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: harald on 11 Aug 2010 11:59 On Aug 10, 10:38 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 28, 1:41 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 25, 9:59 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > OVERVIEW > > > > What is Neo-Aether Theory? I identify Neo-Aether ss the so-called > > > classic aether model adapted and integrated to accomidate the > > > observations and experimental evidence garnered over the last > > > century. In other words, the model is explicitly demonstrated to be > > > compatible with and, in many cases, leads to, such concepts as Local > > > Lorentz Invariance, Planck's Constant, quntum elemental charge, > > > Newton's laws of motion, basic quantum nature, the uncertainty > > > principle, ... etc. Aether theory, especially this modern > > > interpretation is a 'bottoms up' approach to science, that is to say, > > > on starts with the a basic kinetic quantum entity model and builds up > > > all else from that. It truly is, the ultimate in simplicity... at its > > > base. See, > > > >http://www.archive.org/details/historyoftheorie00whitrich > > > for an excellent detailed presentation of the development of the > > > theory through circa ~ 1910. > > > Thanks for the link! > > > > So, now let's start at the bottom and build a universe... First let's > > > define the necessary fundamentals of this type of model. Aether is a > > > energetic substance, fluidic in nature. To my knowledge, there is > > > only one way to get such a medium, by kinetic theory. Thus, for such > > > a model we will need quantum entities (axeons) which have the > > > following characteristics, > > > > - Of finite size > > > - has momentum (P) > > > Sorry but I find such a model unsatisfying: IMHO inertia (with the > > resulting momentum) should be *caused* by a good ether model as an > > emerging property. Else you are adding a probably useless layer of > > complexity, for it implies a substratum under your ether that gives it > > the property of inertia. > > > Regards, > > Harald > > > [..]- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Absolutely correct, inertia should be explained in terms of the > aether. I consider the aether to be composed of "poselectrons" which > are nothing more than positron/electron dipole pairs. It is the > attraction of these dipoles that create the inertia effect by storing > and releasing the energy given to objects moving through the field. My > aether also explains how the magnetic force is mediated and how > "charge" creates attractive forces through phased wave interactions > and how objects get "mass" by interacting with the electrostatic > fields of the aehter. A "good" aether theory ought to explain all of > these phenomenon under the same conceptual framework. > > See the bottom of this page:http://franklinhu.com/theory.html Hmm... it sounds like a continuation of the Dirac ether, but what is this "field" in your model through which objects move? Harald
From: franklinhu on 11 Aug 2010 16:00 On Aug 11, 8:59 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Aug 10, 10:38 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 28, 1:41 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > On Jul 25, 9:59 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > OVERVIEW > > > > > What is Neo-Aether Theory? I identify Neo-Aether ss the so-called > > > > classic aether model adapted and integrated to accomidate the > > > > observations and experimental evidence garnered over the last > > > > century. In other words, the model is explicitly demonstrated to be > > > > compatible with and, in many cases, leads to, such concepts as Local > > > > Lorentz Invariance, Planck's Constant, quntum elemental charge, > > > > Newton's laws of motion, basic quantum nature, the uncertainty > > > > principle, ... etc. Aether theory, especially this modern > > > > interpretation is a 'bottoms up' approach to science, that is to say, > > > > on starts with the a basic kinetic quantum entity model and builds up > > > > all else from that. It truly is, the ultimate in simplicity... at its > > > > base. See, > > > > >http://www.archive.org/details/historyoftheorie00whitrich > > > > for an excellent detailed presentation of the development of the > > > > theory through circa ~ 1910. > > > > Thanks for the link! > > > > > So, now let's start at the bottom and build a universe... First let's > > > > define the necessary fundamentals of this type of model. Aether is a > > > > energetic substance, fluidic in nature. To my knowledge, there is > > > > only one way to get such a medium, by kinetic theory. Thus, for such > > > > a model we will need quantum entities (axeons) which have the > > > > following characteristics, > > > > > - Of finite size > > > > - has momentum (P) > > > > Sorry but I find such a model unsatisfying: IMHO inertia (with the > > > resulting momentum) should be *caused* by a good ether model as an > > > emerging property. Else you are adding a probably useless layer of > > > complexity, for it implies a substratum under your ether that gives it > > > the property of inertia. > > > > Regards, > > > Harald > > > > [..]- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Absolutely correct, inertia should be explained in terms of the > > aether. I consider the aether to be composed of "poselectrons" which > > are nothing more than positron/electron dipole pairs. It is the > > attraction of these dipoles that create the inertia effect by storing > > and releasing the energy given to objects moving through the field. My > > aether also explains how the magnetic force is mediated and how > > "charge" creates attractive forces through phased wave interactions > > and how objects get "mass" by interacting with the electrostatic > > fields of the aehter. A "good" aether theory ought to explain all of > > these phenomenon under the same conceptual framework. > > > See the bottom of this page:http://franklinhu.com/theory.html > > Hmm... it sounds like a continuation of the Dirac ether, but what is > this "field" in your model through which objects move? > > Harald- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The field is merely all of the poselectrons occupying 100% of the avaliable space. All objects must move through this field of poselectrons. It is somewhat similar to a gas in that it is composed of matter particles which can carry a wave in a manner identical to how air carries sound waves. In fact, what we think of as electromagnetic waves are merely the same thing as sound waves through the aether. There has been some discussion that the aether must be a solid to transmit transverse waves found in polarization, however, I would argue that polarization does not require a solid since we can generate "polarized" sound waves with the same characteristics. Therefore, there should be no difference between the mechanics of sound and electromagnetic waves and I think we will find striking similarites if we look. fhuaether
From: harald on 11 Aug 2010 16:43 On Aug 11, 10:00 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 11, 8:59 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 10, 10:38 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 28, 1:41 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 25, 9:59 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > OVERVIEW > > > > > > What is Neo-Aether Theory? I identify Neo-Aether ss the so-called > > > > > classic aether model adapted and integrated to accomidate the > > > > > observations and experimental evidence garnered over the last > > > > > century. In other words, the model is explicitly demonstrated to be > > > > > compatible with and, in many cases, leads to, such concepts as Local > > > > > Lorentz Invariance, Planck's Constant, quntum elemental charge, > > > > > Newton's laws of motion, basic quantum nature, the uncertainty > > > > > principle, ... etc. Aether theory, especially this modern > > > > > interpretation is a 'bottoms up' approach to science, that is to say, > > > > > on starts with the a basic kinetic quantum entity model and builds up > > > > > all else from that. It truly is, the ultimate in simplicity... at its > > > > > base. See, > > > > > >http://www.archive.org/details/historyoftheorie00whitrich > > > > > for an excellent detailed presentation of the development of the > > > > > theory through circa ~ 1910. > > > > > Thanks for the link! > > > > > > So, now let's start at the bottom and build a universe... First let's > > > > > define the necessary fundamentals of this type of model. Aether is a > > > > > energetic substance, fluidic in nature. To my knowledge, there is > > > > > only one way to get such a medium, by kinetic theory. Thus, for such > > > > > a model we will need quantum entities (axeons) which have the > > > > > following characteristics, > > > > > > - Of finite size > > > > > - has momentum (P) > > > > > Sorry but I find such a model unsatisfying: IMHO inertia (with the > > > > resulting momentum) should be *caused* by a good ether model as an > > > > emerging property. Else you are adding a probably useless layer of > > > > complexity, for it implies a substratum under your ether that gives it > > > > the property of inertia. > > > > > Regards, > > > > Harald > > > > > [..]- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Absolutely correct, inertia should be explained in terms of the > > > aether. I consider the aether to be composed of "poselectrons" which > > > are nothing more than positron/electron dipole pairs. It is the > > > attraction of these dipoles that create the inertia effect by storing > > > and releasing the energy given to objects moving through the field. My > > > aether also explains how the magnetic force is mediated and how > > > "charge" creates attractive forces through phased wave interactions > > > and how objects get "mass" by interacting with the electrostatic > > > fields of the aehter. A "good" aether theory ought to explain all of > > > these phenomenon under the same conceptual framework. > > > > See the bottom of this page:http://franklinhu.com/theory.html > > > Hmm... it sounds like a continuation of the Dirac ether, but what is > > this "field" in your model through which objects move? > > > Harald- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > The field is merely all of the poselectrons occupying 100% of the > avaliable space. All objects must move through this field of > poselectrons. It is somewhat similar to a gas in that it is composed > of matter particles which can carry a wave in a manner identical to > how air carries sound waves. In fact, what we think of as > electromagnetic waves are merely the same thing as sound waves through > the aether. There has been some discussion that the aether must be a > solid to transmit transverse waves found in polarization, however, I > would argue that polarization does not require a solid since we can > generate "polarized" sound waves with the same characteristics. I cannot, and I don't know anyone who can. Please explain how you can! - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization_%28waves%29 Harald > Therefore, there should be no difference between the mechanics of > sound and electromagnetic waves and I think we will find striking > similarites if we look. > > fhuaether
From: Edward Green on 11 Aug 2010 17:15 On Jul 25, 3:59 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > OVERVIEW > > What is Neo-Aether Theory? I identify Neo-Aether ss the so-called > classic aether model adapted and integrated to accomidate the > observations and experimental evidence garnered over the last > century. In other words, the model is explicitly demonstrated to be > compatible with and, in many cases, leads to, such concepts as Local > Lorentz Invariance, Planck's Constant, quntum elemental charge, > Newton's laws of motion, basic quantum nature, the uncertainty > principle, ... etc. Aether theory, especially this modern > interpretation is a 'bottoms up' approach to science, that is to say, > on starts with the a basic kinetic quantum entity model and builds up > all else from that. It truly is, the ultimate in simplicity... at its > base. See, > > http://www.archive.org/details/historyoftheorie00whitrich > > for an excellent detailed presentation of the development of the > theory through circa ~ 1910. ... And I just paid good money for a copy of that book! Ah well, I would never have read it off my computer screen. But maybe one of those Kindle thingies really is a good investment if one intends to read lots of out of copyright books. Saves shelf space too, not to mention exposure to fire, rot, etc. Ciao. Back to reading.
From: Edward Green on 11 Aug 2010 17:30
On Jul 27, 9:50 pm, 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... I think of temperature as one over the derivative of entropy wrt energy. |