[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects


On Apr 24, 2007, at 5:21 PM, Dr. Neville Jones wrote:


If maximons DO couple with matter:
My original point was that if material objects are carried along by a rotating aether (such that net kinetic energy imparted is zero, as you state), then there must be a noticeable effect when those objects travel through, or against, this aether (even allowing for Allen's novel suggestion of currents within the aether), for then the flux must produce far more maximons "pushing against" our material object.
This was what Markov was countering in regard to a liquid composed of maximons. This liquid has the intriguing property of having zero viscosity with regard to constant velocities, but non-zero viscosity in reaction to objects with changing velocities. (Again, I personally don't hold to either a LeSagean gas or a Markov liquid, but the extreme density form of these two models, where the mean free path constrains the underlying aetherons -- of whatever construction -- to stay localized near their current lattice positions due to crowding from their neighbors. The net flux through any material object is always zero: aether flux is conserved in this model, although the Bouw/Hanson approach to LeSage does not conserve flux since it treats matter as shielding that flux, rather than considering that matter shields acoustic pressure transmitted through the lattice. The effects are identical in either case, but with the rarefied aethers incumbent upon LeSage gas protagonists to support, there is no clear identification of the Planck Density with any element of the current universe at the subquantum domain. If these connections have been since established, I've not seen them reported.) 



If maximons DO NOT couple with matter:
How would such an aether carry any material object along within itself?
I think I mentioned this already, that inertial drag is to matter in the aether as Fresnel drag is to light rays in glass.
I think in all fairness, Neville, your task is complicated because every person here on the forum has a completely different idea of what the aether is and how it should behave. So, interacting with Allen may or may not translate to an adequate response to Martin, or to Phil. You've got five blind men and an elephant, in effect. Your challenge, then, is to not tar with too broad a brush, but since knowledge of another person's views comes in to you piece-meal (usually by way of the person objecting to your criticisms), you've got something akin to vague, moving targets with poorly-defined outlines. So, I'm sympathetic with the challenges of pinning us aether guys down. It's like the old saw that if you have five economists, you'll have six opinions. 

Martin
P.S. This reminds me of a comedian's commentary about all the out-of- focus photos of the legendary Bigfoot here in North America: "Bigfoot IS blurry. He's a creature with soft edges running around in the wilderness -- you can't get a sharp photograph of him." So it is with the aether theorists. The best you can do is pin one down at a time and figure out what his particular conceit is. That's just the nature of the beast. No pun intended.

Other related posts: