[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects
- From: "Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:55:27 -0500
Neville,
I'm glad you brought up the issue of light. Light can travel miles
through solid fused silica. The lattice structure of the silica and
its proportions relative to the wavelength of light, and the virtual
absence of the imaginary part of the refractive index of the silica
and other absorptive defects and/or scattering domains in the
molecular matrix, give rise to this circumstance. But there are
several orders of magnitude difference between the wavelength of
light, and the de Broglie wavelength of a proton or electron. For a
lattice to be transparent to protons the way that silica is
transparent to photons, the constituents of the lattice must be
dimensionally scaled in proportion (or better). The putative maximon
length scale, which is the Planck Length (about 10E-37 meters
across), satisfies the criterion for being transparent to matter as
conventionally understood and constituted.
Note that the difference between conventional LeSagean gravity models
and a Markov-type aether is a question of the mean free path of the
constituent particles. LeSagean gravity treats the ultramundane
corpuscles as behaving as an ideal gas: the mean free path is much
larger than the diameter of an ultramundane corpuscle. But if the
mean free path is shorter than this amount, then each of the Lesage
corpuscles is locked into a lattice position, with the pressure waves
being distributed corpuscle-to-corpuscle acoustically, as Vigier
described it. Such a Markov-type aether is essentially one species of
LeSagean gravity with a specific boundary condition concerning
particle mean free paths. As Vigier, de Broglie, and David Bohm
noted, this recovers a classical deterministic physics at the
subquantum domain. Because it IS the subquantum domain at which this
activity occurs, the scales of the particles insure the interactions
posited by Markov's work. The Planck Temperature, then, corresponds
to the frequency of interaction between neighboring maximons in the
lattice. The LeSagean effect is not harmed by kicking up the density
to this point (otherwise, conservation of energy would be violated).
This variant is tenable and should be assessed on the merits.
I think I've elsewhere noted that electromagnetic fields have been
comprehensively modeled as mechanical stresses inside a crystalline
lattice-type structure. Maxwell himself adopted such a background
scaffold during the development of his EM theory, and then dropped it
before final publication.
I think we differ on what the properties of the aether would be.
Neither of us wants to be in the position of Lewis Carroll's
Caterpillar, who says that words mean what he wants them to mean.
Such an arbitrary approach would be profoundly unhelpful and
unedifying. In that light, we should note then that I would NOT
support any aether that has the obviously undesirable properties that
you describe. However, much better physicists than you or I have
established that such results need not be foregone conclusions: the
failure of one model of aether doesn't tar all aether models with the
same brush, it only condemns those that intrinsically possess the
same flaw, and not those models that aren't subject to the objection.
In that connection, you are right in an earlier comment that such an
aether CAN account for the reactive impedance of so-called free
space, and it's significant that this impedance is reactive, meaning
it stores energy and returns it without loss -- the principle behind
electromagnetic radiation energy transmission. IF the maximon-maximon
interactions were inelastic, there'd be a sink for energy loss, as
you propose. However, the interactions are elastic and energy-
preserving (and, given Markov's notion of what a maximon is, this
result is non-negotiable). I don't agree with Markov as to the nature
of the particle, anymore than I agree with Wheeler that spacetime
foam is a fluctuating sea of virtual particles popping into and out
of existence. I'd oppose both models with a physically real (not
virtual) particle, as LeSagean thinking does. As I noted in my 1994
work, the virtual model approach to spacetime foam got dealt a fatal
blow by Redmount and Suen's research into the inherent instability of
such foams (they always coalesce into wormholes and other topological
monstrosities so frequently and irreversibly we'd long ago have
detected thousands of such anomalies within our own solar system if
spacetime foam weren't utterly inert and stable rather than virtual
and fluctuating).
Keep in mind how modern physics deals with things like the Planck
Density and the Planck Temperature. It treats the former as an
initial state density of the universe just prior to the Big Bang
exploding; it treats the latter as the temperature at that same
initial state point. HOWEVER, the expressions used to determine
these physical constants give NO evidence of being related solely to
an initial state event, that has no current applicability. This
"initial state" premise is wholly gratuitous -- the equations
themselves, understand in their natural sense, reveal the CURRENT
state within this universe. The significant factor is that these
parameters relate to the current state of the subquantum domain, not
the larger-scale structures comprised of matter as we know it that
are embedded within that subquantum domain. It's not without reason
that Vigier speaks of all matter as being embedded in what he called
a causal subquantum thermostat. Note, also, that such an aether
provides an excellent mechanism for handling superluminal (faster-
than-light) interactions, as made vigorous by Vigier and Bohm in the
1970s: nonlocality is resolved using the Bohm quantum potential,
without appeal to Copenhagen-style entanglement/ensemble weasel words.
Therefore, bath water: toss. Baby: keep.
Martin S
On Apr 23, 2007, at 2:05 PM, Dr. Neville Jones wrote:
Martin,
Thank you. Nice response.
I read your reply to the criticisms of North and Nieto a few years
ago, in fact I think I still have a printed copy of it somewhere.
Whilst I agree with your position regarding GR, I am not convinced
by the Planck-particle liquid plenum aether idea, since this relies
upon density and we have then gone full circle back to matter-
matter interaction. Also, I see no reason why certain "fundamental"
physical constants should be related to one another, this being an
idea which, if carried far enough, would result in the conclusion
that we should all be cooked to a crisp due to the temperature of
the universe.
I do accept that the mathematical foundations of this novelty are
sound, as you rightly allude to by saying that it was reviewed by
Stephen Hawking, but I feel that this approach is, frankly, absurd.
Rather than saying that objects would pass freely through it, my
position is that not even light would pass through it (all
radiative energy would be absorbed immediately by this enormous
energy sink).
Furthermore, celestial objects do not exhibit uniform rectilinear
motion, rather their velocities are constantly changing.
My opinion, therefore, is that the plenum aether is a non-starter.
Best wishes,
Neville.
"Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
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:
