Neo-Aether and the Medium of Space
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Very simple question on a REDOX reaction
Next: REDOX: How can this occur if an ion can't lose anymore electrons?
From: Benj on 26 Jul 2010 22:52 On Jul 26, 5:48 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > There are elèctròns and quarks, no axeòns. The medial carrier is > cinètic only among many bodies, gains mass, and becomes the plasmòn. > In true-world runs, there are no fotòns, only plasmòns. Love your "proof by assertion". Wins a debate every time with me! Sorry, electrons and Quarks are made up of configurations of Aether hence to deny atherons (axeons) is to deny electrons and quarks. Hey Autymn Womyn, you do know you are truly insane, don't you?
From: Benj on 26 Jul 2010 23:05 On Jul 26, 6:52 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Jul 2010, Paul Stowe wrote: > > At this juncture we have not defined a size or momenta for these > > axeons. We have defined that they do not have any 'fields' and thus > > cannot produce any 'action at distance' effects between themselves. > > Therefore, by extension, the concept of temperature does not apply to > > them. > Why not? It's a hard-sphere gas, which presents no difficulty for > temperature. For identical "atoms", from the Maxwell speed distribution, > you have the temperature. Otherwise, from (kinetic) energy distribution. > > > relevant, specifically, the superfluidic Faraday/Maxwell/Helmholtz/ > > Kelvin vortex variant. > > Considering that you were strongly insistent that > > > - interacts with each other solely by elastic collisions, period! > > you're not going to get superfluidity - this isn't how hard-sphere gases > behave. Timo is right. Looking into the aetheronic fluid, we note that it appears to behave as BOTH a gas and solid of some superfluid type at the same time. For example consider the problem of transmitting shear through the fluid as needed for polarized waves. The concept of aetherons (axeons) having no fields is very theoretically satisfying (if they have "fields" then WHAT exactly could that be? Presumably, EM fields we observe come somehow from aether fluid forces. Hence aetheron forces would of necessity come from even smaller fluid particles which would mean that aetherons are not "ultimate" particles which cannot happen by definition.) So the final question remains, how to obtain the super-characteristic properties of neo-aether while ALSO maintaining pure elastic field- less aetherons. Not such a simple model to invent, made even less simple by the super-properties of aether (solid and gas at same time, transmits shear and torque, no resistance to planets and other movements through it. etc.)
From: Timo Nieminen on 27 Jul 2010 02:30 On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Paul Stowe wrote: > On Jul 26, 3:52 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > On Sun, 25 Jul 2010, PaulStowewrote: > > > > One question and one comment: > > > > > At this juncture we have not defined a size or momenta for these > > > axeons. We have defined that they do not have any 'fields' and thus > > > cannot produce any 'action at distance' effects between themselves. > > > Therefore, by extension, the concept of temperature does not apply to > > > them. > > > > Why not? It's a hard-sphere gas, which presents no difficulty for > > temperature. For identical "atoms", from the Maxwell speed distribution, > > you have the temperature. Otherwise, from (kinetic) energy distribution. > > Because Timo, atoms are not hard spheres, they are quantum structures > with electrostatic fields. Their collisions are not hard surface > field free interactions. As Feynman was fond of pointing out, matter > never 'touches' matter their fields interact. You're not talking about matter; you're talking about ideal hard spheres. Temperature is well-defined for a hard sphere gas. > Temperature is a > measure of those ramdomized field interactions. That's why there is a > radiation field associated with it and, Boltzman's constant is > fundamentally electrical in nature. No, this is just plain wrong. But, OK, now I know why you made your claim. Thanks, that's what I was wondering about. > The only criteria of superfluidity is zero viscosity... Which isn't a property of an ideal hard-sphere gas. Assuming that it is a property of an ideal hard-sphere gas when it isn't doesn't look like an approach that will bring success in the long run. If you want superfluidity, why not start with assumptions that can result in superfluidity, instead of assumptions that don't? (Not disagreeing with the rest of what you said, but I'll just stick to the main point as I must run right now.) Anyway, thanks for the clarification. -- Timo
From: Paul Stowe on 27 Jul 2010 21:50 On Jul 26, 11:30 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Paul Stowe wrote: > > On Jul 26, 3:52 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > On Sun, 25 Jul 2010, Paul Stowe wrote: > > > > One question and one comment: > > > > > At this juncture we have not defined a size or momenta for these > > > > axeons. We have defined that they do not have any 'fields' and thus > > > > cannot produce any 'action at distance' effects between themselves. > > > > Therefore, by extension, the concept of temperature does not apply to > > > > them. > > > > Why not? It's a hard-sphere gas, which presents no difficulty for > > > temperature. For identical "atoms", from the Maxwell speed distribution, > > > you have the temperature. Otherwise, from (kinetic) energy distribution. > > > Because Timo, atoms are not hard spheres, they are quantum structures > > with electrostatic fields. Their collisions are not hard surface > > field free interactions. As Feynman was fond of pointing out, matter > > never 'touches' matter their fields interact. > > You're not talking about matter; you're talking about ideal hard spheres. > Temperature is well-defined for a hard sphere gas. > > > Temperature is a > > measure of those ramdomized field interactions. That's why there is a > > radiation field associated with it and, Boltzman's constant is > > fundamentally electrical in nature. > > No, this is just plain wrong. But, OK, now I know why you made your claim.. > Thanks, that's what I was wondering about. OK, I think of temperature as the core basis of thermal science, such as, heat flow, thermal radiation, e^-hw/kT, ... etc. If one this of temperature as a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles then that is synonymous ,with pressure. Both are directly relatable to energy density but the later not thermal physics per se... > > The only criteria of superfluidity is zero viscosity... > > Which isn't a property of an ideal hard-sphere gas. Assuming that it is a > property of an ideal hard-sphere gas when it isn't doesn't look like an > approach that will bring success in the long run. If you want > superfluidity, why not start with assumptions that can result in > superfluidity, instead of assumptions that don't? First, I never made it a condition that axeons must be hard or spheres, only that they interact in a purely elastic manner. In fact, I would further define them as totally 'frictionless' since the very source of friction is known to arise from interacting field effects. If frictionless and elastic they could be elastic blobs that easily and readily deform during collisions. If they are frictionless they will be incapable of imparting 'English' or spin to themselves... Lack of viscosity would be a direct result of lack of frictional forces. That would result in a total lack of any force needed to shear the fluid layers, a.k.a. it IS a result of the field/force free particle definition. To be honest, this is 'idealized' and I 'believe' that nothing in nature is every so. I think that there is a non-zero viscosity, very, very slight and Voltage is a direct measure of the kinematic viscosity of the medium resulting from this. But these subtleties are beyond the scope of any generalized discussion. The problem when presenting these ideas is the duality of the terms. Typically the word particles are used to define electrons, protons, neutrons and, even quarks. But in this model all of these are large (in the sense of consisting of great numbers of actual particle axeons) complex dynamic fluid structures which are swirling oscillating spinning things. It is these 'things' that are called loops, strings, spin foam, twistors, ... etc. Since the structures are stable, self contained entities, they have the ability to interact in a 'particle-like' manner when viewed from a large scale, distant manner. The lattice of Maxwell's vortices has a quasi-crystalline structure and behavior but the toroidal and poloidal spins & flow fields however are certainly do not constitute a simple crystal.. . > (Not disagreeing with the rest of what you said, but I'll just stick to > the main point as I must run right now.) > > Anyway, thanks for the clarification. Well the whole purpose is to try to make the concepts understandable to others... Regards, Paul - > Timo
From: Timo Nieminen on 28 Jul 2010 04:36
On Jul 28, 11:50 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 11:30 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Paul Stowe wrote: > > > On Jul 26, 3:52 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 25 Jul 2010, Paul Stowe wrote: > > > > > One question and one comment: > > > > > > At this juncture we have not defined a size or momenta for these > > > > > axeons. We have defined that they do not have any 'fields' and thus > > > > > cannot produce any 'action at distance' effects between themselves. > > > > > Therefore, by extension, the concept of temperature does not apply to > > > > > them. > > > > > Why not? It's a hard-sphere gas, which presents no difficulty for > > > > temperature. For identical "atoms", from the Maxwell speed distribution, > > > > you have the temperature. Otherwise, from (kinetic) energy distribution. > > > > Because Timo, atoms are not hard spheres, they are quantum structures > > > with electrostatic fields. Their collisions are not hard surface > > > field free interactions. As Feynman was fond of pointing out, matter > > > never 'touches' matter their fields interact. > > > You're not talking about matter; you're talking about ideal hard spheres. > > Temperature is well-defined for a hard sphere gas. > > > > Temperature is a > > > measure of those ramdomized field interactions. That's why there is a > > > radiation field associated with it and, Boltzman's constant is > > > fundamentally electrical in nature. > > > No, this is just plain wrong. But, OK, now I know why you made your claim. > > Thanks, that's what I was wondering about. > > OK, I think of temperature as the core basis of thermal science, such > as, heat flow, thermal radiation, e^-hw/kT, ... etc. If one this of > temperature as a measure of the average kinetic energy of the > particles then that is synonymous ,with pressure. Both are directly > relatable to energy density but the later not thermal physics per > se... At the very, least temperature is an important concept in "thermal science". One can still do stuff in the absence of temperature, e.g., non-equilibrium thermodynamics. Yes, for a gas, it is (almost) synonymous with pressure. PV=nRT for an ideal gas, close enough to PV=nRT for a dilute real gas. The thermodynamics of an ideal gas and other simple gases might be simple, but it's still thermodynamics. > > > The only criteria of superfluidity is zero viscosity... > > > Which isn't a property of an ideal hard-sphere gas. Assuming that it is a > > property of an ideal hard-sphere gas when it isn't doesn't look like an > > approach that will bring success in the long run. If you want > > superfluidity, why not start with assumptions that can result in > > superfluidity, instead of assumptions that don't? > > First, I never made it a condition that axeons must be hard or > spheres, only that they interact in a purely elastic manner. In fact, > I would further define them as totally 'frictionless' since the very > source of friction is known to arise from interacting field effects. > If frictionless and elastic they could be elastic blobs that easily > and readily deform during collisions. Well, yes, you didn't specify hard spheres. Other hard shapes won't give you superfluidity. I suspect that blobs won't either. Don't assume that they will give you superfluidity; show that they will, if you're going to depend on it. You need to be very careful if trying to build a working aether theory from elastic blobs. If they're elastic in the same sense as conventional elastic continua, you can dump energy into internal oscillations, e.g., elastic waves in the blobs, when they collide, and thus convert some of the KE of motion into internal energy. If there is any non-linearity of their elastic properties, they'll have an infinite heat capacity, so eventually all of the KE of their motion will end up as internal energy. A hard sphere gas at least has the advantage of avoiding this. Doesn't work as an EM aether theory, but I think it doesn't work at least a little better than an elastic blob gas. > If they are frictionless they > will be incapable of imparting 'English' or spin to themselves... Frictionless means that the contact forces will be normal to the surface. This only means no spin if they're spherical. If they're not hard, they won't remain spherical during collisions, even if they start off spherical. Can one impart spin in a two-body collision? Maybe you can do it, if you have very special particles. > Lack of viscosity would be a direct result of lack of frictional > forces. Lack of friction in inter-"atom"ic collisions will not, in general, give you lack of viscosity. See Maxwell, J. C. (1866), "On the viscosity or internal friction of air and other gases". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 156: 249268. It's one thing to say that a superfluid aether will work, but an entirely different problem to come up with an atomic model of such an aether. Especially with your starting assumptions. -- Timo |