Aether Displacement Rebuttal
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: CERN is your potential killer. I’ll send my last 100 baxes to that CERN worker, who will destroy the LHC.
Next: Confirm or deny
From: glird on 20 Dec 2009 15:10 On Dec 19, 10:46 am, Huang wrote: > >< You can say whatever you want, you can build endless philosophical contraptions, all of them are meaningless without QUANTIFICATION. And the best way to quantify things is with mathematical models. ... a model or theory which is unable to quantify things is meaningless to science. If you cannot quantify things it will not fly. > Well said!!! (as usual) glird
From: glird on 20 Dec 2009 15:23 On Dec 19, 4:36 pm, Huang wrote: >< Maxwell is ok but Bohm is better. I dont have the exact quote right in front of me, but he did mention some things about "conservation of probabilities". > If he (or anyone else) was talkig about "the probability, psi" -- as in Max Born's defective interpretation of Schrodinger's use of that symbol, -- forget it. Otherwise, please look it up and quote it for us. glird
From: mpc755 on 20 Dec 2009 16:14 On Dec 20, 3:10 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 19, 10:46 am, Huang wrote: > > > > >< You can say whatever you want, you can build endless philosophical contraptions, all of them are meaningless without QUANTIFICATION. And the best way to quantify things is with mathematical models. ... a model or theory which is unable to quantify things is meaningless to science. If you cannot quantify things it will not fly. > > > Well said!!! (as usual) > > glird Agree, but there is a difference between mathematics and nature. Just because QM is built on the assumption the moving particle is the wave, doesn't make it more correct in nature than a moving particle creates a wave, especially when the evidence in a double slit experiment is the particle always enters and exits a single slit.
From: mpc755 on 20 Dec 2009 16:17 On Dec 20, 4:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 20, 3:10 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 19, 10:46 am, Huang wrote: > > > >< You can say whatever you want, you can build endless philosophical contraptions, all of them are meaningless without QUANTIFICATION. And the best way to quantify things is with mathematical models. ... a model or theory which is unable to quantify things is meaningless to science. If you cannot quantify things it will not fly. > > > > Well said!!! (as usual) > > > glird > > Agree, but there is a difference between mathematics and nature. Just > because QM is built on the assumption the moving particle is the wave, > doesn't make it more correct in nature than a moving particle creates > a wave, especially when the evidence in a double slit experiment is > the particle always enters and exits a single slit. And the evidence throughout nature is a particle creates a displacement wave in the medium it propagates through.
From: Paul Stowe on 20 Dec 2009 16:19
On Dec 19, 1:36 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 19, 1:54 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 19, 12:18 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 19, 7:46 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 18, 10:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 18, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 18, 11:27 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 17, 1:35 pm, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 16, 11:46 am, glird wrote: > > > > > > > > >> 1. Without using the word "density", how do you define the quantity of aether > > > > > > > >> per unit volume? > > > > > > > > No answer. > > > > > > > How do you define the quantity of aether per unit volume? > > > > > > > > >> 2. How do you measure a quantity of aether? > > > > > > > >A=Mc^2. > > > > > > > > How do you know the value of M in order to be able to use that > > > > > > > equation to measure a quantity of aether? > > > > > > > A=Mc^2 where A is aether and M is matter (or mass). It is somewhat of > > > > > > a chicken and egg situation. When matter expands into aether it > > > > > > increases in volume. When aether is compressed into matter it contains > > > > > > less volume. The mass of the matter is the amount of aether it > > > > > > displaces. The mass of matter is the amount of pressure the displaced > > > > > > aether is able to exert on the matter. > > > > > > The mass of matter is the change in the amount of pressure the > > > > > displaced aether is able to exert on the matter with respect to the > > > > > aether's previous state of displacement prior to the matter displacing > > > > > the aether. > > > > > > Aether is displaced based on mass. Mass is the change in the state of > > > > > displacement of the aether. > > > > > > > How do you measure the quantity of aether? > > > > > > > > >> 3. How do you measure a quantity of matter? > > > > > > > > The quantity of matter is determined by the amount of displaced aether. I know > > > > > > > > this is not what you are looking for but the amount of aether matter displaces is > > > > > > > > mass. > > > > > > > > Ok, let mass be the amount of uncompressed aether that matter > > > > > > > displaces. > > > > > > > HOW do you measure a quantity of MATTER? > > > > > > > > glird- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Lets see some calculations. You can say whatever you want, you can > > > > build endless philosophical contraptions, all of them are meaningless > > > > without QUANTIFICATION. And the best way to quantify things is with > > > > mathematical models. There may be tools other than mathematics which > > > > can accomplish this as well - in my opinion - but for sure .... a > > > > model or theory which is unable to quantify things is meaningless to > > > > science. No better than religious views, pop culture, or anything > > > > else. If you cannot quantify things it will not fly. > > > > Actually Maxwell did quantify aether displacement which he called the > > > 'electrotonic state'. This can be found in his work "On Physical > > > Lines of Force". It is interesting how many numerical coincidences > > > fall out of the use of that physical model. And, if you read that > > > work you will see that it is fully quantified and described. > > > The Maxwellians By Bruce J. Hunt > > > "In 1864 [Maxwell] followed "Physical Lines" with the more abstract > > "Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field," in which he derived > > his main results, including the action of displacement currents and > > the electromagnetic theory of light, by a Lagrangian analysis that > > allowed him to skip over the detailed workings of the ether mechanism. > > Maxwell still hoped one day to find the true mechanical structure of > > the ether, but until new experimental evidence allowed him to say > > something more definitive, he thought it best to found the laws of > > electromagnetism on as general and unhypothetical a basis as > > possible." > > > Unfortunately, the double slit experiment with C-60 molecules was not > > performed until recently. > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > > The state of the aether is its state of displacement and entrainment. > > > A moving C-60 molecule creates a displacement wave in the aether.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Maxwell is ok but Bohm is better. I dont have the exact quote right in > front of me, but he did mention some things about "conservation of > probabilities". > > I think that this view is pretty deep philosophically, but I wonder > about Bohm. Either he had lots of speculations that were never > printed, or he could not articulate what he was imagining, or maybe he > just had some secrets which were never revealed. > > I seriously doubt that Bohm would have withheld secrets. I also doubt > that Bohm would have agreed with me regarding existential > indeterminacy. Even still, he would not have been able to disprove > what Ive been saying, and probably would have found my methods useful > even though they are politically incorrect (in a mathematical sense). You've got to realize that Maxwell died in 1873, long before many elements of physical connectivity had been recognized. His model can be utilized to define such things as the actual electron magnetic moment without needing any anomalous elements. The 'reason' for the anomalous magnetic moment and its cousin the hyperfine g factor is easily understood in that model as a resultant of our physical condition with respect to the universe at large. The electron magnetic moment (E) can be alternatively expressed as; E = [1/2m(2pi)^2][Sqrt(h^3 (Sqrt(z/3u) )] => ~ 9.2835E-24 Where m = electron mass z = permittivity u = permeability h = Planck's constant rather than E = ghe/2pim e = elemental charge Notice that in the Maxwellian version given above elemental charge is not present and is replaced with basic EM field parameters z, u, and Planck's constant h which accounts for the field couplings correctly, without need for the g/2 factor. There does remain a 0.013% variance that still needs accounting for. Regards, Paul Stowe |