[geocentrism] Gravity and Aether
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 10:15:58 +1000
Maybe a late delivery or a repeat from my drafts.
Universal Gravity as a function of the Aether.
I have updated and revised this article to incorporate the ideas offered by
Robert Bennett.
Robert also suggested, "Let's be positive: aether can potentially explain the
effects known as gravity, inertia, and perhaps some brand new concepts. "
I agree, but I have nominated Gravity as the main subject, because it is
closely related to our subject of geocentrism, and in particular the problem
of the geostationary satellite, hoping that it will be of support to Nevilles
work. This of course does not mean I exclude or discourage those other very
important physical properties of matter, inertia, flywheel action, centrifugal
force, even nuclear physics, etc.
I have not yet included much of the discussions on Aspden and Miller, as these
are still ongoing. I have till now still the classic definition of aether as
"a hypothetical medium that pervades all space" All space, includes all matter.
However, such a definition does not exclude Aspdens theory of the aether being
an electrical structure, which I am tending to favor because it is non
material, is normally electrically neutral, and in keeping with the overall
basic electrical nature of the physical universe. there is much to investigate
here. Its not new. And others have been on to it. It is easier to see how an
electrical aether could react with matter given the basic nuclear electrical
nature of the atoms of all creation, and perhaps we may find how these
reactions exhibit the properties of mass and enertia etc.
For this article below, we need to try and find some relationship as to how
this aether, relates to the force of gravity. Phil.
Universal Gravity as a function of the Aether.
A developing alternative analytical exploration, as it affects the Universe.
All are encouraged to participate in this development, adding to or taking
away, within the prescribed guidelines.
For the purpose of this analysis, without precluding a revisit to any of them,
we will presume the following.
1. That though the universe may have any shape, we may assume it to be
spherical. Cylindrically symmetric about the polar axis would be sufficient.
2. That it has finite size. It is not infinite.
3. That there is no external influence .
4. That there is an aether which can be considered analogous to a liquid
excepting that,
a. It is non-material. i.e. [has no physical properties normally expected
of matter.] contains no ordinary (koine) matter: electrons, nucleons, etc.
b. It can vary in intensity of its effect. (synonomous with density)
Which may be influenced by
(i) the position a point lies within the universe, and
(ii) proximity of matter, and
(iii) permeation within matter
c. It is confined within the limits of the physical dimensions of the
universe of 2. above.
d. As it permeates all of space, it may influence and effect the properties
of matter, even to the point of being the primary cause.
Robert pointedly asked: Your vision of density is not (amount of
aether)/volume. But what then is your operational definition of aether density?
A possible answer.
As aether is non-material, quantifying it aether/volume is much like trying to
answer the paradox of how many angels can stand on the top of a pin. We have
limited its effect to the dimensions of the universe because it is a part of
the created universe, but we cannot contain this effect in a volume, as though
it were a material fluid. How could one possibly know if there was any change
in the density of the aether itself, simply because one volume of it has 20,000
lines of magnetic force per sq cm, and another equal volume of it has only
5,000lines of magnetic force per sq cm. ?
However, if all things being equal a magnetising force of 4H produced 20,000
lines/sqcm, in a given volume at location A, and only produced 10,000
lines/sqcm in the same volume at location B, then we may consider that the
effect of the aether is less intense, (less dense?) at location B. But this
cannot be interpreted to mean that there is a quantity difference of a
non-substance. Some other reason for the anomaly may be influencing the result.
e.g. the fact that RF propagates through water at a different speed* to a
vaccuum does not prove there is any "less" aether permeating water, but rather
that the presence of water modifies the aether effect.
It is important to avoid certain seemingly apparent contradictions caused by
the terminology used in resorting to analogy. Such confusion is often
associated with the use of anology. We have to use certain expressions that in
normal physics would have follow on expectations, but which do not apply our
case.
Take our use of "density" in 4.b. Density is usually expected to be a factor
of compressibility, I am not implying that the aether has more or less of "it"
in different specific locations. We state in 4.(a) it is non material. Thus I
would rather say that its effects may be compressed or rarefied i.e. The
intensity of its "effects" is variable, and it is influenced in its effects by
environmental factors or even perhaps its position in space. Specifically it
ned not have a universal constant.
5.. As far as is possible, the accepted or proposed theories should conform
to Scripture, and certainly not be in contradiction with it. I insist that
Scripture, and all that flows from Scripture should be allowed within the
context of this exploration. It cannot be separated from it. For example. At
the time the Aether was rejected, science historically was riding on a wave of
anti-religion, which meant ant-spirit. So strong was the scientific argument
for an aether, that there arose at that time a parallel science of spiritism
that also opposed mainstream religion, especially Christianity. It was the age
of Mesmer. But for rational science the aether smelled too much like a spirit,
that pointed to a God. Some other way HAD to be found. That is still the
mainstream philosophy.
Robert suggested: Compliance with Scripture is then a hidden premise, not
formally exposed in the documentation.. Right?
Prudence might suggest this as a strategy in the narrow concept of science that
the world accepts. I'm not a very prudent person. Science without God is a lost
cause. "Let the dead bury their own dead."
The Aether:
Before one can investigate universal gravity, as a function of the aether, it
is vitally important to first of all establish proof that there is indeed an
effect that can be ascribed as being the aether.
Better brains than mine have baulked at this. But I have no trouble seeing why
they always fail. And fail they do. There is no need for an aetheric wind in
our philosophy. Physical laws as applied to matter may not apply to this
phenomenon. We are not bound to presume that because wave motion is affected by
flow in a liquid, that similar expectations must apply to a flowing or moving
aether. The principles may be similar, but the mechanism has to be different.
Example. Electromagnetic waves versus sound waves.
This is the weaknes of the expectations of Michelson, Morley and others. No one
can reasonably state that their experiments proved the aether either way.
Perhaps there is room for further investigation into what these experimenters
really achieved, and why and what caused the regularity of Dayton Miller's
follow-up exps for example.
Yet all of physics may well be subject to its effect, including gravity, such
that nothing even matter itself could exist without it.
The proof.
Does not the following suffice?
Natural physics expects that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have any effect at a distance
without some sort of medium. Yet we do experience such effects. Leaving aside
the major effect of gravity in the cosmos, we have simple magnetism, which
operates in a vacuum, (the absence of all matter)
Before anyone says Lines of force emanating, forget it. Lines of force are a
fictional non material entity used to graphically represent the existence of a
force, whether it be electrical, magnetic, or even gravitational. To detect any
such lines of force as a "wind" by physically moving through them would be as
impossible as the original MM experiment. It is stated that by spinning the
magnet so that its "lines of force" cut a conductor and thereby generate an EMF
that we prove their existence. Such is no more than a theoretical assumption
used to justify the result. Move the conductor through this field parallel to
the alleged field and no voltage is generated. The line of force is as illusive
as the aether, and I say that the existence of this "force at a distance" is
direct proof of the aether.
That one particle of matter gravitates to another in a vacuum is proof of an
aether. No one has ever demonstrated by practical experiment the existence of
lines of gravitational force. Someone has posed the assumption that such exists
simply because matter does gravitate, and it looks like attraction.
I propose that we examine gravity between material objects as being a force
caused by the "pressure" or similar influence, of the aether. The LeSage
theory of pushing gravity, could be one starting point, although as it is
expressed below I could think of important modifications within the electrical
concept of Aspden. This would overcome the major objection why the theory was
declined, primarily for thermodynamic reasons because a shadow only appears in
this model if the particles or waves are at least partly absorbed, which should
lead to an enormous heating of the bodies. " # 1 follow up, aether not
particles or waves. heat not involved in a unified magnetic field. etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_explanations_of_gravitation
This theory was for the first time developed by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in
1690 and was re-invented and criticised among others by Georges-Louis Le Sage
(1748), Lord Kelvin (1872), James Clerk Maxwell (1875), Hendrik Lorentz (1900)
and Henri Poincaré (1908)
The theory posits that the force of gravity is the result of tiny particles
moving at high speed in all directions, throughout the universe. The intensity
of the flux of particles is assumed to be the same, effected by a penetration
of masses in all directions finally stopped by molecules. So an isolated object
A is struck equally from all sides, resulting in only an inward-directed
pressure but no net directional force. With a second object B present, however,
a fraction of the particles that would otherwise have struck A from the
direction of B is intercepted, so B works as a shield, i.e. from the direction
of B, A will be struck by fewer particles than from the opposite direction.
Likewise B will be struck by fewer particles from the direction of A than from
the opposite direction. One can say that A and B are "shadowing" each other,
and the two bodies are pushed toward each other by the resulting imbalance of
forces."
We may include considering that this influence or pressure is not constant
throughout space, and that it is modified by the proxmity of matter, on the one
hand, and maybe even by its position within this universe on the other. This
could explain how gravity need not be constant. .
As inertia may be considered a property created by change of motion within the
aether, then any flow of the aether itself, relative to the earth or any other
object, may also have to be considered. Such unseen and un measurable motion
surely will place in doubt any apparent observations of motion. This
particularly refers to acceleration or angular rotation.
What say you.. Lets begin.
We already did - you took the first step.and still developing..
Robert
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/883 - Release Date
Other related posts:
