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: mpc755 on 25 Dec 2009 22:37 On Dec 25, 9:39 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 25, 8:42 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 23, 1:16 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 23, 8:05 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > In the equations F = ma and e = mc^2, a denotes acceleration and c > > > > denotes the speed of light in a vacuum. Define *the meaning* of each > > > > of the things the other symbols denote. > > > > Also F = qE and E = qV where q is charge and E is potential and V > > > voltage. Of course, V = E x d so we also have E = F x d. In fact, in > > > the Maxwellian model E has dimensions of velocity (distance divided by > > > time) and charge, dm/dt or the change in mass per change in time. The > > > similarity then should becomes even more apparent. It is my opinion > > > that the quation for all such physical manifestation must ALWAYS > > > resolve to the very same underlying primitive process. > > > > Back to your statement F = ma, for example, m = {rho}V but can also be > > > resolved as [(dm/dt)/v]A where v is a velocity and A a cross-sectional > > > area. Thus a force can be generated if there exists a dv/dx. As for > > > why there exists a difference between, > > > E = [1/2m(2pi)^2][Sqrt(h^3 (Sqrt(z/3u) )] and, > > > E = ghe/m8pi > > > is that in Maxwell's model, quantization of charge did/does not > > > exist. Measurement of its magnitude depends upon the prevailing > > > conditions of the medium's state at the point of the measurement. It > > > is an interesting fact that the anomalous part of the measured > > > magnetic moment (0.001159653...) is, within the error band, the same > > > as our solar system's speed wrt the CMBR. That is to say, > > > (0.001159653)c = ~348 kps > > > This suggest that the direct measure of electron's magnetic moment > > > systematically daily might yield some interesting results. But, then > > > again, maybe not. We won't know until we specifically look. > > > Thanks again, Paul, for NOT replying there to my request in sentence > > two > > of my prior statement, "In the equations F = ma and e = mc^2, a > > denotes acceleration and c denotes the speed of light in a vacuum. > > Define *the meaning* of each of the things the other symbols denote." > > It is the 'accepted' convention that our descriptions of physical > science has certain definitions which all learn and understand are to > be used. These are, > > Mass, Length, Time are the primitive physical dimensions. Time is not a physical dimension. Time is a concept. The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do with time. If you have a battery operated clock and it starts to 'tick' slower, has time changed, or do you replace the batteries? Atom clocks 'tick' with respect to the aether pressure. > Length in > turn can be defined as components along three orthogonal axis x, y, z > as the situation dictates. In turn, these three axes are known as > geometric dimensions. In modern theories time is converted into a > pseudo length constituting a forth geometric dimension. These in turn > are incorporated into physical unitary systems where the most common > are the MKSC or SI system, the cgs system, natural units, or English > engineering system. However, all of these are mostly different > scaling of the dimensions given above. The electric/magnetic elements > take different routes in the metric systems of SI and cgs mainly > because the nature and physical dimensions of charge remain unknown > and are arbitrarily chosen for each differently. In SI permitivitty > and permeability are defined and charge is defined relative to these. > In the cgs charge is defined solely by Coulomb's force equation > assuming that there is no scaling factor which is assumed to be unity > and dimensionless. > > I'm really not sure what you wanted me to say in a reply that is not > already well defined by standard convention in this sense? > > > > > On contemplating the answers you and mpc might make, I woke at 7 > > a.m. this morning with a sudden realization that mpc's "aether" means > > something entirely different TO HIM than it meant to me. Until now I > > had lumped "aether" and "ether" together, in my definition that "the > > ether (aether) denotes the continuity aspect of space-filling matter, > > whether or not particles are in it." Although his definition and use > > of the word "aether" is not the same as my new one, he ws right in > > distinguishing between aether and ether. > > If you are interested, Paul -- and I'm sure that you are -- look at > > my new definition of "aether" on the thread called Merry Christmas. > > (The first 3 messages in that thread are identical ones by me. That's > > because the first two times I clicked <send> an error message came up > > from Google groups saying that my time had expired. Knowing that if > > you re-click the send button the message will be sent, that's what I'd > > done the first two times and then, when the same error message > > appeared, I clicked on <google info. -- or something like that -- > > which followed a sentence saying If you think this info is incorrect > > please contact > .) > > > Anyway, Paul (etc) for the fourth or {preferwably} fifth time, > > > MERRY CHRISTMAS > > > glird- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Inertial on 26 Dec 2009 01:01 "glird" <glird(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ae0b54de-c667-4146-a4d6-e043ab7d72da(a)v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 25, 11:13 am, Paul Stowe wrote: >> >> We know that the dimensions of force is kg-m/sec^2 and that in SI F = >> qq/z4piR^2 > > > Force itself is a dimension. Nope .. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis. > Its units of measure are number ans > grams, as in 10 grams. Nope. A gram is a unit of mass, not force. >> Now, what does this mean??? > > It means that a force is a net pressure in grams, independent of the > area of its application. Nope .. there is no such thing as 'pressure in grams' .. a gram is a unit of mass, not pressure.
