[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects

Good one Martin...  but now you have given me a problem.. I've got to go see 
what was created on day one...  If the firmament is to be my aether, then it 
would need to have been created first up.. perhaps  

Philip. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Martin G. Selbrede 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:47 AM
  Subject: [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







------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/776 - Release Date: 25/04/2007 
12:19 PM

Other related posts: