Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 19 Mar 2010 18:11 On Mar 19, 5:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 19, 8:27 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 9:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 18, 6:29 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 17, 2:59 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 17, 1:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 12:31 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 10:01 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 8:49 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 9:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 5:08 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 2:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 1:43 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 2:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 1:25 pm, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 10:08 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 9:04 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 6:43 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not a whole lot to add to what Inertial in particular said. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In GR, gravity is a virtual force in a similar way to centrifugal force in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newton. In both cases its really an acceleration, and the force is just the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > product (literally) of this acceleration and the mass of the object. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein in GR gave a geometric interpretation of what gravity is. This is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > very appealing, because it provides a mechanism for force at a distance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong it provides no such physical mechanism. It merely assumes the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > existence of a physical entity caLLED the fabric of spacetime for the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interacting object to follow. The problem with such assumption is: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the fabric of spacetime physically? This question is relevant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because SR/GR deny the existence of physical space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What ? ".... SR/GR deny the existence of physical space......" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What the devil are you saying man ????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The theory of relativity says that gravity IS deformation of space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can this same theory deny the existence of space ??? Better visit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your optometrist really, really soon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sigh...How can you deform space when space is defined by Einstein as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "empty space".???? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Being empty means it has no matter in it. Having no matter in it does > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not mean that space cannot have physical properties. Physical > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properties are not limited to matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bullshit. fields are stresses in a solid medium occupying space > > > > > > > > > > > > > according to steven weinberg > > > > > > > > > > > > > Solid medium? He said nothing about an electric field being a stress > > > > > > > > > > > > in a solid medium. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? > > > > > > > > > > > > On page 25 he said A field like an electric field or a magnetic field > > > > > > > > > > > is a sort of stress in space, something like the various sorts of > > > > > > > > > > > stress possible within a soild body, but a field is a stress in space > > > > > > > > > > > itself. > > > > > > > > > > > Note what Weinberg actually said: "...something LIKE the various sorts > > > > > > > > > > of stress possible within a solid body, but a field is a stress IN > > > > > > > > > > SPACE ITSELF." He does not say that stress only happens in solid > > > > > > > > > > bodies. He says that stress happens in solid bodies AND in empty > > > > > > > > > > space, and the stress in empty space is something like the stress in > > > > > > > > > > solid bodies. This does NOT mean that empty space is a solid body. > > > > > > > > > > No stress can exit in liquid or gas. Stress can exist only in solid. > > > > > > > > > This is an incorrect statement, Ken. It is just flat wrong. > > > > > > > > What I said is 100% correct. Stress exsts only in solids. I suggest > > > > > > > that you go to your freskman physics book and look it up. > > > > > > > Sure. I have the one you have. Please cite in your freshman physics > > > > > > text where it says that stress exists only in solids. > > > > > Please point out in your freshman book where it said that stresses can > > > > occur in liquid or gas. > > > > Or in space. > > > > In liquids, you can look up in the index shear modulus, which induces > > > a shear in the liquid. > > > That's not stress in liquid. > > Yes, it is. Shear is a stress. > Do you need a pointer to a beginner's guide?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_stress > > > > > > Are you thinking that the only things that physics deals with are > > > solids, liquids, and gases, and nothing else? Why would you think > > > that? See the index item permittivity of empty space. > > > So empty space is not empty. > > No, I did not say that. I said empty space has properties, even where > it has no matter in it, which is the meaning of "empty space". > > > It is a new entity (medium or aether) > > that can have stress and permittivity. So what is your point? > > Empty space, without any matter in it at all, can have stress and > permittivity and a whole bunch of other physical properties, and these > are listed in your freshman physics book, and Weinberg mentioned it as > well. That is my point. > > Yes, because it is not a void. Empty space consists of aether.
