What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Florian on 24 Jun 2007 17:20 Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > Wave-particle duality. [...] The wave-particle duality could be a simple scale effect. By the way, Never seen the trajectory of a single electron? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cBvnLGf1bI > > Quantized means there are stable level for the stationary wave. > > Conserved means that collisions of etherons are elastic. > > Really? > Please explain how electric charge is a level for the > stationary wave. Level? Electric charge would be a property of the stationary wave. > How can charge be the result of the > positional geometry of the constituents? What could be the positional geometry of etherons moving according to a stationary wave? > How can this > geometry result in an infinite range force that's > many, many orders of magnitude stronger than the > gravitational force produced by the same constituents? Two different properties. Gravitation would be an attracting power of the stationary wave on surrounding ether, while electromagnetism would be the result of interactions between stationary waves. > Please explain how particle pair production works, > wherein new complete particles come into existence > with their own charges, masses, and spins, using > only the kinetic energy of the collision. How to generate waves from waves? I think the answer is in the question. The key would be that random motion of the fluid-like ether would be converted into wave motion. > > Nope. Particles couldn't absorbed etherons in motion, unless the > > absorbtion is sufficient to reach the next stable level of the particle. > > What does that mean? This aether somehow knows not to > flow into a particle until, all at once, exactly the > right amount to spawn a new particle suddenly flows all > at once into that particle? You're caricaturing. It would be the motion of the etherons that would be transmitted to the stationary wave. > > I though you said that the aether flowed continually > radially into matter. Toward matter. > I also thought that you imagined > the aether flow to be responsible for gravitation. The flow, but more important, the variation of pressure created by the flows. > > femtosecond? Light has the time to travel 300 nm during 1 femtosecond. > > I'm afraid that's way too slow. > > Why? We're talking about the period of unstable states, > not the distance that light travels during that time > period. You suggested that intermediate states of > aetheron absorbtion are not stable, and I'm suggesting > that we can 'see' activities at very short time intervals, > and haven't seen any such states. Note that we *can* see > such excited states in atomic nuclei. Sorry, but nobody has ever seen the transition from a 1s to 2px orbital. Moreover, I got you confused. In transition between states of an atom, there is no "absorption" of etherons. That's the motion of the etherons that is absorbed. > > The use you make of the term "particle" is confusing. I reserve the term > > particle for matter, i. e., stationary wave in ether = etherons in > > organized motion. > > So? This doesn't answer the question of what it means > for particles to actually touch. It does. Particle that are touching translate into stationary wave that are interfering. > No, its not. Photons are photons. There is no substructure. Photons are certainly a wave in the electromagnetic field. see below > > You can perfectly describe a wave in the ocean without considering > > the existence of water molecules. But would those wave exists without > > water molecules? Of course not. See, it's not different for ether. > > The difference is, we can detect ocean waves but not aether > waves, What about "light"? > we can 'see' water molecules but not aether particles. > All attempts to detect aether have come up with negative > results. You mean "see one" etheron. That's rather utopic considering the lack of mean to observe one. To detect something yo need "that something" to interact with the instrument. Right? > GR's predictions inside a black hole are fine until very, > very close to the singularity. That is, the mathematics > does not break down until close proximity to the singularity. > At that point we know that quantum effects will arise. That > we don't yet know how to reconcile GR with Quantum Theory > under those circumstances does not alter the spectacular > accuracy with which GR works otherwise. Exactly what I meant. GR is great, but it does not work at any scale. There is probably a better theory which GR would be a subset and that would work at any scale. > Regarding the rotation curve of galaxies, we do not > know that it does not work there! Our expectations > of the rotation rates are based upon estimates of the > amount of gravitating mass involved. In the past > these estimates were based upon extrapolation from the > amount of matter that could be seen by telescopes, > including stars, gas and dust, etc. There is increasing > evidence that there is something else that gravitates > yet does not show up visually (electromagnetically) > in telescopes. i.e. the so-called Dark Matter. There is no increasing evidence. It's the same issue since the time the rotation curve was first estimated. Something is wrong, but nobody knows what. > Take a look at the latest results of observations that > have detected dark matter components in the aftermath > of galactic collisions. Apparently not sufficient to explain all the missing matter. BTW, what about the dark energy? > > Not incorrect, but inaccurate in some context. > > That is exactly equivalent to incorrect. Inaccurate > predictions are what it means for a theory to be > incorrect. A theory is accurate in a specific framework. It is absurd to claim that a theory is incorrect without defining a framework. > Not very likely, since aether has too many problems > with mundane circumstances, never mind exotic ones. > I've yet to see a single proposed thing that aether > contributes that is supported by evidence, is not > fraught with theoretical difficulties, or does not > unnecessarily complicate things in order to remain > consistent with observation. Perhaps you can suggest > some? There is one, but you won't like it :-) Let's say that there are good evidence that astronomical bodies grow in mass with time. How would you explain that without an ether-sink model of gravity? > What particular specific context do you have in mind? See Pioneer's drift, galaxy rotation curve, singularity. > > Photons are wave in a medium. Can you compare the behaviour of the wave > > and the medium ? > > Sorry, in the standard models photons are not waves in > a medium; there is no medium that waves. The photons > themselves are individual 'objects' with both wavelike > and classical particle-like properties. Nope, light is wave in the electromagnetic field. Nothing else. Quantization of light, aka photon, is related to the emitter or the absorber, not light itself. So the true question is, what is the electromagnetic made of? > > Ice is a different phase of water. What about liquid water? Can you make > > a box made of liquid water that can prevent liquid water to go inside > > that box? > > Picky, picky. Are you ruling phase transitions for > your aether? If so, you're losing a whole lot of > wiggle room for future patching of the theory ;-) Let's try to keep things the most simple as possible. Actually, matter could be considered as one phase of ether :-) > > Bubble formation during cavitation is an example of > creating voids (if only temporary) within water, > as is the bubble formation in sonoluminescence > experiments. Bad example, the bubble is an interface between gas and liquid. Do you have more ideas to make a box made of liquid water that can prevent liquid water to go inside that box? > > If all etherons were absorbed by matter, that would mean that matter > > correspond to a zero pressure of ether. If matter is constituted by > > ether, is it possible that it does correspond to zero pressure of ether? > > If matter is an infinite sink for aether particles then > it must represent a zero pressure situation. That's right. If some of the fluid-like ether was transformed into more matter-like ether, we'll get that zero pressure situation. > I thought your aether particles moved at c? An ideal > gas has a continuum of particle velocities. Probably. I thought there was a link between the elasticity of a medium and the velocity and mean free path of the particles in the medium. I may be wrong. Actually, what is the elasticty related to at the particle level? -- Florian "Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles" Voltaire vs Leibniz (1-0)
From: Greg Neill on 25 Jun 2007 13:48 "Florian" <firstname(a)lastname.net> wrote in message news:1i02kwm.ye1s9qulz0jkN%firstname(a)lastname.net... > Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > Wave-particle duality. [...] > > The wave-particle duality could be a simple scale effect. By the way, > Never seen the trajectory of a single electron? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cBvnLGf1bI > > > > > > Quantized means there are stable level for the stationary wave. > > > Conserved means that collisions of etherons are elastic. > > > > Really? > > Please explain how electric charge is a level for the > > stationary wave. > > Level? Electric charge would be a property of the stationary wave. Non response. What's the distinction between a property and a level then, and why quantization for what is supposedly a geometric arrangement? What endows such an arrangement with the property of causing attraction and repuslion over infinite distances (inverse square law for electric charge)? > > > How can charge be the result of the > > positional geometry of the constituents? > > What could be the positional geometry of etherons moving according to a > stationary wave? You tell me. What prevents this geometry from occuring spontaneously and creating unpaired particles? Why are particles always created in pairs that conserve certain numbers? > > > How can this > > geometry result in an infinite range force that's > > many, many orders of magnitude stronger than the > > gravitational force produced by the same constituents? > > Two different properties. Gravitation would be an attracting power of > the stationary wave on surrounding ether, while electromagnetism would > be the result of interactions between stationary waves. How can aether attract aether and not simply damp out a particle by flooding it? Where does aether go when it gets to the wave? > > > > Please explain how particle pair production works, > > wherein new complete particles come into existence > > with their own charges, masses, and spins, using > > only the kinetic energy of the collision. > > How to generate waves from waves? I think the answer is in the question. No, it's not. You need to show mathematically how pair production would work that would conserve all the quantum numbers (baryon number, spin, charge, etc.). > The key would be that random motion of the fluid-like ether would be > converted into wave motion. So we'd expect particles to appear randomly out of nothing? > > > > > Nope. Particles couldn't absorbed etherons in motion, unless the > > > absorbtion is sufficient to reach the next stable level of the particle. > > > > What does that mean? This aether somehow knows not to > > flow into a particle until, all at once, exactly the > > right amount to spawn a new particle suddenly flows all > > at once into that particle? > > You're caricaturing. It would be the motion of the etherons that would > be transmitted to the stationary wave. You haven't addressed the question. How does the aether know when and how much to flow into an existing particle to spawn a new one? We don't see electrons with one and a half times the usual charge and mass, so it's not a an analog process whereby aether is gathered up tosome threshold. > > > > > > I though you said that the aether flowed continually > > radially into matter. > > Toward matter. What's the distinction? For a point particle like an electon, "towards" must be radial. For other particles like protons, at a distance of a radii or two, towards is still essentially radial. If aether flows towards matter, what does it do when it gets there? > > > I also thought that you imagined > > the aether flow to be responsible for gravitation. > > The flow, but more important, the variation of pressure created by the > flows. So aether must bounce elastically off of matter and not be absorbed. This leads to all the problems associated with LeSage type gravity. It's a non- starter. > > > > > femtosecond? Light has the time to travel 300 nm during 1 femtosecond. > > > I'm afraid that's way too slow. > > > > Why? We're talking about the period of unstable states, > > not the distance that light travels during that time > > period. You suggested that intermediate states of > > aetheron absorbtion are not stable, and I'm suggesting > > that we can 'see' activities at very short time intervals, > > and haven't seen any such states. Note that we *can* see > > such excited states in atomic nuclei. > > Sorry, but nobody has ever seen the transition from a 1s to 2px orbital. I wasn't referring to orbitals. I was referring to excited states of the nucleus itself. However, individual chemical events are now being probed too. A brief google search gives some sampel links: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maik/biry/2003/00000068/00000005/00469680 http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jpcafh/2005/109/i45/abs/jp0519013.html No dount more interesting liks could be turned up by searching the literature archives. > > Moreover, I got you confused. In transition between states of an atom, > there is no "absorption" of etherons. That's the motion of the etherons > that is absorbed. How does the electron maintain its fixed charge, mass, and spin as it absorbes motion? Where does it store this energy? > > > > > The use you make of the term "particle" is confusing. I reserve the term > > > particle for matter, i. e., stationary wave in ether = etherons in > > > organized motion. > > > > So? This doesn't answer the question of what it means > > for particles to actually touch. > > It does. Particle that are touching translate into stationary wave that > are interfering. So we should see diffraction in collisions between electrons, and electrons should show a distinct radial size corresponding to the wavelength of the aether wave comprising them. The proton has precisely the same charge as the electron (but of opposite sign) yet is about 2000 times as massive and has an easily detectable radius. No such radius has been found for the electron, which appears to be pointlike. > > > No, its not. Photons are photons. There is no substructure. > > Photons are certainly a wave in the electromagnetic field. see below The electromagnetic field is mediated by photons. There is no "substance" to the field. > > > > You can perfectly describe a wave in the ocean without considering > > > the existence of water molecules. But would those wave exists without > > > water molecules? Of course not. See, it's not different for ether. > > > > The difference is, we can detect ocean waves but not aether > > waves, > > What about "light"? What about light? Light is not aether, light is photons which have particle-like properties. Individuual photons can be generated, propagated, and detected. > > > we can 'see' water molecules but not aether particles. > > > All attempts to detect aether have come up with negative > > results. > > You mean "see one" etheron. That's rather utopic considering the lack of > mean to observe one. To detect something yo need "that something" to > interact with the instrument. Right? No. Not even bulk effects of aether can be detected (Michelson Morely). You can't on the one hand say that aether interacts with matter to produce gravity, but does not interact when one tries to detect it. Too many magical properties. > > > GR's predictions inside a black hole are fine until very, > > very close to the singularity. That is, the mathematics > > does not break down until close proximity to the singularity. > > At that point we know that quantum effects will arise. That > > we don't yet know how to reconcile GR with Quantum Theory > > under those circumstances does not alter the spectacular > > accuracy with which GR works otherwise. > > Exactly what I meant. GR is great, but it does not work at any scale. It works at plenty of scales. Apparently it works at every scale except the very, very small. > There is probably a better theory which GR would be a subset and that > would work at any scale. Perhaps. But it would have to look almost exactly like GR at all scales except the sub-atomic. > > > Regarding the rotation curve of galaxies, we do not > > know that it does not work there! Our expectations > > of the rotation rates are based upon estimates of the > > amount of gravitating mass involved. In the past > > these estimates were based upon extrapolation from the > > amount of matter that could be seen by telescopes, > > including stars, gas and dust, etc. There is increasing > > evidence that there is something else that gravitates > > yet does not show up visually (electromagnetically) > > in telescopes. i.e. the so-called Dark Matter. > > > There is no increasing evidence. It's the same issue since the time the > rotation curve was first estimated. Something is wrong, but nobody knows > what. You've been missing out on all the latest findings. Do a web search. > > > > Take a look at the latest results of observations that > > have detected dark matter components in the aftermath > > of galactic collisions. > > Apparently not sufficient to explain all the missing matter. BTW, what > about the dark energy? Change of subject. Why do you say "Apparently not sufficient to explain all the missing matter", when it is postulated that the missing matter is dark matter? Also, it's starting to show up in bulk in certain collision circumstances. Please cite reference or evidence where upper limits on the amount of dark matter have been set. > > > > > Not incorrect, but inaccurate in some context. > > > > That is exactly equivalent to incorrect. Inaccurate > > predictions are what it means for a theory to be > > incorrect. > > A theory is accurate in a specific framework. It is absurd to claim that > a theory is incorrect without defining a framework. So who made such a claim? A theory either predicts correctly and consistently what Nature does, or it is wrong. > > > Not very likely, since aether has too many problems > > with mundane circumstances, never mind exotic ones. > > I've yet to see a single proposed thing that aether > > contributes that is supported by evidence, is not > > fraught with theoretical difficulties, or does not > > unnecessarily complicate things in order to remain > > consistent with observation. Perhaps you can suggest > > some? > > There is one, but you won't like it :-) > Let's say that there are good evidence that astronomical bodies grow in > mass with time. How would you explain that without an ether-sink model > of gravity? I've not seen evidence of this. Do you have a cite? And for specific cases, I can imagine other mechanisms that do not involve aether. Dynamical cooling of dark matter, for example, could lead to accumulation of dark matter within normal matter. > > > What particular specific context do you have in mind? > > See Pioneer's drift, galaxy rotation curve, singularity. You're grasping at straws. Pioneer anomalous acceleration: Jury is still out. There are mundane mechanisms that have not been completely ruled out, and won't be until proper controlled experiments can be performed -- the Pioneer craft have too many variables in configuration, composition, state of repair, etc., to draw final conclusions. Galaxy rotation: Dark matter fills the bill more credibly without all the problems inherent with aether. Singularity: What singulatity? > > > > Photons are wave in a medium. Can you compare the behaviour of the wave > > > and the medium ? > > > > Sorry, in the standard models photons are not waves in > > a medium; there is no medium that waves. The photons > > themselves are individual 'objects' with both wavelike > > and classical particle-like properties. > > Nope, light is wave in the electromagnetic field. Nothing else. This statement shows conculsively that you do not know QED. You do not understand what an electromagnetic field is, or what a photon is. > Quantization of light, aka photon, is related to the emitter or the > absorber, not light itself. > So the true question is, what is the electromagnetic made of? > > > > > Ice is a different phase of water. What about liquid water? Can you make > > > a box made of liquid water that can prevent liquid water to go inside > > > that box? > > > > Picky, picky. Are you ruling phase transitions for > > your aether? If so, you're losing a whole lot of > > wiggle room for future patching of the theory ;-) > > Let's try to keep things the most simple as possible. Actually, matter > could be considered as one phase of ether :-) Eather has just too many problems. It's not a useful theory. You need to add far too many magical properties to an eather in order for it to work and remain undetectable. > > > > > Bubble formation during cavitation is an example of > > creating voids (if only temporary) within water, > > as is the bubble formation in sonoluminescence > > experiments. > > Bad example, the bubble is an interface between gas and liquid. So what? I don't understand your pickyness. The gas can be as rarified as you like. > Do you have more ideas to make a box made of liquid water that can > prevent liquid water to go inside that box? Why are you harping on this? It's an irrelevant side issue. Okay, one more. Put enough energy into a tiny location (explosion) and all the particles comprising the water in the vicintiy will depart essentailly radially due to kinetic energy. > > > > > If all etherons were absorbed by matter, that would mean that matter > > > correspond to a zero pressure of ether. If matter is constituted by > > > ether, is it possible that it does correspond to zero pressure of ether? > > > > If matter is an infinite sink for aether particles then > > it must represent a zero pressure situation. > > That's right. If some of the fluid-like ether was transformed into more > matter-like ether, we'll get that zero pressure situation. And an accumulation that is not seen. > > > I thought your aether particles moved at c? An ideal > > gas has a continuum of particle velocities. > > Probably. I thought there was a link between the elasticity of a medium > and the velocity and mean free path of the particles in the medium. I > may be wrong. Actually, what is the elasticty related to at the particle > level? Elasticity is related to the geometrical structure of the particles and the length and strength of the electromagnetic bonds holding them together.
From: Florian on 27 Jun 2007 18:56 Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > Level? Electric charge would be a property of the stationary wave. > > Non response. Sorry, but the electric charge has nothing to do with energy level. > What's the distinction between a property > and a level then, and why quantization for what is supposedly > a geometric arrangement? Quantization occurs not because of a geometric arrangement, but because of the existence of stable allowed frequencies for the stationary wave. > What endows such an arrangement > with the property of causing attraction and repuslion over > infinite distances (inverse square law for electric charge)? Attraction or repulsion would originate from the difference in the phase of the waves. The Inverse square law is due to the dissipation of the energy over an ever growing spherical surface. So actually, the laws are not in 1/R^2 but 1/(4*pi*R^2) > You tell me. What prevents this geometry from occuring > spontaneously and creating unpaired particles? Why > are particles always created in pairs that conserve > certain numbers? Paired particles are always created in a collision context, right? So you would always start from the collision of existing stationary waves which properties that are transmitted to the new stationary waves formed during the collision. Is there any other way to create particles from energy without involving collisions? > > Two different properties. Gravitation would be an attracting power of > > the stationary wave on surrounding ether, while electromagnetism would > > be the result of interactions between stationary waves. > > How can aether attract aether and not simply damp out > a particle by flooding it? Where does aether go when > it gets to the wave? I don't have a much idea. If matter induce matter creation, that could be by burgeoning? anyway, creation of matter from matter+ether would be a very low probability event because gravity is extremely weak. > > How to generate waves from waves? I think the answer is in the question. > > No, it's not. You need to show mathematically how > pair production would work that would conserve all > the quantum numbers (baryon number, spin, charge, > etc.). show mathematically? Are you kidding me? We're discussing ideas here, we're not building a true theory. You're welcome to make one if you want, LOL! > > The key would be that random motion of the fluid-like ether would be > > converted into wave motion. > > So we'd expect particles to appear randomly out of > nothing? At the begining of the universe, yes. But if matterlike ether help to make more matter-like ether from fluid-like ether through gravity, then the process of matter creation would speed up. > > You're caricaturing. It would be the motion of the etherons that would > > be transmitted to the stationary wave. > > You haven't addressed the question. How does the aether know > when and how much to flow into an existing particle to spawn > a new one? We don't see electrons with one and a half times > the usual charge and mass, so it's not a an analog process > whereby aether is gathered up tosome threshold. I'm afraid you mixed different stuff: Gravity and absorption of a photon by an electron. Ether would flow toward matter because matter "condense" ether into matter. In some way, matter would consume ether to replicate itself. That would be gravity. A stationary wave that would be an electron in an atom can oscillate at some allowed frequencies (stable levels of vibration). The change of frequency of the bound electron occurs only if the energy of light (its frequency) is sufficient to increase the frequency of the electron from a low level to an higher level. That amount of energy is a photon. Nothing new under the blue sky. > So aether must bounce elastically off of matter and > not be absorbed. This leads to all the problems > associated with LeSage type gravity. It's a non- > starter. Le Sage never assumed that matter would transform ether into fresh matter. > > Sorry, but nobody has ever seen the transition from a 1s to 2px orbital. > > I wasn't referring to orbitals. I was referring to excited > states of the nucleus itself. However, individual chemical > events are now being probed too. Those are intra molecular events (proton or electron transfer), not nucleus event. Anyway, did you realize that those protons/electrons are assimilated to wavepackets ;-) > > It does. Particle that are touching translate into stationary wave that > > are interfering. > > So we should see diffraction in collisions between > electrons, Do you really expect to observe a diffraction signal from the collision of 2 electrons? > and electrons should show a distinct > radial size corresponding to the wavelength of the > aether wave comprising them. The proton has > precisely the same charge as the electron (but of > opposite sign) yet is about 2000 times as massive > and has an easily detectable radius. No such > radius has been found for the electron, which appears > to be pointlike. And? It means that a proton contains more energy and is more complex than an electron, but that the energy radiated around (the charge) is the same. How do YOU explain that the proton has the same charge as an electron but is 2000 more massive? > The electromagnetic field is mediated by photons. > There is no "substance" to the field. Give me a break. There is no true vacuum, vacuum itself has energy, which means that there is a substance to the field. Etherists, call this substance "ether". :-) > > What about "light"? > > What about light? Light is not aether, Light woud be a wave in ether. > light is > photons which have particle-like properties. > Individuual photons can be generated, propagated, > and detected. Photons exist as finite quantities of energy because there are emitter and absorber with finite level of energy. If the emitter was oscillating continuously, that would form a continuous wave, not a photon. > No. Not even bulk effects of aether can be detected > (Michelson Morely). It's probably not that easy to measure ether using tools made of ether... > It works at plenty of scales. Apparently it works at > every scale except the very, very small. Plenty of scale, but not all scales. > Perhaps. But it would have to look almost exactly > like GR at all scales except the sub-atomic. Much like ether is. Einstein clearly stated that GR would work the same with or without ether. But if ether is helpful to make the link between GR and QM, then why not consider it seriously? > Why do you say "Apparently not sufficient to explain all > the missing matter", when it is postulated that the > missing matter is dark matter? Don't mind, it is just that some people say "the signal is very weak. Some people are not yet convinced it's more than an artifact." (Cf wikipedia). > Also, it's starting to > show up in bulk in certain collision circumstances. > Please cite reference or evidence where upper limits > on the amount of dark matter have been set. I never read there was an upper limit but just an expected amount of 23%. > A theory either predicts correctly and consistently what > Nature does, or it is wrong. According to your definition, GR is wrong because it can't predict correctly what nature does at small scales. > > There is one, but you won't like it :-) > > Let's say that there are good evidence that astronomical bodies grow in > > mass with time. How would you explain that without an ether-sink model > > of gravity? > > I've not seen evidence of this. Do you have a cite? If you don't mind about geophysic and geology: Overthrusting vs subduction: http://www.lulu.com/content/421591 expansion of the mediterranean basin http://www.unich.it/geosis/papers/A%20Manle%20plume.pdf Analysis of Benioff zones http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/1136/1/Wad-Ben+interp+GNGTS+2 004.pdf Evidence for a closed pacific basin: http://www.4threvolt.com/files/McCarthy2005inpress.pdf http://www.sciencebuff.org/ftp_only/McCarthy2003.pdf > > And for specific cases, I can imagine other mechanisms > that do not involve aether. Dynamical cooling of > dark matter, for example, could lead to accumulation > of dark matter within normal matter. I'll keep it in mind. Interestingly that dark matter would behave a bit like ether. > Eather has just too many problems. Like? There were not a lot of work on ether since Dirac. > Why are you harping on this? It's an irrelevant > side issue. Okay, one more. Put enough energy > into a tiny location (explosion) and all the > particles comprising the water in the vicintiy > will depart essentailly radially due to kinetic > energy. There will be a shockwave in water, but water molecule will still be there :-) > > That's right. If some of the fluid-like ether was transformed into more > > matter-like ether, we'll get that zero pressure situation. > > And an accumulation that is not seen. Not seen because nobody looked carefully at it. But good suprises could definitively from Planetary/Earth Sciences. The example of ganymede is stricking: L.M. Prockter, Icing Ganymede. Nature, 410, 25-27. (2001) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6824/full/410025a0.html -- Florian "Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles" Voltaire vs Leibniz (1-0)
From: Rudolf Drabek on 15 Jul 2007 06:50 > So how about you guys get out of the circle-jerk of trying to prove > you are all smarter than Einstein by defending some bogus dogma and > try to do some actual physics to see if what he said might not > actually be true? > But there are some promising articles, showing that there is a process to get new insights into the Aether issue, with no fear to loose credibility.
From: Sam Wormley on 15 Jul 2007 14:23
Rudolf Drabek wrote: >> So how about you guys get out of the circle-jerk of trying to prove >> you are all smarter than Einstein by defending some bogus dogma and >> try to do some actual physics to see if what he said might not >> actually be true? >> > > But there are some promising articles, showing that there is a process > to get new insights into the Aether issue, with no fear to loose > credibility. > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004) http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml No aether |