[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
I don?t means to appear as a ignorant "downer", but before we speculate about
the thermal abortion and distribution properties of the aether in relation to
mass and light might it be helpful to first consider more basic characteristics
on things that are perhaps more objectively defined......... Move from the most
basic principles to the specifics...here are some points to consider in no
specific order......note #4& 5 my favorites
1. Some medium exist at least for wave forms to travel..(ie...all
electromagnetic)
2. There do seem to be physical effects that could only be attributed to that
interaction between the two
3. At least for electromagnetic waves they do not appear to be exclusive to
this medium in that light can travel through glass or a vacuum there is no
necessity for this aether to penetrate all of matter there is plenty of
observable thing in the everyday world where less dense objects are embedded
into more dense objects without being permeated by the more dense..
3. What ever it is made of it is not made up of hydrogen (ordinary
matter)...waters above the firmament and below...hydrogen is a key ingredient
to water....my be fundamental in regards to range of frequency response
4. What if the aether were thermally neutral? Why could it not be?... since
as of yet we don?t even know what in the world it is....the experiments we can
performed on it are somewhat limited in ascertaining it actual properties as so
far as they can be and thermal is not one of them yet..but as for
speculation,.. thermal properties are always transmitted via some frequency
what if the thermal distribution is not even possible due to the fact that the
frequency of thermal energy in a aether would not be compatible with the
frequency response for ordinary matter?...see point 3
5. This implies that there are frequencies in the aether that are "out of
range" for ordinary matter to detect. Either because they are so large or so
small .....if the density of a instantaneous wave form over ~7 billion light
years would require a very dense material for the medium there would be
frequencies so large and or so small that ordinary matter could not interact
with directly & or easily, this is demonstrateable even in the everyday
world............I am sure this is the key! We must look at thing in terms of
their ability to interact with and in vibrations.
6. See previous post for other possibilities for modeling based on sizes
densities rate of gravity strength of gravity and such...........utilizing for
now what we can observe in the ordinary world to theorize about the Ukn
extraordinary parts of it............otherwise I think we would just be
imagining undemonstratable theories v theories that could be based, even if
only analogously, on actually reproducible/ demonstratable mechanics.... many
physics & quantum theories long left the ordinary world of O&E and created a
mathematical "hocus pocus" ones of 4d manifolds and tenors and such........that
has been the problem all along.... Imagination v observation..
"Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Martin,
A light photon has zero rest mass, but has a very small mass attributed to it
when in motion, again from the quantum mechanical perspective. My view is that
photons do not possess mass at all, but that the effects conventionally
explained via photon momenta are more satisfactorily explained via radiation
pressure. I therefore would not expect light to "heat up" when passing through
hot glass or fluid, since there would be no mass to absorb this heat energy. A
material object such as ourselves contain plenty of mass to absorb the heat
held by the mass of each maximon and would therefore attain the same
temperature rather quickly.
Hence, although I would agree with Dr. Bouw and Prof. Hanson regarding the
heating of material objects under the LeSage idea, I would not expect this to
be evidence for a young universe, simply because I think that the rate of
heating would be phenomenally quick.
Neville.
Martin Selbrede <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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:
