Re: The Mechanics of an invisible ether.
- From: "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 16 Oct 2006 15:20:52 -0700
"RP" <no_mail_no_s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
PD wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:. . . . .
The Mechanics of an invisible ether.
(A mechanical system that allows particles to
physically freely move through it, exactly like the
ether appears to do!)
O'Barr comments (And the same as photons?):
**************************************
The Ether Background!
The ether is nothing but mass particles that are
constantly colliding with each other, much like atoms
of a gas. But there is a great difference. When
atoms collide, they just bounce off of each other,
with zero change in their mass. But in the ether,
all ether particles spall in all their collisions,
and the spall is such that it appears as if the
smaller particle (which is the ether particle) just
goes through the larger particle. Thus, in the ether
system, all you appear to have is ether particles
that are just continuously moving in a fixed
direction, with an effective infinite mean free path.
When you have a system, such as atoms, where every
particle bounces off of every other particle, then
you have drag. In fact, even in any one hit with a
bounce, you can redirect up to twice the momentum of
a smaller particle upon the larger colliding
particle. But where spalls exist, and the spall is a
perfect spall, there is no momentum at all that can
be transferred. Zero momentum transferred means zero
drag.
Now under these conditions, where the spall
exactly equals the mass of the original particle
causing the spall, there are no changes in either the
particle being hit, or in the one that was causing
the hit. They both appear to continue on, with no
change.
It is at this point that we introduce the final
situation where the appearance of forces can begin:
The spalls are not always perfect. In each
collision, a slight error can occur. Let us assume
that these errors, these slight imperfections of the
mass being spalled, is described by the variable d.
What are the rules about this variable d? They
are important. If you have an error in the amount of
mass that is spalled, this means that the object that
was hit would see a change in its mass equal to this
error. So if we are going to have a stable world, we
must assume that over time, the average d is zero.
But it can vary from plus d to minus d. As long as
the +d's remain reasonably equal to the -d's for any
one body, then the mass of that object will, over
time, remain constant. It might jump around a little
(much like QM requires), but it can be considered to
be a stable body, under these conditions.
We will consider that d is much smaller than the
actual mass of any body involved.
Now just to open up the discussion just a little,
let us assume that the normal ether, when there are
no other larger particles around, has a normal
dispersion of errors equal to +2 to -2d. When you
have one type of large particle around, it causes the
average dispersion to jump to +3d to -3d's. And for
another particle, you see the average dispersion
reduce to just +1 to -1 d's. When you have such a
situation, you will see a gradient of d's in the
ether. And this gradient will be a 1/r^2 type of
gradient. This gradient can be different than 1/r^2
if you want to make a mean free path interaction that
causes the d's to change.
Now in a QM sense, the +d's are positive mass, the
negative d's are anti mass. And we now see why
they must be exactly opposite and equal to each
other! This QM definition can
be considered if all you see are just the d's. But
of course, we know that these d's are not self
existing particles. They are part of the ether
particles. And the +d and the -d's are just small
excess or decrease in the normal size of these ether
particles.
Therefore, if you ignore the ether particles, and
only science the d's and their equal and opposite
anti d's, then we have QM, and the forces that can
appear in QM. Please note: when these d's are being
'carried' by ether particles, their interaction
parameters are slightly different than if they were
actually free particles. Some of you people should
be interested in this, especially if you have
previously tried to find Newtonian type of
explanations for QM math, such as . . . .
(Isn't it nice to find a missing parameter of 2?)
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
Remove 3 dots for e-mail.
.
- References:
- The Mechanics of an invisible ether.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: The Mechanics of an invisible ether.
- From: PD
- Re: The Mechanics of an invisible ether.
- From: RP
- The Mechanics of an invisible ether.
- Prev by Date: Re: Can inverse gravity waves cancel out Earth's gravity in selected areas?
- Next by Date: Re: Misinterpretation of the radial parameter in the Schwarzschild solution - a response from Stephen Crothers.
- Previous by thread: Re: The Mechanics of an invisible ether.
- Next by thread: Re: The Mechanics of an invisible ether.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