From: Esa Riihonen on 19 Mar 2010 20:14 mpc755 kirjoitti: > On Mar 18, 6:10 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. Let me try to clarify my issue. You have compared aether with water (bowling ball in water) - now it doesn't mean anything to me if someone says 'water is a field'. A volume of water has properties like density, that have some value at each point - and we can speak about density field. What is the property of an aether field - 'aetherness'? And how we can measure it or otherwise associate some value for each point? >> "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. I don't think you quite understand what de Broglie's 'material waves' are. They more or less 'just are' the particles themselves - there is no independent background such as aether in that model. So if you want to make connection between de Broglie waves and aether you must be more specific showing how they rise from the aether model or how the current (current in the beginning of 20th century - QM has proceeded since) conceptual system must be reinterpreted to include the aether. Because of the conceptual differences between the models just saying that de Broglie waves are aether waves just won't do - and preferably show the math. >> If you choose to not understand this then that is up to you. You have presented nothing much to _understand_ so far, what you are requiring from your audience is to just _believe_ your seemingly empty declarations. This could work if you try to establish a Church of Aether, but I think in that case you would succeed better by doing your preaching in some other environment than here. >> > - 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. Most of the stuff is pretty elementary (and even outdated nowadays) and is handled during the first years in university - mostly related to the history of QM/QF. >> 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. Just couple of quick questions about this displacement wave. Am I correct in assuming that this displacement wave associates directly with the aether density? And could you give the wave equation for it. If you say that the equations are the same as de Broglie ones, then can you explain the mechanism why the particles seem to follow the highest density values - without some explanation this seems quite counter intuitive to me. There is of course lot of other questions: if aether has pressure has it also a temperature? What is the speed of 'sound' in the aether? If it is always c, how come it doesn't depend on the density? I can come up with others. >> 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. What is obvious, is your confusion about what can and cannot constitute a field, but that has been already handled above. >> > > '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. 'Rate of clock ticks has nothing to do with time'. This is very important revelation together with something you said earlier about the speed of biological processes (aging). See my main question at the end of the message. Anyways this 'time that has nothing to do with clock ticks' seems quite useless concept. And, it still is quite a coincidence that the entity Einstein called time in GR seems to accurately describe the ticking of the atomic clocks on orbit - as I said fascinating. >> 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. Certainly - and we have even a quite successful set of concepts and equations describing and explaining the situation. >> > 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. 'Time is a concept' - really? But as I said above, if this 'time' has nothing to do with the physical processes it is a useless concept in a physical theory. So let's drop it from the discussion. However, there is this similarly named variable appearing in lot of physical equations - it has traditionally been directly related to the clock procession - maybe we should use it in the traditional meaning 'time is what the clock measures'? >> 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. Yes I understand - quite well actually, it helps when there are a set of well defined concepts and related equations. >> 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. There is not yet anything to refuse. And because your 'time' you use here has no physical effects I don't see why I have to care whether it has changed or not. >> If you choose not understand what causes your battery operated clock to >> tick slower then has time change? Nope. And I can even measure that this is not a case. I could for example compare how often I have to shave my beard and myriad other things to the clock progression. > As your battery operated clock begins to tick slower and slower compared > to the other clocks in your house do you stare at the battery operated > clock in disbelief as time changes for this particular clock? Should I? These other clocks are part of the 'myriad things' mentioned above. > If this particular clock was the only clock in your house as it begins > to tick slower and slower compared to every other clock in existence > would time have changed in your house? How many times have you ask this same question? Answered above (shaving beard etc). > What's the difference between a battery operated clock and an atomic > clock in a GPS satellite? You understand what is occurring physically to > your battery operated clock in order to cause it to tick slower so you > replace the batteries. Since you refuse to understand the rate at which > an atomic clock ticks is based upon the aether pressure in which it > exists you allow yourself to incorrectly assume time changes. > > So, I ask you once again, if you do not know what is causing your > battery operated clock to tick slower and it is the only clock in your > house does time change in your house? > > If not, how is this different than simply refusing to understand what > causes atomic clocks to tick at different rates? The difference being of course - that we have the well developed mathematical model explaining the behavior of the battery clock. In GPS case we have just one sentence from you: 'this is caused by aether pressure'. > Einstein's concept 'space-time' is described physically as follows: > > - 'curved space-time' is the aether displaced by a massive object. - > Motion with respect to the aether, and gravity (the pressure associated > with the aether displaced by a massive object), determine the aether > pressure on each and every nuclei which is the matter which is the > object. The greater the aether pressure the slower atoms oscillate. 'Pressure on nuclei?' 'Atoms oscillate?' Are you sure you quite understand just how atomic clocks work? > "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter > how to move" Yes - and old Al also developed an extensive mathematical theory explaining what this and other sentences mean. > Matter tells aether how to displace, and displaced aether tells matter > how to move. But - you instead have only produced sentences thus far. Here is my main question: a) You have said that the GPS atomic clock time follow the GR equations (somehow because of the aether pressure on nuclei) b) You have said that biological/chemical processes (aging) won't follow the GR equations (but they can't be used as a clock either, something to do with the 'time being a concept' or something) Question: how did you come up with the insight expressed in statement b? This of course breaks down GR theory - so it seems that you are in the brink of a major breakthrough (PI) here. You just have to collect the parts of GR that are still working (it seems that something must be working because of the GPS clocks) and make a new combination with the (assumingly Newtonian) part containing the aether. It seems also necessary to clarify your position regarding 'time' - what is this parameter t standing for, in all those equations. Esa(R) -- The number you have dialed is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
