129 lines
7.0 KiB
Plaintext
129 lines
7.0 KiB
Plaintext
|
______________________________________________________________________________
|
||
|
|
| File Name : AETHER02.ASC | Online Date : 09/09/95 |
|
||
|
|
| Contributed by : InterNet | Dir Category : ENERGY |
|
||
|
|
| From : KeelyNet BBS | DataLine : (214) 324-3501 |
|
||
|
|
| KeelyNet * PO BOX 870716 * Mesquite, Texas * USA * 75187 |
|
||
|
|
| A FREE Alternative Sciences BBS sponsored by Vanguard Sciences |
|
||
|
|
| InterNet email keelynet@ix.netcom.com (Jerry Decker) |
|
||
|
|
| Files also available at Bill Beaty's http://www.eskimo.com/~billb |
|
||
|
|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
||
|
|
The following file is from an InterNet USENET response in the alt.sci.physics.
|
||
|
|
new-theories section. It provides an interesting exchange on the properties
|
||
|
|
of the aether as being a solid mass yet laced with interstices where rhombic
|
||
|
|
dodecahedrons, tetrahedrons and other geometries connect.
|
||
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
|
From: rt@iprolink.co.nz (Ray Tomes)
|
||
|
|
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
|
||
|
|
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 1995 11:22:17 GMT
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
genegdman@aol.com (GeneGdman) wrote:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
>rt@iprolink.co.nz (Ray Tomes)wrote:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
>>Gene, I agree with you that an ether must have mechanical and/or
|
||
|
|
>>kinematic properties. However these properties are not the normal
|
||
|
|
>>mechanical and kinematic properties of other objects. By this I mean
|
||
|
|
>>that if the ether was made of little particles, then they would have
|
||
|
|
>>velocity and a sort of temperature (variance in velocities) but these
|
||
|
|
>>properties would not correspond directly to any observed temperature.
|
||
|
|
>>In fact, in such a case, the ether temperature would very likely be low
|
||
|
|
>>where our observed temperatures are high.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
>Ray, as you probably already know, my own concept of the ether is that it
|
||
|
|
>is continuous except for discontinuities at the center of protons (and the
|
||
|
|
>interior of black holes). I have had difficulty getting a number of
|
||
|
|
>people to form the concept of an ether that has no subdivisions. No
|
||
|
|
>matter how many times I try to explain what continuous means, they keep
|
||
|
|
>insisting my ether must be composed of particles. It seems that the ether
|
||
|
|
>you describe above is not a space subdivided into particles, but an
|
||
|
|
>otherwise empty space that contains a few particles per unit volume as
|
||
|
|
>would a gas.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Gene, although at one time I did think that a particle model would work
|
||
|
|
for the ether, I now agree with you that a continuous solid ether is the
|
||
|
|
preferred model. My "If the ether was particles" was only to show that
|
||
|
|
this would clearly have kinematic properties.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
>The discussions of "background radiation" have caused me to think a lot
|
||
|
|
>more about the possibility that the ether may be subdivided. I still do
|
||
|
|
>not think so, but even if it is, I can't believe the subdivisions are not
|
||
|
|
>contiguous. That there are interstices. If these contiguous subdivisions
|
||
|
|
>were elastic rather than rigid, then all of the subdivisions would not
|
||
|
|
>have to be simultaneously in the exactly the same state of motion. This
|
||
|
|
>kind of ether would behave exactly like a continuous elastic solid but I
|
||
|
|
>can't figure out what shape the subdivisions could be. It seems likely
|
||
|
|
>they would be identical, but if so, cubes or tetrahedrons are the only
|
||
|
|
>regular shapes I can think of that will even form a solid with no
|
||
|
|
>interstices.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Rhombic Dodecahedrons can pack space and are the nearest to spheres.
|
||
|
|
For this reason I believe that standing waves which are nearly
|
||
|
|
spherical can pack in that way also. Buckminster Fuller worked
|
||
|
|
with tetrahedrons but his writing is very difficult to understand.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
>The only reason I can think of for subdividing is that it
|
||
|
|
>may facilitate the mathematical treatment. It hasn't for me, but thinking
|
||
|
|
>about it has made me understand a lot more about mathematics than I did as
|
||
|
|
>a student.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
>I wonder what you meant by the statement that our observed temperatures
|
||
|
|
>are high. How are you defining heat? How do other people define it?
|
||
|
|
>What do you mean by the word temperature? What do others mean? How are
|
||
|
|
>we doing the observing?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Temperature is simply a measurement of the variance of particle
|
||
|
|
velocities in a small region. Except for em waves (see below).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
>What do you suppose the folks that say there is a "background microwave
|
||
|
|
>radiation" mean by the word radiation? What do they use for a detector?
|
||
|
|
>Is it something that has a flat bandwidth over the microwave spectrum only
|
||
|
|
>and cuts off sharply above and below?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The CMBR is electromagnetic waves mainly in the 1mm to 1cm range.
|
||
|
|
The power in the spectrum has now been accurately determined over a
|
||
|
|
wide range (it was previously limited by the earth's atmosphere).
|
||
|
|
I don't know how the detectors work.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
>Does it detect waves that are not
|
||
|
|
>in motion with respect to it? If so, how does it do this? Or is it
|
||
|
|
>something that integrates every bit of "electromagnetic" (quote marks
|
||
|
|
>because this term vanishes in my theory) radiation from every source in
|
||
|
|
>the universe, that impinges on some form of detector? Even if it was
|
||
|
|
>restricted to the infrared spectrum, if temperature is in some way
|
||
|
|
>proportional to this radiation, I would expect the temperature to be very
|
||
|
|
>high.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The motion of the source is not the significant factor. The wavelength
|
||
|
|
in our moving frame of reference is. According to the measurements of
|
||
|
|
the imbalance in frequencies of the CMBR in different directions, we are
|
||
|
|
doing 370 km/s relative to it. The temperature of the CMBR is really
|
||
|
|
a measure of the average wavelength, but also defines the wavelength
|
||
|
|
distribution as it is a blackbody radiation. It is low (<3K) because
|
||
|
|
it is the distribution that would result if the radiation was in thermal
|
||
|
|
equilibrium with matter at the same temperature.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
>When the word radiation used in electronics, to me it has always meant a
|
||
|
|
>wave propagating at the speed of light. Is their background microwave
|
||
|
|
>radiation stationary in space? Or is it new dispersive radiation being
|
||
|
|
>continuously generated everywhere that should exhibit interference
|
||
|
|
>patterns?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Yes, at the speed of light. It is standard EM waves.
|
||
|
|
It cannot exhibit interference patterns because it is not coherent and
|
||
|
|
has a uniform distribution of frequencies.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
>Frankly I think the confusion level introduced by thermodynamics and by
|
||
|
|
>Einstein, Bohr and Heisenberg has reached the point that everyone is just
|
||
|
|
>grasping at straws. To think clearly about it at all, you have to ignore
|
||
|
|
>everyone else's conclusions and just use the results of experiments that
|
||
|
|
>do not depend on prior conclusions. I wish they would just tell me what
|
||
|
|
>they actually did and leave all the concluding to me.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
I think that this argument is true of many QM experiments, but not of
|
||
|
|
the CMBR measurements. I would certainly like to see the raw data of
|
||
|
|
the Bell's inequality measurements to test David Elm's theory.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Ray Tomes <rt@iprolink.co.nz>
|
||
|
|
http://www.vive.com/connect/universe/rt-home.htm
|
||
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|