The Physical Ether!
- From: "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 14 Apr 2005 13:16:14 -0700
The physical ether!
Gradients in the ether!
The ether is a mechanical system. It consists of
only free moving particles moving in a simple 3-D
space. The only interactions are collisions, which
sometimes occur among themselves, but most often with
the sub-atomic particles of matter that makes up our
reality (the sub-atomic particles that make up our 92
elements, etc.) These interactions comply with all
the conservation laws of mass, momentum, and energy.
Therefore, there is an equal partitioning of energy
associated with these ether particles.
These ether particles are the smallest particles
that exist. Of the known particles, the one closest
like them would be neutrinos. Ether particles have
no charge, no gravity, no common spin, no common
velocity, no common mass. They are almost infinite
in their diversity in terms of size, shape, mass,
spin, speed, directions, orientations, momentum,
energies, etc. Such variability would make it
difficult, even impossible, to work with. Therefore,
for ease of discussion, we will present them in a
more formal way.
Up to here, what has been said should be easy to
understand. Everything is normal, standard
mechanics. But there is one thing in which they
differ from the particles that we are familiar with.
When these particles collide, they do not bounce.
They spall. And we must understand spalls if we are
to understand the ether and why the ether appears to
be so impossible.
Normal collisions:
When object A directly hits object B, both bodies
remain separate bodies. Upon contact, they 'push'
upon each other, causing each other to come to some
common velocity. When this is accomplished, the
pushing upon each other has causes them to be
deformed to some extent. And then, due to their
deformed conditions, they continue to push back some
more, and move each other back again in the same
direction they had each come. They leave each other
with the same mass (and usually the same shape) with
which they had arrived.
This is a normal bounce in a normal collision. A
very large exchange of momentum occurs in such a
collision.
A spall:
In a spall, object A hits object B, instantly
fuses to object B at the points of contact, and by
shock, a portion of B is almost immediately ejected
off its back side.
At this point, we pull a mental trick. We will
assume that the spall off the back side of object B
becomes object A. And the new object B would consist
of what was left over from the spall, to include what
had originally been object A. We will let ourselves
assume this for the following reasons. The spall is
assumed to always be very close in mass, if not the
exact same mass, as object A, and it will be moving
in the same general direction and velocity as A had
been moving. The new object B will likewise be
similar to object B. So there are good reasons to
make this mental jump.
If we make this mental jump, then we produce a new
variable, d, which is the difference in mass between
the original and final objects B, equal and opposite
of course to the change in object A. If d is zero,
the spall is exactly the same mass as object A, then
the velocity of the spall is identical to the
original velocity of A, and the velocity of the new
object B remains identical to the original velocity
of B. All of this being theoretical, under the pure
assumptions of the conservation laws.
If the ejected mass is the same amount of mass as
object A, then it continues to move as if there had
not even been a collision with object B. And this
last point is the point that explains the ether. As
long as any ether particle makes a perfect spall,
when it collides with any other particle, it will
appear as if it were not even there! There will be
no exchange of momentum. Now if there were any non-
perfections in the spall, the amount of exchange of
momentum would only be a function of the amount of
the imperfection, not to the total momentum of the
objects involved. Again, this amount of exchange
would be in the QM level or less.
To repeat: under spalls, there is a minimum of
exchange of momentum, even zero, if the spall itself
is the correct mass.
Why is this spall concept so important? There are
three special reasons:
1) It allows the ether to consist of a large amount
of matter and energy, more than sufficient to account
for all the forces and energy that is necessary in an
ether, and yet appear to not even be there in terms
of physical motions through it.
2) It allows for an exchange of mass. Spalls are
nor normally perfect spalls, where the spall leaves
the two objects being the exact same mass as they
were before there was a collision. These exchanges
of mass provide for the QM effects that are present
within our reality. This includes the uncertainty
principle in terms of mass, momentum, energy,
position, etc.
3) It also allows a different collision equation to
be used, which is a non-linear equation, and this
non-linear equation allows for forces that exists
within our reality. We find these forces to be a QM
type force.
Therefore, spalls are critical to our
understanding of QM, and our understanding of the
ether, and our eventual understanding of gravity and
all other forces.
With this general introduction to the ether, we
will now introduce a math model of the ether, to
allow us to work with general principles and means
that allow computer simulations. Let us make these
ether particles to be a one size (mass) particle C.
Particle C will be assumed to be a working model of
all these particles, where its mass is the effective
average of all the ether particles. But we know some
are larger, and some are smaller. So we will use d
as the standard deviation of C. This allows us to
make a model of the ether to consist of three
particles: C+d, C and C-d. Now it does not matter
how correctly one can actually represent the ether
this way. But by using a model that has these
approximate representation of the ether, we will have
sufficient abilities to be able to show how the ether
can produce forces by using such a model. And by
making the model simple enough, a computer can be
used to demonstrate these effects.
So let us take the following model: We will
assume that the normal ether consist proportionally
of one C+d, two C's, and one C-d. The average
remaining C. Stating it in percentages, 25% of the
ether consists of C+d particles, 50% C, and 25% C-d.
Again, this will be used as our standard. We would
assume that if the ether were this composition, and
that the ether has existed for a long time, and has
reached equilibrium conditions, then this average
would be the natural result of all the collisions
combined. This would include the collisions among
the ether particles themselves, as well as with other
matter that exists around them.
Now around some particles, the mix might change.
Around some, there might be a tendency to have more
C's and less C+d and C-d. In other words, some
particles might cause the dispersions in the ether to
become less. Other particles might cause the
dispersions in the ether to become greater. For our
model, which is limited to just three particles, we
could have the maximum extreme of these conditions to
be either all (100%) C's, or no C's and 50% C+d and
50% C-d.
Using such a model, we can see that a gradient of
d's can exist in the ether, depending on the number
and the location of other particles that would affect
the dispersion of the ether. In all cases, the
average mass remains constant: There is no need to
change the average mass of anything. Only the
dispersion is being changed. But this change is
sufficient, in the at theory, as proved by computer,
to allow forces to exist.
The model will show that both attractive and
repulsive forces are established by this modeling,
and these forces are equal and opposite forces. All
this happens automatically if you assume that the
normal ether consist of the model specified, to
include their proper equal partitioning of energy,
and if other particles were interacting with the
ether to either increase or decrease their
dispersions as the model might allow.
Let me repeat this so that you understand how
marvelous this is. If you put two objects in an
ether like this model, and both of these objects
reduced the dispersion of the ether, they would be
driven apart, as if they repelled each other. And if
they both caused the ether to have greater
dispersions, they would attract each other. The
actual mass of these objects would not matter. The
only thing affecting these actions are the mass being
exchanged with the ether.
And all this would occur with complete
conservation of mass, momentum, and energy. This is
what LeSage was trying to do, and now it can be done.
It is done through the spall process, where mass is
exchanged in the collisions.
Now the force being seen above is similar to
electrical charge forces in that there is an equal
and opposite pair of forces (it does have important
differences, but there is an equal and opposite force
if the background is allowed to come to equilibrium
with the spalls being created.) Under one condition,
you have attraction, as if it were gravity like. And
this is a possible and realistic physical
understanding of our gravity. If all particles
resulted in a slight increase in the over-all
dispersion of the ether, then all particles would
attract each other.
There is one problem with this gravity approach.
When you have both attractive and repulsive forces
present, where one increases the dispersion, and one
decreases the dispersion, they could add together in
such a way that there are no long term changes in the
over-all dispersion of the ether. So such a system
could exist in the reality that we see or assume.
But if you had a system where a change in
dispersion was produced in only one direction, where
it only increased, then there would not be a long
term stability to this, and changes in time could be
expected. Therefore, gravity needs more attention
from us if we were to directly accept this approach.
However, this approach can easily be adjusted to give
us the stability that is needed.
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
+ Remove 3 dots for e-mail.
P.S. I did not double check every statement here.
It really is possible that I have reversed the
directions, or done some other foolish thing. But
I am sure that what is being said here is at least
close enough to be understandable!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Physical Ether!
- From: shevek
- Re: The Physical Ether!
- From: Pekka Virtanen
- Re: The Physical Ether!
- From: Bilge
- Re: The Physical Ether!
- From: David Cross
- Re: The Physical Ether!
- From: Traveler
- Re: The Physical Ether!
- Prev by Date: Re: Dirk, do these comments of Ken S. Tucker's count as Fumbles?
- Next by Date: Re: Examining Einstein's 1920 paper
- Previous by thread: About Tachyons --why do we face a situation where we need to worry abt them?
- Next by thread: Re: The Physical Ether!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
