Re: evidence for the existence of the ether
From: Thomas Clarke (tclarke_at_ist.ucf.edu)
Date: 12/08/04
- Next message: Sue...: "Re: A question about physicists and Einsteins SR Theory"
- Previous message: Jeff_Relf: "Re: Entropy is frame dependent."
- In reply to: greywolf42: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Next in thread: greywolf42: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Reply: greywolf42: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 03:44:39 +0000 (UTC)
"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> Thomas Clarke <tclarke@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
> > http://www.tau.ac.il/~lab3/LOWTEMP/lowtemp.html
> > "SUPERFLUIDITY occurs in liquid helium (LHe) below the lambda point,
> > a temperature, where the viscosity becomes zero and the heat
> > conductivity infinite."
...........
> > It is of course difficult to measure infinite quantities,
> Impossible *is* difficult. :)
> > but see:
> > http://hypertextbook.com/physics/thermal/conduction/
> > "The material with the greatest thermal conductivity is a
> > superfluid form of liquid helium"
> > A table shows: He II conductivity W/m/K ~100,000
> OK, we see extremely high (but not infinite) conductivities. Since Maxwell
> showed how superfluids can be superconductors, I'm not at all surprised.
Of course, as you point out it is impossible to measure the
theoretically infinite thermal conductivity.
> > Infinite thermal conductivity entails constant temperature,
> > aka isothermal conditions.
> Now here we actually have a starting point for a discussion. Let us assume
> for the sake of argument that a specific superfluid (the aether) has an
> extremely high thermal conductivity.
Arguably infinite. Since the fluid has zero viscosity there is
no resistance to any convective flow caused by thermal differences
hence thermal differences must be zero, therefore the conductivity
is infinite.
> Let us look at typical "local" region of the aether. Say -- a few light
> seconds across (otherwise empty).
Cis-lunar space for example?
> Let us also assume that this aether is
> all at one temperature. And we'll also assume that aether corpuscles move
> at approximately the speed of light (which would also define the speed of
> gravity).
We can stipulate that if you like.
> Now, I place a lump of matter the size of Jupiter into the center of this
> region. It will take at least a couple of seconds for the outer parts of
> this region to notice the new planet, and be affected by it.
Rather a difficult thing to do, introducing a mass the size of
Jupiter instantly.
> In short, the
> conductivity is *never* infinite ... because it takes physical time for the
> aether corpuscles to move from one place to another.
What effect does Jupiter have on the temperature of the ether?
Your scenario has not mentioned temperature.
Actually you are sounding like a relativist, arguing that conductivity
must be finite because the speed of propagation is finite.
> Let's look at this another way: This lump of matter is *not* pure aether,
> and interacts with the moving aether particles (causing gravity and
> "anomalous" heating of the added planet).
You are assuming lots of stuff here that I don't know about since
I don't subscribe to your theory.
> So, energy is being removed from
> the aether medium that surrounds the planet. When you remove energy from
> the medium, you are lowering it's temperature in the immediate vicinity of
> the planet.
If you say so. But I could imagine the planet causing compression
and heating the ether.
> Of course, the "universe" will attempt to return the local
> medium to the overall equal temperature.
That pesky "universe".
> But it will not be able to,
> because the planet will continue to interact (gravitate) and therefore
> radiate energy in *organized* (thermal, light) waves.
I thought the light waves were motion of the ether. This sounds
like you are thinking of them as something different.
But it does still seem to me that within not too many years
whatever disturbance was caused by instantly putting Jupiter in
place will have died out.
> The *random* motions
> of the aether particles will remain just slightly less (cooler) than the
> surrounding medium. And we all know that a cooler gas will have a slower
> wave speed.
Oh, you are trying to explain light bending due to gravity.
> Let me also anticipate the objection that this will cause the universe
> (aether) to "run down." This is not so, because light waves aren't the
> perfect entities that QED mathaticians postulate. Because the aether is not
> perfect, there is a very slow return of organized wave energy to the random
> energy of the medium. It's called "tired light," and is an unavoidable
> consequence of the finite speed of the aether corpuscles. Over the extent
> of the universe (a few billion parsecs), the energy remains in balance.
Do you have equations that give quantitative predictions for these
effects rather than just words?
Tom Clarke
-- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
- Next message: Sue...: "Re: A question about physicists and Einsteins SR Theory"
- Previous message: Jeff_Relf: "Re: Entropy is frame dependent."
- In reply to: greywolf42: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Next in thread: greywolf42: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Reply: greywolf42: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
