There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 29 Mar 2010 18:11 On Mar 29, 6:00 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > yeah, *if* you consider the light "a la de Broglie," > you are always going to be stuck with "un photon > avec un wave," but that is just sloppy math -- > they are conceptual duals, not to be used > at the same time, without very acute reasoning. why > must we assume that the pioneers were totally comprehensive > in their amazing fromulations? > > the whole idea of using a particle, in place > of a wave, has very little to recommend it; > it is rather just a linguistic habit, > that pesky & rotten Newtonian rock o'light. > > just the same, your silly attempt to "replace plasma > with aether" -- why should Alfven do that, or > any one else?.... just give even one reason. > > >http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cosmology/alfven.html > > Replace 'plasma' with 'aether' above. > > As the photon propagates it is a directed/pointed wave. It is the > > directed/pointed area of the wave which allows for the collapse and > > detection as a particle. The directed/pointed portion of the wave is a > > very small region of the wave. > > thus: > what shows is rather strict Einsteinmania, > the complete or deliberate ignorance of plasma > in Universe, per Alfven et al.... antimatter e.g. anyway, > there are no photons, with the sole exception > of the detection "of" them by the device/retina, > wherein the wave is absorbed or "collapsed," The portion of the photon wave which is absorbed or 'collapses' occupies a very small region of the photon wave and travels a single path. This is what is considered the 'particle'.
From: Paul Stowe on 29 Mar 2010 21:56 On Mar 28, 6:40 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, PaulStowewrote: > > 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 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 enough 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. > > Note that this extract from the Scholium comes immediately after the > extract I quoted below; "this philosophy" is "experimental philosophy". > More below. > > > > 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. You know, if... scientist of today were more rigorous and disciplined with the use of term hypothesis verses theory then I would be more inclined to accept the argument. > > 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. > > Newton's "experimental philosophy" means "physics". IIRC, this was his > first major published use of the term, and it looks like part of his > program to establish "experimental philosophy" as a synonym for "natural > philosophy", thereby excluding Cartesianist science from being science. > > This is discussed in Alan E. Shapiro, Newton's "experimental philosophy", > Early Science and Medicine 9(3), 185-217 (2004) (and the text of a talk > which appears to be the ancestor of this paper is readily found by > googling the title). Shapiro quotes Newton: > > "Experimental Philosophy reduces Phaenomena to general Rules & looks > upon the Rules to be general when they hold generally in Phaenomena.... > Hypothetical Philosophy consists in imaginary explications of things & > imaginary arguments for or against such explications, or against the > arguments of Experimental Philosophers founded upon Induction. The first > sort of Philosophy is followed by me, the latter too much by Cartes, > Leibnitz & some others." > > (From Newton to Cotes, 28 March 1713, Newton, The Correspondence of Isaac > Newton, ed., H. W. Turnbull, J. F. Scott, A. Rupert Hall, and Laura > Tilling, 7 vols. (Cambridge, 1959-77), 5: 398-399.) > > The modern usage of "experiment", in a strict and restricted philosophical > sense, is not the same as it was for Newton, or in his time, when, more or > less, we had "experiment" = "experience", including pure observation, > modern experiment in the strict sense, and lots of stuff in-between. In > the strict modern usage, Tom Roberts is entirely correct, since an > experiment is performed to reject one of two theories. "Experiment" is > used in a much broader sense, even today, and such loose usage is closer > to that of Newton's time. Many true 'discoveries' involved observations or elements of experiments that were NOT intended to be part of the original. And, more importantly, NOT! theoried before it was done. This, in and of itself invalidates Robert's stance. > The idea of data divorced from theory (not at all the same as free from > speculation) is very Baconian. See Salomon's House in Bacon's "New > Atlantis" Not the idea of a research institute, but the details of the > methodology - an attempt at describing theory-free observation and > application of such data (it isn't theory free). > > But, back to the main point: > > > > 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. > > "Enough" for further progress to be made. Indeed! > If it's the best that can be done (at least for the visible future), I think that very mentality is selling both oneself and humanity short if one actually believes it. > does one proceed in the Newtonian > fashion, or discard that approach as "not enough"? Proceeds and openly declares that it's not enough, and in the long run, an unaceptable state. > It's clear that more is wanted, at least by many physicists, other > scientists, and non-scientists. Witness the intellectual investment in the > various interpretations of quantum mechanics. Also witness the progress > that has resulted from these interpretations. That's a hopeful sign that the mentality ofr the last 80 years is changing. > Do we understand the "why" of quantum mechanics, what it "really means"? > No. In this sense, it isn't complete. It's obviously enough to provide a > basis for a great deal of further progress, both in quantum mechanics > itself, and other fields making use of it. It's enough for practical > engineering. That you - and others - want more does not make it "not > enough". I guess that depends upon one's perspective... > The Newtonianisation of electrical and magnetic theory by Aepinus is a > superb example of the progress that can be made by being willing to work > with "enough", and being prepared to ignore Cartesian would-be-burdens. > There's a nice discussion in the English translation of his book. > > -- > Timo Yes but it took the insight of Maxwell to put it all together. Then, what does modern science do? Throws out the baby and keeps the bathwater and claims the baby never existed... Paul Stowe
From: NoEinstein on 30 Mar 2010 08:51 On Mar 29, 12:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: You can paraphrase an answer based upon what seems be the "question", implied. Why don't you explain WHY you think that "parallel lines" aren't parallel at a distance? ...or why you think KE = 1/2mv^2 is part of the Law of the Conservation of Energy, and not, more simply, subject to meet the requirement of that law? NoEinstein > > On Mar 29, 8:59 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Mar 28, 12:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: 'Top post' a concise reply of a paragraph > > or two, and I promise I will at least scan it. But if you put your > > remarks spread throughout this already long thread, I will not waste > > my time. NE > > Sure, what is the question you want an answer to? > > > > > > > > On Mar 27, 12:20 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 25, 6:05 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? > > > > > > Yup. You got a model of these that calculates quantitatively > > > > > experimental measurements accurately? > > > > > Don't encourage the guy, PD. Asking him a question is as pointless as > > > > getting you to answer one! NE > > > > You haven't tried to get me to answer one. You persistently tell me > > > you don't read my posts.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 30 Mar 2010 08:59 On Mar 29, 12:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hey, mpc755! Ive made a +new post for you: An Alternate Theory of Gravity. Reply, there, to your hearts content. Your static isnt needed, on my post. If you cant get that message, you should see a shrink. Come to think of it, your seeing a shrink wouldnt be a bad idea in any case! NoEinstein > > On Mar 29, 12:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 29, 8:59 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Mar 28, 12:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: 'Top post' a concise reply of a paragraph > > > or two, and I promise I will at least scan it. But if you put your > > > remarks spread throughout this already long thread, I will not waste > > > my time. NE > > > Sure, what is the question you want an answer to? > > 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_experi... > 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_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: NoEinstein on 30 Mar 2010 09:48
On Mar 29, 5:39 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear Spudnik: Light is photon emission, only, NOT waves in the ether! The ether is DISCONTINUOUS between the galaxies (Note the Swiss Cheese voids.). But light travels perfectly well through those etherless regions of space. Your having... a theory doesn't make such credible. Open up your mind to what I've explained over and over. If you are objective, you will realize that I'm right. If you can't be objective, please make your own +new post so that your arguments can be made, there. NoEinstein > > what shows is rather strict Einsteinmania, > the complete or deliberate ignorance of plasma > in Universe, per Alfven et al. > > antimatter e.g. anyway, > there are no photons, with the sole exception > of at the detection of them by the device/retina, > wherein the wave is absorbed or "collapsed," and > convereted to some other format. it is the same > with Newton's silly corpusles, EPR "problem" dysappears > in the wave conception ... but, not, if > you consider it a la de Broglie! > > > 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' ... > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > thus: > Leibniz, "*vis viva*." > > > > Einstein's E = mc2 is derived from Newtonian Mechanics. > > thus quoth: > So, if we accept Clerselier's arguments, as almost every > scientifically educated person today would have to admit he does, > Fermat's Principle of Least Time is an absurdity. And yet it is true, > and stands as one of the foundations of all our knowledge of nature. > From it came the work of Leibniz and the Bernoullis on the cycloid and > the non-algebraic curves, which were the heart of the development of > the calculus. Fresnel's developments of the wave theory are based on > it, and so everything we know of the electromagnetic spectrum, and so > forth. > > thus: > Bell Epoque d'EPR, seems to be taken with the idee fixe, > that the "quantum of light" has to be a massive point > of no dimensions -- just polarities & frequency/period. > > no rocks o'light, "period." > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory > > >http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ > > thus: > neat idea; how'd it be tested, if possible, or > is it just S & FS? > > > Possibly our universe has an event horizon that's keeping us from > > thus: > when I first began doing "thus ****," > is used "thus quoth" for others and "thus spake" > for myself -- for about a day. possibly in part due > to contamination by archimedeanplutonianism. > > > thus, thus, thus...? > > thus: > what a crock; there is *nothing* about light (or, > one simple thing) that is pertinent to a corpuscular theory; > Young et al completely rid us of that theory, > which also had that denser media had faster light). > maybe it is an unconsidered acceptance > that "quantum" means "particle," > your other Einstein's rock from the train; gah!... come on: > there are no photons, there are no Rocks of Light. > > thus: > I think, therefore Eisntein wasn't as great as he is depicted > in the Department of Einsteinmania/The Musical Dept. > > > impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com |