I welcome your support but hesitate to agree with you on the galaxy speed of light concept. Aether runs the show BUT aether is the building block of everything (material) in the universe including the galaxies so indirectly, I would have to agree. Any mass appears to slow down light transmision, therefore, the heirachy of speed as I see it, [based on aether theory] is that diamonds are the slowest transmitters (due to slower internal spin of the aether), then liquids, then air, then our solar system, then intra-Galactic and finally the fastest, inter-Galactic. How's your Shakespeare? This won't add much to your aether concepts but it was fun to write, if you get any spare time check out the missing ACT III Scene IIB of http://webpages.charter.net/deww/antipathy.htm sincerely deweyb
Degree in Bachelor of Special Studies, (AKA no major, just concentrated in Biology, Chemistry, and Psychology), Medical degree I wasn't aware one needed a degree in physics to post one's ideas on this board, I must have missed it in the instruction. (sarcasm) I'm game, I just sort of passed the intro calculus with my high school daughter (after taking it in college a very long time ago), so I could use some math help. (we did manage a A but she took all the tests!!) Just tell me how does light move from the sun to the earth without a carrier at speed 2.997 e10 cm/sec? I would like to see your model? If you don't have one then I believe mine is better until someone shows me one. I will admit it is based on the fact that light is a wave which has particle light characteristics. There is nothing I have read in physics that disagrees with this belief. Light particles? Photons? show me one. The concept works, I don't dispute that but so does the concept that a photon is actually a single angular impulse on a particle of aether as part of the wave front. Electrons are particles and/or waves? Again corrupt concept. Try to accelerate a wave front. I am not aware of anyone doing that. Light (EM energy) moves in waves Try to accelerate electrons. Doable? Everything I have read appears it is possible, therefore electrons are REAL particles, without a doubt (in my mind) Keep in mind the experiment to 'prove' electrons are wavelike was Heisenberg's duel slit experiment done in a vacuum. BUT the vacuum was assumed to be totally empty space. Almost everyone in physics that I have seen recently states vacuum space is not empty but zero point field or in deep space, cold dark matter, not empty. If one shoots bullet in a pool of water, through duel slits, you'll get a wave pattern and a bullet pattern. Heisenburg was shooting bullets (electrons) through aether (which creates waves in the aether) and you get particle patterns and wave patterns. No one has ever gone back to review this in view of the fact the vacuums aren't empty space. Don't get me wrong, I don't argue that quantum theory is not useful, and in fact in most ways, aether theory supports quantum because the aether has a fixed structure and its grainy, but there are big discrepancies in concepts what is a wave vs particle. David Bohm was clear in his position that "particles are indeed particles--and at all time, not just when they are observed." from The End of Science, John Horgan(1996)page 86. Particles like electrons, I would agree, have wave like properties due to their spin charactistics, but they also have a fixed spherical volumes and if push comes to shove, their actual VOLUME is IDENTICAL to an aether sphere. Only the mass quality separates the two. I have not found any documented particle smaller than an electron. Electrons cannot be split, therefore, I believe, electrons and aether spheres are identical size (volume wise) I just haven't be able to locate that size. Mainly because modern physics believes it doesn't exist [as a particle], I disagree and so did Bohm, that's good enough for me. more to come, sadly deweyb ANYONE with a reference of the action VOLUME of an electron, I would love to see that information, according to Kahn in "Design of the Universe" (1954)page 58, the size of a resting electron is a radius of 2.8xe-13 cm. If anyone has other information please let me know, thanks.
Certainly not, many "unqualified" people can talk sense in science... But you should remember that this is the PHYSICS & MATH forum, where there are certain rules to follow, one of which is that what is discussed here is scientific. Why would there be need for a medium ? Because mechanical waves require a medium ? When you see or measure a photon, it gets destroyed in the measurement process. You are looking at photons while reading this. Unfortunately no. You are refering to quantum mechanics here, which very solidly defines what a "particle" really is. Yes ofcourse it was performed in vacuum, otherwise the electrons bounce of the air molecules and you have no experiment at all. Not again the zero point field stuff... There is a huge difference between throwing rocks in water and particle physics. There is no discrepancy. And I doubt you understand what is meant by the quotation actually. ... this makes no sense at all. Bye! Crisp
I don't see why the bending of the rod will break it. If it doesn't break immediately when you apply a force to it, it will never break as the 'wave' moves down the rod. The breaking has to do with the properties of the material. Of course if u keep applying a stronger force to the rod as u turn it then yes it might snap sometime. This experiment can almost be done! Take a look at these figures. Using a very strong aerogel (unfortunately don't know its strength properties), one can make a thin rod 10,000 km long with a mass of only 23 and a half kg! The diameter of the rod would be 1mm and the aerogel density is 3kg/m^3. Assuming of course the rod is rigid enough to support a snapping sideways hand movement then we should be able to see that effect!
If science/physics is based on facts/experimental and measurements, then everything I have stated falls within the realm of physics/math. The aether I proposed is based on speed of light measurement. Light is a wave, waves require medium, Maxwell knew this, he just didn't have the electron yet. Although it may have been answered elsewhere, answer this question and I'll go away. In Einstein's special theory presentation, he states Moving observer sees light B (the light (s)he is moving toward) first and light A later while Stationary observer sees both simultaneously. Nowhere in the analysis is a correction made for the Doppler effect on the moving observer. That correction alone would allow for the Moving observer to calculate back and realize that light B and light A did occur at the same time. Special theory is corrupt (not morally just mathematically). The theory works because it is based on Lorentz-Fitzgerald Experimental data. sincerely deweyb
So photons are not particles, correct? I'll agree with that. It would appear that "photons" disappear because they are angular impulses of what? Of a rotating sphere, when the impulse is transferred, the photon is gone. [the sphere carrier remains- undetectable- we are not at a point where I can explain this, yet, but it's there, just not measurable but knowable because of previous experimental data] Electrons can be measured or tracked through cloud chamber, when you measure them, they often bounce in a different direction or if they collide, they do so in essentially an elastic reaction (energy conservation), therefore electrons are particles, photons are not, they are part of a wave front of angular impulse. [Mostly logic but makes as much sense as any other explanation I have seen and supported by equations for vibrations in an elastic solid fr. A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity - Sir Edmund Whittaker ] deweyb Aether theory is hugely unsettling to physicists because it appears to go against everything that has been taught for the last 100 years. Aether is capable of incorporating most (but not all) of the concepts of General theory and Quantum theory. It is the great masquerader.
Of course you can post here; I never suggested that people should be required to have an advanced degree to post at sciforums. My point is that it's incredibly arrogant of you to think that you understand modern physics after having only read a few pop-science books and web sites. Many people spend 8+ years studying physics intensively (from actual textbooks!) in college and graduate school, but you believe that you have a better understanding of modern physics after having read 'A Brief History of Time' and 'The End of Science'? Please. This only goes to show that you haven't actually read any reputable physics textbooks. Or maybe it has to do with the fact that electrons have rest mass, while photons don’t? You seem to be under the false impression that the Heisenberg experiments are the reason everyone believes that electrons have wave/particle duality. Actually the wave-nature of the electron was first proposed by Louis de Broglie in 1924, who predicted all particles would have a wavelength of h/mv. The first experiments to actually demonstrate this were carried out by George Thomson in the 1930s. There are many, many practical examples that demonstrate the wave nature of electrons. Scanning-tunneling electron microscopes work by taking advantage of the fact that electrons are waves. Semiconductor junctions fail below a certain size because electrons are waves. Computational chemistry acknowledges that electrons are waves and does an excellent job predicting chemical behavior. The list goes on and on…I'd love to hear your explanation for how electron diffraction occurs if electrons are 'just particles'.
Hmmm? Brief History of Time? I don't remember mentioning that on this site, you must have visited my webpage. Very disorganized with some errors. But neat (my opinion) spin graphics http://webpages.charter.net/deww/hcloud.htm but Netscape browser won't work, sorry, you have to use Internet Explorer- I used Frontpage for page building sorry- blame Microsoft for the lack of compatibility]. That was probably the book (Hawking)that set me off. I have looked at few more since then (1997), but they are not listed, including Maxwell's theory, (understood some of it), and Newton's principia,(just shook my head). But aether is simple spin, you don't need the heavy duty stuff starting out. I like to think of my position more of one of confidence, not arrogance. Wheeler (out of Horgan, sorry) notes this idea will most likely have to come from OUTSIDE the field because indoctrination inside most specialties creates a tunnel vision. Not my idea, all I wanted was a carrier of light. I have looked at dozens of web sites (on aether and physics). Virtually all fail to explain speed c. That was the PRIMARY requirement of the aether I propose. IF it couldn't move a wave from point a to point be at speed c, then it would not be acceptable. ALL other theories state it just does. I challenge you to build your own carrier to move a wave at speed c. Step outside the box, and just for 1 day pretend that light is a wave and needs a carrier. Then build your own. This (the one I propose) is the only one that works and meets the criteria of supersymmetry= (has to have spheres), polarization and idler wheel motion(Maxwell) =(opposite spin layers), energy decay at distance squared=(body centered structure has a direct correlation of particle squared is directly proportional to distance squared. Collapse is prevented by opposite spin layers. same spin particles never touch (theoretically speaking, at these spin velocities you can imagine what happens if they do-Atomic bomb is a clue.) So Nasor, are you a true physicist or other specialty in science or math? Oh, I almost forgot your question. Electron diffraction, I don't have a problem with that. What's the question? That it looks like a wave pattern? I must admit if you are a physicist, you have stayed with this idea longer than most, so I commend you on that. If you don't like mine (aether design) Consider my challenge to build your own carrier, and see what you come up with. sincerely deweyb
Wrong, if you take Maxwell's equations (which are of an empirical nature) and combine them, you can see that in the absence of matter or structure, electromagnetic waves can exist. No matter = no medium. You have not done the math then... A theory is never based on data, it is based on a set of theoretical assumptions. A theory can only explain experimental data from within a certain context.
Define electromagnetic wave - what is it? Show me an EM wave without the presence of matter as a source. No one can. Waves require carriers. I have read Einstein's Leyden lecture, it's posted on my website. It is over the edge, aether can't have any physical properties because we don't need it. Well, actually you do. What causes mass? What causes gravity? Newton didn't believe in action at a distance, he believed in an intervening medium, though I agree he wouldn't speculate on the cause. A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity - Sir Edmund Whittaker Whittaker is clear in stating earlier physicists had a clear vibratory definition of light in elastic solid who equations are interchangeable with Maxwell EM equations. Curl is angular momentum changes. Hey, I am not making this up, just reporting what I have read and agree with. EM waves are a different way of describing vibrations in substances and aether. As an aside consider, the equation TKE = 1/2 mv**2 +1/2 Iw**2 Sound is linear compression-expansion or linear impulse TKE is sound(linear) plus what? angular impulse or light TKE = linear impulse x vel + angular impulse x ang vel TKE = sound plus light Not a big a stretch as you may think cheers deweyb I have looked at the math, where is it? There is no Doppler correction factored into the results. deweyb
Hey, Crisp, are you a Belgium living in Belgium or from another country living in Belgium? Just Curious, your English if very good if it is your second language. I am an Iowegian (Iowa, US) living in Minnesota. You will certainly get to see physics in action come. July 3rd. How far from Leige are you? Liège, ville de départ du Tour de France 2004 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Also will be in or near Waterloo, Namur and Charleroi. deweyb
Hrmm, you should take care in not mistaking "source" of waves for "carrier" of waves. Electromagnetic waves, like any waves, require some sort of source yes (there must be an initial "disturbance" to create a wave, even though for EM waves this should not be taken too literally). What causes mass ? The Higgs boson ? What causes gravity ? The curvature of spacetime ? I think Newton believed in action at a distance, because his law of gravity (or his entire set of laws for that matter) describe interactions that are propagated infinitely fast (immediatelly). I can believe this, but that does not make it any simpler. The concept of aether and aetherdrag (why hasn't it been measured) or any other aether theory makes it more difficult. Where does this aether come from ? Why does it act mysteriously to change our measurement devices ? These are all problems you can overcome by one simple assumption, being "the speed of light in vacuum is a constant". This is totally unrelated. You have not defined what I and w are, but if you are using the conventional rotation from classical mechanics, then you wrote down that the total kinetic energy comes from a translational movement (with velocity v) and a rotational movement (with angular frequency w). Where do you see sound and light in this ? That is correct, but the doppler effects will not cancel, just look at the formula for relativistic doppler formula.. You get stuck with a gamma factor (the sqrt-term), so it does not completely cancel out if you were to take the Doppler shift into account. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ... Yes, I am a Belgian living in Belgium. At the moment (where I work) I am at about 80km from Liege, but my parents live at 3 or 4 km of Liege... Waterloo, Namur and Charleroi are actually quite close to where I work (which is in Leuven, near Brussels). Yes, as a Belgian ofcourse I know the Tour de France and the cycling sport in general. This year Armstrong will have even more trouble getting his victory in the Tour de France Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Bye! Crisp
say, are you at the university of leuven? i think i know someone in the classics department there....
Crisp Never say never. This is a big call. The last sentence is definately limited. The success of a theory can lie when it is applied to problem for which it was not originally conceived, or it must converge to some old theory when a particular limit is taken.
FNG2k4, Based on the results of the Michelson-Morley, and other aether detection experiments, I believe that gravitational fields push light to c. The only way I can explain this is by assuming that photons are gravitational dipoles. As the gravitational dipoles of the photons interact with the external gravitational field that the photon is passing through, the external field exerts a force on the photon. A delay between the overlapping of the gravitational fields, and the forces that result from it, is what I believe limits the speed of light to c. So for example, if there was no delay in the gravitational interaction, there would be no upper limit to the speed of light.
Yes, at the institute for theoretical physics... What do you mean by classics department ? I agree - I wanted (and should have) to say much more than just those two sentences Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ... I just wanted to point out that given a set of numbers, some guy in the lab starts thinking "yeah this data means that the sun moves towards the north and the moon towards the south then the aether compresses this way... "... What you usually do is you take an existing theory and try to explain your data from within that theory. If it doesn't work, then you might need to come up with a new explanation for your data... I should have said that data can give you an idea about what might be the underlying mechanism, but I suppose I am yet to see a theory that takes some experimental data for granted and predicts on base of that. So my comment was not really about seperating good theories from bad theories, it was more intended to point out another urban legend about science: experiment and theory are not the same thing Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ... Bye! Crisp
perhaps you call it classical philology? it is the field where you study ancient greek and latin literature. see here
Nice to see that you also know other belgian people than me... Perhaps now you also know that they are not all as evil as me Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
actually, i am of belgian descent, and my surname is belgian. and i'm pretty evil too (don't you think?). so i'm not convinced.
Dear Nasor, here is your answer, I hope it is clear enough for you to grasp this concept, If not please ask me to clarify where you find it confusing. Thanks for the question. I think your key word(s) here are wave nature. Electrons make waves and spin to create waves so these characteristics must be taken into account. Look at a cloud chamber electron trail and convince me that a "wave" will spiral down to a fixed point? So electron diffraction as just particles? Is that possible? I believe so (actually it has to because electron's are spheres.) Theoretically speaking, say you had a room full of billiard balls all the SAME size but suspended like the ether I propose (body centered spheres) Now fire a billiard ball into this "structure" Let's consider 3 results all simultaneous. 1. The primary ball (electron) will plough through and strike your target as a particle point 2. However in moving through the cloud of body-centered balls, the primary will have to force it way through (sort of like driving a car through a puddle) and make a wave in the suspended medium creating wave pattern AND finally but equally important. 3. the primary ball cannot go just anywhere because the medium of body centered spheres act like a diffraction wall and thus the final diffraction pattern are the only allowable paths the primary ball (electron) can take. Electrons are not waves, they make waves in the aether matrix. KEEP in mind I believe the electron is a "rogue" or resonant aether sphere, they are the SAME volume (aether and electron), it is the spin velocity and possibly axial wobble that takes the electron of the aether and prevents it from returning (sometimes) to the aether matrix. sincerely deweyb
