Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: Esa Riihonen on 31 Mar 2010 09:45 Sorry to be so slow responding. I have work and even other hobbies to blame, but to be honest I also start to get frustrated and dizzy as I feel as if I'm trying to nail jello in a 'merry go round'. mpc755 kirjoitti: > On Mar 24, 8:20 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> >> >> > On Mar 21, 7:33 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> >> > wrote: >> >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> NOTE: >> >> You have apparently choosed to split this discussion in to separate >> >> threads. There might be a good reason for it, but I have two >> >> comments: 1) When splitting the answer in to separate threads it is >> >> a bit puzzling that you have apparently totally ignored the clearly >> >> indicated main question stated in my previous message - actually you >> >> have not answered any of my questions, why is that? 2) You have made >> >> several follow-ups to your own messages - this is a bit confusing - >> >> at what point should I start replying. Would it be too much for you >> >> to give yourself a bit more time, so that you could put everything >> >> in just one message. >> >> >> > 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? >> >> >> Replied in an other message. >> >> > You did not answer the above in the other message. What part of >> > 'external field' do you not understand? >> >> Certainly did - check yourself: >> >> === CUT AND PASTE STARTS == >> >> > Or are you saying the EXTERNAL FIELD acting on the particle is the >> > particle itself? >> >> Nope, the _EXTERNAL_ FIELD is not the particle itself. If you actually >> read the paper you would (perhaps) understand at least two things: >> >> 1) This _external_ field he is speaking about is for example an >> _external_ electric field acting on an electron - discussed in section >> III. He first develops his 'physical wave' theory without _external_ >> fields and then _generalizes_ the resulting 'guidance model' to include >> also _external_ fields. This _external_ field is quite distinct concept >> to the de Broglie's physical/material waves. >> >> 2) >> >> === CUT AND PASTE ENDS === >> >> Perhaps you should have refrained from splitting this discussion in to >> too many subthreads - it apparently can get confusing. >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> Notice the 'If' (it is there at the very beginning of the first >> >> sentence), there are also several 'coulds' and 'woulds' inserted in >> >> the text (find them yourself). They are there not without purpose - >> >> de Broglie is hypotizing about the further developments - which >> >> however have not realized. You could look for example on 'hidden >> >> variable theories'. >> >> > de Broglie is discussing the aether. Maybe de Broglie had the same >> > misconceptions of the aether as did Newton. Maybe they both did not >> > understand the existence of frictionless superfluids or frictionless >> > supersolids. >> >> I think it is obvious that de Broglie was quite aware of all the aether >> models ever developed at the time of writing the paper under >> discussion. But this is interesting, is your aether perhaps >> 'frictionless superfluid' and are the particles 'frictionless >> supersolids'? >> >> > 'Frictionless supersolid a step closer' > http://www.physorg.com/news185201084.html > > "Superfluidity and superconductivity cause particles to move without > friction. Koos Gubbels investigated under what conditions such particles > keep moving endlessly without losing energy, like a swimmer who takes > one mighty stroke and then keeps gliding forever along the swimming > pool." > > In the analogy the swimmer is any body and the water is the aether. Just > as the swimmer displaces the water, whether the swimmer is at rest with > respect to the water, or not, a body displaces the aether, whether the > body is at rest with respect to the aether, or not. > > 'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum medium > and the inertial motion of particles' > http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0701/0701155.pdf > > "Abstract: The similarity between the energy spectra of relativistic > particles and that of quasi-particles in super-conductivity BCS theory > makes us conjecture that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as the > ground state of the background field is a super fluid medium, and the > rest mass of a relativistic particle is like the energy gap of a > quasi-particle. This conjecture is strongly supported by the results of > our following investigation: a particle moving through the vacuum medium > at a speed less than the speed of light in vacuum, though interacting > with the vacuum medium, never feels friction force and thus undergoes a > frictionless and inertial motion." > > A particle in the super fluid medium displaces the super fluid medium, > whether the particle is at rest with respect to the super fluid medium, > or not. > > A particle in the aether displaces the aether, whether the particle is > at rest with respect to the aether, or not. The particle could be an > individual nucleus. Interesting. Earlier you have explained the time dilatation effect of an atomic clock by comparing it to a analog clock with a 'paddle hand' in water - somehow increasing hydrostatic pressure would mean slower hand rotation. I did ask about that (no answer), but assumed you actually meant (that instead of pressure) the water friction (viscosity) would be the reason. But now you inform that the aether is actually a superfluid and thus frictionless - so I was apparently totally wrong with that assumption. Perhaps you could clarify how the pressure of a _frictionless_ fluid affects the motion of immersed objects (particles)? > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. I think I have had this deja vu already earlier. > Aether is displaced by an individual nucleus. When discussing gravity as > the pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object, > what is being discussed is the aether being displaced by each and every > nucleus which is the matter which is the object. > > A C-60 molecule displaces the aether. > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The > C-60 molecule itself occupies a very small region of the wave. The C-60 > molecule enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment. The > associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available > slits. When the aether displacement wave exits the slits it creates > interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. > Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether > displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no > interference. And again ... > The Casimir Effect is caused by gravity. And now the Casimir effect - who would have known. > Each and every nucleus which is the matter which is the plate displaces > the aether. > > The aether displaced by one plate extends past the other plate. > > The pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the plates forces the > plates together. One question at this point (you have seen it before): is there an aether density gradient quantifying this displacement - perhaps you could answer this time? Answering this question at this time would help understanding the mechanism by which this attractive force will rise. > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > by the double solution theory > Louis de BROGLIE' > http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > "These are essentially based on the way in which quantities respectively > characterizing the regular v wave and the internal u0 wave of the > particle connect with the neighbourhood of the singular region. u0 would > have to increase very sharply as one penetrates the singular region." > > This seems to be very similar to Einstein's concept of: > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity > by > Albert Einstein' > http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places". > > There is a connectedness between the particle and the neighborhood. > There is a connectedness between the matter and the aether. > > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter > and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state > of displacement. You wrote: 'similar to Einstein's concept of [aether]' Well perhaps with some extragalactic (perhaps 'extracosmic' would suit better) meaning of the word 'similar'. You should study some physics (including all this mathematics and stuff - you know) before reading these papers - you would be much better able to understand the meaning of some of the terms used, and whats more, perhaps even identify the parts that you don't understand. I help you here a little to interpret the Einstein paper you referred. From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories), read section 'Aether and general relativity'. The 'aether' E is talking about is the spacetime-field of the GR - with _NO_ mechanical properties, that is: bye bye aether pressure. What is more, this Einstein 'aether' consists (if one can use the word) of the geometric properties of the spacetime (the essence of GR) one effect of which is the 'different running speed of time' at different depths of gravity wells. This 'aether's state of displacement' (this really sounds so sciency), please give the associated equations defining the state (equations of state so to speak). >> > Doesn't matter, the sub-quantum medium de Broglie is referring to, is >> > the aether. >> >> Physics by statements - why not try mathematics for a change. And >> please look at the 'hidden variables' and 'non locality' regarding this >> sub- quantum medium, and come back only when your aether model can cope >> with these issues. >> >> > 'Instantaneous action at a distance' is nothing more than conservation > of momentum. When a downgraded photon pair are created, in order for the > original photons momentum to be conserved, the downgraded photon pair > must have opposite angular momentums. > > Why don't you revisit conservation of momentum and figure out why it > doesn't apply to downgraded photon pairs in order for there to be > instantaneous action at a distance. I'm afraid that this is much more subtle thing than just conservation of (classical) angular momentum. Here are some nice discussions explaining Bell's inequality (watch for wrap): http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html But you should perhaps start from here: http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/BellsTheorem/Analogy.html But beware, this is genuinely 'weird stuff' - even weirder than the conglomerate of your declarations - but with the distinction that this has both mathematical and experimental backing. >> >> > 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. >> >> >> Whatever - you have totally misunderstood these de Broglie texts. >> >> > Thinking 'external field' means the particle itself is about as much >> > of a misunderstanding as you can have. >> >> Certainly. Why is it important to mention that obvious fact here? >> >> >> Cheers, Esa(R) -- 2 is the oddest prime of all, because it's the only one that's even.
From: Esa Riihonen on 31 Mar 2010 09:59 Sorry to be so slow responding. I have work and even other hobbies to blame, but to be honest I also start to get frustrated and dizzy as I feel as if I'm trying to nail jello in a 'merry go round'. mpc755 kirjoitti: > On Mar 24, 8:42 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> > On Mar 21, 7:38 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> >> > wrote: >> >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> >> NOTE: >> >> You have apparently choosed to split this discussion in to separate >> >> threads. There might be a good reason for it, but I have two >> >> comments: 1) When splitting the answer in to separate threads it is >> >> a bit puzzling that you have apparently totally ignored the clearly >> >> indicated main question stated in my previous message - actually you >> >> have not answered any of my questions, why is that? 2) You have made >> >> several follow-ups to your own messages - this is a bit confusing - >> >> at what point should I start replying. Would it be too much for you >> >> to give yourself a bit more time, so that you could put everything >> >> in just one message. >> >> >> > 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.' >> >> >>http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf >> >> >> page 4, paragraph after eq-4 >> >> >> > are you not able to understand? >> >> >> As you should well know (or actually not), it's sometimes very hard >> >> to know when and what one is not able to understand. But I try to >> >> clarify my (lack of) understanding below - perhaps you could be >> >> better able to educate me based on that. >> >> >> > Or are you saying the EXTERNAL FIELD acting on the particle is the >> >> > particle itself? >> >> >> Nope, the _EXTERNAL_ FIELD is not the particle itself. If you >> >> actually read the paper you would (perhaps) understand at least two >> >> things: >> >> >> 1) This _external_ field he is speaking about is for example an >> >> _external_ electric field acting on an electron - discussed in >> >> section III. He first develops his 'physical wave' theory without >> >> _external_ fields and then _generalizes_ the resulting 'guidance >> >> model' to include also _external_ fields. This _external_ field is >> >> quite distinct concept to the de Broglie's physical/material waves. >> >> >> 2) Starting from bottom of the page 9, you could have read: "This >> >> result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, >> >> the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave where the >> >> amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite natural that >> >> the internal motion rythm of the particle should always be the same >> >> as that of the wave at the point where the particle is located." >> >> >> NOTE: "particle is defined as a ... region of the wave ...", just as >> >> I already told you earlier. >> >> > Yes, the particle is defined as A VERY SMALL region of the wave. The >> > particle is not the wave but consists of a very small region of the >> > wave. >> >> > This means most of the wave does not consist of the particle. >> >> > "Thusfar, the insertion of the particle in its wave was restrictively >> > defined by stating that the real physical wave must include a small >> > region of very high amplitude, which is the particle. Apart from this >> > singular region, the physical wave is the v wave, of very limited >> > amplitude, and satisfying the usual linear equation. As previously >> > stated, it seems premature to try and describe the internal structure >> > of this singular region, i.e. the particle. This description will >> > probably involve complicated non-linear equations." >> >> This from page 15. It would be nice if you could indicate at least the >> page number when quoting. >> >> > So, above we have the 'particle in its wave'. We have, 'the real >> > physical wave must include a small region of very high amplitude, >> > which is the particle'. We have 'the internal structure of this >> > singular region, i.e. the particle'. >> >> The 'real physical wave' is a single entity. It's amplitude is low >> except in a very small region of high amplitude - that can be seen for >> practical purposes to represent the associated particle. The 'real >> wave' is constructed mathematically from two parts the low amplitude >> 'v-wave' (a solution for the Schrödinger or Klein-Gordon -equation) and >> an almost point-like singular solution, the 'high amplitude wave'. >> These combined give the 'real wave', itself also a solution to the same >> Schrödinger. >> >> As is usual when discussing QM, it seems that we have reached the point >> where are more or less discussing semantics and interpretations. >> However, I must concede that you have a point (PI) here. You may >> identify the v- wave as a separate entity to the high amplitude wave >> 'the particle'. My view is that the 'real thing' is the 'real wave' and >> introducing the 'high amplitude part' and adding a small multiplication >> factor to the standard solution to get the low-amplitude v-wave are >> just mathematical tricks introduced in order to be able to keep the >> particle properties (e.g. charge) from spreading all around along the >> stadard Schrödingen wave. >> >> But I have to concede that you have every right for a different >> interpretation and to considering the low- and high-amplitude parts >> separately when developing your interpretation. >> >> Unfortunately I can not see how your aether 'displacement wave' would >> correspond the v-wave which is a solution to the Schrödinger? Other >> point is that when using this model the v-wave and the particle will be >> necessarily made out of the same 'stuff' as the aether, this seems also >> a problem. >> >> > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > by the double solution theory > Louis de BROGLIE' > http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > "These are essentially based on the way in which quantities respectively > characterizing the regular v wave and the internal u0 wave of the > particle connect with the neighbourhood of the singular region. u0 would > have to increase very sharply as one penetrates the singular region." > > This seems to be very similar to Einstein's concept of: > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity > by > Albert Einstein' > http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places". > > There is a connectedness between the particle and the neighborhood. > There is a connectedness between the matter and the aether. > > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter > and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state > of displacement. And what does this babble have anything to do with either of the issues/ question above? The absurdity of the your 'similarity' has been handled in the sister thread. >> > In a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule the very small >> > region of the wave which is the particle is the C-60 molecule. This >> > very small region of the wave enters and exits a single slit. >> >> > The internal structure of this singular region, i.e. the particle, is >> > the C-60 molecule. >> >> Actually I think this was the exact interpretation de Broglie aimed at. >> >> >> You could also read the other paper you referenced (beware of the >> >> wrap: >> >> >>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie- >> >> lecture.pdf >> >> >> If you still entertain the idea that de Broglie's views somehow >> >> correspond to your aether waves pushing particles around: >> >> >> Page 252: >> >> "Is it even still possible to assume that at each moment the >> >> corpuscle occupies a well-defined position in the wave and that the >> >> wave in its propagation carries the corpuscle along in the same way >> >> as a wave would carry along a cork? These are difficult questions >> >> and to discuss them would take us too far and even to the confines >> >> of philosophy. All that I shall say about them here is that nowadays >> >> the tendency in general is to assume that it is not constantly >> >> possible to assign to the corpuscle a well-defined position in the >> >> wave." >> >> >> That view was then 'not constantly possible', nor it is nowadays >> >> either. >> >> > "it is not constantly possible to assign to the corpuscle a well- >> > defined position in the wave." >> >> > Yes, it is not possible to assign a well-defined position to the >> > corpuscle in the wave. But, the corpuscle still exists within a very >> > small region within the wave. It is just a matter of not being able >> > to specify exactly where the very small region is at any particular >> > time. >> >> Perhaps we just have to agree to disagree here. What he means here is >> obviously also that the particle is 'not pushed around like a cork in >> water'. Note that the 'real wave' is a solution to the Schrödinger and >> thus corresponds to the probability of finding the particle in a >> certain volume of space at certain time, and it fills the whole domain >> under consideration. The interpretation is not very straightforward. >> >> > In de Broglie wave mechanics the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single > slit in a double slit experiment. In a manner of speaking - yes. >> >> Page 256 (last paragraph of the paper): "Thus to describe the >> >> properties of matter as well as those of light, waves and corpuscles >> >> have to be referred to at one and the same time. The electron can no >> >> longer be conceived as a single, small granule of electricity; it >> >> must be associated with a wave and this wave is no myth; its >> >> wavelength can be measured and its interferences predicted. It has >> >> thus been possible to predict a whole group of phenomena without >> >> their actually having been discovered. And it is on this concept of >> >> the duality of waves and corpuscles in Nature, expressed in a more >> >> or less abstract form, that the whole recent development of >> >> theoretical physics has been founded and that all future development >> >> of this science will apparently have to be founded." >> >> >> He is of course speaking of the 'wave-particle duality', a standard >> >> concept in QM. >> >> > "EDITOR'S 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 !" >> >> Yes in a way he did, but it seems that you don't quite understand what >> is the context, what is the 'Copenhagen interpretation' and what are de >> Broglie's 'real waves'. >> >> According to my understanding de Broglie tried here to develop a theory >> that would allow an alternate more 'concrete' interpretation of the QM >> phenomena. And he apparently succeeded at least to some degree - it >> works for certain set of phenomena. The theory was then carried further >> by at least Bohm. I'm actually quite sympathetic to their effort (so >> far that I can follow the process) but I'm nobody and AFAICT it has not >> been adapted for most of the physicists that are actually working on >> that field. >> >> But there is a major point regarding your 'model' - nowhere do either >> de Broglie or Bohm refer to the naive aether concept, and here is the >> reason - no one has been able to make it work. >> >> > Because no one figure out Aether Displacement. It seems that no one has 'figured it out' even now. Making bold statements don't count as 'figuring out' something - sorry. You must make the system work and that would require construction of a mathematical model. But of course, you seem totally incapable of doing so. >> >> You see there is a reason 'aether' or 'ether' is not mentioned in >> >> these texts (except as a rejected historical concept). >> >> > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections >> > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" - >> > Albert Einstein >> >> What an earth has an out of context Einstein quote doing in a middle of >> the discussion about a paper by de Broglie? Perhaps if you would be so >> kind and provide a proper citation indicating from where you have >> picked that cherry, we could also discuss it's relevance, but not >> before. >> >> > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > by the double solution theory > Louis de BROGLIE' > http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > "These are essentially based on the way in which quantities respectively > characterizing the regular v wave and the internal u0 wave of the > particle connect with the neighbourhood of the singular region. u0 would > have to increase very sharply as one penetrates the singular region." > > This is very similar to Einstein's concept of: > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity > by > Albert Einstein' > http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places". > > There is a connectedness between the particle and the neighborhood. > There is a connectedness between the matter and the aether. > > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter > and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state > of displacement. This is a third incarnation of these statements so far (in this thread and its sibling). I have dealt with the absurdity of the 'similarity' in the 'sister thread'. Thanks for providing the reference though. >> > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the >> > matter is the aether's state of displacement. >> >> > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. >> > The C-60 molecule occupies a very small region of the wave. >> >> > The 'rejection' of aether is the reason something as simple as >> > gravity is not understood by 'mainstream' physics. >> >> > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object >> > is gravity. >> >> The rejection of aether has very strong basis - it just doesn't work. >> Many respectable physicists have studied the concept, but have been >> forced to concede before the undisputable experimental facts. >> >> We have delved deep in to the interpretation of QM, and I must admit I >> just barely can hold my head on surface anymore (if event that). But >> actually we were discussing your aether model so let me make some >> question regarding it. >> >> 1) Why does your aether displacement wave obey Schrödinger-equation (or >> in case relativistic cases the Klein-Gordon equation)? No answer? >> 2) How do you quantify the aethers 'state of displacement'? >> >> > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter > and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state > of displacement. I did ask: how do you 'quantify' it?. What are the mathematical relations describing the 'state of displacement', the equations, what numbers should be put and where so we can start crunching? >> 3) How (explain the mechanism) does the 'state of displacement' effect >> the movement of the particle that caused it in the first place? No answer? >> 4) If we have a gas in a closed container and add a ball there, the >> pressure will be the same throughout, including at the surface of the >> ball. >> According to your model the aether pressure around an object has a >> gradient (greater pressure at the surface decreasing outwards) - please >> explain. >> >> > See hydrostatic pressure. Hydrostatics pressure is the pressure in the body of fluid due to _gravity_. It seems peculiar that this 'aether pressure' that is supposed to be the cause of gravity is at the same time caused by it. Kind of circular 'reasoning' here. >> 5) The pressure gradient in (4) would normally produce a net force on >> an object that is pointing _outwards_. Gravity quite apparently pushes >> to the reverse direction - please clarify? >> >> > See hydrostatic pressure. Yes - in hydrostatics this net force I talked above is called 'buoyancy' and as I told you - it is directed to opposite direction than gravity. Cheers, Esa(R) -- The CT Creed: "There is no Game but Traveller, and High Guard is its Product" -- Steve Hudson
From: mpc755 on 31 Mar 2010 10:22 On Mar 31, 9:45 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > Sorry to be so slow responding. I have work and even other hobbies to > blame, but to be honest I also start to get frustrated and dizzy as I > feel as if I'm trying to nail jello in a 'merry go round'. > > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > On Mar 24, 8:20 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > >> mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> > On Mar 21, 7:33 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> > >> > wrote: > >> >> mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> >> > 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. > > >> >> NOTE: > >> >> You have apparently choosed to split this discussion in to separate > >> >> threads. There might be a good reason for it, but I have two > >> >> comments: 1) When splitting the answer in to separate threads it is > >> >> a bit puzzling that you have apparently totally ignored the clearly > >> >> indicated main question stated in my previous message - actually you > >> >> have not answered any of my questions, why is that? 2) You have made > >> >> several follow-ups to your own messages - this is a bit confusing - > >> >> at what point should I start replying. Would it be too much for you > >> >> to give yourself a bit more time, so that you could put everything > >> >> in just one message. > > >> >> > 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? > > >> >> Replied in an other message. > > >> > You did not answer the above in the other message. What part of > >> > 'external field' do you not understand? > > >> Certainly did - check yourself: > > >> === CUT AND PASTE STARTS == > > >> > Or are you saying the EXTERNAL FIELD acting on the particle is the > >> > particle itself? > > >> Nope, the _EXTERNAL_ FIELD is not the particle itself. If you actually > >> read the paper you would (perhaps) understand at least two things: > > >> 1) This _external_ field he is speaking about is for example an > >> _external_ electric field acting on an electron - discussed in section > >> III. He first develops his 'physical wave' theory without _external_ > >> fields and then _generalizes_ the resulting 'guidance model' to include > >> also _external_ fields. This _external_ field is quite distinct concept > >> to the de Broglie's physical/material waves. > > >> 2) > > >> === CUT AND PASTE ENDS === > > >> Perhaps you should have refrained from splitting this discussion in to > >> too many subthreads - it apparently can get confusing. > > >> >> > 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. > > >> >> Notice the 'If' (it is there at the very beginning of the first > >> >> sentence), there are also several 'coulds' and 'woulds' inserted in > >> >> the text (find them yourself). They are there not without purpose - > >> >> de Broglie is hypotizing about the further developments - which > >> >> however have not realized. You could look for example on 'hidden > >> >> variable theories'. > > >> > de Broglie is discussing the aether. Maybe de Broglie had the same > >> > misconceptions of the aether as did Newton. Maybe they both did not > >> > understand the existence of frictionless superfluids or frictionless > >> > supersolids. > > >> I think it is obvious that de Broglie was quite aware of all the aether > >> models ever developed at the time of writing the paper under > >> discussion. But this is interesting, is your aether perhaps > >> 'frictionless superfluid' and are the particles 'frictionless > >> supersolids'? > > > 'Frictionless supersolid a step closer' > >http://www.physorg.com/news185201084.html > > > "Superfluidity and superconductivity cause particles to move without > > friction. Koos Gubbels investigated under what conditions such particles > > keep moving endlessly without losing energy, like a swimmer who takes > > one mighty stroke and then keeps gliding forever along the swimming > > pool." > > > In the analogy the swimmer is any body and the water is the aether. Just > > as the swimmer displaces the water, whether the swimmer is at rest with > > respect to the water, or not, a body displaces the aether, whether the > > body is at rest with respect to the aether, or not. > > > 'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum medium > > and the inertial motion of particles' > >http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0701/0701155.pdf > > > "Abstract: The similarity between the energy spectra of relativistic > > particles and that of quasi-particles in super-conductivity BCS theory > > makes us conjecture that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as the > > ground state of the background field is a super fluid medium, and the > > rest mass of a relativistic particle is like the energy gap of a > > quasi-particle. This conjecture is strongly supported by the results of > > our following investigation: a particle moving through the vacuum medium > > at a speed less than the speed of light in vacuum, though interacting > > with the vacuum medium, never feels friction force and thus undergoes a > > frictionless and inertial motion." > > > A particle in the super fluid medium displaces the super fluid medium, > > whether the particle is at rest with respect to the super fluid medium, > > or not. > > > A particle in the aether displaces the aether, whether the particle is > > at rest with respect to the aether, or not. The particle could be an > > individual nucleus. > > Interesting. Earlier you have explained the time dilatation effect of an > atomic clock by comparing it to a analog clock with a 'paddle hand' in > water - somehow increasing hydrostatic pressure would mean slower hand > rotation. I did ask about that (no answer), but assumed you actually > meant (that instead of pressure) the water friction (viscosity) would be > the reason. But now you inform that the aether is actually a superfluid > and thus frictionless - so I was apparently totally wrong with that > assumption. Perhaps you could clarify how the pressure of a > _frictionless_ fluid affects the motion of immersed objects (particles)? > For the first analogy of the "swimmer who takes one mighty stroke and then keeps gliding forever along the swimming pool", does the water fill-in where the swimmer was or is there a void left in the 'water'? How does the water fill-in where the swimmer was unless the water applies pressure towards the swimmer? The mightier the swimmers stroke the faster the swimmer glides forever along the swimming pool. The faster the swimmer glides along the swimming pool the more water the swimmer displaces. How does the amount of water displaced by the swimmer change depending upon how fast the swimmer moves through the water if there is no pressure being applied by the swimmer against the water? > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. > > I think I have had this deja vu already earlier. > > > Aether is displaced by an individual nucleus. When discussing gravity as > > the pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object, > > what is being discussed is the aether being displaced by each and every > > nucleus which is the matter which is the object. > > > A C-60 molecule displaces the aether. > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The > > C-60 molecule itself occupies a very small region of the wave. The C-60 > > molecule enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment. The > > associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available > > slits. When the aether displacement wave exits the slits it creates > > interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. > > Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether > > displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no > > interference. > > And again ... > > > The Casimir Effect is caused by gravity. > > And now the Casimir effect - who would have known. > I know. > > Each and every nucleus which is the matter which is the plate displaces > > the aether. > > > The aether displaced by one plate extends past the other plate. > > > The pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the plates forces the > > plates together. > > One question at this point (you have seen it before): is there an aether > density gradient quantifying this displacement - perhaps you could answer > this time? Answering this question at this time would help understanding > the mechanism by which this attractive force will rise. > It's not an attractive force. It is a force associated with displacement. > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > by the double solution theory > > Louis de BROGLIE' > >http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > > "These are essentially based on the way in which quantities respectively > > characterizing the regular v wave and the internal u0 wave of the > > particle connect with the neighbourhood of the singular region. u0 would > > have to increase very sharply as one penetrates the singular region." > > > This seems to be very similar to Einstein's concept of: > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity > > by > > Albert Einstein' > >http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places". > > > There is a connectedness between the particle and the neighborhood. > > There is a connectedness between the matter and the aether. > > > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter > > and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state > > of displacement. > You wrote: 'similar to Einstein's concept of [aether]' Well perhaps with > > some extragalactic (perhaps 'extracosmic' would suit better) meaning of > the word 'similar'. You should study some physics (including all this > mathematics and stuff - you know) before reading these papers - you would > be much better able to understand the meaning of some of the terms used, > and whats more, perhaps even identify the parts that you don't understand.. > > I help you here a little to interpret the Einstein paper you referred. > From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories), read > section 'Aether and general relativity'. The 'aether' E is talking about > is the spacetime-field of the GR - with _NO_ mechanical properties, that > is: bye bye aether pressure. What is more, this Einstein 'aether' consists > (if one can use the word) of the geometric properties of the spacetime > (the essence of GR) one effect of which is the 'different running speed of > time' at different depths of gravity wells. > Einstein discusses the state of the aether as, "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places". The state of the aether in Aether Displacement is the aether's state of displacement. > This 'aether's state of displacement' (this really sounds so sciency), > please give the associated equations defining the state (equations of > state so to speak). > > >> > Doesn't matter, the sub-quantum medium de Broglie is referring to, is > >> > the aether. > > >> Physics by statements - why not try mathematics for a change. And > >> please look at the 'hidden variables' and 'non locality' regarding this > >> sub- quantum medium, and come back only when your aether model can cope > >> with these issues. > > > 'Instantaneous action at a distance' is nothing more than conservation > > of momentum. When a downgraded photon pair are created, in order for the > > original photons momentum to be conserved, the downgraded photon pair > > must have opposite angular momentums. > > > Why don't you revisit conservation of momentum and figure out why it > > doesn't apply to downgraded photon pairs in order for there to be > > instantaneous action at a distance. > > I'm afraid that this is much more subtle thing than just conservation of > (classical) angular momentum. Here are some nice discussions explaining > Bell's inequality (watch for wrap):http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem... > But you should perhaps start from here:http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/BellsTheorem/Analogy.html > > But beware, this is genuinely 'weird stuff' - even weirder than the > conglomerate of your declarations - but with the distinction that this > has both mathematical and experimental backing. > It isn't more subtle than conservation of angular momentum. It is made weird because you do not understand it is conservation of momentum. Why don't you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation_of_linear_momentum And reply only when you have figured out how conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair. I am not referring to 'Bell's inequality'. I am asking you to state why conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair. Now, I know you will respond because of 'Bell's inequality', which means you can not answer why conservation of momentum does not physically apply to a downgraded photon pair. > >> >> > 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. > > >> >> Whatever - you have totally misunderstood these de Broglie texts. > > >> > Thinking 'external field' means the particle itself is about as much > >> > of a misunderstanding as you can have. > > >> Certainly. Why is it important to mention that obvious fact here? > > Cheers, > > Esa(R) > > -- > 2 is the oddest prime of all, because it's the only one that's even.
From: Esa Riihonen on 31 Mar 2010 10:30 Sorry to be so slow responding. I have work and even other hobbies to blame, but to be honest I also start to get frustrated and dizzy as I feel as if I'm trying to nail jello in a 'merry go round'. mpc755 kirjoitti: > On Mar 24, 7:59 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> > On Mar 21, 7:33 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> >> > wrote: >> >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> >> > On Mar 20, 10:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Mar 20, 9:58 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Mar 20, 9:16 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > On Mar 20, 12:17 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > > 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. >> >> >> NOTE: >> >> You have apparently choosed to split this discussion in to separate >> >> threads. There might be a good reason for it, but I have two >> >> comments: 1) When splitting the answer in to separate threads it is >> >> a bit puzzling that you have apparently totally ignored the clearly >> >> indicated main question stated in my previous message - actually you >> >> have not answered any of my questions, why is that? 2) You have made >> >> several follow-ups to your own messages - this is a bit confusing - >> >> at what point should I start replying. Would it be too much for you >> >> to give yourself a bit more time, so that you could put everything >> >> in just one message. >> >> >> >> > > > 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? >> >> >> >> > > One complete orbit of the Sun by the Earth is one year, >> >> >> > > regardless of the rate at which an atomic clock ticks. >> >> >> >> > Why is the rate at which an atomic clock ticks more accurate at >> >> >> > determining how much time has passed than the Earth's orbit >> >> >> > around the Sun? It isn't. >> >> >> >> > If there is a second astronaut on the space ship who does not >> >> >> > have access to any of the atomic clocks on the space ship and >> >> >> > that astronaut determines one year has passed because of >> >> >> > measurements based upon the stars then that astronaut is >> >> >> > correct. >> >> >> >> You have a clock with a paddle for the second hand. You drop the >> >> >> clock off the side of a boat. The further and further the clock >> >> >> drops into the ocean the slower it 'ticks', as determined by a >> >> >> clock on the boat. The clock 'ticks' slower because of the >> >> >> increase in the hydrostatic pressure on the paddle. >> >> >> >> If you refuse to believe in the existence of water then does time >> >> >> change? >> >> >> >> You have an atomic clock on the space station. You 'drop' the >> >> >> clock off the 'side' of the space station. The further and >> >> >> further the clock 'drops' towards the Earth the slower it >> >> >> 'ticks', as determined by a clock on the space station. The clock >> >> >> 'ticks' slower because of the increase in the aether pressure on >> >> >> the clock. >> >> >> >> If you refuse to believe in the existence of aether then does >> >> >> time change? >> >> >> > That same increase in aether pressure which is causing the rate at >> >> > which the atomic clock ticks to slow, is also gravity. >> >> >> Cheesh - are you done yet? ... ok - here we go: >> >> >> According to my (GR) view (the time difference of 6 days is of >> >> course too big for one year on GeoStat, but never mind) the >> >> situation is actually very simple. If I decide to use the clocks on >> >> Earth (or the altered atomic clock on board) my shag will be too >> >> long every time I shave >> >> > You do not know this. There is no evidence of it. The rate at which >> > your beard grows at zero Gs is probably not tied to the rate at which >> > an atomic clock ticks. >> >> You are right - I don't _know_ that, we have not yet been able to >> compare beard growth rates at different depths in gravity wells with >> enough accuracy. But as I said this is the result predicted by GR. >> >> I asked you before - how do you know it _probably_ not tied to it? How >> does your aether pressure model allow you to make that conclusion? >> >> > Because time is a concept. The most accurate clock for the astronaut on > the space ship is the Earth's orbit of the Sun, not the rate at which an > atomic clock ticks. Seems that you don't know what time is - 'time is a concept' is an empty statement. It doesn't matter much though, as no one else 'knows' either. But in order to give some credibility to a single statement about the reality like 'the rate of beard growth is not tied to the rate of atomic clock', you should have something more than just a jumbled set of statements which amount at most to 'it is so because it is so'. GR on the other hand is a full blown (mathematical) theory that tells us that the astronaut should use the on-board clocks to time any (local) events on-orbit. For atomic clocks (and many other phenomena) it's predictions have been fulfilled and there is no reason to think that this is just a coincidence. Thus I'm very confident that it's predictions for other relativistic effects will be confirmed if and when the amount of the predicted effect will exceed the accuracy of the measurement. So for all practical purposes the definition 'time is what a good (local) clock shows' is the only usable one. That is because it defines usable numerical values that we can use with our equations - and get consistent results from the mathematical operations. >> > You fail to understand the rate at which an atomic clock ticks has >> > nothing to do with time. >> >> Totally agree - I certainly fail at it. I assumed we have dropped this >> esoteric time concept that has nothing to do with clocks already - why >> bring this _useless_ concept back here? When discussing physics we >> should keep using 'time' as a concept that can be measured (by clocks). >> I questioned you below (you didn't answer of course) what is this >> symbol 't' appearing in all these physical equations standing for? It >> must be measurable somehow (this is physics after all) - how to measure >> it? >> >> > 't' represents the rate at which an atomic clock ticks. Not time. 't' > represents the rate at which an atomic clock 'ticks' based upon the > aether pressure in which the clock exists. Now there is lots of physics involving 't' (time) usually expressed using equations. GR tells us that (if expressed in covariant form) these same equations should work (locally) no matter where we are in the universe or how fast we are moving relative to e.g., Earth. One consequence of this is that if we decide to use the t-values from the earth-clock (instead of from the local on-board clock) the equations won't match the reality around us anymore - and so this brakes GR. This is in principle OK - GR might not describe the reality, but you have yourself stated that your model doesn't break GR predictions. GR predicts the observed behavior of the atomic clocks on orbit - you say it is only due to 'aether pressure', GR predicts that egg boiling and growing of beard will behave similarly - you say they won't. Both of these statements go against GR - your 'model' most definitely breaks GR, no matter what you say. And please describe how an atomic clock works and how does the aether pressure affect the readings. >> >> and my >> >> boiled eggs are hard but have turned greenish - plus if I synch my >> >> LP- player rotation (33 rpm) with an Earth clock the pitch is too >> >> low. >> >> > You do not know this. >> >> You are right - no accurate measurements yet to be sure, but the point >> was that this is nevertheless the result that GR tells us. >> >> >> Same >> >> with every _local_ phenomena involving time. >> >> >> If and when the 'year' is defined as one Earth revolution around the >> >> Sun, then of course it is just that - time of one revolution. >> >> However, how many seconds it will take is a different matter. Let me >> >> explain, we usually speak of time in calendar/clock terms: years, >> >> months, days, hours, minutes, seconds and parts of seconds. That is >> >> a natural way when living on a surface of a revolving and turning >> >> planet. >> >> >> In physics it is better to just think of seconds (with decimal >> >> parts) and consider the calendar/clock times just labels for any >> >> instance (measured in seconds). The labels conveniently tell whether >> >> it is day or night, should I consider digging seeds in ground or >> >> harvesting the crops and thus they should be kept in synch with the >> >> physical world, so we use leap days to keep dates drifting in >> >> relation to the Earths actual position and leap seconds to keep noon >> >> close to the actual time Sun is above. Note that no days are >> >> actually added nor seconds added (or removed) we just shift our >> >> labeling system a bit by adding special labels (or not using one) >> >> every now and then. >> >> >> The year (once around the Sun) as observed from orbit just takes >> >> these 6*24*60*60 seconds longer - no problem. And I will continue to >> >> use my unaltered atomic clock, thank you. The earth clock is of no >> >> use for me because I don't want to relearn that boiling a hard egg >> >> takes 9 minutes instead of 10 and proper LP revolution speed is 37 >> >> rpm instead of 33. I will probably even keep labeling my (proper) >> >> time events using the classical formula, because I'm used to 24 hour >> >> days etc, and in that sense I will start new 'year' about 6 days >> >> earlier than you will do on ground, but I will understand that my >> >> labeling doesn't synch with the earth rotation anymore - so I will >> >> not get confused. >> >> > You may not get confused, but you will be incorrect. What is >> > considered a second should be modified as follows: >> >> >http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/second.html >> >> > At its 1997 meeting the CIPM affirmed that: >> >> > This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a >> > temperature of 0 K at sea level. >> >> This is the current definition of the second. Clocks should be >> calibrated against this definition - so what? >> >> > That is not the current definition of a second. Yes, clocks should be > calibrated against the definition which includes 'at sea level'. 'That is not the current definition of a second' - what is it then? > This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a > temperature of 0 K [AT SEA LEVEL]. I know where this leads: on-orbit the astronaut should use the on-ground (sea level) clock :) However this is not the meaning of the standard - I can assure you that the people behind the definition are too smart for that, they have heard about GR. But I can see why you are confused: if it is allowed for the second to be 'different length' at different gravitational potentials why then mention the sea level at all? I'm not actually sure and don't bother to find out. But what is certain is that the definition of second does not overthrow GR, and there is no indication that e.g., astronauts on orbit should use an earth clock for timing their procedures and experiments. >> >> Your clock with the paddle-hand. How does the increase of >> >> hydrostatic pressure slow down the hand rotation? And in any case >> >> what has this rotating handle to do with the operation of an atomic >> >> clock? Does the atomic clock have some rotating paddle that >> >> interacts with aether - if so where? I already asked you before to >> >> clarify how does the aether pressure on the nucleus affect the >> >> reading of an atomic clock - this can be considered as the same >> >> question - please answer. >> >> > This is the definition of a second: >> >> >http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/second.html >> >> > "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation >> > corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of >> > the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." >> >> > The rate at which the caesium 133 atom transitions between the two >> > hyperfine levels is dependent upon the aether pressure in which it >> > exists. The greater the pressure associated with the aether, the >> > longer it takes for the caesium atom to transition between the two >> > hyperfine levels. >> >> This doesn't make much sense. You quite clearly don't know how an >> atomic clock works. Otherwise you wouldn't have written 'the longer it >> takes for the caesium atom to transition between the two hyperfine >> levels' - this is just pathetic. >> >> General vague statements 'aether pressure affects the atomic clock >> somehow' are just not enough - no matter how many time you repeat them. >> Please explain your model, by which mechanism the aether pressure does >> affect the operation of atomic clocks - and with such detail that we >> can actually calculate the quantitative results. Otherwise your >> 'theory' is useless. >> >> > When the astronaut on the space ship calculates how much time is passes > by using the distant stars and the Earth's orbit of the Sun the > astronaut concludes one year has passed. The atomic clock states 360 > days have passed. The atomic clock is incorrect. You have made also this statement already thank you, it's truth value doesn't change no matter how often you repeat it. I asked what is the mechanism and a way to get quantitative (that is numerical in this case) predictions. And please describe how an atomic clock works and how does the aether pressure affect the readings. >> And I'm still waiting you to explain how increasing hydrostatic >> pressure would slow down the movement of the 'paddle hand' in water? >> >> >> And as an extra gift, I copy here my major question (with corollary) >> >> from the previous message that you forgot to answer. I will add to >> >> the question to make it a bit more concrete. >> >> >> Now that I have answered all your questions (once again) I assume >> >> you will return the courtesy before we will proceed further. >> >> >> 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? Addition: how do you know that this aether pressure >> >> that affects atomic clock operations doesn't affect the chemical >> >> reactions (aging, boiling of eggs) similarly? >> >> >> This of course breaks down GR theory >> >> > It does not break down GR theory. It is simply pointing out that the >> > rate at which an atomic clock ticks is based upon the aether pressure >> > in which it exists. >> >> This must be your most stupid statement thus far (quite an achievement >> actually). Earlier you stated that e.g., record player (a device >> combining electromagnetic and mechanical aspects of the universe) >> rotation speed would not follow GR prediction, and now you say that >> this doesn't break GR - too stupid to be even hilarious. No comment here? >> > The aether pressure on and through the human body will also affect >> > the human body but to think everything associated with the human body >> > will simply slow down, for example the digestion of food, at a rate >> > associated with the rate at which an atomic clock ticks is unfounded. >> >> It is founded on the what GR predicts. GR is the other most successful >> theory in physics thus far. Please note that among other facts to >> support the theory we have flown several types of atomic clocks on >> orbits (different orbits, different nuclei, different energy >> transitions) and all have behaved according to the GR prediction. What >> you are saying is that this is just a _coincidence_ and an effect due >> to an _undefined_ interaction with aether pressure. > > The clocks are traveling with respect to the aether. > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter > and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state > of displacement. You just wanted to write something/anything? Be my guest, but this doesn't address the issue at hand here (I'm beginning to get accustomed to this - actually I'm beginning to get fed up with this). Perhaps it escaped you, but you didn't define the interaction. Your new buzzword seems to be the 'state of the aether' (perhaps you are beginning subconsciously to be aware about the problems pertaining to the earlier love affair with the 'aether pressure'). In physics if you have 'state of the aether' one would assume that you also have the equations describing this state, so we could actually know what the heck you are talking about and start checking whether this system is logically consistent at first place and if it has anything to do with the measurable empirical reality in the second. >> I don't believe in that kind of >> coincidences before you give me a very good reason to do so. No one >> will take you seriously before you can show how to model your aether >> and how to actually calculate the associated pressure effects. The above statement still holds. [snip - some old stuff] Cheers, Esa(R) -- Space is what is needed to keep everything from being in one place, time is what is needed to keep everything from happening at once, - and for everything else, there's duct tape.
From: mpc755 on 31 Mar 2010 10:36
On Mar 31, 9:59 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > Sorry to be so slow responding. I have work and even other hobbies to > blame, but to be honest I also start to get frustrated and dizzy as I > feel as if I'm trying to nail jello in a 'merry go round'. > You are getting dizzy because you do not understand nature. You understand a particle can move through a frictionless superfluid and fill-in where the particle was but you insist there is no pressure involved in how this is done. To you, it's magic. You understand the moving particle displaces the frictionless superfluid, but somehow to you, it does this without applying pressure to the superfluid. To you, it's magic. You do not understand why conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair at the same time insisting it is because of 'Bell's inequality'. You are trying to use an 'inequality' to describe a physical behavior. For some unexplainable reason you insist conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair. To you, it's magic (or 'Bell's inequality' obfuscation since Bell's inequality is not a physical explanation as to why conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair). Here is a thought experiment you should answer before we continue. It will allow me to understand if there is any hope of your ability to not be dizzy: A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). While the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits to the slits. When there are detectors at the exits to the slits the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit. If the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern. Explain how this is possible without aether. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie "This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any moving particle or object had an associated wave." 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "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." "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is located." de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of the wave. In AD, the external field is the aether. In a double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits the available slits. In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference. > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > On Mar 24, 8:42 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > >> mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> > On Mar 21, 7:38 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> > >> > wrote: > >> >> mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> >> NOTE: > >> >> You have apparently choosed to split this discussion in to separate > >> >> threads. There might be a good reason for it, but I have two > >> >> comments: 1) When splitting the answer in to separate threads it is > >> >> a bit puzzling that you have apparently totally ignored the clearly > >> >> indicated main question stated in my previous message - actually you > >> >> have not answered any of my questions, why is that? 2) You have made > >> >> several follow-ups to your own messages - this is a bit confusing - > >> >> at what point should I start replying. Would it be too much for you > >> >> to give yourself a bit more time, so that you could put everything > >> >> in just one message. > > >> >> > 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.' > > >> >>http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > >> >> page 4, paragraph after eq-4 > > >> >> > are you not able to understand? > > >> >> As you should well know (or actually not), it's sometimes very hard > >> >> to know when and what one is not able to understand. But I try to > >> >> clarify my (lack of) understanding below - perhaps you could be > >> >> better able to educate me based on that. > > >> >> > Or are you saying the EXTERNAL FIELD acting on the particle is the > >> >> > particle itself? > > >> >> Nope, the _EXTERNAL_ FIELD is not the particle itself. If you > >> >> actually read the paper you would (perhaps) understand at least two > >> >> things: > > >> >> 1) This _external_ field he is speaking about is for example an > >> >> _external_ electric field acting on an electron - discussed in > >> >> section III. He first develops his 'physical wave' theory without > >> >> _external_ fields and then _generalizes_ the resulting 'guidance > >> >> model' to include also _external_ fields. This _external_ field is > >> >> quite distinct concept to the de Broglie's physical/material waves. > > >> >> 2) Starting from bottom of the page 9, you could have read: "This > >> >> result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, > >> >> the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave where the > >> >> amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite natural that > >> >> the internal motion rythm of the particle should always be the same > >> >> as that of the wave at the point where the particle is located." > > >> >> NOTE: "particle is defined as a ... region of the wave ...", just as > >> >> I already told you earlier. > > >> > Yes, the particle is defined as A VERY SMALL region of the wave. The > >> > particle is not the wave but consists of a very small region of the > >> > wave. > > >> > This means most of the wave does not consist of the particle. > > >> > "Thusfar, the insertion of the particle in its wave was restrictively > >> > defined by stating that the real physical wave must include a small > >> > region of very high amplitude, which is the particle. Apart from this > >> > singular region, the physical wave is the v wave, of very limited > >> > amplitude, and satisfying the usual linear equation. As previously > >> > stated, it seems premature to try and describe the internal structure > >> > of this singular region, i.e. the particle. This description will > >> > probably involve complicated non-linear equations." > > >> This from page 15. It would be nice if you could indicate at least the > >> page number when quoting. > > >> > So, above we have the 'particle in its wave'. We have, 'the real > >> > physical wave must include a small region of very high amplitude, > >> > which is the particle'. We have 'the internal structure of this > >> > singular region, i.e. the particle'. > > >> The 'real physical wave' is a single entity. It's amplitude is low > >> except in a very small region of high amplitude - that can be seen for > >> practical purposes to represent the associated particle. The 'real > >> wave' is constructed mathematically from two parts the low amplitude > >> 'v-wave' (a solution for the Schrödinger or Klein-Gordon -equation) and > >> an almost point-like singular solution, the 'high amplitude wave'. > >> These combined give the 'real wave', itself also a solution to the same > >> Schrödinger. > > >> As is usual when discussing QM, it seems that we have reached the point > >> where are more or less discussing semantics and interpretations. > >> However, I must concede that you have a point (PI) here. You may > >> identify the v- wave as a separate entity to the high amplitude wave > >> 'the particle'. My view is that the 'real thing' is the 'real wave' and > >> introducing the 'high amplitude part' and adding a small multiplication > >> factor to the standard solution to get the low-amplitude v-wave are > >> just mathematical tricks introduced in order to be able to keep the > >> particle properties (e.g. charge) from spreading all around along the > >> stadard Schrödingen wave. > > >> But I have to concede that you have every right for a different > >> interpretation and to considering the low- and high-amplitude parts > >> separately when developing your interpretation. > > >> Unfortunately I can not see how your aether 'displacement wave' would > >> correspond the v-wave which is a solution to the Schrödinger? Other > >> point is that when using this model the v-wave and the particle will be > >> necessarily made out of the same 'stuff' as the aether, this seems also > >> a problem. > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > by the double solution theory > > Louis de BROGLIE' > >http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > > "These are essentially based on the way in which quantities respectively > > characterizing the regular v wave and the internal u0 wave of the > > particle connect with the neighbourhood of the singular region. u0 would > > have to increase very sharply as one penetrates the singular region." > > > This seems to be very similar to Einstein's concept of: > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity > > by > > Albert Einstein' > >http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places". > > > There is a connectedness between the particle and the neighborhood. > > There is a connectedness between the matter and the aether. > > > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter > > and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state > > of displacement. > > And what does this babble have anything to do with either of the issues/ > question above? > > The absurdity of the your 'similarity' has been handled in the sister > thread. > > >> > In a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule the very small > >> > region of the wave which is the particle is the C-60 molecule. This > >> > very small region of the wave enters and exits a single slit. > > >> > The internal structure of this singular region, i.e. the particle, is > >> > the C-60 molecule. > > >> Actually I think this was the exact interpretation de Broglie aimed at.. > > >> >> You could also read the other paper you referenced (beware of the > >> >> wrap: > > >> >>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie- > >> >> lecture.pdf > > >> >> If you still entertain the idea that de Broglie's views somehow > >> >> correspond to your aether waves pushing particles around: > > >> >> Page 252: > >> >> "Is it even still possible to assume that at each moment the > >> >> corpuscle occupies a well-defined position in the wave and that the > >> >> wave in its propagation carries the corpuscle along in the same way > >> >> as a wave would carry along a cork? These are difficult questions > >> >> and to discuss them would take us too far and even to the confines > >> >> of philosophy. All that I shall say about them here is that nowadays > >> >> the tendency in general is to assume that it is not constantly > >> >> possible to assign to the corpuscle a well-defined position in the > >> >> wave." > > >> >> That view was then 'not constantly possible', nor it is nowadays > >> >> either. > > >> > "it is not constantly possible to assign to the corpuscle a well- > >> > defined position in the wave." > > >> > Yes, it is not possible to assign a well-defined position to the > >> > corpuscle in the wave. But, the corpuscle still exists within a very > >> > small region within the wave. It is just a matter of not being able > >> > to specify exactly where the very small region is at any particular > >> > time. > > >> Perhaps we just have to agree to disagree here. What he means here is > >> obviously also that the particle is 'not pushed around like a cork in > >> water'. Note that the 'real wave' is a solution to the Schrödinger and > >> thus corresponds to the probability of finding the particle in a > >> certain volume of space at certain time, and it fills the whole domain > >> under consideration. The interpretation is not very straightforward. > > > In de Broglie wave mechanics the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single > > slit in a double slit experiment. > > In a manner of speaking - yes. > > >> >> Page 256 (last paragraph of the paper): "Thus to describe the > >> >> properties of matter as well as those of light, waves and corpuscles > >> >> have to be referred to at one and the same time. The electron can no > >> >> longer be conceived as a single, small granule of electricity; it > >> >> must be associated with a wave and this wave is no myth; its > >> >> wavelength can be measured and its interferences predicted. It has > >> >> thus been possible to predict a whole group of phenomena without > >> >> their actually having been discovered. And it is on this concept of > >> >> the duality of waves and corpuscles in Nature, expressed in a more > >> >> or less abstract form, that the whole recent development of > >> >> theoretical physics has been founded and that all future development > >> >> of this science will apparently have to be founded." > > >> >> He is of course speaking of the 'wave-particle duality', a standard > >> >> concept in QM. > > >> > "EDITOR'S 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 !" > > >> Yes in a way he did, but it seems that you don't quite understand what > >> is the context, what is the 'Copenhagen interpretation' and what are de > >> Broglie's 'real waves'. > > >> According to my understanding de Broglie tried here to develop a theory > >> that would allow an alternate more 'concrete' interpretation of the QM > >> phenomena. And he apparently succeeded at least to some degree - it > >> works for certain set of phenomena. The theory was then carried further > >> by at least Bohm. I'm actually quite sympathetic to their effort (so > >> far that I can follow the process) but I'm nobody and AFAICT it has not > >> been adapted for most of the physicists that are actually working on > >> that field. > > >> But there is a major point regarding your 'model' - nowhere do either > >> de Broglie or Bohm refer to the naive aether concept, and here is the > >> reason - no one has been able to make it work. > > > Because no one figure out Aether Displacement. > > It seems that no one has 'figured it out' even now. Making bold statements > don't count as 'figuring out' something - sorry. You must make the system > work and that would require construction of a mathematical model. But of > course, you seem totally incapable of doing so. > > >> >> You see there is a reason 'aether' or 'ether' is not mentioned in > >> >> these texts (except as a rejected historical concept). > > >> > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > >> > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" - > >> > Albert Einstein > > >> What an earth has an out of context Einstein quote doing in a middle of > >> the discussion about a paper by de Broglie? Perhaps if you would be so > >> kind and provide a proper citation indicating from where you have > >> picked that cherry, we could also discuss it's relevance, but not > >> before. > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > by the double solution theory > > Louis de BROGLIE' > >http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > > "These are essentially based on the way in which quantities respectively > > characterizing the regular v wave and the internal u0 wave of the > > particle connect with the neighbourhood of the singular region. u0 would > > have to increase very sharply as one penetrates the singular region." > > > This is very similar to Einstein's concept of: > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity > > by > > Albert Einstein' > >http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places". > > > There is a connectedness between the particle and the neighborhood. > > There is a connectedness between the matter and the aether. > > > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter > > and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state > > of displacement. > > This is a third incarnation of these statements so far (in this thread > and its sibling). I have dealt with the absurdity of the 'similarity' in > the 'sister thread'. Thanks for providing the reference though. > > >> > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the > >> > matter is the aether's state of displacement. > > >> > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > >> > The C-60 molecule occupies a very small region of the wave. > > >> > The 'rejection' of aether is the reason something as simple as > >> > gravity is not understood by 'mainstream' physics. > > >> > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object > >> > is gravity. > > >> The rejection of aether has very strong basis - it just doesn't work. > >> Many respectable physicists have studied the concept, but have been > >> forced to concede before the undisputable experimental facts. > > >> We have delved deep in to the interpretation of QM, and I must admit I > >> just barely can hold my head on surface anymore (if event that). But > >> actually we were discussing your aether model so let me make some > >> question regarding it. > > >> 1) Why does your aether displacement wave obey Schrödinger-equation (or > >> in case relativistic cases the Klein-Gordon equation)? > > No answer? > > >> 2) How do you quantify the aethers 'state of displacement'? > > > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter > > and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state > > of displacement. > > I did ask: how do you 'quantify' it?. What are the mathematical relations > describing the 'state of displacement', the equations, what numbers should > be put and where so we can start crunching? > > >> 3) How (explain the mechanism) does the 'state of displacement' effect > >> the movement of the particle that caused it in the first place? > > No answer? > > >> 4) If we have a gas in a closed container and add a ball there, the > >> pressure will be the same throughout, including at the surface of the > >> ball. > >> According to your model the aether pressure around an object has a > >> gradient (greater pressure at the surface decreasing outwards) - please > >> explain. > > > See hydrostatic pressure. > > Hydrostatics pressure is the pressure in the body of fluid due to > _gravity_. It seems peculiar that this 'aether pressure' that is supposed > to be the cause of gravity is at the same time caused by it. Kind of > circular 'reasoning' here. > Displacement creates pressure. > >> 5) The pressure gradient in (4) would normally produce a net force on > >> an object that is pointing _outwards_. Gravity quite apparently pushes > >> to the reverse direction - please clarify? > > > See hydrostatic pressure. > > Yes - in hydrostatics this net force I talked above is called 'buoyancy' > and as I told you - it is directed to opposite direction than gravity. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_statics#Hydrostatic_pressure "Since pressure is defined as the force exerted on a test area (p = F/ A, with p: pressure, F: force normal to area A, A: area), and the only force acting on any such small cube of fluid is the weight of the fluid column above it" The pressure associated with the aether displaced by the matter is the pressure associated with the aether above the object. > Cheers, > > Esa(R) > > -- > The CT Creed: "There is no Game but Traveller, and High Guard is its > Product" -- Steve Hudson |