[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects

Nice reply, Martin. The Bigfoot aether. Yes, I like that.
   
  Neville.
   
  

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

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

Other related posts: