Re: Acceleration


vern@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> shevek wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > You asked about what experiments could be done to discern between these
> > two similar aether models of SR acceleration / variable mass effects.
> > One thing that comes to mind is measurments of the ability of high
> > energy particles to retain that energy. If you are right that there is
> > a force provided by the aether on a moving body, the kinetic energy (of
> > a mass) shouldn't be conserved. The existence of high energy
> > (gamma>>1) cosmic rays reaching Earth suggests that particles have not
> > lost their energy despite their fast motion through the aether.
> > However, a mesurement of particle flux near the source as well would
> > make this even better experimental evidence.
>
> I've looked at the standard NASA sites, etc. concerning cosmic rays.

There's a lot of interesting questions about cosmic rays. The power
law of cosmic ray fluxes across 15 or 20 orders of magnitude is
remarkable, and may be due to the fact that 1st order Fermi
acceleration at shocks is responsible for accelerating the particles.
However, the "knee" in the spectrum is unexplained as far as I know.
Also, the presence of cosmic rays at 10^20 eV shouldn't be possible -
because these should lose energy via coupling to CMBR - however they
are observed. We're talking ridiculous amounts of energy here..
gamma>>>1.

> With an aether perspective (at least the one that makes sense to me),
> particles don't have their own energy, at least no energy which would
> make them move in a vacuum.

The particles are given energy by some acceleration mechanism, i.e.
forces. An object in motion with respect to you has energy with
respect to you. The question is whether an object loses energy (in
aether rest frame) due to it's motion w.r.t. the ether. I say it
doesn't, you are saying it might?

> But, rather, particles can be considered
> aether sinks with circulatory flows. With that perspective, particles
> can only be moved by the influence of other aether sinks (gravity is
> the example you gave). Magnetic fields are another example of
> circulatory aether flows. Charge is only the ability of the
> circulatory system to couple with other systems (dipoles).


I know you like the aether sink idea, but where does the aether go? It
doesn't make sense to me. I see a particle like an electron analagous
to a hurricane.. it isn't a "sink" of air, rather a stable low or high
pressure disturbance. Do you think aethrons are destroyed somehow in a
particle? A charge is a divergence of electric field, a monopole
rather than a dipole (unless you have two opposite charges close
together).


> Photons are
> unnecessary from the aether perspective and light is modeled as a
> periodical compression pulse in the aether which causes the quantum
> effect.
>

A compressional wave is longitudinal and not transverse. This doesn't
model light well at all. THat's the reason some people moved to
quasi-solid models of the aether, to allow transverse stress/strain
waves. If you allow aethrons to have spin, you can model light as a
spin wave through the fluid medium. Such waves are transverse and can
be polarized, and do not a compressive medium. We needn't consider
photons until we are talking about high frequencies (ultraviolet
catastrophe) and emissions by electrons in atoms.


> I think there are a number of possible explanations for the cosmic rays
> from an aether perspective without giving up the concept of aether
> resistance in relativistic velocities. One possibility is that there
> is another accelerating source, such as a magnetic field.
>

Very true. It could also be that these high energy particles had even
more energy when they began their journey, and lost a lot due to your
resistance effect. However, I've seen no evidence of that. Another
place to look might be in solar energetic particles from flares.
Comparing the spectra observed at different heliocentric radii (e.g.
Voyager and SOHO specs) might tell you whether high energy particles
are slowed as they traverse the vacuum.

I imagine this has been done (there must be an upper bound on energy
loss in vacuum), but it doesn't look like anyone has been reading our
conversation who can step in with the answer. I'll report back if I
get a chance to research.

GOod luck - shevk

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Gravity?
    ... >> still capable of carrying EM energy from one point to another, ... > others that the aether is light particles. ... >> molecule that delivers the wave energy to your hand submersed in the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "Evidence of the Existence of the Aether"
    ... This seems surprising because, if the Aether made ... Explosion = energy, Void turbulance = insulation ... B:- The velocity of light in free space is determined by the dielectric ... particles from high energy photons, he finds that Dirac had to invent a "sea ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "Evidence of the Existence of the Aether"
    ... persistently point to the existence of an "aether", ... Similarly, the velocity of sound in a steel rod is determined, using ... particles from high energy photons, he finds that Dirac had to invent a "sea ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: "Evidence of the Existence of the Aether"
    ... This seems surprising because, if the Aether made ... Similarly, the velocity of sound in a steel rod is determined, using ... particles from high energy photons, he finds that Dirac had to invent a "sea ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "Evidence of the Existence of the Aether"
    ... butts from where the Aether had jumped up and bit them. ... B:- The velocity of light in free space is determined by the dielectric ... particles from high energy photons, he finds that Dirac had to invent a "sea ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)