Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"

shevek4_at_yahoo.com
Date: 02/19/05 

Date: 18 Feb 2005 20:57:46 -0800

globarr@yahoo.com wrote:
> In <1108690295.736779.117170@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> Shevek <shevek4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Shevek <shevek4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > O'Barr wrote:
>
> Shevek wrote:
> >?? Not sure what you mean by that.. light is an
> >electromagnetic wave, and E and B are properties of
> >kinetic space - hence light is a wave in space-time.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Let me tell you what it takes to have a wave: You
> must have force fields where energy can have a two-
> way exchange between a dynamic and a static form of
> the energy. At the very lowest level of our reality,
> particles do not have force fields. The only
> characteristics they have is mass and, of course, the
> amount of mass, and how fast it is moving, and the
> direction it is moving, etc.

Well I think we have found some points to disagree on finally. Your
definition of a wave is far too constraining. For example, a sound
wave does not require collisions between molecules or force fields. To
quote G.B. Whitham (linear and nonlinear waves) -
".. a wave is any recognizable signal that is transferred from one part
of the medium to another with a recognizable velocity of propagation"

Also, I would say that mass is a bulk property of space-time (ether)
atoms.. in other words these atoms themselves do not have individual
mass, rather mass density is related to the bulk properties of these
atoms. Mass is a macroscopic property.

> There are no gravity
> forces, no electrical forces, no weak or strong
> forces, etc., etc., etc. So on the ether level, at
> least the ether level that is at the very base of our
> reality, there are no waves within the ether itself.

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow you. Sure, those forces don't exist
between the atoms which make up the ether.. but that doesn't make them
any less real as forces from the macroscopic viewpoint. Also, there
are likely other forces that exist between the constituents of the
ether - yet to be explored by us as they only operate at scales below
the planck length.

> Now it is possible, at any one point in the ether,
> there might be 'waves' (concentrations) of different
> species of ether particles going by in cycles with
> some kind of a time base. This often happens when
> you are close to a large mass. But some of these
> cycles do not extend a great distance, since some of
> them are subject to dispersion, and these quickly
> average out to a null effect.

I'm not sure about a need for different species of ether particles,
though it has been suggested by e.g. F. Winterburg. I'm not sure about
your fluctuations near a mass either.. are you talking about gravity?
Blackbody radiation? Electric field?

> And you might have particles going through the
> ether that might be moving in some kind of a wave
> like motion (undulations like a snake), or mass
> oscillations (reflecting certain changes in its
> characteristics on a cyclic basis), or spinning in a
> special way. I believe that a photon has a special
> motion due to its manor of locomotion. But any wave
> seen is not a creation of the ether itself, behaving
> as if ether particles were within some kind of a
> joint response with each other. This does make for a
> very strange situation, but we can handle it! To say
> it again, waving is not so much a basic action of the
> ether, as it is of the particles themselves that are
> moving through it.

Particles.. are you talking about ether particles, or macroscopic
particles like leptons? Just as a hurricane moves through the air, an
electron moves through the ether. But what is the hurricane, but just
air. Similarly, the electron is really just a disturbance in
space-time.

> Now my exploration in this area certainly has not
> been complete. But so far, this seems to be what I
> have observed. Certainly, Lorentz imagined there
> were electrons throughout space, and such things
> could be, and could result in waves just as you said.
> Our world could be many things. But such a
> construction to allow this would have to be, itself,
> based upon the ether as I have described it. There
> are a few hard points that cannot be shifted around.
>
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Sorry! All clocks are the same in terms of the
> time they keep, if they are a proper clock.

And by proper, you mean.. based on the cesium second?

> Many
> clocks are more accurate than others, but the physics
> of LET (SR) is assumed to affect all of them the
> same.

Another example is astronomical clocks, e.g. Earth's rotation. When we
move to the standard of cesium (electromagnetic) clock, we can say that
the Earth's rotation is slowing down. From the standpoint of the
astronomical clock, the cesium atoms are speeding up. The physics of
LET as you described it is based on clocks which tick at a rate
proportional to the pressure tensor of the ether.

>
> O'Barr comments:
> If E&M forces are due to exchanges of photons,
> that do move at c, then many of these effects can be
> seen to be inter-related. Is this what you were
> saying?
>

No. Well, sort of. I disagree that E&M forces are due to exchanges of
photons, pardon me Mr. Feynman. Clearly E&M forces are involved in
synchrotron radiation for example.. but no photons are involved! Put
an alternating current through an antenna to generate radio waves.. how
are photons involved? They aren't. Anyway, I have yet to hear a good
description of how an electron and positron can attract each other by
exchanging a photon - not to mention the absurdity of a free electron
emitting quantized radiation.

Photons are the wavepackets of radiation emitted and absorbed by
electrons trapped in molecules. E&M forces are due to pressure and
flow of space-time constituents.

> I have appreciated your many good posts.

Likewise! Any references I should be looking at?

Cheers - good evening -

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"
    ... > Let me tell you what it takes to have a wave: ... > characteristics they have is mass and, of course, the ... I would say that mass is a bulk property of space-time (ether) ... electron moves through the ether. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"
    ... > Let me tell you what it takes to have a wave: ... > characteristics they have is mass and, of course, the ... I would say that mass is a bulk property of space-time (ether) ... electron moves through the ether. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"
    ... > Let me tell you what it takes to have a wave: ... > characteristics they have is mass and, of course, the ... I would say that mass is a bulk property of space-time (ether) ... electron moves through the ether. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Geometrical interpretation of c^2
    ... that don't run such as the true mass and charge of electron in natural ... An electron is said to get its -1 charge from its spin being counter ... If we start with a circular polarized wave moving ... it will be spinning along the y and z axis ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: SRs velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?
    ... Vergon: ... First of all the phase wave is unmodulated. ... It's mass and energy conservation. ... transferred to the electron. ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast