Question about gravity
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 18 Mar 2010 17:53 On Mar 18, 5:47 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > mpc755 wrote: > > [snip] > > > The pressure associated with aether displaced by a massive object is > > gravity. > > idiot > > http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031 > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml > Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973) > Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974) > <http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf> > No aether > > <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html> > Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010)http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929 > No Lorentz violation > > idiot > > -- > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm Pressure associated with aether displaced by a massive object is gravity.
From: BURT on 18 Mar 2010 17:56 On Mar 18, 2:53 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 5:47 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > > > > > > > mpc755 wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > The pressure associated with aether displaced by a massive object is > > > gravity. > > > idiot > > >http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031 > > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml > > Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973) > > Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974) > > <http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf> > > No aether > > > <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html> > > Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010)http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287http://arxiv..org/abs/0905.1929 > > No Lorentz violation > > > idiot > > > -- > > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath..com/uncleal/qz4.htm > > Pressure associated with aether displaced by a massive object is > gravity.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Flow aether over energy for its time is the superior concept. There are two rates for one flow and its one direction over matter. Gravity flows aether-energy through space together. Mitch Raemsch Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 18 Mar 2010 18:02 On Mar 18, 4:33 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > > > On Mar 18, 5:55 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > >> mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> > On Mar 17, 6:42 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> > >> > wrote: > >> >> mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> >> > On Mar 17, 7:47 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> >> >> > On Mar 16, 5:46 pm, Esa Riihonen > >> >> >> > <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> >> >> [snip] > > >> >> >> >>> I would like the following to fit on one line. Have at it: > > >> >> >> >>> The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive > >> >> >> >>> objects > >> >> >> is > >> >> >> >>> gravity. > > >> >> >> >> Here: > > >> >> >> >> Gravity can somehow be explained by the science of the 19th > >> >> >> >> century. > > >> >> >> > I think I'll stick with: > > >> >> >> > Gravity: Pressure associated with aether displaced by massive > >> >> >> > objects. > > >> >> >> By all means please do. Now it would be interesting to see your > >> >> >> actual theory in action - that would mean a rigorous logical > >> >> >> (read mathematical) framework to produce some numbers to compare > >> >> >> with actual measurements. If I may suggest, calculating planetary > >> >> >> orbits (including Mercury) would be a good point to start. > > >> >> > Aether Displacement is a physical interpretation of 'curved > >> >> > spacetime'. The math has already been developed. > > >> >> > Pressure associated with aether displaced by a massive object is > >> >> > gravity. > > >> >> Perhaps the connection between the mathematical machinery of the GR > >> >> and this aether pressure view is obvious - but frankly I just can't > >> >> see it. Could you please elaborate. > > >> > Matter and aether are different states of the same material. Some > >> > like to say aether is matter and others like to say matter is aether.. > >> > In order to try and avoid this pointless discussion I say both matter > >> > and aether are different states of mather. > > >> > Since matter and aether are different states of mather both matter > >> > and aether have mass. > > >> > As the Earth orbits the Sun the aether which exists in front of the > >> > Earth's path does not disappear when the matter which is the Earth > >> > occupies the three dimensional space previously occupied by the > >> > aether. The aether does not vanish. The aether is displaced by the > >> > matter which is the Earth. > > >> > The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. This > >> > 'displacing back' is the pressure the aether exerts towards the > >> > matter doing the displacing. > > >> > How do we know there is a pressure associated with the aether > >> > displaced by a massive object? Because light from distant stars > >> > reaches us from where Jupiter was in its orbit (i.e. Jupiter does not > >> > leave a void in its wake). > > >> > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object > >> > is gravity. > > >> > The analogy is a bowling ball with a million tiny holes drilled > >> > throughout it which is placed into a tub of water. When the bowling > >> > ball is placed into the tub of water, even though the water exists > >> > throughout the bowling ball, the matter which is the bowling ball > >> > still displaces the water. When you take the bowling ball out of the > >> > water is there a void in the water in the tub? No, of course not. The > >> > water was exerting a pressure towards, and if the bowling ball > >> > consists of millions of individual particles, throughout the bowling > >> > ball. > > >> > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. In > >> > a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule the C-60 molecule > >> > always