Re: evidence for the existence of the ether
From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 11/20/04
- Next message: shevek: "slashdotted - sr laser clock"
- Previous message: Martin Hogbin: "Re: Uncle assAl: Troll House Kookie"
- In reply to: Dennis McCarthy: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 20 Nov 2004 15:50:28 -0800
djmenck@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) wrote in message news:<20041117090050.21648.00000692@mb-m11.aol.com>...
> Dear Dennis McCarthy:
>
All of the requirements for evidence are met in my model, part of
which is posted here from my essay, "The Time And Motion Relationship"
by Thomas Garcia, copyright 1996. The excerpt below includes content
from several different sections of different parts of the entire work,
so it leaves out content from between paragraphs, just in the interest
of saving space and reading time:
"We know that matter travels in the so-called "vacuum" of space, but
experience tells us that waves should have a different medium besides
a vacuum in which to travel. Since they could not detect the ether,
some scientists argued that there is none, and soon light in the form
of waves in empty space became the only exception to nature's
otherwise inflexible rule that all waves require a medium in which to
propagate. Today, it has been shown that space is not empty, that
there are in space particles which are invisible to us until some of
them are trans-formed into observable objects. Therefore, I contend
that there are some things invisible to us which exist in space and
which act as a medium for light. For that to be true, though, such
in-visible matter must fill all space in the universe, even including
the spaces found in many solids, because it seems that light can fill
almost any space. That means space must be filled with invisible
particles which become visible to us as light. It is evident
scientists have not yet figured out just exactly how light works to
light up the universe, but perhaps the following ideas can help us out
of that particular predicament...."
"The problem with trying to prove that an ether exists is that
everyone seems to agree that there has to be an ether "wind" produced
by the motion of objects in what is presumed to be a non-moving
medium. The ether wind can be likened to the water waves created as a
boat moves through water. Therefore, if we could detect the ether
wind, that would prove the ex-istence of the ether. Several
experiments were invented and performed to detect it, but to no avail.
Finally, for many scientists, the consensus became that there is no
ether. For others, it was felt that the experiments were not properly
constructed or construed, so for them, it was not shown that "no ether
exists." And yet, if we think of the ether as a particle-sea medium
which is invisible to us, that may explain why it could not be found
by those looking for the ether wind, and that is, obviously, because
the ether "wind" cannot be seen by us...."
"Our model proposes that virtual particles are "space" in the sense
that they completely fill absolute space, and that they exist
practically stationary in place and that the expansion of the universe
is achieved by the continuing addition of such particles to the
surface or area of the universe. That idea could have far-reaching
consequences in the debate regarding the final outcome in the life of
the universe. Our model proposes that the universe is growing
some-what like a fire grows on a forest floor, burning outward by
using up available materials, except that in our case, the universe is
growing by depositing into empty space particles having positive and
negative mass and energy. Presumably, beyond the edges of our
universe, there is only absolute space; but within our universe, there
is only filled space. Filled space is made up of matter and virtual
particles, and if there is space between and within the particles, it
should be filled with more-elementary particles which make up the real
and virtual particles. Our space is filled with invisible matter
particles as well as with visible matter particles...."
"Our model proposes that particles are "activated" by wave forces
which transform in-visible matter into observable matter by adding
positive energy to them. Thus, there is no need for photon particles
to be massless in order to travel at lightspeed, simply because there
is no need to think that particles must travel through space at all.
That is the basic idea behind my explanation of light, and we shall of
course discuss that further as we get to that subject..."
"Part Three
The media in which waves travel does not move along with the waves;
instead, the me-dia may move around somewhat, but it normally stays in
about the same place. Inside a water wave, for example, the water is
forced into a short-range rotary motion with its "spin" axis aligned
in a direction perpendicular to that of the wave's movement, like the
horizontal axis of a car's wheel is at ninety degrees to the car's
direction of travel. Water molecules are pushed and pulled about by
wave forces in what are essentially up and down movements with
circular motions, but they normally keep their place in the same
general location where they were when the waveforce first struck them.
A wave disturbs the media in which it moves, but as it moves on, the
motion of the me-dia behind it subsides. As the force of a wave is
spent, the wave dissipates into non-existence, but the medium remains,
available for propagation of the same type of waves again. Waves are
seen as a force radiating outward from the point of, and as the effect
of, a causative event,
and the radiation dies out when the cause no longer exists. Once
emitted, waves continue to expand through their medium for only a
short time after their energy source ends, and after their wave force
is used up. Lightwaves, on the other hand, continue to propagate
where un-obstructed long after their source has stopped emitting
waves, even seemingly forever...."
" How is it possible for waves to move through a medium without the
media having to travel along with it? We know the answer to that.
Waves are a disturbance that transfers en-ergy progressively in a
medium, and that may take the form of an elastic deformation or of a
variation of pressure, electric or magnetic intensity, electric
potential, or temperature. Thus waves - any waves - are a progressive
transfer of energy through a medium whenever such en-ergy is created
by a causative event...."
"Yet, the phenomenon we call "light" is said to travel through space
both as a wave and as a particle. Now, that hardly seems possible, so
some of us have had to consider the possibility that photons may
contain no mass, since if they did, they couldn't travel at the speed
of light. Some of us must argue that photons are massless and thus,
that there can exist energy without mass. However, it may be that the
formula E=mc2, forbids us to say that. Since the formula does not
specifically exclude energy from being massless, some believe that
there can be energy without mass. On the other hand, however, and by
the same token, as it were, the formula strongly infers that energy
must have mass in order for it to be energy.
If that is so, then we must consider a different proposition, one
where we must say that light particles cannot travel along with
lightwaves through space. If we can accept that as true, then there
is no contradiction to E=mc2 and thus no dilemma is involved.
However, that also certainly forces us to wonder that if photons
contain matter and so cannot travel at the speed of light, then just
how does light travel through space?
Well, the photon particles themselves could be the "ether" in which
lightwaves travel; that is to say, photon particles may be the medium
through which the lightwave moves. The particles may be like water
molecules are to water waves, a media that remains generally in the
same position while the lightwaves move through it. If that is so,
then lightwaves are basi-cally like other waves in that they also
require a medium, as do all other waves, and they are also a force.
That idea is more relevant than it may appear at first, because light
is electro-magnetic radiation which includes movement through
so-called "fields". Thus, the ether concept could also overthrow or
at the least change significantly our current concept of fields.
If the lightwave travels through a medium of photon particles,
though, and photons are of course visible to us, why is the media not
there except when photons are "emitted" (read: why can't we see the
ether all the time?)? It seems the answer can only be that the media
is invisible to us until it becomes a photon, which is a particle we
can see.
The medium in which light travels, then, may be a sea of "potential"
photon particles that exists in all of the "empty spaces" in our
universe. I use the term potential in quotes above so as to
distinguish those particles that we see as light emanating or
reflected from mat-ter and which we call photons, from particles that
have the potential to become the packets of light we call photons but
which for some reason are not yet photons nor are they in a state of
being visible to us. Why can we not see these particles until they
become photons? It may be that they turn "on" only when struck by the
lightwave force, and when they are "on," we are looking at them and we
seem to be seeing "through" them, but when they are turned "off," we
can see them only as "darkness." This idea requires further
explanation, and indeed, it will be further discussed later in the
final chapter, on page 61...."
"According to Dirac, et al, some things do indeed exist without
+energy, they are just not visible to us. If ordinary matter is not
invisible to us but "extraordinary" matter is, then matter having no
+energy may be "potential matter", like "potential electricity" stored
in batteries. Stored energy is not "working", or "in use", and so it
is not then involved in the process of
matter overcoming resistance. It is instead existing in what we may
call a "potential kinetic energy" state. Stored energy is not visible
to us since it is not creating additional heat but may be, like
positrons, in the most stable of states. So if positrons can exist as
matter particles without +mass/energy, we may have a simple solution
as to why some matter is invisible to us.
Why are positrons invisible to us? Because the only way we can see
anything is by light impinging upon our retinas, and light must have
energy in it for it to be light, so any particle having no +energy
cannot be "lit up" for us to see it, and, fortunately for us, it seems
we can only see "through it" when it is lit up (otherwise, why have
eyes?). If the energy of the light-wave, in its collision with such a
"massless" invisible-to-us-particle, causes the transfer of some of
its energy or mass to the particle sufficient to make it "cross over"
into a state of matter having +energy, and thus having +mass, it
should then become visible to us as a photon particle, and as such, we
cannot see through it, we can only see it as whatever optical/brain
"signal" the particle represents to us...."
"We have not yet found an exception to the constant speed of light in
the so-called vac-uum of deep space. We have not yet discovered why
the speed of light appears to be constant; we just currently believe
that it is in the nature of light to always travel at about 186,000
miles per second in space. However, we have found exceptions to the
constant speed of light when it is not traveling in the so-called
vacuum of space.
If lightwaves travel in a medium, that can explain why lightspeed is
or appears to be in-variant in space but not invariant in various
other mediums. A wave moving through a medium has restrictions and/or
limitations imposed upon its motion by the particular characteristics
of the medium (For example, sound waves travel at different speeds
when they move through air than when moving through water). The
reason why the speed of light appears constant to us could be
explained with the notion that the "ether" makes it so...."
"A property of the media sea in all of space of potential photon
particles may be that light waves can move through them only at
approximately 186,000 mps because the particular char-acteristics of
latent particles are essentially the same for all latent particles in
relation to the speed at which lightwaves may pass through them. That
is to say, all latent particles, individu-ally or in combination, may
offer a given resistance to the passage of lightwaves.
We must argue then that the lightwave's velocity is subject to the
resistance of matter just like ordinary waves; therefore, if deep
space maintains mostly an even density of particle media, we should
expect that the speed of light in space would look to us as if it were
invari-ant. Even if latent particle media were to contain some mass,
which Gamow calls negative mass, that mass would be consistent
throughout space and so the speed of light would still ap-pear to us
to be invariant, and we could misconstrue that effect as a property of
light...."
" We know that the higher a given energy is increased, the higher the
frequency of an atom's vibrations, and so the higher the number of
electrons that will be freed from the atoms of a substance. However,
if it is so that photons do not travel with RE, how is it that RE
(heat) alone can displace electrons? It is the application of
increased energy (heat) to atoms that causes electrons to "move up"
their particular preset increments until there is sufficient energy
(heat) applied to cause the electrons to "derail," as it were, and to
"escape" from their par-ticular atoms when there are no more energy
levels or increments for them into which to move. The fact that
photons (RE) can displace electrons is a simple display of the latent
power which Einstein calculated exists in matter. Of course, none of
the above necessarily means that the particles are moving, only that
they appear to us to be moving, like the characters on an electronic
signboard appear to us to move across its face...."
TomGee 112004
- Next message: shevek: "slashdotted - sr laser clock"
- Previous message: Martin Hogbin: "Re: Uncle assAl: Troll House Kookie"
- In reply to: Dennis McCarthy: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
