[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects

Martin,
   
  What physical entity would/could move freely through a 2ft lead wall?
   
  Even taking the deBroglie-like concepts that you are advocating for the 
aether, how could such an aether carry anything along with it, since it must by 
definition be completely transparent?
   
  I consider that there exists a certain minimum distance, which cannot be 
subdivided into any smaller unit. Call this the Planck length, L*, if you want, 
although I do not want to stake my colours to that mast just at the moment. 
However, my problem lies in the addition of mass into this aether "fabric," 
such that, simply because of the extremely small volume created via L*^3, we 
get a phenomenal density.
   
  We are dealing with physical objects, rather than deBroglie wavelengths of 
electrons. The aether either carries physical objects along with it or it 
doesn't, but I think that going from Newtonian physics to quantum mechanics and 
then back again for the sake of mathematical "completeness" is nothing more 
than a mental exercise.
   
  It is for this reason that, although I have read your comments on this, I 
still maintain that the introduction of mass into the aether "fabric" leads to 
absurd temperatures and pressures being predicted by LeSagean gravity.
   
  Neville.
  

"Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  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

       
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for 
your freeaccount today.

Other related posts: