Prev: Very simple question on a REDOX reaction
Next: REDOX: How can this occur if an ion can't lose anymore electrons?
From: Paul Stowe on 11 Aug 2010 21:30
On Aug 11, 2:15 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 3:59 pm, PaulStowe<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.

Well worth the money for the hard copy. Love to hold a book, not a
PADD screen...

Regards

Paul Stowe
From: franklinhu on 12 Aug 2010 01:19
On Aug 11, 1:43 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
> 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Unfortunately, I cannot dig up the reference that I found long ago on
the internet that showed how you could create polarized sound waves.
it involved using tubes and sending sound in certain ways that they
had the same behavior as light polarized waves. There was also another
reference (which I also can't find) that described an experiment that
setup an antenna to be only sensitive to either longitudinal or
transverse waves. They only found longitudinal waves.

I have also argued that polarization action can be explained purely in
terms of longitudinal waves as well. I would argue that it is
impossible to have transverse waves without there being some kind of
boundary to define the wave height. A transverse wave is impossible in
an infinite ocean where no wave can break on the surface. This whole
business about transverse magnetic/electric waves is just plain wrong.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d2d3d50c3f119fe5
From: Androcles on 12 Aug 2010 01:29

"franklinhu" <franklinhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8c197900-197e-4e0f-a1a0-d50a62f243fd(a)u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
This whole
business about transverse magnetic/electric waves is just plain wrong.

==================================================
Either this whole business of motors and generators and transformers working
is just plain wrong or franklinhu is just plain stupid.


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: Very simple question on a REDOX reaction
Next: REDOX: How can this occur if an ion can't lose anymore electrons?