# Collected posts by Paul Stowe at newsgroups.

More:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!search/%22paul$20stowe%22

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/sci.physics.cond-matter/%22paul$20stowe%22

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/alt.sci.physics/%22paul$20stowe%22

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.sci.physics/wmPTLfpNr8w%5B1-25-false%5D

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.sci.physics/M3fKwEjPFdE%5B1-25-false%5D

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/alt.sci.physics/"paul$20stowe"/alt.sci.physics/NYyA0NgLkys/jSsJPpnqQY8J

# April 1997

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.sci.physics.new-theories/lXVYOgFTSEg

> >Ray Tomes <rto...@kcbbs.gen.nz> wrote in article ><33643c1d....@aklobs.org.nz>... >> If you have a point charge however it has a singularity at the centre >> because as r-->0 then 1/r^2-->infinity. Infinities are a curse. > >There might be a way using distribution theory (the Dirac delta function >is the most famous example of a distribution). In certain integrals that >diverge we can take what's called the Hadamard finite part. I won't >get into the theory here because it's too involved and I'm far from an >expert on the subject. Essentially what is done is to remove the part >of the integral that causes the divergence. It may even be possible to >apply this to QFT and remove the divergences without renormalization. >It may further be possible to remove the divergences from quantum gravity. > I might suggest that the problem is one of viewpoint, not physical reality. A classic example of this is the flux equation of a "point" radiation source which is: S Fee = ------ 4piR^2 Of course as R -> 0, Fee go to infinity. But, knowing that all true sources (S) occuy a finite real volume (V), we know that: S = rho V where rho is a source density. Thus volume is some form of xR^3 and for a sphere it is 4piR^3/3. Plugging this in we see: rho[4piR^3] rhoR Fee = ----------- = ------ 12piR^2 3 This then shows us that for any finite source density, as R-> 0 Fee -> 0, not infinity. Same problem, but totally different answers at the limit. The later matchs observations, while the former is a strict mathematical interpetation based on, IMHO an invalid assumption.

In <199704261...@zetnet.co.uk> Lawrence Anthony Jones <la...@zetnet.co.uk> writes: Paul Stowe replied I might suggest that the problem is one of viewpoint, not physical reality. A classic example of this is the flux equation of a "point" radiation source which is: S Fee = ------ 4piR^2 Of course as R -> 0, Fee go to infinity. But, knowing that all true sources (S) occupy a finite real volume (V), we know that: S = rho V where rho is a source density. Thus volume is some form of xR^3 and for a sphere it is 4piR^3/3. Plugging this in we see: rho[4piR^3] rhoR Fee = ----------- = ------ 12piR^2 3 This then shows us that for any finite source density, as R-> 0 Fee -> 0, not infinity. Same problem, but totally different answers at the limit. The later matches observations, while the former is a strict mathematical interpretation based on, IMHO an invalid assumption. Paul Stowe My problem is:'what is a point charge?' Strictly speaking there are no point charges. I think even the most diehard modernist accepts this as a definition. It puzzles me that Maxwell did not seem to ask more questions about the nature of electric charge once he discovered Displacement Current. Why do we always go from charge to current to 'induced voltage?' (whatever that is). Heaviside said:'this shall be reversed' and no longer accepted that a current 'caused' a magnetic field. He regarded the magnetic field as the active side of what he termed Energy Current. I assume that Energy Current in its passive state is what we are all calling the ether (or aether - I understood this little debate a while ago). When one dispenses with the physical medium interpretation of space, there is no way to introduce such things without major hand waving. Modernist do this by replacing the tradition aether medium with a space-time continuum, virtual particles, and zero point energy. They can't deny that, as Maxwell pointed out, space is the seat of real physical energy and observable processes. So, to account for these one has to have an aether, or all of these others. However, my major problem is how one models energy current in a capacitor without resorting to charge and displacement current. For example, if a 'charged' capacitor is connected to an uncharged capacitor, then I cannot fathom how these closed loops of Energy Current would be redistributed to the new capacitor. I often wonder Why so many people seem to believe that static is the same as dynamic. Sorry to have digressed from your original argument. I am just determined to find out what the ether really is. Wave particle duality troubles me so much - if the ether is always being displaced, then I have to assume that it is displaced forever (forever is a closed circular word). But I think everyone should realize that charge does not flow: only currents flow. And currents cannot, in practice, be integrated. A wave is, by definition, temporal. It does not have a beginning nor an end. The words beginning and end are spatial words. Perfect space (if it existed) must be straight and instantaneous. Jason Blood once stated that the ether is space - I think I understood what he meant in this statement. Lawrence Jones A little history of Maxwell's work. Maxwell fully acknowledges that his Treatise's were, of necessity, incomplete (or as he phrased it: "in our current state of ignorance"). He take the classical simplification of assuming an incompressible medium. This is done because it significantly simplifies the resulting derivations, and unless the media departs significantly from its equilibrium density, such compressibility has very little (negligible) impact on the results under consideration. But compressibility does affect the basic properties. Assumption of incompressibility mathematically defines the divergence of field velocity v as: Div v = 0 where v is the media's particulate velocity. A direct consequence of this definition is that waves cannot be created or propagated in such a system (wave speed is infinite). But, as we all know, even though we assume incompressibility, every media (even liquids and solids) are not incompressible. The consequence of this is, for field velocity v: Div v > 0 Thus the momentum field property (p = mv) is Div p > 0 This has measurable physical consequences, and IS A FUNDAMENTAL UNIQUE PROPERTY of the field! Given that divergence is defined as: / dA (A is area) Div = Lim V -> 0 <|> -------- / deltaV and has physical units of inverse distance (meters), Div v become the measure of an oscillation in the velocity field at any point in the continuum. The resulting momentum fluctuation is ... elemental charge, a unique property that is a consequence of the field's compressibility.

and has physical units of inverse distance (meters), Div v become the measure of an oscillation in the velocity field at any point in the continuum. The resulting momentum fluctuation is ... elemental charge, a unique property that is a consequence of the field's compressibility. Later, Paul Stowe Lawrence Jones replied: But in view of the fact that Maxwell did assume that his medium was incompressible, then I don't know how he arrived at the concept of displacement current in the first place, when it would have meant an infinite propagation velocity. No, wave velocity does not directly enter into the specific definitions. A uniform field cannot change with time which is why I say that it is analogous to perfect space. If I calculate the magnetic field at the edge of a capacitor plate that is being slowly discharged, I can either use Bio-savat or Maxwell's 2nd equation: non-uniform Line of dD/dT (mysteriously transforms A into D when it terminates on the A plate) A c -*--*--*--*- P * * * * Lines of D between plate d -*--*--*--*- The radius of the plate is R and the distance of separation is d. The capacitor is slowly discharged at R/2 between c & d. Hence 2piRH= I - I (1 - d/2R) And H=Id/4piR^2 (see Am. J. Phys. (1963): 31, 201) for more discussion I am not a physicist, but in all this ether debate, I keep asking myself what space really is. Why, for example, do we assume that a particle has more physical reality than a wave? I don't, and don't think most physicist do. When I said that space was analogous to D, I said this because I had to try to imply temporal independence. Why? And the only way that I could create perfect space (i.e. convert all my dD/dt into D would be by shorting the capacitor plates together. I would then conclude that space must be a condition of complete fullness. I say this because electric charge is analogous to space. But I run into deep water here because if (say) I had a charged sphere and was able to insert it into a larger sphere and allow it to fall inside the larger sphere, then by Gauss's law the charge on the outside of the large sphere would equal the charge on the little sphere. However, since the little sphere is in motion, then it is, by definition, a conduction current. However inside the sphere, there will be an increasing and a decreasing dE/dt, so a magnetic field will not be detected. We then conclude that electric charge cannot change with time. However since charge is analogous to space I would then conclude that space cannot change with time. This makes sense to me because change cannot be treated in a spatial manner. Change forbids the use of spatial words (begining and end) and exists forever. Forever is a circular word. This is why I say that that Heaviside's energy current must be the true displacement current and this strictly forbids any reference to electric charge. (but I still use it in calculations!!!) Lawrence Jones No, you must understand what the "displacement current" D represents in terms of Maxwell's model. Well what is a current? A current in terms of field properties is the net directional flow of a physical property (such as a thermal current, a river ...etc.). So we should interpret the displacement current to be a measure of the flow of something. As used by Maxwell's equations D is the measure of the electrical charge per unit area I.E.: Q / Coulombs \ D = -------- | ---------| 4piR^2 \ m^2 / of course the better equation is : rho_Q R D = ------------- 3 We find that D is also defined as: D = epsilon E with E being the electric field intensity. However, where is the flow? The answer lies in the definition of charge as Div p, as discussed previously. This give coulombs units of Kg/sec. The "displacement current" then has standard flux units for mass flow (Kg/m^2-sec) and represents the net cross-sectional field flow at the point and time of the evaluation. E (electric field intensity) is the drift velocity of the field at the point of definition. So what is "drift velocity"? The drift velocity is a direct measure of the departure from isotropic, and is the velocity vector resulting from summing all the media particle's velocity vectors at the point of interest. Of course if E is zero, D is also zero. We find that epsilon then becomes a standard density term (kg/m^3). We resolve all of Maxwell's EM units into standard fluid dynamical terminology, which provide a most useful conceptual picture.

# May 1997

Given Maxwell definition of the point form of Gauss's Law, namely: rho = DIV D By its definition, this must be a physical constant. My question is, has it ever been quantified or measured? If so, then this value when divided by elemental charge (e), must yield the definitive volume of the electron and proton. Since I can find no reference to this value I am assuming that it has not. But wouldn't logic dictate that given this definition, and a finite value for e, there can't exist point charges? This would, in turn, make such an assumption of point charges mute? Thanks, Paul Stowe

Bennett - Alpena <cben...@northland.lib.mi.us> writes: > >Wrong on practically all counts. The equation is not a definition, it is >a statement of the value of DIV D, saying simply that the divergence of >the field in a certain volume is equal to the charge contained in that >volume. Last time I checked rho = DIV D was a definition. Let's see, DIV is difined to be THE LIMIT as volume goes to zero of the fluctuation if a property crossing perpendicular to the surface area enclosing that volume. Limit theorem is, as the name implies, a limiting value... As used in standard applications we do use your definition above, which is written as: - / | rho = <|> D dS / Volume | / - Which, from a strict mathematical standpoint is not divergence except at the limit.

In <5m543g$s3r$1...@news.fsu.edu> j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes: > >Charles H Bennett - Alpena <cben...@northland.lib.mi.us> writes: >} >} Wrong on practically all counts. The equation is not a definition, it is >} a statement of the value of DIV D, saying simply that the divergence of >} the field in a certain volume is equal to the charge contained in that >} volume. > > Alpena? Cool. My mother grew up in Alpena, as did a good friend > on the faculty here. > >pst...@ix.netcom.com(Paul Stowe) writes: >> >>Last time I checked rho = DIV D was a definition. > > It is the statement (definition if you like) of an equation (that > is, a relationship) that describes Coulomb's Law. I think perhaps you mis-spoke yourself, Coulomb's Law (perhaps you meant Gauss's Law) defines the force relationship between charges and the resulting electrical field. One reference for this is "Engineering Electro-Magnetics", William Hayt Jr., McGraw-Hill, 1974 Chapter 2. Divergence on the other hand is a field operator that results in a scalar quantity of a field vector property. It is indeed a definition just as Grad and Curl are. >>Let's see, DIV is difined to be THE LIMIT as volume goes to zero of the >>fluctuation if a property crossing perpendicular to the surface area >>enclosing that volume. > > Fluctuation? Let's see if I can explain this. Consider the illustration below: _________________________________ | | | * | | * | * | * | | * *| | * | | | * | * * | --------------------------------- | * | * | | | * | | * | | * | * | | | * | * | * | --------------------------------- | * | | * | | | * | | | * | * | * | | * | * | * | --------------------------------- each box represents a sub volume element of air and each "*" a molecule. The illustration is a snapshot of the region at time zero. Since each molecule is moving with an average velocity of c (sonic velocity), they will of course leave one box and enter another. So at time dt later this situation will change. As is illustrated, the "average concentration is three molecules per box, but obviously each box will "fluctuate" in how many molecules it actually contains. Divergence is a measure of this effect. This is why the Divergence properties of an "incompressible" medium is zero. In that case there is no spacing between particles so as one "moves out" another one "moves in" to take its place, net effect, zero... > Note that the volume is at the point (unspecified in the equation > above) where you do the evaluation of the vector operator and rho. > There need not (and often is not) any charge in *that* volume. > >>As used in standard applications we do use your definition above, which >>is written as: >> >> - >> / >> | >> rho = <|> D dS / Volume >> | >> / >> - > > You have made some assumptions about rho here that cannot be guaranteed > (and left out some vector details), but it is true that the surface > integral gives you the charge enclosed, which is equivalent to Coulomb's > Law and has been tested to extreme accuracy as the most stringent test > on the mass of the photon. Note that you cannot integrate D until > you know it, which requires solving the diff.eq. with BCs. Centered around an arbitrary point yes, and as can be seen in the above illustration, if the volume actually shrinks to zero, the concept of Divergence is meaningless. This is because we have gone beyond the bounds of validity for "Continuum Mechanics" on which the property is defined. Paul Stowe

In <5m8ebf$kg8$1...@news.fsu.edu> j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes: > >j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes: >| >| pst...@ix.netcom.com(Paul Stowe) writes: >| > >| >Last time I checked rho = DIV D was a definition. >| >| It is the statement (definition if you like) of an equation (that >| is, a relationship) that describes Coulomb's Law. > >pst...@ix.netcom.com(Paul Stowe) writes: >> >>I think perhaps you mis-spoke yourself, Coulomb's Law (perhaps you >>meant Gauss's Law) defines the force relationship between charges >>and the resulting electrical field. > > No, I meant Coulomb's Law. That equation of Maxwell's is the > Coulomb's Law equation in the form of the differential equation > that gives the field that gives Coulomb's force law. That is > why it is there. If it is not there, you don't have a Coulomb > force, and if it is different you don't get 1/r^2. > It is Maxwell's first equation that give charge in a region of field defined by a volume element which is the minimum attainable, while still retaining the continuum properties. I shall quote from the reference mentioned earlier ( "Engineering Electro-Magnetics", William Hayt Jr., McGraw-Hill, 1974) page 80: "This is the first of Maxwell's four equations as they apply to electro-statics and steady magnetic fields, and it states that the electric flux per unit volume leaving a vanishingly small volume unit is exactly equal to the volume charge density there. This equation is aptly called the point form of Gauss's law. ... Maxwell's first equation is also described as the differential form of Gauss's law, and conversely, Gauss's law is recognized as the integral form of Maxwell's first equation" >>Divergence on the other hand is a field operator that results in a >>scalar quantity of a field vector property. It is indeed a >>definition just as Grad and Curl are. > > There is a definition of the divergence operator. When you > use that in an equation you get a differential equation. If > you solve that equation, you get the field D. That field will > produce a force on a charge. That force is the Coulomb force. > The 1/r^2 dependence of the Coulomb force is a result of this > form of the differential equation. When I went to school, you > could find this as an example in a calculus text (Thomas), not > just in physics books. On page 24 of "Theoretical Physics", G. Joos, Dover 1958 we get the definition of Divergence: - / Div = Lim as volume -> 0 of <|> dS / volume / - and it is using the velocity vector as the property upon which it operate in the example. This is equivalent to writing: Div = nabla = (d/dx + d/dy + d/dz) understanding that these are each d/di is a partial derivative... > >| >Let's see, DIV is difined to be THE LIMIT as volume goes to zero of >| >the fluctuation if a property crossing perpendicular to the surface >| >area enclosing that volume. >| >| Fluctuation? > >>Let's see if I can explain this. Consider the illustration below: >> ... >>each box represents a sub volume element of air and each >>"*" a molecule. > > Hmmm. For a second there I thought you had a really strange > calculus teacher. Instead of fluctuation (which never appears > in your example), why not just say conserved current? > No, take any single box, (which is the volume of concern) at time t=0 let it contains three molecules. At time t=1 it contains four having gain one from an adjacent region. At time t=2 it contains two molecules as two have moved into adjacent regions ...etc. The question answered by Divergence is, Given an average velocity of the molecules for example, what is the rate of change in the molecular contents of the region? The answer returned is the frequency or rate of oscillation i.e. Div v = nu If this is not true then what does Div v mean? it's units are 1/sec. > Anyway, your example is a scalar field, not a vector field. Yes the measure of density is a scalar property of a vector field. >>Centered around an arbitrary point yes, and as can be seen in the >>above illustration, if the volume actually shrinks to zero, the >>concept of Divergence is meaningless. > > Sorry, but you clearly do not understand the meaning of the > limit in the definition of differential operators. Good, in the example under discussion, what is the divergence of the momentum content of air (at STP) when the volume truly is zero? >>This is because we have gone >>beyond the bounds of validity for "Continuum Mechanics" on which >>the property is defined. > > You might also review the meaning of continuum. OK, let's look at "Continuum Mechanics", T. J. Chung, Prentice Hall 1988. On page 1&2 we find: "To distinguish the continuum or macroscopic model from a microscopic one, we may list a number of criteria. ... A concept of fundamental importance here is that of mean free path, which can be defined as the average distance that a molecule travels between successive collisions with other molecules. The ratio of the mean free path L to the characteristic length S of the physical boundaries of interest, called the Knudsen number Kn, may be used to determine the dividing line between macroscopic and microscopic models." Bottom line, the limit of validity of the continuum model is when L/S < 1 period. If our boxes become smaller that L we simply can't use the continuum mathematics. Paul Stowe

Joos's book:

http://en.booksee.org/g/Georg%20Joos

In <5mdg85$ckl$1...@news.fsu.edu> j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes: > >j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes: > >>pst...@ix.netcom.com(Paul Stowe) writes: >> - show quoted text - >>I shall quote from the reference mentioned earlier ( "Engineering >>Electro-Magnetics", William Hayt Jr., McGraw-Hill, 1974) page 80: >> >> "This is the first of Maxwell's four equations as they apply to >> electro-statics and steady magnetic fields, and it states that >> the electric flux per unit volume leaving a vanishingly small >> volume unit is exactly equal to the volume charge density >> there. This equation is aptly called the point form of Gauss's >> law. ... Maxwell's first equation is also described as the >> differential form of Gauss's law, and conversely, Gauss's law >> is recognized as the integral form of Maxwell's first equation" > >All true, and not contradicting anything I wrote above. Now, what >property does the solution to this equation have? It produces a >field that gives a 1/r^2 force between charged particles. Div D yield a charge density, nothing more. We can then apply Gauss's law to "enclosed" the specific region of field (i.e. multiply by a selected volume) where we have defined this density to obtain an enclosed "total charge". This then can be input into E = Q/4pi epsion R^2 a-> (your 1/R^2 relationship) where a-> is the vector designator, to get the "electric field" at a point R distance from where Div D was derived. However, I fail to see how this defines Div D as Coulomb's Law. However, I think at this point we have immersed ourselves so much into the forest that we see only trees, not the forest anymore. The point of the original post was to ask if this value, Div D (for an elemental charge e) had been defined. Since this is a well understood mathematical operator, itsvalue should be a fixed constant value (given that e is a fixed constant value). This is a logical conclusion based on the assumed validity of the mathematical definition of Divergence. >>On page 24 of "Theoretical Physics", G. Joos, Dover 1958 we >>get the definition of Divergence: >> >> - >> / >> Div = Lim as volume -> 0 of <|> dS / volume >> / >> - >> >>and it is using the velocity vector as the property upon which >>it operate in the example. > >>This is equivalent to writing: >> >> Div = nabla = (d/dx + d/dy + d/dz) >> >>understanding that these are each d/di is a partial derivative... > >You are still making some serious errors concerning the >omission of vectors in your equations above, and have not >defined "S". I now see what your saying, I left out the i,j,k components or the vector designators. I simply assumed this was understood. Also, yes I left out Joos's definition that S as area. >Nothing you write above contradicts anything >I wrote about the divergence, particularly the property that >the solution to the differential equation has. It is in >Thomas, and I assume it is in the book you cite. There is >more to physics than quoting those books; you need to know >what those words mean in practice. Look up what sort of >fields obey Gauss' Law. Fields that produce 1/r^2 Coulomb >forces. That is why they are equivalent. > >Further, you must surely know that you cannot apply continuum >mathematics with limits to small countable numbers of particles >in a discrete space. Interesting, I pointed this out in the last post. The illustrations were to visualize the process. I understand that CM can not be used at or below the "grain" (mean free path). Which is the main basis for a non point charge argument. >>>Anyway, your example is a scalar field, not a vector field. >> >>Yes the measure of density is a scalar property of a vector field. >> >You were taking the divergence of a scalar field as far as I could >see from your description, and doing so in a case where a limit >cannot be taken and thus your definition does not apply. But >this is all irrelevant to the fact that the empirically defined >Coulomb's Law gives you fields that obey Gauss' Law, and this >is where Gauss' Law came from and why it is included in the >set of Maxwell's equations. The point was to illustrate your question on my use of the word "fluctuation". I should have used the vector sum of the momentum of the particles found in each region. This would resolve this quibble. Paul Stowe

