Re: Eotvos.


"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:vmbff.4196$xu.1305@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Dear em:
>
> "em" <nootlanoo@dodiggerdo> wrote in message
> news:437d1de0$0$5712$afc38c87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> message news:fpGef.113$xu.64@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Dear em:
>>>
>>> "em" <nootlanoo@dodiggerdo> wrote in message
>>> news:437aaebe$0$24390$afc38c87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>>> message news:METdf.86$6u6.7@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

> And I don't. I think that if they detected a non-null result, they'd look
> again. Or have someone else do it. Example I offered was "cold fusion".

I don't find that a very comforting example as I suspect it was a deliberate
publici stunt right from the beginning.

One pulled to keep the fraud of fusion alive.

>> So it looks like it produced a null result and actually now
>> flips the other way to now provide yet more evidence
>> confirming the EEP.
>
> "No news" is not an announcement.

Yes, but the obvious silence and the lack of good cheer is a good indicator.
To put out a paper after producing a null result will actually work in the
opposite direction to their original intentions. But this is what good
science is all about.

>>>>>> I think an expanding Aether would overcome all need
>>>>>> to ascribe a need to suppose there exist other
>>>>>> dimensions.
>>>>
>>>>> It would have to be expanding on very large scales, to
>>>>> avoid detection. And any such expansion would not
>>>>> be a Loretnz aether.
>>>>
>>>> If every Aetheric particle in the universe was
>>>> simultaneously expanding at the same rate, in such
>>>> manner that all rulers and units of measure, even the
>>>> wave length of light, would also have to be effected by
>>>> this expansion.
>>>
>>> Not really. The Lorentz aether isn't comprised of
>>> particles. And clocks are it's spawn also.
>>
>> I don't know why you even bought it up. Never said it was.
>
> The Lorentz aether is allowed by experiment. "Aetheric particles" are
> also undetectable, if they are part of the Lorentz aether. Expansion of
> said particles would yield a null net result. Their geometry would either
> be so intrinsic to our own that would could notice *no* difference, or we
> simply wouldn;t notice.

Depends on the relationship of the Aether to that of said matter.

Much to that degree we find the situation we are in, the expansion would be
largely unnoticable except for the effect of the earth expanding an an
inflating sphere giving rise to the ground accelerating in the relative
upward direction at all points on its surface.

>> The aether is still very much a work in progress.
>>
>> Nobody has yet pinned it down.
>
> Amen.

How exciting. In this day and age it is still up for grabs.

GR is essentially a class of Aether theory in so much as the force of
gravity is caused by the very metric of space itself and by no other means.

So when GR came onto the scene the Aether merely revealed yet a new layer of
itself. Space was now being attributed with before unheard of
characteristics.

And in that sense it is still very much an unfathomable mystery where we
have not yet reached the bottom.

>>>> If the propagation of light was indeed mediated by say
>>>> the propagation of a longitudinal vacuum wave
>>>
>>> ... transverse
>>
>> A media such as the Aether would not have the physical
>> properties to even begin to propagate a transversal wave.
>>
>> It would only be physically capable of propagating a
>> longitudinal wave. This would now make a lot of sense
>> when we consider how the likes of a television antenna is actually
>> constructed.
>
> Is this "now" a "not"? Because the antenna is required to pick up both a
> maxima and minima for a signal propagating at c. Remember a receiving
> antenna has to use space to make up for the weak signal.
>
> Look at the broadcast antenna. It *is* a transverse wave.

There is a transverse component in an EM wave as is revealed by the
polarisation of light. No denying it. However I personally suspect it is
associated with a backaction. As with light we have very serious
informational issues to resolve and only the back action will supply a
solution to that problem.

So it stills point to bear that the outgoing wave is a longitudinal vacuum
wave and that satisfies the notion of Schrödinger's wave equations the
collapse of the QWF.

>>>>>> i.e.... like no frame drag or worst still, no
>>>>>> physical space/time curvature to speak of?
>>>>>
>>>>> Already been observed, documented, and
>>>>> published, involving much less money.
>>>>> Relativity and Lorentz aether are two sides
>>>>> of the same coin (a statement I'll no doubt
>>>>> get flack for). They both go down together, so hold on for the
>>>>> results.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I do not think space actually curves either
>>>> as a gyroscope in orbit will well testify.
>>>
>>> No, frame dragging has been detected.
>>
>> I said curvature.
>
> You referred to gravity probe B, which is looking for frame dragging.

