Re: evidence for the existence of the ether
From: greywolf42 (mingstb_at_marssim-ss.com)
Date: 12/08/04
- Next message: JP: "Re: A Bogus Claim of SRians"
- Previous message: greywolf42: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- In reply to: Thomas Clarke: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Next in thread: Thomas Clarke: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Reply: Thomas Clarke: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:12:50 GMT
Thomas Clarke <tclarke@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
news:3ca1617200e6610acb7f94fe3132c5ed.128340@mygate.mailgate.org...
> "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.
Yes. However, immediately below, I allow you to assume nearly infinite
thermal conductivity and address that as well.
> > > 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.
Indeed! Let us argue the point!
> 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.
A reasonable chain of logic. However, you are laboring under a
misconception. And this is what I was pointing out, when you raised the
issue of truly infinite physical terms. There is no such thing in the real
universe as a truly infinite term. And the corrolary is that thermal
differences (the inverse of your assumed physical infinity) will not be
truly zero. They will merely be very small -- but not fundamentally zero.
For example, zero viscosity does not mean absolutely zero resistance. There
is a term often called "dynamic viscosity" that does not actually vanish in
a physical sense. Dynamic viscosity arises from direct impact of the
particulate entities that form a fluid, on moving bodies. It arises from
the physical speed of the particles under consideration. In discussions of
aether theories, this is often called "Feynman drag". And it has been
observed as Pioneer drag (within a factor of 2 of the standard Feynman drag
predictions).
In addition to impact resistance, conductivity is limited by the particle
exchange time. In normal, everyday materials, the speed of motion of the
component particles is not the limiting effect on thermal conductivity. For
a superconductor, the limiting effect of conductivity *is* the speed of the
carrier. If we presume that the carrier moves at the speed of light, then
the speed of conductivity is limited by the speed of light. It's not really
infinite.
> > Let us look at typical "local" region of the aether. Say -- a few light
> > seconds across (otherwise empty).
>
> Cis-lunar space for example?
Sure. But larger than Jupiter's diameter.
> > 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.
My current favorite theory has the speed of gravity at sqrt(3) c. But the
speed of light is adequate for demonstrating the principle -- and is
consistent with GR's speed of gravity (c).
> > 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.
True, but no more difficult than creating any size mass or charge in any
other teaching example on speed-of-propagation. You can dispense with the
instantaneous introduction, if you wish. Its only purpose was to allow me
to set up a perfectly uniform temperature, without matter.
> > 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?
Sorry, I was unclear by skipping a step. All matter (mass) absorbs energy
and momentum from the aether fluid. This is the source of gravitation. I
am also assuming that the aether for Maxwell's equations (EM) is the same
one as the aether for Le Sagian gravitation. (Some people like to assume
two interpenetrating aethers.)
> Your scenario has not mentioned temperature.
I mentioned that it was initially constant within the region under
consideration.
> Actually you are sounding like a relativist, arguing that conductivity
> must be finite because the speed of propagation is finite.
Though most Relativists retch at the thought, there is a lot of shared
mathematics between GR and Le Sagian aether theory.
> > 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.
Fair enough. However, we are discussing whether the particulate, superfluid
aether *theory* is perfectly isothermal, or not. Hence, we must discuss the
properties of the particulate, superfluid aether.
> > 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.
I'm not sure how such an assumption could have a physical cause. If you
were correct, however, light would be observed to bend *away* from a
gravitating mass. Which is not observed. So, I think we can table your
idea for the moment.
> > Of course, the "universe" will attempt to return the local
> > medium to the overall equal temperature.
>
> That pesky "universe".
It just never sits still. :)
> > 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.
They *are* organized waves in the aether. (Since Maxwell first derived the
speed of transverse electric and magnetic waves in his superfluid aether,
and found them to be the same speed as that observed for light.)
My apologies if I was not clear. The planet will radiate a blackbody
(thermal) spectrum of light waves. (Or some variant on blackbody, due to
it's component chemistry). These organized waves will travel through the
aether. The energy for these organized waves originally comes from the
random (unorganized) motions of the superfluid corpuscles.
> 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 Jovian planet will continue to absorb momentum and energy from the
medium. It will be a constant local energy sink. No matter how much the
universe *tries* to equalize the temperature, it cannot do it completely.
Similarly, if one "suddenly" puts a wind turbine on a hillside, the local
windspeed will always be less than that of the surrounding area. The wind
will always be less, because the wind turbine is a constant sink in the
otherwise uniform flow.
> > 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.
Yes. That *was* the initial point that I provided. The issue of a perfect
isothermal aether was raised by David Evans because he thought this would
disprove the bending of light by the changes in local values of the medium
(temperature in this case).
> > 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?
Yes. For example, see the book "Pushing Gravity", "Deriving
Newton's Gravitational Law from a Le Sage Mechanism".
Now, is my demonstration clear? The difference between reality and pure
conceptualizations (i.e. infinities).
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
- Next message: JP: "Re: A Bogus Claim of SRians"
- Previous message: greywolf42: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- In reply to: Thomas Clarke: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Next in thread: Thomas Clarke: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Reply: Thomas Clarke: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
