Re: evidence for the existence of the ether
From: David Evens (devens_at_technologist.com)
Date: 12/11/04
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin"
- Previous message: Sue...: "Re: Time Slowdown in a Gravitational Field: t'(g) = ??"
- In reply to: greywolf42: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Next in thread: Thomas Clarke: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 05:56:32 -0500
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 01:28:51 GMT, "greywolf42"
<mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
>Thomas Clarke <tclarke@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
>news:c3d5762b4093f57075a22a272744755a.128340@mygate.mailgate.org...
>> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
>> > Thomas Clarke <tclarke@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
>>
>> > > OK, so since your ether would then be non-ideal, it would have
>> > > for instance non-zero viscosity, what observable effects do
>> > > you predict?
>>
>> > The effects listed below, of course.
>>
>> Can you be quantitative about these effects?
>
>Yes. The quantifications follow the derivations in the referenced paper.
>
>> > The aether *is* as superfluid. It has essentially zero viscosity. But
>> > no real medium has zero *dynamic* viscosity.
>>
>> Dynamic viscosity is just kinematic viscosity normalized by density.
>> If one is zero so is the other.
>
>And neither is truly zero.
Thus you admit that you don't actually MEAN it when you claim that
your magical aether is a superfluid.
>> I think you mean density. What is the density of your ether?
>
>I don't mean density. But -- at this point -- the value for density is
>irrelevant. (The value is given below.)
>
>> > For example, how fast do you expect signals to travel through laboratory
>> > supefluids?
>>
>> According to this
>> http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~rapidproto/csc/speedsound.html
>> it is 240 m/sec.
>
>That is sound of liquid helium II, not conduction speed in superfluid
>helium.
According to both
http://www.bartleby.com/65/he/helium.html
and
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/s1/superflu.asp
Liquid helium II is a superfluid according to the property you
(stupidly) consider to be the only property of a superfluid.
>But if this is the limiting speed of conduction "signals," then
>your fluid is not a superconductor.
Of COURSE superfluid helium isn't a superconductor. A superconductor
contains a superfluid of charged particles, such as the superfluid
electron gas in sufficiently cold metal or the superfluid protons in
the core of a neutron star.
>> > > > .... 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).
>>
>> > > There are alternative explanations for these two data points.
>> > > Any other supporting data.
>>
>> > ???? Feynman drag is not a "data point." It is a theoretical
>> > prediction, used to "pan" aether theories for decades.
>>
>> Odd, the first time I ever heard of it was on spr.
>> And I've read "The Feynman lectures on gravitation."
>
>Feynman didn't call it "Feynman drag." But because the statements were
>popularized by the Feynman lectures, it is often called Feynman drag.
>
>I believe you'll find it on pages 7-9 & 7-10, Volume 1 "The Feynman Lectures
>on Physics"
You mean like how you consider the lack of viscosity of a superfluid
to be their only property, rather than simply being their most
annoying one? (The reason this is an annoying property is covered in
the first of my two references pointing out that liquid helium II is a
superfluid.)
>> > Pioneer drag is simply direct
>> > observation that such predicted "drag" occurs at the level predicted for
>> > non-orbital motion.
>>
>> Observations of anomalous acceleration
>> in trajectories of two spacecraft is two data points.
>
>Then it's far more than two data points -- per probe. These effects have
>been repeatedly measured over a 20 year period.
Two probes moving in ways you don't entirely understand is precisely
two data points. To get more than 1 data point per probe you would
need the probe to start doing some other unexpected motion.
>> > You are free to speculate about other, ad hoc, causes of Pioneer drag.
>> > But only aether theories predicted the effect, and link the values with
>> > a calculable value.
>>
>> I've asked other etherists for a citation of where the anomalous
>> acceleration of spacecraft was predicted before it was observed
>> with the Pioneers.
>
>I don't believe that such a specific, limited prediction "of spacecraft"
>exists. However, the effect for the Earth (as a function of orbital speed)
>was definitely quantified by Feynman, and others.
As not occuring, yes. Not a good suport for you.
>> I don't recall a definite answer. Can you supply a citation?
>
>See the Feynman quote, above. Though, IIRC, that one may be simply a
>statement of conclusion. I don't have the Feynman series on my shelf. I'll
>be happy to hunt more, if that is not sufficient.
I do not find the abscence of physics texts on your shelves surprising
at all.
>> > > Actually it is. Thermal conductivity in non-metals is due to
>> > > propagation of phonons and phonons travel fastest in diamond which
>> > > has the highest thermal conductivity.
>>
>> > And would be even faster in a superconductor? Approaching the speed of
>> > light, correct?
>>
>> Conductivity has units proportional to length^2/time, not velocity.
>
>Which is (length) x (velocity). Besides, the units don't matter, per se.
>The property of conductivity is the ability of a substance to transfer a
>given quantity of heat energy in a given amount of time. Because speed is
>not infinte, neither can conductivity be.
Heat conductivity in a superfluid can exceed the speed of sound in the
paterial because it doesn't have to propogate by phonon transmission,
as the material itself can circulate without regard for energy
considerations.
>> > But never truly infinite, correct?
>>
>> The heat equation - an approximation - predicts infinite propagation
>> speed- that is why it is an approximation - an exact model equation would
>> show that energy could not propagate faster than light
>
>I could quibble that the heat equation is not an approximation, but you are
>substantively correct.
If the heat equation were not fundamentally wrong, we would already
have time machines.
>> and that the speed of
>> sound is an important quantity for propagation in materials.
>
>Not for propagation of heat. It may be a related property.
>
>> But the issue is really whether your model of gravity works and whether
>> the conductivity of your ether would spoil your picture.
>
>Yes, that is the issue in this thread. The claims of absolutely perfect
>isothermy.
Yes, that is one of your claims. You have also claimed that there are
no magnetic fields, since oyu have claimed that your magical aether is
a conductor, which would require it to be a superconductor, and
magnetic fields do not operate inside superconductors.
>> Might the details including calculations be in
>> " the book "Pushing Gravity", "Deriving Newton's Gravitational Law from
>> a Le Sage Mechanism".
>
>There are no details on isothermy in the above paper. Because perfect
>isothermy is not a property of any physical aether.
Make up your pretended mind: Does your magical aether have the
preoperties of a superfluid, or does it not exhibit isothermy?
>> Since there are copyright problems perhaps you could make copies
>> available privately via e-mail or some such method
>> to support scholarly discussion.
>
>Sure. But perhaps we should first deal with the issue of perfection. The
>general equations in the paper aren't likely to help.
>
>> ..............
>
>> > > > 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.)
>>
>> > > Two ethers?
>> > > Why not four or ten?
>>
>> > Because we are only examining two known effects, EM and gravitation.
>>
>> If you were to do something that known theory cannot do like unify the
>> four forces that would be support for ether.
>
>Well, Maxwell used the aether to unify three physical properties
>(electricity, magnetism, and light) by using an aether theory. And we have
>managed to fully unify EM and gravity (complete with derivative properties).
>
>We also have a good handle on the weak nuclear force. I must admit that
>we're still pretty weak on the strong force (pun intended). So, does this
>count as "support"?
No, because you haven't done any of that.
>> But personally I think if a particulate ether theory were to explain
>> all data that standard theory explains it would wind up looking a
>> lot like quantum field theory with the "ether" particles being the
>> virtual particles that populate the vacuum.
>
>There *is* a lot in common. Except that aether corpuscles are *observable*,
>and there are no point-particles. Far more like the original quantum
>theory.
I don't recall any quantum theory (even one as wrong as the original
one) that didn't have point particles.
>> > > (10 is facetious, slight string theory allusion, but it seems that
>> > > three of four would be good for dealing with generations of
>> > > elementary particles or with types of force.)
>>
>> > I personally prefer Ockham's Razor. One seems to do fine for all four
>> > of the "four forces."
>>
>> Even though you are only
>> "examining two known effects, EM and gravitation"?
>
>Yes. One cause is simpler than two causes. That defines Ockham's razor.
>Besides, we've succeded better with one. We don't need two.
>
>> .....
