[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects
- From: "Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:47:34 -0500
Dear Philip,
Further clarification: I believe I've repeatedly said I oppose
either the liquid or gas models of an aether. I endorse a solid, and
have since 1983. My aether's properties are strictly classical. The
only thing "quantum" about it is its scale of granularity and its net
density, not its behavior or the physics behind its properties. I
make no appeal to Hilbert spaces or Schroedinger wave functions. I'm
on record as an unrepentant critic of quantum mechanics, and even the
form of QM that I think comes closest to the truth (which is NOT the
prevailing Bohr model), I've specifically said was not acceptable "as-
is" but at least represented a sufficiently classical starting point
to serve as a convenient point-of-departure. Like I said, throw out
the bathwater, not the baby.
Do the effects of liquid or gas-type aethers disappear when the
aether density is taken up high enough to make it a solid? No, no
more than sound waves stop propagating through such media because of
change of density. In fact, sound waves (acoustic pressure waves)
simply propagate faster in higher density materials.
I've not touched on my Biblical convictions since we've focused by
tacit agreement on the science side of aethers, but I think you'll
find that my 1994 geocentricity video takes up this question with
thoroughness. Some forum-dwellers here take any appeal to scripture
as anti-rational and/or anti-empirical and treat THAT as bathwater to
condemn the baby with. So, let's be clear that I can support my
contentions either way, but I've learned to be cautious as to where I
cast my pearls (so to speak). But hoping for the best, let's at least
establish some points that biblicists would find to be palmary, but
which may be treated as out-of-court by others.
Genesis 1 specifically says that the firmament was created separate
from other entities, even on its own creation day -- day 2. It is a
created thing. It is not a nothing. The stars, Sun, and moon, and
for that matter, everything, is embedded in the firmament.
So, do the Scriptures speak of the interpenetration of objects inside
solids, something that we know -- from our physical experience of the
macro world, at least -- to be absolutely impossible? On the face of
it, yes. Note the "sea of glass like unto crystal" reported in
Revelation 4:6 -- we later learn, in Rev. 15:2, that this crystalline
mass has flames of fire dancing inside the solid -- not hollow --
glass. In Ezek. 1:22 we note this description: "And the likeness of
the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour
of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above." It
is reported that some early researchers into electromagnetism, those
that used the analogy of space as a crystal in which all matter was
embedded, had based their hypotheses on these Scriptural anchor
points. They understood what we tend to neglect: that the firmament
is a created thing that didn't exist until God called it into
existence. Secularists are the ones who have objected to the
transitional series from Hebrew to Greek to Latin represented by the
terms raqiyah --> stereoma --> firmamentum. Ergo, when I discuss the
properties of the aether, it is this Biblical firmament, the object
created on the second day, that is my focus. I don't regard it as a
gas or liquid for both Biblical reasons (crystals aren't gas or
liquid or plasma but solid, and Scripture chooses crystal as the
closest analogy to describe the "likeness" of the firmament: the
thing we're familiar with that the firmament is most like by way of
comparison) and scientific reasons (giving tangible form to the
Planck Density, explaining the impedance of free space, and providing
a first-order means to account for the Bell inequalities and the
results of Alain Aspect's experiments, among other strong reasons).
This is why I'm interested in the Planck units, sometimes called
natural units and "God's units" by others. The Planck Density would
be the firmament's density. But I do indeed hold that QM has inverted
cause and effect: modern quantum theory invests the constants with
anthropomorphic meaning and make them determinative, whereas I see
the created nature of the firmament as determinative, and from which
the constants arise and become derivative of that created order. This
argument can be conducted in a thoroughly classical way without ever
indulging in QM. I've gone on record (and I think I've did it on
this forum last year) as saying that quantum mechanics is the result
when you translate the Hamiltonian equation into Hilbert space, which
is a totally gratuitous and mathematically disreputable step. I
compared this to dividing numbers by zero: you can get any result you
want. So, please, don't color me a quantum advocate -- I'm an
outspoken critic of quantum mechanics, and I continue to financially
support the anti-quantum work of Dr. Peter Bergman at
www.commonsensescience.org. In other words, I put my money where my
mouth is when it comes to my rejection of quantum mechanics. I'm not
just saying I dislike it: I'm subsidizing its undermining out of my
own pocket. (Bergman's ministry is young-earth-creationist, but
neither geocentric nor firmament-based. It's anti-relativity and anti-
quantum.)
Respectfully,
Martin
P.S. There is a distinction between the compounded term "open
firmament of the heavens" and the uncompounded "firmament" -- the
former refers to the earth's atmosphere, the latter to the firmament
as understood in regard to foundational physics. Failure to
distinguish the Mosaic usage can cause unwarranted confusion about
the term.
On Apr 25, 2007, at 12:58 AM, philip madsen wrote:
Martin, first up I want to say that I have the utmost respect for
you, as I have come to experience your written word. Whilst I may
not accept all that you teach, or say, you have been a cause in re-
igniting my curiosity to learn and venture in new directions of all
philosophy in science. I admire your command of the language. Thus
it is in the spirit of learning and of my ignorance, that I make
the following comment.
You seem to be trying very hard to make the aether fit with some
quantistic theory to make it conform with the ancient hypothesis of
the aether being a hypothetical medium/fluid with properties that
are due to a special type of material ..Why are you opposed to the
idea that it does not have to be a material substance at all, and
that wave propagation "through" it is due to an entirely different
and new concept. I said "through" in quotation marks because I
dispense with the term medium.
EMR propagates because it has nowhere to go but away from its
source. Its exacly like two like poles trying to occupy the same
space. It is self propagating. Its wave like properties, is due to
the nature of the two fields of which it is composed.. they stretch.
OK yes I know you were about inertia and momentum, not EMR but,
Why does "aether" have to be a special material with a new and
special viscosity, that applies differently to matter at constant
velocity to that which has acceleration?
Last time I heard viscosity is a property inherent to a fluid.
You seem to be trying to invent a fluid (via quantum mechanics)
with discretionary properties as regards inertia, which to my mind
means it is not a fluid at all. At the practical level for the
purpose of trying to prove a fluids existence perhaps that makes
for a possible hypotheses, but maybe unnecessarily so.
Somehow it seems to me that we must get back to basics from
scripture when trying to reason out how a geocentric universe can
rotate with an aetheric firmament. To venture into using quantum
theory to explain it appears to me to be no different to those
creation scientists who try to justify evolution as intelligent
design, on the one hand and on the other try to prove the universe
is new , of only 7000 years or so old..
This latter way of thinking is of the Devil, at worst, or a
weakness of faith at best, because it denies the omnipotent God as
having the power to create a natural world. A world that would need
in the natural order of science at least millions of years to have
developed IF He had so desired to do it that way. BUT
God tells us specifically that He side stepped all of that
developement and created the world in six days, and it was an aged
universe that he created, with light shining from stars that were
light years away.. Yes for the unimaginative among you I say, he
put in place in an instant the stars, with rays of light that were
light years long, to shine on the earth in that day. This probably
was the only time ever, when light was made to travel at infinite
speed.
Likewise He said , and I know I am being repetitive, "Before Abram
was I AM. "
To me that explains the aether, or else I am truly nuts.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Martin G. Selbrede
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:51 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Aether effects
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.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date:
24/04/2007 5:43 PM
Martin G. Selbrede
Chief Scientist
Uni-Pixel Displays, Inc.
8708 Technology Forest Place, Suite 100
The Woodlands, TX 77381
281-825-4500 main line (281) 825-4507 direct line (281) 825-4599
fax (512) 422-4919 cell
mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx / martin.selbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