enters and exits a single slit and it is the associated aether > >> > displacement wave which enters and exits the available slits. The > >> > associated aether displacement wave creates interference upon exiting > >> > the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. > > >> > Since aether surrounds each and every nuclei which is the matter. The > >> > faster an object is moving with respect to the aether the greater the > >> > aether pressure exerted on and throughout the body. This is the why > >> > atomic clocks tick based upon the aether pressure in which they > >> > exist. > > >> Nice story thanks. Now to make this physics we need some way to produce > >> numbers to compare with actual measurements. That means a mathematical > >> model of the situation. So what are the equations describing the C-60 > >> double slit experiment. I assume they will have more or less same form > >> as the QM equations, but the interpretation of the symbols must be > >> different referencing to aether and its physical properties. > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > by the double solution theory > > Louis de BROGLIE' > >http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > No mention of aether (nor ether) there. So it really doesn't help to see > how the equations should be interpreted using the aether concept. > > > 'I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > > of an external field acting on the particle.' > > > In Aether Displacement the external field acting on the particle is the > > aether. > > Saying that some substance like aether is the field, makes no immediate > sense to me Then that is your issue. "Editors Note: But Louis de Broglie, as he explains in the first lines of his article, was a realist, and he could not believe observable physical phenomena to only follow from abstract mathematical wave- functions. Somehow, these latter had to be connected to real waves, at variance with the prevailing Copenhagen interpretation, and with his keen sense for physics, Louis de Broglie did find a way out of the maze !" The real waves described by de Broglie are aether waves. If you choose to not understand this then that is up to you. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > - do you for example mean the density field of the aether? If > so, how does the interaction with the matter (force) derive from it. You > really need to formulate the mathematical model for your aether. I assume > entities like aether density, compressibility, pressure formula > (interaction with matter) etc are required. Specifically I would like to > see how the force on the C-60 particle rises from the interfering ether > waves and the equation of the resulting particle trajectories. The equations are in the articles you are either unwilling to read or in denial and refuse to read. If you want to state the aether is a substance and therefore not a field and therefore the de Broglie wave mechanics do not represent a moving C-60 molecule and its associated aether displacement wave then that is up to you. It is obvious you are going to do whatever you require in order to insist the aether as a material is different then a field. > > 'LOUIS DE BROGLIE > > The wave nature of the electron > > Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1929' > >http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie- > lecture.pdf > The only mentions of aether (ether) there, are in the introduction > section where he tells about how the ether model historically failed - > you must be more specific - and that means mathematical. > >> Similarly how does the aether pressure effect the decay rates of the > >> radioactive nuclei (the core process of the atomic clocks AFAIK). A > >> conceptualized model with an equation (or several) is needed. I like to > >> add that in order to produce same predictions as GR the aether pressure > >> must also have identical effect also on e.g. mechanical and chemical > >> clocks. > > Correct. The associated aether pressure exists throughout the body. > > However, This does not mean in the Twin Paradox that the twin on the > > space ship, if the space ship is traveling fast enough that the aether > > pressure exerted throughout the space ship is greater than the > > associated aether pressure on the clock which remains on the Earth, is > > going to cause the twin on the space ship to age less. We need to > > differentiate between the rate at which an atomic clock ticks and time. > Fascinating. Isn't it a wonderful coincidence that the theory developed > almost a century before atomic clocks were invented just happens to > accurately describe their behavior in gravitational fields e.g. GPS, > while these are the first time keepers that (seem) accurate enough for > testing these GR time effects. And then you say that they don't even > measure time at all - as I already said, a wonderful coincidence. > But according to you, it seems that the chemical clocks (e.g. aging or > cooking a hard boiled egg) will not follow suite. That is not what I said. I said the rate at which a clock ticks has nothing to do with time. The same for the biological process in the human body or the rate at which a hard boiled egg cooks. If you are on top of a mountain and it requires longer for your egg to cook then has time changed? No, of course not. It takes longer to cook stuff at elevation because there is less pressure. > I wonder what would be > the right device to measure time then? And more importantly how do you > derive this mostly important insight that atomic clock time and the > actual time (biological time) are different? Time is a concept. The rate at which a clock ticks has nothing to do with time. If you own a battery operated clock and it starts to tick slower has time changed, or do you replace the batteries? You replace the batteries because you understand what is physically occurring to the clock in order for it to tick slower. Just because you choose not to understand why an atomic clock ticks at the rate it does does not mean time has changed. If you choose not understand what causes your battery operated clock to tick slower then has time change?
From: mpc755 on 18 Mar 2010 18:10 On Mar 18, 4:33 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > by the double solution theory > > Louis de BROGLIE' > >http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > No mention of aether (nor ether) there. So it really doesn't help to see > how the equations should be interpreted using the aether concept. > > 'I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > > of an external field acting on the particle.' > > In Aether Displacement the external field acting on the particle is the > > aether. > Saying that some substance like aether is the field, makes no immediate > sense to me Then that is your issue. Things can tend to get slightly more complicated when you actually figure out what is occurring physically in nature and can't just use a label like 'field' and actually have to understand aether is a material and a moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. "Editors Note: But Louis de Broglie, as he explains in the first lines of his article, was a realist, and he could not believe observable physical phenomena to only follow from abstract mathematical wave- functions. Somehow, these latter had to be connected to real waves, at variance with the prevailing Copenhagen interpretation, and with his keen sense for physics, Louis de Broglie did find a way out of the maze !" The real waves described by de Broglie are aether waves. If you choose to not understand this then that is up to you. > - do you for example mean the density field of the aether? If > so, how does the interaction with the matter (force) derive from it. You > really need to formulate the mathematical model for your aether. I assume > entities like aether density, compressibility, pressure formula > (interaction with matter) etc are required. Specifically I would like to > see how the force on the C-60 particle rises from the interfering ether > waves and the equation of the resulting particle trajectories. The equations are in the articles you are unwilling to read or refuse to read because of your 'understanding' of a field. If you want to state the aether is a substance and therefore not a field and therefore the de Broglie wave mechanics do not represent a moving C-60 molecule and its associated aether displacement wave then that is up to you. It is obvious you are going to do whatever you require in order to insist the aether as a material is different then a field. > > 'LOUIS DE BROGLIE > > The wave nature of the electron > > Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1929' > >http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie- > lecture.pdf > The only mentions of aether (ether) there, are in the introduction > section where he tells about how the ether model historically failed - > you must be more specific - and that means mathematical. > >> Similarly how does the aether pressure effect the decay rates of the > >> radioactive nuclei (the core process of the atomic clocks AFAIK). A > >> conceptualized model with an equation (or several) is needed. I like to > >> add that in order to produce same predictions as GR the aether pressure > >> must also have identical effect also on e.g. mechanical and chemical > >> clocks. > > Correct. The associated aether pressure exists throughout the body. > > However, This does not mean in the Twin Paradox that the twin on the > > space ship, if the space ship is traveling fast enough that the aether > > pressure exerted throughout the space ship is greater than the > > associated aether pressure on the clock which remains on the Earth, is > > going to cause the twin on the space ship to age less. We need to > > differentiate between the rate at which an atomic clock ticks and time. > Fascinating. Isn't it a wonderful coincidence that the theory developed > almost a century before atomic clocks were invented just happens to > accurately describe their behavior in gravitational fields e.g. GPS, > while these are the first time keepers that (seem) accurate enough for > testing these GR time effects. And then you say that they don't even > measure time at all - as I already said, a wonderful coincidence. > But according to you, it seems that the chemical clocks (e.g. aging or > cooking a hard boiled egg) will not follow suite. That is not what I said. I said the rate at which a clock ticks has nothing to do with time. The same for the biological process in the human body or the rate at which a hard boiled egg cooks. If you are on top of a mountain and it requires longer for your egg to cook then has time changed? No, of course not. It takes longer to cook stuff at elevation because there is less pressure. > I wonder what would be > the right device to measure time then? And more importantly how do you > derive this mostly important insight that atomic clock time and the > actual time (biological time) are different? Time is a concept. The rate at which a clock ticks has nothing to do with time. If you own a battery operated clock and it starts to tick slower has time changed, or do you replace the batteries? You replace the batteries because you understand what is physically occurring to the clock in order for it to tick slower. Just because you refuse to understand the rate at which an atomic clock ticks is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists does does not mean time has changed. If you choose not understand what causes your battery operated clock to tick slower then has time change?
