[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects
- From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:11:36 +0100 (BST)
Nice reply, Martin. The Bigfoot aether. Yes, I like that.
Neville.
"Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for
your freeaccount today.
Other related posts:
