[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects

Dear Philip,
Further clarification: I believe I've repeatedly said I oppose either the liquid or gas models of an aether. I endorse a solid, and have since 1983. My aether's properties are strictly classical. The only thing "quantum" about it is its scale of granularity and its net density, not its behavior or the physics behind its properties. I make no appeal to Hilbert spaces or Schroedinger wave functions. I'm on record as an unrepentant critic of quantum mechanics, and even the form of QM that I think comes closest to the truth (which is NOT the prevailing Bohr model), I've specifically said was not acceptable "as- is" but at least represented a sufficiently classical starting point to serve as a convenient point-of-departure. Like I said, throw out the bathwater, not the baby.
Do the effects of liquid or gas-type aethers disappear when the aether density is taken up high enough to make it a solid? No, no more than sound waves stop propagating through such media because of change of density. In fact, sound waves (acoustic pressure waves) simply propagate faster in higher density materials.
I've not touched on my Biblical convictions since we've focused by tacit agreement on the science side of aethers, but I think you'll find that my 1994 geocentricity video takes up this question with thoroughness. Some forum-dwellers here take any appeal to scripture as anti-rational and/or anti-empirical and treat THAT as bathwater to condemn the baby with. So, let's be clear that I can support my contentions either way, but I've learned to be cautious as to where I cast my pearls (so to speak). But hoping for the best, let's at least establish some points that biblicists would find to be palmary, but which may be treated as out-of-court by others.
Genesis 1 specifically says that the firmament was created separate from other entities, even on its own creation day -- day 2. It is a created thing. It is not a nothing. The stars, Sun, and moon, and for that matter, everything, is embedded in the firmament.
So, do the Scriptures speak of the interpenetration of objects inside solids, something that we know -- from our physical experience of the macro world, at least -- to be absolutely impossible? On the face of it, yes. Note the "sea of glass like unto crystal" reported in Revelation 4:6 -- we later learn, in Rev. 15:2, that this crystalline mass has flames of fire dancing inside the solid -- not hollow -- glass. In Ezek. 1:22 we note this description: "And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above." It is reported that some early researchers into electromagnetism, those that used the analogy of space as a crystal in which all matter was embedded, had based their hypotheses on these Scriptural anchor points. They understood what we tend to neglect: that the firmament is a created thing that didn't exist until God called it into existence. Secularists are the ones who have objected to the transitional series from Hebrew to Greek to Latin represented by the terms raqiyah --> stereoma --> firmamentum. Ergo, when I discuss the properties of the aether, it is this Biblical firmament, the object created on the second day, that is my focus. I don't regard it as a gas or liquid for both Biblical reasons (crystals aren't gas or liquid or plasma but solid, and Scripture chooses crystal as the closest analogy to describe the "likeness" of the firmament: the thing we're familiar with that the firmament is most like by way of comparison) and scientific reasons (giving tangible form to the Planck Density, explaining the impedance of free space, and providing a first-order means to account for the Bell inequalities and the results of Alain Aspect's experiments, among other strong reasons).
This is why I'm interested in the Planck units, sometimes called natural units and "God's units" by others. The Planck Density would be the firmament's density. But I do indeed hold that QM has inverted cause and effect: modern quantum theory invests the constants with anthropomorphic meaning and make them determinative, whereas I see the created nature of the firmament as determinative, and from which the constants arise and become derivative of that created order. This argument can be conducted in a thoroughly classical way without ever indulging in QM. I've gone on record (and I think I've did it on this forum last year) as saying that quantum mechanics is the result when you translate the Hamiltonian equation into Hilbert space, which is a totally gratuitous and mathematically disreputable step. I compared this to dividing numbers by zero: you can get any result you want. So, please, don't color me a quantum advocate -- I'm an outspoken critic of quantum mechanics, and I continue to financially support the anti-quantum work of Dr. Peter Bergman at www.commonsensescience.org. In other words, I put my money where my mouth is when it comes to my rejection of quantum mechanics. I'm not just saying I dislike it: I'm subsidizing its undermining out of my own pocket. (Bergman's ministry is young-earth-creationist, but neither geocentric nor firmament-based. It's anti-relativity and anti- quantum.) 

Respectfully,

Martin
P.S. There is a distinction between the compounded term "open firmament of the heavens" and the uncompounded "firmament" -- the former refers to the earth's atmosphere, the latter to the firmament as understood in regard to foundational physics. Failure to distinguish the Mosaic usage can cause unwarranted confusion about the term. 



On Apr 25, 2007, at 12:58 AM, philip madsen 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 



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

Other related posts: