[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:46:08 +1000
Maximons and the maximon cluster hypothesis
Authors:
Markov, M. A.; Frolov, V. P.
As this is a hypothesis, how much credence can we give the authors.. I could
not find if they came brom bible background or newton..
Reading through the list of Frolov articles he is well into all that
theoretical black hole regeneration and general anti creation science.. I may
be wrong.. I'm not impressed, but then I'm anti-quantum...
Markov, M. A could not be found in the data base below. But hes done a lot in
soviet style on black holes and white holes (thats new for me) birds of a
feather..
http://www.citebase.org/search?submit=1&author=Frolov%2C+V.+P.
Did any of you look into my smot, a down to earth real physical pruzzle..I
spelt it like that..
Phil.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:21 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Aether effects
Martin,
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. I may be wrong - I have not done the calculations.
If maximons DO NOT couple with matter:
How would such an aether carry any material object along within itself?
Neville.
"Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Neville,
One must keep the scale in mind. Let us assume (although I reject this
assumption) that there is kinematic coupling between maximons and matter. This
hypothetical concession tilts the scales quite far in favor of your approach.
Since thermal energy is kinetic, we should be in a position to quantify the
distribution of kinematic energy imparted to a fundamental particle. And here
is where the thermal-buildup hypothesis falters. Assume an electron of
classical radius 2.82 x 10E-15 meters, and the currently established value of
the Planck Length 1.6 x 10E-35. Simple algebra reveals that within the volume
of the electron, we would find no fewer than 5.5 x 10E60 maximons. Given the
stochastic nature of their motion over the 2*pi steradians of 3-space, we would
find that the NET motion imparted to the electron by these maximons sums to
zero: for every maximon pushing the electron one way, there is another maximon
pushing the other way to cancel it. Integrating over all maximons nets a zero
total impartation of kinetic energy to the electron.
Given the Boltzmann expression for thermal energy (translational kinetic
energy equals 1.5 times the temperature in Kelvin times the Boltzmann
constant), when we say something "heats up," we mean to say its constituent
parts have additional translational kinetic energy imparted to them. (The
expression differs for solids, but the transmission coupling remains kinetic in
nature.) There is no impartation of net kinetic energy to anything by a
background maximon aether with a broadly stochastic distribution of kinetic
energies: there are so many maximons per fundamental particle, each in random
motion with respect to the others, that the net kinetic energy imparted
(assuming full coupling occurs) is zero. (Not surprisingly, we find this
definition used for the Dirac relativistic stochastic aethers as well: namely,
that the net sum of aether particle velocities through any region within the
aether must be zero.)
So, even under the most generous assumptions in favor of the "over-heating"
hypothesis, there is no basis to conclude that such heating will occur.
Under the circumstance that maximons do NOT couple with matter, and that
they interact elastically and not inelastically, the "over-heating" hypothesis
really had zero initial traction from the get-go. I therefore suggested an
approach favorable to the hypothesis. However, if a hypothesis cannot muster
evidence in its favor under the most optimistic assumptions in its favor, it is
probably seriously debilitated.
Martin
On Apr 24, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Dr. Neville Jones 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.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up
for your free account today.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date: 24/04/2007
5:43 PM
Other related posts:
