Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: Michael Moroney on 31 Dec 2009 17:35 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >> >> Again, such "aethers" moving at different velocities, each with their own >> >> local speeds of light would have such speed differences easily detected. >> >> No such result has been observed. >> >> >Incorrect. The light travels at 'c' relative to the aether. >> >> Which one? >> >The one it exists. And what happens when it goes from one "aether" to another? >> >Consider binary stars. The light emitted by one star is entrained by >> >that star. Soon after being emitted the light travels at 'c' with >> >respect to the aether entrained by both stars. Then that light enters >> >the solar system and travels at 'c' with respect to the aether >> >entrained by the Sun. Then the light gets close to Earth and travels >> >at 'c' with respect to the aether entrained by the Earth. Where along >> >the path the light travels can we detect the entrained aether's effect >> >on the light? >> >> You have all those speed changes along the way that will have a detectable >> effect. =A0Heck, just the sun's light would have an easily detectable >> effect. >> >How? You have a change in speed (as far as an earth observer is concerned). Since the speed is equal to the product of the frequency and the wavelength, either the frequency or the wavelenth will change. Observe the sodium line of the sun. Does it change frequencies or wavelengths? Do so during sunrise (when the earth's limb and its alleged aether are approaching the sun) and again at sunset (when the earth's limb and its alleged aether are receding from it) and see a daytime shift in the frequency or wavelenth. >> >Once you exclude an aether you have to believe in magic like the C-60 >> >molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, is able to enter, travel through, >> >and exit multiple slits simultaneously in a double slit experiment >> >without requiring energy, releasing energy, or have a change in >> >momentum. >> >> This is simply the wave nature of wave-particle duality showing up. >> >In other words, it's magic! It's almost as magic as the magical aether, which is so stiff it propagates waves at c, yet is so thin it doesn't perceptably slow planets in their orbits or otherwise hinder motion! >Gibberish. More magic. Yes, I know, the C-60 molecule is a particle >when it needs to be a particle and it is a wave when it needs to be a >wave. Like electrons, photons, etc. Sorry, you can't argue with what's been observed, whether you like it or not, facts are facts. >And how do you explain the C-60 molecule being detected at a single >exit when detectors are placed at the exits at the last instant but >able to create interference if those same detectors are removed at the >last instant? Collapse of the wavefunction on detection. Now it's no longer a simple double slit experiment, either, it's two slits and a detector. >> >In Aether Displacement, >> >> The only problem with it is it predicts things that are countered by >> ordinary experiments, so it is _still_ Automatically Wrong! >What experiments? Speed of light is _always_ measured at c, regardless of the motion of source and detector, for one. This makes your little youtube misinterpretation of the train gedanken automatically wrong, for one. (You never answered which part of "automatically wrong" you had the trouble understanding)
From: mpc755 on 31 Dec 2009 17:54 On Dec 31, 5:15 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > just say, Duh! > > thus quoth: > Papers of Hannes Olof Gosta Alfven, Nobel Prize winning astrophysicist > who > contributed to significant advances in the fields of > magnetohydrodynamics, > plasma physics, geophysics, thermonuclear reaction, and cosmology. He > shared > the Nobel Prize for Physics with Louis Neel in 1970. ... He was also > an > advocate of nuclear armaments destruction, working actively with > other > scientists such as Harold Urey to prevent nuclear proliferation and > conflict. Among Alfven's teaching positions were posts at the Royal > Institute of Technology, Stockholm, and > the University of California, San Diego. The papers span the years > 1945 to > 1991 and are organized into ten series: ... The collection contains > significant correspondence with Alfven's fellow scientists, > including ... > Harold Urey, ... The collection focuses primarily on Alfven's time as > Professor of Applied Physics at the University of California, San > Diego, but > nearly every work from his immense bibliography is represented, many > in > draft forms. ... > Since 1967, he served as Professor of Applied Physics at the > University > of California, San Diego, spending six months of the year at UCSD and > six months at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. > For his research in magnetohydrodynamics and plasma physics, Alfven > shared > the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics with Louis Eugene Felix Neel. ... > ... ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM (1959) with C.G. Falthammar; ... THE > TALE OF > THE BIG COMPUTER (1968) under the pen name of Olof Johannesson; ATOM, > MAN > AND THE UNIVERSE (1969); ... and STRUCTURE AND EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF > THE > SOLAR SYSTEM (1975) with Gustaf Arrhenius. > ... Hannes Alfven pioneered the development of MHD, the study of the > motion > of an electrically conducting fluid interacting with magnetic fields, > and, > in particular, the subject of plasma physics, the branch of MHD in > which the > fluid under study is a highly ionized gas consisting of nearly equal > numbers > of positively and negatively charged particles. Alfven was chiefly > concerned > with plasmas in stars, in the geomagnetic field, and in > interplanetary and interstellar space, but his theories were basic to > the > study of laboratory plasmas encountered in the development of > controlled > thermonucelar fusion. More specifically, Alfven applied his analyses > to such > phenomena as geomagnetic storms, the aurora, the Van Allen radiation > belts, > sunspots, and the evolution of the solar system. His results have > been > seminal not only in designing thermonuclear reactors, but also in the > development of astrophysics, space science, and geophysics. ... > > 2 26 Antimatter, Quasi-Stellar Objects and the Evolution of Galaxies, > 1969. > > --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why?http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf > --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How? The quotes below are similar to the concept of the magnetic field being flowing aether or aether waves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfv%C3%A9n_wave "An Alfvén wave in a plasma is a low-frequency (compared to the ion cyclotron frequency) traveling oscillation of the ions and the magnetic field. The ion mass density provides the inertia and the magnetic field line tension provides the restoring force. The wave propagates in the direction of the magnetic field, although waves exist at oblique incidence and smoothly change into the magnetosonic wave when the propagation is perpendicular to the magnetic field." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics "Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) (magnetofluiddynamics or hydromagnetics) is the academic discipline which studies the dynamics of electrically conducting fluids. Examples of such fluids include plasmas, liquid metals, and salt water. The word magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) is derived from magneto- meaning magnetic field, and hydro- meaning liquid, and - dynamics meaning movement. The field of MHD was initiated by Hannes Alfvén[1], for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970. The idea of MHD is that magnetic fields can induce currents in a moving conductive fluid, which create forces on the fluid, and also change the magnetic field itself."
From: PD on 31 Dec 2009 18:10 On Dec 31, 1:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 31, 2:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 30, 6:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 30, 6:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 30, 5:43 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 30, 6:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 30, 1:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 30, 2:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 30, 12:57 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > How long did you spend on that reply? A minute? Maybe more? In that > > > > > > > > > time you could not answer if Einstein's train gedanken is performed in > > > > > > > > > water if the Observer at M' takes into effect the water when > > > > > > > > > determining the simultaneity of the events? > > > > > > > > > Just because it would be easy to reply does not imply that it is worth > > > > > > > > replying to, along the lines that you wish. > > > > > > > > If I believe that a line of thought is not worth pursuing, > > > > > > > > You choose to believe it is not worth pursuing because of the dogma > > > > > > > you choose to believe. > > > > > > > No. I choose not to believe it because what you propose about the > > > > > > behavior of light is not consistent with experimental results. > > > > > > It is consistent with experimental results. Light travels at 'c' with > > > > > respect to the aether. The aether is entrained by the Earth. > > > > > This idea (aether entrainment) has been tested with stellar aberration > > > > and other tests. > > > > Pouring water into telescopes to disprove aether entrainment? > > > No. That's not the tests I'm referring to. As I said, you have a lot > > of homework to do. > > > > Aether > > > does not 'stick' to liquids an not to air. Aether is entrained by the > > > matter which is the Earth. > > > > > You're right that the MMX did not rule this entrainment out. > > > > MMX is evidence of aether entrainment. > > > MMX *allows* aether entrainment, but other subsequent experiments > > RULED OUT aether entrainment. In science, it is the *collective* body > > of experimental evidence that determines which theory is the most > > successful. Choosing one experiment that permits both explanations and > > then insisting that only your favorite is the favored one is > > scientific fraud. > > > > > However, > > > > relativity does not rest on the MMX as its sole experimental support. > > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > > > The state of the aether is its state of displacement and entrainment. > > > > > You need to check what other experimental work has been done to test > > > > not only relativity, but other models that are consistent with a > > > > subset of the data that relativity also matches. > > > > The problem is that relativity is the only model so far that > > > > accurately predicts ALL the experimental results. > > > > Yes, but it is not a physical explanation. > > > It is perfectly physical. You perhaps have a disagreement with > > physicists about what "physical" means. > > > > Time is a concept. SR (and > > > its incorrect train gedanken) and GR are mathematical theories > > > No, they are PHYSICAL theories. > > SR, GR, and QM are not physical explanations of nature. They are > mathematical representations of nature. Don't be ridiculous. They are PHYSICAL representations of nature. What on earth gives you the impression they are not? > > Your dogma makes you insist a 'wave function probability' is nature. "Wave function probability" is not a term used in physics, though "wave function" and "probability" are. Just because you don't have the foggiest idea what these things physically mean doesn't mean that they aren't physical representations. > > > > describing the aether pressure > > Since SR and GR dispense with aether as something that exerts pressure > > on anything, it is difficult to say that SR and GR describe aether > > pressure. Now, it's plain that AD is a theory that describes aether > > pressure, but AD doesn't have anything to do with SR and GR, does it? > > AD is a physical representation of SR, GR, and QM, but again, your > dogma doesn't allow you to understand anything but what you have been > indoctrinated into believing. You just keep telling yourself that. I'm sure it will make you feel better eventually. In the meantime, remember what I told you about how AD can distinguish itself as a physical theory. > > You will never understand time is a concept and a 'wave function > probability' is not nature.
From: mpc755 on 31 Dec 2009 18:18 On Dec 31, 5:35 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> >> Again, such "aethers" moving at different velocities, each with their own > >> >> local speeds of light would have such speed differences easily detected. > >> >> No such result has been observed. > > >> >Incorrect. The light travels at 'c' relative to the aether. > > >> Which one? > > >The one it exists. > > And what happens when it goes from one "aether" to another? > Think of a wave in a moving body of water transitioning to another moving body of water. > >> >Consider binary stars. The light emitted by one star is entrained by > >> >that star. Soon after being emitted the light travels at 'c' with > >> >respect to the aether entrained by both stars. Then that light enters > >> >the solar system and travels at 'c' with respect to the aether > >> >entrained by the Sun. Then the light gets close to Earth and travels > >> >at 'c' with respect to the aether entrained by the Earth. Where along > >> >the path the light travels can we detect the entrained aether's effect > >> >on the light? > > >> You have all those speed changes along the way that will have a detectable > >> effect. =A0Heck, just the sun's light would have an easily detectable > >> effect. > > >How? > > You have a change in speed (as far as an earth observer is concerned). > Since the speed is equal to the product of the frequency and the wavelength, > either the frequency or the wavelenth will change. Observe the sodium > line of the sun. Does it change frequencies or wavelengths? Do so during > sunrise (when the earth's limb and its alleged aether are approaching the > sun) and again at sunset (when the earth's limb and its alleged aether are > receding from it) and see a daytime shift in the frequency or wavelenth. > What do you mean by the Earth's aether approaching and receding from the Sun? The rays of light from the Sun are always going to go through the Earth's entrained aether the same way. > >> >Once you exclude an aether you have to believe in magic like the C-60 > >> >molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, is able to enter, travel through, > >> >and exit multiple slits simultaneously in a double slit experiment > >> >without requiring energy, releasing energy, or have a change in > >> >momentum. > > >> This is simply the wave nature of wave-particle duality showing up. > > >In other words, it's magic! > > It's almost as magic as the magical aether, which is so stiff it > propagates waves at c, yet is so thin it doesn't perceptably slow planets > in their orbits or otherwise hinder motion! > The Aether does not slow down planets because it pushes back. The displaced aether 'back fills' behind the planet. Whatever energy the planet requires to displace the aether the aether returns to the planet as the aether 'pushes back'. That is why there is momentum. > >Gibberish. More magic. Yes, I know, the C-60 molecule is a particle > >when it needs to be a particle and it is a wave when it needs to be a > >wave. > > Like electrons, photons, etc. Sorry, you can't argue with what's been > observed, whether you like it or not, facts are facts. > > >And how do you explain the C-60 molecule being detected at a single > >exit when detectors are placed at the exits at the last instant but > >able to create interference if those same detectors are removed at the > >last instant? > > Collapse of the wavefunction on detection. > 'Collapse of the wavefunction' is mathematics. Or are you another QMr who can't understand the difference between a wavefunction and a physical wave? That is still a complete non-answer. What is occurring as the C-60 molecule physically enters the slit(s), what is physically occurring as the C-60 molecule travels through the slit(s) and what is physically occurring when the C-60 molecule exits the slit(s). And explain how it is that the C-60 molecule is physically detected exiting a single slit when detectors are placed at the exits to the slits at the last instant and explain physically how interference occurs when the detectors are removed from the exits to the slits at the last instant. In AD, the C-60 molecule is a moving particle creating a displacement wave in the aether. The displacement wave enters and exits multiple slits while the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit. Placing detectors at the exits to the slits causes the displacement wave to lose its coherence (decoherence) and not create interference. No detectors and the displacement wave exits the slits and creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. You're answer of, "It's a wave!" is not quite as physically descriptive. That's OK, you're making my point. > Now it's no longer a simple double slit experiment, either, it's two slits > and a detector. > > >> >In Aether Displacement, > > >> The only problem with it is it predicts things that are countered by > >> ordinary experiments, so it is _still_ Automatically Wrong! > >What experiments? > > Speed of light is _always_ measured at c, regardless of the motion of source > and detector, for one. This makes your little youtube misinterpretation > of the train gedanken automatically wrong, for one. > In the animation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk) the train and the embankment occupy different regions of three dimensional space and the aether is at rest with respect to the train and at rest with respect to the embankment. Think of the train consisting of water at rest with respect to the train and the embankment consisting of water at rest with respect to the embankment. The animation correctly represents the light waves traveling from A' and B' to M' and the light waves traveling from A and B to M when the medium in which the light propagates is at rest with respect to the train and at rest with respect to the embankment.
From: spudnik on 31 Dec 2009 18:43
yes, but Alfven was using matter, itself, to propogate EM -- and the Alfven waves -- not some "undefined principle" of aether. there is nothing wrong with undefineds in axiomatic development, but that isn't necessary, today, with "atoms." > The quotes below are similar to the concept of the magnetic field > being flowing aether or aether waves. > "Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) (magnetofluiddynamics or hydromagnetics) > is the academic discipline which studies the dynamics of electrically > conducting fluids. Examples of such fluids include plasmas, liquid > metals, and salt water. The word magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) is derived > from magneto- meaning magnetic field, and hydro- meaning liquid, and - > dynamics meaning movement. The field of MHD was initiated by Hannes > Alfvén[1], for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970. > The idea of MHD is that magnetic fields can induce currents in a > moving conductive fluid, which create forces on the fluid, and also > change the magnetic field itself." there is no vacuum for the red to shift in, although Alfven had postulated that only matter-antimatter annhialation was the only possible source of energy to expand Universe -- I just read! 2 26 Antimatter, Quasi-Stellar Objects and the Evolution of Galaxies, 1969. --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why? http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How? |