Re: Acceleration
- From: vern@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 2 Sep 2005 13:09:39 -0700
shevek wrote:
> vern@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
[...]
> > 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?
The formula for consumption matches Newton's Law of Gravitation.
F(gravity) = G(M/R^2) (1)
F(sink) = K'(Q/R^2) (2)
Where G is the Gravitational Constant, K' is the sink-vortex constant
and Q is the rate of consumption of mass or the total number of
aethrons consumed by the sink per unit time.
There is also a circulatory pattern, so not all of the aethrons are
being consumed.
> 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.
Kinematically, doesn't it have to either be a circular-vortex or a
sink-vortex? The sink-vortex provides the forces for elliptical
orbits, gravity, the release of energy in quanta and angular momentum;
circular-vortices don't.
> Do you think aethrons are destroyed somehow in a
> particle?
If the consumption is on a big enough scale (as in planets) then it
adds to the mass. I guess we need to play with the formula for
consumption to get an idea of what it would mean for, say, an atom.
> A charge is a divergence of electric field, a monopole
> rather than a dipole (unless you have two opposite charges close
> together).
But in an aether vortex model, the field is the vortex, so charge is
just the influence the medium has on a mass particle. Negative charge
is a sink and positive charge is a source.
> > 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.
Using an elastic medium model a wave appears to be longitudinal motion,
but using a fluid-dynamic model a wave can be cause by nothing more
than a source. The disturbance is propagated in spherical fashion and
has both longitudinal and transverse momentum, in fact, a force in
every direction except backwards. There is no dependency on the
elasticity of the medium, it's just particles bouncing off of
particles with the average collision-free distance between collisions
of the particles longer in the opposite direction from the disturbance.
If polarization is re-examined using this model, it can be explained.
An attempt was made to polarize sound waves with some success back in
the 1800's. The difference is that you don't have the interaction
of the wave with the polarizer, so the technique involved reflecting
the waves in different directions.
[...]
Vern
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Acceleration
- From: shevek
- Re: Acceleration
- References:
- Re: Acceleration
- From: vern
- Re: Acceleration
- From: shevek
- Re: Acceleration
- Prev by Date: Re: twin clock problem - SR experts help!
- Next by Date: Re: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
- Previous by thread: Re: Acceleration
- Next by thread: Re: Acceleration
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
