O'Barr 30Jan06: The Ether
- From: "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Jan 2006 15:52:44 -0800
O'Barr 30Jan06: The Ether
At many different times I have presented the at
theory, which is an aether theory. There have never
been any changes in this theory. It is too simple to
have any changes. But I do try to describe it from
different points of views just in case one way might
be more understandable to some than another way.
Let the ether consist of a system of particles
freely moving in space, with the only interactions
being collisions with themselves or other particles.
The collisions with these particles are unique in
that they never bounce off of each other. When they
hit, they spall. The spall basically duplicates the
smaller particle in the hit, and to the degree that
the mass of the spall perfectly duplicates the
smaller particle in its mass, then the collision is
the same as if no collision occurred. There are no
changes in the direction or momentum or energy of
either of the particles involved. Therefore, this
system of particles is present, can have a large
amount of mass, energy and momentum, and yet appears
not to be there as far as any physical effects might
be considered.
Now obviously, you cannot have an ether and have
no physical effects. But any effect needed in this
ether theory is able to be selectively achieved, to
the degree needed,
AND ONLY TO THE DEGREE NEEDED
by having the mass of the spalls
to be slightly different than perfect. And so the
theory consists of setting rules for the spalls to be
experienced. And any stable body, if it experiences
spalls, must keep the mass of the spalls to be within
some equality with the mass hitting it, so that its
own average mass remains constant with time.
If we can find rules for spalls that makes the
average mass a constant, and yet has other variances,
we might have an interesting system. And this is
exactly what we are able to do.
Now this simple system is most interesting, in
that we have a system of particles where there is a
constant exchange of mass going on between all the
interacting particles, and thus the mass of any one
particle is showing a constant jumping around, yet
they all maintain a reasonable constant average. And
with these exchanges of masses, we do find that there
are the appearance of forces between these particles.
Up to here, it is mainly talk. But we can make it
more easier to put math to it if we state the
following: Let this system of ether particles
consist of E particles, of mass E. Then let E + m
represent ether particles that are above average in
mass, and E - m represent ether particles that are
below average in mass.
We have: E + m
E
And E - m
Or
We have: E + k(1)*m
E + k(2)*m
And E + k(3)*m
This means that the ether represents three
classes of particles, having k(i) of 1, 0, and -1.
In a QM way, we could say we have a system of
particles that are positive mass, zero mass, and
negative mass, or a particle, anti-particle system.
In this way, the E particles (mathematically) are not
even important. They might show up in some constant,
but the system of m's will establish for us the
forces that will be equal and opposite, etc.
For those of you who have any insights, we have
just bridged Newtonian physics with QM. And with the
physical being in control, then the positive mass
particle must be exactly equal with the anti mass
particle, and any production of one has to have the
equal production of the other, under all stable
conditions. These rules are fixed.
At this point we place particles within this
system to act upon the ether particles. Again, for
these to be stable particles, undergoing spalls with
the ether particles, they must produce spalls that
average the same mass as the ether particles with
which it is colliding. We will use two different
particles, A and B. We will let A produce only E
particles (particles with k = zero.) If the average
mass of the ether particles hitting A is E, then the
producing of all E particle spalls will maintain a
constant mass for A. And with B, we will let it
produce an equal amount of E - m and E + m type
particles. And if these are equal in number, then B
will be stable in size.
If we do this, we will find that around these A
and B particles, there will be gradients of (+m)
and (-m) particles. Thus we now have a very
interesting system of particles representing the
ether, and we also know the nature of the gradient
that can exist in this ether. Now all we need to
know is if such a system can create the appearance of
force fields. Again, the answer is yes. Computer
tests have shown that such a system produces the
appearance of forces.
Now everything done up to here is extremely
simple, and anyone can test it to see if what I say
is correct. But it seems as if no one cares. This
means that I am on the wrong net, or I am not making
myself clear on what is going on. Are there any
suggestions from anyone here?
The above system is capable of producing for us
the appearance of attractive and repulsive forces
between these A and B particles. These forces, once
full equilibrium is established between the mix in
the ether with the mix being produced by all the
particles in the system, will be equal and opposite.
If we want to add an addition force system to this
set of repulsive and attractive forces (such as
gravity), this can be done very simply. As we look
at what we are doing, we are changing the dispersion
of the ether, by having the number of m's either
decrease or increase in numbers. We can also change
the dispersion by have the value of m change (have it
increase by a slight amount.)
Thus, to get a second set of forces, we can add a
very small mass, a, to m, and use these a's to
increase the dispersion. If we let all interactions
with both A and B result in an increase of one 'a',
we will then have an ether system as follows:
E + (m + na)
E +/- na
E - (m + na)
where n represent the number of interactions that
have occurred (increases by one with each
interaction), and where a<<m, and n is not too large.
If a is small enough compared to m, we will have
the appearance of gravity (attraction) between all
particles doing this. In order to have a long term
stability in this gravity force, then we could
require the interactions between ether particles to
be the method to slowly bring these m + na's back to
m. That is, reduce n back to zero.
And this approach has been presented before.
Again, there seemed to be no one interested in any of
these approaches. Again and again, what is wrong
with you people, you do not care about such
things? We have some very interesting things being
presented, and no one seems interested. Is it you do
not believe me? It is easy to check all this out.
Why not do it?
Thanks for reading.
Gerald.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: O'Barr 30Jan06: The Ether
- From: Hexenmeister
- Re: O'Barr 30Jan06: The Ether
- Prev by Date: Re: Why TWLS=OWLS=c in any ONE Frame.
- Next by Date: Re: Eistein did not write any theory of gravity
- Previous by thread: Re: Conflicting truths in time dilation aka time dilation debunking 101..
- Next by thread: Re: O'Barr 30Jan06: The Ether
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
