Re: evidence for the existence of the ether
From: GRADinc (gradinc_at_aol.com)
Date: 12/14/04
- Next message: AllYou!: "Re: Why does the physicallity of Time matter?"
- Previous message: jahn: "Re: Symmetric Doppler Effect Between Two Observers in Special Relativity"
- In reply to: greywolf42: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Reply: greywolf42: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 14 Dec 2004 13:39:59 GMT
"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> Thomas Clarke <tclarke@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
[Can't get "new" google to post or mailgate so I'll try AOL]
> > 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).
> The temperature-equivalent is just about the same. The differential
> momentum fraction is approximately 1 E -9 for each "g" force. (The surface
> of the Earth.)
Since g is about 9.8 m/sec^2 and you say "approximately" would
10E-10/(m/sec^2) be OK? Or using Newtonian values
6.7x10^-21 mass/r^2 (mass in kg, radius in meters)?
None of these numbers ring a bell. Where do you get 1E-9 per g from?
> Hence, the aether temperature should scale as (v^2). So our
> fractional change will be about 3 E -4 per "g".
Wouldn't it just be 1E-9 doubled since you are talking fraction.
(1+epsilon)^2 approx equals 1+2epsilon
> IIRC, the Sun has an
> estimated surface gravity of 30 g. So the fractional temperture change will
> be around 1 part in 1000.
2 parts in 10^-9?
> > Express temperature
> Here you will see a short description of values that predate the copyright
> of the referenced book.
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics.new-theories/msg/a5d2f8d
> 440c9474d
For lurkers:
http://tinylink.com/?lqoV4TeHNI
Thanks for the link, I've saved it for digestion at leisure.
.........................
>From Feynaman lectures volumn 1:
> > > > 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?
> Think for a bit. You have shown yourself quite intelligent and
> knowledgable. Why would you expect a space probe to exhibit graviational
> aberration?
It is in the sun's gravity field, traveling on a conic section orbit,
right?
> The probes in question aren't in orbit -- they are leaving the
> solar system in highly hyperbolic trajectories. Only orbiting bodies
> exhibit gravitational aberration, due to their transverse (circular) motion.
Even probes in hyperbolic orbit have transverse motion.
They aren't that hypebolic, not under "Star Trek impulse drive" or
somesuch.
Oh, and wouldn't gravitational aberration exacerbate the "Feynman drag"?
......................
> > > 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.
> Maxwell predicted the phenomenon of superconductivity. Which is
> "essentially" zero electrical resistance for flow within a "local molecule"
> of his fluid. There are no infinities in his model.
Is the conductivity zero or not? If zero then the potential for
infinities is there.
They don't happen of course because the electrical charges move so that
the potential across two poins on a superconductor is zero. The same
thing happens in a superconductor of heat; heat energy flows so that
there is no temperature differential between points on the heat
conductor.
There are of course transient phenomena. Inductance in EM, time
delays due to finite molecular speed in heat-conductors, that lead
to temporary potential/temperature differences.
> For example, Maxwell could have assumed infinity for the speed of light.
That would have been silly since there were observations showing it to
be finite
going back to at least 1676.
.................................
> > > 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.
> It is meaningful. You have a calorie of energy (a packet, or unit). It is
> transported (moved) from one physical location to another. This movement
> takes place over a certain unit distance in a given time. A quick review
> from an intro physics book: the standard heat conduction equation, (p. 316,
> "Introduction to Physics for Scientists and Engineers," Bueche):
> (delta Q / delta t) = lambda A (delta T / delta x)
Sure, standard formula. Rate of change (not velocity) of heat
is the conductivity times the spatial derivative of temperature times
the area.
> Now, here we see that the higher the average rate of translation (speed) of
> the carrier particles, the better the conduction.
There is a little matter of mean free path.The more often the particles
collide the less rapidly they can conduct the heat.
> Now the above is the
> steady-state equation, for use after all transient effects have died out.
Not necessarily. If you have a hot body and a cold body and
connect then with a metal rod, the end, steady state result, is
two warm bodies and deltaQ/deltat=deltaT=0
> > 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.
> Excellent! You also can see that the same occurs even when an "large bulk"
> hot plate is attached to one end.
Is the hot plate plugged in? Where does the hot plate get its energy
from? Is the hot plate at a steady condition. If so then since
landa=infinity
(or is larger than anyone can measure) it follows that since dA/dt is
finite
it must be that delta Temp is smaller zero (smaller than can easily be
measured).
> The energy to raise the temperature
> within the conductor must be transported along the conductor. And the speed
> of that temperature rise will depend upon the linear speed at which energy
> is conducted (by whatever particle does it) and the heat capacity. Both of
> which are material properties.
I mentioned laser _pulse_ in my example. A single injection of energy
that results in something like a wavefront that can be tracked down the
rod.
This speed would be related to the molecular speed/sound speed and
would be more or less the same for good and bad conductors (different
mean free paths, different densities of conduction particles etc).
You keep thinking in terms of steady state examples like a hot plate
which result in the same gradient no matter what the speed of the
particles in the material. The equation involves delta T, so if
it were 0 C to 100 C or 1000 C to 1100 C the profile would be the
same even though the particles are moving much faster in the
hotter material.
And thermal conductivity can actually go down as temperature
increases (see the graph for water, and comment about liquids
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/explan4.html )
.....................
> So, because there is a time delay, you will understand that there is a
> physical speed of that-which-conducts-energy (heat).
No. I do not understand that there is a single speed number
that characterizes thermal conduction.
> If you have an active
> sink (or source) on both ends of the conductor, the conductor will reach a
> stable, nonzero, temperature gradient.
If the conductor has finite conductivity.
> Hence *no* real material containing
> a heat sink (the aether in this case) can be perfectly isothermal.
I tend to disagree about the ether being a real material.
And I beg to differ regarding Helium II.
..................
> > ...... There might be condictions where a superfluid
> > might not be isothermal but it depends on details.
> The conditions are the same as for any other material. If you embed energy
> sinks or sources in the material, it cannot be perfectly isothermal.
The superfluid can always go normal locally so as to support a gradient.
..........................................
[What an etherist would use to design an accelerator]
> > > > 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.
> In the real world, it takes a vehicle capable of accelerating to speeds in
> the neighborhood of light speed, relative to an initially-stationary
> observer. The universe is not merely a mathematical concept.
Non-responsive comment.
> > > > > 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?
> Newton's light corpuscles.
Do you have a citation of a GPS engineer who actuall would have
considered
Newton's light theory, faster than c in refractive media etc?
> GR. SR.
Hardly a distinction there.
> LET. Dragged aether. Transparent
> aether. Absolute space. All theories ever invented.
Citations for the consideration of these?
> The purpose was to get
> something that worked for a specific purpose -- not to perform a science
> experiment.
So I would expect them to use theories which had withstood the
test of experiment.
> > > 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?
> It is relevant because the GPS was designed by engineers to work. Regardless
> of which theory of light, space and time that the "long-haired, lab coats"
> favored at the time. The GPS doesn't *use* any of the above.
I think you had best read up on the operation of GPS.
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
"Apart possibly from high-energy accelerators, there are no other
engineering
systems in existence today in which both special and general relativity
have so many applications.. etc etc"
Even if as you claim GR equations are not used operationaly, GR would
have been considered in the design phase to establish limits on
variability
of clock timing etc.
..............
> > > 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.
> ???? Please think a moment. You have the intelligence and capacity.
> In SR, if you have two rulers moving relative to one another, BOTH observers
> will see the "other" ruler as shortened. In LET, if you have two rulers
> moving relative to one another, ONE observer will see the "other" ruler as
> shorter; and ONE observer will see the "other" ruler as longer.
I think you are misapplying LET.
Consider three observers in different states of motion.
Specifically one going North at 0.01c (say), one going
SE (120 degress) at 0.01c, and the third going SW (240 deg)
at 0.01c. [I guess there is an implicit fourth observer]
According to your logic N sees SE contracted but not vice versa,
SE sees SW contracted, and SW sees N contracted, since
relative velocities are indentical in these pairings.
So N sees N as contracted. Hmmm?
....................................................................
> > > > I don't find that a good answer.
> > > In what way?
> > A. It is not quantitative.
> You asked for identification, not quantification.
You asked why I didn't find it a good answer.
> > 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.
> In a changed form. Gravity removes disordered motion (thermal energy).
> Planetary heating adds ordered wave motion (light energy). Light energy
> (ordered wave motions) is slowly converted back to the medium as thermal
> energy (disordered motion).
I find it unsatisfactory for reason A. Sounds like perpetual motion to
me.
> This is nothing more than energy conservation. Why would you need numbers?
> It is a closed cycle. It is not circular logic.
Perpetual motion.
.................................................
> > > > 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?
> The aether is a superfluid. Superfluids exist, even if they are not
> perfect.
Then they are not superfluids.
> {snip higher levels}
> > > > So quantify.
> > > ???? I'm not the one claiming that it "can't work."
> > You are claiming that it can work. I am doubting that.
> Doubt away. You are free to claim that I haven't proved that it *does*
> work, to your satisfaction. But you are not free to claim that it *cannot*
> work -- without supporting your position.
I don't think you'd buy my arguments, so there is probably little point
in making the effort. You don't accept any physics post Maxwell
apparently so my arguments would just be rejected.
> Your "infinity" argument (that it *cannot* work) has now fallen. You will
> have to come up with something quantitative to continue to claim that it
> *cannot* work.
You still don't know the difference between a transient input of
heat and a steady state source or between an open system and
a closed system apparently.
.......................................
> > > The theory provides
> > > quite a few numbers, and accurate descriptions of EM and gravitation.
> > Web site?
> Book. Reference previously provided. Placing on web site would violate
> copyright.
Equations and scientific knowledge cannot be copyrighted. You write
plenty of words on spr, whey not rewrite your work to make it
more widely available?
...................
> > > 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.
> No. If it is a superfluid, then it has essentially zero viscosity (which is
> the definition of a superfluid).
Not "essentially" zero. Zero. Or else it is not a superfluid.
> Superfluids don't need to be perfectly
> conductive. They can be superconductors. But they don't need to be.
I have given the argument about why temperature differences will induce
a convective flow making counteracting the temperature difference.
I don't recall an effective refutation.
> > If there are
> > finite speeds involved then that puts limits on some transient effects.
> Also on conductivity effects. Conductivity results from the motion of
> particles that "carry" the heat from one place to another. The faster the
> motion, the better the conductor.
Bzzt. Wrong. Liquids generally conduct more poorly the hotter they
are.
Also other things such as mean free path, density of carriers are
significant.
> And since we both agree that we don't
> have particles that are infinitely fast, conductivity can never be
> absolutely perfect, or absolutely fast.
Perfect conductivity does not imply infinitely fast conductivity.
How could it, infinitely fast anything is not possible?
> > > and perfectly isothermal.
> > > That argument has now been safely refuted.
> > Not at all. You have merely presently some plausible verbal arguments.
> That's all one needs to counter unphysical claims about pure perfection and
> infinities.
Best keep the words straight when making the argument, though.
> > But your gravitational heat can flow through a superfluid without
> > temperature gradient.
> I don't think I understand what you mean here. Are you discussing *net*
> heat flows without temperature gradient?
Yes. That is what a superconductor does. Has a net flow
(electricity/heat)
without a gradient (potential/temperature).
> > There are start up transient issues but they require
> > quantiative argument to settle.
> We have no need to address issues of transients.
Sure we do. I'll even help you. Consider a 10 billion year long
transient. It would still be dying out.
.............................
> > > No aether theory claims perfection.
> > Then let's see how it works without perfect recycling of energy etc
> > via a quantitative calculation.
> I'm not planning on throwing out conservation of energy. If you want to
> postulate non-conservation of energy, be my guest. But don't place such
> arguments at the door of aether theorists.
Perpetual motion requires perfection.
Tom Clarke
- Next message: AllYou!: "Re: Why does the physicallity of Time matter?"
- Previous message: jahn: "Re: Symmetric Doppler Effect Between Two Observers in Special Relativity"
- In reply to: greywolf42: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Reply: Androcles: "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
|