>
>> > > > Though most Relativists retch at the thought, there is a lot of
>> > > > shared mathematics between GR and Le Sagian aether theory.
>>
>> > > Of course, the Lorentz transform is needed if a theory is to have any
>> > > hope of matching observation.
>>
>> > Actually, there has never been an experimental test of the Relativists'
>> > "Lorentz transform" versus Lorentz's (non mirror-image) equations. We
>> > have never moved our accelerators at relativistic speeds relative to our
>> > detectors. So precisely to which observation(s) are you referring?
>>
>> How do non-relativists engineer accelerators? GPS navigation systems?
>> What mathematics do they use?
>
>The existing ones. You didn't think that the GPS engineers were naive
>enough to trust any one theory before sending up the satellites? Neither
>accelerators nor GPS rely upon Relativity, per se. Accelerators rely upon
>Lorentz. Which is perfectly compatible with aether theory. But the
>GPS-accelerator issue has been beaten to death in other threads, and I'd
>like to avoid going out on a tangent.
Of course you would, you have being demonstrated to be stupid on so
many things at once.
>> It sounds like your are forgetting that Lorentz transforms
>> are a group so that two Lorentz transforms in tandem are
>> another (single) Lorentz transform.
>
>Yes. If you use the Relativists' version of the LT. However, there has
>never been an experiment to distinguish between LET (Lorentz 1904) and SR.
>LET does not use the LR. The equations in LET are not reciprocal
>transforms.
Yes, LET does lack predictive power, doesn't it.
>> > > So discuss away, but don't forget you are addressing someone ignorant
>> > > of your theory.
>>
>> > I'm attempting to do so. And will answer any questions that you have,
>> > to the best of my ability.
>>
>> What is the mass density of your ether?
>
>The mass-equivalent density of the aether is 8.85E-12 kg/m^3.
>
>I use the term mass-equivalent, because the mass of aether corpuscles are
>not necessarily the same manifestation as matter mass. We assume it to work
>in the same manner.
Well, there goes all pf physics, because you just predicted that the
average mass-energy density of the universe is equivalent to something
like 5X10^15 hydrogen atomes per cubic metre, of about 8x10^14 times
the critical density at which observed velocities of distant objects
would be exactly balanced against total mutial gravitational
attraction so that the universe just fails to recolapse in finite
time. And it's no good pretending that there's someting wrong with
the gravity model since there is no difference in the predictions of
Newton and Einstein's models on this kind of density scale.
>> > > It occurs to me that what you have is a body of superfluid large
>> > > enough for light propagation delay to be significant.
>>
>> > Well, a gas of superfluid. Not a compressed superfluid, as in a neutron
>> > star.
>>
>> Is there a difference?
>
>Between a gas and a liquid? Certainly.
But is there an important difference between the superfluid properties
of a superfluid gas and a superfluid liquid? Not likely.
>> Since your ether is all-pervading, what would it expand into?
>
>Into the universe ... if it is expanding (which it may very well be... or
>not). It doesn't need to be all-pervading throughout the universe. It only
>needs to "pervade" the visible universe (obviously).
You already stated that the universe coldn't operate the way we see it
operating because it is more than 14 orders of magnitude too dense.
>> > > I doubt if anyone has
>> > > calcualted in conventional theory how such a body would behave ---
>> > > hmm maybe in neutron stars. I think I have read that neutron stars
>> > > are superfluid and they are several miles across.
>> > > So you are in an unknown realm with such large size blobs of
>> > > superfluid.
>>
>> > Well, we aren't dealing with "liquid" superfluids. But the realm is
>> > well-known. It is fairly well described by Maxwell's equations.
>>
>> The Maxwell who anticipated quantum mechanics?
>
>Yes. You can look up "molecular voritices" in his 1861 "On Physical Lines
>of Force" (which just happen to be quantized).
Yes, he never did find a model he actually liked.
>The one who derived the speed of light. The one who predicted
>superconductivity half a century before it was detected in the lab.
How did he do that?
>Maxwell's equations are approximations to his model ... and require Green's
>Identities to hold. When Green's identities fail, you enter the
>probabilistic realm. (i.e. There is no ultraviolate catastrophe in
>Maxwell's model. Only if you blindly try to use the equations beyond their
>region of applicability.)