From: BURT on 19 Mar 2010 20:31 On Mar 19, 3:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 19, 5:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 8:27 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 18, 9:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 6:29 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 17, 2:59 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 1:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 12:31 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 10:01 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 8:49 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 9:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 5:08 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 2:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 1:43 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 2:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail..com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 1:25 pm, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 10:08 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 9:04 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 6:43 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not a whole lot to add to what Inertial in particular said. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In GR, gravity is a virtual force in a similar way to centrifugal force in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newton. In both cases its really an acceleration, and the force is just the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > product (literally) of this acceleration and the mass of the object. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein in GR gave a geometric interpretation of what gravity is. This is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > very appealing, because it provides a mechanism for force at a distance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong it provides no such physical mechanism. It merely assumes the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > existence of a physical entity caLLED the fabric of spacetime for the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interacting object to follow. The problem with such assumption is: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the fabric of spacetime physically? This question is relevant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because SR/GR deny the existence of physical space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What ? ".... SR/GR deny the existence of physical space......" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What the devil are you saying man ????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The theory of relativity says that gravity IS deformation of space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can this same theory deny the existence of space ??? Better visit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your optometrist really, really soon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sigh...How can you deform space when space is defined by Einstein as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "empty space".???? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Being empty means it has no matter in it. Having no matter in it does > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not mean that space cannot have physical properties. Physical > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properties are not limited to matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bullshit. fields are stresses in a solid medium occupying space > > > > > > > > > > > > > > according to steven weinberg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Solid medium? He said nothing about an electric field being a stress > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a solid medium. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? > > > > > > > > > > > > > On page 25 he said A field like an electric field or a magnetic field > > > > > > > > > > > > is a sort of stress in space, something like the various sorts of > > > > > > > > > > > > stress possible within a soild body, but a field is a stress in space > > > > > > > > > > > > itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > Note what Weinberg actually said: "...something LIKE the various sorts > > > > > > > > > > > of stress possible within a solid body, but a field is a stress IN > > > > > > > > > > > SPACE ITSELF." He does not say that stress only happens in solid > > > > > > > > > > > bodies. He says that stress happens in solid bodies AND in empty > > > > > > > > > > > space, and the stress in empty space is something like the stress in > > > > > > > > > > > solid bodies. This does NOT mean that empty space is a solid body. > > > > > > > > > > > No stress can exit in liquid or gas. Stress can exist only in solid. > > > > > > > > > > This is an incorrect statement, Ken. It is just flat wrong. > > > > > > > > > What I said is 100% correct. Stress exsts only in solids. I suggest > > > > > > > > that you go to your freskman physics book and look it up. > > > > > > > > Sure. I have the one you have. Please cite in your freshman physics > > > > > > > text where it says that stress exists only in solids. > > > > > > Please point out in your freshman book where it said that stresses can > > > > > occur in liquid or gas. > > > > > Or in space. > > > > > In liquids, you can look up in the index shear modulus, which induces > > > > a shear in the liquid. > > > > That's not stress in liquid. > > > Yes, it is. Shear is a stress. > > Do you need a pointer to a beginner's guide?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_stress > > > > > Are you thinking that the only things that physics deals with are > > > > solids, liquids, and gases, and nothing else? Why would you think > > > > that? See the index item permittivity of empty space. > > > > So empty space is not empty. > > > No, I did not say that. I said empty space has properties, even where > > it has no matter in it, which is the meaning of "empty space". > > > > It is a new entity (medium or aether) > > > that can have stress and permittivity. So what is your point? > > > Empty space, without any matter in it at all, can have stress and > > permittivity and a whole bunch of other physical properties, and these > > are listed in your freshman physics book, and Weinberg mentioned it as > > well. That is my point. > > Yes, because it is not a void. Empty space consists of aether.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Aether is round. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 19 Mar 2010 22:10 On Mar 19, 8:14 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > > > On Mar 18, 6:10 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. > > Let me try to clarify my issue. You have compared aether with water > (bowling ball in water) - now it doesn't mean anything to me if someone > says 'water is a field'. A volume of water has properties like density, > that have some value at each point - and we can speak about density > field. What is the property of an aether field - 'aetherness'? And how we > can measure it or otherwise associate some value for each point? > > >> "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. > > I don't think you quite understand what de Broglie's 'material waves' > are. They more or less 'just are' the particles themselves - there is no > independent background such as aether in that model. What part of: '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.' are you not able to understand? Or are you saying the EXTERNAL FIELD acting on the particle is the particle itself?
From: BURT on 19 Mar 2010 22:15
On Mar 19, 7:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 19, 8:14 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> > wrote: > > > > > > > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > > On Mar 18, 6:10 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. > > > Let me try to clarify my issue. You have compared aether with water > > (bowling ball in water) - now it doesn't mean anything to me if someone > > says 'water is a field'. A volume of water has properties like density, > > that have some value at each point - and we can speak about density > > field. What is the property of an aether field - 'aetherness'? And how we > > can measure it or otherwise associate some value for each point? > > > >> "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. > > > I don't think you quite understand what de Broglie's 'material waves' > > are. They more or less 'just are' the particles themselves - there is no > > independent background such as aether in that model. > > What part of: > > '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.' > > are you not able to understand? > > Or are you saying the EXTERNAL FIELD acting on the particle is the > particle itself?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The aether wave is energy's smallest field. Mitch Raemsch |