So frame dragging has been detected? What does that mean?

Space has a metric?

>> A gyroscope in obit will not change the orientation
>> of its axis to prove that space is curved. It will
>> remain fixed at what ever it is pointed at.
>
> Other "gyroscopes" have been shown to precess. They *do* change their
> orientation. The results from gravity probe B will simply be icing on the
> cake.

They precess in regards to what? A spinning ball will precess in its obit of
the earth just as the earth precesses around the sun. However its
orientation remains fixed relative to the surrounding star field.

If space was curved then a gyroscope does not seem to lend this notion any
support by following a curvature

>> So the question begging to be answered is what is
>> actually bending?
>
> The belief that a path at a given altitude is separate from the mass's
> state of motion that is creating the altitude.

That only avoided my question. Is space curved or not?

>> And as far as the frame dragging is concerned I
>> will wait until all side have had their chance to speak.
>> I will be patient.
>
> OK, but those results are in. Frame dragging appears to be fact.

Oh... so space has a substance, therefore there exists Aether.

>>>> I am thinking more the geodesic is not caused
>>>> by a physical curvature of space
>>>
>>> ...spaceTIME
>>
>> It is only space taken over time to account for the
>> geodesic. Space is not at all curved in the
>> slightest physical sense to speak of.
>
> "gravitational lensing". Photons have no mass, therefore their path is
> "straight"... locally.

How do you figure 'locally' in this case? Relative to the sun, or a star,
the path takes a bend. Is that not a local event?

>> But the whole metric is under a state of constant acceleration,
>> and to take into account this state of motion it is
>> rather important to be specific and call it spacetime.
>>
>>>> more so the expansion of space itself and the
>>>> earth racing up to met it.
>>>
>>> That fails on so many levels.
>>
>> OTOH there is much standing for it that refuses
>> to be swept aside no matter how hard so many
>> people try.
>
> Oh, you mean like Newton? So Newton must be right, Newton must win in the
> end, because we keep teaching it, and people keep arguing about it
> (refusing to let it be swept aside)?

No. I was referring to the WEP and the EEP, etc.

Let's face it. Weight equals mass. And no one has managed to demonstrate
otherwise.

That is why Al's experiment really would have been of remarkable
significance if he had succeeded

> As I say, "expansion of space" fails on so many levels. Just my opinion,
> of course.

Not so many as you might at first assume. There was actually enough merit to
convince Einstein it was worthy of pursuit and he spent many years of his
life looking in that direction.

He certainly found there was nothing to his satisfaction to actually
discredit the notion that the ground was accelerating in the upwards
direction beneath his feet, rather he gave up in frustration that he was not
able to bring the two aspects of gravitation, the upward acceleration of the
ground (satisfying the Equivalence Principle), together with the deflection
relative to the distant star field of a body in motion towards the centre of
mass.

>> The equivalence principle no matter how hard
>> you knock it... is not going anywhere. As a
>> matter of personal speculation, I think the
>> remaining paradigm could very well shift, that
>> is all merger to be absorbed into a single
>> metric base theory well before the EP collapses.
>>
>> So each to his own and crossing fingers it's
>> resolved in our life time.
>
> Nah, I'm not even in that much of a hurry. I just hope there is
> civilization long enough to find an answer (other than 42, of course).

Oh... I would like to be there. A resolution to one of the greatest question
of physics?

Well, I suppose, everyone to their own.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Aether Displacement II
    ... Aether is displaced by mass. ... displaces the aether that would otherwise be where the matter is. ... photon/particle creates a wave in the aether and the wave always ... Gravity Probe B recently finished a year of gathering science ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Aether Displacement
    ... the particle is either made of aether and enters and exits both slits ... the aether and creates a displacement wave in the aether (i.e. C-60 ... Gravity waves are aether waves. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Aether Displacement
    ... the particle is either made of aether and enters and exits both slits ... the aether and creates a displacement wave in the aether (i.e. C-60 ... Gravity waves are aether waves. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how?
    ... Such verbiage does not rise to the level of explanation for the ... > adopting the perspective of Max Born, that the Schroedinger wave, a.k.a. ... >>> through an aether, multitudinous scenarios arise by which that medium ... > more dismiss a particular variant because some other variant failed than ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Maxwells and Faradays formulations of induction
    ... In accordance with these laws, ... The aether is a separate issue. ... Thus, Newton did not reject the aether as a substance, but he had ... gravity this tensor _does not reduce_ to Delta phi. ...
    (sci.physics)