So now you claim that Maxwell was never able to specify his model at
any level.
>> > > > 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.
>>
>> > > Why not?
>>
>> > Because the gravitating body is constantly removing energy from the
>> > location.
>>
>> Where is it putting the energy? Is energy not conserved in your theory?
>
>As described before, the random thermal energy of the corpuscles is being
>deposited into the matter
>structures (i.e. nucleons, atoms and molecules) as heat in the matter
>structure. The heat energy is then (eventually) lost into space as thermal
>radiation. The thermal radiation is eventually absorbed back into thermal
>energy of the corpuscles.
So, you claim that free space is heat-opaque, then.
>> > You can reach a stable state, but it won't be isothermal (equal
>> > temperature everywhere). In the same manner that a bar of iron is never
>> > equal temperature between a constantly cooling radiator and an
>> > "infinite" heat source.
>>
>> What is the heat source? What is the heat sink/radiator?
>
>The heat source is the loss of energy and momentum by the corpuscles. The
>heat sink / radiator is gravitating matter.
So, you've got a very, very cold superfluid (it has to be colder than
anything that touches it or heat would flow into the colder object
instead of out of it) the manages to ALWAYS be able to move heat
against the rules of thermodynamics?
>> > > > 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 energy of the wind comes from the sun which comes from the fusion
>> > > of hydrogen left over from the big bang. It is not just wind energy
>> > > that somehow just does not die out.
>>
>> > True, but irrelevant. No matter what the original source of the motion
>> > of the (constant or infinitesimally slowing) wind, the wind down stream
>> > of the windmill will always be slower than the incoming wind.
>>
>> Without a source the wind turbine, continually removing energy from
>> the wind, would asymptotically slow the wind to rest.
>
>Yes. In your example, in about 10 billion years -- after the Sun burned
>out. In the case of the aether, it's a nice, closed system; with no evident
>losses.
You are only claiming that your aether is a superfluid, not anything
else in your magical systems. Thus, you don't have perfect
losslessness anywhere else in the magical systems.
>> > > > 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).
>>
>> > > It sounds to me like he has a case.
>>
>> > On what basis? The aether isn't perfectly isothermal. Because there is
>> > a finite speed limit to conduction.
>>
>> But there is a long time to the universe. Perfect isothermal state
>> may not be reached, but it will become nearly isothermal and it is
>> plausible that the departure from isothermality may not be sufficient
>> to account for bending of light etc.
>
>But that claim requires a quantification. It is not sufficient simply to
>claim that it "might not work." It is completely incorrect to claim a
>theoretical perfection that can never exist in the real universe.
So where's your model to use to make the predictions about reality?
>> > > Do you have a numerical model with conductivities and energy sources
>> > > etc etc to show that the temperature gradient is maintained?
>>
>> > Try any basic physics textbook that deals with temperature gradients
>> > during conduction between hot and cold regions.
>>
>> I have. Have you?
>
>Yes. So, we both know how temperature gradients are maintained.
So why don't you show some indication of understanding these things?
>> > > > Now, is my demonstration clear? The difference between reality and
>> > > > pure conceptualizations (i.e. infinities).
>>
>> > > Slightly plausible, but not convincing.
>>
>> > I'm not attempting to convince you of the truth of the theory. However,
>> > as soon as you accept that the real world does not transfer information
>> > infinitely fast (and/or cannot actually contain true infinities), then
>> > you will eventually come to the conclusion yourself that a superfluid
>> > aether is not infinitely conductive. Hence, it cannot be perfectly
>> > isothermal at scales larger than the transfer time.
>>
>> This is the first time you have mentioned "transfer time".
>> What do you mean by this?
>
>The time taken to carry energy (or anything else) from one point to another
>in the fluid.
In a superfluid, heat moves as fast as it is physically possible for
it to move. It cannot avoid it.
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin"
- Previous message: Sue...: "Re: Time Slowdown in a Gravitational Field: t'(g) = ??"
- In reply to: greywolf42: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Next in thread: Thomas Clarke: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
