[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects

I don?t means to appear as a ignorant "downer", but before we speculate about 
the thermal abortion and distribution properties of the aether in relation to 
mass and light might it be helpful to first consider more basic characteristics 
on things that are perhaps more objectively defined......... Move from the most 
basic principles to the specifics...here are some points to consider in no 
specific order......note #4& 5 my favorites
   
  1. Some medium exist at least for wave forms to travel..(ie...all 
electromagnetic)
  2. There do seem to be physical effects that could only be attributed to that 
interaction between the two
  3. At least for electromagnetic waves they do not appear to be exclusive to 
this medium in that light can travel through glass or a vacuum there is no 
necessity for this aether to penetrate all of matter there is plenty of 
observable thing in the everyday world where less dense objects are embedded 
into more dense objects without being permeated by the more dense..
  3. What ever it is made of it is not made up of hydrogen (ordinary 
matter)...waters above the firmament and below...hydrogen is a key ingredient 
to water....my be fundamental in regards to range of frequency response 
  4. What if the aether were thermally neutral? Why could it not be?... since 
as of yet we don?t even know what in the world it is....the experiments we can 
performed on it are somewhat limited in ascertaining it actual properties as so 
far as they can be and thermal is not one of them yet..but as for 
speculation,.. thermal properties are always transmitted via some frequency 
what if the thermal distribution is not even possible due to the fact that the 
frequency of thermal energy in a aether would not be compatible with the 
frequency response for ordinary matter?...see point 3
  5. This implies that there are frequencies in the aether that are "out of 
range" for ordinary matter to detect. Either because they are so large or so 
small .....if the density of a instantaneous wave form over ~7 billion light 
years would require a very dense material for the medium there would be 
frequencies so large and or so small that ordinary matter could not interact 
with directly & or easily, this is demonstrateable even in the everyday 
world............I am sure this is the key! We must look at thing in terms of 
their ability to interact with and in vibrations.
  6. See previous post for other possibilities for modeling based on sizes 
densities rate of gravity strength of gravity and such...........utilizing for 
now what we can observe in the ordinary world to theorize about the Ukn 
extraordinary parts of it............otherwise I think we would just be 
imagining undemonstratable theories v theories that could be based, even if 
only analogously, on actually reproducible/ demonstratable mechanics.... many 
physics & quantum theories long left the ordinary world of O&E and created a 
mathematical "hocus pocus" ones of 4d manifolds and tenors and such........that 
has been the problem all along.... Imagination v observation..


"Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:    Martin,
   
  A light photon has zero rest mass, but has a very small mass attributed to it 
when in motion, again from the quantum mechanical perspective. My view is that 
photons do not possess mass at all, but that the effects conventionally 
explained via photon momenta are more satisfactorily explained via radiation 
pressure. I therefore would not expect light to "heat up" when passing through 
hot glass or fluid, since there would be no mass to absorb this heat energy. A 
material object such as ourselves contain plenty of mass to absorb the heat 
held by the mass of each maximon and would therefore attain the same 
temperature rather quickly.
   
  Hence, although I would agree with Dr. Bouw and Prof. Hanson regarding the 
heating of material objects under the LeSage idea, I would not expect this to 
be evidence for a young universe, simply because I think that the rate of 
heating would be phenomenally quick.
   
  Neville.
  

Martin Selbrede <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  Neville,   

  Good questions. The analogy between matter waves on a Markov or Dirac aether 
and light within a transparent material extends to this question, and another 
forum member alluded to this in the few rounds prior to this as well.  Light 
injected into a transparent medium that is itself in motion transverse to the 
light ray induces Fresnel drag, because the electromagnetic wave is actually 
undergoing interaction with the electrons in the lattice (akin, but not 
necessarily identical to, absorption/re-emission cascades). What we call a 
Fresnel drag when this happens with light would be a rotational or 
translational inertial drag with regard to a Markov-type aether. 
  

  Since I don't accept the quantum formalism either, my conclusion is that the 
Planck Length is the effect, not the cause, of the mean free distance between 
the maximon particles comprising the aether. This answers to the recovery of 
the classical regime at the subquantum level.  I'm not interested in any form 
of QM other than the de Broglie-Bohm-Vigier version, because it alone avoids 
the mysticism inherent in Bohr's formulation while providing a sound foundation 
for causality -- and even here, I don't adopt that version wholesale, but use 
it as a starting point for reconstruction and full recovery of a classical 
regime.
  

  In regard to temperature, the maximon lattice can't get any hotter than it is 
(it's at the Planck temperature, after all). Should matter get warm if embedded 
in such an aether?  I'll consider that possibility if someone can show me that 
a light wave gets warmer after passing through hot glass, or gets cooler 
passing through cold glass. Otherwise, not. There is no coupling at the thermal 
level.  This is also where I must respectfully depart from the published 
thoughts of Dr. Bouw and Prof. James Hanson, who believe that LeSagean flux 
passing through matter will cause it to heat up. They conclude from this 
prediction that the Earth must therefore be young -- if it, and other objects 
in the created order, were billions of years old, the alleged accumulated heat 
energy would have long ago vaporized them.  While I'm a staunch young earth 
creationist, I find no validity in this argument -- it presupposes inelastic 
collisions obtain between LeSagean corpuscles and other
 entities.  Thermal energy is a one-way degradation of energy due to such 
inelastic interactions -- but where the interactions are elastic, all the 
energy is accounted for and remains in the aether. The gravitational "push" 
that gives rise to mutual attractions under LeSage (I'm thinking of the 
integral form of the attenuation equations as derived by Hanson) arise out of 
differential flux densities due to shadowing, but there is no net exchange in 
energy between aether and bodies -- only a shift from potential to kinetic 
energy during the acceleration. All the energy is accounted for -- nothing 
degrades to heat.
  

  Martin
  

  

  

      On Apr 23, 2007, at 5:39 PM, Dr. Neville Jones wrote:

    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 free account today.

Other related posts: