Re: The Mechanics of an invisible ether.


Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Let me repeat this: When mass is allowed to be
exchanged in a collision interaction, the math for
such a collision is not the same as when each
particle keeps its own mass. In normal mechanics,
the math is linear math. But where there is finite
mass exchanged in the interaction, a square root
function is generally introduced, and a square root
function is a non-linear relationship, and all of a
sudden we have the kind of a relationship where net
forces can appear.

Net forces mean that momentum is not conserved in the collision, so I
don't think you mean that. (third law violation)

Now the most amazing thing is this: The mass that
is exchanged can be the exact amount of mass that
results in one particle becoming the other particle
in terms of its amount of mass. When this happens, I
call it a perfect spall. And when a perfect spall
occurs, it is as if there had been no collision at
all! It is as if each particle just traded places,
and each continued on as if they had not collided.

Here is the way "spalling" is mathematically _identical_ to the
collisions we are so familiar with. Momentum is conserved. But
instead of the exchange of property, you are introducing an exchange of
mass.

I will allow anyone _any_ assumption, provided, the assumption leads to
predictable conformance with the real world we measure. As far as I
can tell, though I think the complexity is some what underestimated, it
is viable, provided, one recognizes the need for resonance and the
conservation of angular momentum as linear progression of a density
would not be possible without it.

Even so, the viability of a concept doesn't make it automatically
acceptable or palatable. Every concept has a value which is
aesthetic, and in as much as the user of any concept will judge its
inherent utility, he will also judge its compatibility to intuition
which is ultimately his aethetical judgement of whether the concept is
pleasing in application and practice.

So I would not argue against "spalling" from the perspective of
viability, rather, from a view which incorporates what I find pleasing
in mathematical construction. Personally, I feel the concept of
spalling unnecessarily complicates a pre-existing concept (conservation
of momentum). In other words, it adds baggage without adding testable
predictions.

The reason the concept is viable as an explanation for the movement of
"bodies" in ether is because there is _no difference_ between the
matter of "bodies" and the matter of ether. In other words, "bodies"
are composed of ether particles. As such, the ether particles are
capable of translating the momentum required to allow movement of the
"body" without resistance. Even so, spalling only adds to the
complexity of what is already a simple concept, "the conserved exchange
of momentum".

Having given some consideration to the concept of ether, I find it
necessary for the ether to possess specific properties if it is to be
viable concept to describe the world we measure. Most important it
must translate angular momentum in a conserved density (to allow the
conserved translation of transverse waves). So to have the qualities
of gas is insufficient. The ether must also have properties of a
solid, which means merely, that ether particles must be relegated a
"place" in which they inhabit, a domain they are imprisoned in.

Personally, I find it intuitive, that the ether particles themselves
would be indivisible possessing the property of elasticity modulus
approaching infinity. Why? Because the same assumptions of objects
with which I am familiar, result in the prediction of more efficient
translation of momentum (more perfect elasticity). I find it
intuitively pleasing, to consider the objects with which I am familiar,
as macrocosms of the objects they are composed of. So I find it
counter-intuitive that momentum can be efficiently conserved by mass
transfers simply because I have no real world experience (confirmation)
with the concept and "macro" objects.

Again, I am merely expressing aesthetical arguments not that they are
without value or have any particular value. Ultimately, when viable
concepts compete, a judgement is eventually exercised and a choice for
the purpose of the conduct of practice is made. This is why,
mainstream physics doesn't consider ether at all.

Phil

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Efficiency of electrodynamic tether reboost
    ... like other commodities on some kind of "momentum exchange" at wall ... The exchange rate will be determined by the ratio of mass ... Something like a space commodities market might also include fuel, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: The Mechanics of an invisible ether.
    ... The Mechanics of an invisible ether. ... When mass is allowed to be ... no one can allow the momentum not to be ... exchange of mass. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Another brick in the wall: Theres no relativistic mass
    ... that the particle being considered is a tardyon. ... define momentum as p = mv. ... Weyl's defintion of mass. ... What you call "Passive gravitational mass" is actually ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.
    ... Notice that this equation tells you that for any particle with a non-zero mass, the momentum gets larger and larger as the speed gets closer to the speed of light. ... Since it would take an infinite amount of force to accelerate a particle to infinite momentum, we are forced to conclude that a massive particle always travels at speeds less than the speed of light. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Efficiency of electrodynamic tether reboost
    ... like other commodities on some kind of "momentum exchange" at wall ... The exchange rate will be determined by the ratio of mass ... people heading up. ...
    (sci.space.policy)