There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Two times happening together
Next: NOW ????????????
From: PD on 25 Mar 2010 18:05 On Mar 25, 4:59 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 5:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Why try to understand absurd nonsense? > > Describing a wave as propagating the available paths and a particle as > traveling a single path is absurd nonsense? > Yup. You got a model of these that calculates quantitatively experimental measurements accurately?
From: PD on 25 Mar 2010 18:17 On Mar 25, 4:59 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 5:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Why try to understand absurd nonsense? > > Describing a wave as propagating the available paths and a particle as > traveling a single path is absurd nonsense? > There are no such things as true particles and true waves in nature. Instead, there are quantum objects, which are different from either. Do you have a model involving true particles and true waves that accurately makes any predictions of measurable phenomena? PD
From: mpc755 on 25 Mar 2010 18:52 On Mar 25, 6:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 4:59 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 25, 5:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Why try to understand absurd nonsense? > > > Describing a wave as propagating the available paths and a particle as > > traveling a single path is absurd nonsense? > > There are no such things as true particles and true waves in nature. > Instead, there are quantum objects, which are different from either. > > Do you have a model involving true particles and true waves that > accurately makes any predictions of measurable phenomena? > In Aether Displacement, particles travel single paths and waves propagate available paths. Aether Displacement describes what occurs in the Experiments below. For example, in the image on the right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment There are waves propagating both the red and blue paths towards D0. One of the downgraded photon 'particles' is traveling either the red or blue path towards D0. The lens causes the waves to create interference which alters the direction the particle travels. One set of downgraded photons is creating one of the interference patterns at D0 and the other set of downgraded photons is creating the other. In the image on the right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experi... When the downgraded photon pair are created, in order for there to be conservation of momentum, the original photons momentum is maintained. This means the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. We will describe one of the photons as being the 'up' photon and the other photon as being the 'down' photon. One of the downgraded photons travels either the red or blue path towards D0 and the other photon travels either the red or blue path towards the prism. There are physical waves in the aether propagating both the red and blue paths. The aether waves propagating towards D0 interact with the lens and create interference prior to reaching D0. The aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels prior to reaching D0. There are actually two interference patterns being created at D0. One associated with the 'up' photons when they arrive at D0 and the other interference pattern associated with the 'down' photons when they arrive at D0. Both 'up' and 'down' photons are reflected by BSa and arrive at D3. Since there is a single path towards D3 there is nothing for the wave in the aether to interfere with and there is no interference pattern and since it is not determined if it is an 'up' or 'down' photon being detected at D3 there is no way to distinguish between the photons arriving at D0 which interference pattern each photon belongs to. The same for photons reflected by BSb and arrive at D4. Photons which pass through BSa and are reflected by BSc and arrive at D1 are either 'up' or 'down' photons but not both. If 'up' photons arrive at D1 then 'down' photons arrive at D2. The opposite occurs for photons which pass through BSb. Photons which pass through BSa and pass through BSb and arrive at D1 are all either 'up' or 'down' photons. If all 'up' photons arrive at D1 then all 'down' photons arrive at D2. Since the physical waves in the aether traveling both the red and blue paths are combined prior to D1 and D2 the aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels. Since all 'up' photons arrive at one of the detectors and all 'down' photons arrive at the other an interference pattern is created which reflects back to the interference both sets of photons are creating at D0. Figures 3 and 4 here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9903/9903047v1.pdf Show the interference pattern of the 'up' and 'down' photons. If you were to combine the two images and add the peaks together and add the valleys together you would have the interference pattern of the original photon. This is evidence the downgraded photon pair maintain the original photons momentum and have opposite angular momentums. Nothing is erased. There is no delayed choice. Physical waves in the aether are traveling both the red and blue paths and when the paths are combined the waves create interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels. Experiments which are evidence of Aether Displacement: Experiment #1: Instead of having a single beam splitter BSc have two beam splitters BSca and BScb. Have the photons reflected by mirror Ma interact with BSca and have the photons reflected by mirror Mb interact with BScb. Do not combine the red and blue paths. Have additional detectors D1a, D2a, D1b, and D2b. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BSca be detected at D1a and D2a. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BScb be detected at D1b and D2b. If you compare the photons detected at D1a and D1b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. If you compare the photons detected at D2a and D2b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. What is occurring is all 'up' photons are being detected at one pair of detectors, for example D1a and D1b, and all 'down' photons are being detected at the other pair of detectors, for example D2a and D2b. Interference patterns do not even need to be created in order to 'go back' and determine the interference patterns created at D0. Experiment #2: Alter the experiment. When the downgraded photon pair are created, have each photon interact with its own double slit apparatus. Have detectors at one of the exits for each double slit apparatus. When a photon is detected at one of the exits, in AD, the photon's aether wave still exists and is propagating along the path exiting the other slit. When a photon is not detected at one of the exits, the photon 'particle' along with its associated aether wave exits the other slit. Combine the path the aether wave the detected photon is propagating along with the path of the other photon and its associated aether wave. An interference pattern will still be created. This shows the aether wave of a detected photon still exists and is able to create interference with the aether wave of another photon, altering the direction the photon 'particle' travels. Your inability to physically explain the following is evidence you feign hypothesis: - The future determining the past - Virtual particles which exist out of nothing - Conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair - A C-60 molecule can enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum. - Matter causes physical space to be 'unflat' but not move The following are the most correct physical explanations to date: - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - The aether displaced by the matter which are the plates extends past the other plate. The pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the plates forces the plates together - Conservation of momentum does apply to a downgraded photon pair. When a photon is detected its wave collapses which determines its spin. In order for the original photons momentum to be conserved, the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - Physical space is displaced by matter. Aether is displaced by matter.
From: Timo Nieminen on 25 Mar 2010 19:39 On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Paul Stowe wrote: > On Mar 24, 7:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 23, 10:34 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > That depends on what you think MUST always be involved in "how that > > > > happens". What do you think has to be there for you to recognize it as > > > > a "how that occurs"? > > > > > I happen to agree with Newton on that one... > > > > And you believe his position is what, exactly? Please be absolutely > > specific. > > If you can't be specific, perhaps it has not occurred to you that even > > YOU don't know what you're looking for? > > That you cannot provide a physical theory with only a mathematical > correlational expression, thus his famous quote "Hypothesis Non- > Fingo"! It's plain stupid to think otherwise. Newton explicity said that the mathematical model is enough. From the Motte/Cajori translation: "In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus it was that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered. And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist; and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our Sea." More than that, Newton explcitly stated that stories spun about the "physical" causes - tales of mechanism in the Cartesian style - have no place in physics: But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. So, Newton says that the mathematical model is enough, and Newton says that Cartesian-style "explanations" of causes are not physics. Was Newton stupid? He clearly thought otherwise. Newton himself stepped back from such explanations. He may well have still preferred to have one, provided it could be adequately tested so as to be proper physics rather than a story, but he was willing to work without one. The General Scholium is largely a defence against Cartesianist criticism of his law of gravitation, criticism along the lines of your criticism of GR. I don't see why you invoke it in support of your position, when it's a barenaked attack against your position. (Newton appeared to think a strong attack was a good defence, coming out swinging against Cartesian gravity in the opening of the General Scholium.) -- Timo
From: mpc755 on 25 Mar 2010 19:59
On Mar 25, 7:39 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Paul Stowe wrote: > > On Mar 24, 7:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 23, 10:34 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > That depends on what you think MUST always be involved in "how that > > > > > happens". What do you think has to be there for you to recognize it as > > > > > a "how that occurs"? > > > > > I happen to agree with Newton on that one... > > > > And you believe his position is what, exactly? Please be absolutely > > > specific. > > > If you can't be specific, perhaps it has not occurred to you that even > > > YOU don't know what you're looking for? > > > That you cannot provide a physical theory with only a mathematical > > correlational expression, thus his famous quote "Hypothesis Non- > > Fingo"! It's plain stupid to think otherwise. > > Newton explicity said that the mathematical model is enough. From the > Motte/Cajori translation: > > "In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the > phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus it was > that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of > bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered. And > to us it is enough that gravity does really exist; and act according to > the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for > all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our Sea." > > More than that, Newton explcitly stated that stories spun about the > "physical" causes - tales of mechanism in the Cartesian style - have no > place in physics: > > But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those > properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for > whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an > hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of > occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental > philosophy. > > So, Newton says that the mathematical model is enough, and Newton says > that Cartesian-style "explanations" of causes are not physics. Was Newton > stupid? He clearly thought otherwise. > > Newton himself stepped back from such explanations. He may well have still > preferred to have one, provided it could be adequately tested so as to be > proper physics rather than a story, but he was willing to work without > one. > > The General Scholium is largely a defence against Cartesianist criticism > of his law of gravitation, criticism along the lines of your criticism of > GR. I don't see why you invoke it in support of your position, when it's a > barenaked attack against your position. (Newton appeared to think a > strong attack was a good defence, coming out swinging against Cartesian > gravity in the opening of the General Scholium.) > > -- > Timo I am combining GR/SR with Lorentz concept of an absolutely stationary space. Most of what I find useful is from Einstein, so it is not easy to just say GR/SR is incorrect. I think everything is with respect to the aether. If the Observer on the train and the Observer on the embankment are able to view each other's clocks for a period of time, both will determine the clock on the train is ticking slower than the clock on the embankment because the embankment is more at rest with respect to the aether. Einstein said it best, "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 is the aether's state of displacement. The trains and the embankment are moving relative to each other but each is moving with respect to the aether whose state, with respect to the train and embankment, is mostly determined by its connections with the Earth. I obviously disagree with both Lorentz and Einstein that the clocks will each appear slower. This is the best article I have found which refutes Einstein's explanation of the twin paradox: 'On Einsteins resolution of the twin clock paradox' http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf It's conclusion states Lorentz and a preferred frame in a matter filled universe. I would enhance that conclusion by stating that time in the twin paradox does not change but the clocks tick based upon the aether pressure in which they exist. I realize I am still using SR/GR in ways in which Einstein did not intend, but this quote gives me hope that Einstein did realize the rate at which clocks tick has nothing to do with time: "Space and time are not conditions in which we live; they are simply modes in which we think." http://lazyway.blogs.com/lazy_way/2005/09/einstein_quote_.html |