Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 19 Mar 2010 22:51 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? Here is another one: "If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. It could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory." There is a sub-quantum medium, the aether. It does not serve as a universal reference medium because its state is determined by its connections with the matter. Nature, aether and matter, is the universal reference medium.
From: BURT on 19 Mar 2010 23:36 On Mar 19, 7:51 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? > > Here is another one: > > "If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its > nature would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex > character. > It could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be > contrary to relativity theory." > > There is a sub-quantum medium, the aether. > > It does not serve as a universal reference medium because its state is > determined by its connections with the matter. > > Nature, aether and matter, is the universal reference medium.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The fundamental particle waves are the smallest fields. As aether they are a flow push outward and inward to subatomic point energy vibration. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 20 Mar 2010 00:17 On Mar 19, 8:14 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> 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. Instead of shaving your beard you are in a space ship and you measure where you are relative to the distant stars. You are in a space ship orbiting the Earth. The associated aether pressure on the atomic clock in the space ship is less than a comparable clock on the Earth and the atomic clock in the space ship ticks faster than the comparable clock on the Earth. Your space ship is in a geo-synchronous orbit and orbits at the same rate at which the Earth spins. You stay in the space ship for one complete orbit around the Sun. You are in as close to the exact same position with respect to the distant stars as you were when the experiment began. From your view of the surrounding distant stars, the Earth and the Sun you determine 365 and 1/4 days have passed. This is in exact agreement with the atomic clock on the Earth. You started the experiment on January 1st 2009. You have two atomic clocks on the space ship. One was altered to remain in sync with the atomic clock on the Earth. The other atomic clock was not altered. The altered atomic clock says 365 and 1/4 days have passed since the beginning of the experiment. The unaltered atomic clock on the space ship says 370 days have passed since the beginning of the experiment. What day is it and how much time has passed since the beginning of the experiment? It is January 1st 2010 and one year has passed since the beginning of the experiment. The unaltered atomic clock was not modified to tick according to the aether pressure it exists in. Do you insist it is January 6th 2010 because that is what the unaltered atomic clock states the time to be? If so, how do you account for the fact that you have not yet passed the point in orbit around the Sun where you were on January 1st 2009 and in fact you are as close to the exact same point in orbit relative to the Sun based on your measurements against the distant stars as you were on January 1st 2009 as you are going to be? How is it not January 1st 2010?
From: kenseto on 20 Mar 2010 08:31 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. Shear is the result of a force applied to a liquid. It is not a stress exists in a liquid. > 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". So empty space is just a different nmae for the aether....Right? > > > 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....Only if empty space is just another name for the aether. If empty space means void of any enitity then it cannot have any property. Ken Seto > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > Otherwise, as you say Ken, assertion is not an argument. > > > > > > > > > When you add your mistake to a correct statement that Weinberg makes, > > > > > > > > this is only going to make your conclusion wrong. > > > > > > > > Wienberg compare stress in space to stresses in solid. So my > > > > > > > conclusion is 100%correct. > > > > > > If I tell you that a cat has four legs like a lizard, but is a mammal, > > > > > you should not draw the conclusion that mammals are lizards or that > > > > > cats are lizards. > > > > > > Weinberg said that the electric field is LIKE a stress in a solid, but > > > > > is a stress in space. You should not draw the conclusion that space is > > > > > a solid or that electric fields are stresses in a solid. > > > > > So what he said implies that space is a solid. You are so stupid. > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > So if stress exits in space as weinberg claimed then space must be a > > > > > > > > > solid. Your ranting and parsing of words is irrelevant. > > > > > > > > > Sorry, Ken, but pointing out a mistake of yours is not irrelevant. > > > > > > > > When you can learn to acknowledge mistakes, then you will start to > > > > > > > > make progress. But since you always claim that remarks by others about > > > > > > > > your mistakes are irrelevant, you will never get off square one. > > > > > > > > > You have to get over your personality defects before you will be able > > > > > > > > to do science. > > > > > > > > It will help also to learn some basic physics, like what is taught in > > > > > > > > your freshman textbook. > > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > > > Physical properties are not limited to matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know that there is a permittivity of EMPTY SPACE? You know there > > > > > > > > > > > > is a permeability of EMPTY SPACE? You know there is an impedance of > > > > > > > > > > > > EMPTY SPACE? You know there is a gravitational potential in EMPTY > > > > > > > > > > > > SPACE?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Peter Webb on 20 Mar 2010 08:48
> > 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". So empty space is just a different nmae for the aether....Right? ______________________________________________ Well, you can define the word "aether" however you like. But in normal parlance, no, they are definitely not the same thing. The aether was originally something that somehow "waved" to produce the wave like properties of light. In SR, that is not true of "empty space". The aether post-Maxwell but prior to Einstein had an additional property, in that it had a rest frame. Empty space has no rest frame. Post SR the ether has disappeared from mainstream physics, except as a vestigial and poetic term. So if by "aether" you mean any of the meanings historically associated with it, the answer is "no", it is not the same as empty space. HTH |