.com...
eshal
>
>
> Laurent wrote:
>
> > << ...we may say that according to the general
> > theory of relativity space is endowed with physical
> > qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists
> > space without ether is unthinkable; for in such
> > space there not only would be no propagation of
> > light, but also no possibility of existence for
> > standards of space and time (measuring-rods and
> > clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in
> > the physical sense. **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.** >>
> > ------ Albert Einstein
> >
> >
> http://www.blavatsky.net/confirm/ev/ether/etherEinstein.htm
> >
>
>
>
> Mach's Principle.
>
> "
> adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the
> ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no
> mechanics do not harmonize with this view. For the
> mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering
> freely in empty space depends not only on relative
> positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also
> on its state of rotation, which physically may be taken
> as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in
> itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of
> the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton
> objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space
> together with real things, for him rotation relative to
> an absolute space is also something real. Newton might
> no less well have called his absolute space "Ether";
> objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must
> be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or
> rotation to be looked upon as something real.
>
> real something which is not observable by endeavouring
> to substitute in mechanics a mean acceleration with
> reference to the totality of the masses in the universe
> in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute
> acceleration of distant masses presupposes action at a
> distance; and as the modern physicist does not believe
> that he may accept this action at a distance, he comes
> back once more, if he follows Mach, to the ether, which
> has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia. But
> this conception of the ether to which we are led by
> Mach's way of thinking differs essentially from the
> ether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by
> of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by
> them.
>
> the general theory of relativity. According to this
> theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of
> space-time differ in the environment of different points
> of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter
> existing outside of the territory under consideration.
> This spacetime variability of the reciprocal relations
> of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the
> recognition of the fact that " empty space " in its
> physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic,
> compelling us to describe its state by ten functions
> (the gravitation potentials g[greek subscript mu, nu]),
> physically empty. But therewith the conception of the
> ether has again acquired an intelligible content,
> although this content differs widely from that of the
> ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. The
> ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium
> which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical
> qualities,
Is that how the GTR miss the point of its own inception?
Behavior *is* a second attribute to property.
Once space has acquired property, it now displays the attributes of its own
media. That very media cannot exist if not by a given set of mechanical
attributes. Whether they are kinetic, or to what extent they posses the
attributes of kinetics, is what we have now come to discern as one of the
outstanding resolutions of imperativancy to settle.
> but helps to determine mechanical (and
> electromagnetic) events.
>
> "
>
Yes, we can see that coming.
> Hayek.
>
>
> --
> The small particles wave at
> the big stars and get noticed.
> :-)
You bet your arse they do, buddy! (-:
I hope you make it.
em
eshal
"TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.03030...@posting.google.com...
> Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:<3E65A14...@nospam.xs4all.nl>...
> > Laurent wrote:
> >
> > > ......... According to the general theory of relativity
> > > space without ether is unthinkable; for in such
> > > space there not only would be no propagation of
> > > light, but also no possibility of existence for
> > > standards of space and time (measuring-rods and
> > > clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in
> > > the physical sense.
> >
> Poor Albert forgot how simple it is to come up with ways to go around
> reality like massless photons that can propagate in a space without
> ether.
Yeah.. the Aether is on...
an' we're stormin' the gates.
It's a rebel assault.
yet, it is grounded in the classics of thinking.
That throws an whole new light on the substance of the Aetheric particles.
Their own absoluteness. ?
Are they so absolute that they exist by themselves, or are they themselves
an event that is initiated by the input of energy from an outside system.
This would put them into a class of activation of which the current strand
of speculation would place as psychotropic.
em
eshal
>
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > Laurent wrote:
> >
> >> of relativity space is endowed with physical
> >> qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists
> >> an ether.
> >>
> >
> > Bullshit. GR is a tensor theory. A relativistic
> universe
> > is backgroundless - not even a coordinate system.
> > You have exactly disproven in your first sentence
> > that which you sought to prove in 113 additional lines
> > of drivel. Idiot.
>
>
> idiot. This was quoted from Einstein's address delivered
> on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden.
That day. ! 5 5 20. These numbers have haunted me for near twenty five
years. .
em
Robert Kolker
eshal wrote:
> Yeah.. the Aether is on...
> an' we're stormin' the gates.
>
> It's a rebel assault.
> yet, it is grounded in the classics of thinking.
Most of which were flat out wrong which is why we have modern physics.
Newtonian mechanics is wrong. The world is not Galilean invariant. The
equipartition of energy is wrong, which is why quantum mechanics was
invented. Light is not a continuous wave which is why photons are
hypothesized. Reality is not local, as the violation of Bell's
inequalities show. And so forth. Classical physics however brilliant it
was, is a failure.
Aether is a failed irrelevent concept. It is not necessary. Even if it
were true we cannot use it because it cannot be observed or measured.
For a science to succeed it must be operationally effective, lead to
quantitative testable predictions which must pass experimental muster.
Bob Kolker
Hayek
eshal wrote:
If only you realized what was meant by that sig...
One "full absolute monty coming up"
beware : "full frontal absolutidy",
"sensitive relativists please abstain from reading this,
it contains abolutely shocking paragraph's intended for
a mature physicist audience only"
"
"
Hayek.
--
The small particles wave at
the big stars and get noticed.
:-)
hint: it is QM meeting Mach's Principle.
It is about particles that 'wave' and meet their
inertia. It unifies QM & GR.
Hayek
eshal wrote:
>
> I do not know of (peace be upon him) Einstein's
> Aether. But if he deemed it did not possess
> material properties, I would put my finger to where
> he err.
One of the properties of this "ether" which I prefer to
call 'inertial field' is inertia. (What is in a name!).
So bang your head against the wall, and check if you
need material properties. Since this inertial field is
the same as the gravitational field, you can also test
this by throwing yourself of the second or higher floor.
And another thing : what does your clock measure ?
You might have noticed that it slings a test mass back
and forth, why should it do that ? Could it be measuring
inertia ?
> It seems he may not have overcome the conflict of
> its duality.
>
> As with the particle wave duality, neither side is
> ever going to win. It possess both qualities, that
> is the fact.
What do you prefer
- A particle that waves,
or
- a wave that particles.
:-)
>
> Now we have got to figure... how can that be so?
> hehehe. (figure that)!
You know where babies come from, but do you know where
inertia comes from ?
kenseto
>
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:v6cnuvt...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Laurent" <cyberd...@netscape.com> wrote in message
> > news:b45kn2$5mg$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > > "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:v6ces8r...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:3E661A1E...@hate.spam.net...
> > > > > Laurent wrote:
> > > > > >
> Space isn't just full of photons and matter fields, it is the
> photons and the matter fields.
>
> According to Einstein's GTR and Boyer's QED, space, matter and
> EM fields are all synonymous. Matter and space are inseparable. It
> is physically impossible to obtain a perfect vacuum, there will
> always remain a measurable spectrum.
>
> Do a search for Dark Matter + LIGO + Alan Guth + Inflationary
> Universe + CBR + gravitational waves, as a start.
>
> Also, take a quick look at this easy to read articles -
>
> http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/11/8
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available at the following
link. It explains dark matter and dark energy. It includes a new theory of
gravity and it unites gravity with the electromagnetic and nuclear forces
naturally. Also, it includes a new
proposed experiment to detect physical space.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
Ken Seto
Immortalist
"bill...@netscape.net" <bill...@netscape.erasethis.net> wrote in message
news:3E41A2B0...@netscape.erasethis.net...
Doesn't their profit business at least in part depend upon consumers sense
of truthfulness in literature and the tendency to point out the wrong?
Immortalist
> energy,
> > > linear
> > > > momentum, and
> > > > angular momentum conservation行 are not rules imposed on the
> > > universe from
> > > > outside. Rather they represent physicists' way of
> theoretically
> > > describing
> > > > the high
> > > > degree of symmetry and simplicity that the universe, on the
> whole,
> > > exhibits
> > > > to their
> > > > instruments....
> > > >
> > > > http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Timeless/00-Preface.pdf
> > > > http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/void.html
> > > >
> > >
> > > The Universe doesn't need us to exist.
> > >
> >
> > When he claims that space is void is this an implication that it
> needs us to
> > exist?
>
> No, but it seems to be implied when he says that the rules of our
> Universe - " represent physicists' way of theoretically describing
> the high degree of symmetry and simplicity that the universe, on the
> whole, exhibits to their instruments.... "
>
> But I may be wrong (I haven't read any of it). In any case, whatever
> their instruments may register are observable features of reality
> which can exist independently from the human observer.
>
Thanx for the links. I guess I am not concerned with the truth or falsity of
void theories but with the structure of arguments scientists use who try and
promote such an idea. How- one would make the strongest case for the
void -seems interesting.
> --
> Laurent
>
> >
> > > --
> > > Laurent
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Laurent
"Lee Pugh" <lee...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:pVG9a.123$Z35.15...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> To Laurent, Hey! Wisdom is an exclusive club. Ostritchs need not
apply.
>
> In my humble opinion there are two types of dynamic electrical
fields,
> cyclic (light, ir, etc,) and non cyclic (the dynamic electrical
fields that
> support gravity and permanent magnetic field functions). The non
cyclic
> initially propagate much faster than C and set up a topology of
static field
Maybe, and I would hope so, since that could be used in favor of an
aether theory, have you seen Tom van Flandern's treatment of gravity
and its speed?
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp
> patterns in constraint, like a partially compressed spring. While
these
> electrical fields are not the dedicated fields of force yet as
they require
> a target to perform the function of re-direction of enertia on, it
is the
> static electrical field capable of generating gravitation that is
the tensor
> of AE's GR.
It seems plausible and logical, and I like it. I hope you are moving
in the right direction.
So you can see that GR describes noncyclic dynamic electrical
> fields and SR describes the cyclic dynamic electrical fields.
Unless of
> course you are an ostritch. I dont think you are, as your IQ
reflects as
> around 160 or higher.
Well thank you, but IQ is such a relative number, that it basically
means very little to me.
-
Laurent
Laurent
"eshal" <un...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:3e673...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
[...]
> Yes. This is both an endless behaviour and the key to its own
riddle.
>
> Somewhere along the line of definition, there must be a point
where we can
> determine that a system is either under the constant force of
acceleration
> or it is immersed in a gravitational field.
The thermodynamics are basically the same, these two processes are
physically indistinguishable from each other. As an object
accelerates through space, there is an EMR exchange between the
object and space (space being wholly constituted by EMR), as a
mechanism in Nature to keep thermal equilibrium between the
accelerating object and the space that surrounds it, and as required
by GR's equivalency principle. When an object is just seating, but
immersed in a gravitational field, space is the one being
accelerated (by an electromotive force) in relation to the object,
and Nature, in order to maintain thermal equilibrium, uses this
mechanism, now known as Boyer's 'equilibrium spectrum', Unruh-Davies
radiation, Rindler flux, or Hawking's radiation.
>
> We should be able to perform a test which can reveal which whether
way it
> is.
Take a look at this -
www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/01/23/science.gravity.reut/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/29/science/29QUAN.html
>
> > And Timothy Boyer said - 'A physical system accelerated through
the
> > vacuum has the same equilibrium properties as an unaccelerated
> > system immersed in thermal radiation at a temperature above
absolute
> > zero.'
>
> Thank's Mr Laurent. I haven't heard that one before. (-;
>
> > And - 'At a temperature of absolute zero a harmonic oscillator
in a
> > frame of reference at rest or moving with constant velocity is
> > subject only to zero-point oscillations. In an accelerated frame
the
> > oscillator responds as if it were at a temperature greater than
> > zero.'
>
> Oh... that shines some light of great revellation.... hey?
>
> > And this is how gravity is explained; space flow manifests as
> > gravitic pressure. Pressure goes higher as we get closer to the
> > source because space is denser. And this flow is caused by an
> > electromotive force.
Space is made from particles, the aether is not, space is material,
the aether is not, correct?
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, Haich 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, yes or no? So 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 in by matter selective
photons by an electric current, just like electrons are moved by the
electromotive force.
<< The photonic frequencies tuned to nuclear dimensions are
manifest as gravity; the photonic frequencies tuned to
electronic-atomic dimensions are manifest as the familiar
electromagnetic wave. *The electromotive force is tuned to molecular
dimensions, making the electromotive force material selective*.
Whereas the latitudinal drift varies as a inverse function of
radius, maintaining constant momentum, the radial pressure is
accelerated as a direct function of field **density**, increasing
centripetally by the inverse square of radius. >> --- Pawles
--
Laurent
hanson
> greywolf42 (Barry Mingst) wrote:
> > Dear God, not another "apology" by Clifford Will!
> > "Was Eistein Right" was bad enough.
>
> Why ? I liked it.
> I still have to see the first person here who
> understands it. They say so, but will not argue or
> reason with the principle, they outright avoid the
> subject or even completely reject it. Not bad for
> relativists because GR was based on it. So they actually
> do not have a clue what they are doing.
>
> >
> > Oy vey!
> > First Ashby claims the Sagnac effect as a "relativistic
> > effect."Which would probably make Sagnac spin
> > in his grave (he know's he's spinning
> > because he sees Mach's body moving around him).
>
> Good one. But he should check his own invention first.
>
There are volumes of quarrels over the meaning of Mach's principle,
mostly of a qualitative to philosophical nature. I personally like a
view which yields some quantitative insight and interpretation:
Re: Mach: "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:Hwiw7.11219$3i3.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.zzz> wrote in message
news:5Auv7.116007$hh.10...@bin1.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...in thread
Re: One = Zero ?
[Paul]
Ernst Mach once proposed that inertia (and therefore
gravity) was an interaction between a particular mass and all the rest
of the mass in the universe.
This is an interesting idea, now called "Mach's Principle,"
unfortunately it is as remote from meaningful verification now as it
was when it was first proposed.
[hanson]
....and said Mach: "when the subway jerks, it's the fixed stars which
throw you down". ----- Difficult to verify experimentally, yes, but
Mach's Principle can be demonstrated easily in a quantitative
equation.
Take the crudest, most trivial cosmological equation(s) which connect
gravitation, Mass, Radius, Time (1/Hubble) and the speed of light with
each other. This "cosmic 1234 power envelope" or whatever you wanna
call it, says:
c = (G*M*R^-1)^(1/2) = (G*M*H)^( 1/3) = (G*M*b_R)^(1/4)
(c=lightspeed, G=Newton, R & M= observable radius & mass universe,
H=Hubble, and b_R = a residual acceleration or tension of space in 3D
due to the mass density rho_u = H^2/G), and use the last term and
write
>
c = (GMb_R)^(1/4).
>
Then set b_R as F/m, the acceleration for this Force F caused by the
cosmic mass totality M onto any test mass m and write
c^4 = GM F/m and reshuffle it as
>
F = m (c^4/GM)...(Mach's Principle Equation),
>
where this residual/basic cosmic acceleration, c^4/GM, may be seen as
Mach's inertia principle, quantified, stating that the entire Mass of
the universe maybe acting gravitationally onto any test mass, perhaps
with a velocity of c^4, the Gravitational **feeler** speed at ~
8E+41cm/sec. It really does show that "when the subway jerks, it's the
fixed stars (M) which throw you (m) down", albeit not instantaneously
but with the considerable speed of the forth power of the speed of
light.
Numerically, the residual/basic cosmic acceleration b_R = c^4/GM
yields ~8*E-08 cm/s^2 with the currently accepted value of M. This
minute acceleration value is ~ some 10 billion times smaller than the
acceleration caused by the earth onto test masses with its g ~ 980
cm/s^2.
This 10 billion times weaker force is indeed difficult to measure
experimentally. But with LIGO and VIRGO we may get into the realm
where it could be nailed down. Another aspect of this Machian subject,
F = m (c^4/GM), touches onto the non-Keplerian velocities observed in
galactic rotations and a first effect of this may actually already
have been measured in the Pioneer 10 anomaly:
[hanson, Friday, August 30, 2002 9:18 PM, sci.astro,sci.physics]
"The Apparent Anomalous, Weak, Long-Range Acceleration
of Pioneer 10 and 11":
> > [hanson]
[I cite from the paper by John D. Anderson:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064 " an apparent
anomalous acceleration is acting on Pioneer 10 and 11, with a
magnitude a_P ~ 8 x 10^{-8} cm/s^2, directed towards the Sun
(Anderson, Moriond). Much effort has been expended looking for
possible systematic origins of the residuals, BUT NONE HAS BEEN
FOUND.]
But, Mach's principle and the above b_R, maybe a simple reason and
cause to explain this phenomena:
For the Pioneer anomaly c = (G*M*br)^(1/4) is applicable as
br = c^4/GM and this b_R, like John's Gx has the dimensions of L/T^2,
an acceleration. Plugging in heuristic number estimates for
M ~ 1.5e+56gr does yield b_R ~ 8.1e-8 cm/s^2, which is within the
range of Anderson's a_P = (8.74 +/- 1.33) x 10^{-8} cm/s^2.
It is fascinating to speculate about that this b_R may eventually
"stop" Pioneer 10/11 in intergalactic space and confine it to a
position dictated by the gravitational constrains of the mass of the
next "nearby" galaxies to then take up its "fixed" star place/position
like all the other heavily bodies do, when viewed from sufficiently
far away.
>
>
>
[Barry about GPS]
> > But the worst is that after noting:
> > "The Control Segment is comprised of a number of
> > ground-based monitoring stations, which continually
> > gather information from the satellites. These
> > data are sent to a Master Control Station in Colorado
> > Springs, CO, which analyzes the constellation and projects
> > the satellite ephemeredes and clock
> > behaviour forward for the next few hours.
> > This information is then uploaded
> > into the satellites for retransmission to users. "
> > The author then ignores the active correction of the
> > system entirely.
> > Making the paper a complete waste of time.
> >
> > The fun part is the key to the analysis: "I simplify by writing
> > the velocity in the ECI coordinate system". Which of
> > course, immediately places the GPS
> > squarely in an aether-based system.
>
[Hayek]
> But the GR inertial field, the space-time metric, is an
> aether. Only SR 'technicians' who think they are
> physiscists will dispute that.
>
[Barry]
> > Of course, neither of "Uncle Al's" references bear on the
> > subject under discussion.
>
[Hayek]
> We have gotten used to that.
> Its seems this can be aspartame induced... :-)
> Hayek.
>
[hanson]
The exchange between Barry & Hayek maybe illustrated by yet another
view:
Re: GPS: "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:91acb879.02011...@posting.google.com...
Take, the [L/M] multiplier 2G/c^2 for energy transfer, which couples
the mass/distance ratio gives directly the gain/loss of time per light
travel time. Strictly via Newtonian mechanics and any speed limit,
here "c".
Now, we simply look at the situation by saying that the GPS
information falls from the satellite for the distance h thru' a
density gradient (delta rho, d-rho) from a sphere at rho1 =
f(m_e/r_satellite), down into a spot on the earth's surface on a
denser sphere at rho2 = f(m_e/r_e), and hence gains energy = faster =
the needed time correction in sec/sec, where m_e = mass of earth
(5.97E+27 gr) and h being the Space vehicle height, (2.02E+09 cm see
below), above the earth surface (of radius r_e = 6.37E+08 cm) and T
being the 12 hrs observation period, being calculated in standard
Newtonian fashion per
h = ([G m_e/(4 pi^2)]* T^2)^(1/3) - r_e = 2.02E+09 cm, which then
yields r_s = r_e + h and
d-rho = m_e/ (4pi/3 r_e^3) - m_e/ (4pi/3 r_s^3)
and therefore the calculated time loss/sec is:
d-rho *h^2 *2G/c^2 * 4/(3pi^2) ............. 4.4E-10 s/s or
d-rho *h^2 *2G/c^2 * 4/(3pi^2) * 86400 ..... 38 microsec/day
Now, d-rho * h^2 can be reduced to and rewritten simply as
m_e/h * 2G/c^2 ......... 4.4E-10 s/s
m_e/h * 2G/c^2 *86400 ..... 38 microsec/day
showing that this time loss is merely a function of the gravitational
attraction by the mass(density) of the earth and the light travel
distance from satellite to earth AND that this result can be obtained
as illustrated above by simple non relativistic, classical Newtonian
means without the use of SR/ GR.
The above time error of 4.4E-10 s/s is correlated to a linear distance
uncertainty of:
l_error = c*t_error ....... 1.32E+01 cm/s
or linear error per day..... 1.14E+06 cm/day = 11.4 km/day
Therefore, the small initial error of 13 cm ~ 5 inches/sec drifts into
an unacceptable margin of 11.4 km/day. Obviously, a continuous clock
recalibration is the answer for increased GPS accuracy.
Now, also one can make a case for GPS's 38 ms by using b_R instead of
the parameters above. It is easy. Substitute.....well, you guys can do
that if you are interested. I have spent enough time on this and since
all this is mere entertainment and fun for me, but does not make me
any money I shall depart and leave the rest of the fun to you guys.
Thanks,
hanson
greywolf42
>
>
> greywolf42 wrote:
>
> > Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:3E6665D0...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
> >
>
> >
> >>
> >> greywolf42 wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >
> > {Note: Hayek snipped Will reference}
>
>
> Sorry, I did not know you where sensitive to that.
> It was without any specific intend.
I'm not sensitive. However, others are. Plus, I figure that if one is
describing a reference, one should at least leave the reference in for other
NG readers....
Regardless of MTW's elevation of a metaphysical "principle" to a natural
"fact", Mach's principle is still not contained in the mathematics of GR.
>> The chapter concludes (p549):
> "Einstein acknowledged a debt of parentage for his
> theory to Mach's principle (fig 21.5)[letter to Mach].
> It is therefore only justice that Mach's Principle
> should in return today owe his elucidation to Einstein's
> theory."
Quite an odd quote. If Einstein uses Mach, then Mach "owes" nothing to
Einstein for repeating it.
> I also struggled with the question of where one finds
> the inertia in GR, but then got the idea that a clock is
> actually an inertiameter. So Einstein's GR describes
> proper time which is nothing else than inertia.
I hadn't heard this angle, before. Whatever helps you use the map is OK by
me.
It's hard when one deals with those who treat "relativity" as a religion and
Einstein as a prophet. The savaging of one of Einstein's quotes by "Uncle
Al" (DHR) was quite amusing.
> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
> 4.7 The Inertia of Twins
> "
> The puzzling asymmetry of the spinning globes is
> essentially just another form of the twins paradox,
> where the twins separate and reconverge (one accelerates
> away and back while the other remains stationary), and
> they end up with asymmetric lapses of proper time. How
> can the asymmetry be explained? According to Einstein:
>
> "The only satisfactory answer must be that the physical
> system consisting of S1 and S2 reveals within itself no
> imaginable cause to which the differing behavior of S1
> and S2 can be referred. The cause must therefore lie
> outside the system. We have to take it that the general
> laws of motion...must be such that the mechanical
> behavior of S1 and S2 is partly conditioned, in quite
> essential respects, by distant masses which we have not
> included in the system under consideration."
I'm afraid I've lost my interest in relativistic twins. The main problem
being that it is likely that the conundrum will remain a gedanken until well
after I'm dead. And gedanken's don't teach us anything about the real
world. Only about our own assumptions.
>
> "
>
> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-01/7-01.htm
> 7.1 Is the Universe Closed?
> "
> Nevertheless, the idea of a closed finite universe is
> still of interest, partly because of the historical role
> it played in Einstein's thought, but also because it
> remains (arguably) the model most compatible with the
> spirit of general relativity. In an address to the
> Berlin Academy of Sciences in 1921, Einstein said :
>
> "I must not fail to mention that a theoretical argument
> can be adduced in favor of the hypothesis of a finite
> universe. The general theory of relativity teaches that
> the inertia of a given body is greater as there are more
> ponderable masses in proximity to it; thus it seems very
> natural to reduce the total effect of inertia of a body
> to action and reaction between it and the other bodies
> in the universe... From the general theory of relativity
> it can be deduced that this total reduction of inertia
> to reciprocal action between masses - as required by E.
> Mach, for example - is possible only if the universe is
> spatially finite. On many physicists and astronomers
> this argument makes no impression... "
>
It's too bad he never got the chance to talk with Halton Arp (astronomer,
observer, and antichrist to the DHRs).
> >
> > greywolf42
> > ubi dubium ibi libertas
>
> Where there doubt there is freedom.
>
> I live in Europe, and nobody there doubts socialism. Go
> figure.
>
Here in the US, the number of doubters is insufficient to prevent the
conversion of the US to a military dictatorship -- regardless of
governmental "form." 1,200 disappeared US citizen's so far under the
"Patriot Act." Though the number is uncertain, because the US doesn't "have
to" admit who, how many, or where they are (or were).
TomGee
> eshal wrote:
> > Yeah.. the Aether is on...
> > an' we're stormin' the gates.
> >
> > It's a rebel assault.
> > yet, it is grounded in the classics of thinking.
>
> Most of which were flat out wrong which is why we have modern physics.
> Newtonian mechanics is wrong.
>
classical physics was wrong. We have modern physics as a consequence
of Newton's physics, and your position has been decried through the
years by most authoritative figures in science, who emphatically
assert (but futilely to some, evidently) that Relativity has not
replaced classical physics but is an extension of it into areas
undiscovered by classical physics and which before Newton would not
have been found since pre-Newton physics would never have led us to
Relativity. You are the one we were warned about from the very
beginning - that some people would get carried away into thinking that
classical physics was wrong and Relativity replaced it. I used to
think no one could be so dumb as to think that, especially with all
the continual disclaimers by Relativists, but I stand corrected.
>
> The world is not Galilean invariant. The
> equipartition of energy is wrong, which is why quantum mechanics was
> invented. Light is not a continuous wave which is why photons are
> hypothesized. Reality is not local, as the violation of Bell's
> inequalities show. And so forth. Classical physics however brilliant it
> was, is a failure.
>
>
When we see later the total amount of errors in Relativity, that will
not invalidate it either. You are prone to throw out the baby with
the bath water, and that is what makes you wrong.
>
>
> Aether is a failed irrelevent concept.
>
>
negative mass/energy particles is not visible to us. It is relevant
to physics because it is one of the many theories proposed as the
medium of light.
>
>
> It is not necessary.
>
>
Not for faith-based scientists, but until any one of the other
theories are considered proven, it will remain as valid as any idea of
yours.
>
>
> Even if it
> were true we cannot use it because it cannot be observed or measured.
>
>
>
>
> For a science to succeed it must be operationally effective, lead to
> quantitative testable predictions which must pass experimental muster.
>
Robert Kolker
TomGee wrote:
>>For a science to succeed it must be operationally effective, lead to
>>quantitative testable predictions which must pass experimental muster.
>>
>
> Yata yata yata. [yawn]
You disagree? A science does not have to be validated by experiment? All
of the experiments used to show the presence of aether have failed.
Either it does not exist or it cannot be measured in any meaningful way.
In either case it is a useless concept and physics gets along just fine
without it.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
TomGee wrote:
>
> You are wrong in thinking that we have modern physics because
> classical physics was wrong. We have modern physics as a consequence
> of Newton's physics,
That is historically correct. Mechanics has been corrected to be Lorentz
invariant. Newtonian mechanics is just plain wrong when the velocities
of bodies become comparable to the speed of light.
Modern physics was formulated to correct the errors and deficiencies of
classical physics.
Bob Kolker
> and your position has been decried through the
> years by most authoritative figures in science, who emphatically
> assert (but futilely to some, evidently) that Relativity has not
> replaced classical physics but is an extension of it into areas
> undiscovered by classical physics and which before Newton would not
> have been found since pre-Newton physics would never have led us to
> Relativity.
Newtonian mechanics is Galilean invariant. That is just plain wrong. It
is not the way the world works. That is why Newtonian mechanics was
-modified-. The original was just plain wrong.
I would like you to do a Newtonian calculations with me. If a body with
mass 1 kg is pushed by a force of 9.8 Newtons how long will it take for
it to travel at the speed of light? You will get a finite time. Which is
wrong. A massive body cannot be acclerated to the speed. The answer
Netonian mechanics gives is obtained as follows:
Round 9.8 up to 10 just to make life easier.
T * 10 meters/sec^2 = 300000000 meters/sec.
T = 30000000 seconds.
Wrong!
Newtonian mechanics is just plain wrong.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3E67BDDF...@attbi.com...
> That is historically correct. Mechanics has been corrected to be Lorentz
> invariant. Newtonian mechanics is just plain wrong when the velocities
> of bodies become comparable to the speed of light.
<ROFLOL>
mechanics was corrected?
<LOL>
Bob,
mechanics was never wrong,
Lorentz was and mechanics prove it every day still.
Newton mechanics is not wrong either and lightspeed
has nothing to do with other objects speeds except for illusion qualities.
You should try and wake up some day.
Right now you are merely mechanically illiterate and proving it eech post.
Or...
You are scam artist/con man looking for another billion to waste.
EL
> That day. ! 5 5 20.
> These numbers have haunted me for near twenty five years. .
> em
[EL]
Let me guess here.
That (5520) was your locker's lock code at the gym, which you happen
to forget while taking a shower after exercise.
Naturally you would ask the assistance of the pretty assistant who
happens to know your lock's code.
After all it haunted you for near twenty five years. :):):):)
Now, you neither have a locker at the gym nor a pretty assistant who
happens to know your lock's code.
You do not even have a "lock". :):):):):):)
EL
hanson
for places we have never been to/at and never will be.
Any out of daily engineering physics are just fucking theories,
actually just stories and wishful thinking as to how events
COULD be. Your "A massive body cannot be accelerated to "c"",
is countermanded by plenty of physicists who insist that not
only one massive body but that the "edge" of the entire
observable universe recedes/expands with the full velocity of c.
And since they insist that the center is everwhere, then everthing
ought to roll around and flee with "c". Right or wrong? ....
No... it's: "my ass" ......and AHAHAHAHA....hahahaha
hahahaaha....ahahahhahanson
billv vajk
Hayek wrote:
> bill...@netscape.net wrote:
>> Knee jerk reactions need badly to be overcome by the community
>> at large in order to allow Einsteinlike understandings to help
>> drive science progress.
> Sigh...
Is that a peer reviewed "sigh" ?
Robert Kolker
Spaceman wrote:
> You are scam artist/con man looking for another billion to waste.
Apply a force of one newton to a kilogram for about 3*10^8 seconds or
3742 days or a little over ten years. Does the one kilogram of matter
get to the speed of light? It does not. Yet that is what Newtonian
mechanics predicts. Newtonian mechanics is wrong.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
hanson wrote:
> Bob, lets' no get too carried away with "right and wrong",
But I do get carried away. If a theory predicts something and it is off
by more than a reasonable error bound then the theory is WRONG. All it
takes is a single valid experiment producing a divergence between what
is predicted and what is found and the theory has been shot in the head.
A correct theory ALWAYS predicts correctly. If it does not then it is
not a correct theory. That means its domain of applicability must be
restricted (as Newtonian mechanics is restricted to llow velocities) or
it must be reformulated (as in the the case of relativistic mechanics).
Either you take experiments seriously or you don't. Theories come and
theories go but facts are Forever. When ever Theory collides with Fact,
Theory must give way.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3E67DBD8...@attbi.com...
>
>
> Spaceman wrote:
> > You are scam artist/con man looking for another billion to waste.
>
> Apply a force of one newton to a kilogram for about 3*10^8 seconds or
> 3742 days or a little over ten years. Does the one kilogram of matter
> get to the speed of light? It does not.
No,
that means you did not let it move for long enough time
and it was too little of an acceleration to do so in the amount of time you gave it
Have you tried a force of 1 million newtons on 1 kilogram until it reaches lightspeed?
How about a billion newtons on a 1/4 gram (0.25 grams) until it reaches lightspeed?
How about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 newtons
on 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 grams until it reaches lightspeed?
<LOL>
Or maybe just try not limiting the "time" at all as you did.
Is ten years the longest time in the Universe now?
>Yet that is what Newtonian
> mechanics predicts. Newtonian mechanics is wrong.
No,
that is your sad assed version of Newton's mechanics.
Robert Kolker
Spaceman wrote:
> "Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3E67DBD8...@attbi.com...
>
>>
>>Spaceman wrote:
>>
>>>You are scam artist/con man looking for another billion to waste.
>>
>>Apply a force of one newton to a kilogram for about 3*10^8 seconds or
>>3742 days or a little over ten years. Does the one kilogram of matter
>>get to the speed of light? It does not.
>
>
> No,
> that means you did not let it move for long enough time
Schmuck. That is about the time predicted by Newtonian mechanics. The
speed of light is 3*10^9 meters/sec. Would you have to apply a force of
ten Newtons to one kilogram to get the speed of light. The accerlations
is 10 meters/sec^2. Now sovle T * 10 meters/sec^2 = 3*10^9 meters/sec
Answer, a la Newton is 3*10^8 seconds which is a little over ten years.
You are truly one of the Very Retarded.
The right answer is a massive body cannot be acclerated up to the speed
of light. Forever is not long enough.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3E67E236...@attbi.com...
> Schmuck.
Yes,
that is all you are and you keep proving you are
a mechanically illiterate dupe,
you have no mechanical brains whatsoever.
I bet if your pencil breaks, you need
to call a repair man!
<LOL>
TomGee
> TomGee wrote:
> >>For a science to succeed it must be operationally effective, lead to
> >>quantitative testable predictions which must pass experimental muster.
> >>
> >
> > Yata yata yata. [yawn]
>
> You disagree?
>
>
statement becomes when it is clear it is only lip service being paid
to what should be an honorable practice but which is no longer even a
valid statement. You said that is required for a science to succeed,
but it has always been used to mean that for a theory to succeed it
must be operationally effective and make predictions which then must
pass muster. But these are requirements rarely met initially.
Obviously, if what you say was true, physics would have fallen long
ago. Einstein's static u. had all those things in it and everyone
claimed to understand it and believe it to be true, but even though it
met all your requirements, it was still false.
A theory succeeds by being falsifiable, logically valid and sound,
comprehensive in its coverage of evidence, and must include honesty in
its rational conclusion. If Einstein had done all that with his
theory of a static universe, he would have never proved it.
EL
[EL]
Bob, the speed of light you wrote, had a wrong exponent.
It should have been (approximately) 3*10^8 m/s not NINE.
Therefore the time needed would be 354 days.
Regards.
EL
eshal
>
>
> eshal wrote:
> > Yeah.. the Aether is on...
> > an' we're stormin' the gates.
> >
> > It's a rebel assault.
> > yet, it is grounded in the classics of thinking.
>
> Most of which were flat out wrong which is why we have modern physics.
> Newtonian mechanics is wrong. The world is not Galilean invariant. The
> equipartition of energy is wrong, which is why quantum mechanics was
> invented. Light is not a continuous wave which is why photons are
> hypothesized. Reality is not local, as the violation of Bell's
> inequalities show.
Bell's theorem showed us that locality violation can occur. Locality still
remained in place. The equipartion shows us the structure is granular and
quantum mechanics shows us Aetherial nature of solidity. Which is why, in
spite of all this we are still left with a particle wave duality.
Let's look to see how the nonlocal operation is actually mediated?
> And so forth. Classical physics however brilliant it
> was, is a failure.
Outside of its range it is not. As to the Aether, I am putting my store into
the notion that its behaviour is not incomprehensible in terms that we can
not relate to some of its unusual characteristics.
I think the properties by which we can attribute as being of the Aether are
Newtonian in that they are bound by a geometric discription and that
geometry is in fact what determines its function.
There is a one to one corresponding relationship between behaviour and form.
> Aether is a failed irrelevent concept.
Hang on. Did the Aether fail us or did we fail the Aether? We actually see
aspects of it being revealed in just about every equation we perform
relating to light, atomic structures and gravity.
> It is not necessary.
Is also synonious with we managed to find a way to do our equations without
the need to incorporating it.
But ultimately, when we do look deeper, we see that its value is being
incorporated into the equation under a different guise or name other then a
rose.
> Even if it
> were true we cannot use it because it cannot be observed or measured.
Wait until we have finished doing the unification of the field and have
unified light with gravity, and the nuclear forces with inertia. I say, then
will we find out if the inclusion of the Aether is nessesary in our
equation.
> For a science to succeed it must be operationally effective, lead to
> quantitative testable predictions which must pass experimental muster.
Won't argue with that. Science also has only ever evolved at the rate at
which it can muster scientific validation.
geeze... what more do you expect?! But what ever you do... don't ever stand
there and say that the value of validation is at its maximus and this
represents both the edge of reality and scientific expansion.
If anything, now more then ever, we have a glimpse of how much further we
yet have to go. This Aether places upon us the same set of quandries as that
of the particle wave duality. Resolve the particle wave duality and you
resolve the Aether.
or... resolve the Aether and the particle wave duality is in the bag.
I fancy the Aether is at present still but in its infancy. Despite having
been with us since the beginning of physics and having failed every attempt
to scribe its circumspect, it is very much like Planck holding the keys to
Quantum theory in his hand in the year 1901.
Early days compared to what was about to unfold.
em
TomGee
not get too carried away with "right and wrong", even in the face of
what you think is a logical argument. What you claim may be
reasonable when applied to a valid theory which encompasses a sole
factor or tenet, but not when applied to one having multiple factors
or tenets, as all theories I know have. Otherwise, you propose to
throw out the baby with the bath water, and that can't be right.
There are many theories in Relativity that many consider valid but
which under closer scrutiny turn out to be debatable, but not one of
those has overthrown SR or GR as yet. What would you do with a theory
that has both right and wrong tenets in it? It is not logical to
discard the ideas which stand up to experiment because that would be
like saying that since classical physics was found to have errors in
it, it is not so that the Earth revolves around the Sun, nor that our
sun is part of a galaxy, there are no galaxies, in fact, since Newton
made an error, so we must go back to the edges of the planet to start
research all over again.
Under that logic, don't we have to throw Relativity in the trashcan
since Einstein proved the u. static? Wouldn't you have to agree,
however, that some of classical physics theory is correct and not all
of it is wrong? I understand and agree that theories must stand up to
empirical review, and that those that don't must be discarded, but it
is obvious that your viewpoint is not a scientific one, but a
patriotic one, where you are prepared to defend what you believe to be
a rule of "all or nothing", even though that rule is non-existent in
physical science. I am not debating whether or not Newton or anyone
else made errors because that is undeniable, but I do oppose your
position that if any part of a theory is wrong, none of it can be
right.
The Ghost In The Machine
In sci.physics, Robert Kolker
<bobk...@attbi.com>
wrote
on Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:05:07 GMT
<3E67E236...@attbi.com>:
>
>
> Spaceman wrote:
>> "Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>> news:3E67DBD8...@attbi.com...
>>
>>>
>>>Spaceman wrote:
>>>
>>>>You are scam artist/con man looking for another billion to waste.
>>>
>>>Apply a force of one newton to a kilogram for about 3*10^8 seconds or
>>>3742 days or a little over ten years. Does the one kilogram of matter
>>>get to the speed of light? It does not.
>>
>>
>> No,
>> that means you did not let it move for long enough time
>
> Schmuck. That is about the time predicted by Newtonian mechanics. The
> speed of light is 3*10^9 meters/sec. Would you have to apply a force of
Pedant point: 3*10^8. Or, if one wants to be *really* pedantic:
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c
stipulates an exact value of 299,792,458 m/s.
> ten Newtons to one kilogram to get the speed of light. The accerlations
> is 10 meters/sec^2. Now sovle T * 10 meters/sec^2 = 3*10^9 meters/sec
>
> Answer, a la Newton is 3*10^8 seconds which is a little over ten years.
Actually, the (corrected) value 3*10^7 seconds is a little *under* 1 year.
365.2425 * 86400 = 31556952
However, if my computations are correct, the actual velocity would
only be somewhere on the order of sqrt(.75) c = .866 c; the added
energy turns out to be equal to the particle's weight, so
E = mc^2 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = 2mc^2
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = 0.5
v^2/c^2 = .75
>
> You are truly one of the Very Retarded.
He's a stubborn one, I'll grant him that. :-)
>
> The right answer is a massive body cannot be acclerated up to the speed
> of light. Forever is not long enough.
Forever is too long. :-)
>
> Bob Kolker
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
TomGee
> > >
> > Do you contend otherwise? Do you claim that the ether is not devoid
> > of such qualities? I know your posit about inertia increases,
> > although you have not explained the why of it to my satisfaction, but
> > just like my model does not require the invisible matter in space to
> > have mech'l and kinematical qualities, if your so-called inertial
> > fields were to become "activated" only when something activates them,
> > that would be consistent with my model up to this point. The
> > particles in my model are "turned on" by lightwaves and the result is
> > light.
>
> That throws an whole new light on the substance of the Aetheric particles.
>
> Their own absoluteness. ?
>
> Are they so absolute that they exist by themselves, or are they themselves
> an event that is initiated by the input of energy from an outside system.
>
>
I contend that they exist on their own as dark matter, i.e., as matter
invisible to us, detected by their effects on visible matter, and that
they were part of the BB soup. Thus, visible and dark matter were
spewed out into our universe, but we evolved into only seeing some of
it but not the dark matter. Research shows that dark matter exists,
it's just not visible to us directly. Today, most physicists readily
accept the idea of particle pairs randomly coming out of empty space
due to fluctuations of the so-called space-time fabric. When
physicists use terms such as these, it simply means they can't explain
the phenomenon, or, if they could, it would put them too far out on a
limb making them too vulnerable to ridicule.
For me, though, it is much easier to think that nature rarely if ever
does anything "randomly" and for sure it never creates something from
nothing (at least, not in classical physics), and that nature might
have a fluctuating space-time fabric if there was a space-time fabric
in reality and not just in our imaginations. Instead of struggling
with all those problems, my model explains it with my claim above,
which has no problems in its simplicity and requires only a prediction
that such particles exist. Dark matter exists, and if any or all of
it acts toward the creation of light in our universe, my claim then is
true.
>
>
> This would put them into a class of activation of which the current strand
> of speculation would place as psychotropic.
>
>
And why would that be?
Lee Pugh
have you seen Tom van Flandern's treatment of gravity
> and its speed?
>
> http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp
I have now, The Math is way over my head so I cannot comment.
My hypothesis (re-direction of enertia) is based purely on logic and is not
in any way derived by math, at least not by me.
I am not saying it cannot be mathmatically expressed, Im sure it can, but
not by me.
Have you had a look at http://www.terraworld.net/leepugh/theory.txt yet?
Lee Pugh
TomGee
>
> If anything, now more then ever, we have a glimpse of how much further we
> yet have to go. This Aether places upon us the same set of quandries as that
> of the particle wave duality. Resolve the particle wave duality and you
> resolve the Aether.
>
> or... resolve the Aether and the particle wave duality is in the bag.
>
>
long time now in this and other physics ngs, but no one seems to
understand that, I think, because everyone argues points that are
off-issue, as if they're afraid to hear more about something that may
make them suffer the negative reactions we all undergo with change. I
contend that my model resolves the ether issue and in doing so solves
the paradox of the dual nature of light.
Based on two textbook experiments of SR, one named the Twin Paradox
and the second being quite similar in that two observers are also used
to illustrate the phenomenon, where one is moving at a relatively
different speed compared to the other, but the second experiment being
more specific in its description of the time dilation phenomenon, we
must agree with SR's conclusion that time rate differences will occur
for the observers in both experiments.
I contend that the time differences occur because of the speed
differences which occur during the experiments. The only essential
difference between the two observers in both of these experiments is
that their speeds differ from each other at some points during the
experiment, and due to that, we must conclude that time is a property
of matter, and since the experiments show that the faster an object
moves the slower its time rate, we must also conclude that time passes
inversely proportional to an object's speed. Further, this conclusion
is not limited to any particular object or closed system; thus it
implies an absolute, or universal, time.
However, since we conclude that time is a property of matter (or
closed systems, or FoR, etc.), any universality property given to time
may be considered only as a passive phenomenon, if I may be permitted
to invent such a term, which describes a phenomenon having no power to
affect the passage of time but is instead the intuitive conclusion
resulting from the idea that if specific time rates apply to specific
speeds, there must be a set of universal time rates which apply to
every increment of speed. As a set having no power to affect
anything, it is the same as any chart upon where calculations may be
made and in that sense only can we say there is such a thing as
universal time.
Having established the above, we can go now to the dual nature of
light paradox. The problem here is that we cannot have photons
traveling at the speed of light because they are particles of matter
and matter cannot travel at c. To overcome that tiny obstacle,
physicists quite smartly invented the massless photon. Never mind
that E=mc^2 was not overthrown but merely ignored; never mind that the
massless photon concept is based on the fantasy that a particle can be
at rest in this universe; and never mind that the math used to prove
such a fantasy is the very same math Einstein used to invent the
static universe; for as far as many Relativists are concerned, the
massless photon is a done deal, a fact in deed.
And yet, what if there is another way the effect of duality can be
better and more simply explained? Suppose that in an alternative
explanation the photon does not have to travel along with the
lightwave? Suppose that photons are dark matter (or, invisible to us)
until they are transformed by lightwaves into visible matter and thus
light is created? My model of the u. claims that the process is like
that of an electronic signboard, where the effect is that of words and
graphics moving across the face of the board, but where the reality of
it is that it is only a process of sequential flashing of tiny light
bulbs in such a way as to make it appear to us that words and pictures
move across the face of the signboard.
But how can photons be invisible and then visible? If photons were
dark matter particles, they would be invisible to us. If lightwaves
crashing through the photon dark matter particles resulted in the
injection of net positive energy into the particles, that would cause
them to become visible to us, if the lack of positive energy is what
made them invisible to us. Why would that cause them to become
invisible to us? If they are like electrons which lose all their
+energy and fall into extraordinary states, as Dirac described
positrons, that would make them invisible to us.
But what makes the potential photons available to be struck by light
waves? Potential photons having no +energy would be like positrons
having negative mass/energy, and as such they cannot have motion and
thus, no property of time either. To have time, an object must have
motion, since time is a property of matter and passes inversely
proportional to its speed. To have motion, an object must have
+energy, which causes motion. Dark matter, then, must be like
particles which lose their +energy, i.e., they have only neg. energy
and thus they cannot have motion - they are essentially stationary.
They have no time since they have no motion, and they exist invisible
to us since we can only directly detect objects having +energy, or,
heat. To have +energy is to have heat, or, temperature, and our eyes
are receptive to objects having heat. All objects must have
temperature, which is heat, in order for our eyes to be able to detect
them directly. Objects having no heat cannot be detected by our eyes
and so they are invisible to us. Since we cannot detect dark matter
directly, it must be matter having no +energy/mass, no heat, no
motion, and no time.
Current reports that dark matter is more abundant than visible matter
implies that dark matter comprises most if not all of the space in our
universe. Physicist George Gamow asserts there is a universal sea of
particles which exist having neg. energy/mass but which are invisible
to us. My model proposes that such particles could be the particle
part of light which interacts with lightwaves in the process of light
creation. Certainly, my claim is a more reasonable explanation than
the massless photon, which is proven by imaginary math, and which uses
an imaginary concept as a base for induction. My claim is even more
reasonable in not having to explain how and why photons are added
exponentially to the expanding spherical light waves, which current
thought has yet to address, let alone explain.
My claim explains observed phenomena in an alternative to current
thought and makes certain predictions related to time and the process
of light production while maintaining consistency with accepted facts.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.03030...@posting.google.com...
...
> And yet, what if there is another way the effect of duality can be
> better and more simply explained? Suppose that in an alternative
> explanation the photon does not have to travel along with the
> lightwave? Suppose that photons are dark matter (or, invisible to us)
> until they are transformed by lightwaves into visible matter and thus
> light is created?
This is simpler? Two things required... waves and particles? Are the
waves massless?
> But how can photons be invisible and then visible? If photons were
> dark matter particles, they would be invisible to us. If lightwaves
> crashing through the photon dark matter particles resulted in the
> injection of net positive energy into the particles, that would cause
> them to become visible to us, if the lack of positive energy is what
> made them invisible to us. Why would that cause them to become
> invisible to us? If they are like electrons which lose all their
> +energy and fall into extraordinary states, as Dirac described
> positrons, that would make them invisible to us.
If they were invisible until absorbed, then they would be invisible to us
(until, of course, absorbed). We only perceive the universe through the
auspices of light, and it carries the momentum and energy (mostly) given to
it to carry at its creation. And they arrive with proper spectra and
intensity, a feat which I believe would be beyond two particles to rehearse
between them.
Besides, dark matter by definition (standard definition not one you might
fabricate), has no effect on light. Hence the name Dark Matter.
Contributes to gravity such that galaxies can be held together and that is
all.
> Current reports that dark matter is more abundant than visible matter
> implies that dark matter comprises most if not all of the space in our
> universe. Physicist George Gamow asserts there is a universal sea of
> particles which exist having neg. energy/mass but which are invisible
> to us. My model proposes that such particles could be the particle
> part of light which interacts with lightwaves in the process of light
> creation. Certainly, my claim is a more reasonable explanation than
> the massless photon, which is proven by imaginary math, and which uses
> an imaginary concept as a base for induction.
You have imaginary theory, to back this up? Because it is certainly *not*
simpler.
Are you going to advertise a website now, so that we can all go there and
help you pay for it? You going to raise up the aspect of Daniel Joseph Min
(or other), and strike us all with your wisdom?
You really do use recreational drugs on Friday nights, don't you?
David A. Smith
Laurent
Bob thinks like G.W.Bush - "You are either with us, or you are
against us"
kenseto
>
>
> TomGee wrote:
> >>For a science to succeed it must be operationally effective, lead to
> >>quantitative testable predictions which must pass experimental muster.
> >>
> >
> > Yata yata yata. [yawn]
>
> You disagree? A science does not have to be validated by experiment? All
> of the experiments used to show the presence of aether have failed.
Wrong!!!! LET and SR are validated by the same experiments and LET math came
before SR math.
> Either it does not exist or it cannot be measured in any meaningful way.
> In either case it is a useless concept and physics gets along just fine
> without it.
Wrong. I have an experiment that will guarantee the detection of the ether
frame. It is in the following link.
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available at the following
link. It includes a new theory of gravity and it unites gravity with the
electromagnetic and nuclear forces naturally. Also, it includes a new
proposed experiment to detect physical space.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
Ken Seto
Robert Kolker
kenseto wrote:
>
> Wrong. I have an experiment that will guarantee the detection of the ether
> frame. It is in the following link.
1. Has the experiment been vetted (for soundness of design)
2. Has its design been -done-?
3. Has the experiment been reproduced?
4. Cite actualy experiment, not proposed experiment.
It is rather dishonest to claim an experiments disproves anything if the
experiment has not been done.
Wishes are one things, deeds another.
Bob Kolker
kenseto
You are an SR fanatic and you don't know what you are talking about.
Even Einstein acknowledged the existence of a preferred frame when he
posited the need for E-synched clocks to measure the one-way speed of light.
The purpose of the E-synched clock is to eliminate the absolute motion of
the distant clock.
The experiment I have in the link is to determine the off-set time for a
pair of spatially separated e-synched clocks.
I suggest that you read some more about e-synching before you shoot your
mouth off. <shrugg>
Definition for E-synched clocks: To measure the one-way speed of light the
distant clock must be off-set by an appropriate amount so that the
measurement will come out to be c.
Ken Seto
Robert Kolker
kenseto wrote:
>
> You are an SR fanatic and you don't know what you are talking about.
I asked some questions. Will you are will you not answer them. I don't
want to hear a single word of theory from you. I want to know if your
experiment has been vetted, done and reproduced. A simple yes or no will
suffice. If the answer is yes, please cite a refereed journal in which
the result was published.
Bob Kolker
Laurent
I believe you are probably on the right track. :)
--
Laurent
Laurent
"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:v6f6j7r...@corp.supernews.com...
>
[...]
>
> Thanx for the links. I guess I am not concerned with the truth or
falsity of
> void theories but with the structure of arguments scientists use
who try and
> promote such an idea. How- one would make the strongest case for
the
> void -seems interesting.
What is nothingness? - is an absurd question, it is like asking -
how much is zero? - nothingness just isn't. There are no empty
spaces in the classical sense. There can't be a void, not as a real
thing. If it IS, then it isn't a void. There is no place for voids
in a spacetime continuum either, or it wouldn't be a continuum.
<< It is not empty [the classical vaccum]. Even when all matter and
heat radiation have been removed from a region of space, the vacuum
of classical physics remains filled with a distinctive pattern of
electromagnetic fields >> --- [From The Classical Vacuum - by
Timothy H. Boyer, Scientific American, August 1985, pp. 70-78.]
The aether is a physically finite substance, but is spatially
unbounded. Extension is a material property not applicable to the
aether. Density is also a non-applicable property when defining the
aether, it is only applicable when describing matter. Space is
material. Space and matter are inseparable, and the properties of
density and extension do apply.
<< But we can assert by reason of the relativistic equations of
gravitation that there must be a departure from Euclidean relations,
with spaces of cosmic order of magnitude, if there exists a positive
mean density, no matter how small, of the matter in the universe. In
this case the universe must of necessity be spatially unbounded and
of finite magnitude, its magnitude being determined by the value of
that mean density. >> -- A.E.
Because the aether is physically finite, matter is also finite at
any given moment, but infinite as a function of time and
transformation. Nature is the perpetual motion machine.
If the aether were not physically finite, then why would the
equivalency principle be necessary when describing the motion of a
material system under acceleration? Still it can be conceived as
infinitely divisible, or indivisible; simply because it is
immaterial.
If Newton's view were to be correct, and objects were seen as really
separated, and related only by their macroscopic mechanical
interactions (billiard ball model), then why would we need the
equivalency principle to accurately describe this Universe?
Einstein's equivalency principle (the basis for GR) sprang from the
same concept of unity and wholeness implied in most of Mach's ideas.
The Absolute is really the aether, not space, but Newton's absolute
space (an empty plenum, a void, which he considered as something
real) was the seed from which Einstein's aether was born. This unity
and oneness of reality, which distills from GR, is the philosophical
basis for Einstein's Pantheism.
--
Laurent
Immortalist
http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/void.html
Preface
All great discoveries in experimental physics have been due to the intuition
of men who made free use of models, which were for them not products of the
imagination but representatives of real things.
Max Born (1953)
Note: This chapter is from my book Timeless Reality: Symmetry, Simplicity,
and Multiple Universes (Amherst, N. Y.: Prometheus Books, 2000). It is
copyrighted and should not be further copied or distributed without my
permission.
Victor J. Stenger
Atoms and the Void Most people would agree that science must tell us
something about reality. However, no one has stated what exactly that may
be. Scientists do not speak with one mind on the matter. They, and the
philosophers who study science, have not reached anything approaching
consensus on the nature of reality revealed by science, or even if any has
been revealed. Still, despite this collective uncertainty, something must be
out there in the real world. And, based on its track record, science is
still the best tool we have at our disposal to help us find it.
Since the seventeenth century, science has occupied first place among the
various approaches that humans have taken in their attempts to understand
and control their environment. This special status did not come about as the
consequence of a jeweled crown being placed on its head by some higher
authority. Rather, science proved itself by results. Its instruments have
greatly extended the range of vision provided by the human senses, and the
theories of science have profoundly altered the way humanity thinks about
itself and its place in the overall scheme of things.
Observation and theory constrained by an uncompromising methodology have
worked together to present us with a picture of a universe beyond the
imagining of the most talented poet or pious mystic. No other human
intellectual or creative endeavor, whether philosophy, theology, art, or
religious experience, from East or West, has come close to fantasizing the
universe revealed by modern physics and astronomy. Reality is out there
telling us that this is the way it is, whether we like it or not, and that
reality is far beyond our simple, earthbound imaginations. In recent years,
the privileged position for science has been challenged. Some sociologists
and other scholars who have examined science within a cultural context have
concluded that statements made within Western science are simply narratives
that have no more claim on the truth than the myths of any other culture. So
far they have convinced no one but themselves.
Science is not fiction. Although it involves creativity, it is not the sole
product of unbridled imagination. Scientists build equipment and
mathematical theories, gather and analyze data, and come to an
always-tentative consensus on what should be added to or subtracted from the
library of scientific knowledge. That library is then utilized by
technologists to build the many devices that mark the dramatic difference
between the lives of humans today and those of the not-too-distant past.
To be sure, much imagination went into the development of the computer that
sits on my desk. But that imagination was forced to act within a framework
of constraints such as energy conservation and gravity. These constraints
are codified as the "laws" of physics. Surely they represent some aspect of
reality and are not pure fantasy.
Scientists themselves, including great numbers of non-Western persuasion,
continue to maintain confidence in the exceptional power and value of their
trade. They are sure they are dealing with reality, and most people outside
of a few departments in academia agree. But, we must still ask, what is the
reality that scientists are uncovering? In this book I suggest that the
underlying reality being accessed by the instruments of science is far
simpler than most people, including many scientists and philosophers,
realize. The portion of reality that responds to the probing of scientific
experiment and theory is not terribly mysterious. For those portions
remaining unresponsive pending further discovery, we have no basis to
believe that they fall outside the naturalist tradition that has developed
over millennia. No one need think, after this time, that any phenomena
currently lacking full scientific explanation can only be revealed by
nonscientific or supernatural means.
Based on all we know today, the complete library of data from across the
full spectrum of the sciences is fully consistent with a surprisingly simple
model: the natural universe is composed, at the elementary level, of
localized material bodies that interact by colliding with one another. All
these bodies move around in an otherwise empty void. No continuous, etheric
medium, material or immaterial, need be postulated to occupy the space
between bodies. Applying an insight more ancient than Plato and Aristotle,
but continually ignored because of human propensities to wish otherwise,
atoms and the void are sufficient to account for observations with the human
eye and the most powerful telescopes, microscopes, or particle accelerators
of today.
The four-dimensional space-time framework introduced by Einstein and
Minkowski, along with the associated rules of relativity and all the rest of
physics, are adequate to describe the motion of these primal bodies.
Furthermore, we find that the great foundational "laws" of physics the
principles of energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum conservation are
not rules imposed on the universe from outside. Rather they represent
physicists' way of theoretically describing the high degree of symmetry and
simplicity that the universe, on the whole, exhibits to their instruments.
Four centuries ago, Galileo observed that an object falls with an
acceleration that is independent of its mass. We find that the same is true
when the experiment is done today (with the usual caveats that we neglect
air friction), and we measure the same acceleration of gravity he did. When
we look with our telescopes at the farthest galaxies, where the light left
billions of years ago, we find that the properties of that light, such as
the relative positions of spectral lines, are exactly the same as we observe
in the laboratory today.
The fact that the same behavior is found over such an enormous time scale
implies that the basic principles of physics do not change over time. No
moment, what the Greeks called kairos and philosopher Martin Heidegger
translated to the German as augenblick, stands apart from any other (despite
the recent millennial fever). When we proceed to incorporate this fact in
our theoretical descriptions, lo and behold we find that energy is
conserved. That is, the total energy of any isolated system within the
universe is a constant. Energy conservation is simply another way of saying
that the universe exhibits no special moment in time.
Galaxies are distant in space as well as time; some are billions of light
years away. The fact that the same physical phenomena are observed at all
distances in space tells us that the principles of physics are the same at
all places. No special position in space can be found where the physics is
different. This is what Copernicus discovered when he realized that the
earth was not absolutely at rest with the rest of the universe circling
about it. When the absence of any special place in space is incorporated
into our theoretical descriptions, we find that the physical quantity of
momentum is conserved. That is, the total momentum of any isolated system
within the universe is a constant. And so, momentum conservation is simply
another way of saying that no special place in space exists.
When we look in several directions with our telescopes, we find again that
the basic behavioral patterns of the observed light are the same. This
absence of any special direction in space is represented in our theories as
conservation of angular momentum. That is, the total angular momentum of any
isolated system within the universe is a constant. Angular momentum
conservation is simply another way of saying that the universe exhibits no
special orientation in space.
These conservation "laws" are global, applying throughout our universe.
Extending rotational symmetry to the full four dimensions of space-time, the
principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity join the conservation
principles already mentioned. In other words, the most fundamental notions
of physics hardly need explanation. Any other form of these laws would be so
astounding as to force us to look for some more complex explanation. They
eloquently testify to the lack of design to the universe.
While the idea that many of the most important principles of physics follow
from space-time symmetries may not strike a familiar chord, this connection
has been known for a century or more. You will find it described in advanced
physics textbooks in both classical and quantum mechanics. So my assertion
represents nothing new, merely a public exposition of well-established
physics. Indeed, nothing I will say in these pages should be taken as a
proposal to change a single fact or equation in the existing body of
physicsÐÐ or any other science for that matter. I am merely reporting what
that science seems to be telling us about reality.
The model of reality I propose is basically the one strongly implied by
modern particle physics theory, when the esoteric mathematics of that field
is recast in the admittedly less precise medium of words and images. This
model cannot be proved correct by any process of deductive logic or
mathematics. It is probably not verifiable by additional observations or
experiments beyond what has already been done, although more experiments
will yield more details and could, in principle, falsify the picture.
Nevertheless, the proposed model is based on observation and experimental
data, and the theories that currently describe all currently existing data
without anomaly. The primary alternative models of reality are likewise not
capable of being proved by logic, but I will argue that they are less
reasonable, less rational, and less convincing.
Most physicists will object that only the empirically testable merits our
consideration. I will not adopt that view, since it leaves us with nothing
we can then say about the nature of the reality behind bald statements of
fact about observations. I believe we have every right to talk about
non-testable ideas, so long as we do so in a logically consistent (that is,
non-self-contradictory) fashion that does not disagree with the data. And,
criteria other than testability must be available to allow us to make a
rational choice among alternatives and make our speculations worthwhile.
The reader will not be asked to believe the proposed picture on the basis of
the author's or any more famous physicist's authority. The model I will
present is simple, economical, and possibly even useful, and these are
rational criteria for making a choice. At the very least, I hope to
demonstrate that nothing we currently know from our best sources of
knowledge requires anyone to buy into one or more of the many extravagant
claims that are made by those who would try to use science to promote their
own particular mystical or supernatural worldview. Since these promoters
introduce extraneous elements of reality not required by the data, their
proposals fail the test of parsimony. It then follows that they have the
burden of proving their schemes, not I the burden of disproving them.
Of course, the universe we see with eyes and instruments is not "simple" by
our normal understanding of the term. The details we observe are very
complex, with many layers of structure and other physical laws besides
conservation principles that follow from the global symmetries of the
universe. However, I will try to show that these complex structures and laws
can still be grossly understood in surprisingly simple terms, where the
details are unimportant. I will describe a scenario, consistent with current
knowledge, where complex order arises from the spontaneous, that is,
uncaused and accidental, breaking of symmetries that themselves were
uncaused.
Just as the structure of living organisms is the result of spontaneous
events acting within the global constraints of energy conservation and other
limiting factors like gravity and friction, so, too, could the structural
properties of elementary matter have evolved spontaneously in the early
universe. At least nothing we currently know rules this out. In the proposed
scenario, what emerged in terms of particle properties and force laws during
the early evolution of the universe was not pre-determined by either natural
or supernatural law. Rather, it arose by chance. Start the universe up again
and it will turn out different. Thus, much of the detailed structure of the
universe, so important to us as earthbound humans, is not of great
importance to our basic understanding of reality. This structure could be
wildly different, and that basic understanding would be unchanged.
I will discuss the possibility of other universes besides our own. These
might be imagined to have different structures, different laws. While no one
can demonstrate that other universes exist, current cosmological theories
allow, and even suggest, that they do. Again, no known principle rules them
out. To assume ours is the only universe is to take the narrow view of
humans before Copernicus that the earth is the only world beneath the
heavens. It seems very likely that the sum of reality includes a vastness of
possibilities in which our universe is but a speck, even as our earth is a
but speck within that universe. The so-called anthropic coincidences, in
which our universe appears, to some, incredibly fine-tuned for the formation
of carbon-based life, are readily accounted for in a universe of universes.
And those who think these coincidences provide evidence for some special
design, with humans in mind, exhibit the same lack of imagination as those
who once thought that only one world existed and all else revolved about it.
Moving from the vast to the tiny, one place where a model of a reality
containing only localized bodies may be reasonably questioned is at the
level of quantum phenomena. Quantum events have been widely interpreted as
providing a basis for any number of strange or even mystical and holistic
effects.
For seventy years, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics has
presided as the consensus view of physics, a position that has only recently
begun to erode. The way in which the observer and observed are intertwined
in this interpretation has suggested to some that human consciousness has a
controlling role in determining material behavior. I discussed this issue
thoroughly in my previous book, The Unconscious Quantum: Metaphysics in
Modern Physics and Cosmology( Stenger 1995), and have tried not to be too
repetitive here. In some ways, this is a sequel to that book; however,
Timeless Reality should be self-contained.
As I described in some detail in The Unconscious Quantum, and will only
briefly summarize here, David Bohm postulated the existence of a mysterious
holistic field that acts instantaneously throughout the universe to bring
everything together into one irreducible whole. Bohm's model could not be
more diametrically opposed to the one I will describe here. I will not
disprove the Bohm model, but argue against it on the basis of parsimony.
The many worlds interpretation, which envisages our universe as an array of
parallel worlds that exist in ghostly connection to one another, is less in
conflict with the ideas I will present. Many worlds is not to be confused
with the many universes, mentioned above, that go their own separate ways,
presumably never coming into contact after they are formed. Many worlds
might be found in each of many universes. However, the many worlds
interpretation is not required in the proposed scheme and other alternative
views will be presented. It may be possible to retain the ideas of the many
worlds interpretation within in single world.
Other interpretations of quantum mechanics exist, but none have the dramatic
implications of the big three: Copenhagen, Bohmian, and many worlds. No
consensus has developed as to which, if any, is to be preferred, though each
has a list of distinguished supporters. As we will see, there are many ways
to skin Schrödinger's cat. All attempts to come to grips with the observed
outcomes of a wide range of quantum experiments, by applying familiar
notions based on Newtonian classical physics, have conclusively failed.
Still, classical physics remains highly successful when carefully applied to
its own still very wide domain, which encompasses most familiar physical
phenomena. Since common sense is based on our normal experience of these
phenomena, something of common sense must give in trying to understand the
quantum world.
One commonsense notion that may be expendable is that time changes in only
one direction. As we will see, quantum events proceed equally well in either
time direction, that is, they appear to be "tenseless." This is what I mean
in the title: Timeless Reality. By allowing time to change in either
direction, many of the most puzzling features of quantum mechanics can be
explained within the framework of a reality of atoms and the void.
It may be a matter of taste whether you find timeless quanta more palatable
than conscious quanta, holistic fields, or ghost worlds. In any case, I am
not proposing an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics, and
various ideas from the many proposals in the literature may still be
necessary to provide a complete picture. I merely urge that time symmetry be
considered part of any interpretive scheme. As we will see, it provides for
a particularly simple and elegant model of reality.
I am not the first to suggest that time symmetry might help explain some of
the interpretive problems of quantum mechanics. In fact, this has been long
recognized but discarded because of the implied time-travel paradoxes. I
will show, again not originally, that the time-travel paradoxes do not exist
in the quantum world. I feel that the possibility of time-reversal has been
widely neglected for the wrong reasonÐÐ a deep prejudice that time can only
change from past to future. Evidence for this cannot be found in physics.
The only justification for a belief in directed time is human experience,
and human experience once said that the world was flat.
I ask you to open your mind to the possibility that time can also operate
from future to past. The symmetry between past and future is consistent with
all known physical theories, and, furthermore, is strongly suggested by
quantum phenomena themselves. The indisputable asymmetry of time in human
experience arises, as Ludwig Boltzmann proposed over a century ago, from the
fact that macroscopic phenomena involve so many bodies that certain events
are simply far more likely to happen in one direction rather than the
reverse. Thus, aging is more likely than growing younger. We do not see a
dead man rising, not because it is impossible but because it is so highly
unlikely. But time asymmetry is no more fundamental than the left-right
asymmetry of the face you see in the mirrorÐÐ a simple matter of chance.
Classical physics is well-known to be time symmetric. Although the second
law of thermodynamics is asymmetric by its very nature, it simply codifies
the observed fact of everyday life that many macroscopic physical processes
seem to be irreversible. However, the second law does not demand that they
be so. In fact, every physical process is, in principle, reversible. Many
simply have a low probability of happening in reverse. As Boltzmann showed,
the second law amounts to a definition of the arrow of time.
Time symmetry is commonly observed in chemistry, where all individual
chemical reactions can occur in either direction. The same is true in
nuclear and elementary particle physics. In only a few very rare particle
processes do we find the probability for one time direction very different
from the other, and even then to just one part in a thousand. While this
exception requires us to strictly reverse the spatial as well as time axes
and change particles to antiparticles when we reverse the time direction,
this will not negate our conclusions about time symmetry. In fact, these
small complications will give us an even deeper understanding of the
principles involved, which are that natural, global symmetries lead to the
great conservation laws of physics.
With all this taken into account, we can state that the microscopic world is
quite time symmetric. The equations that describe phenomena at that level
operate equally well in either time direction. But, more importantly, the
experiments themselves seem to be telling us not to make an artificial
distinction between past and future. Those quantum phenomena that strike
most people as weird are precisely the ones where the future seems to have
some effect on the past. Weirdness results only when we insist on
maintaining the familiar arrow of time and defining as weird anything that
is not familiar.
Experiments demonstrate unequivocally that quantum phenomena are contextual.
That is, the results one obtains from a measurement depend on the precise
experimental setup. When that setup is changed, the results of the
experiment generally change. This may not sound surprising, but what people
do find surprising is that the results change even in cases where common
sense would deny that any change was possible without a superluminal signal.
In Einstein's theory of relativity, and modern relativistic quantum field
theory, no physical body or signal can travel faster than the speed of
light. In experiments over the past three decades, two parts of a quantum
system well-separated in space have been found to remain correlated with one
another even after any signal between them would have to travel faster than
the speed of light. While some correlation is expected classically, after
this correlation is subtracted an additional connection remains that many
authors have labelled mysteriousÐÐ even mystical. While these observations
are exactly as predicted by quantum theory, they seem to imply an
insepa-rability of quantum states over spatial distances that cannot be
connected by any known physical means.
As has been known for years, time reversibility can be used to help explain
these experiments. We will see that their puzzling results can be
understood, without mystical or holistic processes, by the simple expedient
of viewing the experiment in the reverse time direction. Filming the
experiment and viewing it by running a film backwards through the projector,
we can see that no superluminal signalling takes place.
Let us consider another example that leaves people scratching their heads: A
photon (particle of light) that left a galaxy hundreds of millions of years
ago may be bent one way or another around an intervening black hole. Suppose
the photon arrives on earth today, and triggers one of two small photon
detectors, separated in space, that tell us which path the photon took.
A special arrangement of mirrors can be installed in the apparatus so that
the light beams from both paths around the black hole are brought together
and made to constructively interfere in the direction of one detector and
destructively interfere in the direction of the other. The first detector
then always registers a hit and the other registers none. This is as
expected from the wave theory of light.
Now, the puzzle is this: the decision whether or not to include the mirrors
is made today. Somehow it reaches back to the time of the dinosaurs to tell
the photon whether to pass one side of the black hole, like a good particle
should, or pass both sides and interfere, like a good wave should.
While this particular astronomical experiment has not, to my knowledge,
actually been conducted, a large class of (much) smaller-scale laboratory
experiments imply this result. These experiments, I must continually
emphasize, give results that agree precisely with the predictions of quantum
mechanics, a theory that has remained basically unchanged for almost seventy
years. So any discussions and disputes I may report are strictly over the
philosophical or metaphysical interpretation of the observations, not any
inconsistency with calculations of the theory.
In the traditional methods of classical mechanics, a system is initially
prepared in some state and equations of motion are then used to predict the
final state that will then be observed in some detection apparatus. However,
quantum mechanics does not proceed in this manner. In the most commonly
applied procedure, the initial state of the system is defined by a quantity
called the wave function. This wave function evolves with time in a manner
specified by the time-dependent Schrödinger equation to give the state at
some later time. The wave function, however, does not allow one to predict
the exact outcome of a measurement but only the statistical distribution of
an ensemble of similar measurements.
Although not exhibiting any preference for one time direction or another,
this series of operations still seems to imply a time-directed, causal
process from initial to final state quite analogous to Newtonian physics. By
removing our classical blinkers, however, we can see that quantum mechanics
basically tells us how to calculate the probability for a physical system to
go from one state to another. These states may be labelled "initial" and
"final" to agree with common usage, but such a designation is arbitrary as
far as the calculation is concerned. Nothing in the theory distinguishes
between initial and final.
Furthermore, whereas classical physics would predict a single path between
the two states, quantum physics allows for many different paths, like the
two paths of the photon around the black hole. The interference between
these paths leads to many of the special quantum effects that are observed.
It is as if all paths actually occur, and what we observe is some
combination of them all.
When we try to think in terms of particles following definite paths,
however, we run into conceptual difficulties. In our cosmic experiment, for
example, the photon somehow has to pass on both sides of the black hole to
interfere in our apparatus a hundred million years later. We can arrange our
detector to count a single photon at a time, so we can't think of it as two
different photons. The same photon must be in two places at once.
The conventional wisdom has held that physicists should not speak of
anything they cannot directly measure or test against measurements. So,
according to this rule, we are not allowed to regard the photon as following
a particular path unless we actually measure it. When we try to do that,
however, the interference effect goes away. The party line for many years
has been to leave this as it is. The equations give the right answerÐÐ what
is observed. However, this policy has never provided a satisfactory response
to the question of what is "really" happening.
I suggest that at least part of the solution has been there all along in the
time symmetry of quantum theory and the apparent backward causality evident
in quantum experiments. As long as they remain in a pure quantum state,
photons can reach just as far back in time as they can forward, as can
electrons and other subatomic particles. These bodies can appear in two or
more places at once, because a backward moving particle can turn around and
go forward again, passing a different place at the same time it was
somewhere else. A particle going one way in time can be accompanied by its
antiparticle going backward in time in a single (coherent) state of one
particle. Together they constitute the timeless quantum.
Every author must gauge his or her audience and write with that audience in
mind. This book, like The Unconscious Quantum, is written for a
science-literate audience. That is, the reader is not expected to be a
scientist or other scholar highly trained in science or the philosophy of
science. I write for the much larger large group of generally educated
people who enjoy reading about science at the popular and semi-popular
level, in books and magazines. They also follow the science media, and are
interested in the grand scientific issues of the day, especially as they
interact with other areas of thought in philosophy, religion, and culture.
Scientists and philosophers who may themselves not be experts in these
specific issues are also kept in mind as potential readers. Hopefully, the
experts will not object too much to what they read, for I have undoubtedly
oversimplified in places and provided insufficient caveats.
As we will see, many of the matters being heatedly debated today are
ancient, even eternal. They will not be settled by me, any more than they
have been settled by the thousands who have discoursed on the nature of
reality from the time words were first used as a medium for that discourse.
I am not trying to finalize these matters but make some of their latest
manifestations more accessible to the reader and to perhaps open up a few
neglected lines of thinking for the professional.
I will regard my goal as satisfied if I succeed in slightly deflecting
thinking in directions that have not been, in my view, adequately explored.
Most philosophical, theological, cultural, and historical discourses
implicitly assume directed time. Most models of physical reality implicitly
assume the existence of material continua. Most attempts to account for the
order of nature have suggested a Platonic reality which theists call God and
non-theists call the "theory of everything." I suggest that, based on
current knowledge, all of these approaches are at best weakly founded. As I
will attempt to show, no basis exists for assuming that the detailed
structure of the universe is the product of either logical necessity or
supernatural design.
In adopting the medium of a semi-popular but still scholarly book to suggest
new ideas, I am catching a ride on a recent trend. For most of the twentieth
century, scientific and philosophical discussions were largely confined to
the professional journals and a few, highly priced technical monographs of
limited circulation and even more limited comprehensibility. In more recent
years, biologists Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick, and E.
O. Wilson have used the medium of the popular book to promote original ideas
in that field that differ from the mainstream. In physics and cosmology,
Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, David Deutsch, Lee Smolin, and many others
have done the same. Other fields, such as neuroscience, complexity theory,
and artificial intelligence, have seen similar use of this medium to promote
new and controversial ideas. The excellent sales by this array of authors
testifies to the market for new and challenging thoughts about fundamental
issues of life, mind, and the universe. In some cases, the proposed ideas
have begun to trickle down into the heavily conservative, formal disciplines
in which their authors have usually made substantial contributions.
Of course, the less formal presentations and freer flow of ideas of pop-ular
literature force the reader to search for the pony in a huge mountain of
horse manure. In the case of the Internet, this mountain is of Everest
proportions. But the lesson of the Internet so far seems to be that the
shoveling is well worth the effort, once that beautiful pony is found.
I hope that this book will not require a large shovel. In fact, it is the
result of many years of spade work on my own part. In the four decades
before its publication I have taught physics at every level and participated
in research that helped elucidate the properties of almost every type of
elementary particle, from strange mesons and charmed quarks to gluons and
neutrinos. I have looked for gamma rays and neutrinos from the cosmos whose
energies exceed anything yet produced on earth. This was with many
collaborators to whom I owe a great debt of gratitude. While not a trained
theorist or philosopher, I have also published a few theoretical and
philosophical papers.
Over these four decades I have constantly tried to understand and explain
the basis of the physical world in simple terms. As much as possible, I have
supplemented or replaced the equations and abstract symbols of physics with
words and visual concepts. We humans seem not to "understand" an idea until
it is expressed in terms of words and pictures although equations can, more
compactly and precisely, say the same thing. In this book I present these
words and ideas. In a few places, I use a symbol or a simple equation, but
these are nothing more than shorthand. For completeness, the endnotes
contain a few short derivations so that the mathematical reader can
understand somewhat more precisely what I am saying.
A few caveats are also included in the notes, in the interest of accuracy,
but these are minimal. Technical terms are boldfaced in the text the first
time they appear, or when they haven't appeared for a while, and are defined
in the glossary. I have tried to keep the discussion in the main text as
complete as possible. In some places, technical aspects of a subject are
described in some detail that may make for rough going for those not already
familiar with the ideas. If the thread is lost in going through these
sections, it should be possible to pick it up again at some point a
paragraph or two later. The reader is encouraged to simply plunge ahead in
those cases where he or she finds the going rough. The basic ideas are
summarized and repeated many times. I have been helped enormously in this
work by the availability of the Internet and its unprecedented communication
power. I formed an electronic mail discussion list (avoid-l@ hawaii. edu),
whose membership at times exceeded fifty, and placed the drafts and figures
for this manuscript on a World Wide Web page (http:// www. phys. hawaii.
edu/ vjs/ www/ void. html). Members of the list could then read the latest
drafts and post comments for myself and others to read, all in a completely
open fashion. No one was excluded or censored, and the discussion often
ranged far and wide.
While not everyone on the list joined in the discussions, I must mention
those who have directly helped me prepare the work you see before you by
providing comments, suggestions, and corrections: Gary Allan, Perry Bruce,
Richard Carrier, Jonathan Colvin, Scott Dalton, Keith Douglas, Ron Ebert,
Peter Fimmel, Ron Ebert, Taner Edis, Eric Hardison, Carlton Hindman, Todd
Heywood, James Higgo, Jim Humphries, Bill Jefferys, Norm Levitt, Chris
Maloney, John H. Mazetier, Jr., David Meieran, Ricardo Aler Mur, Arnold
Neumaier, Huw Price, Steven Price, Jorma Raety, Wayne Spencer, Zeno Toffano,
Ed Weinmann, Jim Wyman, and David Zachmann. That is not to say that any or
all of these individuals subscribe to the views expressed in this book.
Indeed, several hold strong opposing views and helped me considerably as
friendly but firm devil's advocates. Many thanks to all, and to the many
others who also helped by their interest and encouragement. And, as always,
I have been advised, supported, and sustained by the wonderful companion of
my life, my wife Phylliss, and our two adult offspring, Noelle and Andy.
.................................
just browsing this approach and was seeking the strongest arguments for it
whether its sound or not.
"Laurent" <cyberd...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:b4dbdj$n30$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
TomGee
> Dear TomGee:
>
> "TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cc2dde17.03030...@posting.google.com...
> ...
> > And yet, what if there is another way the effect of duality can be
> > better and more simply explained? Suppose that in an alternative
> > explanation the photon does not have to travel along with the
> > lightwave? Suppose that photons are dark matter (or, invisible to us)
> > until they are transformed by lightwaves into visible matter and thus
> > light is created?
>
> This is simpler? Two things required... waves and particles?
>
>
reasonably resolve the conflict between a massless particle and
E=mc^2. My model introduces no such conflict yet maintains the
evidence that light consists of waves and particles.
>
>
> Are the
> waves massless?
>
>
They can only be massless if we overthrow the interdependent
relationship between mass and energy as shown in E=mc^2. It may be
that Uncertainty can be applied here to say that on the average, they
are massless. Uncertainty should allow us to say that light waves
have such a small amount of matter in them that the amount sometimes
is less than zero and other times more than zero, and the averaged
amount should be just over zero. That to me explains why we have
light waves too instead of particles only, if we think of waves as
undulations of a medium, which we always do except for light waves,
which we have been taught is the one exception to Nature's rule of
waves.
What I mean by that is, a force causes waves, but why does this force
move in frequency, i.e., like it is turned on and off, corresponding
to its crests and troughs? Why not a straight "dulating" force?
Well, perhaps the force of a wave itself undulates because when it has
less than zero mass (on the negative side of Uncertainty, so to
speak), at which time it also has less than zero energy (as per E=mc^2
and the interdependence of mass and energy), it can freely move at c,
having no mass to hinder its movement. Then when it's mass/energy is
on the positive side of Uncertainty, it cannot move at c and it moves
then at a speed corresponding to the lightwave's trough.
While all this still allows for the so-called massless photon notion
where particles move along at c with the lightwave, that idea cannot
account for the question of where all the additional particles would
come from to fill in the gaps between them left as the wave spreads
apart. Unless you can come up with the answer to that, my explanation
is the simpler of the two.
>
>
> > But how can photons be invisible and then visible?
>
> If they were invisible until absorbed, then they would be invisible to us
> (until, of course, absorbed).
>
>
I did not mean to give the impression that they are absorbed by the
light wave. In effect, the force of the lightwave "wakes" them up, or
"turns" them on, so to speak, and in so doing, light is created.
Think of how the electronic signboard works by turning on and off its
tiny light bulbs in a sequential fashion which provides the overall
picture moving across its face. The virtual photons are turned on by
the collision of the light wave with them, then as the wave passes,
they go back to "playing possum" and go dark.
>
>
> We only perceive the universe through the
> auspices of light, and it carries the momentum and energy (mostly) given to
> it to carry at its creation. And they arrive with proper spectra and
> intensity, a feat which I believe would be beyond two particles to rehearse
> between them.
>
>
I don't know your basis for thinking I said the lightwave data is
carried between two particles. The question here seems to be, how
then would your model bring the lightwave data to our eyes? Current
thought goes only so far as you go in saying that light (waves)
"arrive with proper spectra and intensity....", but my model goes
farther than that:
"...Each lightwave...is a single-plane globular 'photograph' or
record of whatever the (radiant energy) wave imposes onto the photons,
just as the phosphorescent TV screen is a total view of whatever
picture information the TV electron ray guns set upon the pixels. Or
just as the moon appears to us from far away to be a smooth globe with
a landscape painted on its surface. Lightwaves are expanding spheres
spreading the instants of reality recorded into each wave by placing
them onto each photon they meet as the waves expand throughout the
universe. Lightwaves are the 'TV ray guns' of light that strike our
eyes as we look around our illuminated universe. The things that we
'see', those parts of the spherical light waves which our eyes
intercept, are those parts of the 'wave/particle' combinations which
strike our retinas in unrelenting succession....
The...spherical waves...reveal the universe wherever there is light,
restricted only by obstacles of opaque matter. As the wave encounters
objects which obstruct its passage at degrees inversely proportional
to their level of transparency, each encounter is 'data-encoded' into
the wave. The data includes the effects of reflected light and
shadows, and it records where objects are positioned as the wave
passes by them. The 'photographs' carried by successive light waves
continually change, corrsponding to the ever-changing positions and
states of motion of objects which they encounter as they spread out
through the universe."
>
>
> Besides, dark matter by definition (standard definition not one you might
> fabricate), has no effect on light. Hence the name Dark Matter.
> Contributes to gravity such that galaxies can be held together and that is
> all.
>
>
I don't know about that, because we have no way of knowing whether or
not it has an effect on light, since we cannot see it. However, I
think experiments have shown that light is indeed affected by dark
matter. The name has nothing to do with whether or not dark matter
has any effect on light; the name has to do with matter which is dark.
Dark has meanings which are not related to whatever affects light.
In fact, light certainly affects the dark, if the dark consists of
dark matter which the lightwave force "turns on" upon collision with
it. So if someone named dark matter that thinking dark matter has no
effect on light, and that there is some connection with that to the
name dark matter, well, just what kind of thinking would you say s/he
was doing, if any at all?
And when you say, "that is all", you sound like a know-it-all god who
knows more anyone can ever know or find out, when in fact you are
simply upchucking what was stuck into your craw at school. There,
they tried to tell to keep an open mind, but an open mind would never
say, "that is all."
>
>
> > Current reports that dark matter is more abundant than visible matter
> > implies that dark matter comprises most if not all of the space in our
> > universe. Physicist George Gamow asserts there is a universal sea of
> > particles which exist having neg. energy/mass but which are invisible
> > to us. My model proposes that such particles could be the particle
> > part of light which interacts with lightwaves in the process of light
> > creation. Certainly, my claim is a more reasonable explanation than
> > the massless photon, which is proven by imaginary math, and which uses
> > an imaginary concept as a base for induction.
>
> You have imaginary theory, to back this up? Because it is certainly *not*
> simpler.
>
>
Yes, it is simpler. And what do I need to show to back this up for
you? I will be most pleased to try. Is there anything else you
disagree with? If so, please state what it is and why you think yours
is a better explanation.
>
>
> Are you going to advertise a website now, so that we can all go there and
> help you pay for it? You going to raise up the aspect of Daniel Joseph Min
> (or other), and strike us all with your wisdom?
>
>
No, I don't have a website, as I don't know how to do that. Besides,
I have written an essay which I sell for $12 including s/h within the
US, BUT, you don't have to buy it. I will eventually include all of
it in these ngs as I post responses to whomever answers. Reason I'm
selling it is to give profits to a non-profit org. which I support,
but if you ask enough questions, you will sooner or later get the
whole essay in these physics ngs., for free.
For someone really serious about my model who posts questions and
provides me with important feedback by debating the answers using
reasonable thought, I would not mind providing a free copy. However,
I tried that before and sent out two copies but never got any
feedback, so I'm kinda leery of doing that anymore as it gets
expensive.
>
> You really do use recreational drugs on Friday nights, don't you?
>
> David A. Smith
>
>
If I were you and you came up with such great ideas, I would want to
know if rec. drugs could help me think like that? I take a lot of
drugs at my age, having had a quintuple bypass and now suffering from
diabetes and occasional kidney stones, but they're all legal. Mebbe
they're helping me think up such great explanations, no?
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.03030...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<qbfaa.5354$JR....@news1.west.cox.net>...
> > Dear TomGee:
> >
> > "TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:cc2dde17.03030...@posting.google.com...
> > ...
> > > And yet, what if there is another way the effect of duality can be
> > > better and more simply explained? Suppose that in an alternative
> > > explanation the photon does not have to travel along with the
> > > lightwave? Suppose that photons are dark matter (or, invisible to
us)
> > > until they are transformed by lightwaves into visible matter and thus
> > > light is created?
> >
> > This is simpler? Two things required... waves and particles?
> >
> >
> But current thought has the same two objects involved, yet it cannot
> reasonably resolve the conflict between a massless particle and
> E=mc^2. My model introduces no such conflict yet maintains the
> evidence that light consists of waves and particles.
"Current thought" does not invoke Dark Matter to transmit momentum between
two charged particles. And you have limited yourself to the
more-simple-yet-less-clear formula for energy. I know you know this, but
will repeat it yet again for the audience (if any).
E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2
For light, this formula simplifies to
E = |p|c
And the photon is a particle with whiskers. A single entity, that does not
require mass loss to emit light, nor mass gain to absorb light.
> > Are the
> > waves massless?
> >
> >
> They can only be massless if we overthrow the interdependent
> relationship between mass and energy as shown in E=mc^2. It may be
> that Uncertainty can be applied here to say that on the average, they
> are massless. Uncertainty should allow us to say that light waves
> have such a small amount of matter in them that the amount sometimes
> is less than zero and other times more than zero, and the averaged
> amount should be just over zero. That to me explains why we have
> light waves too instead of particles only, if we think of waves as
> undulations of a medium, which we always do except for light waves,
> which we have been taught is the one exception to Nature's rule of
> waves.
You use the wrong formula for the energy of light. It causes you to seek
simplicity where it already exists. The mass of the photon has yet again
been attempted to be measured and it is less than 10^-31 gm.
> What I mean by that is, a force causes waves, but why does this force
> move in frequency, i.e., like it is turned on and off, corresponding
> to its crests and troughs? Why not a straight "dulating" force?
> Well, perhaps the force of a wave itself undulates because when it has
> less than zero mass (on the negative side of Uncertainty, so to
> speak), at which time it also has less than zero energy (as per E=mc^2
> and the interdependence of mass and energy), it can freely move at c,
> having no mass to hinder its movement. Then when it's mass/energy is
> on the positive side of Uncertainty, it cannot move at c and it moves
> then at a speed corresponding to the lightwave's trough.
You can only apply the oscillating fields "crap" to collections of photons,
and not to a single photon. As to less than zero mass, I am unclear what
you believe that condition to mean. Are you saying that a photon becomes
negative energy? It would have to if it had negative mass (according to
your formula).
> While all this still allows for the so-called massless photon notion
> where particles move along at c with the lightwave, that idea cannot
> account for the question of where all the additional particles would
> come from to fill in the gaps between them left as the wave spreads
> apart. Unless you can come up with the answer to that, my explanation
> is the simpler of the two.
"Those that know" state that a propagating photon is really a series of
virtual photons. I find neither this, nor your concept simple. Especially
the part where you have a massive particle travelling at c. And as to
answering your question "unless you can come with...", I cannot find any
sense in that paragraph *what* your question is.
> > > But how can photons be invisible and then visible?
> >
> > If they were invisible until absorbed, then they would be invisible to
us
> > (until, of course, absorbed).
> >
> >
> I did not mean to give the impression that they are absorbed by the
> light wave. In effect, the force of the lightwave "wakes" them up, or
> "turns" them on, so to speak, and in so doing, light is created.
> Think of how the electronic signboard works by turning on and off its
> tiny light bulbs in a sequential fashion which provides the overall
> picture moving across its face. The virtual photons are turned on by
> the collision of the light wave with them, then as the wave passes,
> they go back to "playing possum" and go dark.
I did not take it like that is what you said. I took it like we are
blissfully unaware of so many photons. Only those that stop on us or our
environs are we aware of.
So you have gone from dark matter to virtual photons now? Why have "real"
photons at all? Just let one virtual photon "nod" to the next photon. I
see no method of arriving at continuity with that model.
Why not just have a real photons propagating as predicted by Maxwell's
equations?
> > We only perceive the universe through the
> > auspices of light, and it carries the momentum and energy (mostly)
given to
> > it to carry at its creation. And they arrive with proper spectra and
> > intensity, a feat which I believe would be beyond two particles to
rehearse
> > between them.
> >
> >
> I don't know your basis for thinking I said the lightwave data is
> carried between two particles. The question here seems to be, how
> then would your model bring the lightwave data to our eyes?
*My* personal choice would be a group of propagating real photons refracted
by the lenses of my glasses and eye, and absorbed to create their "vote" of
what the integral color is at that particular point in my occular Universe.
> Current
> thought goes only so far as you go in saying that light (waves)
> "arrive with proper spectra and intensity....", but my model goes
> farther than that:
> "...Each lightwave...is a single-plane globular 'photograph' or
> record of whatever the (radiant energy) wave imposes onto the photons,
> just as the phosphorescent TV screen is a total view of whatever
> picture information the TV electron ray guns set upon the pixels. Or
> just as the moon appears to us from far away to be a smooth globe with
> a landscape painted on its surface. Lightwaves are expanding spheres
> spreading the instants of reality recorded into each wave by placing
> them onto each photon they meet as the waves expand throughout the
> universe. Lightwaves are the 'TV ray guns' of light that strike our
> eyes as we look around our illuminated universe. The things that we
> 'see', those parts of the spherical light waves which our eyes
> intercept, are those parts of the 'wave/particle' combinations which
> strike our retinas in unrelenting succession....
So you have the "information" travelling at c, and the momentum supplied
locally? I don't buy it. If the momentum travels at c, there is no need
for yet another particle to "jump up, supply mass, strike the *charged*
particle, and disappear". This is not simple. I could theortically
deplete an area of these "flapper" particles (like Gulliver's Travels),
then you would be able to see nothing, even though visible photons were
striking your eyes.
> The...spherical waves...reveal the universe wherever there is light,
> restricted only by obstacles of opaque matter. As the wave encounters
> objects which obstruct its passage at degrees inversely proportional
> to their level of transparency, each encounter is 'data-encoded' into
> the wave. The data includes the effects of reflected light and
> shadows, and it records where objects are positioned as the wave
> passes by them. The 'photographs' carried by successive light waves
> continually change, corrsponding to the ever-changing positions and
> states of motion of objects which they encounter as they spread out
> through the universe."
Definitely not simpler. Definintely not elegant.
> > Besides, dark matter by definition (standard definition not one you
might
> > fabricate), has no effect on light. Hence the name Dark Matter.
> > Contributes to gravity such that galaxies can be held together and that
is
> > all.
> >
> >
> I don't know about that, because we have no way of knowing whether or
> not it has an effect on light, since we cannot see it. However, I
> think experiments have shown that light is indeed affected by dark
> matter. The name has nothing to do with whether or not dark matter
> has any effect on light; the name has to do with matter which is dark.
The people that *named* dark matter, assigned it the properties I have
outlined to you. These were ascribed based on what the observations of the
Universe required. This Dark Matter had to have mass enough to hold a
galaxy together, because a galaxy does not have enough based on the stars
that we can see (and their speed). Dark Matter must also have no effect on
light, as we see no unexplained distortion effects of distant or local
light sources. We do know what Dark Matter is supposed to do.
> Dark has meanings which are not related to whatever affects light.
> In fact, light certainly affects the dark, if the dark consists of
> dark matter which the lightwave force "turns on" upon collision with
> it. So if someone named dark matter that thinking dark matter has no
> effect on light, and that there is some connection with that to the
> name dark matter, well, just what kind of thinking would you say s/he
> was doing, if any at all?
They were trying to describe the Universe around us. You on the other hand
are trying to make the incorrect energy formula for light work, by invoking
names you chose at random, without concern... apparently.
> And when you say, "that is all", you sound like a know-it-all god who
> knows more anyone can ever know or find out, when in fact you are
> simply upchucking what was stuck into your craw at school. There,
> they tried to tell to keep an open mind, but an open mind would never
> say, "that is all."
You are trying to ascribe another meaning to a concept that is already well
established. This is your right. Just don't expect anyone else to know
what you are talking about, to not give you sh*t for hijacking the term, or
to respect your choice. Fair enough?
> > > Current reports that dark matter is more abundant than visible matter
> > > implies that dark matter comprises most if not all of the space in
our
> > > universe. Physicist George Gamow asserts there is a universal sea of
> > > particles which exist having neg. energy/mass but which are invisible
> > > to us. My model proposes that such particles could be the particle
> > > part of light which interacts with lightwaves in the process of light
> > > creation. Certainly, my claim is a more reasonable explanation than
> > > the massless photon, which is proven by imaginary math, and which
uses
> > > an imaginary concept as a base for induction.
> >
> > You have imaginary theory, to back this up? Because it is certainly
*not*
> > simpler.
> >
> >
> Yes, it is simpler. And what do I need to show to back this up for
> you? I will be most pleased to try. Is there anything else you
> disagree with? If so, please state what it is and why you think yours
> is a better explanation.
Because only one particle is envolved. A particle that behaves much like
the massive particles of which I am composed. They all can be made to
diffract. So "waves" are completely inconsequential, and indiscernable (I
submit).
> > Are you going to advertise a website now, so that we can all go there
and
> > help you pay for it? You going to raise up the aspect of Daniel Joseph
Min
> > (or other), and strike us all with your wisdom?
> >
> >
> No, I don't have a website, as I don't know how to do that. Besides,
> I have written an essay which I sell for $12 including s/h within the
> US, BUT, you don't have to buy it. I will eventually include all of
> it in these ngs as I post responses to whomever answers. Reason I'm
> selling it is to give profits to a non-profit org. which I support,
> but if you ask enough questions, you will sooner or later get the
> whole essay in these physics ngs., for free.
>
> For someone really serious about my model who posts questions and
> provides me with important feedback by debating the answers using
> reasonable thought, I would not mind providing a free copy. However,
> I tried that before and sent out two copies but never got any
> feedback, so I'm kinda leery of doing that anymore as it gets
> expensive.
If you've purchased web access, you can usually post a web page. You are
more clever than many that I have seen. And they have posted web pages.
Hell I have web pages...
http://hometown.aol.com/dlzc/lightspeed.html
http://hometown.aol.com/dlzc/ozoneindex.html
The lightspeed page does not have the latest information I have gleaned in
it. Supernova data has c equal to its current value for 3 - 5 billon
years, and the tidal rhythmite data does not conflict with LLR... they are
measurements taken of a non-constant (even periodic) recession.
> > You really do use recreational drugs on Friday nights, don't you?
> >
> >
> If I were you and you came up with such great ideas, I would want to
> know if rec. drugs could help me think like that?
Damned straight. Did it all the time. Now regretting every minute of it.
Wasting time seeking support for a wrong position...
> I take a lot of
> drugs at my age, having had a quintuple bypass and now suffering from
> diabetes and occasional kidney stones, but they're all legal. Mebbe
> they're helping me think up such great explanations, no?
No. But you are thinking, and you have poetry in your soul. Just don't
hijack existing definitions. Virtual photons seem to be what the QM
community like for *everything*.
David A. Smith
kenseto
Hey moron.... I don't have the money to do the experiment. Einstein's
e-synch implies the existence of absolute motion and my experiment is
designed to detect it if it exists.
Ken Seto
TomGee
> "TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cc2dde17.03030...@posting.google.com...
> > "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:<qbfaa.5354$JR....@news1.west.cox.net>...
> > >
> two charged particles.
>
>
light wave force, if any. No interactions occur between the particles
of my model, the only interactions are between the lightwaves and the
particles, just like in the electronic signboard, where there is no
interaction between the tiny light bulbs used to light up the board.
>
>
> And you have limited yourself to the
> more-simple-yet-less-clear formula for energy.
>
>
which you repeat below, you have indeed described it for what it is,
"...less-clear....). And how can you claim that something less-clear
is more simple? And how is your formula below any the less simpler?
>
>
> I know you know this, but
> will repeat it yet again for the audience (if any).
> E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2
>
> For light, this formula simplifies to
> E = |p|c
>
>
light? Does that make any sense to you?
>
>
> And the photon is a particle with whiskers. A single entity, that does not
> require mass loss to emit light, nor mass gain to absorb light.
>
>
you thought of it on your own, which is highly unlikely.
As I have said previously, this is the same math Einstein used to
prove his static universe. If he was able to prove that with math, we
can prove anything with math, even massless photons. My argument is:
Einstein took his E=mc^2 formula from one that had been around for
sometime, but he fudged it so as to fit it in with his conclusion. He
took E=mc^2+(energy of motion) and dropped off the end factor,
+(energy of motion). Now, if he stated that he fudged it on purpose,
he is innocent of fudgery, but that brings the fudged equation into
question. If he used the term, "Suppose that we drop off the motion
factor..." anywhere in his statement when he changed the original
equation, well, he told you so, and if anyone took his new formula for
real, it's only their fault.
Now, the full equation is an explanation of reality in its expression
because it includes in it the fact that all visible (to us) objects in
the u. are in motion. Since Hubble, at least, we all must agree to
that, right? Now what can happen when we have something which we all
agree is reality, then we change it? One thing is that the new
something may no longer hold as true as the old something. In
Einstein's case, his shortened formula can no longer be held as
reality because it ignores the fact that everything in the u. is in
motion since the u. is in a process of expansion. So is the new
version true? Yes and no. It can be when used in a non-universal
FoR, but reality includes all of the u., so in any FoR that includes
the u., it can only be false, because it ignores the truth of motion
in an expanding universe. Any theory that ignores that truth cannot
be considered reality. However, it can be valid under special
circumstances, as I show in the example below.
To calculate the energy potential of a real mass or object, we must
include the energy it has in it as the result of its motion. However,
if we assume that an object is not in motion nor does it have any
motion in it, the energy within it can be applied as a "special case"
without the energy-of -motion factor (because obviously then that
factor is zero).
Why would the lack of motion make it a special case? Because the only
way an object in an expanding u. be considered to be in a motionless
state, or _at rest_, is either by imagining that to be the case, or
by comparison to another object which is at constant velocity with it.
Energy measurements taken without using the motion factor can be
valid only in a special case when objects of similar massive size are
at constant velocity relatively to each other, because in such a case
there is no relevant difference in their states of motion. That
allows the dropping off of the motion factor from the general formula
simply because it cancels out anyway. At any time when they are not
at constant velocity, however, the motion factor must be included in
any calculations used to determine the energy of two or more visible
objects. We can never ignore the motion factor except in calculations
where it is irrelevant to the situation. And those situations can be
considered as reality only to the extent where it is true that motion
is not a factor, and never beyond that extent.
>
>
> > They can only be massless if we overthrow the interdependent
> > relationship between mass and energy as shown in E=mc^2. It may be
> > that Uncertainty can be applied here to say that on the average, they
> > are massless. Uncertainty should allow us to say that light waves
> > have such a small amount of matter in them that the amount sometimes
> > is less than zero and other times more than zero, and the averaged
> > amount should be just over zero. That to me explains why we have
> > light waves too instead of particles only, if we think of waves as
> > undulations of a medium, which we always do except for light waves,
> > which we have been taught is the one exception to Nature's rule of
> > waves.
>
> You use the wrong formula for the energy of light.
>
>
No, because that formula does not rule out the energy of light.
>
>
> It causes you to seek
> simplicity where it already exists. The mass of the photon has yet again
> been attempted to be measured and it is less than 10^-31 gm.
>
>
So what is your point here?
>
>
> > What I mean by that is, a force causes waves, but why does this force
> > move in frequency, i.e., like it is turned on and off, corresponding
> > to its crests and troughs? Why not a straight "dulating" force?
> > Well, perhaps the force of a wave itself undulates because when it has
> > less than zero mass (on the negative side of Uncertainty, so to
> > speak), at which time it also has less than zero energy (as per E=mc^2
> > and the interdependence of mass and energy), it can freely move at c,
> > having no mass to hinder its movement. Then when it's mass/energy is
> > on the positive side of Uncertainty, it cannot move at c and it moves
> > then at a speed corresponding to the lightwave's trough.
>
> You can only apply the oscillating fields "crap" to collections of photons,
> and not to a single photon.
>
>
No, I do not refer to "oscillating fields", I refer to the fact that
lightwaves have wavelengths, or, frequency.
>
>
> As to less than zero mass, I am unclear what
> you believe that condition to mean. Are you saying that a photon becomes
> negative energy? It would have to if it had negative mass (according to
> your formula).
>
>
Yes, I am claiming that, consistent with my model of light creation.
I would be wrong as soon as someone shows photons cannot become, like
positrons, particles having only negative mass/energy, or,
less-than-zero-energy.
Dirac's idea about electrons has to do with their loss of all
+energy/mass and falling into what he termed "extraordinary states"
where the electron still exists but has only neg. mass/energy. If
other particles acted similarly, perhaps the potential, virtual,
invisible, dark matter particles which can become real photons exist
and that will be consistent with my explanation of light creation.
Since mass and energy are interdependent, when a particle goes to neg.
mass, it must also go to neg. energy. I am not saying that a photon
becomes -energy, but I am saying that a photon loses all its +energy,
like electrons do as they seek more stable states, and thus, sans
+mass/energy, such objects are invisible to our eyes.
>
>
> "Those that know" state that a propagating photon is really a series of
> virtual photons.
>
>
AFAIK, I am the only one who has posited such an idea, but I would be
pleased to know who your people are.
>
>
> I find neither this, nor your concept simple. Especially
> the part where you have a massive particle travelling at c.
>
>
You are mistaken, for I have never had a massive particle moving; that
is the idea which I oppose: that massive or massless photons move
along at c.
>
>
> And as to
> answering your question "unless you can come with...", I cannot find any
> sense in that paragraph *what* your question is.
>
>
Sorry, I left out the word, "up" between "come" and "with".
>
>
> I did not take it like that is what you said. I took it like we are
> blissfully unaware of so many photons. Only those that stop on us or our
> environs are we aware of.
>
>
>
That's not a bad way of putting it.
>
>
> So you have gone from dark matter to virtual photons now?
>
>
Yes. I am lumping all those particles into the term "dark matter"
since we don't yet know what dark matter is comprised of, and even
though we may think some or all of those visible particles can never
have been part of dark matter at any previous time, it's not logical
to ever say "never". To me, it is simpler to imagine that so-called
particle pairs appear not created from empty space, but from the ether
of -mass/energy particles which make up space, and which appear to us
when some external force causes them to appear, and not randomly from
so-called "vacuum field fluctuations". Isn't my claim of
something-from-something better and simpler than
something-from-nothing which is unexplained as to their cause and
which origin is now a source of ridicule for those who still believe
in such an obtuse term?
>
>
> Why have "real"
> photons at all?
>
>
Real photons are those "unreal" (invisible) particles which turn into
photons in the creation of light. Without them, we have no light,
only darkness. That's why we must have them at all.
>
>
> Just let one virtual photon "nod" to the next photon. I
> see no method of arriving at continuity with that model.
>
>
I have no idea how photons could communicate with each other as it is
said that some "signal-messengers" particles do, but that is a theory
that is still being looked at, AFAIK.
>
>
> Why not just have a real photons propagating as predicted by Maxwell's
> equations?
>
>
As I understand it, such equations when applied to reality require the
photons to travel along with the lightwave, and I have explained the
problems with that concept, and that my model precludes having those
problems.
>
>
> > I don't know your basis for thinking I said the lightwave data is
> > carried between two particles. The question here seems to be, how
> > then would your model bring the lightwave data to our eyes?
>
> *My* personal choice would be a group of propagating real photons refracted
> by the lenses of my glasses and eye, and absorbed to create their "vote" of
> what the integral color is at that particular point in my occular Universe.
>
>
I don't anything wrong with that except the part of the moving
photons. As the lightwave expands from, say, Jupiter, and photon
particles move and expand along with the lightwave, where do all those
extra particles come from to fill in the gaps left as the expanding
wave spreads apart, causing the already-there photon particles to
spread apart as well?
>
>
> So you have the "information" travelling at c, and the momentum supplied
> locally? I don't buy it.
>
>
I'm not selling it. The momentum is not supplied locally, it is in
the force of the lightwave.
>
>
> If the momentum travels at c, there is no need
> for yet another particle to "jump up, supply mass, strike the *charged*
> particle, and disappear". This is not simple.
>
>
No, it's not. But that is not what I said. a particle jumps up" only
when collided with by a lightwave, but it does not "supply mass". The
collision allows the invisible particle to attain a state of
visibility, but to do that, it must first be endowed with
+energy/mass, and that is provided by the interactions of the
collision. It is not another particle that strikes that first
particle, it is the lightwave. The collision provides the interaction
which creates light by "turning on" the photon until the wave passes.
>
>
> > The...spherical waves...reveal the universe wherever there is light,
> > restricted only by obstacles of opaque matter. As the wave encounters
> > objects which obstruct its passage at degrees inversely proportional
> > to their level of transparency, each encounter is 'data-encoded' into
> > the wave. The data includes the effects of reflected light and
> > shadows, and it records where objects are positioned as the wave
> > passes by them. The 'photographs' carried by successive light waves
> > continually change, corrsponding to the ever-changing positions and
> > states of motion of objects which they encounter as they spread out
> > through the universe."
>
> Definitely not simpler. Definintely not elegant.
>
Definitely simpler. Definitely elegant.
>
>
> The people that *named* dark matter, assigned it the properties I have
> outlined to you.
>
>
No. I disagree.
>
>
> Dark Matter must also have no effect on
> light, as we see no unexplained distortion effects of distant or local
> light sources.
>
>
Yes, it does, or else we could not know it exists. Only by its
effects on those things we can see is it possible for us to know dark
matter exists, and only by having it affect the light of things we see
is it possible for us to see the effects it has on visible objects.
We see unexplained distortion effects of distant objects which we
explain as the effects of dark matter.
>
>
> We do know what Dark Matter is supposed to do.
>
>
How can we know that if we can't even see it? Only by equating its
effects to those effects we cannot ascribe to visible objects.
>
>
> You are trying to ascribe another meaning to a concept that is already well
> established.
>
>
Many concepts that have been overthrown were "already well
established". Nothing with that, how else we gonna make things right?
Doncha recall history when the Inquisition forced Galileo to recant?
And on and on and on and on...
>
>
> This is your right. Just don't expect anyone else to know
> what you are talking about, to not give you sh*t for hijacking the term, or
> to respect your choice. Fair enough?
>
>
If you truly believed it is my right, you would respect my choice. To
respect my choice does not mean you have to agree with it; it only
means you find no logical argument to overthrow it. If you firmly
believe your arguments logically overthrow mine, then don't infer that
you respect my choice, cause you obviously don't.
>
>
> > > > ....Certainly, my claim is a more reasonable explanation than
> > > > the massless photon, which is proven by imaginary math, and which
> > > > uses an imaginary concept as a base for induction.
> > >
> > > You have imaginary theory, to back this up?
> > >
> Because only one particle is envolved. A particle that behaves much like
> the massive particles of which I am composed. They all can be made to
> diffract. So "waves" are completely inconsequential, and indiscernable (I
> submit).
>
>
What do you mean by "only one particle is involved"? And how can
anything real be inconsequential? I submit that waves are indeed
discernable, as I see them everytime I go to the seashore.
>
>
> > > Are you going to advertise a website now, so that we can all go there
> and
> > > help you pay for it?
>
> If you've purchased web access, you can usually post a web page. You are
> more clever than many that I have seen. And they have posted web pages.
> Hell I have web pages...
> http://hometown.aol.com/dlzc/lightspeed.html
> http://hometown.aol.com/dlzc/ozoneindex.html
>
>
I will look at your webpages, but I can't guarantee I'll buy anything
from your sponsors.
TomGee
> > My claim explains observed phenomena in an alternative to
> current
> > thought and makes certain predictions related to time and the
> process
> > of light production while maintaining consistency with accepted
> facts.
>
> I believe you are probably on the right track. :)
>
>
Thank you kindly. You know, my purpose for posting is to have others
review my posits with an eye toward showing me where I may indeed be
on the wrong track. I am most grateful to those who take the time to
let me know what they think about my posts, especially those who
encourage rather than discourage me. That is only normal, of course,
but I do prefer the more specific inquiries related to questions that
must pop up in reader's minds as they try to figure out the
descriptions of my model and my explanations and arguments pertaining
to reality. I don't see hardly any logical refutations of my claims,
and those I see are not always directly related to what I have said.
Nothing anyone has said yet has refuted my claims, but some have
caused me to reshape my use of words to explain them. Some have given
me insight to other ideas of physics with which I was not familiar,
and caused me to learn more.
I say all this so as to encourage not only replies like yours, which
as I said, I do appreciate, but to solicit the very best of arguments
from those who have suffered my posts silently, waiting for me to say
something they can disagree with which will stir them into responding
with their own ideas. Some have done that already, but none have yet
defeated me with reasonable thought.
I don't want to be defeated, as I am very happy to believe the way I
do about the universe, but as anyone can be found to be wrong, I must
expect that to happen at some point. What I would like to see is the
presentation of my ideas to others beyond these ngs, like to teachers
of science or those who can more easily find problems of logic with
statements. Students who do that will find which way to go by
comparing mine and teacher's views about my claims, depending on where
the teachers are at regarding the state of physics today.
Knowing I no longer have to go back to the old phantasmagorical ideas
prevalent in modern physics today lifts my spirits everyday, and will
do so hopefully tomorrow as well.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.0303...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<sbzaa.131554$XB3.1...@news1.west.cox.net>...
...
> > "Current thought" does not invoke Dark Matter to transmit momentum
between
> > two charged particles.
> >
> >
> Neither does my model. The only momentum involved is that of the
> light wave force, if any. No interactions occur between the particles
> of my model, the only interactions are between the lightwaves and the
> particles, just like in the electronic signboard, where there is no
> interaction between the tiny light bulbs used to light up the board.
You stated that the wave transmitted momentum to the Dark Matter particle,
that in turn affected the electron. Is this no longer required?
> > And you have limited yourself to the
> > more-simple-yet-less-clear formula for energy.
> >
> >
> If here you refer to what I call your "massless momentum theory",
> which you repeat below, you have indeed described it for what it is,
> "...less-clear....). And how can you claim that something less-clear
> is more simple? And how is your formula below any the less simpler?
The number of terms, IMHO, do not affect the simplicity. The fact that the
energy of a photon is also complete described by E = h * nu, doesn't seem
to phase you.
> > I know you know this, but
> > will repeat it yet again for the audience (if any).
> > E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2
> >
> > For light, this formula simplifies to
> > E = |p|c
> >
> >
> So you are saying here that energy equals momentum at the speed of
> light? Does that make any sense to you?
It makes more "sense" than claiming that the energy of a photon is E =
mc^2, and that the mass of the photon is both positive and negative, and
Dark Matter is invoked to rise from darkness and take on the attributes of
charged matter just so the photon can deliver its momentum... yes.
> > And the photon is a particle with whiskers. A single entity, that does
not
> > require mass loss to emit light, nor mass gain to absorb light.
> >
> >
> But you don't know that; that is only what you have been told, unless
> you thought of it on your own, which is highly unlikely.
It is my own creation, or at least I have not been told this here in the
last three years. Certainly no one would would be so informal. Certainly
no one would deposit such a description that involved no mathematics.
> As I have said previously, this is the same math Einstein used to
> prove his static universe. If he was able to prove that with math, we
> can prove anything with math, even massless photons. My argument is:
> Einstein took his E=mc^2 formula from one that had been around for
> sometime, but he fudged it so as to fit it in with his conclusion. He
> took E=mc^2+(energy of motion) and dropped off the end factor,
> +(energy of motion). Now, if he stated that he fudged it on purpose,
> he is innocent of fudgery, but that brings the fudged equation into
> question. If he used the term, "Suppose that we drop off the motion
> factor..." anywhere in his statement when he changed the original
> equation, well, he told you so, and if anyone took his new formula for
> real, it's only their fault.
If he said such a thing, I'm sure someone here could reply to this. I do
know that the mass of the photon was not determined experimentally until
fairly recently... with any sort of precision. But I believe the
expectation was that the photon had no mass.
> Now, the full equation is an explanation of reality in its expression
> because it includes in it the fact that all visible (to us) objects in
> the u. are in motion. Since Hubble, at least, we all must agree to
> that, right?
No. Expansion of this nature is *not* classical motion. I have no doubt
that existence requires motion (or at least localizeability), but
"expansion" is not proof.
> Now what can happen when we have something which we all
> agree is reality, then we change it? One thing is that the new
> something may no longer hold as true as the old something. In
> Einstein's case, his shortened formula can no longer be held as
> reality because it ignores the fact that everything in the u. is in
> motion since the u. is in a process of expansion. So is the new
> version true? Yes and no.
All no. And the formula you are bandying about is *currently* only used
for mass at rest in the frame measuring mass/energy.
> It can be when used in a non-universal
> FoR, but reality includes all of the u., so in any FoR that includes
> the u., it can only be false, because it ignores the truth of motion
> in an expanding universe. Any theory that ignores that truth cannot
> be considered reality. However, it can be valid under special
> circumstances, as I show in the example below.
>
> To calculate the energy potential of a real mass or object, we must
> include the energy it has in it as the result of its motion. However,
> if we assume that an object is not in motion nor does it have any
> motion in it, the energy within it can be applied as a "special case"
> without the energy-of -motion factor (because obviously then that
> factor is zero).
>
> Why would the lack of motion make it a special case? Because the only
> way an object in an expanding u. be considered to be in a motionless
> state, or _at rest_, is either by imagining that to be the case, or
> by comparison to another object which is at constant velocity with it.
> Energy measurements taken without using the motion factor can be
> valid only in a special case when objects of similar massive size are
> at constant velocity relatively to each other, because in such a case
> there is no relevant difference in their states of motion.
"Similar massive size" is not required.
> That
> allows the dropping off of the motion factor from the general formula
> simply because it cancels out anyway. At any time when they are not
> at constant velocity, however, the motion factor must be included in
> any calculations used to determine the energy of two or more visible
> objects. We can never ignore the motion factor except in calculations
> where it is irrelevant to the situation. And those situations can be
> considered as reality only to the extent where it is true that motion
> is not a factor, and never beyond that extent.
> >
> >
> > > They can only be massless if we overthrow the interdependent
> > > relationship between mass and energy as shown in E=mc^2. It may be
> > > that Uncertainty can be applied here to say that on the average, they
> > > are massless. Uncertainty should allow us to say that light waves
> > > have such a small amount of matter in them that the amount sometimes
> > > is less than zero and other times more than zero, and the averaged
> > > amount should be just over zero. That to me explains why we have
> > > light waves too instead of particles only, if we think of waves as
> > > undulations of a medium, which we always do except for light waves,
> > > which we have been taught is the one exception to Nature's rule of
> > > waves.
> >
> > You use the wrong formula for the energy of light.
> >
> >
>
> No, because that formula does not rule out the energy of light.
Yes, it does. Since light's mass has been determined experimentally to be
much less than what is required to carry its momentum. In this case the
photon is a moving particle, and the *correct* energy relation must be
used.
Choose:
E = |p|c or E = h*nu
either is correct, makes no reference to a mass the photon doesn't have,
and are both in current use.
> > It causes you to seek
> > simplicity where it already exists. The mass of the photon has yet
again
> > been attempted to be measured and it is less than 10^-31 gm.
> >
> >
> So what is your point here?
My point is that you are seeking a solution to a problem you yourself have
created. You are using a formula that is not applicable to the task at
hand, and then you have to fabricate elaborate Rube Goldberg schemes to
power your solution.
> > > What I mean by that is, a force causes waves, but why does this force
> > > move in frequency, i.e., like it is turned on and off, corresponding
> > > to its crests and troughs? Why not a straight "dulating" force?
> > > Well, perhaps the force of a wave itself undulates because when it
has
> > > less than zero mass (on the negative side of Uncertainty, so to
> > > speak), at which time it also has less than zero energy (as per
E=mc^2
> > > and the interdependence of mass and energy), it can freely move at c,
> > > having no mass to hinder its movement. Then when it's mass/energy is
> > > on the positive side of Uncertainty, it cannot move at c and it moves
> > > then at a speed corresponding to the lightwave's trough.
> >
> > You can only apply the oscillating fields "crap" to collections of
photons,
> > and not to a single photon.
> >
> >
> No, I do not refer to "oscillating fields", I refer to the fact that
> lightwaves have wavelengths, or, frequency.
You have referred to a wave in singularity. You have evoked negative mass.
You have evoked uncertainty. You cannot then bring in the statisitcal
behaviours of hosts of such "wavelets", which *do* express the phenomenon
you describe.
> > As to less than zero mass, I am unclear what
> > you believe that condition to mean. Are you saying that a photon
becomes
> > negative energy? It would have to if it had negative mass (according
to
> > your formula).
> >
> >
> Yes, I am claiming that, consistent with my model of light creation.
> I would be wrong as soon as someone shows photons cannot become, like
> positrons, particles having only negative mass/energy, or,
> less-than-zero-energy.
Then you are wrong. Positrons have only positive mass. They require
positive energy to accelerate them, and they curl like a positive electron,
namely opposite that of the electron in a magnetic field. And the momentum
of charged particles struck by photons are always away (in some sense) from
the source of the photon. Not a behaviour you would associate with
negative energy/momentum.
> Dirac's idea about electrons has to do with their loss of all
> +energy/mass and falling into what he termed "extraordinary states"
> where the electron still exists but has only neg. mass/energy. If
> other particles acted similarly, perhaps the potential, virtual,
> invisible, dark matter particles which can become real photons exist
> and that will be consistent with my explanation of light creation.
> Since mass and energy are interdependent, when a particle goes to neg.
> mass, it must also go to neg. energy. I am not saying that a photon
> becomes -energy, but I am saying that a photon loses all its +energy,
> like electrons do as they seek more stable states, and thus, sans
> +mass/energy, such objects are invisible to our eyes.
Such is not seen from all the objects visible in our galaxy. The
intensities of stellar objects agree well with their subtended size. The
only anomolies are with much more distant supernovas, where fewer photons
are received than their redshift would say they should have produced.
> > "Those that know" state that a propagating photon is really a series of
> > virtual photons.
> >
> >
> AFAIK, I am the only one who has posited such an idea, but I would be
> pleased to know who your people are.
Franz Heyman and Bilge, but I can never find any reference to them having
said such things... when I want to. So I may have imagined it all.
> > I find neither this, nor your concept simple. Especially
> > the part where you have a massive particle travelling at c.
> >
> >
> You are mistaken, for I have never had a massive particle moving; that
> is the idea which I oppose: that massive or massless photons move
> along at c.
You have posited that the photon (or wave) expresses negative mass. That
is non-zero mass. I was not mistaken.
> > And as to
> > answering your question "unless you can come with...", I cannot find
any
> > sense in that paragraph *what* your question is.
> >
> >
> Sorry, I left out the word, "up" between "come" and "with".
And yet you are not supplying the question you sought an answer for.
> > I did not take it like that is what you said. I took it like we are
> > blissfully unaware of so many photons. Only those that stop on us or
our
> > environs are we aware of.
> >
> >
> >
> That's not a bad way of putting it.
> >
> >
> > So you have gone from dark matter to virtual photons now?
> >
> >
> Yes. I am lumping all those particles into the term "dark matter"
> since we don't yet know what dark matter is comprised of, and even
> though we may think some or all of those visible particles can never
> have been part of dark matter at any previous time, it's not logical
> to ever say "never". To me, it is simpler to imagine that so-called
> particle pairs appear not created from empty space, but from the ether
> of -mass/energy particles which make up space, and which appear to us
> when some external force causes them to appear, and not randomly from
> so-called "vacuum field fluctuations". Isn't my claim of
> something-from-something better and simpler than
> something-from-nothing which is unexplained as to their cause and
> which origin is now a source of ridicule for those who still believe
> in such an obtuse term?
Look. If you are trying to p*ss me off, you are doing well. We have a
common language, so far it has been English. The astronomy community has
assigned a meaning to the phrase Dark Matter. Its meaning has been
established *by convention*. Come up with another phrase. If *virtual
photon* floats your boat then stick with that. Dark Matter has a positive
mass and has no effect on light. Photons have no mass (to within limits of
experimental error).
> > Just let one virtual photon "nod" to the next photon. I
> > see no method of arriving at continuity with that model.
> >
> >
> I have no idea how photons could communicate with each other as it is
> said that some "signal-messengers" particles do, but that is a theory
> that is still being looked at, AFAIK.
Don't worry. Your silly wave can provide the communication...
> > Why not just have a real photons propagating as predicted by Maxwell's
> > equations?
> >
> >
> As I understand it, such equations when applied to reality require the
> photons to travel along with the lightwave, and I have explained the
> problems with that concept, and that my model precludes having those
> problems.
That model says there is only the wave, to be more correct. But the wave
travels at c. Experiment says there is only the particle, same as any
other particle (in terms of diffraction proportional to its momentum), it
still only travels at c, and it has no mass.
> > > I don't know your basis for thinking I said the lightwave data is
> > > carried between two particles. The question here seems to be, how
> > > then would your model bring the lightwave data to our eyes?
> >
> > *My* personal choice would be a group of propagating real photons
refracted
> > by the lenses of my glasses and eye, and absorbed to create their
"vote" of
> > what the integral color is at that particular point in my occular
Universe.
> >
> >
> I don't anything wrong with that except the part of the moving
> photons. As the lightwave expands from, say, Jupiter, and photon
> particles move and expand along with the lightwave, where do all those
> extra particles come from to fill in the gaps left as the expanding
> wave spreads apart, causing the already-there photon particles to
> spread apart as well?
Easy. No waves. Particles with whiskers. And for distant objects it can
be hours before enough of these particles are detected to be sure that we
have seen anything. A continuous wave model will have real problems
describing a method of delivering finite localized energy packets, when
that energy is supposedly stretched between here and the center of the
Milky Way (for example, based on energy density).
> > If the momentum travels at c, there is no need
> > for yet another particle to "jump up, supply mass, strike the *charged*
> > particle, and disappear". This is not simple.
> >
> >
> No, it's not. But that is not what I said. a particle jumps up" only
> when collided with by a lightwave, but it does not "supply mass". The
> collision allows the invisible particle to attain a state of
> visibility, but to do that, it must first be endowed with
> +energy/mass, and that is provided by the interactions of the
> collision. It is not another particle that strikes that first
> particle, it is the lightwave. The collision provides the interaction
> which creates light by "turning on" the photon until the wave passes.
You are ascribing to this invisible particle what a charged particle
already does. It already has mass. It has the wherewithal to handle the
receipt of a momentum packet. Just as it can produce said packet. I see
no case for your need for a moderator.
> > > The...spherical waves...reveal the universe wherever there is light,
> > > restricted only by obstacles of opaque matter. As the wave
encounters
> > > objects which obstruct its passage at degrees inversely proportional
> > > to their level of transparency, each encounter is 'data-encoded' into
> > > the wave. The data includes the effects of reflected light and
> > > shadows, and it records where objects are positioned as the wave
> > > passes by them. The 'photographs' carried by successive light waves
> > > continually change, corrsponding to the ever-changing positions and
> > > states of motion of objects which they encounter as they spread out
> > > through the universe."
> >
> > Definitely not simpler. Definintely not elegant.
> >
> Definitely simpler. Definitely elegant.
A moderator particle? Please...
> > The people that *named* dark matter, assigned it the properties I have
> > outlined to you.
> >
> >
> No. I disagree.
Then we have nothing further to discuss. Next you will change the
definiton of "is". So Mr. Clinton, have a nice day.
David A. Smith
TomGee
> Dear TomGee:
>
> "TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cc2dde17.0303...@posting.google.com...
> > "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:<sbzaa.131554$XB3.1...@news1.west.cox.net>...
> ...
>
> that in turn affected the electron. Is this no longer required?
>
>
invisible particle into a visible one is caused by the collision of
the lightwave with the particle. As a result, the particle becomes a
photon, and that is how light is created.
>
>
> The number of terms, IMHO, do not affect the simplicity. The fact that the
> energy of a photon is also complete described by E = h * nu, doesn't seem
> to phase you.
>
>
>
>
> > > For light, this formula simplifies to
> > > E = |p|c
> > >
> > >
> > So you are saying here that energy equals momentum at the speed of
> > light? Does that make any sense to you?
>
> It makes more "sense" than claiming that the energy of a photon is E =
> mc^2,
>
>
sense to your statement E=pc because momentum at c is not what energy
is.
>
>
> and that the mass of the photon is both positive and negative,
>
>
later. But he referred to electrons, not photons. I contend that
until we learn better, we can assume photons can work the same as
electrons in this case.
>
>
> and
> Dark Matter is invoked to rise from darkness and take on the attributes of
> charged matter just so the photon can deliver its momentum... yes.
>
>
mass/energy.
>
>
> > But you don't know that; that is only what you have been told, unless
> > you thought of it on your own, which is highly unlikely.
>
> It is my own creation, or at least I have not been told this here in the
> last three years.
>
>
>
>
> Certainly no one would would be so informal. Certainly
> no one would deposit such a description that involved no mathematics.
>
>
>
>
> If he said such a thing, I'm sure someone here could reply to this. I do
> know that the mass of the photon was not determined experimentally until
> fairly recently... with any sort of precision. But I believe the
> expectation was that the photon had no mass.
>
>
overthrow E=mc^2+(energy of motion) that easily. So they said, well,
it's got some mass but it's so small we can forget about it.
>
>
> No. Expansion of this nature is *not* classical motion. I have no doubt
> that existence requires motion (or at least localizeability), but
> "expansion" is not proof.
>
>
>
>
> > Now what can happen when we have something which we all
> > agree is reality, then we change it? One thing is that the new
> > something may no longer hold as true as the old something. In
> > Einstein's case, his shortened formula can no longer be held as
> > reality because it ignores the fact that everything in the u. is in
> > motion since the u. is in a process of expansion. So is the new
> > version true? Yes and no.
>
> All no.
>
>
reality, that it will always hold true even with the change?
>
>
> And the formula you are bandying about is *currently* only used
> for mass at rest in the frame measuring mass/energy.
>
>
the face of the reality of an expanding universe.
>
>
> "Similar massive size" is not required.
>
>
>
> > > You use the wrong formula for the energy of light.
> > >
> > No, because that formula does not rule out the energy of light.
>
> Yes, it does. Since light's mass has been determined experimentally to be
> much less than what is required to carry its momentum.
>
>
>
>
> In this case the
> photon is a moving particle, and the *correct* energy relation must be
> used.
>
> Choose:
> E = |p|c or E = h*nu
> either is correct, makes no reference to a mass the photon doesn't have,
> and are both in current use.
>
>
between your choices, I choose E=mc^2+(energy of motion), which
overthrows your current-use-makes-it-true theory, which totally
ignores the lessons of history.
>
>
> My point is that you are seeking a solution to a problem you yourself have
> created.
>
>
I did not make that up. If I had, you would say I was crazy. You
learned that from your teachers, who conditioned your response to any
reasonable alternative to their fantastically incredible notions.
>
>
> You are using a formula that is not applicable to the task at
> hand, and then you have to fabricate elaborate Rube Goldberg schemes to
> power your solution.
>
>
>
>
> You have referred to a wave in singularity. You have evoked negative mass.
> You have evoked uncertainty. You cannot then bring in the statisitcal
> behaviours of hosts of such "wavelets", which *do* express the phenomenon
> you describe.
>
>
things prevent me from bringing in "statistical behaviours"?
>
>
> > Yes, I am claiming that, consistent with my model of light creation.
> > I would be wrong as soon as someone shows photons cannot become, like
> > positrons, particles having only negative mass/energy, or,
> > less-than-zero-energy.
>
> Then you are wrong. Positrons have only positive mass.
>
>
I think you refer to charge, not -/+mass/energy. The two are not the
same.
>
>
> They require
> positive energy to accelerate them, and they curl like a positive electron,
> namely opposite that of the electron in a magnetic field. And the momentum
> of charged particles struck by photons are always away (in some sense) from
> the source of the photon. Not a behaviour you would associate with
> negative energy/momentum.
>
>
>
>
> Such is not seen from all the objects visible in our galaxy. The
> intensities of stellar objects agree well with their subtended size. The
> only anomolies are with much more distant supernovas, where fewer photons
> are received than their redshift would say they should have produced.
>
>
>
>
> > You are mistaken, for I have never had a massive particle moving; that
> > is the idea which I oppose: that massive or massless photons move
> > along at c.
>
> You have posited that the photon (or wave) expresses negative mass. That
> is non-zero mass. I was not mistaken.
>
>
it.
>
>
> And yet you are not supplying the question you sought an answer for.
>
>
was not germane to our discussion, I would as soon forget it.
>
>
> > ...Isn't my claim of
> > something-from-something better and simpler than
> > something-from-nothing which is unexplained as to their cause and
> > which origin is now a source of ridicule for those who still believe
> > in such an obtuse term?
>
> Look. If you are trying to p*ss me off, you are doing well.
>
>
on your own.
>
>
> The astronomy community has
> assigned a meaning to the phrase Dark Matter. Its meaning has been
> established *by convention*. Come up with another phrase. If *virtual
> photon* floats your boat then stick with that. Dark Matter has a positive
> mass and has no effect on light. Photons have no mass (to within limits of
> experimental error).
>
>
the only way we know it exists is by the effect it has on the light by
which we see objects.
>
>
> Don't worry. Your silly wave can provide the communication...
>
>
>
>
> > I don't anything wrong with that except the part of the moving
> > photons. As the lightwave expands from, say, Jupiter, and photon
> > particles move and expand along with the lightwave, where do all those
> > extra particles come from to fill in the gaps left as the expanding
> > wave spreads apart, causing the already-there photon particles to
> > spread apart as well?
>
> Easy. No waves.
>
>
interference. How do you explain that sans waves?
>
>
> Particles with whiskers.
>
>
No, that is definitely not easy. But you should go ahead and give us
your model of particles with whiskers, and let me have at it. I
promise to be kind.
>
>
> And for distant objects it can
> be hours before enough of these particles are detected to be sure that we
> have seen anything. A continuous wave model will have real problems
> describing a method of delivering finite localized energy packets, when
> that energy is supposedly stretched between here and the center of the
> Milky Way (for example, based on energy density).
>
>
the lightwave at c? If you believe it to be massless, why is your
model needed?
>
>
> You are ascribing to this invisible particle what a charged particle
> already does. It already has mass.
>
>
>
>It has the wherewithal to handle the
> receipt of a momentum packet. Just as it can produce said packet. I see
> no case for your need for a moderator.
>
>
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.03031...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<ZsTaa.137191$XB3....@news1.west.cox.net>...
...
> > You stated that the wave transmitted momentum to the Dark Matter
particle,
> > that in turn affected the electron. Is this no longer required?
> >
> >
> No, I did not say momentum was transmitted. The transformation of an
> invisible particle into a visible one is caused by the collision of
> the lightwave with the particle. As a result, the particle becomes a
> photon, and that is how light is created.
I am tired of arguing semantics with you, and I will not go back and post
what you have already stated in this thread. I cannot decipher,
apparently, what it is you *have* said. So, we'll just hit the high points
and go our separate ways.
...
> > > > For light, this formula simplifies to
> > > > E = |p|c
> > > >
> > > >
> > > So you are saying here that energy equals momentum at the speed of
> > > light? Does that make any sense to you?
> >
> > It makes more "sense" than claiming that the energy of a photon is E =
> > mc^2,
> >
> >
> No, it doesn't, and no amount of wishing will make it so. There is no
> sense to your statement E=pc because momentum at c is not what energy
> is.
The energy of a *photon*, yes it is. And that is what we are discussing.
Or will this now be Dark Energy?
> > and that the mass of the photon is both positive and negative,
> >
> >
> That was not my idea, Dirac made that idea up, and it was confirmed
> later. But he referred to electrons, not photons. I contend that
> until we learn better, we can assume photons can work the same as
> electrons in this case.
The mass of the photon has been determined experimentally to be zero, or so
close as to not provide a carrier for its momentum. Therefore claiming
positive and negative mass for the photon and inventing a new theory is a
waste of breath.
> > and
> > Dark Matter is invoked to rise from darkness and take on the attributes
of
> > charged matter just so the photon can deliver its momentum... yes.
> >
> >
> No, I did not refer to charged matter, only to matter having -/+
> mass/energy.
The only particle that can emit/absorb a photon has charge. Therefore it
is most likely that any particle that interacts with photons has charge.
> > > But you don't know that; that is only what you have been told, unless
> > > you thought of it on your own, which is highly unlikely.
> >
> > It is my own creation, or at least I have not been told this here in
the
> > last three years.
> >
> >
> Well, then, I stand corrected.
You are not the only one with wet dreams...
> > Certainly no one would would be so informal. Certainly
> > no one would deposit such a description that involved no mathematics.
> >
> >
> I don't really know what you refer to here.
To my "whiskers" model.
> > If he said such a thing, I'm sure someone here could reply to this. I
do
> > know that the mass of the photon was not determined experimentally
until
> > fairly recently... with any sort of precision. But I believe the
> > expectation was that the photon had no mass.
> >
> >
> That's what they wanted to prove, but Nature was unwilling to let them
> overthrow E=mc^2+(energy of motion) that easily. So they said, well,
> it's got some mass but it's so small we can forget about it.
If they said they could forget about it, why did yet another test of its
mass complete within the last few months? This is supposed to be science,
not philosophy.
> > No. Expansion of this nature is *not* classical motion. I have no
doubt
> > that existence requires motion (or at least localizeability), but
> > "expansion" is not proof.
> >
> >
> Ok, I can go with that, as long as you have no doubt about it.
Constituent particles of Bose-Einstein condensates become non-localizeable
at very low temperatures. The momentum is close to zero, so the position
becomes... uncertain.
> > > Now what can happen when we have something which we all
> > > agree is reality, then we change it? One thing is that the new
> > > something may no longer hold as true as the old something. In
> > > Einstein's case, his shortened formula can no longer be held as
> > > reality because it ignores the fact that everything in the u. is in
> > > motion since the u. is in a process of expansion. So is the new
> > > version true? Yes and no.
> >
> > All no.
> >
> >
> Are you saying that when we change something which we all agree is
> reality, that it will always hold true even with the change?
The answer was in response to your "yes, and no" relating to your choice of
an outdated and misleading formula.
> > And the formula you are bandying about is *currently* only used
> > for mass at rest in the frame measuring mass/energy.
> >
> >
> Of course. If they include the motion factor, their formula fails in
> the face of the reality of an expanding universe.
No shit! Your mean a formula that applies only to flat space fails to work
in curved space. Well, notify the press!
> > "Similar massive size" is not required.
> >
> I was not sure so I threw it in for good luck.
It seemed you were trying to defend your logic of "properties of a photon"
with it. Experiments work well with unequal masses.
> > > > You use the wrong formula for the energy of light.
> > > >
> > > No, because that formula does not rule out the energy of light.
> >
> > Yes, it does. Since light's mass has been determined experimentally to
be
> > much less than what is required to carry its momentum.
> >
> >
> So how does that rule out the energy of light?
If you infer that this is the only formula that represents energy, and
light has no mass, then a conundrum is raised. Clearly the formula is not
correct when applied to a photon, so why you insist on using it is beyond
me.
> > In this case the
> > photon is a moving particle, and the *correct* energy relation must be
> > used.
> >
> > Choose:
> > E = |p|c or E = h*nu
> > either is correct, makes no reference to a mass the photon doesn't
have,
> > and are both in current use.
> >
> >
> Since you only imagine you have the power to force me to choose
> between your choices, I choose E=mc^2+(energy of motion), which
> overthrows your current-use-makes-it-true theory, which totally
> ignores the lessons of history.
This is not the formula your started the thread with. But fine. If you
wish to ignore history, then you are bound to repeat it. Please tell the
assembled masses what the relationship between energy and frequency is.
Don't use classical physics, since you care not one whit for it. "Lessons
of history" and all that.
> > My point is that you are seeking a solution to a problem you yourself
have
> > created.
> >
> >
> No, the problem is created with notion that photons are massless, and
> I did not make that up. If I had, you would say I was crazy. You
> learned that from your teachers, who conditioned your response to any
> reasonable alternative to their fantastically incredible notions.
I learned that from the assembled minds. This shit is reported daily. The
photon was believed to be massless even before Einstein.
> > You are using a formula that is not applicable to the task at
> > hand, and then you have to fabricate elaborate Rube Goldberg schemes to
> > power your solution.
> >
> >
> No, I'm not, and what is more R.G. than a massless photon?
Travelling momentum waves that evoke Dark Matter to emit a photon that is
the light we see. Like little lights on a signboard. Please, don't play
ignorant. The *fact* is the photon is massless. Stretch your theory to
cover the fact, or drop it.
> > You have referred to a wave in singularity. You have evoked negative
mass.
> > You have evoked uncertainty. You cannot then bring in the statisitcal
> > behaviours of hosts of such "wavelets", which *do* express the
phenomenon
> > you describe.
> >
> >
> Ok, I confess, I did all those things, but how does any of those
> things prevent me from bringing in "statistical behaviours"?
Just don't mix the terms. Quantum behaviours and statistical behaviours
are two different beasts. They may draw strength from the same source...
> > > Yes, I am claiming that, consistent with my model of light creation.
> > > I would be wrong as soon as someone shows photons cannot become, like
> > > positrons, particles having only negative mass/energy, or,
> > > less-than-zero-energy.
> >
> > Then you are wrong. Positrons have only positive mass.
> >
> >
> Positrons are electrons that have lost all their positive mass/energy.
> I think you refer to charge, not -/+mass/energy. The two are not the
> same.
Positrons are created as the antithesis of the electron. Positrons have
been paired with anti-protons to make anti-hydrogen. Nothing is "used up".
The Energy became mass (your favorite formula) and charge conservation
required an electron to have an inverse mate. And they *still* have
positive mass, since they yield up positive momentum.
> > They require
> > positive energy to accelerate them, and they curl like a positive
electron,
> > namely opposite that of the electron in a magnetic field. And the
momentum
> > of charged particles struck by photons are always away (in some sense)
from
> > the source of the photon. Not a behaviour you would associate with
> > negative energy/momentum.
> >
> >
> Of course not, since you have confused charge with -/+mass/energy.
You are inventing circumstances that are not seen in experiment. Something
that would stand out big time. There is no ąmass. Dark Energy is
(supposedly) negative energy.
> > Such is not seen from all the objects visible in our galaxy. The
> > intensities of stellar objects agree well with their subtended size.
The
> > only anomolies are with much more distant supernovas, where fewer
photons
> > are received than their redshift would say they should have produced.
> >
> >
> How can you know if you can't see them?
Instruments can see them. Experiment, remember?
> > > You are mistaken, for I have never had a massive particle moving;
that
> > > is the idea which I oppose: that massive or massless photons move
> > > along at c.
> >
> > You have posited that the photon (or wave) expresses negative mass.
That
> > is non-zero mass. I was not mistaken.
> >
> >
> That does not mean I have had a massive particle moving, as you put
> it.
You have a massive Dark Matter particle "appearing" to absorb the momentum
of the light wave and emit a photon, remember?
> > And yet you are not supplying the question you sought an answer for.
> >
> >
> Actually, I forgot it, but I was hoping you would repeat it. If it
> was not germane to our discussion, I would as soon forget it.
> >
> >
> > > ...Isn't my claim of
> > > something-from-something better and simpler than
> > > something-from-nothing which is unexplained as to their cause and
> > > which origin is now a source of ridicule for those who still believe
> > > in such an obtuse term?
> >
> > Look. If you are trying to p*ss me off, you are doing well.
> >
> >
> No, that is not my intention atall. You do a pretty good job of that
> on your own.
You are so right. My emotions are my own.
> > The astronomy community has
> > assigned a meaning to the phrase Dark Matter. Its meaning has been
> > established *by convention*. Come up with another phrase. If *virtual
> > photon* floats your boat then stick with that. Dark Matter has a
positive
> > mass and has no effect on light. Photons have no mass (to within
limits of
> > experimental error).
> >
> >
> How can you know that about Dark Matter if you can't even see it? And
> the only way we know it exists is by the effect it has on the light by
> which we see objects.
How can you know that any word has a definition that others would
understand? Let me define any word or phrase I choose to mean precisely
what I mean it to say. It is not important that anyone else know what I am
talking about. It is not important that I can then publish any crackpot
theory I wish, and say, "see science shows that "Dark Matter" is
responsible for creating photons". We have a common language, if you use
it, with all its flaws, we can communicate. If you dereference it, then
you and I have nothing further to say.
I have told you three times what role Dark Matter was invented to do, and
what its properties are to be. If you insist that you want Dark Matter for
your moderator, then we are done with this discussion.
> > Don't worry. Your silly wave can provide the communication...
> >
> >
> My silly wave is the same wave as yours, no different.
My silly wave *is* the photon. Your silly wave can only invoke a moderator
particle to create a photon.
> > > I don't anything wrong with that except the part of the moving
> > > photons. As the lightwave expands from, say, Jupiter, and photon
> > > particles move and expand along with the lightwave, where do all
those
> > > extra particles come from to fill in the gaps left as the expanding
> > > wave spreads apart, causing the already-there photon particles to
> > > spread apart as well?
> >
> > Easy. No waves.
> >
> >
> No, that is not easy, since experiment shows light exhibits
> interference. How do you explain that sans waves?
Electrons, neutrons, and other massive particles exhibit interference.
They are just as much waves. Why don't you worry about them?
> > Particles with whiskers.
> >
> >
> No, that is definitely not easy. But you should go ahead and give us
> your model of particles with whiskers, and let me have at it. I
> promise to be kind.
I doubt that. All particles are localizeable inasmuch as they have
momentum. However, all particles can be made to interfere with
"structures" no matter how far away. Therefore all particles are not *all*
in one place. As if they had whiskers...
> > And for distant objects it can
> > be hours before enough of these particles are detected to be sure that
we
> > have seen anything. A continuous wave model will have real problems
> > describing a method of delivering finite localized energy packets, when
> > that energy is supposedly stretched between here and the center of the
> > Milky Way (for example, based on energy density).
> >
> >
> That is exactly the problem, how can a massive photon move along with
> the lightwave at c? If you believe it to be massless, why is your
> model needed?
Discrete energy delivery, and interference. Wavicle, wavelet, particle
with whiskers. If I knew the formalism I could supply it. Quantum
phenomenon are *not* my strong suite, but you seem unable to draw any
quality talent to dialogue with you. So I do what I can.
> > You are ascribing to this invisible particle what a charged particle
> > already does. It already has mass.
> >
> >
> Yet you say the photon is massless.
I say it is the sole carrier for momentum. That and its possibly "bound"
cousin the virtual photon.
> >It has the wherewithal to handle the
> > receipt of a momentum packet. Just as it can produce said packet. I
see
> > no case for your need for a moderator.
> >
> >
> I see no moderator; what are you talking about?
Your choice of "Dark Matter" to provide the "photon", under direction of
the light wave. The "Dark Matter" is merely a moderator.
David A. Smith
TomGee
> Dear TomGee:
>
> "TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cc2dde17.03031...@posting.google.com...
> > "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:<ZsTaa.137191$XB3....@news1.west.cox.net>...
> ...
>
> > >
> > >
> > That was not my idea, Dirac made that idea up, and it was confirmed
> > later. But he referred to electrons, not photons. I contend that
> > until we learn better, we can assume photons can work the same as
> > electrons in this case.
>
> The mass of the photon has been determined experimentally to be zero, or so
> close as to not provide a carrier for its momentum.
>
>
it can be more _and_ less than zero, which we can imagine averages out
to zero. Don't forget that an "average" is not reality; it is a
figment of our imaginary math. So for you the photon mass cannot
provide a carrier for its momentum, hmmm? Then what moves it along,
IYO?
>
>
> Therefore claiming
> positive and negative mass for the photon and inventing a new theory is a
> waste of breath.
>
>
>
>
> The only particle that can emit/absorb a photon has charge. Therefore it
> is most likely that any particle that interacts with photons has charge.
>
>
>
>
> > That's what they wanted to prove, but Nature was unwilling to let them
> > overthrow E=mc^2+(energy of motion) that easily. So they said, well,
> > it's got some mass but it's so small we can forget about it.
>
> If they said they could forget about it, why did yet another test of its
> mass complete within the last few months? This is supposed to be science,
> not philosophy.
>
>
this is supposed to be science, not philosophy.
>
>
> > > > Now what can happen when we have something which we all
> > > > agree is reality, then we change it? One thing is that the new
> > > > something may no longer hold as true as the old something. In
> > > > Einstein's case, his shortened formula can no longer be held as
> > > > reality because it ignores the fact that everything in the u. is in
> > > > motion since the u. is in a process of expansion. So is the new
> > > > version true? Yes and no.
> > >
> > > All no.
> > >
> > >
> > Are you saying that when we change something which we all agree is
> > reality, that it will always hold true even with the change?
>
> The answer was in response to your "yes, and no" relating to your choice of
> an outdated and misleading formula.
>
>
you change the universe? Yes, it is misleading, but only because
Einstein shortened it from the original which was tied to the reality
of an expanding u.
>
>
> No shit! Your mean a formula that applies only to flat space fails to work
> in curved space. Well, notify the press!
>
>
space, eh? Sorry, but there is no Santa Claus, no Great Pumpkin, and
NO curved space in reality!
>
> > > "Similar massive size" is not required.
> > >
> > I was not sure so I threw it in for good luck.
>
> It seemed you were trying to defend your logic of "properties of a photon"
> with it. Experiments work well with unequal masses.
>
>
the u., but that mass size or density may have an influence on the
time rates produced from speed.
>
>
> > > > > You use the wrong formula for the energy of light.
> > > > >
> > > > No, because that formula does not rule out the energy of light.
> > >
> > > Yes, it does. Since light's mass has been determined experimentally to
> be
> > > much less than what is required to carry its momentum.
> > >
> > >
> > So how does that rule out the energy of light?
>
> If you infer that this is the only formula that represents energy, and
> light has no mass, then a conundrum is raised. Clearly the formula is not
> correct when applied to a photon, so why you insist on using it is beyond
> me.
>
>
plain english? Read my lips: E=mc^2 refers to energy and does not
exclude any type of energy. No type of energy is specifically
excluded, photon energy is not specifically excluded, thus, all energy
is included. This does not rule out the validity of other energy
formulas, of course, but where any other formula conflicts with it, as
a conundrum or otherwise, it must first be overthrown for any other
formula to be considered valid.
>
>
> > ...I choose E=mc^2+(energy of motion), which
> > overthrows your current-use-makes-it-true theory, which totally
> > ignores the lessons of history.
>
> This is not the formula your started the thread with.
>
>
sleeve, as it were. That formula makes a lie of the shortened
version, as regards reality. As I said, I was saving for after I
disposed of your fantasy of the massless photon.
>
>
> But fine. If you
> wish to ignore history, then you are bound to repeat it.
>
>
>
>
> Please tell the
> assembled masses what the relationship between energy and frequency is.
> Don't use classical physics, since you care not one whit for it. "Lessons
> of history" and all that.
>
>
>
>
> I learned that from the assembled minds. This shit is reported daily. The
> photon was believed to be massless even before Einstein.
>
>
>
>
> > No, I'm not, and what is more R.G. than a massless photon?
>
> Travelling momentum waves that evoke Dark Matter to emit a photon that is
> the light we see. Like little lights on a signboard. Please, don't play
> ignorant. The *fact* is the photon is massless.
>
>
fact, it is a theory that cannot be true until or unless you overthrow
E=mc^2+(energy of motion).
>
>
> > Ok, I confess, I did all those things, but how does any of those
> > things prevent me from bringing in "statistical behaviours"?
>
> Just don't mix the terms. Quantum behaviours and statistical behaviours
> are two different beasts. They may draw strength from the same source...
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Positrons are electrons that have lost all their positive mass/energy.
> > I think you refer to charge, not -/+mass/energy. The two are not the
> > same.
>
> Positrons are created as the antithesis of the electron. Positrons have
> been paired with anti-protons to make anti-hydrogen. Nothing is "used up".
> The Energy became mass (your favorite formula) and charge conservation
> required an electron to have an inverse mate. And they *still* have
> positive mass, since they yield up positive momentum.
>
>
all objects need in order to have motion. They could have inertia,
though, if they exist as particles and not only as point charges.
Current thought has it that the positron is no longer considered an
object, but only a hole which the electron's point charge has vacated,
but is so, what happened to the particle matter? Was it ignored like
E=mc^2 because it could not be overthrown?
>
>
> > > Not a behaviour you would associate with
> > > negative energy/momentum.
> > >
> > Of course not, since you have confused charge with -/+mass/energy.
>
> You are inventing circumstances that are not seen in experiment. Something
> that would stand out big time. There is no ąmass.
>
>
there is no +/-mass/energy, you can only go by opinion, and you have
already been wrong so many times in our discussions that your sources
are quite suspect.
>
>
> Dark Energy is
> (supposedly) negative energy.
>
>
>
>
> > How can you know if you can't see them?
>
> Instruments can see them. Experiment, remember?
>
>
have no instruments that can detect it without having to measure the
effects by light.
>
>
> > That does not mean I have had a massive particle moving, as you put
> > it.
>
> You have a massive Dark Matter particle "appearing" to absorb the momentum
> of the light wave and emit a photon, remember?
>
>
yes, I claim that it is possible for a particle to appear seemingly
out of nowhere, and in fact, the same is said about particle pairs.
However, my particle does not magically appear for no reason. It is
made to appear by the collision of a lightwave with a particle which
has no +mass/energy and so it is invisible to us and lies stationary
in space. The collision transfers energy from the lightwave into the
particle sufficient to give it +mass/energy, and that causes it to
appear to us as a photon of light. So you see, a photon is not
emitted, as that would mean photons move along with the lightwave at
c, which they cannot do if they have mass. That's why the massless
photon was invented, to circumvent the problem of massive photons
moving along with the lightwaves.
>
>
> > How can you know that about Dark Matter if you can't even see it? And
> > the only way we know it exists is by the effect it has on the light by
> > which we see objects.
>
> How can you know that any word has a definition that others would
> understand? Let me define any word or phrase I choose to mean precisely
> what I mean it to say. It is not important that anyone else know what I am
> talking about. It is not important that I can then publish any crackpot
> theory I wish, and say, "see science shows that "Dark Matter" is
> responsible for creating photons". We have a common language, if you use
> it, with all its flaws, we can communicate. If you dereference it, then
> you and I have nothing further to say.
>
>
science says what I say about it, as that is the basis for my lament,
that science is wrong by not considering my idea as important to our
research about our u. As for the common meaning of it, it is matter
that cannot be directly detected but is known by the effects it has on
visible matter. Your physics may have a different definition for it,
but if it does, it's incorrect. How about if I change your statement
that I claim dark matter is responsible for creating photons to, "Some
dark matter is responsible...etc."? Will that let me off your hook?
>
>
> I have told you three times what role Dark Matter was invented to do, and
> what its properties are to be. If you insist that you want Dark Matter for
> your moderator, then we are done with this discussion.
>
>
is obviously omnipotent, ask him to deposit about $3 mil in my
account, as I could sure use it.
>
>
> My silly wave *is* the photon. Your silly wave can only invoke a moderator
> particle to create a photon.
>
>
particle, no matter how many times you wish upon a star. That is the
paradox of the dual nature of light, that nothing can be both wave and
particle. You cannot explain the wave and particle characteristics of
light by saying that the wave is the particle, because that is
nonsense.
>
>
> > No, that is not easy, since experiment shows light exhibits
> > interference. How do you explain that sans waves?
>
> Electrons, neutrons, and other massive particles exhibit interference.
> They are just as much waves. Why don't you worry about them?
>
>
characteristics.
>
>
> > > Particles with whiskers.
> > >
> > No, that is definitely not easy. But you should go ahead and give us
> > your model of particles with whiskers, and let me have at it. I
> > promise to be kind.
>
> I doubt that. All particles are localizeable inasmuch as they have
> momentum. However, all particles can be made to interfere with
> "structures" no matter how far away. Therefore all particles are not *all*
> in one place. As if they had whiskers...
>
>
much-ridiculed so-called Copenhagen Interpretation, more commonly
known as, "spooky action at a distance". Yes, you're right, I lied; I
can't keep my promise.
>
>
> > That is exactly the problem, how can a massive photon move along with
> > the lightwave at c? If you believe it to be massless, why is your
> > model needed?
>
> Discrete energy delivery, and interference. Wavicle, wavelet, particle
> with whiskers. If I knew the formalism I could supply it. Quantum
> phenomenon are *not* my strong suite, but you seem unable to draw any
> quality talent to dialogue with you. So I do what I can.
>
>
because they are struck dumb or scared shitless by my ideas which
represent to them an overthrow of much of what they have been
brainwashed with by their beloved physics. Infinite futures, parallel
universes, curved space, spacetime continuum, massless particles,
ignoring Relativity's basis tenet, E=mc^2, egocentrism as in
collapsing the wave function area by a mere glance, and many more, are
great ideas but somehow others have come to believe they are reality
and exclude reality to that extent. We will have a generation of
morons, then, if they cannot be helped to see that most of that is
great theory, but far from reality as yet. Comes the revolution, this
time suffer the lawyers and shoot (some of) the teachers.
>
>
> > > You are ascribing to this invisible particle what a charged particle
> > > already does. It already has mass.
> > >
> > >
> > Yet you say the photon is massless.
>
> I say it is the sole carrier for momentum. That and its possibly "bound"
> cousin the virtual photon.
>
>
is not being light?
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.03031...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<jybba.145652$XB3....@news1.west.cox.net>...
...
> > The mass of the photon has been determined experimentally to be zero,
or so
> > close as to not provide a carrier for its momentum.
> >
> >
> No, we cannot have it at zero, so it cannot be "or", as you think, but
> it can be more _and_ less than zero, which we can imagine averages out
> to zero. Don't forget that an "average" is not reality; it is a
> figment of our imaginary math. So for you the photon mass cannot
> provide a carrier for its momentum, hmmm? Then what moves it along,
> IYO?
Imaginary math, and negative mass. I am finished.
David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.03031...@posting.google.com...
...
> No, we cannot have it at zero, so it cannot be "or", as you think, but
> it can be more _and_ less than zero, which we can imagine averages out
> to zero. Don't forget that an "average" is not reality; it is a
> figment of our imaginary math. So for you the photon mass cannot
> provide a carrier for its momentum, hmmm? Then what moves it along,
> IYO?
http://users.primushost.com/~ewall/
negative mass (well tachyons anyway). My Aunt Fanny...
David A. Smith
Phaedrus
I agree with everything you have stated but would like to make some comments
to your post please. See below.
> What is nothingness? - is an absurd question, it is like asking -
> how much is zero? - nothingness just isn't. There are no empty
> spaces in the classical sense. There can't be a void, not as a real
> thing. If it IS, then it isn't a void. There is no place for voids
> in a spacetime continuum either, or it wouldn't be a continuum.
>
> << It is not empty [the classical vaccum]. Even when all matter and
> heat radiation have been removed from a region of space, the vacuum
> of classical physics remains filled with a distinctive pattern of
> electromagnetic fields >> --- [From The Classical Vacuum - by
> Timothy H. Boyer, Scientific American, August 1985, pp. 70-78.]
>
We know that there is no such region as a vacuum in space as the remenants
of what is thought to be the big bang radiation at about 2.7K pervades all
space.. I read a new figure from the CMBR to be about 2.694K, I know there
are measurble fluctuations that the CMBR are now currently mapping for the
whole universe.
>
> The aether is a physically finite substance, but is spatially
> unbounded. Extension is a material property not applicable to the
> aether. Density is also a non-applicable property when defining the
> aether, it is only applicable when describing matter. Space is
> material. Space and matter are inseparable, and the properties of
> density and extension do apply.
>
I certainly agree with your first sentence. As I view the fact the 'nothing'
lies outside of the universe, or as I would call it the Aether. I had a big
fruitless discussion with EL about this and could not get him to accept this
fac because he mainted that if nothing was a void then the void contained
the universe. I expalined to him that you could only contain something
inside of something, but there is no something to contain the universe
because the definition of the void is an abscence of spac-time and
mass-energy.
I also explained to him that my Aether (which he insisted be called the
Primordium, or Primedium - depending upon which post he sent) contained no
pointlike particles, but were waves up the electric and magnetic dimensions
that rotate around three axes. Look at my post "Such A Crazy Idea It Could
Be True". I also said that the Aether I envisaged varied in wave densities
and motions. But I could not get him to accept any of this as he was locked
into his own Primordium theory. He could not comment that it shared any
similar concepts to mine, as he quickly went into a very technical
description of his Primordium and soon lost me.
I would be interested to hear if you have any comments on my idea, as it
could be that others have also come to the same conclusions as me.
Do you believe in an infinite Universe? I guess not as you clearly state
that the Aether is finite, and is your Aether unbounded like mine because
"nothing" lies beyond the universe, ie there is just the Universe and
nothing else!
El's question to me was, "What happens at the edge of the Universe if it is
finite.
what would light do and what would happen if you stepped outside of it etc.
I explained that you cannot move anything into nothing, as space-time nor
mass-energy exist there.
As for travelling to the end of a finite Aether, I said imagine it is a 3D
surface on a 4D hypersphere, that would avoid the problem of ever reaching
the end, whilst still being a finite universe
Actually that is not necessary! The Aether would be circular in 3
dimensions, something we can easily imagine, if we place 3 circular
intersecting discs in the x, y and z planes, each orthogonal to one another.
That way you can travel for ever in any given direction! Eventually you end
up back where you started from, where it not for the planets in the way
during your journey, but making corrections to avoid them and maintain your
original vectorial direction then you would end up back from where you
started. Hmmm, I do like that!!! Now we have a finite unbounded universe
that makes logical sense.
One important aspect of this idea is that average space-time continuum would
have a curvature in all three dimensions, so whichever vectorial direction
one moved in, it would you would never reach the edge of the universe!
Because imagining you moved in the +x0 direction the +/-y&z dimensions would
always remain so. Eventually you would arrive back to where you started,
which would be even though you had travelled in a positive direction
through -x! This contradiction only sounds surprising because one assumes
the x dimensions is straight, which it is not.
>
> << But we can assert by reason of the relativistic equations of
> gravitation that there must be a departure from Euclidean relations,
> with spaces of cosmic order of magnitude, if there exists a positive
> mean density, no matter how small, of the matter in the universe. In
> this case the universe must of necessity be spatially unbounded and
> of finite magnitude, its magnitude being determined by the value of
> that mean density. >> -- A.E.
>
>
Which is in agreement with what I have explained just before. The curvature
determined by the amount of space-time and mass-energy in the Aether (our
Universe)
> Because the aether is physically finite, matter is also finite at
> any given moment, but infinite as a function of time and
> transformation. Nature is the perpetual motion machine.
>
Particles (mass) and EMR (energy) posess cyclic rotations called spin, and
they do exist forever as you have stated.
> If the aether were not physically finite, then why would the
> equivalency principle be necessary when describing the motion of a
> material system under acceleration? Still it can be conceived as
> infinitely divisible, or indivisible; simply because it is
> immaterial.
>
The reason for constant velocity is due to the fact that effectively the
mass-energy is falling around curvature of the surface of a 3D sphere, as it
is effectively weightless but possesses mass the force pulling it down is
equal to the force pulling it up, regardless of the origin of where
mass-energy starts its inital velocity from. I think at this point I must
mention that a I believe that the velocity will not be constant but will
accelerate towards its maximum value, but given the huge diameter of the
Aether this is so negligible it is not noticed and thus constant velocity is
assumed. I think I did read that voyager had speeded up faster than NASA had
calculated after its slingshot from Jupiter and the outer planets, and hence
they lost it for a while and were surprised to find it so deep out into
space!
The reason acceleration occurs when a force is applied to the mass is due to
the changing velocity gives rise to acceleration. The change in velocity
being the product of speed change and the curvature of the Aether, although
the speed change is much greater than the curvature, all particles in the
bodies mass undergo acceleration, hence the larger the mass the greater the
force required to maintain the same aceleration for the same aceleration on
a small body of mass.
> If Newton's view were to be correct, and objects were seen as really
> separated, and related only by their macroscopic mechanical
> interactions (billiard ball model), then why would we need the
> equivalency principle to accurately describe this Universe?
> Einstein's equivalency principle (the basis for GR) sprang from the
> same concept of unity and wholeness implied in most of Mach's ideas.
> The Absolute is really the aether, not space, but Newton's absolute
> space (an empty plenum, a void, which he considered as something
> real) was the seed from which Einstein's aether was born. This unity
> and oneness of reality, which distills from GR, is the philosophical
> basis for Einstein's Pantheism.
>
> --
> Laurent
>
Hear hear!
Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Phaedrus
I agree with everything you have stated but would like to make some comments
to your post please. See below.
> What is nothingness? - is an absurd question, it is like asking -
> how much is zero? - nothingness just isn't. There are no empty
> spaces in the classical sense. There can't be a void, not as a real
> thing. If it IS, then it isn't a void. There is no place for voids
> in a spacetime continuum either, or it wouldn't be a continuum.
>
> << It is not empty [the classical vaccum]. Even when all matter and
> heat radiation have been removed from a region of space, the vacuum
> of classical physics remains filled with a distinctive pattern of
> electromagnetic fields >> --- [From The Classical Vacuum - by
> Timothy H. Boyer, Scientific American, August 1985, pp. 70-78.]
>
We know that there is no such region as a vacuum in space as the remenants
of what is thought to be the big bang radiation at about 2.7K pervades all
space.. I read a new figure from the CMBR to be about 2.694K, I know there
are measurble fluctuations that the CMBR are now currently mapping for the
whole universe.
>
> The aether is a physically finite substance, but is spatially
> unbounded. Extension is a material property not applicable to the
> aether. Density is also a non-applicable property when defining the
> aether, it is only applicable when describing matter. Space is
> material. Space and matter are inseparable, and the properties of
> density and extension do apply.
>
I certainly agree with your first sentence. As I view the fact the 'nothing'
>
> << But we can assert by reason of the relativistic equations of
> gravitation that there must be a departure from Euclidean relations,
> with spaces of cosmic order of magnitude, if there exists a positive
> mean density, no matter how small, of the matter in the universe. In
> this case the universe must of necessity be spatially unbounded and
> of finite magnitude, its magnitude being determined by the value of
> that mean density. >> -- A.E.
>
>
Which is in agreement with what I have explained just before. The curvature
determined by the amount of space-time and mass-energy in the Aether (our
Universe)
> Because the aether is physically finite, matter is also finite at
> any given moment, but infinite as a function of time and
> transformation. Nature is the perpetual motion machine.
>
Particles (mass) and EMR (energy) posess cyclic rotations called spin, and
they do exist forever as you have stated.
> If the aether were not physically finite, then why would the
> equivalency principle be necessary when describing the motion of a
> material system under acceleration? Still it can be conceived as
> infinitely divisible, or indivisible; simply because it is
> immaterial.
>
The reason for constant velocity is due to the fact that effectively the
mass-energy is falling around curvature of the surface of a 3D sphere, as it
is effectively weightless but possesses mass the force pulling it down is
equal to the force pulling it up, regardless of the origin of where
mass-energy starts its inital velocity from. I think at this point I must
mention that a I believe that the velocity will not be constant but will
accelerate towards its maximum value, but given the huge diameter of the
Aether this is so negligible it is not noticed and thus constant velocity is
assumed. I think I did read that voyager had speeded up faster than NASA had
calculated after its slingshot from Jupiter and the outer planets, and hence
they lost it for a while and were surprised to find it so deep out into
space!
The reason acceleration occurs when a force is applied to the mass is due to
the changing velocity gives rise to acceleration. The change in velocity
being the product of speed change and the curvature of the Aether, although
the speed change is much greater than the curvature, all particles in the
bodies mass undergo acceleration, hence the larger the mass the greater the
force required to maintain the same aceleration for the same aceleration on
a small body of mass.
> If Newton's view were to be correct, and objects were seen as really
> separated, and related only by their macroscopic mechanical
> interactions (billiard ball model), then why would we need the
> equivalency principle to accurately describe this Universe?
> Einstein's equivalency principle (the basis for GR) sprang from the
> same concept of unity and wholeness implied in most of Mach's ideas.
> The Absolute is really the aether, not space, but Newton's absolute
> space (an empty plenum, a void, which he considered as something
> real) was the seed from which Einstein's aether was born. This unity
> and oneness of reality, which distills from GR, is the philosophical
> basis for Einstein's Pantheism.
>
> --
> Laurent
>
Hear hear!
Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Phaedrus
I agree with everything you have stated but would like to make some comments
to your post please. See below.
> What is nothingness? - is an absurd question, it is like asking -
> how much is zero? - nothingness just isn't. There are no empty
> spaces in the classical sense. There can't be a void, not as a real
> thing. If it IS, then it isn't a void. There is no place for voids
> in a spacetime continuum either, or it wouldn't be a continuum.
>
> << It is not empty [the classical vaccum]. Even when all matter and
> heat radiation have been removed from a region of space, the vacuum
> of classical physics remains filled with a distinctive pattern of
> electromagnetic fields >> --- [From The Classical Vacuum - by
> Timothy H. Boyer, Scientific American, August 1985, pp. 70-78.]
>
We know that there is no such region as a vacuum in space as the remenants
of what is thought to be the big bang radiation at about 2.7K pervades all
space.. I read a new figure from the CMBR to be about 2.694K, I know there
are measurble fluctuations that the CMBR are now currently mapping for the
whole universe.
>
> The aether is a physically finite substance, but is spatially
> unbounded. Extension is a material property not applicable to the
> aether. Density is also a non-applicable property when defining the
> aether, it is only applicable when describing matter. Space is
> material. Space and matter are inseparable, and the properties of
> density and extension do apply.
>
I certainly agree with your first sentence. As I view the fact the 'nothing'
>
> << But we can assert by reason of the relativistic equations of
> gravitation that there must be a departure from Euclidean relations,
> with spaces of cosmic order of magnitude, if there exists a positive
> mean density, no matter how small, of the matter in the universe. In
> this case the universe must of necessity be spatially unbounded and
> of finite magnitude, its magnitude being determined by the value of
> that mean density. >> -- A.E.
>
>
Which is in agreement with what I have explained just before. The curvature
determined by the amount of space-time and mass-energy in the Aether (our
Universe)
> Because the aether is physically finite, matter is also finite at
> any given moment, but infinite as a function of time and
> transformation. Nature is the perpetual motion machine.
>
Particles (mass) and EMR (energy) posess cyclic rotations called spin, and
they do exist forever as you have stated.
> If the aether were not physically finite, then why would the
> equivalency principle be necessary when describing the motion of a
> material system under acceleration? Still it can be conceived as
> infinitely divisible, or indivisible; simply because it is
> immaterial.
>
The reason for constant velocity is due to the fact that effectively the
mass-energy is falling around curvature of the surface of a 3D sphere, as it
is effectively weightless but possesses mass the force pulling it down is
equal to the force pulling it up, regardless of the origin of where
mass-energy starts its inital velocity from. I think at this point I must
mention that a I believe that the velocity will not be constant but will
accelerate towards its maximum value, but given the huge diameter of the
Aether this is so negligible it is not noticed and thus constant velocity is
assumed. I think I did read that voyager had speeded up faster than NASA had
calculated after its slingshot from Jupiter and the outer planets, and hence
they lost it for a while and were surprised to find it so deep out into
space!
The reason acceleration occurs when a force is applied to the mass is due to
the changing velocity gives rise to acceleration. The change in velocity
being the product of speed change and the curvature of the Aether, although
the speed change is much greater than the curvature, all particles in the
bodies mass undergo acceleration, hence the larger the mass the greater the
force required to maintain the same aceleration for the same aceleration on
a small body of mass.
> If Newton's view were to be correct, and objects were seen as really
> separated, and related only by their macroscopic mechanical
> interactions (billiard ball model), then why would we need the
> equivalency principle to accurately describe this Universe?
> Einstein's equivalency principle (the basis for GR) sprang from the
> same concept of unity and wholeness implied in most of Mach's ideas.
> The Absolute is really the aether, not space, but Newton's absolute
> space (an empty plenum, a void, which he considered as something
> real) was the seed from which Einstein's aether was born. This unity
> and oneness of reality, which distills from GR, is the philosophical
> basis for Einstein's Pantheism.
>
> --
> Laurent
>
Hear hear!
Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Phaedrus
I agree with everything you have stated but would like to make some comments
to your post please. See below.
> What is nothingness? - is an absurd question, it is like asking -
> how much is zero? - nothingness just isn't. There are no empty
> spaces in the classical sense. There can't be a void, not as a real
> thing. If it IS, then it isn't a void. There is no place for voids
> in a spacetime continuum either, or it wouldn't be a continuum.
>
> << It is not empty [the classical vaccum]. Even when all matter and
> heat radiation have been removed from a region of space, the vacuum
> of classical physics remains filled with a distinctive pattern of
> electromagnetic fields >> --- [From The Classical Vacuum - by
> Timothy H. Boyer, Scientific American, August 1985, pp. 70-78.]
>
We know that there is no such region as a vacuum in space as the remenants
of what is thought to be the big bang radiation at about 2.7K pervades all
space.. I read a new figure from the CMBR to be about 2.694K, I know there
are measurble fluctuations that the CMBR are now currently mapping for the
whole universe.
>
> The aether is a physically finite substance, but is spatially
> unbounded. Extension is a material property not applicable to the
> aether. Density is also a non-applicable property when defining the
> aether, it is only applicable when describing matter. Space is
> material. Space and matter are inseparable, and the properties of
> density and extension do apply.
>
I certainly agree with your first sentence. As I view the fact the 'nothing'
>
> << But we can assert by reason of the relativistic equations of
> gravitation that there must be a departure from Euclidean relations,
> with spaces of cosmic order of magnitude, if there exists a positive
> mean density, no matter how small, of the matter in the universe. In
> this case the universe must of necessity be spatially unbounded and
> of finite magnitude, its magnitude being determined by the value of
> that mean density. >> -- A.E.
>
>
Which is in agreement with what I have explained just before. The curvature
determined by the amount of space-time and mass-energy in the Aether (our
Universe)
> Because the aether is physically finite, matter is also finite at
> any given moment, but infinite as a function of time and
> transformation. Nature is the perpetual motion machine.
>
Particles (mass) and EMR (energy) posess cyclic rotations called spin, and
they do exist forever as you have stated.
> If the aether were not physically finite, then why would the
> equivalency principle be necessary when describing the motion of a
> material system under acceleration? Still it can be conceived as
> infinitely divisible, or indivisible; simply because it is
> immaterial.
>
The reason for constant velocity is due to the fact that effectively the
mass-energy is falling around curvature of the surface of a 3D sphere, as it
is effectively weightless but possesses mass the force pulling it down is
equal to the force pulling it up, regardless of the origin of where
mass-energy starts its inital velocity from. I think at this point I must
mention that a I believe that the velocity will not be constant but will
accelerate towards its maximum value, but given the huge diameter of the
Aether this is so negligible it is not noticed and thus constant velocity is
assumed. I think I did read that voyager had speeded up faster than NASA had
calculated after its slingshot from Jupiter and the outer planets, and hence
they lost it for a while and were surprised to find it so deep out into
space!
The reason acceleration occurs when a force is applied to the mass is due to
the changing velocity gives rise to acceleration. The change in velocity
being the product of speed change and the curvature of the Aether, although
the speed change is much greater than the curvature, all particles in the
bodies mass undergo acceleration, hence the larger the mass the greater the
force required to maintain the same aceleration for the same aceleration on
a small body of mass.
> If Newton's view were to be correct, and objects were seen as really
> separated, and related only by their macroscopic mechanical
> interactions (billiard ball model), then why would we need the
> equivalency principle to accurately describe this Universe?
> Einstein's equivalency principle (the basis for GR) sprang from the
> same concept of unity and wholeness implied in most of Mach's ideas.
> The Absolute is really the aether, not space, but Newton's absolute
> space (an empty plenum, a void, which he considered as something
> real) was the seed from which Einstein's aether was born. This unity
> and oneness of reality, which distills from GR, is the philosophical
> basis for Einstein's Pantheism.
>
> --
> Laurent
>
Hear hear!
Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Phaedrus
I agree with everything you have stated but would like to make some comments
to your post please. See below.
> What is nothingness? - is an absurd question, it is like asking -
> how much is zero? - nothingness just isn't. There are no empty
> spaces in the classical sense. There can't be a void, not as a real
> thing. If it IS, then it isn't a void. There is no place for voids
> in a spacetime continuum either, or it wouldn't be a continuum.
>
> << It is not empty [the classical vaccum]. Even when all matter and
> heat radiation have been removed from a region of space, the vacuum
> of classical physics remains filled with a distinctive pattern of
> electromagnetic fields >> --- [From The Classical Vacuum - by
> Timothy H. Boyer, Scientific American, August 1985, pp. 70-78.]
>
We know that there is no such region as a vacuum in space as the remenants
of what is thought to be the big bang radiation at about 2.7K pervades all
space.. I read a new figure from the CMBR to be about 2.694K, I know there
are measurble fluctuations that the CMBR are now currently mapping for the
whole universe.
>
> The aether is a physically finite substance, but is spatially
> unbounded. Extension is a material property not applicable to the
> aether. Density is also a non-applicable property when defining the
> aether, it is only applicable when describing matter. Space is
> material. Space and matter are inseparable, and the properties of
> density and extension do apply.
>
I certainly agree with your first sentence. As I view the fact the 'nothing'
>
> << But we can assert by reason of the relativistic equations of
> gravitation that there must be a departure from Euclidean relations,
> with spaces of cosmic order of magnitude, if there exists a positive
> mean density, no matter how small, of the matter in the universe. In
> this case the universe must of necessity be spatially unbounded and
> of finite magnitude, its magnitude being determined by the value of
> that mean density. >> -- A.E.
>
>
Which is in agreement with what I have explained just before. The curvature
determined by the amount of space-time and mass-energy in the Aether (our
Universe)
> Because the aether is physically finite, matter is also finite at
> any given moment, but infinite as a function of time and
> transformation. Nature is the perpetual motion machine.
>
Particles (mass) and EMR (energy) posess cyclic rotations called spin, and
they do exist forever as you have stated.
> If the aether were not physically finite, then why would the
> equivalency principle be necessary when describing the motion of a
> material system under acceleration? Still it can be conceived as
> infinitely divisible, or indivisible; simply because it is
> immaterial.
>
The reason for constant velocity is due to the fact that effectively the
mass-energy is falling around curvature of the surface of a 3D sphere, as it
is effectively weightless but possesses mass the force pulling it down is
equal to the force pulling it up, regardless of the origin of where
mass-energy starts its inital velocity from. I think at this point I must
mention that a I believe that the velocity will not be constant but will
accelerate towards its maximum value, but given the huge diameter of the
Aether this is so negligible it is not noticed and thus constant velocity is
assumed. I think I did read that voyager had speeded up faster than NASA had
calculated after its slingshot from Jupiter and the outer planets, and hence
they lost it for a while and were surprised to find it so deep out into
space!
The reason acceleration occurs when a force is applied to the mass is due to
the changing velocity gives rise to acceleration. The change in velocity
being the product of speed change and the curvature of the Aether, although
the speed change is much greater than the curvature, all particles in the
bodies mass undergo acceleration, hence the larger the mass the greater the
force required to maintain the same aceleration for the same aceleration on
a small body of mass.
> If Newton's view were to be correct, and objects were seen as really
> separated, and related only by their macroscopic mechanical
> interactions (billiard ball model), then why would we need the
> equivalency principle to accurately describe this Universe?
> Einstein's equivalency principle (the basis for GR) sprang from the
> same concept of unity and wholeness implied in most of Mach's ideas.
> The Absolute is really the aether, not space, but Newton's absolute
> space (an empty plenum, a void, which he considered as something
> real) was the seed from which Einstein's aether was born. This unity
> and oneness of reality, which distills from GR, is the philosophical
> basis for Einstein's Pantheism.
>
> --
> Laurent
>
Hear hear!
Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Phaedrus
for the next 5 posts. Everytime I tried to send the post it did not send it,
hence the 5 retries. But somehow they got across now.
Joe
Phaedrus
Bill Hobba
TomGee wrote:
> As I have said previously, this is the same math Einstein used to
> prove his static universe. If he was able to prove that with math, we
> can prove anything with math, even massless photons. My argument is:
> Einstein took his E=mc^2 formula from one that had been around for
> sometime, but he fudged it so as to fit it in with his conclusion. He
> took E=mc^2+(energy of motion) and dropped off the end factor,
> +(energy of motion). Now, if he stated that he fudged it on purpose,
> he is innocent of fudgery, but that brings the fudged equation into
> question. If he used the term, "Suppose that we drop off the motion
> factor..." anywhere in his statement when he changed the original
> equation, well, he told you so, and if anyone took his new formula for
> real, it's only their fault.
>
I just noticed this as I was scanning the post and is not in any way meant
to be a critique of the whole post. But the poster should be aware that SR
has moved on since Einstein's time and that E=mc2 follows from very
fundamental considerations, namely from the only reasonable Langrangian for
a relativistic free particle. The full argument is given on page 26
Landau - Classical Theory of Fields. Here it is seen that the energy of a
particle is E=mc2/sqrt(1-v2/c2). Remember from Langrangian mechanics energy
is DEFINED as p.v - L. Simple substitution immediately gives the quoted
formula. I am afraid that, despite whatever historical comments you wish
to make (others are in a much better position to comment on those) your
comment that he dropped off the energy of motion is irrelelevant. From the
very definition of energy when no motion is present i.e. v=0 then E=MC2. No
fudging is required, all you need to accept is the Langrigian of a free
particle, which Landau shows to be, by very general augments that no one
would really care to question, L = -mc2sqrt(1-v2/c2). So unless you wish to
attack Langrangian mechanics then you must accept for a stationary particle
E=mc2.
Thanks
Bill
Mitchell Jones
> Spaceman wrote:
> > "Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E67DBD8...@attbi.com...
> >
> >>
> >>Spaceman wrote:
> >>
> >>>You are scam artist/con man looking for another billion to waste.
> >>
> >>Apply a force of one newton to a kilogram for about 3*10^8 seconds or
> >>3742 days or a little over ten years. Does the one kilogram of matter
> >>get to the speed of light? It does not.
> >
> >
> > No,
> > that means you did not let it move for long enough time
>
> Schmuck. That is about the time predicted by Newtonian mechanics.
***{There is no "time predicted by Newtonian mechanics." Newtonian
mechanics is a set of conceptual tools involving Newton's laws of motion
and traditional definitions of time and space which gives answers that
depend on the particular circumstances being analyzed. Thus when you speak
of "applying a force of 1 N to 1 kg for 3x10^8 sec," it is not clear that
your description is appropriate until you specify the details of the
situation you have in mind. If, for example, you intend to accelerate an
object to lightspeed by hitting it from behind with photons--e.g., by
shining a powerful, perfectly collimated laser beam on it--it won't work:
the faster the object moves, the less energy the photons will have when
arriving at the object, due to the increasing recession velocity of their
source relative to the object. Thus even if your beam is strong enough to
apply 1 N of force to the object at the beginning, when it is stationary,
it will cease to be able to apply 1 N of force as soon as the object is
moving. The applied force, in fact, will fall closer and closer to zero as
the velocity of the object edges closer and closer to the speed of light.
And this result, let me emphasize, is exactly as predicted by Newtonian
mechanics. Thus if you claim that Newtonian mechanics implies that it is
possible to continuously apply a force of 1 N to s 1 kg object in free
space for 3x10^8 sec--i.e., 9.51 years--you are simply wrong. The reality
is that "what Newtonian mechanics predicts" depends on the circumstances
to which it is applied. --MJ}***
The
> speed of light is 3*10^9 meters/sec. Would you have to apply a force of
> ten Newtons to one kilogram to get the speed of light. The accerlations
> is 10 meters/sec^2. Now sovle T * 10 meters/sec^2 = 3*10^9 meters/sec
>
> Answer, a la Newton is 3*10^8 seconds
***{Wrong again. *You* are *assuming* it is possible to apply a 1 N force
to 1 kg in free space for 9.51 years. Newtonian mechanics does not imply
such a possibility. All your calculation does is tell us how long the
object would take to reach lightspeed, *if* a method of continuously
applying such a force could be found. --MJ}***
which is a little over ten years.
>
> You are truly one of the Very Retarded.
>
> The right answer is a massive body cannot be acclerated up to the speed
> of light. Forever is not long enough.
***{No, the right answer is that forever is not long enough to accelerate
an object to lightspeed by hitting it from behind with photons, and this
is exactly what Newtonian mechanics predicts. If you want to accelerate an
object to, and beyond, lightspeed, you will have to hit it from behind
with something that moves faster than light. (My suggestion: place your
object over the polar axis of a black hole, then sit back and watch the
sucker fly! :-) --MJ}***
> Bob Kolker
================================================
Sci.physics crackpot list and suggested killfile: Charles Cagle, Stephen
Speicher, Mati Meron, Franz Heymann, Mike Varney, Dirk Van de
moortel, Bob Zombiewoof, Old Man, Big Bird, Greg Neill.
Robert Kolker
Mitchell Jones wrote:
> with something that moves faster than light. (My suggestion: place your
> object over the polar axis of a black hole, then sit back and watch the
> sucker fly! :-) --MJ}***
No good. Once inside the horizon no further readings are possible. The
proposition is inherently untestable. Before the object hits light
speed, while still subluminal any reflected or emitted radiation is at
such a low frequency it cannot be detected. If one cannot detect, one
cannot test a hypothesis.
In the universe in which things can be observed from people outside of
black holes there is no evidence that a massive body can ever be moved
to light speed. In Newtonian mechanics one can construct a gedanken that
enables a massive object to be moved beyond light speed. You can do the
gedanken with a sufficient number of rocket stages. At each stage the
velocities add because Newtonian mechanics is Galilean invariant.
So Newtoninian Mechanics -> superluminal speed for massive object
(observably). But a massive object cannot acheive the speed of light
(observably) so Newtonian mechanics is wrong.
Bob Kolker
Bob Kolker
eshal
> >
>
> [...]
>
> > Yes. This is both an endless behaviour and the key to its own
> riddle.
> >
> > Somewhere along the line of definition, there must be a point
> where we can
> > determine that a system is either under the constant force of
> acceleration
> > or it is immersed in a gravitational field.
>
> The thermodynamics are basically the same, these two processes are
> physically indistinguishable from each other. As an object
> accelerates through space, there is an EMR exchange between the
> object and space (space being wholly constituted by EMR), as a
> mechanism in Nature to keep thermal equilibrium between the
> accelerating object and the space that surrounds it, and as required
> by GR's equivalency principle. When an object is just seating, but
> immersed in a gravitational field, space is the one being
> accelerated
Yes. The gravitational field, is an inertial field because the very space
itself at that location, is undergoing a constant rate of acceleration.
We find there is a variance of the rate of acceleration relating to a
massive body, and its rate of acceleration diminish in proportion to its
distance of separation.
We can associate values of acceleration to the two dimensional curvature of
GR to translate the curvature of space into a three dimensional event.
> (by an electromotive force) in relation to the object,
> and Nature, in order to maintain thermal equilibrium, uses this
> mechanism, now known as Boyer's 'equilibrium spectrum', Unruh-Davies
> radiation, Rindler flux, or Hawking's radiation.
>
>
> >
> > We should be able to perform a test which can reveal which whether
> way it
> > is.
>
> Take a look at this -
>
> www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/01/23/science.gravity.reut/index.html
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/29/science/29QUAN.html
>
> >
> > > And Timothy Boyer said - 'A physical system accelerated through
> the
> > > vacuum has the same equilibrium properties as an unaccelerated
> > > system immersed in thermal radiation at a temperature above
> absolute
> > > zero.'
> >
> > Thank's Mr Laurent. I haven't heard that one before. (-;
> >
> > > And - 'At a temperature of absolute zero a harmonic oscillator
> in a
> > > frame of reference at rest or moving with constant velocity is
> > > subject only to zero-point oscillations. In an accelerated frame
> the
> > > oscillator responds as if it were at a temperature greater than
> > > zero.'
> >
> > Oh... that shines some light of great revellation.... hey?
> >
> > > And this is how gravity is explained; space flow manifests as
> > > gravitic pressure. Pressure goes higher as we get closer to the
> > > source because space is denser. And this flow is caused by an
> > > electromotive force.
>
> Space is made from particles, the aether is not, space is material,
> the aether is not, correct?
If space is made from particles,
would it not be we call those particles
the Aether.
Space, on the other hand...
is what the Aetheric particles actually create.
Spaciousness, is actually created by the Aether.
Is that now corrected?
> 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).
It seems from the behaviour we can determine, there is a non-compressible
aspect to the Aether. I do not think we need propose a separate particle as
a compressible unit needed to describe the 'elastic' qualities to the
Aether. When we can see a shifting displacement through a media of
non-compressible particles, can also be described by the properties of a
vacuum wave in transition spreading out through this 'Aether'. The advantage
of a vacuum wave is that it is an event that does not require a
compressibility in the media through which it can propagate.
..or actually we can go further to declare that if the media has any
compressibility the speed of c might not be so constant over time.
Light would loose energy.
> 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, Haich 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, yes or no?
Okay... we can say that. If the Aetheric particles are rigid and
incompressible then that only allows us to consider the notion of a relative
'vacuum' opening up between these 'particles'. This is the principle action
which is 'in motion' and is the 'wave'.
> So space
> particles (dark matter), carried by matter waves, continuously
> condense into material objects.
Dark matter usually relates to what is forcing the universe to expand. It is
not that anyone has ever seem some or have suspicion to consider it exists,
other then for the fact our universe is accelerating as it expands.
This acceleration implies...
something is pushing it.
Hence.... the proposition of 'Dark Matter'.
Now, if we were to explain by other means the origin of force capable of
accelerating galaxies, then Dark Matter theory would drop by the way side as
a.....
bit of a mistake.
> That would mean that the closer you
> get to the object the denser the space would be,
I think this statement becomes redundent if we consider gravity in terms of
acceleration.
> as a function of
> the object's mass and radius, explaining why gravitic pressure obeys
> the inverse square law.
We are actually still out on that.
Because before we can determine anything about the inverse square, we have
to determine what is going on.
Is the frame of reference under a constant rate of acceleration or is it
not?
em.
TomGee
> TomGee wrote:
> > As I have said previously, this is the same math Einstein used to
> > prove his static universe.
>
> to be a critique of the whole post. But the poster should be aware that SR
> has moved on since Einstein's time and that E=mc2 follows from very
> fundamental considerations, namely from the only reasonable Langrangian for
> a relativistic free particle.
>
>
it should not seem necessary to keep saying that, but some feel there
is some logic involved in arguing that nature's laws have changed just
because physics has "moved on". That would be tantamount to simply
ignoring the old laws and changing them without even a "by your
leave". But there is nothing logical about making a new law without
overthrowing the old one with which it conflicts. Thus, just because
physics has moved on, that doesn't mean it has moved "right on".
Judging by the number of those who apparently have come to lose the
ability to distinguish between the real and the non-real, I would say
it has moved "wrong on".
I have explained, in one of my previous posts in this thread, that
without the factor of energy-of-motion, the formula is short of
reality except in the one instance of relative constant velocity
between two or more objects, and in that instance, it is only valid
within that FoR and nowhere else in the u.
I have long been aware, and I do not disagree, that E=mc^2 follows
from very basic presumptions of reality, but it is not the most basic
one. The most basic one follows from the reality that the u. is in a
state of expansion and we can find nothing visible which can be said
to be stationary within the entire u. That means that everything
following that fact can only be valid in view of that fact, and that
whatever conflicts with it must first overthrow it.
The most basic one includes the fact of an expanding u. by including
in it the energy of motion, like this: E=mc^2+(energy of motion).
Einstein's equation leaves off the motion factor, so his shortened
equation can only be valid in a situation of relative constant
velocity between objects.
>
>
> The full argument is given on page 26
> Landau - Classical Theory of Fields. Here it is seen that the energy of a
> particle is E=mc2/sqrt(1-v2/c2). Remember from Langrangian mechanics energy
> is DEFINED as p.v - L. Simple substitution immediately gives the quoted
> formula. I am afraid that, despite whatever historical comments you wish
> to make (others are in a much better position to comment on those) your
> comment that he dropped off the energy of motion is irrelelevant. From the
> very definition of energy when no motion is present i.e. v=0 then E=MC2.
>
>
But the only time when no motion is present can only occur when
comparing objects which are at relative constant velocity. To say a
visible discrete object is not in motion is impossible except when
compared to another object with which it is in a condition of constant
velocity. That particular FoR is itself in motion within the u.
>
>
> No fudging is required, all you need to accept is the Langrigian of a free
> particle, which Landau shows to be, by very general augments that no one
> would really care to question, L = -mc2sqrt(1-v2/c2). So unless you wish to
> attack Langrangian mechanics then you must accept for a stationary particle
> E=mc2.
>
>
I have no wish to do so, as L. mechanics is fine for imaginary
non-motion, but until you can observe a stationary free particle in
this u., you cannot say that such math is an explanation of reality.
It is a description of it, yes, it is representative of it, yes, it
has great utility for us, yes, but it is not and cannot ever be
reality. Unless, of course, as you put it, one wishes to accept it
simply so as to avoid having to attack L. mechanics.
Spaceman
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3E7661B0...@attbi.com...
> But a massive object cannot acheive the speed of light
> (observably) so Newtonian mechanics is wrong.
Yes it could as long as the observer was not stationery compared
the the FTL objects speed.
It could easily be "observed" if the observer was paralleling the speed.
Mitchell Jones
> Mitchell Jones wrote:
> > with something that moves faster than light. (My suggestion: place your
> > object over the polar axis of a black hole, then sit back and watch the
> > sucker fly! :-) --MJ}***
>
> No good. Once inside the horizon no further readings are possible.
***{First, if the massive gravitational sinks that have come to be known
as "black holes" are exactly what relativists claim them to be, then you
are correct. But, of course, my entire comment was predicated on the
assumption--for which there is considerable evidence--that that is wrong.
Second, I said nothing about placing the object below the event horizon.
My idea is that the outgoing streams of matter observed in "galactic jets"
(e.g., Cygnus A) are coming from below the event horizon--which means: the
Einsteinian conception of a black hole does not, in fact, fully apply to
these objects.
Third, the black hole stuff is a side issue. I added that comment at the
end as a joke, and I really don't have any interest in hearing more claims
from relativists that their ability to *imagine* circumstances that might
invalidate the *measured* superluminal velocities of these jets, is
sufficient to shift the burden of proof. I don't buy it, I am not going to
buy it, and I am not interested in recycling through that same old tired
series of rationalizations all over again. If you would care to read about
this issue, go to google and pull up the thread entitled "Astronomical FTL
evidence.................." and read all about it. I'm sure you will agree
that the burden of proof never, ever shifts over to the relativists, so
you don't need to bother to tell me that. I'll simply assume it unless you
explicitly tell me otherwise. :-(
--Mitchell Jones}***
The
> proposition is inherently untestable. Before the object hits light
> speed, while still subluminal any reflected or emitted radiation is at
> such a low frequency it cannot be detected. If one cannot detect, one
> cannot test a hypothesis.
***{That is wrong. Go to google and review the thread which I mentioned
above. It would, indeed, be possible to measure such events. It appears,
in fact, that they have been measured already. --MJ}***
> In the universe in which things can be observed from people outside of
> black holes there is no evidence that a massive body can ever be moved
> to light speed.
***{Incorrect. There are a number of links to data indicating the
existence of "superluminal jets" in the above referenced thread. --MJ}***
In Newtonian mechanics one can construct a gedanken that
> enables a massive object to be moved beyond light speed.
***{Yes, of course. But that does not mean Newtonian mechanics says it is
possible, any more than my ability to imagine flying by flapping my arms
means I can do so. Like it or not, the only way Newtonian mechanics
predicts anything is when you apply its precepts to a specific situation.
--MJ}***
You can do the
> gedanken with a sufficient number of rocket stages. At each stage the
> velocities add because Newtonian mechanics is Galilean invariant.
***{Yes, but you are making assumptions about the nature of matter,
energy, and space which are not required by Newton's laws of motion. You
assume, for example, that space is *empty*--i.e., that there no aether
present which might progressively impede the motion of a rocket, as it
accelerates, thereby forcing its behavior into compliance with Einstein's
speed-of-light limitation--e.g., by requiring larger and larger
expenditures of fuel to achieve a given velocity increase. However,
nothing in Newtonian mechanics requires the non-existence of such a
medium. Newton himself, in fact, occasionally speculated about the
possible existence of an aether. Thus your notion that the observed
difficulties in accelerating objects contradict Newtonian mechanics is
clearly incorrect. The reality is that what Newtonian mechanics predicts
about a situation depends on the details of the situation, and, when
significant details are unclear, what Newtonian mechanics predicts is
simply unknown. --MJ}***
> So Newtoninian Mechanics -> superluminal speed for massive object
> (observably). But a massive object cannot acheive the speed of light
> (observably) so Newtonian mechanics is wrong.
***{Nope. See above. --MJ}***
> Bob Kolker
================================================
Sci.physics crackpot list and suggested killfile: Charles Cagle, Stephen
Speicher, Mati Meron, Franz Heymann, Mike Varney, Dirk Van de
moortel, Bob Zombiewoof, Old Man, Big Bird, Greg Neill, Spaceman.
Laurent
It is the missing matter. The invisible, or imperceptible matter
predicted by the Big Bang.
EMR pushes out, it's repulsive. Dark matter is attractive, and behaves
very much like matter in terms of it gravitational properties.
>
> > That would mean that the closer you
> > get to the object the denser the space would be,
>
> I think this statement becomes redundent if we consider gravity in terms of
> acceleration.
>
> > as a function of
> > the object's mass and radius, explaining why gravitic pressure obeys
> > the inverse square law.
>
> We are actually still out on that.
>
> Because before we can determine anything about the inverse square, we have
> to determine what is going on.
>
> Is the frame of reference under a constant rate of acceleration or is it
> not?
>
> em.
Please read this, it is from one of the leading researchers in this
field.
[ALAN GUTH:] Even though cosmology doesn't have that much to do with
information, it certainly has a lot to do with revolution and phase
transitions. In fact, it is connected to phase transitions in both the
literal and the figurative sense of the phrase.
It's often said - and I believe this saying was started by the late
David Schramm - that today we are in a golden age of cosmology. That's
really true. Cosmology at this present time is undergoing a transition
from being a bunch of speculations to being a genuine branch of hard
science, where theories can be developed and tested against precise
observations. One of the most interesting areas of this is the
prediction of the fluctuations, the non-uniformities, in the cosmic
background radiation, an area that I've been heavily involved in. We
think of this radiation as being the afterglow of the heat of the Big
Bang. One of the remarkable features of the radiation is that it's
uniform in all directions, to an accuracy of about one part in a
hundred thousand, after you subtract the term that's related to the
motion of the earth through the background radiation.
I've been heavily involved in a theory called the inflationary
universe, which seems to be our best explanation for this uniformity.
The uniformity is hard to understand. You might think initially that
maybe the uniformity could be explained by the same principles of
physics that cause a hot slice of pizza to get cold when you take it
out of the oven; things tend to come to a uniform temperature. But
once the equations of cosmology were worked out, so that one could
calculate how fast the universe was expanding at any given time, then
physicists were able to calculate how much time there was for this
uniformity to set in.
They found that, in order for the universe to have become uniform fast
enough to account for the uniformity that we see in the cosmic
background radiation, information would have to have been transferred
at approximately a hundred times the speed of light. But according to
all our theories of physics, nothing can travel faster than light, so
there's no way that this could have happened. So the classical version
of the Big Bang theory had to simply start out by assuming that the
universe was homogeneous - completely uniform - from the very
beginning.
The inflationary universe theory is an add-on to the standard Big Bang
theory, and basically what it adds on is a description of what drove
the universe into expansion in the first place. In the classic version
of the Big Bang theory, that expansion was put in as part of the
initial assumptions, so there's no explanation for it whatever. The
classical Big Bang theory was never really a theory of a bang; it was
really a theory about the aftermath of a bang. Inflation provides a
possible answer to the question of what made the universe bang, and
now it looks like it's almost certainly the right answer.
Inflationary theory takes advantage of results from modern particle
physics, which predicts that at very high energies there should exist
peculiar kinds of substances which actually turn gravity on its head
and produce repulsive gravitational forces. The inflationary
explanation is the idea that the early universe contains at least a
patch of this peculiar substance. It turns out that all you need is a
patch; it can actually be more than a billion times smaller than a
proton. But once such a patch exists, its own gravitational repulsion
causes it to grow, rapidly becoming large enough to encompass the
entire observed universe.
The inflationary theory gives a simple explanation for the uniformity
of the observed universe, because in the inflationary model the
universe starts out incredibly tiny. There was plenty of time for such
a tiny region to reach a uniform temperature and uniform density, by
the same mechanisms through which the air in a room reaches a uniform
density throughout the room. And if you isolated a room and let it sit
long enough, it will reach a uniform temperature as well. For the tiny
universe with which the inflationary model begins, there is enough
time in the early history of the universe for these mechanisms to
work, causing the universe to become almost perfectly uniform. Then
inflation takes over and magnifies this tiny region to become large
enough to encompass the entire universe, maintaining this uniformity
as the expansion takes place.
For a while, when the theory was first developed, we were very worried
that we would get too much uniformity. One of the amazing features of
the universe is how uniform it is, but it's still by no means
completely uniform. We have galaxies, and stars and clusters and all
kinds of complicated structure in the universe that needs to be
explained. If the universe started out completely uniform, it would
just remain completely uniform, as there would be nothing to cause
matter to collect here or there or any particular place.
I believe Stephen Hawking was the first person to suggest what we now
think is the answer to this riddle. He pointed out - although his
first calculations were inaccurate - that quantum effects could come
to our rescue. The real world is not described by classical physics,
and even though this was very "high-brow" physics, we were in fact
describing things completely classically, with deterministic
equations. The real world, according to what we understand about
physics, is described quantum-mechanically, which means, deep down,
that everything has to be described in terms of probabilities.
The "classical" world that we perceive, in which every object has a
definite position and moves in a deterministic way, is really just the
average of the different possibilities that the full quantum theory
would predict. If you apply that notion here, it is at least
qualitatively clear from the beginning that it gets us in the
direction that we want to go. It means that the uniform density, which
our classical equations were predicting, would really be just the
average of the quantum mechanical densities, which would have a range
of values which could differ from one place to another. The quantum
mechanical uncertainly would make the density of the early universe a
little bit higher in some places, and in other places it would be a
little bit lower.
So, at the end of inflation, we expect to have ripples on top of an
almost uniform density of matter. It's possible to actually calculate
these ripples. I should confess that we don't yet know enough about
the particle physics to actually predict the amplitude of these
ripples, the intensity of the ripples, but what we can calculate is
the way in which the intensity depends on the wavelength of the
ripples. That is, there are ripples of all sizes, and you can measure
the intensity of ripples of different sizes. And you can discuss what
we call the spectrum - we use that word exactly the way it's used to
describe sound waves. When we talk about the spectrum of a sound wave,
we're talking about how the intensity varies with the different
wavelengths that make up that sound wave.
We do exactly the same thing in the early universe, and talk about how
the intensity of these ripples in the mass density of the early
universe varied with the wavelengths of the different ripples that
we're looking at. Today we can see those ripples in the cosmic
background radiation. The fact that we can see them at all is an
absolutely fantastic success of modern technology. When we were first
making these predictions back in 1982, at that time astronomers had
just barely been able to see the effect of the earth's motion through
the cosmic background radiation, which is an effect of about one part
in a thousand. The ripples that I'm talking about are only one part in
a hundred thousand - just one percent of the intensity of the most
subtle effect that it had been possible to observe at the time we were
first doing these calculations.
I never believed that we would ever actually see these ripples. It
just seemed too far fetched that astronomers would get to be a hundred
times better at measuring these things than they were at the time.
But, to my astonishment and delight, in 1992 these ripples were first
detected by a satellite called COBE, the Cosmic Background Explorer,
and now we have far better measurements than COBE, which had an
angular resolution of about 7 degrees. This meant that you could only
see the longest wavelength ripples. Now we have measurements that go
down to a fraction of a degree, and we're getting very precise
measurements now of how the intensity varies with wavelength, with
marvelous success.
About a year and a half ago, there was a spectacular set of
announcements from experiments called BOOMERANG and MAXIMA, both
balloon-based experiments, which gave very strong evidence that the
universe is geometrically flat, which is just what inflation predicts.
(By flat I don't mean two-dimensional; I just mean that the
three-dimensional space of the universe in not curved, as it could
have been, according to general relativity.) You can actually see the
curvature of space in the way that the pattern of ripples has been
affected by the evolution of the universe. A year and a half ago,
however, there was an important discrepancy that people worried about;
and no one was sure how big a deal to make out of it. The spectrum
they were measuring was a graph that had, in principle, several peaks.
These peaks had to do with successive oscillations of the density
waves in the early universe, and a phenomenon called resonance that
makes some wavelengths more intense than others. The measurements
showed the first peak beautifully, exactly where we expected it to be,
with just the shape that was expected. But we couldn't actually see
the second peak.
In order to fit the data with the theories, people had to assume that
there were about ten times as many protons in the universe as we
actually thought, because the extra protons would lead to a friction
effect that could make the second peak disappear. Of course every
experiment has some uncertainty - if an experiment is performed many
times, the results will not be exactly the same each time. So we could
imagine that the second peak was not seen purely because of bad luck.
However, the probability that the peak could be so invisible, if the
universe contained the density of protons that is indicated by other
measurements, was down to about the one percent level. So, it was a
very serious-looking discrepancy between what was observed and what
was expected. All this changed dramatically for the better about 3 or
4 months ago, with the next set of announcements with more precise
measurements. Now the second peak is not only visible, but it has
exactly the height that was expected, and everything about the data
now fits beautifully with the theoretical predictions. Too good,
really. I'm sure it will get worse before it continues to get better,
given the difficulties in making these kinds of measurements. But we
have a beautiful picture now which seems to be confirming the
inflationary theory of the early universe.
Our current picture of the universe has a new twist, however, which
was discovered two or three years ago. To make things fit, to match
the observations, which are now getting very clear, we have to assume
that there's a new component of energy in the universe that we didn't
know existed before. This new component is usually referred to as
"dark energy." As the name clearly suggests, we still don't know
exactly what this new component is. It's a component of energy which
in fact is very much like the repulsive gravity matter I talked about
earlier - the material that drives the inflation in the early
universe. It appears that, in fact, today the universe is filled with
a similar kind of matter. The antigravity effect is much weaker than
the effect that I was talking about in the early universe, but the
universe today appears very definitely to be starting to accelerate
again under the influence of this so-called dark energy.
Although I'm trying to advertise that we've understood a lot, and we
have, there are still many uncertainties. In particular, we still
don't know what most of the universe is made out of. There's the dark
energy, which seems to comprise in fact about 60% of the total
mass/energy of the universe. We don't know what it is. It could in
fact be the energy of the vacuum itself, but we don't know that for a
fact. In addition, there's what we call dark matter, which is another
30%, or maybe almost 40%, of the total matter in the universe; we
don't know what that is, either. The difference between the two is
that the dark energy causes repulsive gravity and is smoothly
distributed; the dark matter behaves like ordinary matter in terms of
its gravitational properties - it's attractive and it clusters; but we
don't know what it's made of. The stuff we do know about - protons,
neutrons, ordinary atoms and molecules - appear to comprise only about
5% of the mass of the universe.
The moral of the story is we have a great deal to learn. At the same
time, the theories that we have developed so far seem to be working
almost shockingly well.
eshal
"EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7563cb80.03030...@posting.google.com...news:<3e674...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
>
> > That day. ! 5 5 20.
> > These numbers have haunted me for near twenty five years. .
> > em
> [EL]
> Let me guess here.
> That (5520) was your locker's lock code at the gym, which you happen
> to forget while taking a shower after exercise.
> Naturally you would ask the assistance of the pretty assistant who
> happens to know your lock's code.
> After all it haunted you for near twenty five years. :):):):)
> Now, you neither have a locker at the gym nor a pretty assistant who
> happens to know your lock's code.
> You do not even have a "lock". :):):):):):)
...must have been that pretty assistant. (-;
I knew there was more up her sleeve then what she was pulling out.
em
Oriel36
> Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3E67DCC...@attbi.com>...
> > hanson wrote:
> > > Bob, lets' no get too carried away with "right and wrong",
> >
> > But I do get carried away. If a theory predicts something and it is off
> > by more than a reasonable error bound then the theory is WRONG. All it
> > takes is a single valid experiment producing a divergence between what
> > is predicted and what is found and the theory has been shot in the head.
> > A correct theory ALWAYS predicts correctly. If it does not then it is
> > not a correct theory. That means its domain of applicability must be
> > restricted (as Newtonian mechanics is restricted to llow velocities) or
> > it must be reformulated (as in the the case of relativistic mechanics).
> >
> > Either you take experiments seriously or you don't. Theories come and
> > theories go but facts are Forever. When ever Theory collides with Fact,
> > Theory must give way.
> >
> >
> Yes, I thought that's where you were coming from. I agree we should
> not get too carried away with "right and wrong", even in the face of
> what you think is a logical argument. What you claim may be
> reasonable when applied to a valid theory which encompasses a sole
> factor or tenet, but not when applied to one having multiple factors
> or tenets, as all theories I know have. Otherwise, you propose to
> throw out the baby with the bath water, and that can't be right.
>
> There are many theories in Relativity that many consider valid but
> which under closer scrutiny turn out to be debatable, but not one of
> those has overthrown SR or GR as yet.
Who in the hell would want to get rid of relative measures but my word
who would want to get rid of absolute ones.
Go to the only site you will need and type in the search
engine,clocks,longitude,Newton and enjoy the workings of science as it
once was done and recorded in the philosophical transactions journal.
http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/ilej/
Most of all enjoy the historical context of Newton's absolute and
relative distinctions and especially with regard to 'time'.
"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions. It may be, that there
is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be accurately
measured. All motions may be accelerated and retarded, but the true,
or equable, progress of absolute time is liable to no change. The
duration or perseverance of the existence of things remains the same,
whether the motions are swift or slow, or none at all: and therefore,
it ought to be distinguished from what are only sensible measures
thereof; and out of which we collect it, by means of the astronomical
equation. The necessity of which equation, for determining the times
of a phćnomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the
pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter."
Principia
What would you do with a theory
> that has both right and wrong tenets in it? It is not logical to
> discard the ideas which stand up to experiment because that would be
> like saying that since classical physics was found to have errors in
> it, it is not so that the Earth revolves around the Sun, nor that our
> sun is part of a galaxy, there are no galaxies, in fact, since Newton
> made an error, so we must go back to the edges of the planet to start
> research all over again.
>
Well if you are going to spend a century talking about relative this
and relative that,you had better understand what you are getting rid
of in terms of absolute and relative,Einstein was'nt triumphant over
Newton and only a half wit could ignore the library which puts those
relative/absolute distinctions into proper context.The study of
natural phenomena stalled out in 1905 andyouhave to go back 3
centuries to clear up the mess and then update what you need to cut
the vast amount of new observational data clear of rubber rulers and
'time' dilation.
> Under that logic, don't we have to throw Relativity in the trashcan
> since Einstein proved the u. static? Wouldn't you have to agree,
> however, that some of classical physics theory is correct and not all
> of it is wrong? I understand and agree that theories must stand up to
> empirical review, and that those that don't must be discarded, but it
> is obvious that your viewpoint is not a scientific one, but a
> patriotic one, where you are prepared to defend what you believe to be
> a rule of "all or nothing", even though that rule is non-existent in
> physical science. I am not debating whether or not Newton or anyone
> else made errors because that is undeniable, but I do oppose your
> position that if any part of a theory is wrong, none of it can be
> right.
Why create a dummy dimension of 'time' via clocks when the difference
between absolute time and relative time was a standard everyday
calculation of astronomers and mariners.Go ahead and check out that
invaluable library yourself and the journals of philosophical
transactions circa 1776.You can't come away from it without seeing the
enormous descrepancies between meanings Newton gives to
relative/absolute and relativity does.
Oriel36
> bill...@netscape.net wrote:
>
> > Hayek wrote:
> >
> >> L'il Al wrote:
> >
> >
> >> > Bullshit. GR is a tensor theory. A relativistic universe
> >> > is backgroundless - not even a coordinate system.
> >> > You have exactly disproven in your first sentence
> >> > that which you sought to prove in 113 additional lines
> >> > of drivel. Idiot.
> >
> >
> >> Let the record show, that UA just proclaimed Einstein an
> >> idiot. This was quoted from Einstein's address delivered
> >> on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden.
> >
> >
> > snip
> >
> > Out of his element, as usual.
>
>
> Explain.
>
>
> > "A little bit of knowledge is dangerous." See also spaceman.
>
>
>
> Hayek.
Ah,but you see James is correct,it is not about time,it is about
clocks and anyone dithering around with Einstein,Barbour or anyone
else who defines time has never really understood Newton.
Pick any one of these journals where Maskelyne,Bradley or Halley is
concerned and Newton's distinction between absolute and relative time
via clocks makes sense.
The obsession with gravitational cause generates false assumptions for
even Newton with his limited heliocentric/geocentric perspective
never went beyond drawing analogies and then applying them to the
differences between apparent motion and true motion,you do not and
cannot know what is causing rotations for it means following lesser
rotations into greater rotations,the Earth cannot rotate without the
solar system and the solar system cannot rotate without the galaxy and
then you try to figure out the next greater rotation without looking
for a final cause.You can however extend the analogies to cosmological
structure and formation to a missing rotation rather than a missing
'dark' gravitational mass,for the false assumption is that there has
to be some invisible internal mass to explain why galaxies hold
together and frankly this is a dead end.
Newton's partial use of forces represent the foundations for applying
analogies to cosmological structure,formation and motion but
ultimately it is the difference between apparent/relative motion and
actual/absolute motion which will generate that external rotation that
is required to explain galactic structure and formation.There is no
requirement to determine absolute cause nor any final theory,there is
just the natural progression from lesser rotation to a greater one,100
years ago it may have been convenient to leapfrog observation and
pretend you could set parameters for final theories but the self
correcting mechanism of accelerating expansion sidelines
Einstein,Mach,Godel ect,if participants cannot see what is staring
them straight in the face in respect to apparent accelerating
expansion a later generation will and boy will you lot look silly
with nobody but yourselves to blame.
"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that immovable space, in which
those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation
of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion." Principia