Re: Acceleration


vern@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> shevek wrote:
> > vern@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > > There is also a circulatory pattern, so not all of the aethrons are
> > > being consumed.
> > >
> >
> > You didn't answer my question: where are they going?
> >
> > Do these aethrons appear somewhere else via a wormhole or something?
>
> The circulatory pattern looks like that of a dipole. The Earth's
> magnetic field or the magnetic field of a magnet gives the general
> shape of the circulatory flow. The term used in the Aethro-Kinematics
> book is a donut vortex.

OK, no need for a "sink" then in the case of a magnetic dipole..

> The aether is like an ideal gas or a
> superfluid. The particles themselves are simply oscillating from
> random collisions with longer collision free distances towards the
> sink, which is in the center of the mass around which the circulatory
> pattern forms (actually, that's not totally true because it's a
> sink-vortex so the longer collision free distance is both towards the
> sink and in the direction of the spiral). Over time there would be
> some condensation or consumption of the particles accumulating at the
> core in larger masses such as the Earth which will cause the matter to
> enlarge over long periods of time,

eh? let's stick to the topic. I'm not sure what "matter enlargement"
might mean, if you are saying a meter stick grows in size then you are
addressing a philisophical argument known as "nocturnal doubling"..
such an effect might be forever unobservable to us and therefore not
worth discussing.


> but the circulatory pattern
> predominates and in smaller masses (atoms, for instance), the
> circulatory pattern is all that needs to be considered. The flow is
> into the core in every direction, however, what results is a
> circulation where the flow comes back out of the center of the mass in
> linear fashion in one direction (say north/south) and then recirculates
> to the other pole.

Ok, well then the flow isn't into the core in -every- direction, is it.
If the particles come back out it isn't a true sink, at least the way
I understand the meaning of "sink".

I'm aware there's a paper archived on that topic in AK group as well,
but sorry I don't know much about it.

> This causes the mass to rotate perpendicularly to
> the flow through the center (east/west). Can this type of flow
> simulate gravity? It seems there would be minor fluxuations at the
> poles due to the circulatory pattern. That is true for a magnet though
> as there is a definite circulatory pattern, but the magnetic field is
> still fairly consistent, e.g. the field strength is still the same at
> the poles even through a circulatory flow is apparent.
>

I think you're getting ahead of yourself here. Masses have not been
observed to receive torques in the absence of external forces, afaik.

>
> The mass of each aethron is negligible; assumed to much less than the
> average collision-free distance between collisions, which is estimated
> to be 6 x 10^-15 cm.
>

?? First of all, negligible is very different from zero, especially
when you have on the the order of 10^100 per cubic cm. Second, a
distance is not a unit of mass. Third, your mean free path seems way
too big to me. 10^-15cm is absolutely enormous on the scale of
space-time atoms, which are closer to the Planck length, 1.5*10^-33 cm.



> >
> > The continuity equation is the very basis of fluid mechanics, I
> > wouldn't abandon it until we absolutely have to.
>
> Interestingly enough, Newton refuted Descartes' solar vortex theory
> based on the mathematics of a circular vortex, while the properties of
> a sink-vortex were not considered. In an ideal gas there would be no
> reason for a circular vortex to form, but a sink-vortex would be a more
> likely evolution.
>

?? If you are talking about a sink vortex in a fluid, you need a
mechanism for the sink. For example, your sinks have drains.

> >
> > Do you envision the aethrons going into an electron then and instantly
> > emerging elsewhere from a positron? And why that choice of sink/source
> > and not its converse?
>
> An electron may be a single donut vortex or it may be a number of donut
> vortices coupled together. Even coupled together, the basic formation
> is that of a larger donut vortex. Again, the individual aethrons are
> just oscillating with a different collision-free distance in relation
> to the sink at the center of the donut vortex.

Wait a minute.. a donut vortex is a sink? I'm not following..

[...]
>
> > Particle collisions are not required for waves to propagate in a
> > fluid!! Remarkably, they play almost no role in affecting e.g. sounds
> > travelling through the air, despite the small mean free path.
> >
> > Also, a fluid-dynamic model with point particles does not support
> > transverse waves. The addition of further degrees of freedom in the
> > particles (such as spin) will also allow transverse waves.
>
> Then how does a wave travel through an ideal gas? There is nothing but
> particle collisions. I seem to remember a paper by Marmanis which
> modeled Maxwell's equations in an ideal gas, including transverse
> waves.
>

The wave travels solely due to the fact that a particle in motion
remains in motion. If you add some motion in one area, the particles
move away from the area and the region with extra motion spreads out
like a wave.

More formally, sound waves can be derived from Boltzmann's equation for
the evolution of a fluid, assuming no collisions. See e.g. Landau &
Lifshitz 's Fluid Mechanics.

Marmanis' work didn't include effects of collisions afaik.

Didn't we discuss this before here?

> >
> > I guess it depends on your definition. If by "sound" you mean only
> > fluctuations of scalar pressure, then there's no room for polarization.
> > If you consider specific rotation or vibration states of the
> > molecules, then you could probably observe some kind of polarization.
>
> The sound waves were made by a drum and were transmitted through an
> inert gas through pipes and reflected at different angles. The article
> is archived in the Aethro-Kinematics (yahoogroup) group.
>

Thanks Vern, I'll take another look at it one of these days.

.