[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects

  Comments in blue
  (p)"EMR propagates because it has nowhere to go but away from its source. Its 
exactly like two like poles trying to occupy the same space. It is self 
propagating. Its wave like properties, is due to the nature of the two fields 
of which it is composed.. they stretch." 
   
  1. If it has nowhere to go it might not go anywhere just as sound dose not 
travel in a vacuum my voice would have no where to go and thus it would go 
nowhere.
  2.Experiments demonstrate something that has properties doing something that 
makes it hard to write it off as just nothing.
  3. Scripture plainly outlines a Something out there that every thing out 
there is imbedded into...


philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:          Martin, first up I want 
to say that I have the utmost respect for you, as I have come to experience 
your written word. Whilst I may not accept all that you teach, or say, you have 
been a cause in re-igniting my curiosity to learn and venture in new directions 
of all philosophy in science.  I admire your command of the language. Thus it 
is in the spirit of learning and of my ignorance, that I make the following 
comment. 
   
   You seem to be trying very hard to make the aether fit with some quantistic 
theory to make it conform with the ancient hypothesis of the aether being a 
hypothetical medium/fluid with properties that are due to a special type of 
material  ..Why are you opposed to the idea that it does not have to be a 
material substance at all, and that wave propagation "through"  it is due to an 
entirely different and new concept.  I said "through" in quotation marks 
because I dispense with the term medium. 
   
  EMR propagates because it has nowhere to go but away from its source. Its 
exacly like two like poles trying to occupy the same space. It is self 
propagating. Its wave like properties, is due to the nature of the two fields 
of which it is composed..  they stretch. 
   
  OK yes I know you were about inertia and momentum, not EMR but, 
   
  Why does "aether" have to be a special material with a new and special 
viscosity, that applies differently to matter at constant velocity  to that 
which has acceleration? 
   
  Last time I heard viscosity is a property inherent to a fluid.
   
  You seem to be trying to invent a fluid (via quantum mechanics) with 
discretionary properties as regards inertia, which to my mind means it is not a 
fluid at all. At the practical level for the purpose of trying to prove a 
fluids existence perhaps that makes for a possible hypotheses, but maybe 
unnecessarily so. 
   
  Somehow it seems to me that we must get back to basics from scripture when 
trying to reason out how a geocentric universe can rotate with an aetheric 
firmament. To venture into using quantum theory to explain it appears to me to 
be no different to those creation scientists who try to justify evolution as 
intelligent design, on the one hand and on the other try to prove the universe 
is new , of only 7000 years or so old..  
   
  This latter way of thinking is of the Devil, at worst, or a weakness of faith 
at best, because it denies the omnipotent God as having the power to create a 
natural world. A world that would need in the natural order of science at least 
millions of years to have developed  IF He had so desired to do it that way. BUT
   
  God  tells us specifically that He side stepped all of that developement and 
created the world in six days, and it was an aged universe that he created, 
with light shining from stars that were light years away..  Yes for the 
unimaginative among you I say, he put in place in an instant the stars, with 
rays of light that were light years long, to shine on the earth in that day. 
This probably was the only time ever, when light was made to travel at infinite 
speed.
   
  Likewise He said , and I know I am being repetitive, "Before Abram was I AM. 
" 
   
  To me that explains the aether, or else I am truly nuts.  
   
  Philip. 
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Martin G. Selbrede 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:51 AM
  Subject: [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.
  

  

  

    
---------------------------------
    
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: