What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Florian on 18 Jun 2007 15:50 Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > 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. You mean the same rest mass? I link the mass of a particle to the quantity of etherons being part of the particle. > > 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. The idea is that particles are made of etherons in motion. A well defined motion. If a particle is destroyed, it means that the organized motion that characterized the particle of matter is lost. But after the annihilation the etherons have still a well defined motion (i. e. not random), that would be transmitted to surrounding etherons. > 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? Here, I don't know if there is a resistance or not. That's why I asked "Would that pressure provide a resistance to a moving sink?" > > 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? Yes. > Then we're talking about fluid dynamics and > the usual fluid equations, which don't experimentally > match observation (whereas general relativity does). A depression in a fluid would not match a depression in spacetime? why? Just asking here. > > 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? That would be because all etherons surrounding a mass don't flow toward that mass. I suggested that the density of the flux would be proportional to the mass. > > 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. You said there would be no ether left in the box but the mass. There would certainly be a gradient of etheron from the mass to the surrounding vacuum. Would the mass resist that gradient? > > I cannot follow your model; it seems to keep changing > properties to suit every new situation. May be I'm not good with explaining that model. > > 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 volume of the gas increases. -- Florian "Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles" Voltaire vs Leibniz (1-0)
From: Greg Neill on 18 Jun 2007 16:44 "Florian" <firstname(a)lastname.net> wrote in message news:1hzwfwa.1qkf7uw1x8s20kN%firstname(a)lastname.net... > Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > 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. > > You mean the same rest mass? I link the mass of a particle to the > quantity of etherons being part of the particle. You said aether flows into mass. So if your aetherons represent mass, then particles must grow heavier. > > > > > 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. > > The idea is that particles are made of etherons in motion. A well > defined motion. Please define "A well defined motion". > If a particle is destroyed, it means that the organized > motion that characterized the particle of matter is lost. But after the > annihilation the etherons have still a well defined motion (i. e. not > random), that would be transmitted to surrounding etherons. Transmitted by what force? > > > > 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? > > > Here, I don't know if there is a resistance or not. > That's why I asked "Would that pressure provide a resistance to a moving > sink?" > > > > > 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? > > Yes. > > > Then we're talking about fluid dynamics and > > the usual fluid equations, which don't experimentally > > match observation (whereas general relativity does). > > A depression in a fluid would not match a depression in spacetime? why? > Just asking here. Different equations. Fluid dynamic equations don't match relativistic effects (at least not without first adjusting them to include relativity, which would seem to be assuming what you're trying to avoid). In fluid dynamics pressure can cause attraction or repulsion. In GR, a pressure adds to the stress/energy tensor and results in a gravitational attraction that opposes the repulsion. > > > > > 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? > > That would be because all etherons surrounding a mass don't flow toward > that mass. I suggested that the density of the flux would be > proportional to the mass. Shifting sands. Your model keeps changing to meet every new circumstance. So why won't all aetherons flow towards the mass? I thought you said that the flow is always radial? How then can it *not* flow towards the mass? > > > > > 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. > > You said there would be no ether left in the box but the mass. > There would certainly be a gradient of etheron from the mass to the > surrounding vacuum. > Would the mass resist that gradient? How could there be any aether left in the box? You said the particles move at the speed of light and move always radially towards masses. The walls and ball inside would very rapdily soak up all the aetherons. > > > > > > I cannot follow your model; it seems to keep changing > > properties to suit every new situation. > > May be I'm not good with explaining that model. > > > > 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 volume of the gas increases. So?
From: Florian on 18 Jun 2007 18:11 Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > You said aether flows into mass. So if your aetherons > represent mass, then particles must grow heavier. or new particles are created? > > The idea is that particles are made of etherons in motion. A well > > defined motion. > > Please define "A well defined motion". Could be a swirl or a stationnary wave, anything that is not random. > > If a particle is destroyed, it means that the organized > > motion that characterized the particle of matter is lost. But after the > > annihilation the etherons have still a well defined motion (i. e. not > > random), that would be transmitted to surrounding etherons. > > Transmitted by what force? No force. Collisions like any wave. Right? > > A depression in a fluid would not match a depression in spacetime? why? > > Just asking here. > > Different equations. Fluid dynamic equations don't match > relativistic effects (at least not without first adjusting > them to include relativity, which would seem to be assuming > what you're trying to avoid). Why would I avoid relativity? what's wrong with relativity? > In fluid dynamics pressure > can cause attraction or repulsion. Because there are high and low pressure in fluid? > In GR, a pressure > adds to the stress/energy tensor and results in a > gravitational attraction that opposes the repulsion. There is repulsion in GR? > > That would be because all etherons surrounding a mass don't flow toward > > that mass. I suggested that the density of the flux would be > > proportional to the mass. > > Shifting sands. > Your model keeps changing to meet > every new circumstance. Of course it does! We're discussing concepts, are we? Nothing is frozen. I remark that you don't make no suggestion yourself? Don't you have ideas for a concept? > So why won't all aetherons > flow towards the mass? Because the density of the flow would depend on the mass. If the mass is large enough, most etherons will continue to wander. > I thought you said that > the flow is always radial? It would be toward matter. So it would be radial if the mass is a sphere. > How then can it *not* > flow towards the mass? "It" means all etherons? Because the strength of the flow is insufficient? > How could there be any aether left in the box? > You said the particles move at the speed of light > and move always radially towards masses. The > walls and ball inside would very rapdily soak up > all the aetherons. How could a box be impermeable to etherons? > > The volume of the gas increases. > > So? When you said "container", iI assumed it was a closed space. -- Florian "Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles" Voltaire vs Leibniz (1-0)
From: Greg Neill on 18 Jun 2007 18:42 "Florian" <firstname(a)lastname.net> wrote in message news:1hzxey9.lbd55mo9rvk0N%firstname(a)lastname.net... > Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > You said aether flows into mass. So if your aetherons > > represent mass, then particles must grow heavier. > > or new particles are created? > > > > The idea is that particles are made of etherons in motion. A well > > > defined motion. > > > > Please define "A well defined motion". > > Could be a swirl or a stationnary wave, anything that is not random. To the limits of experimental precision, electrons are point particles with no structure. They don't fragment into smaller bits when they are collided (although their energy of motion can spawn new particle pairs). How does charge conservation work? Which aetheron carries the electric charge of the electron (or proton)? If electrons are a collection of swirly bits, they should be decomposable into smaller bits. And you should be able to add more swirly bits; there should be a whole continuum of masses of particles, but there isn't. > > > > > If a particle is destroyed, it means that the organized > > > motion that characterized the particle of matter is lost. But after the > > > annihilation the etherons have still a well defined motion (i. e. not > > > random), that would be transmitted to surrounding etherons. > > > > Transmitted by what force? > > No force. Collisions like any wave. Right? There no such thing as a true collision -- all interactions are mediated by forces. Atoms don't touch, their fields do. Waves carrying energy usually transmit their energy via the electromagnetic force. > > > > A depression in a fluid would not match a depression in spacetime? why? > > > Just asking here. > > > > Different equations. Fluid dynamic equations don't match > > relativistic effects (at least not without first adjusting > > them to include relativity, which would seem to be assuming > > what you're trying to avoid). > > Why would I avoid relativity? what's wrong with relativity? With relativity there is no need for an aether. > > > In fluid dynamics pressure > > can cause attraction or repulsion. > > Because there are high and low pressure in fluid? > > > In GR, a pressure > > adds to the stress/energy tensor and results in a > > gravitational attraction that opposes the repulsion. > > There is repulsion in GR? Pressure causes repulsion. Also, the cosmological constant of General Relativity introduces a repulsive component -- you've heard of the recently discovered acceleration of the expansion of the universe? The so-called "Dark Energy" is its manifestation. > > > > That would be because all etherons surrounding a mass don't flow toward > > > that mass. I suggested that the density of the flux would be > > > proportional to the mass. > > > > Shifting sands. > > Your model keeps changing to meet > > every new circumstance. > > Of course it does! We're discussing concepts, are we? Nothing is frozen. > I remark that you don't make no suggestion yourself? Don't you have > ideas for a concept? I'm happy with (most of) the standard model, including Special and General Relativity and no aether. I also think that the standard model of particle physics is doing pretty well. > > > So why won't all aetherons > > flow towards the mass? > > Because the density of the flow would depend on the mass. If the mass is > large enough, most etherons will continue to wander. I don't understand that. Aren't they attracted to mass? Otherwise why would you say that their flow is radial to mass? > > > I thought you said that > > the flow is always radial? > > It would be toward matter. So it would be radial if the mass is a > sphere. > > > How then can it *not* > > flow towards the mass? > > "It" means all etherons? Because the strength of the flow is > insufficient? I should think that the "strength of the flow", whatever that means, would be irrelevant for a finite volume if the particles move at c. > > > How could there be any aether left in the box? > > You said the particles move at the speed of light > > and move always radially towards masses. The > > walls and ball inside would very rapdily soak up > > all the aetherons. > > How could a box be impermeable to etherons? You said that they move radially into mass. The box is composed of matter (atoms) to which all aetherons must therefore flow radially. One can easily posit a box where the sides are thus opaque to aetherons, simply by assuring that the thickness of the sides is several times the mean free path length of the aetherons given the cross sectional area of the atoms comprising it and their lattice spacing. > > > > The volume of the gas increases. > > > > So? > > When you said "container", iI assumed it was a closed space. Ah. Think instead of a volume element defined strictly by its dimensions, without solid boundaries.
From: FrediFizzx on 19 Jun 2007 03:53
"Richard Schultz" <schultr(a)mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message news:f55he2$t0e$2(a)news.iucc.ac.il... > 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. That sounds correct. It is totally arbitrary as to what k_e can be because the magnetic constant, k_m, can be changed to accommodate whatever you set k_e to. What we know is that k_e/k_m = c^2 experimentally. > 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. This is perhaps as bad as John thinks only from the other direction. Any consistent system of units CANNOT change physics and CANNOT have "defects". SI and CGS are fully consistent systems of units. I really doubt that there is any problem in physics that couldn't be solved properly using either one. > 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. Well, who? Nobel Prize winners are not always right. Best, Fred Diether Moderator sci.physics.foundations |