There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Two times happening together
Next: NOW ????????????
From: Paul Stowe on 28 Mar 2010 13:29 On Mar 25, 4:39 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, PaulStowewrote: > > 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." Hi Timo, its been a long time... As to your comment above, yes, please note 'this philosophy' which can be also interpreted as in 'this case'. And sure, it's enought to get by with for the time being. If that is, in fact the goal then all of science might as well be a religion with fundamental 'beliefs' forming its foundation. > 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. I think the key term here is the word experimental. In that context I agree, data is data and should not be laden with speculations. Thus my fundamental disagreement with Tom Robert's claim that one cannot, possibly, do an experiment without first having a theory in which to frame it. Faraday's experiments are a great example of this. But, that is not what I'm talking about here. > 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. Correlations are useful, fruitful and point to understanding. But, if he or you believe(d) that correlations are enough then then you think reversed 'engineering' not fundamental understanding is sufficient. And I, and I think other find such philosophy a poor excuse for science. > 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 don't think that GR's hydrodynamical framework is bad, or totally wrong. Thing are not black & white as many like to paint them. I think Sam Lilley's exponential form and a less perfect tensor (with non-zero off diagonal elements) will in the long run fill in some answers, like Titus-Bode's law. But, in isolation GR as it stands to data is an empty shell in need of a physical model. > -- > Timo Best Regards, Paul Stowe
From: Paul Stowe on 28 Mar 2010 13:49 On Mar 28, 9:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 26, 8:16 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I am soooo sick and tired of repeating things to you... > > > > You have STILL not answered my question. > > > You have just generated more open questions about general relativity, > > > as though if a theory has open questions, it is not a physical > > > explanation. > > > It has not explanation, thus the T-E-R-M! mathematical correlation. > > Newton's gravitational equation is also in that same category. The > > very same category Ptolemy's method was in. Maxwell's equations, > > devoid of Maxwell's model is also just a correlation. > > I don't follow. There are fields, which are physical entities, that > stand in Maxwell's equations. Yet this is a correlation? Between what > things? What you call Fields are processes and are certasinly not fundamental. The four forces are, in fact, just different aspects of a single thing, call it force if you like. If one is truly looking for unification it should be obvious that it should resolve to such. If you cannot understand this from your version then it should be clear that that version is only a weak correlation. > > Much of modern > > physics lacks any actual phsical foundations. > > Yes, apparently since Newton! Not so, read Whittaker's work. > What is this "modern physics" of which you speak? And at what point > was the physics WITH physical foundations? The philosophy taken since ~ 1920... > > Pay attention, this is > > the very last time I will answer you in this area, a physical theory > > must be derivable from primitive elements > > "Primitive elements"? What does this term mean? Fields are primitive > elements, no? No, certainly not... > If not, then what properties do "primitive elements" have that these > do not? Momentum, energy, volume and unique existence. IOW, they are physically 'real'. > I'm really just trying to get an unambiguous, unveiled description by > you on what you think a physical theory necessarily has. You've gotten it many times now. It's not my problem that you cannot remember that fact. > If you believe that primitive elements are necessarily material bodies > that have mass and volume, then just come out and say it. Of course, I > will ask you what on earth gives you the idea that all physical > explanations MUST be reliant on primitive elements that are material > bodies that have mass and volume... Mass is an emergent quantity. A byproduct of momentum. > > that LEADS to the > > equations. A good example of such model is Maxwell's and LeSage's. > > Both leads to the final equations FROM! first principle primitive > > elements. > > > > I am asking you a very specific question. > > > In order for a theory -- any theory -- to be classed as a physical > > > explanation, there would be certain elements in that theory that would > > > warrant it being called a physical explanation. What are those > > > elements? And specifically which of those elements are missing in the > > > description that I gave above? > > > Yeah, one should be able to eplain the process WITHOUT the need for > > mathematics. The mathematics quantifies and fills in the specific > > details. > > And I did that with the an explanation of the curvature of spacetime > -- no math at all -- and yet you rejected it. It was BS. > > > If you cannot LIST the fundamental elements that ANY theory must have > > > for you to consider it a physical explanation, then I guess it's > > > obvious that YOU don't know what you mean by the term "physical > > > explanation". > > > I cannot help you poor memory Peter, maybe you need to be tested for > > dementia... > > > > > > By fundamental elements, I expect you to answer with adjectives and > > > > > nouns, not questions. Having open questions is one thing, but having > > > > > open questions would not make my explanation not a physical > > > > > explanation. A physical explanation won't answer all possible open > > > > > questions. Since you claim my explanation is not a physical one, then > > > > > you owe me some clear accounting of what you think a physical > > > > > explanation MUST have. > > > > > Fundamental means just what the 'word' is defined to mean, do you > > > > understand English? Especially, given you nationality Peter... > > > > Peter? Who's Peter? And I think we agree on what "fundamental" means. > > > What are the fundamental elements of a physical theory, Paul? > > > You, Peter Draper of the Draper Family... > > That's not my name. Then what is it? > > > > > > > Oh, come on. You may have a terminology issue. Numerical constant does > > > > > > > not mean "dimensionless constant" or "unitless constant". This is > > > > > > > simply an error on your part. > > > > > > > Yes, you do have a terminology issue, 'numerical' commonly means > > > > > > relating to a 'number' not a physical entity. See: > > > > > > >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/numerical > > > > > > Oh, come, come. We run into this problem all the time, when an amateur > > > > > looks at a term that is used in physics and argues with the meaning of > > > > > the term AS USED IN PHYSICS by referring to a dictionary of common > > > > > usage. This is how Seto confuses "physical" and "material", thinking > > > > > that if it ain't material, it ain't physical. > > > > > And I'm tired of the childish game of play secret handshake, code word > > > > bullshit! If you have to reinvent meanings to common words the problem > > > > is not with the dictionary... > > > > That's not right, Paul. Every discipline has jargon where the words > > > mean something other than common usage as listed in the dictionary. > > > That's why the terms are so carefully defined in textbooks, sometimes > > > repeatedly with refinements at successive iterations. This is in true > > > in music and law as well as physics. It's just a reality. Not a basis > > > for complaint. > > > Good, give us an example for Law... > > Sure. Take the word "competent". And how is its meaning uniquely different in the legal profession? > > > > > > > However, even in this case one finds that something that has > > > > > > > dimensions in one system of units is dimensionless in another system > > > > > > > of units. For example, in the SI system of units, the speed of light > > > > > > > has dimensions [L]/[T]. However, in "natural units", the speed of > > > > > > > light is both unitless and dimensionless. > > > > > > > Silly... > > > > > > No, it's a simple fact. You can look up natural units if you like. > > > > > I know that so-called natural units 'scale' c to be defined as 1 > > > > bullshit length per 1 bullshit time unit thus like furlongs per > > > > forthnight it just another invented system to play a shell game! > > > > Speed is still speed and length is still length, time still time they > > > > don't magically dissapear! E does not magically equal m no matter how > > > > much you click you heels together. > > > > So you don't buy "natural units" either, because you just say so. > > > No, nature says so... > > Whaaaaat? Human-made units are more than human? > And human-made natural units are less so? > Good grief! Shrug... > > > > > > > > But, like I said you > > > > > > > > cannot say 'what' it is, how those units came to be or even where it > > > > > > > > comes from. You can only say it 'appears' and is needed in the > > > > > > > > equations. > > > > > > > > > > > Waving one's hand on paths says NOTHING! about how > > > > > > > > > > that occurs... > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > And what are the indispensable elements of a PHYSICAL theory that this > > > > > lacks? You STILL haven't found a way to answer this question. > > > > > Something I think you'll never understand, true understanding, Pun > > > > intended, sadly... > > > > Since you cannot answer the question, Paul, it would be reasonable for > > > any reader to conclude that you don't know the answer to it, either. > > > Well at least I've derived several new physical relationships from the > > modeling I've done. Like the LeSage drag equation, the terms of G, > > Boltzman's constant, ... etc. > > But you still cannot answer this very basic question. I have answered, you don't like the answer, forget I answered, but my answer leads to more new physical aspects that your pathetic system does. Paul Stowe
From: PD on 28 Mar 2010 14:11 On Mar 28, 12:49 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 28, 9:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 26, 8:16 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I am soooo sick and tired of repeating things to you... > > > > > You have STILL not answered my question. > > > > You have just generated more open questions about general relativity, > > > > as though if a theory has open questions, it is not a physical > > > > explanation. > > > > It has not explanation, thus the T-E-R-M! mathematical correlation. > > > Newton's gravitational equation is also in that same category. The > > > very same category Ptolemy's method was in. Maxwell's equations, > > > devoid of Maxwell's model is also just a correlation. > > > I don't follow. There are fields, which are physical entities, that > > stand in Maxwell's equations. Yet this is a correlation? Between what > > things? > > What you call Fields are processes and are certasinly not > fundamental. Processes? They carry momentum, angular momentum, energy, etc., much like baseballs do. But somehow this is lost on you... > The four forces are, in fact, just different aspects of > a single thing, call it force if you like. If one is truly looking > for unification it should be obvious that it should resolve to such. Electroweak unification does not absorb the electromagnetic field and the weak field into one field or one force. Perhaps you need a little better understanding of what unification means. > If you cannot understand this from your version then it should be > clear that that version is only a weak correlation. > > > > Much of modern > > > physics lacks any actual phsical foundations. > > > Yes, apparently since Newton! > > Not so, read Whittaker's work. > > > What is this "modern physics" of which you speak? And at what point > > was the physics WITH physical foundations? > > The philosophy taken since ~ 1920... Newton was not alive in 1920. > > > > Pay attention, this is > > > the very last time I will answer you in this area, a physical theory > > > must be derivable from primitive elements > > > "Primitive elements"? What does this term mean? Fields are primitive > > elements, no? > > No, certainly not... > > > If not, then what properties do "primitive elements" have that these > > do not? > > Momentum, energy, volume and unique existence. IOW, they are > physically 'real'. Fields carry energy and momentum. I have no idea what you mean by "unique existence. Finally, volume is a property of *composite* objects only, and the volume is determined by the nature of the *interaction* between constituents, not by the size of the constituents themselves. Think about this for a minute and I'm sure you'll see what I mean. But getting back to basics, I wonder why you chose these properties and why you believe they are essential to "primitive elements". Did you just pick them out of a hat? > > > I'm really just trying to get an unambiguous, unveiled description by > > you on what you think a physical theory necessarily has. > > You've gotten it many times now. It's not my problem that you cannot > remember that fact. It sure took a while for you to spout it out again here, didn't it? And we seem to have some unresolved questions about your "primitive elements". > > > If you believe that primitive elements are necessarily material bodies > > that have mass and volume, then just come out and say it. Of course, I > > will ask you what on earth gives you the idea that all physical > > explanations MUST be reliant on primitive elements that are material > > bodies that have mass and volume... > > Mass is an emergent quantity. A byproduct of momentum. > Interesting. Photons have momentum. They do not have mass. > > > > > that LEADS to the > > > equations. A good example of such model is Maxwell's and LeSage's. > > > Both leads to the final equations FROM! first principle primitive > > > elements. > > > > > I am asking you a very specific question. > > > > In order for a theory -- any theory -- to be classed as a physical > > > > explanation, there would be certain elements in that theory that would > > > > warrant it being called a physical explanation. What are those > > > > elements? And specifically which of those elements are missing in the > > > > description that I gave above? > > > > Yeah, one should be able to eplain the process WITHOUT the need for > > > mathematics. The mathematics quantifies and fills in the specific > > > details. > > > And I did that with the an explanation of the curvature of spacetime > > -- no math at all -- and yet you rejected it. > > It was BS. That's what you say, but it seems to satisfy all the requirements you've laid out, except for not being explained in terms of "primitive elements" with the dubious properties you mention. > > > > > > > If you cannot LIST the fundamental elements that ANY theory must have > > > > for you to consider it a physical explanation, then I guess it's > > > > obvious that YOU don't know what you mean by the term "physical > > > > explanation". > > > > I cannot help you poor memory Peter, maybe you need to be tested for > > > dementia... > > > > > > > By fundamental elements, I expect you to answer with adjectives and > > > > > > nouns, not questions. Having open questions is one thing, but having > > > > > > open questions would not make my explanation not a physical > > > > > > explanation. A physical explanation won't answer all possible open > > > > > > questions. Since you claim my explanation is not a physical one, then > > > > > > you owe me some clear accounting of what you think a physical > > > > > > explanation MUST have. > > > > > > Fundamental means just what the 'word' is defined to mean, do you > > > > > understand English? Especially, given you nationality Peter... > > > > > Peter? Who's Peter? And I think we agree on what "fundamental" means. > > > > What are the fundamental elements of a physical theory, Paul? > > > > You, Peter Draper of the Draper Family... > > > That's not my name. > > Then what is it? Why is it important to you? It seems to be important enough that you will guess wrongly about it. Why? > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, come on. You may have a terminology issue. Numerical constant does > > > > > > > > not mean "dimensionless constant" or "unitless constant". This is > > > > > > > > simply an error on your part. > > > > > > > > Yes, you do have a terminology issue, 'numerical' commonly means > > > > > > > relating to a 'number' not a physical entity. See: > > > > > > > >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/numerical > > > > > > > Oh, come, come. We run into this problem all the time, when an amateur > > > > > > looks at a term that is used in physics and argues with the meaning of > > > > > > the term AS USED IN PHYSICS by referring to a dictionary of common > > > > > > usage. This is how Seto confuses "physical" and "material", thinking > > > > > > that if it ain't material, it ain't physical. > > > > > > And I'm tired of the childish game of play secret handshake, code word > > > > > bullshit! If you have to reinvent meanings to common words the problem > > > > > is not with the dictionary... > > > > > That's not right, Paul. Every discipline has jargon where the words > > > > mean something other than common usage as listed in the dictionary. > > > > That's why the terms are so carefully defined in textbooks, sometimes > > > > repeatedly with refinements at successive iterations. This is in true > > > > in music and law as well as physics. It's just a reality. Not a basis > > > > for complaint. > > > > Good, give us an example for Law... > > > Sure. Take the word "competent". > > And how is its meaning uniquely different in the legal profession? Want to take this question to a law discussion group? You could also ask Ste here in the group about legal jargon. Are you denying that various disciplines have jargon with specialized meanings for terms that are also in use in common usage with different meanings? > > > > > > > > > > > However, even in this case one finds that something that has > > > > > > > > dimensions in one system of units is dimensionless in another system > > > > > > > > of units. For example, in the SI system of units, the speed of light > > > > > > > > has dimensions [L]/[T]. However, in "natural units", the speed of > > > > > > > > light is both unitless and dimensionless. > > > > > > > > Silly... > > > > > > > No, it's a simple fact. You can look up natural units if you like. > > > > > > I know that so-called natural units 'scale' c to be defined as 1 > > > > > bullshit length per 1 bullshit time unit thus like furlongs per > > > > > forthnight it just another invented system to play a shell game! > > > > > Speed is still speed and length is still length, time still time they > > > > > don't magically dissapear! E does not magically equal m no matter how > > > > > much you click you heels together. > > > > > So you don't buy "natural units" either, because you just say so. > > > > No, nature says so... > > > Whaaaaat? Human-made units are more than human? > > And human-made natural units are less so? > > Good grief! > > Shrug... > > > > > > > > > > > > But, like I said you > > > > > > > > > cannot say 'what' it is, how those units came to be or even where it > > > > > > > > > comes from. You can only say it 'appears' and is needed in the > > > > > > > > > equations. > > > > > > > > > > > > Waving one's hand on paths says NOTHING! about how > > > > > > > > > > > that occurs... > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > And what are the indispensable elements of a PHYSICAL theory that this > > > > > > lacks? You STILL haven't found a way to answer this question. > > > > > > Something I think you'll never understand, true understanding, Pun > > > > > intended, sadly... > > > > > Since you cannot answer the question, Paul, it would be reasonable for > > > > any reader to conclude that you don't know the answer to it, either.. > > > > Well at least I've derived several new physical relationships from the > > > modeling I've done. Like the LeSage drag equation, the terms of G, > > > Boltzman's constant, ... etc. > > > But you still cannot answer this very basic question. > > I have answered, you don't like the answer, forget I answered, but my > answer leads to more new physical aspects that your pathetic system > does. "More physical aspects". I wonder what on earth that means. Does it generate quantitative predictions that distinguish your model from prevailing models, in such a way that it can be tested experimentally?
From: mpc755 on 28 Mar 2010 14:32 On Mar 28, 2:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > <snip> You must have missed this post: 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. 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. It's all very easy to understand once you realize 'delayed-choice', 'quantum eraser', and the future determining the past is simply misinterpreting what is occurring in nature. In the image on the right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment 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: Paul Stowe on 28 Mar 2010 16:13
On Mar 28, 11:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 28, 12:49 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I don't follow. There are fields, which are physical entities, that > > > stand in Maxwell's equations. Yet this is a correlation? Between what > > > things? > > > What you call Fields are processes and are certasinly not > > fundamental. > > Processes? They carry momentum, Yup, why? > angular momentum, Yup, why? > energy, etc., Yup... > much like baseballs do. But somehow this is lost on you... No it isn't... But those 'fields' aren't magical, there is a distinct reason that there is both 'magnetic' and 'electric' 'fields' and it ain't just because our equations tells me so! > > The four forces are, in fact, just different aspects of > > a single thing, call it force if you like. If one is truly looking > > for unification it should be obvious that it should resolve to such. > > Electroweak unification does not absorb the electromagnetic field and > the weak field into one field or one force. Perhaps you need a little > better understanding of what unification means. What's lost on you is the fact that the underlying processes give rise to the distinctiveness. It sucks to be you... > > If you cannot understand this from your version then it should be > > clear that that version is only a weak correlation. > > > > > Much of modern > > > > physics lacks any actual phsical foundations. > > > > Yes, apparently since Newton! > > > Not so, read Whittaker's work. > > > > What is this "modern physics" of which you speak? And at what point > > > was the physics WITH physical foundations? > > > The philosophy taken since ~ 1920... > > Newton was not alive in 1920. So what? > > > > Pay attention, this is > > > > the very last time I will answer you in this area, a physical theory > > > > must be derivable from primitive elements > > > > "Primitive elements"? What does this term mean? Fields are primitive > > > elements, no? > > > No, certainly not... > > > > If not, then what properties do "primitive elements" have that these > > > do not? > > > Momentum, energy, volume and unique existence. IOW, they are > > physically 'real'. > > Fields carry energy and momentum. I have no idea what you mean by > "unique existence. Finally, volume is a property of *composite* > objects only, and the volume is determined by the nature of the > *interaction* between constituents, not by the size of the > constituents themselves. Think about this for a minute and I'm sure > you'll see what I mean. So you believe. The constitutes that compose the 'fields' carry the momentum and have volume and spacing between themselves. And no, volume need not be composed of composite objects. > But getting back to basics, I wonder why you chose these properties > and why you believe they are essential to "primitive elements". Did > you just pick them out of a hat? Your lack of understanding and comprehension seems so vast as to make it impossible to explain this to you with this forum. Simply put, form follows from function(s). > > > I'm really just trying to get an unambiguous, unveiled description by > > > you on what you think a physical theory necessarily has. > > > You've gotten it many times now. It's not my problem that you cannot > > remember that fact. > > It sure took a while for you to spout it out again here, didn't it? > And we seem to have some unresolved questions about your "primitive > elements". Why did I need to then, unless your long term memory is flawed? > > > If you believe that primitive elements are necessarily material bodies > > > that have mass and volume, then just come out and say it. Of course, I > > > will ask you what on earth gives you the idea that all physical > > > explanations MUST be reliant on primitive elements that are material > > > bodies that have mass and volume... > > > Mass is an emergent quantity. A byproduct of momentum. > > Interesting. Photons have momentum. They do not have mass. Sound carries momentum but has no rest mass either... > > > > that LEADS to the > > > > equations. A good example of such model is Maxwell's and LeSage's. > > > > Both leads to the final equations FROM! first principle primitive > > > > elements. > > > > > > I am asking you a very specific question. > > > > > In order for a theory -- any theory -- to be classed as a physical > > > > > explanation, there would be certain elements in that theory that would > > > > > warrant it being called a physical explanation. What are those > > > > > elements? And specifically which of those elements are missing in the > > > > > description that I gave above? > > > > > Yeah, one should be able to eplain the process WITHOUT the need for > > > > mathematics. The mathematics quantifies and fills in the specific > > > > details. > > > > And I did that with the an explanation of the curvature of spacetime > > > -- no math at all -- and yet you rejected it. > > > It was BS. > > That's what you say, but it seems to satisfy all the requirements > you've laid out, except for not being explained in terms of "primitive > elements" with the dubious properties you mention. It does not explain how those paths or lines become curved by matter or energy. Even the rubber sheet analogy requires 'gravity' to dimple the sheet and the elastic properties of the sheet to cause the effect. Your so-called explanation was devoid of any type of such explanations. > > > > > If you cannot LIST the fundamental elements that ANY theory must have > > > > > for you to consider it a physical explanation, then I guess it's > > > > > obvious that YOU don't know what you mean by the term "physical > > > > > explanation". > > > > > I cannot help you poor memory Peter, maybe you need to be tested for > > > > dementia... > > > > > > > > By fundamental elements, I expect you to answer with adjectives and > > > > > > > nouns, not questions. Having open questions is one thing, but having > > > > > > > open questions would not make my explanation not a physical > > > > > > > explanation. A physical explanation won't answer all possible open > > > > > > > questions. Since you claim my explanation is not a physical one, then > > > > > > > you owe me some clear accounting of what you think a physical > > > > > > > explanation MUST have. > > > > > > > Fundamental means just what the 'word' is defined to mean, do you > > > > > > understand English? Especially, given you nationality Peter... > > > > > > Peter? Who's Peter? And I think we agree on what "fundamental" means. > > > > > What are the fundamental elements of a physical theory, Paul? > > > > > You, Peter Draper of the Draper Family... > > > > That's not my name. > > > Then what is it? > > Why is it important to you? It seems to be important enough that you > will guess wrongly about it. Why? Maybe I like to know whom I'm talking to. > > > > > That's not right, Paul. Every discipline has jargon where the words > > > > > mean something other than common usage as listed in the dictionary. > > > > > That's why the terms are so carefully defined in textbooks, sometimes > > > > > repeatedly with refinements at successive iterations. This is in true > > > > > in music and law as well as physics. It's just a reality. Not a basis > > > > > for complaint. > > > > > Good, give us an example for Law... > > > > Sure. Take the word "competent". > > > And how is its meaning uniquely different in the legal profession? > > Want to take this question to a law discussion group? > You could also ask Ste here in the group about legal jargon. > Are you denying that various disciplines have jargon with specialized > meanings for terms that are also in use in common usage with different > meanings? Like what? Sure specialized fields have specialized terms but, they are specific terms to that field. Give an example of a usurped meaning. > > > > > > Something I think you'll never understand, true understanding, Pun > > > > > > intended, sadly... > > > > > > Since you cannot answer the question, Paul, it would be reasonable for > > > > > any reader to conclude that you don't know the answer to it, either. > > > > > Well at least I've derived several new physical relationships from the > > > > modeling I've done. Like the LeSage drag equation, the terms of G, > > > > Boltzman's constant, ... etc. > > > > But you still cannot answer this very basic question. > > > I have answered, you don't like the answer, forget I answered, but my > > answer leads to more new physical aspects that your pathetic system > > does. > > "More physical aspects". I wonder what on earth that means. > Does it generate quantitative predictions that distinguish your model > from prevailing models, in such a way that it can be tested > experimentally? Yes, as an example, elemental charge (e) can be described in terms of Planck's constant (h), permitivitty (z), permeability (u) as, e = (1/2pi)Sqrt(h[Sqrt(z/3u)]) = 1.6038E-19 -- (a linear harmonic oscillator) IF we use z & u of free space. However, if we use the actual z and u of Earth's atmosphere where the dielectric constant of air is ~1.0006 and magnetic suceptability is ~1.004 then z & u are of the fourth root Sqrt(sqrt(z/3u)) then (1.0006/1.004)^0.25 = 0.999152 thus 1.6038 reduces to ~1.602 and I cannot get closer with the uncertainties of k & x of air... BUT! this predicts that the actual value of elemental charge is related cto the bulk EM properties of the matter that contains it. This explains both the existence of galvanic potentials and predicts that, if you measured e in something like Xe gas its value would be measured slightly different based upon the actual k & x properties of the Xe. Moreover, if you use my version of e when calculating the electron's magnetic moment you don't need the MMA correction. This is but one example of both a new relationship and unique prediction of several I've found, like the Pioneer drag equation. Paul Stowe |