[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects
- From: "Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:51:48 -0500
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.
Other related posts:
