[geocentrism] Re: The aether.geocehtrism
- From: geocentric@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 03:03:19 +0100
Philip wrote:
> Mike said , So if the aether isn't some physical material then what is it?
>
> Do you remember your saying that light in another medium was slowed down by
> the absorbtion and re emmitted by the atom? , that whilst it was in the
> radiation state it still held to c.
>
> I hadn't heard of that, but I can understand it. Its a bit like the
> collapsing pack of cards. or electrical signal in the copper conductor.
> musical chairs.....
>
> Just as light travels down those fibre optic cables, by multiple reflection
> from the inside of the tube, so likewise I can hypothesise that the medium
> of the aether is an effect produced by the fourth dimension I mentioned
> earlier. It radiation cannot penetrate time and is thus "bounced"
> figuratively between the "layers" and kept in three dimensional space.
You can hypothesise anything you like. But it needs to be concise
enough for us to agree on what the consequences of the hypothesis would
be so we can compare them with observation. I can't see how this
hypothesis could predict anything that we can test.
> I said hypothesise , so It is safe for me to conjecture about it. I am not
> certain if there is any proof, (though I thought Einstein suggested it a
> mathmatical possibility) of this fourth dimensin in any case.
Remember Pythagoras's theorom: a^2 + b^2 = c^2. That's true in
Euclidean geometry. It is quite easy to extend to 3 dimensions and can
be extended to any number of dimensions. Well in special relativity
(relativity without the gravity) the time and distance between two
events is different for different observers. But if you measure time in
the right units then all observers agree on the value of x^2 + y^2 + z^2
+ t^2 (the spacetime interval). But this is just our standard
definition of distance. That is, 4D Pythagoras's theorom holds if you
consider time as just another dimension, that's why people talk about 4D
spacetime. Mathematically, spacetime (without gravity) is a 4
dimensional Euclidean space! Gravity distorts it into something even
more bizarre!
> If it is true,
> then you have your medium, and its effect is caused by the barriers of time
> either side of the present. And it of course is a different animal to the
> conventional physical medium, if you liken it to say the fibre optic cable
> in a vacuum, as I mentioned above. (purely to give it some graphical
> representation.)
I understand what you're saying but it doesn't sound like "aether", in
essence you're just saying that everything in reality is constrained to
move through the time dimesion in a certain direction at a certain
speed, this fits our experience but so does conventional physics.
Where's the difference? Remember what Asimov said: where any
explanation is possible all explanations are meaningless.
> As regards your query , why is an aether necessary, I meant it necessary for
> my idea of geocentrism. I cannot see how the rim (of the stars) could ever
> exceed the speed of light, but if the universe we perceive is but three
> dimensions of a much more complex "object" which is rotating, then this
> becomes possible based on the principles of my analogy of the atoms in a
> spinning turntable.
Now your ideas are starting to sound like some stuff I've read on space
itself expanding. I don't really understand these cosmological theories
so I won't go into them. The binary star problem Alan pointed out is
very near near to us (our closest star is a binary). Why don't you read
up on these cosmological theories, they might coincide with your ideas.
> I am not prepared to fantasise about that other fiction we have been fed
> that the Universe is a big apple in Giant land, and the suns are giant
> protons LOL.
Didn't think so :)
Regards,
Mike.
Other related posts:
