What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: John C. Polasek on 22 Jun 2007 14:29 On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:25:50 -0700, "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote in message >news:5u1l7350jqkok44stf7mp6argpjiqavmdt(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 00:24:00 -0700, "FrediFizzx" >> <fredifizzx(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote in message >>>news:kdgi7356het3mddjjcjplvae265lsmbhc7(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:15:43 -0700, "FrediFizzx" >>>> <fredifizzx(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:l20h7359ctfot73g0qeng6mg9d1h3e28te(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:51:53 -0700, "FrediFizzx" >>>>>> <fredifizzx(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>I suppose the main argument is whether or not the "vacuum" is >>>>>>>polarizable. SI'ers are convinced that CGS buries "vacuum" >>>>>>>polarization >>>>>>>when it doesn't necessarily do so. If the "vacuum" is >>>>>>>polarizable, >>>>>>>then >>>>>>>we will have "vacuum" capacitance and "vacuum" inductance. In >>>>>>>order >>>>>>>to >>>>>>>have those, there must be "vacuum" charge. Which can be expressed >>>>>>>as >>>>>>>"Quantum Vacuum Charge" = +,- sqrt(hbar*c) in CGS and which must >>>>>>>be >>>>>>>all >>>bound. >>>> Your vacuum charge is defined by hbar and c, whose definitions are >>>> not >>>> in dispute in either system of units. >>>> The product hbar*c can be shown in SI as equal to 3.16e-16 >>>> meter*volt* >>>> coulombs. We don't want to take the square root of such a thing, and >>>> call it charge. We discussed this before. We get relief by >>>> multiplying >>>> by Coulomb's constant, in other words re-introduce eps0, so that now >>>> we try hbar*c/eps0 whose square root is 5.974e-8 volt*meters. Now >>>> you >>>> have a cgs representation of charge in esu's voltmeters. >>>> The whole cgs system looks increasingly more synthetic with each >>>> foray. >>>> >>>>>>>SI's statement >>>>>>> >>>>>>>c^2 = 1/(eps0 mu0), (1) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>is merely shorthand for >>>>>>> >>>>>>>c^2 = lambda^2/(4pi^2 Cvac Lvac), (2) >>>> >>>> No, Eq. (1) is not shorthand for Eq. (2). >>> >>>If Quantum Vacuum Charge (QVC) exists, then eq. 1 is indeed shorthand >>>for eq. 2. >> >> It's always a red flag for me if equations can't have units affixed. >> Please say what the units are for QVC, Lvac and Cvac. > >Depends on what system of units you want to use. For SI it is, coulomb, >henry, and farad. And for cgs Q, L & C are______, _________, _______? >> You also would do us a favor by rewriting, in cgs, my SI equations in >> the other note for a field of 1 million volts/meter. It should be >> simple arithmetic. What is D and what is H? > >10^6 volt/m ~= 33.3564095198 statvolt/cm in CGS. Is this for free space >EM radiation? Yes. Do tell what are the values and units of D and H in free space? > >>>> Eq. (1) conveys the substantive fact that c depends on two simple >>>> constant vacuum parameters, Their product yields c and their >>>> quotient >>>> yields Z. >>> >>>Sure, but eq. 1 doesn't really tell us why they exist where perhaps >>>eq. >>>2 gives us more insight. What it looks like to me is that eps0 and >>>mu0 >>>can really only exist if QVC exists. >> >> No, of course one equation cannot tell what eps0 is. For that you have >> the discoveries in my Dual Space book, or the permittivity paper at >> http://www.dualspace.net. >> It demonstrates that, in order to reproduce eps0, you need an >> electron-positron pair elastically restrained in a cubic cell of size > >What is "restraining" the electron-positron pair? I'll hypothesize that it's the same (or similar) "strong force" for which Weinberg et al got a Nobel prize-a force described by them only as one "that increases with distance". I haven't seen any specifics for the strong force except it has a strength of 1 versus alpha (1/137) (?what, force = dimensionless?) and a range of ~e-15 m.(google hyperphysics). Mine, on the other hand, is exactly proportional to distance, and having a specific scale factor K: F = K*x with K = 2.612 e14 N/m. My force has a range of a half-cell or L/2 = 1.777e-14 m (exactly) = alpha x Compton wavelength vs e-15 m. I'll repeat L2 = alpha*CWL (vs. ~e-15m) (L2 has noble antecedents, not?) >Is it all the other e+e- "vacuum" pairs that are doing >the restraining? No, each cell does its own thing. It could be a form of gravity. As you may know from the shell theorem, gravity inside a sphere goes linearly from 0 at center to g-surface at the surface, like a spring. I have tried to work that out, as full spheres separate from each other, (in contrast to point charge), but am not able to write the proper function. In that case it might naturally be the attraction of opposite charges, but interiorly, to yield a linear function per the shell theorem, not exteriorly, as inverse square law. But I will never resort to "gluons" or other Harry Potter stuff. In a vacuum capacitor, after the positron and electron are polarized apart by the electric field, the electric energy is actually stored mechanically in the "stretched spring" K. When the charging current stops, because Vcap = Vbat, the wires can be disconnected and the only way for the springs to relax to zero is with a wire path for discharge of electrons. > If so, don't you think there is some kind of BOUND >"vacuum" charge happening? Of course there would be; Quantum Vacuum >Charge. There's not much physics can be done if you stay in equation-land. I pointed out some of the difficulties with calling sqrt(hbar*c) a charge. >> L = 3.514x10^-14m with spring constant of >> K = 2.612x10^14 N/m. >> 2e/L^3 makes a charge density P of 7.2x10^21 coul/m^3. >> Then Eq. 14 for eps0 gives the whole picture: >> eps0 = 2e*P/K = 8.854x10^-12 farad/meter >> It makes the very sensible statement that permittivity is proportional >> to e (for Ee = force), times charge density, and inverse to the >> aforesaid spring constant K. It all works and every one of a dozen >> parameters of pairspace are "forced" by logical laws without >> hypothesis. >> Unfortunately, the paper is not something to be speed-read nor is it, >> in retrospect, very lucid. > >Well, it would be much better if you didn't ignore the rest of the >quantum objects of the Standard Model for your "vacuum". Well I am encouraged by your interest. Pairs that are forced out by an electric field (pair production) will return back "home" in a very short time and resume their virtual status. They don't annihilate. That's just a Feynman fabrication on the basis "it stands to reason". More interesting is the act of creation! Find a way to extract just the electron and boost it to the speed of light, and an electron will be created. Simultaneously, its positron is also created and resides in pairspace. I am unable to think of a way to extract just the electron. It should be worth a Nobel prize. Pairspace, consisting of all the pairs that are still virtual (as yet uncreated), is the "ether" that is dual to our vacuum, having a transmission speed of c. I think you will agree, gravity and electromagnetics can't reasonably operate in a vacuum that is empty. (yes, yes QVC, OK). Then I hypothesize that the progress of our electron (stream) is duplicated by the newly created positron "mates" and so we can write believable equations in this solid Dual Space. Pairspace is compressed from real space by the fine structure constant, 1/137. Besides pairspace having c = sqrt(1/eps0mu0) this solid region has a Young's modulus and mass density that are easily calculated which together also have c = sqrt(Y/rho). Y = K/2L = 3.688e27N/m^2 and rho = 2me/L^3 = 4.103e10 kg/m^3 c = sqrt(3.688e27/4.103e10) = 2.997e8 m/s Thus an equivalent to ether does exist in Dual Space. Everything that we see in the universe came from electrons in pairspace. Electrons removed to form the earth leave a deficit that causes gravity. >>>> Your Eq. (2) is firstly a simple kinematic declaration that a >>>> broadcast wavelength times the broadcast frequency equals the >>>> velocity >>>> of transmission. which can be ascertained by drawing sine waves on >>>> paper. You make this velocity c, which is OK, but in the second >>>> place, >>>> you go too far in naming parameters Lvac and Cvac. Are they >>>> properties >>>> of the vacuum or of the vagaries of the broadcast transmitter? >>> >>>They (Lvac and Cvac) are probably actually just a different way to >>>look >>>at the electric and magnetic fields of EM radiation. Of course they >>>are >>>not like capacitance and inductance of real caps and inductors. >>> >>>> What is the other constraint (e.g., Z) that allows you to calculate >>>> Cvac and Lvac? I can make Cvac be 1 farad or any value, then solving >>>> for Lvac. These C and L's can't be properties of the vacuum; they >>>> must >>>> have the happy values that would satisfy F_brdcst. >>> >>>Cvac and Lvac can't be calculated any more than k_e or k_m can be. > >> I just calculated ke (eps0?) above. > >k_e is not eps0. In SI, k_e = 1/(4pi eps0) > >>>However, it is not hard to postulate what their values might be based >>>on >>>eps0 and mu0. >>> >>>Cvac = 2 eps0 lambda Fred, in my cell pairspace concept I have found what Heisenberg was looking for, "a region in which physics was different" to avoid the singularities (and normallization that he couldn't tolerate) inherent in QM. For this purpose he tried to use the Compton wavelength of the proton which would be 1836 times smaller than than the CWL. My L2 is alpha*CWL or 137 times smaller but on a solid basis. Your QVC is in the same class as the PWL: an assemblage of a few physical constants that will dimensionally qualify, but is otherwise numerology. The same can be said of the Quantum length sqrt(hbar G/c^3), which has no known phyical significance but does provide manifold opportunities for some hypothetical navel-gazing. >> Farads, no? But you don't have eps0. You just have capacity in >> centimeters. > >??? Figure it out if the wavelength of the EM radiation is 1 meter. >Cvac ~= 1.7708376 E-11 farad in SI units. > >>>Lvac = mu0 lambda/8pi^2 > >> Got to be henries. But you don't have mu0. > >I have no idea what you mean by "But you don't have mu0 or eps0". > >>>When converted to natural units we obtain, >>> >>>Cvac = Lvac = lambda/2pi > >> Natural units; don't make me sick. It says farads = henries = cm's. > >I can asure you that it is only you that is making yourself sick. ;-) >Most people know how to deal with this. > >>>Simply the rationalized wavelength of the EM radiation under >>>consideration. And a thing of beauty since they end up equal to each >>>other. > >> You should be revulsed. > >It is not my fault that you can't see physics from a different >perspective. Many people have no problem with looking at physics from >different perspectives. > >Best, > >Fred Diether >Moderator sci.physics.foundations >http://www.vacuum-physics.com John Polasek
From: Greg Neill on 22 Jun 2007 17:05 <anandsr21(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1182520071.489667.317260(a)i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 20, 1:04 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > "Florian" <firstn...(a)lastname.net> wrote in message > > > > news:1hzyjoi.thrw70pivls0N%firstname(a)lastname.net... > > > > > Greg Neill <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > > > I know. we need to invent more trick to make it work. At some point > > > there would be so many tricks (MONDtheory, dark matter, dark energy) > > > that it will certainly be time to find a better model. Right? > > > I wonder if the physicist who will find a better model is born yet? > > > > It's not "inventing more trick" if the mathematics is > > already in place in the current theory. MONDis an > > attempt to ignore theory and employ a curve-fit model > > instead. Dark matter is not a "trick" in that it is > > an empirical necessity. > > > > > MOND is not an attempt to ignore theory. It is an attempt to explain > the galactic data by thinking out of the box. We don't yet know the > reason why MOND works so well at the galactic scales. And any theory > including GR will need to come up with a reason why MOND phenomenology > works. DM would be very credible if MOND did not exist, but since it > does, GR needs to explain it. MOND is not based upon any fundamental set of axioms or principles; it is a curve fit to data. Anything that is a curve fit will, naturally, "work well" in the situation it was fitted to. > > Just to debunk some myths here: > 1) MOND has exactly ONE UNIVERSAL free parameter. This parameter > has already been fixed to 1.2E-10m/s^2. Nah. There are several formulations with the tweaking parameters in different locations. Further, different galaxies with different rotation curves end up needing different parameter values. > > 2) It has fit more than a hundred galaxies. You can search for "mond > fits" to find them. There are peer reviewed papers explaining each of > those fits. MOND is not favored by cranks, they have their own > theory. > http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v508n1/38018/sc0.html > Strange, I've only ever seen individual MOND fits to individual cases, not a single general fit. If you're familiar with the literature perhaps you can provide a reference to a such a single "one formula fits all" paper.
From: Burt.sci on 22 Jun 2007 22:03 The best things are denied. Burt Schwarzkauf
From: Double-A on 23 Jun 2007 19:12 On Jun 21, 4:25 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > "Spirit of Truth" <junehar...(a)prodigy.net> wrote in messagenews:RQoei.395$K44.183(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.net... > > > > > > > > > "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message > >news:466d2fd5$0$21103$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com... > > > "Spirit of Truth" <junehar...(a)prodigy.net> wrote in message > > >news:kk3bi.1304$TC1.1254(a)newssvr17.news.prodigy.net... > > > >> Greg, you are coping out again. The lack of simultaneity example in > there > > >> shows exactly why lack of simultaneity is false. > > > > Simultaneity is an observer dependent thing, and should > > > be (to any thinking individual) an obvious consequence of > > > the finite speed of light. > > > Greg, the example has a reality of a destroyed train in one frame > > and no destroyed train in the other frame...both going into the future > > ...thus I guess you must believe in a zillion universes? > > No, it does not. This is another case of your > criticizing a theory without understanding it > or its mathematics. Once again I feel that we > have no basis for a productive discussion, so > I will bow out. Have fun Two widely separated switches wired in series to a power supply and a mountain of dynamite and each set to spring and make contact momentarily at about the same time. If multiple observers in multiple frames cannot agree upon whether the switches made contact simultaneously or not, can they agree on whether the dynamite blew? Double-A
From: Dono on 23 Jun 2007 20:41
On Jun 23, 4:12 pm, Double-A <double...(a)hush.ai> wrote: > On Jun 21, 4:25 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > > > "Spirit of Truth" <junehar...(a)prodigy.net> wrote in messagenews:RQoei.395$K44.183(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.net... > > > > "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message > > >news:466d2fd5$0$21103$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com... > > > > "Spirit of Truth" <junehar...(a)prodigy.net> wrote in message > > > >news:kk3bi.1304$TC1.1254(a)newssvr17.news.prodigy.net... > > > > >> Greg, you are coping out again. The lack of simultaneity example in > > there > > > >> shows exactly why lack of simultaneity is false. > > > > > Simultaneity is an observer dependent thing, and should > > > > be (to any thinking individual) an obvious consequence of > > > > the finite speed of light. > > > > Greg, the example has a reality of a destroyed train in one frame > > > and no destroyed train in the other frame...both going into the future > > > ...thus I guess you must believe in a zillion universes? > > > No, it does not. This is another case of your > > criticizing a theory without understanding it > > or its mathematics. Once again I feel that we > > have no basis for a productive discussion, so > > I will bow out. Have fun > > Two widely separated switches wired in series to a power supply and a > mountain of dynamite and each set to spring and make contact > momentarily at about the same time. If multiple observers in multiple > frames cannot agree upon whether the switches made contact > simultaneously or not, can they agree on whether the dynamite blew? > > Double-A What do you think, clever man? Hint 1: what do the obervers see? Explosion? Hint 2: Do the various observers Need_to_See the switches closing simulataneously in order for the explosion to happen? |