[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects

      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: