[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects
- From: Martin Selbrede <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:04:28 -0500
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.
Other related posts:
