[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects

Neville,
Viscosity conventionally considered is a measure of a frictional coefficient (so-and-so centistokes, for example) related to resistance to change in displacement, or, in other words, it is velocity-dependent in its effect. Operationally, a workable aether only resists change in velocity (its coefficient and higher order terms are arrayed not with the first derivative of displacement with respect to time, but with the second).
It was calculation of these factors when analyzing a hypothetical liquid composed of maximon particles (maximon particles bear the Planck density) that led Markov to the proof that such a liquid comprises a "quasi-isotropic space" -- in other words, an aether composed of such ultra-dense particles functions like "empty space" as currently observed. Objects can travel through it freely without impediment, but the aether resists acceleration while conserving constant-velocity rectilinear motion. Newtonian macro observations are thus preserved in the classical limit, and his three laws of motion fall out of the properly normalized viscosity function. The key factor is the nature of the coupling at this scale -- THAT is what differs between matter-maximon interaction versus matter-matter interaction (from where we get our conventional notions of viscosity and its effects).
Markov published this work in the compendium "The Very Early Universe," containing the Proceedings of the Nuffield Workshop held in 1983; this volume was edited by Hawking, Sykos, and Gibbons. In other words, these research results passed the scrutiny of Stephen Hawking: there's nothing fishy with the physics. I cited this material in a 1994 article which I believe is available at www.geocentricity.com (I think Dr. Bouw identifies it as "A Response to Drs. Nieto and North" by Martin Selbrede -- you have to drill down a bit to find it).
In any event, we need to distinguish between conventional notions of viscosity, and viscosity related to Markov-compliant aethers. The terms are not equipollent, because different derivatives of the spatial displacement are affected, respectively, in the two cases. 

Martin


On Apr 22, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Dr. Neville Jones wrote:


Allen,
If the aether has a viscosity, then why do celestial objects that move through the aether not slow down? 

Neville.


Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A spun up flywheel that stops takes less energy to bring back up to the previous rpm then the energy required to bring it to that rpm initially, as long as that is done within a limited time frame....does it matter what the fly wheel is made of? In any case that time multiplied by the entropy = efficiency or rate of energy transfer or we could say the viscosity of the aether to that ordinary matter……… Viscosity(aether) / Apparent motion or gravitational rate should yield the necessary possibilities for the frequency of gravity itself. The fact that the gravitational rate will be the same regardless of the strength of gravity of more massive/volumous bodies indicates that gravity is a function of vibrations…where the rate/ frequency of those vibrations stays the same but whose strength will be determined by the mass and size of a body in question…….low frequencies push high frequencies shock. This hold true even in the everyday world. Therefore the frequency for gravity must be a low frequency as compared to ordinary matter in space. The wave form must be at least longer then the most massive clustering of bodies in space if the distribution of matter is due to gravity. At least ~128 million parsecs or 420 million light years from crest to crest the difficulty is that the source should be located at the center not the peripheral unless either gravity is not responsible for the overall structure ( ie ..structure do solely to a crystal lattice) and or a peripheral source could somehow create interference patterns as we observe in the matter distribution. If due to crystalline structure rather then vibrations then the frequency should still be able to be extrapolated from just viscosity of the aether and the gravitational rate. That in turn should allow us to by trial and error reproduce the observed distribution of mass and or correct for the errors in distance, since the distance maps should have some degree of accuracy even if just in terms of proportions or distance ratios between bodies. The fact that the maps all show a fractal structure which can only be explained in a ordered harmonic universe in contrast to the assumed isotropic randomness expected my MS indicates that the maps have some degree of accuracy if in nothing more then the relative distances between the bodies not necessarily the actually distances to the bodies. It might even allow us to produce more accurate distance maps.
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now. 

Martin G. Selbrede
Chief Scientist
Uni-Pixel Displays, Inc.
8708 Technology Forest Place, Suite 100
The Woodlands, TX 77381
281-825-4500 main line (281) 825-4507 direct line (281) 825-4599 fax (512) 422-4919 cell 
mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx / martin.selbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Other related posts: