[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:33:01 +1000
Allen I should have explained it better. To understand light propagation , I
prefer to use radio because the longer wavelength, and the antenna elements are
more practical to examine.
You know what I mean if I said that if a unit North pole were placed near to a
North magnetic pole it would be repelled away even through a vacuum. (it has
nowhere else to go)
In the case of radio EMR the transmitting element produces a sequence (at the
given frequency) of electrically and magnetically polarised "envelopes" . which
are aligned with "like" polarities opposing , which as a result repell each
other away from the antennae. these have no weight, hence the speed of
propagation is at the speed of light. Why this limitation is another subject,
our aether, and not involved in this current explanation.
So I meant that because of the law of like poles repel, the generated envelopes
of electromagnetic energy as electrical and magnetic lines of force in
quadrature have nowhere else to go but be repelled away from the continueing
successive like polarity envelopes and from the antenna itself. As these
envelopes of force move further away from the centre, they have to stretch ..
This is the action which mathmatically gives us the inverse square law. The
fields are contiguous, and contradicts any idea of a corpuscle or particle
So that is why I said it can only go one way and that is away from the source.
and by way of explaining that this could happen without the need for any
hypothetical fluid medium.
This still leaves us with the need to explain how force acts through
(supposedly) empty space.. to which I offered elsewhere, IT IS NOT REALLY EMPTY.
The antiaetherans try to say that the field is itself an entity.. This I
reject as pure supposition. The field is a ficticious entity used to explain
the action of a force. Lines of force are graphical representation of this
action. I expect that to be understood in my explanation above, lest I be seen
to contradict myself.
On an aside, you said,
If it has nowhere to go it might not go anywhere just as sound dose not travel
in a vacuum my voice would have no where to go and thus it would go nowhere.
Sound is a ficticious word.. It is a subjective thing like sight.. It is the
biological animals reaction as hearing of a vibration. But the nature of
physical vibration cannot be anything but analogously compared to
electromagnetic cycles, which cannot be technically called a vibration. If the
vibration of your voice was converted into electrical cycles, it would indeed
be propagated in a vacuum.
This is the reason why there are regulations controlling the audio power in the
hearing aid loops of theatres and buildings. Why ? because they can interfere
with radio reception in aircraft that may be overhead...
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:37 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Aether effects
Comments in blue
(p)"EMR propagates because it has nowhere to go but away from its source. Its
exactly 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."
1. If it has nowhere to go it might not go anywhere just as sound dose not
travel in a vacuum my voice would have no where to go and thus it would go
nowhere.
2.Experiments demonstrate something that has properties doing something that
makes it hard to write it off as just nothing.
3. Scripture plainly outlines a Something out there that every thing out
there is imbedded into...
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/776 - Release Date: 25/04/2007
12:19 PM
Other related posts:
