What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: John C. Polasek on 17 Jun 2007 19:24 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:05:40 -0700, "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >"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. the link above your note: http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/eps_mu.html >> 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 Fred, follow this. We both agree that in SI the field strength of an electron of e coulombs is E1 = e/(4pieps0*r^2) Volts/m If I want to, I can simplify things, even staying right in SI units, by introducing a new version of charge called q in place of e, so I can write this neater equation for volts/meter (and not introduce that bogus sop to the engineers called eps0): E2 = q/r^2 = [e/4pi*eps0]/r^2 = = [1.4x10^-9 volt*meters]/meter^2 = 1.4e-9 volt/meter. Q has turned into 1.4e-9 volt*meters where before it was an electron of 1.9e-19 coulomb. The force on another electron would be E1*e or E2*e, but now in E2, for sake of consistency, we have to deal with q as the unit charge. Now the only way to get force is with Coulombs constant that changes q back into an electron. F = (q/r^2)*(q/4pieps0) = (q/r^2)*e Cgs is clearly a bastardized system in which q will work once, but it won't work twice. You can work with cgs by following cgs rules, but you won't know what you're dealing with, and you will have tacitly declared that vacuum does not have permittivity. John Polasek
From: John C. Polasek on 17 Jun 2007 19:33 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:05:40 -0700, "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >"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, The link to sandhu just above your note. I see Foundations on google. Will try to find SPF. >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 Fred, follow this. We both agree that in SI the field strength of an electron of e coulombs is E1 = e/(4pieps0*r^2) Volts/m If I want to, I can simplify things, even staying right in SI units, by introducing a new version of charge called q in place of e, so I can write this neater equation for volts/meter (and not introduce that bogus sop to the engineers called eps0): E2 = q/r^2 = [e/4pi*eps0]/r^2 = = [1.4x10^-9 volt*meters]/meter^2 = 1.4e-9 volt/meter. Q has turned into 1.4e-9 volt*meters where before it was an electron of 1.9e-19 coulomb. The force on another electron would be E1*e or E2*e, but now in E2, for sake of consistency, we have to deal with q as the unit charge. Now the only way to get force is with Coulombs constant that changes q back into an electron. F = (q/r^2)*(q/4pieps0) = (q/r^2)*e Notice Coulombs constant has nothing to do with permittivity, it is just another constant to get rid of another constant. Cgs is clearly a bastardized system in which q will work once, but it won't work twice. You can work with cgs by following cgs rules, but you won't know what you're dealing with, and you will have tacitly declared that vacuum does not have permittivity. John Polasek
From: Greg Neill on 17 Jun 2007 22:10 "Florian" <firstname(a)lastname.net> wrote in message news:1hzv217.10mb1ni18uh6koN%firstname(a)lastname.net... > 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. Wouldn't we then find that particles would have different masses depending upon their ages? Yet we find, for example, that all electrons have the same mass. > > > What happens to all the collected > > aether when particles annihilate? > > The velocity of the particles would be transmitted to the surrounding > ether. That doesn't make sense since velocity is entirely relative; a body can have any or several different velocities with respect to different observers. If the aether can't represent a rest frame since according to you it moves at the speed of light in radial directions around all masses, and all masses are in different motions. > > > 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? That wasn't the question. You snipped the context. Here it is back again: | 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? > > > > 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? What's a "depression" in a fluid? A low pressure area? Then we're talking about fluid dynamics and the usual fluid equations, which don't experimentally match observation (whereas general relativity does). > > > 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. I thought aether flowed radially *into* matter and accumulated there? That's what you said before. How can it flow radially into matter and then pass right through? Wouldn't there be no net effect? > > > Another mass inside the box, a > > steel ball say, would then be weightless? > > By weightless, do you mean no gravity? Yes. > > If matter is made of ether, How would it resist the surrounding vacuum > of ether. What surrounding vacuum of aether? Is aether a vacuum? I thought it was something that *wasn't* a vacuum that flows. I cannot follow your model; it seems to keep changing properties to suit every new situation. > > > > 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 volume of the container doesn't, although the contents may expand out of it. In general, nature doesn't provide closed boxes. > > > 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: Richard Schultz on 18 Jun 2007 04:57 In sci.physics.particle John C. Polasek <jpolasek(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: : Cgs is clearly a bastardized system in which q will work once, but it : won't work twice. You can work with cgs by following cgs rules, but : you won't know what you're dealing with, and you will have tacitly : declared that vacuum does not have permittivity. When I took E&M in college, we were taught that the CGS system of units is derived by taking the constant in Coulomb's Law (F= k*q1*q2/r^2) to be equal to 1, while the MKS system is derived by setting k to whatever value will give a force in newtons if the charges are in coulombs and the distance in meters, with the coulomb defined from the force between currents rather than from the force between charges. Or, as the author of our textbook put it, For a treatment of the fundamental physics of fields and matter, [the MKS system] has one basic defect. Maxwell's equations for the vacuum fields, in this system, are symmetrical in the electric and magnetic field only if H, not B, appears in the role of the magnetic field. . . . On the other hand. . . B, not H, is the fundamental magnetic field inside matter. This is not a matter of definition or of units, but a fact of nature, reflecting the absence of magnetic charge. Thus the MKS system, as it has been constructed, tends to obscure either the fundamental electromagnetic symmetry of the vacuum, or the essential asymmetry of the sources. But then again, the author of the above was only a Nobel Prize winner in physics, and hence can't really be expected to know what he was talking about. ----- Richard Schultz schultr(a)mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
From: John C. Polasek on 18 Jun 2007 11:22
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:57:38 +0000 (UTC), schultr(a)mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote: >In sci.physics.particle John C. Polasek <jpolasek(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: > >: Cgs is clearly a bastardized system in which q will work once, but it >: won't work twice. You can work with cgs by following cgs rules, but >: you won't know what you're dealing with, and you will have tacitly >: declared that vacuum does not have permittivity. > >When I took E&M in college, we were taught that the CGS system of units >is derived by taking the constant in Coulomb's Law (F= k*q1*q2/r^2) to >be equal to 1, while the MKS system is derived by setting k to whatever >value will give a force in newtons if the charges are in coulombs and >the distance in meters, with the coulomb defined from the force >between currents rather than from the force between charges. Even Panofsky in his 1955/1962 revision says he uses MKS because "the majority...now written in this system". And provides plenty of tables if you want to jump back. >Or, as the author of our textbook put it, > > For a treatment of the fundamental physics of fields and > matter, [the MKS system] has one basic defect. Maxwell's > equations for the vacuum fields, in this system, are > symmetrical in the electric and magnetic field only if H, > not B, appears in the role of the magnetic field. . . . > On the other hand. . . B, not H, is the fundamental > magnetic field inside matter. This is not a matter of > definition or of units, but a fact of nature, reflecting > the absence of magnetic charge. Thus the MKS system, as > it has been constructed, tends to obscure either the > fundamental electromagnetic symmetry of the vacuum, or > the essential asymmetry of the sources. You'll have to be more specific. My Maxwell equations look alike: In rmks curlE = -dB/dt, in cgs -1/cdB/dt In rmks curlH = dD/dt, in cgs 1/cdD/dt No point has been made by the author. Tthe faulty structure of cgs lies not in Maxwell's equations but in the constitutive equations: cgs: D = E B = H These have value only as slogans The above say that cause and effect are one, mks: D = epsE B = muH Now you're talking physics, E pushes eps and H pushed mu and their values tell by how much and what units. eps and mu, in mks, are real properties of the vacuum. E and D are forcing functions working respectively on eps and mu to give the field strains D and B. "B not H is the fundamental magnetic field inside matter"... fact of nature" whatever that means. I have always said the matter is perfectly clear in mks or SI. H in the near field can be designed as so many turns/meter carrying so many amperes applied to mu of the environment whether iron or vacuum to produce flux density B as the resultant of the stress, in teslas. In far field you will find that H amp turn/meter = Evolts/meter / Zohms where Z = sqrt(mu/eps) once again validating mu and eps. Does cgs have an equivalent equation, or impedance? cgs has abolished eps and mu, possibly just because someone injudiciously evaluated mu as 4pi e-7 hy/m, when pi has nothing to do with the natural value, lending support to critics to whom eps and mu are so much dross. >But then again, the author of the above was only a Nobel Prize winner >in physics, and hence can't really be expected to know what he was >talking about. > >----- >Richard Schultz schultr(a)mail.biu.ac.il >Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel >Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University >----- >"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad." |