From: alex sullivan on 26 Dec 2009 14:23 On Dec 26, 1:01 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "glird" <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > news:ae0b54de-c667-4146-a4d6-e043ab7d72da(a)v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > > > On Dec 25, 11:13 am, Paul Stowe wrote: > > >> We know that the dimensions of force is kg-m/sec^2 and that in SI F = > >> qq/z4piR^2 > > > > Force itself is a dimension. > > Nope .. seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis. > > > Its units of measure are number and > > grams, as in 10 grams. > > Nope. A gram is a unit of mass, not force. > > >> Now, what does this mean??? > > > It means that a force is a net pressure in grams, independent of the > > area of its application. > > Nope .. there is no such thing as 'pressure in grams' .. a gram is a unit of > mass, not pressure. How do YOU state an amount of pressure, without using grams or pounds?
From: glird on 26 Dec 2009 16:15 On Dec 26, 2:23 pm, alex sullivan wrote: > On Dec 26, 1:01 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > "glird" <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >news:ae0b54de-c667-4146-a4d6-e043ab7d72da(a)v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com.... > > > On Dec 25, 11:13 am, Paul Stowe wrote: > > >> We know that the dimensions of force is kg-m/sec^2 and that in SI F = qq/z4piR^2 > > > > > Force itself is a dimension. > > > Nope .. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis. > > > > Its units of measure are number and > > > grams, as in 10 grams. > > > Nope. A gram is a unit of mass, not force. > > > >> Now, what does this mean??? > > > > It means that a force is a net pressure in grams, independent of the area of its application. > > > Nope .. there is no such thing as 'pressure in grams' .. a gram is a unit of mass, not pressure. > > How do YOU state an amount of pressure, without using > grams or pounds? Good question! How does ANYONE state an amount of pressure in units of measure other than grams or pounds? Indeed, since one discovers the "mass" of an object by weighing it, and since weight is given in grams, a gram is a unit of WEIGHT (which is the quantity of PRESSURE a body exerts against a restraining surface usc on Earth). Therefore a gram is a unit of pressure and weight and -- since the textbooks agree that weight is a force -- of force, none of which are quantities of matter. Accordingly, since "mass" denotes "a quantity of matter", and since the aetheric mode of matter has no weight, a gram is the WRONG unit of measure of mass. glird
From: Paul Stowe on 26 Dec 2009 16:57
On Dec 26, 1:15 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 26, 2:23 pm, alex sullivan wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 26, 1:01 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "glird" <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > >news:ae0b54de-c667-4146-a4d6-e043ab7d72da(a)v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com.... > > > > On Dec 25, 11:13 am, PaulStowewrote: > > > >> We know that the dimensions of force is kg-m/sec^2 and that in SI F = qq/z4piR^2 > > > > > > Force itself is a dimension. > > > > Nope .. seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis. > > > > > Its units of measure are number and > > > > grams, as in 10 grams. > > > > Nope. A gram is a unit of mass, not force. > > > > >> Now, what does this mean??? > > > > > It means that a force is a net pressure in grams, independent of the area of its application. > > > > Nope .. there is no such thing as 'pressure in grams' .. a gram is a unit of mass, not pressure. > > > How do YOU state an amount of pressure, without using > > grams or pounds? > > Good question! How does ANYONE state an amount of pressure in units > of measure other than grams or pounds? > Indeed, since one discovers the "mass" of an object by weighing it, > and since weight is given in grams, a gram is a unit of WEIGHT (which > is the quantity of PRESSURE a body exerts against a restraining > surface usc on Earth). Therefore a gram is a unit of pressure and > weight and -- since the textbooks agree that weight is a force -- of > force, none of which are quantities of matter. > Accordingly, since "mass" denotes "a quantity of matter", and since > the aetheric mode of matter has no weight, a gram is the WRONG unit of > measure of mass. > > glird Wow, I think now understand what you were trying to get at. Your writing style is a clear as mud to most. Mass is a measure of an object inertia. Inertia being the magnitude of the resistance to any change in the state of the medium. I have said for some time now that rest mass is a fundamental. However, that does not change accepted convention and mass can be used as a concept. Force and its cousin pressure is that which is required to change the inertia state of what we call a material object. Inertia is summed up in Newton's first law, force his second, conservation of momentum his third. In the basic aether model there exists no fundamental item known to us are rest mass. However, there is fundamental quanta of momentum (p) which can be expressed as mass times velocity mc. So, like the photon, there can be a 'equivalent' mass as computed by p/c... If you wish to communicate to the general audience you will have to learn how to express your ideas more clearly and how to translate them into terms that are standard. Regards, Paul Stowe |