What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Florian on 16 Jun 2007 17:06 Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > It was calculated that it does. Quite controversial, though: > > http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/gravity_speed_030107.html > > No, no; why do you say it travels at c in *your* aether > theory? It's far from a theory. It is just some thoughts to help me understand the current concepts. I like the sink model of gravity. I wonder if it may work. Some questions: Let's say a mass m behaves like an ether-sink. When the ether-sink is immobile the inward flow at distance R of the center of the mass is F. Let's say that the sink is moving from left to right at v speed in surrounding ether. The is a brownian gas which particles move at speed c with c>>v. If there is no resistance from the surrounding ether, what would be the speed of the Inward flow at distance R on the right side of the moving sink? What would be the speed at R on the left side of the moving sink? > The authors of the article above use the standard, > aetherless concept of General Relativity. Well, in GR, there is spacetime. Why not calling it ether? > > > The speed of propagation of a wave in a medium > > > depends upon properties like density and > > > stiffness of the medium, not upon the velocity > > > of the medium. > > > > Do you suggest that gravity is wave-like? > > That's interesting. > > Well, what's your aether for then, if not to > propagate waves? Matter is a stationary wave, light is a wave but Gravity could either be a flow or a wave? > > Actually, that was the point. The universe would be depleted of ether as > > it is condensed into matter. Therefore, the speed of light would > > decrease with time => redshift. > > Wave propagation is essentially independent of pressure > and density in a given medium. Are you sure about that? ;-) > It does depend upon > temperature though. Independent of pressure but dependent on temperature? How could that be? -- Florian "Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles" Voltaire vs Leibniz (1-0)
From: Greg Neill on 16 Jun 2007 20:02 "Florian" <firstname(a)lastname.net> wrote in message news:1hzt6vh.1f64i2z8fxnjaN%firstname(a)lastname.net... > Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > > > It was calculated that it does. Quite controversial, though: > > > http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/gravity_speed_030107.html > > > > No, no; why do you say it travels at c in *your* aether > > theory? > > It's far from a theory. It is just some thoughts to help me understand > the current concepts. > I like the sink model of gravity. I wonder if it may work. > > Some questions: > Let's say a mass m behaves like an ether-sink. > When the ether-sink is immobile the inward flow at distance R of the > center of the mass is F. > Let's say that the sink is moving from left to right at v speed in > surrounding ether. The is a brownian gas which particles move at speed c > with c>>v. > > If there is no resistance from the surrounding ether, what would be the > speed of the Inward flow at distance R on the right side of the moving > sink? What would be the speed at R on the left side of the moving sink? Presumably relativistic velocity addition would have to hold. If masses are aether sinks, where does the aether go once inside? What happens to all the collected aether when particles annihilate? Can a particle ever fill up to capacity? If there is no resistance betwixt matter and aether, how can one affect the other? > > > > The authors of the article above use the standard, > > aetherless concept of General Relativity. > > Well, in GR, there is spacetime. Why not calling it ether? Sure. But then said "aether" simply assumes the properties of spacetime in GR and you're no further ahead -- no aether flow or other properties. > > > > > The speed of propagation of a wave in a medium > > > > depends upon properties like density and > > > > stiffness of the medium, not upon the velocity > > > > of the medium. > > > > > > Do you suggest that gravity is wave-like? > > > That's interesting. > > > > Well, what's your aether for then, if not to > > propagate waves? > > Matter is a stationary wave, light is a wave but Gravity could either be > a flow or a wave? Imagine a box made of massive walls. All the aether inside would quickly flow to the walls and the box would quickly be evacuated of aether. Another mass inside the box, a steel ball say, would then be weightless? > > > > Actually, that was the point. The universe would be depleted of ether as > > > it is condensed into matter. Therefore, the speed of light would > > > decrease with time => redshift. > > > > Wave propagation is essentially independent of pressure > > and density in a given medium. > > Are you sure about that? ;-) > > > It does depend upon > > temperature though. > > Independent of pressure but dependent on temperature? How could that be? If you raise the temperature in an open container, the pressure does not change (although the density will). The average speed of the molecules in a gas and the mean free path length determine the speed at which a disturbance (pressure wave) can be propagated.
From: FrediFizzx on 17 Jun 2007 03:05 "John C. Polasek" <jpolasek(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:o8a8731rih233c99lojv1k1a3s4kit90rc(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 11:08:15 -0700, "FrediFizzx" > <fredifizzx(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>"snip > >>> you probably you did not refer to, >>> >>> http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/eps_mu.html >> >>I am sorry but your misconceptions have nothing to do with whether or >>not space is filled with a relativistic medium in the presence of >>matter-energy. I can assure you that eps0 and mu0 do not disappear in >>other systems of units if that is what you are worried about. >> >>Best, >> >>Fred Diether >>Moderator sci.physics.foundations > Fred, the link doesn't seem to work. Hi John, What link? I suppose you mean your that your Road Runner ISP newsgroup server is still not carrying sci.physics.foundations (SPF) yet? If not, you should be able to read and post via Googlegroups. If you get me the email address of the Road Runner newsgroup admin, I will send them an email requesting they add SPF. You should send them an email also and mention that it is a moderated group. BTW, crossposts to that group are automatically rejected without moderator intervention. > I have tried to point out to you that eps0 in cgs does not disappear, > but it is indisputable that you can't see it any more. Did you mean "does disappear" above? Sorry but for me, 1/4pi does not equal zero. Don't you think that if something disappears it should equal zero? > eps0 is swallowed by the coulomb charge which is now renamed an > electrostatic unit, and whose true units are Volt Meters. Sorry John, eps0 is not "swallowed". It is k_e = 1/(4pi eps0) = 1. Pretty plain to see that eps0 = 1/4pi in CGS which is not equal to zero. There is no such thing as "true units" since all units are man made. > Changing > Q/eps0 to a new kind of q without eps0 goes like this: > Q/eps0 = coul/(coul/(volt*meter)) >> qesu volt*meters > The pure entity we recognize as an electron, the charge unit that > comes in coulombs, that everyone knows and loves, has been defiled and > is no longer a recognizable charge. > Now to get the force on an electron, you take a unit esu charge thing, > multiply it by Coulombs constant (to abort eps0 out of it) so its a > coulomb again and the product is, I don't know what, but it's force > again. > A physicist should be able to point to something as fundamental as > charge and know just about all there is to know, but the esu is a > mongrel that needs a Coulombs constant fix in order to get the results > you want. I can assure you that any good physicist can convert between all the consistent systems of units without any problems to get proper results. > But the greatest danger in using an ersatz set of units as cgs, is > that you can get in real trouble trying to form new ideas. There's no > back reference, just faith. (Did you know esu's were volt*meters?). Is there something wrong with volt*meters? Looks OK to me. ;-) Mathcad tells me that an esu ~= 3.335640952E-10 Coulomb. What is wrong with that? But seriously, as long as you and Mr. Sandhu show that you don't fully understand different systems of units, no one worth their weight is going to take your ideas seriously. You both might have some good ideas but you kill them with this nonsense about unit systems. Any consistent system of units CANNOT change the physics! Eps0 does not disappear! Ever! Best, Fred Diether Moderator sci.physics.foundations
From: GSS on 17 Jun 2007 11:43 On Jun 16, 11:40 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 11:08:15 -0700, "FrediFizzx" > > <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>"snip >>> you probably you did not refer to, > >>> http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/eps_mu.html > >>I am sorry but your misconceptions have nothing to do with whether or >>not space is filled with a relativistic medium in the presence of >>matter-energy. I can assure you that eps0 and mu0 do not disappear in >>other systems of units if that is what you are worried about. > >>Best, > >>Fred Diether >>Moderator sci.physics.foundations > > Fred, the link doesn't seem to work. > > I have tried to point out to you that eps0 in cgs does not disappear, > but it is indisputable that you can't see it any more. > > eps0 is swallowed by the coulomb charge which is now renamed an > electrostatic unit, and whose true units are Volt Meters. Changing > Q/eps0 to a new kind of q without eps0 goes like this: > Q/eps0 = coul/(coul/(volt*meter)) >> qesu volt*meters > The pure entity we recognize as an electron, the charge unit that > comes in coulombs, that everyone knows and loves, has been defiled and > is no longer a recognizable charge. > Now to get the force on an electron, you take a unit esu charge thing, > multiply it by Coulombs constant (to abort eps0 out of it) so its a > coulomb again and the product is, I don't know what, but it's force > again. > A physicist should be able to point to something as fundamental as > charge and know just about all there is to know, but the esu is a > mongrel that needs a Coulombs constant fix in order to get the results > you want. > But the greatest danger in using an ersatz set of units as cgs, is > that you can get in real trouble trying to form new ideas. There's no > back reference, just faith. (Did you know esu's were volt*meters?). > > John Polasek John, let me furnish a little further clarification on this point. When we measure a particular physical quantity in different *units*, say length in meters or feet or yards, the different measure numbers are all inter-related through constant (non-dimensional) scaling factors. In other words, different alternative *units* for the measurement of a physical quantity will represent the same *physical dimension* of that quantity but with different measure numbers in different units. For example the dimension of a physical quantity measured in meters or feet or yards etc. is the same [L] and such units are inter-related through constant scaling factors. But two *units* that are used for measuring physical quantities of different dimensions, like meter and hectare, cannot be inter-related through a constant (dimensionless) scaling factor. But most people often lose sight of this elementary fact when dealing with the units of Coulomb and statcoulomb (or esu). As Fred has quoted in the adjoining post, "an esu ~= 3.335640952E-10 Coulomb", most people are actually ignorant of the fact that the *dimensions* of the physical quantities measured in esu (or statcoulomb) and Coulomb are *different* and hence such equivalence is fundamentally wrong. But to the best of my knowledge, this mess has been created only in the units of charge (and the associated units of current and potential) in the CGS system with a desperate attempt to hide or suppress the dimensions of eps_0. Let us consider the force F experienced by two equal charges Q (Coulombs) separated by distance r. In SI system, F = [1/(4.pi.eps_0)].(Q^2/r^2) ..... (1) Dimensionally, writing Co for Coulomb, N for Newton and m for meter, N = [N.m^2/Co^2].[Co^2/m^2] ....... (1A) Or [M.L/T^2]=[M.L^3/(T^2.Co^2)][Co^2/L^2] .... (1B) But writing the same force equation in CGS system with charges Qg expressed in esu or statcoulombs, F = (Qg^2/r^2) ............. (2) Dimensionally [Qg^2]=[M.L/T^2][L^2] = [M.L^3/T^2] ..... (2A) Or, [Qg] = [M^1/2].[L^3/2]/[T] ...... (2B) Hence it is absolutely clear that Coulomb as a unit of charge is only valid when the dimension of eps_0 is taken as [Co^2/(N.m^2)] or [Co/ (Volt.m) or [farad/m]. Further the dimension of statcoulomb (or esu) as given by equation (2B) is not obtained by changing Q/eps_0 to Qg but by changing Q^2/ eps_0 to Qg^2. Therefore the dimensions of statcoulomb (Qg) are not the same as the dimensions of [Volt.meter]. In fact the dimensions of [Volt.meter] turn out to be equivalent to [Joule.m/Co.] or [N.m^2/Co] or [M.L^3]/[T^2.Co]. However, the accepted dimensions of statcoulomb or esu as given by equation (2B) are [M^1/2].[L^3/2]/[T]. Of course I agree with you that the prevailing mix-up in the dimensions of Coulomb and statcoulomb or esu has really hampered the progress in Physics at the most fundamental level. GSS
From: Florian on 17 Jun 2007 12:24
Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > If masses are aether sinks, where does the aether > go once inside? It would eventually condense into matter. In this case, matter would be an organized form of ether, by opposition to the non organized pervasive ether. > What happens to all the collected > aether when particles annihilate? The velocity of the particles would be transmitted to the surrounding ether. > Can a particle > ever fill up to capacity? ? > If there is no resistance > betwixt matter and aether, how can one affect the > other? Why would 2 sinks attract eachother? I guess it is because the inward flows induce a depression in between them, so that the surrounding pressure would push them toward eachothers. Is that correct? Would that pressure provide a resistance to a moving sink? > Sure. But then said "aether" simply assumes the > properties of spacetime in GR and you're no further > ahead -- no aether flow or other properties. Obviously space time can be curved by matter. I thought a depression would be a good analogy to a fluid? > Imagine a box made of massive walls. All the aether inside > would quickly flow to the walls and the box would quickly > be evacuated of aether. There is a problem in your model. There is no wall that could prevent ether from entering the box. > Another mass inside the box, a > steel ball say, would then be weightless? By weightless, do you mean no gravity? If matter is made of ether, How would it resist the surrounding vacuum of ether. > > Independent of pressure but dependent on temperature? How could that be? > > If you raise the temperature in an open container, the > pressure does not change (although the density will). An open container, so the volume increases. > The average speed of the molecules in a gas and the > mean free path length determine the speed at which > a disturbance (pressure wave) can be propagated. -- Florian "Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles" Voltaire vs Leibniz (1-0) |