Re: evidence for the existence of the ether
From: Thomas Clarke (tclarke_at_ist.ucf.edu)
Date: 12/13/04
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Light Clock Nonsense"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Light Clock Nonsense"
- 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: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 03:18:57 +0000 (UTC)
"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> Thomas Clarke <tclarke@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
> I've *been* trying to summarize. Again, please be specific about what you
> want to know, if you can't get ahold of the reference.
What is the temperature of the ether at the surface of the sun
(or another body of your choice) versus what is its temperature
1 lightyear away(or another very large distance of your choice).
Express temperature
........
> > There is no such thing as conduction speed. Only conductivity
> > which has units length^2/time.
> Conductivity is a concept that equals the ability of a given material to
> move a given unit of energy at a given rate (speed).
Rate is not speed. When the temperature gradient is divided by
the conductivity the result is the rate of heat transfer in watts
or other units of energy/time.
> As noted before, units of L^2 t^-1 is the same units as L V.
What significance do you see in this?
..........
[Re Source of etherist's term "Feynman drag"]
> > > I believe you'll find it on pages 7-9 & 7-10, Volume 1 "The Feynman
> > > Lectures on Physics"
> > I see it:
> > "Suppose there were many particles moving in space at a very high speed
> > in all directions .... It involves new consequences that are not true...."
> I believe that's it. And the "spiralling into the Sun" myth is just that.
> The problem with Feynman's conclusion ("It involves new consequences that
> are not true") is that Feynman didn't consider the counter effect of
> gravitational aberration -- that arises as a result of finite speed of
> propagation of gravity. Nature is pretty conservative.
So you are saying that your theory does not account for the Pioneer
effect? If you alleged mechanism cancels out Feynman's for planets
does it not also cancel out for space probes?
......
> {snip higher levels}
and repititions
> > ...........
> > > > Conductivity has units proportional to length^2/time, not velocity.
> > > Which is (length) x (velocity).
> > Huh? L^/T = LxT ? Where did you learn algebra?
> L^2 / T = L x L / T = L x (L/T) = L x (velocity)
Oops. I misread that as (length) x (time) I think. My mistake.
I'll repeat my question:
"What significance do you see in this?"
...........
> > Conductivity is the rate of transfer divided by the gradient.
> Conductivity does not depend upon the gradient -- it is a fundamental
> property of material.
If you have a slab of material of unit area and thickness S,
with temperature difference delta-T across the thickness. And you
measure a heat flux or transfer rate of F, then the conductivity
of the material is F/(delta-T/S).
> The *net rate of heat transfer* depends upon the gradient.
I believe that is algebraically equivalent to what I said.
> > > Because speed is not infinte, neither can conductivity be.
> > But for the issue at question, quantity matters, if sufficienitly
> > large conductivity can mess up your light deflection picture.
> Indeed. But such a claim must include values. Not simply a claim of
> infinity. My point in this thread is simply that there are no such
> infinities in the real world. And for very commonly accepted physical
> reasons.
I thought Maxwell predicted such infinities for ether.
> ...... sound speed is related to
> > molecular speed and molecular motion is what transports heat.
> Now you are getting warmer. (Pun intended)
> Let's assume that we have an otherwise perfect conductor of heat. If you
> are correct, the maxiumum speed of transfer of a "packet" of thermal energy
> between two points, is the speed of the "molecular motion?"
Speed of transfer of a packet of thermal energy is not meaningful.
But if the conductor is opaque (so EM radiation does not play a role)
an impulsive introduction of heat energy (say it is struck by a laser
pulse)
at one point will not have a thermal effect at a distance point sooner
than it is possible for the molecular motion to transfer the heat.
There are issues of extreme tails of the Maxwellian distribution alowing
for some heat to be trasnfered much faster than mean speed, but
the time delay until heat first appears is related to moelcular speed.
...............
> > The issue is whether there is sufficient isothermy to account for
> > deflection of light.
> No. You are welcome to start such a thread, if you wish.
Shall we? But it could easily be subsumed under the same title as
this thread which has already had many branches.
> But the issue
> under discussion *here* was your (and David's) claim for perfect isothermy,
> on the basis that a superfluid aether must also be a superconductor.
> The claim for perfect isothermy is false. Wouldn't you agree?
Is the ether a superfluid? Does it have a Maxwellian distribtion?
What is it's mean free path? [Not sure that is relevant if it
is really a Bose-condensate superfluid, but you are allowing
for a less than super, superfluid somehow]
It depends. There might be condictions where a superfluid
might not be isothermal but it depends on details.
> > ...............
>.... If you want to see
> quantitative predictions on "our" theory, see "Pushing Gravity" (previously
> given.)
Why don't you make them available on the web. The book is not in my
library and I have no interest in paying money to get a peek at a theory
that to me sounds extremely flaky.
> Now, if the numbers appear as reported, will you count this as "support?"
Were numbers reported to me? If they were, I wouldn't need to see
the article, would I?
> > ......
>
> > > > How do non-relativists engineer accelerators? GPS navigation systems?
> > > > What mathematics do they use?
> > > The existing ones.
> > In other words they use the Lorentz transform as well as other math?
> No, the engineers don't use "Lorentz transforms." They use Lorentz' theory
> (1904) -- motion w.r.t. the accelerator / field. They never are in the
> position to invert the equation required for a "transform."
That is a distinction that makes no difference. Inversion is only
a mathematical operation.
> > > You didn't think that the GPS engineers were naive
> > > enough to trust any one theory before sending up the satellites?
> > Actually yes.
> Well, they weren't that naive. They had several different theories
> possible,
Care to mention a couple?
> but just instituted a generic "historical" time adjustment. And
> they actively steer the satellites, to boot.
And this is relevant how? SInce when has any system put together
by humans been perfect so as to conform to theory without
deviations due to errors of various sorts?
.....
> > > .... The equations in LET are not reciprocal transforms.
> > Lorentz transforms are not a group?
> The SR transforms may be a group. But LET doens't use transforms ... or a
> group. The equations in LET are one-way, not reciprocal.
A distinction that makes no difference.
...............
> > > > What is the mass density of your ether?
> > > The mass-equivalent density of the aether is 8.85E-12 kg/m^3.
> > Wow a number. I'm impressed.
> Why? Since we were arguing infinities, specific numbers weren't needed.
I'm used to etherists who just wave their hands and make verbal
arguments.
That is way higher than the critical density, but that shouldn't matter
I guess
since I think in your theory the ether is gravity so it shouldn't cause
gravity
and make the unvierse collapse or something.
.....................
> Neutrons stars are superfluid liquids. Compressed by external forces. The
> aether is not a compressed superfluid.
If it a gas and it is not compressed why has it not expanded to
vanishingly
small density? Or is that your explanation for the Hubble expansion?
[Re the amazing Maxwell]
> > Why didn't he explain the black body radiation problem then?
[a cutoff effect caused by Maxwell's particulate ether]
> So, one can explain the so-called "ultraviolet catastrophe" quite easily,
> using Maxwell's model. One could have predicted the shape of the BB curve
> directly from Maxwell's model. Although the value of the constant "h" would
> have had to be determined by experiment.
Have you written the detailed calculation up anywhere?
..................................
> > > > 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.
> > I don't find that a good answer.
> In what way?
A. It is not quantitative.
B. Without support of A it sounds circular since the gravitating matter
is
supposed to radiate the energy via BB back into the corpuscular ether.
...............
> > But I thought you said your ether was not a perfect superfluid?
> Perfection does not exist in nature.
So the ether is not a superfluid?
> > If not perfect, then there would be losses.
> There *are* losses when matter interacts with corpuscles (gravity). And
> when light waves interact with corpuscles (tired light). Where else would
> you expect energy to go?
Light waves are not different from motionof the corpuscles in your
theory, so
you have a hidden circularity in that.
In standard theories there are many forms of energy that convert and
interconvert, in yours there seems to be only motion of corpuscles.
> > ..............
> > > > 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."
> > So quantify.
> ???? I'm not the one claiming that it "can't work."
You are claiming that it can work. I am doubting that.
> The theory provides
> quite a few numbers, and accurate descriptions of EM and gravitation.
Web site?
> The
> "objection" that we are dealing with here is the explicit claim that the
> superfluid aether *must* be perfectly conductive,
If it is superfluid then it must be perfectly conductive. If there are
finite speeds involved then that puts limits on some transient effects.
> and perfectly isothermal.
> That argument has now been safely refuted.
Not at all. You have merely presently some plausible verbal arguments.
But your gravitational heat can flow through a superfluid without
temperature
gradient. There are start up transient issues but they require
quantiative argument to settle.
> > > It is completely incorrect to claim a
> > > theoretical perfection that can never exist in the real universe.
> > That is just the trouble I have with your ether theory.
> What is? Are you claiming that superfluids cannot exist?
Of course not.
> No aether theory claims perfection.
Then let's see how it works without perfect recycling of energy etc
via a quantitative calculation.
............................
> > > > 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.
> > Under what conditions? The rate of heat flow depends on the temperature
> > gradient.
> The rate of *net* heat flow depends upon the temperature gradient.
> Heat actually flows in both directions.
So put net in my statement. The question about conditions stands.
You seem to be confusing transient conditions with steady state
conditions.
Tom Clarke
-- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Light Clock Nonsense"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Light Clock Nonsense"
- 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
|