From: BURT on 18 Mar 2010 18:17
On Mar 18, 3:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 4:33 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> > wrote: > > > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > > by the double solution theory > > > Louis de BROGLIE' > > >http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > No mention of aether (nor ether) there. So it really doesn't help to see > > how the equations should be interpreted using the aether concept. > > > 'I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > > > of an external field acting on the particle.' > > > In Aether Displacement the external field acting on the particle is the > > > aether. > > Saying that some substance like aether is the field, makes no immediate > > sense to me > > Then that is your issue. Things can tend to get slightly more > complicated when you actually figure out what is occurring physically > in nature and can't just use a label like 'field' and actually have to > understand aether is a material and a moving C-60 molecule has an > associated aether displacement wave. > > "Editors Note: But Louis de Broglie, as he explains in the first lines > of his article, was a realist, and he could not believe observable > physical phenomena to only follow from abstract mathematical wave- > functions. Somehow, these latter had to be connected to real waves, at > variance with the prevailing Copenhagen interpretation, and with his > keen sense for physics, Louis de Broglie did find a way out of the > maze !" > > The real waves described by de Broglie are aether waves. > > If you choose to not understand this then that is up to you. > > > - do you for example mean the density field of the aether? If > > so, how does the interaction with the matter (force) derive from it. You > > really need to formulate the mathematical model for your aether. I assume > > entities like aether density, compressibility, pressure formula > > (interaction with matter) etc are required. Specifically I would like to > > see how the force on the C-60 particle rises from the interfering ether > > waves and the equation of the resulting particle trajectories. > > The equations are in the articles you are unwilling to read or refuse > to read because of your 'understanding' of a field. > > If you want to state the aether is a substance and therefore not a > field and therefore the de Broglie wave mechanics do not represent a > moving C-60 molecule and its associated aether displacement wave then > that is up to you. > > It is obvious you are going to do whatever you require in order to > insist the aether as a material is different then a field. > > > > > > > > 'LOUIS DE BROGLIE > > > The wave nature of the electron > > > Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1929' > > >http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie- > > lecture.pdf > > The only mentions of aether (ether) there, are in the introduction > > section where he tells about how the ether model historically failed - > > you must be more specific - and that means mathematical. > > >> Similarly how does the aether pressure effect the decay rates of the > > >> radioactive nuclei (the core process of the atomic clocks AFAIK). A > > >> conceptualized model with an equation (or several) is needed. I like to > > >> add that in order to produce same predictions as GR the aether pressure > > >> must also have identical effect also on e.g. mechanical and chemical > > >> clocks. > > > Correct. The associated aether pressure exists throughout the body. > > > However, This does not mean in the Twin Paradox that the twin on the > > > space ship, if the space ship is traveling fast enough that the aether > > > pressure exerted throughout the space ship is greater than the > > > associated aether pressure on the clock which remains on the Earth, is > > > going to cause the twin on the space ship to age less. We need to > > > differentiate between the rate at which an atomic clock ticks and time. > > Fascinating. Isn't it a wonderful coincidence that the theory developed > > almost a century before atomic clocks were invented just happens to > > accurately describe their behavior in gravitational fields e.g. GPS, > > while these are the first time keepers that (seem) accurate enough for > > testing these GR time effects. And then you say that they don't even > > measure time at all - as I already said, a wonderful coincidence. > > But according to you, it seems that the chemical clocks (e.g. aging or > > cooking a hard boiled egg) will not follow suite. > > That is not what I said. I said the rate at which a clock ticks has > nothing to do with time. The same for the biological process in the > human body or the rate at which a hard boiled egg cooks. > > If you are on top of a mountain and it requires longer for your egg to > cook then has time changed? > > No, of course not. It takes longer to cook stuff at elevation because > there is less pressure. > > > I wonder what would be > > the right device to measure time then? And more importantly how do you > > derive this mostly important insight that atomic clock time and the > > actual time (biological time) are different? > > Time is a concept. The rate at which a clock ticks has nothing to do > with time. > > If you own a battery operated clock and it starts to tick slower has > time changed, or do you replace the batteries? > > You replace the batteries because you understand what is physically > occurring to the clock in order for it to tick slower. > > Just because you refuse to understand the rate at which an atomic > clock ticks is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists does > does not mean time has changed. > > If you choose not understand what causes your battery operated clock > to tick slower then has time change?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Sameness is important but it has to be in the right place. Mitch Raemsch |