There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
Next: Question about energy eigenvalues of a Hamiltonian, in general
From: NoEinstein on 2 Apr 2010 14:00 On Apr 2, 2:09 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Timo: You and Paul S., obviously, know what you are discussing, so deeply. When I scan to the word... "drag" in a discussion of corpuscles (light?), I must explain that the varying density ether is composed of IOTAs, the smallest energy units. Those are polar and have a tangential velocity of 'c'. In football practices, two opposed automobile tires that rotate can be used to shoot our balls at the same angle and velocity every time. The IOTAs act in the same way to nurture light on its course. If light happens to be traveling faster than 'c' (V = 'c' plus or minus the v of the source), then over enough distance the IOTAs will slow down the faster light and speed-up slower light. Observation of the heavens confirms those processes. NoEinstein > > On Apr 2, 12:59 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 31, 11:22 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Paul Stowe wrote: > > > > > > These are both problems that result from too many free parameters in the > > > > > resulting mathematical model. That these parameters are free appears to > > > > > result from too much of the "physical" model being unobserved and > > > > > unobservable - a story, not science. > > > > > What free parameters??? > > > > For le Sage-type theories, what parameters are there? The properties of > > > the corpuscles, and their interaction with matter. Are these fixed by the > > > theory, internally? > > > LeSage models come in both particle and wave interference > > (attenuation). Ionizing radiation transport of energy/momentum > > attenuation which, while modeled as particulate, isn't. What fixed in > > any attenuation model is, like all science, based upon measurements > > and observation. However, once derived they are not free to vary > > between aspects. IOW, if it matches the heating you cannot change > > anything when deriving the drag effect. > > > > What is the interaction cross-section between le Sage corpuscles and > > > matter? > > > The 'linear attenuation coefficient is on the order of 1E-20 1/m, > > almost precisely the same as a neutrino. > > > > The upper limit on gravitational shielding given by > > > observation gives an upper limit to this cross-section. What is the value > > > of the cross-section? > > > the mass attenuation coefficient [u] (m^2/kg) is ~3.147E-06. The > > momentum flux (Q) is ~6.74E+00 kg/m-sec^2. This is all derived and > > presented in Matt Edward's book 'Pushing Gravity' > > > > Aberration (or rather, the lack of aberration) gives a lower limit to the > > > mean speed of corpuscles. How fast are they moving? > > > There is no 'lack of aberration' it acts in opposition to drag and > > both are constantly present in LeSagian orbits. So, and this is the > > biggest problem with arguments against the concept, they are NOT! > > singularly acting. You also have the 'back-action' of the body > > pushing on the field. Like Newton said, for every action there exists > > an opposite and equal reaction. Bodies move out, or in, until a > > balance of all of these is reached. > > > > Ditto drag. > > > In the LeSagian model if a body is not in a closed path orbit drag > > dominates, there is, and can be, no balancing fling/back-action for > > such situations. The equation for drag is simple, and easy to > > derive. It is, Qu(v/c), that it. Like the more familiar acceleration > > the mass itself plays no part in the magnitude of the deceleration. > > > > These do not fix any values; they only provide limits. > > > Yes, but observed magnitude of heating and the derivation sets the > > values of Q & u. Given that Qu^2 must be G and qu(v/c) should match > > both drag AND! heating. These are not adjustable between any of > > these, and the matches are uncanny and, IMO, not coincidences. > > G and heating are inputs into the choice of parameters then, and > agreement between "predicted" G and heating and observed G and heating > are no proof at all of success. > > G, drag, heating, and aberration are straightforward enough, > physically. I don't remember anything about "fling/back-action" from > Edwards - is this in there? (It's been some time since I read it.) A > reference or quick explanation would be good. In particular, why would > this "cancel" drag for something in an orbit. Also not obvious to me > why drag would cancel aberration. > > How is heating used to find any of the parameters without knowing the > speed (or mean speed) of the corpuscles? In particular, you say that > > > No, clearly that momentum flux is related to a corresponding power > > flux and it fixed by the observed heat output. > > but the relationship between the momentum and power fluxes depends on > the speed. (Unless one discards Newtonian mechanics as valid for > description of the motion of the corpuscles, but this leads to even > bigger problems.) > > Why aren't there three parameters affecting G, drag, and heating: Q, > u, and v? (Is your "c" above the corpuscle speed?) Or Q, u, and a > parameter that tells us the ratio of momentum to energy transport > (given by v assuming Newtonian mechanics). > > Three parameters, three inputs, coincidence between the imput observed > values and predicted values is no test at all. > > Anyway, the point was that the theory doesn't fix any of these, > internally. Only fitting to observation does. Without even worrying > about whether the observations of heating and drag are good enough to > be useful, 3 -> 3 is the problem. Is there a good test? > > > > What about the mean speed? The speed distribution? The mass of the > > > corpuscles? Their mass distribution? > > > Good questions. Mean speed, c... I doubt that a mass value is > > relevant. Momentum, yes. Cross-sectional area, yes. Mean free path, > > yes. All things need more work. But, who is willing to even look, > > much less work on such? > > Why isn't mass relevant? Is unknown physics required here? Hopefully > not, since all that would be achieved would be to move the unknown > from an open and acknowledged position to a hidden place. > > Limits on mean free path result from the distance over which the > inverse square law is seen to work well. This gives a limit of size, > assuming Newtonian mechanics. Not fixed, only restricted by a lower > bound (mean free path) and upper bound (size, for some number density > of corpuscles). > > Who is willing to look? You are, other authors in Edwards are/were, > various interested people are willing. Can a working theory (i.e., > consistent with observations) that has fewer assumptions and less > unknown physics than GR be presented? > > > > If these numbers can be adjusted to fit observations, then they're free > > > parameters, and the agreement with observation just tells us about the > > > effectiveness of curve-fitting. > > > Oh come on! For radiation transport (like ionizing radition) you > > don't get to 'adjust' your parameters to suit your fancy, same here. > > ??? > > > > Given two parameters, Q and u, to match G and one other observation is > > > expected, not surprising. > > > Not 'one other'... > > OK, three parameters from three observations. Q, u, and momentum/ > energy ratio from G, drag, and heating. > > > > It is important that this can be done - especially G - since otherwise the > > > theory would be instantly defunct. But it says very little about the > > > correctness of the theory. > > > It remains the only viable process explanation for gravity. > > Without a "process explanation" of why/what the corpuscles are, why > they're not in thermal equilibrium with matter, the why of the > mechanics of the corpuscles (if not Newtonian, and if Newtonian, why > the limited applicability of Newtonian mechanics for observed > obejcts), how/why they interact with matter, all it does is multiply > unknown factors. > > If it can't be tested - if all it provides is "predictions" of the > observations used to fix parameters in the theory - then can it be > science? > > There does appear to be a strong demand in that kind of theoretical > physics to find some kind of explanation of gravity, since it is a > major research program, so you have plenty of company in seeking an > explanation. > > However, be very, very cautious when you find that you _like_ the > explanation, you find that it's comfortable. This brings the certainty > of bias, and it has been a fruitful source of past mis-steps in > science. When you like the explanation is when you should be the most > suspicious, the most skeptical. Don't worry about the establishment > being a harsh critic at this point, you should be just as harsh. If > the theory can work, then something straightforward and direct, real > calculations, no handwaving, no special pleading, no ignoring > difficult cases, can be published. The G calculation in Edwards was a > good start, but it isn't enough. > > Just do it, if you think the theory is correct. But be a strict critic > to yourself - otherwise you will not produce anything good enough. > Meet the standards in Babbage's "Reflections ...". > > Some further questions below - these are where it think the Babbage > test is not met. > > > > > > > > > > It's often the case that the "physical" model with too many free > > > > > parameters that predicts these unobserved effects competes with a simpler > > > > > mathematical model that doesn't predict them. Which would Ockham favour? > > > > > In the case of LeSag's model, given that it predicts, > > > > > 1. A titus-Bode type pattern (where abberation, drag, and back-action > > > > balance) > > > > 2. Observable drag for all non-orbital motion that is related to Qu > > > > 3. Induction heating that is based on Qu > > > > 4. Lunar Eclipse perturbation due to cummulative shielding effects > > > > > None of which is part of, thus predicted by, any other model and given > > > > that we have ovserved and measured all of them, I say Ockham's Razor > > > > cuts in favor of LeSage. Especially since GR is compatible as a > > > > hydrodynamical expression. > > > > Given the experimental and observational data on your 1-4 above, and the > > > repeatability of such results, what can we say? > > > ??? > > What good eclipse shielding data do we have? We don't need le Sage > heating to explain any observations (other explanations exist, and the > bigger problem is lack of le Sage heating - which places limits of the > parameters of the theory).. How many observations of drag do we have? > > > > Also look at what _isn't_ predicted. Gravitational redshift. Gravitational > > > deflection of light. > > > Wrong... > > Le Sage predicts gravitational redshift? Details, please. Deflection > of light? Details, please. A reference will suffice. If it predicts > them, give details. "Wrong" is insufficient. > > > > > > Le Sage drag would appear to be a candidate for orbital slowing down of > > > binary pulsars (as opposed to GR gravitational waves). With your values of > > > Q and u, what do you get for their slowing? > > > The drag equation above is the weak solution. As mass density > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Timo Nieminen on 2 Apr 2010 18:31 On Apr 3, 4:00 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Apr 2, 2:09 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > Dear Timo: You and Paul S., obviously, know what you are discussing, > so deeply. When I scan to the word... "drag" in a discussion of > corpuscles (light?), I must explain that the varying density ether is > composed of IOTAs, the smallest energy units. No, completely off-base. If you bothered to actually read the discussion - where it is quite clear from the context - this is about drag on moving bodies due to a "gravitational aether" (i.e., le Sage- like gravity). Read what was written, or even better, read the reference: Edwards, M.R., Pushing Gravity: New Perspectives on Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation, Montreal: C. Roy Keys Inc.. If you feel that going to a library is beneath your dignity or something like that, you can always try wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation If you're just going to post entirely irrelevant repetitions of your screed that we've already seen over and over and over, do consider the standards you ask - even demand - of other posters and apply them to your own behaviour. > Those are polar and > have a tangential velocity of 'c'. In football practices, two opposed > automobile tires that rotate can be used to shoot our balls at the > same angle and velocity every time. The IOTAs act in the same way to > nurture light on its course. If light happens to be traveling faster > than 'c' (V = 'c' plus or minus the v of the source), then over enough > distance the IOTAs will slow down the faster light and speed-up slower > light. Observation of the heavens confirms those processes. .... and you might find it worthwhile to discover what "confirms" means when talking about science. Think about it: your potential contributions to science, by your own admission, exceed those made by any 10 PhDs put together (presumably even the 10 most highly contributing of all time), but acceptance has not been immediate. Clearly, this can't be through any deficiency in the strength of your contributions, so it must lie only in the presentation and communication. It doesn't make much impression on you when somebody just bleats out their theory repetitively, merely proclaiming loudly that it is correct, does it? So why would it make much impression on a read when you do the same? Especially if, since the average reader, even if objectively quite intelligent, still falls far short of your marvellous intellect and fails to see the self- evident truth of your statements that is so clear to you. Present your "science truths" clearly, with the strong scientific support that must surely be possible, given their truth. In particular, learn how one should _not_ present science. Try the work already mentioned in this discussion: Babbage, Charles (1830). Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, and on Some of Its Causes. It's available for free on gutenberg, so you don't even need to go to a library. Wishing you all the luck that your science truths deserve, Timo
From: spudnik on 2 Apr 2010 18:32 why don't you, two, just say, I don't want to talk about it !?! I think, anyway, that a case might be made for blaming Einstein, for recreating the cult of Newton's "action at a distance" of gravity, via the re-adumbration of his dead-as- a-doornail-or-Schroedinger's-cat corpuscle, "the phtono." well, and/or "the aether," necessitated by "the vacuum." thus: yeah; the funny thing was, the Earth of Gauss and of Aristarchus was a part of some cosmography. (you, however, may be in your own me-verse; so, how does Shroedinger's cat smell, these days , thereat ?-) --Light: A History! http://21stcenturysciencetech.com --NASCAR rules on rotary engines! http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com
From: Timo Nieminen on 3 Apr 2010 18:56 On Apr 4, 4:14 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 1, 11:09 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > On Apr 2, 12:59 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > G and heating are inputs into the choice of parameters then, and > > agreement between "predicted" G and heating and observed G and heating > > are no proof at all of success. > > No, G is not an input into heating. It does not appear in the > equation, heating is a single body problem. Only Qu appears and the > propagation speed of the LeSagian field. Thus, using c for that > propagation speed AND a known net heat flow output one can solve for > Qu. .... > Since c is > light speed it isn't free either! Ah, you use v = c; I didn't know that. Thanks, this is a useful clarification. Why? Isn't c the speed of waves in the EM aether? If the le Sage- aether is distinct from the EM aether, it would be a remarkable coincidence, and if they are the same aether, it looks at first glance like this assumption would break EM propagation. I wanted to do a quick calculation of heating, so looked at your numbers: > > > the mass attenuation coefficient [u] (m^2/kg) is ~3.147E-06. The > > > momentum flux (Q) is ~6.74E+00 kg/m-sec^2. Are these correct? Given the typical density of matter around here, is this compatible with > > > The 'linear attenuation coefficient is on the order of 1E-20 1/m, As I understand it, the intercepted momentum flux, if completely transferred to some object, gives the maximum force possible, if there was complete shielding on the other side. So, the maximum gravitational force on an object (presumably super-dense) of some given cross-sectional area. Meanwhile, an object of "normal" mass and density, completely shielded from one side, experiences a force of Qu*mass. For gravitational attraction, the fluxes from each side, accounting for shadowing are Q(1-u*term dependent of mass and geometry of shading object) from the shady side, and Q from the other side, for a net transfer of momentum of Qu^2 * f(m1,r)*m2. What have I gotten wrong here? From the above, I have maximum force possible per kg is only Qu = 2e-5N, which is unrealistically low. Meanwhile, for a block a steel, the linear attenuation coefficient would be 0.02. > > G, drag, heating, and aberration are straightforward enough, > > physically. I don't remember anything about "fling/back-action" from > > Edwards - is this in there? (It's been some time since I read it.) A > > reference or quick explanation would be good. In particular, why would > > this "cancel" drag for something in an orbit. Also not obvious to me > > why drag would cancel aberration. > > Even in the GR analog of the 'rubber sheet' there is 'back-action'. .... Frame-dragging? Gravito-magnetism, which can be derived in the weak- field limit by assuming propagation at c and lack of aberration. So, naturally enough, cancels aberration. If le Sage back-action + drag cancel aberration, then le Sage back-action is not the same, quantitatively, as gravitomagnetism. How does it do with tests so far performed for rotational frame-dragging? > In a closed loop path (like an orbit) > the field being pushed ahead of the moving mass (as a result of the > drag action) induces standard vorticity in the field (like a swizzle > stick in a coffe cup) causing the field to acquire a spin, which will > in turn, tend to reduces the effect of the future forward drag. (If > you let go of the swizzle stick after spinning it a few times the > stick will continue to circulate, carried along with the vorticity of > the field). That is the back-action I am referring to. OK, sounds like this requires further assumptions about the interaction of le Sage corpuscles with each other. Perhaps a mean free path is sufficient. That this is suggested as occuring for orbits within the solar system is a big red STOP sign. The range of the inverse square law depends on the mean free path (since these interactions will affect the shadow, which gives Newton in the weak absorption, straight-line propagation limit), while this back-action looks like it needs a much smaller mean free path. > > > > What about the mean speed? The speed distribution? The mass of the > > > > corpuscles? Their mass distribution? > > > > Good questions. Mean speed, c... I doubt that a mass value is > > > relevant. Momentum, yes. Cross-sectional area, yes. Mean free path, > > > yes. All things need more work. But, who is willing to even look, > > > much less work on such? > > > Why isn't mass relevant? Is unknown physics required here? Hopefully > > not, since all that would be achieved would be to move the unknown > > from an open and acknowledged position to a hidden place. > > No, but I doubt that one can ever stop the aetheron to measure it rest > mass. Mean speed c + temperature tells you mass. (Which would be rest mass, if we have Newtonian mechanics.) > > Limits on mean free path result from the distance over which the > > inverse square law is seen to work well. This gives a limit of size, > > assuming Newtonian mechanics. Not fixed, only restricted by a lower > > bound (mean free path) and upper bound (size, for some number density > > of corpuscles). > > There is a difference between an attenuation mean free path and a > interaction mean free path. Yes. Attenuation length tells you about shielding, MFP tells you about range of the inverse square law. One is about interaction between corpuscles and matter, the other is about interaction between corpuscles. > They probably are in equilibrium. This is where unification concepts > become important. In my model expanded upon Maxwell's, charge is the > fundamental divergence of the medium. This is an oscillation around > the mean, a linear harmonic effect. Thus it has a base frequency > equal to the value of charge (e) divded by the mass (m) of the > oscillator. Thus, in the case of a lowly electron, that is e/m = 1.76E > +11 Hz (nu). Then, > > E = h(nu) > > Now what is the thermal equivalence to this energy? > > n(nu) = 3kT > > Where k is Boltzmann's contant > > Thus, > > T = h(nu)/3k = 2.8 Degrees K Why 3kT? Why not (1/2)kT per degree of freedom, as usual? > > > > Also look at what _isn't_ predicted. Gravitational redshift. Gravitational > > > > deflection of light. > > > > Wrong... > > > Le Sage predicts gravitational redshift? Details, please. Deflection > > of light? Details, please. A reference will suffice. If it predicts > > them, give details. "Wrong" is insufficient. > > First off, LeSage's model yield's Newton's equation and that is known > to properly account for red-shift. Second, given the very nature of > the LeSagian field light bending should be obvious. No-one, not in > articles or herein (Including Feynman or Steve Carlip) has questioned > this aspect. How is Newtonian gravitation known to account for gravitational redshift? Given a wave originating within a gravity well, and climbing out, where do the "extra" oscillations go, as the frequency falls as the wave climbs? Unlike Doppler shift due to motion away from the source, where the extra oscillations go into the increasing distance between source and reception point, the source and receiver remain at the same positions, but there is an observed frequency change. "Should be obvious" isn't a very good explanation. It should come out of the basic assumptions, quantitatively, or at least come out of the basic theory + a new special parameter that's introduced to model it. If it's just hand-waved, without quantitification, as "obvious", it isn't very convincing. (Where did Feynman write about le Sage-like theories?) > > > > You asked why, if we were to assume an aether, we should assume that > > > > aether-atoms have long-range interactions with each other. > > > > No, just a kinetic sea of aetherons, no fields around the aetherons, > > > no field effects between them. Just a mean free path and their > > > momentum. These in turn give rise to thing like Maxwell's vortices, > > > white noise, etc. > > > How? This doesn't arise in kinetic theory without long-range forces > > between molecules. You're not talking about ideal gas behaviour here, > > or even a hard-shere gas. > > Well this is the very first I've heard of this. The viscosity of a dilute hard-sphere gas is 2 * sqrt(mkT/pi)/ (3*pi*cross-section). This goes back to Maxwell (I think in the form viscosity is proportional to sqrt(mT)/cross-section). Elastic collisions means that no energy is transferred to the internal energy of each atom/molecule; you still have energy transfer to the internal energy of the gas. You want superfluid behaviour from a kinetic theory? You need to put in more than just elastic contact-collisions; you need long-range interactions. If this is the first you've heard of this, time to study kinetic theory. (This particular topic isn't covered very well in typical courses. It's beyond ideal gas, so it's too complex for the general introductory courses, and stat mech courses focus on thermodynamic properties, not physical properties, and condensed matter courses focus on condensed matter, not dilute gasses. Perhaps a good start would be with Maxwell's original papers? He doesn't give the details in "Theory of heat", only a brief qualitative discussion.) > In fact, the perfect > gas (i.e. perfect fluid) is, by its very definition, inviscous. In > that model only perfect elastisity is assumed. .... > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_fluid This "perfect fluid" is a theoretical idealisation, on a par with inextensible strings and frictionless tables, not something that results from basic theory. It's the next step up in complexity from "dust" (also used to model matter in GR), which lacks pressure. > If these do not predict long range interactions GR is dead :) Why? It's a simple idealised model to include matter in GR without including the complexity of real matter. > > More than that, we don't have rigid billiard-balls anywhere else to > > use as a model - this is only an approximation of the behaviour of > > real observed particles. > > So? So in the days when much less was known about matter, when a common working model of matter as rigid bodies was not only used, but assumed to perhaps even be true, a rigid billiard-ball model of atoms made sense. After all, that would make atoms just like little versions of bulk macroscopic matter. Now, when we know the limitations and approximations inherent in rigid body models of macroscopic matter, it's clear that assuming billiard- ball models for microscopic matter involves hypothesising the existence of objects with properties completely unlike the properties of anything we observe. It's a HUGE assumption. It's an un-natural assumption (in that we _don't_ see this type of thing in nature). > > > > (a) If we assume they are little rigid billiard-balls, why are they the > > > > size that they are? Why do we have little rigid billiard balls - > > > > we don't have rigid little billiard balls anywhere else; this > > > > is a special assumption, not just assuming that aether-atoms > > > > are like other things we know about. > > > > Good questions, ones that are in need of answers. If one wanted to be > > > sarcastic they could say I'll ask god the next time I see him... > > > So, these must remain unknown assumptions? We assume that aether-atoms > > have very special behaviour, not seen anywhere else at all, and think > > that this answers questions instead of creating new ones? > > Of course! Why on Earth would think otherwise? I don't see why inventing numerous special assumptions, unknown properties, etc., that can't be measured answers questions. At most, it hides the questions, by moving them away from experimental access. > > > > 3. What is the density of aether-atoms? > > > > 8.854E-12 kg/m^3 (z) > > > A remarkably coincident number, given that the other place this occurs > > in electromagnetics, in conventional classical or quantum > > electrodynamics, the numerical value depends on the choice of units > > that have nothing to do with mass or distance. > > > Can you justify this assumption? > > Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound > > The propagation speed in any medium is related directly to it > compressibility (u, the inverse of which is called [M]odulus) and mass > density (z). Thus, > > c^2 = 1/uz = M/z > > For the aether medium in SI density (z) is called permittivity. The > compressibility (u) permeability. Then standard equation applies, > > c^2 = uz > > Ochkam's Razor, KIS and all that jazz... All you're doing is drawing an analogy between v = sqrt(k/rho) for sound, and c = sqrt((1/mu)/epsilon) for light. To claim that the KIS solution is to claim that epsilon _is_ mu is nonsensical - the units are wrong. In Gaussian units, we have e0 = 1, so does this mean that the mass density of aether is 1 (1 what? g/cm^3?) is Gaussian units, but something else if we choose to use SI units? > > (I didn't ask this one clearly enough - what is the bulk average > > velocity of the aether-atoms?) > > c, light speed as with any medium. Not "as with any medium". In what "any" medium do we see the mean particle speed being the same as the speed of waves in the medium? -- Timo
From: Paul Stowe on 4 Apr 2010 12:19
On Apr 3, 3:56 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > On Apr 4, 4:14 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 1, 11:09 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > On Apr 2, 12:59 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: ... > > Since c is light speed it isn't free either! > > Ah, you use v = c; I didn't know that. Thanks, this is a useful > clarification. > > Why? Isn't c the speed of waves in the EM aether? If the le Sage- > aether is distinct from the EM aether, ... it not, thus the comment about KIS & unification... > ... it would be a remarkable coincidence, and if they are the same > aether, ... to me (and others) it would be more contrived and convoluted if they we not the same medium. > ... it looks at first glance like this assumption would break EM > propagation. Not at all. > I wanted to do a quick calculation of heating, so looked at your > numbers: > > "the mass attenuation coefficient [u] (m^2/kg) is ~3.147E-06. The > "momentum flux (Q) is ~6.74E+00 kg/m-sec^2." > > Are these correct? Given the typical density of matter around here, is > this compatible with > > > > > The 'linear attenuation coefficient is on the order of 1E-20 1/m, > > As I understand it, the intercepted momentum flux, if completely > transferred to some object, gives the maximum force possible, if there > was complete shielding on the other side. So, the maximum > gravitational force on an object (presumably super-dense) of some > given cross-sectional area. Meanwhile, an object of "normal" mass and > density, completely shielded from one side, experiences a force of > Qu*mass. For gravitational attraction, the fluxes from each side, > accounting for shadowing are Q(1-u*term dependent of mass and geometry > of shading object) from the shady side, and Q from the other side, for > a net transfer of momentum of Qu^2 * f(m1,r)*m2. In the case of heating it's power flux, not momentum flux. The power flux (W) is Qc/4pi => ~1.6E+08 Watts/m^2. Then for any body w = W(2GM/ rc^2), conbining all 'constants' we have (2WG/c^2)(M/r). Thus, k = (2WG/c^2) ~= 2.38E-19 m/sec^3 and, w = kM/r Where M & r are the mass and radius of the body. Then, w = W - W' where W is as defined above and W' the amount that makes it out. Then, w = W(1 - e^-2lr) Now, solve for l... (the linear attenuation coefficient) > What have I gotten wrong here? From the above, I have maximum force > possible per kg is only Qu = 2e-5N, which is unrealistically low. > Meanwhile, for a block a steel, the linear attenuation coefficient > would be 0.02. See above... > > > G, drag, heating, and aberration are straightforward enough, > > > physically. I don't remember anything about "fling/back-action" from > > > Edwards - is this in there? (It's been some time since I read it.) A > > > reference or quick explanation would be good. In particular, why would > > > this "cancel" drag for something in an orbit. Also not obvious to me > > > why drag would cancel aberration. > > > Even in the GR analog of the 'rubber sheet' there is 'back-action'. > > ... > > Frame-dragging? Gravito-magnetism, which can be derived in the weak- > field limit by assuming propagation at c and lack of aberration. So, > naturally enough, cancels aberration. If le Sage back-action + drag > cancel aberration, then le Sage back-action is not the same, > quantitatively, as gravitomagnetism. How does it do with tests so far > performed for rotational frame-dragging? See my article in Edwards book on the dynamic effects in LeSage models. RFD is discussed. It should, again, be obvious that it would occur in this type of model. > > In a closed loop path (like an orbit) > > the field being pushed ahead of the moving mass (as a result of the > > drag action) induces standard vorticity in the field (like a swizzle > > stick in a coffe cup) causing the field to acquire a spin, which will > > in turn, tend to reduces the effect of the future forward drag. (If > > you let go of the swizzle stick after spinning it a few times the > > stick will continue to circulate, carried along with the vorticity of > > the field). That is the back-action I am referring to. > > OK, sounds like this requires further assumptions about the > interaction of le Sage corpuscles with each other. Perhaps a mean free > path is sufficient. That this is suggested as occuring for orbits > within the solar system is a big red STOP sign. The range of the > inverse square law depends on the mean free path (since these > interactions will affect the shadow, which gives Newton in the weak > absorption, straight-line propagation limit), while this back-action > looks like it needs a much smaller mean free path. Sigh, in perfectly elastic collisions, along any linear path, does it matter to a particle's momentum if encounters no collision or a billion? But it does matter however to the field's granularity. IOW, the 1/r^2 is due to the attenuation mean free path NOT! the interaction mean free path. > > > > > What about the mean speed? The speed distribution? The mass of the > > > > > corpuscles? Their mass distribution? > > > > > Good questions. Mean speed, c... I doubt that a mass value is > > > > relevant. Momentum, yes. Cross-sectional area, yes. Mean free path, > > > > yes. All things need more work. But, who is willing to even look, > > > > much less work on such? > > > > Why isn't mass relevant? Is unknown physics required here? Hopefully > > > not, since all that would be achieved would be to move the unknown > > > from an open and acknowledged position to a hidden place. > > > No, but I doubt that one can ever stop the aetheron to measure it rest > > mass. > > Mean speed c + temperature tells you mass. (Which would be rest mass, > if we have Newtonian mechanics.) It's momentum divided by c would give you a calculated value also. But, like the photon, if you can't stop it and actually measure it do you want to count it??? > > > Limits on mean free path result from the distance over which the > > > inverse square law is seen to work well. This gives a limit of size, > > > assuming Newtonian mechanics. Not fixed, only restricted by a lower > > > bound (mean free path) and upper bound (size, for some number density > > > of corpuscles). > > > There is a difference between an attenuation mean free path and a > > interaction mean free path. > > Yes. Attenuation length tells you about shielding, MFP tells you about > range of the inverse square law. One is about interaction between > corpuscles and matter, the other is about interaction between > corpuscles. Not in an inviscous media. > > They probably are in equilibrium. This is where unification concepts > > become important. In my model expanded upon Maxwell's, charge is the > > fundamental divergence of the medium. This is an oscillation around > > the mean, a linear harmonic effect. Thus it has a base frequency > > equal to the value of charge (e) divded by the mass (m) of the > > oscillator. Thus, in the case of a lowly electron, that is e/m = 1.76E > > +11 Hz (nu). Then, > > > E = h(nu) > > > Now what is the thermal equivalence to this energy? > > > n(nu) = 3kT > > > Where k is Boltzmann's contant > > > Thus, > > > T = h(nu)/3k = 2.8 Degrees K > > Why 3kT? Why not (1/2)kT per degree of freedom, as usual? Typically it's 3/2kT but, 1/2mv^2 = 3/2kT => mv^2 = 3kT... > > > > > Also look at what _isn't_ predicted. Gravitational redshift. Gravitational > > > > > deflection of light. > > > > > Wrong... > > > > Le Sage predicts gravitational redshift? Details, please. Deflection > > > of light? Details, please. A reference will suffice. If it predicts > > > them, give details. "Wrong" is insufficient. > > > First off, LeSage's model yield's Newton's equation and that is known > > to properly account for red-shift. Second, given the very nature of > > the LeSagian field light bending should be obvious. No-one, not in > > articles or herein (Including Feynman or Steve Carlip) has questioned > > this aspect. > > How is Newtonian gravitation known to account for gravitational > redshift? Given a wave originating within a gravity well, and climbing > out, where do the "extra" oscillations go, as the frequency falls as > the wave climbs? Unlike Doppler shift due to motion away from the > source, where the extra oscillations go into the increasing distance > between source and reception point, the source and receiver remain at > the same positions, but there is an observed frequency change. In the LeSage process gravity is the result of pressure gradient. Pressure/density gradients results in changes in wave speed. Just like GR. > "Should be obvious" isn't a very good explanation. It should come out > of the basic assumptions, quantitatively, or at least come out of the > basic theory + a new special parameter that's introduced to model it. > If it's just hand-waved, without quantitification, as "obvious", it > isn't very convincing. But it does, that what's meant by 'should be obvious' from the very process that is being modeled and described. > (Where did Feynman write about le Sage-like theories?) "In 1965 Richard Feynman examined the Fatio/Lesage mechanism, primarily as an example of an attempt to explain a "complicated" physical law (in this case, Newton's inverse-square law of gravity) in terms of simpler primitive operations without the use of complex mathematics, and also as an example of a failed theory. He notes that the mechanism of "bouncing particles" reproduces the inverse-square force law and that "the strangeness of the mathematical relation will be very much reduced", but then notes that the scheme "does not work", because of the drag it predicts would be experienced by moving bodies, "so that is the end of that theory".[59]" See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation and, Feynman, R. P. (1995), Feynman Lectures on Gravitation, Addison- Wesley, pp. 2328 Feynman, R. P. (1967), The Character of Physical Law, The 1964 Messenger Lectures, Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pp. 3739, ISBN 0-262-56003-8 > > > How? This doesn't arise in kinetic theory without long-range forces > > > between molecules. You're not talking about ideal gas behaviour here, > > > or even a hard-shere gas. > > > Well this is the very first I've heard of this. > > The viscosity of a dilute hard-sphere gas is 2 * sqrt(mkT/pi)/ > (3*pi*cross-section). This goes back to Maxwell (I think in the form > viscosity is proportional to sqrt(mT)/cross-section). > > Elastic collisions means that no energy is transferred to the internal > energy of each atom/molecule; you still have energy transfer to the > internal energy of the gas. http://openlibrary.org/b/OL14662971M/second-order_accurate_kinetic-theory-based_method_for_inviscid_compressible_flows > You want superfluid behaviour from a kinetic theory? You need to put > in more than just elastic contact-collisions; you need long-range > interactions. Can you provide a reference? > If this is the first you've heard of this, time to study kinetic > theory. (This particular topic isn't covered very well in typical > courses. It's beyond ideal gas, so it's too complex for the general > introductory courses, and stat mech courses focus on thermodynamic > properties, not physical properties, and condensed matter courses > focus on condensed matter, not dilute gasses. Perhaps a good start > would be with Maxwell's original papers? He doesn't give the details > in "Theory of heat", only a brief qualitative discussion.) Maxwell's model was an inviscid fluid model. > > > More than that, we don't have rigid billiard-balls anywhere else to > > > use as a model - this is only an approximation of the behaviour of > > > real observed particles. > > > So? > > So in the days when much less was known about matter, when a common > working model of matter as rigid bodies was not only used, but assumed > to perhaps even be true, a rigid billiard-ball model of atoms made > sense. After all, that would make atoms just like little versions of > bulk macroscopic matter. But, we're not talking about matter, we're talking about physical models. > Now, when we know the limitations and approximations inherent in rigid > body models of macroscopic matter, it's clear that assuming billiard- > ball models for microscopic matter involves hypothesising the > existence of objects with properties completely unlike the properties > of anything we observe. > > It's a HUGE assumption. It's an un-natural assumption (in that we > _don't_ see this type of thing in nature). Yes, we do... > > > So, these must remain unknown assumptions? We assume that aether-atoms > > > have very special behaviour, not seen anywhere else at all, and think > > > that this answers questions instead of creating new ones? > > > Of course! Why on Earth would one think otherwise? > > I don't see why inventing numerous special assumptions, unknown > properties, etc., that can't be measured answers questions. At most, > it hides the questions, by moving them away from experimental access. Huh? > > > > > 3. What is the density of aether-atoms? > > > > > 8.854E-12 kg/m^3 (z) > > > > A remarkably coincident number, given that the other place this occurs > > > in electromagnetics, in conventional classical or quantum > > > electrodynamics, the numerical value depends on the choice of units > > > that have nothing to do with mass or distance. > > > > Can you justify this assumption? > > > Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound > > > The propagation speed in any medium is related directly to it > > compressibility (u, the inverse of which is called [M]odulus) and mass > > density (z). Thus, > > > c^2 = 1/uz = M/z > > > For the aether medium in SI density (z) is called permittivity. The > > compressibility (u) permeability. Then standard equation applies, > > > c^2 = 1/uz > > > Ochkam's Razor, KIS and all that jazz... > > All you're doing is drawing an analogy between v = sqrt(k/rho) for > sound, and c = sqrt((1/mu)/epsilon) for light. To claim that the KIS > solution is to claim that epsilon _is_ mu is nonsensical - the units > are wrong. Not in Maxwell's model. > In Gaussian units, we have e0 = 1, so does this mean that > the mass density of aether is 1 (1 what? g/cm^3?) is Gaussian units, > but something else if we choose to use SI units? The Gaussian system 'assumes' that the constant of proportionality of Coulomb's law is unitless. It then pushes any units that it might have artifically into the charges. This, as is well known, results in irrational units of charge in this system. This should have been a BIG RED FLAG that the system was flawed. But, since we had no clue what charge was, anything could be assigned to it as long as the resulting system was internally self consistent. > > > (I didn't ask this one clearly enough - what is the bulk average > > > velocity of the aether-atoms?) > > > c, light speed as with any medium. > > Not "as with any medium". In what "any" medium do we see the mean > particle speed being the same as the speed of waves in the medium? Well, IIRC the mean speed = propagation velocity since the only way for such to occur IS by transmission by said particles, but I'll review my references and perhaps so third party wants to chime in. > -- > Timo Paul Stowe |