# October 2000

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/TOSEOWf5fgA

This topic begged for its own thread, so I started one. For those interested in the past discussions which contains a lot of details, see the thread: "Re: Is DJMenck's "Materialism" Unique to Him or Well-Known?" In article <01HW.B5DCC11F0018BED0062AE850@news.freeserve.net>, Luc Bourhis <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> wrote: >Paul Stowe wrote: > >So first I managed to find Maxwell's original text (well I still do >not have the beginning of part II because the corresponding pages are >missing in the Philosophical Magazine in my library; how unlucky !). >So I will not have to rely on my memory and some old messy notes >anymore. Better, after reading part IV I remembered the biggest >problem of Maxwell's model: it is incompatible with magneto-optic >effects. > >This is an effect which was investigated experimentally first by >Faraday. But for Maxwell the results of Verdet were the problem. >Shortly the plane of polarization of light rotates when it goes >through media in which a strong magnetic field has been established, >in the direction of propagation of light. Here is what Maxwell wrote >at the end of "On the Physical Lines of Forces" (Scientific Papers, >volume 1, p. 507): > > " On our theory, the direction of the rotation of the plane > of polarization depends on that of the mean moment of momenta, > or angular momentum, of the molecular vortices; and since M. > Verdet has discovered that [para]magnetic substances have an > effect on light opposite to that of diamagnetic substances, it > follows that the molecular rotation must be opposite in the > two classes of substances. > We can no longer, therefore, consider diamagnetic bodies > as being those whose coefficient of magnetic induction is less > than that of space empty of gross matter. We must admit the > diamagnetic state to be the opposite of the paramagnetic; and > that the vortices, or at least the influential majority of them, > in diamagnetic substances, revolve in the direction in which > positive electricity revolves in the magnetizing bobbin, while > in paramagnetic substances they revolve in the opposite > direction" > >But since vacuum is the intermediate state between diamagnetic and >paramagnetic state, this means that the average rotation speed of >vortices is zero. Huh? If he were talking about a single vortex entity, you might have a point. Clearly you misunderstood the discussion. Let ^ denote an "out of the page" magnetic flux direction, let + & - represent the major axis rotation of a single vortex. Then a "pure paramagnetic" substance would be: +++++++ +++++++ ^ +++++++ +++++++ a "pure diamagnetic" substance: ------- ------- ^ ------- ------- and the neutral state: +-+-+-+- -+-+-+-+ ^ +-+-+-+- -+-+-+-+ >Since Maxwell's model can not survive without rotating vortices one >must therefore have vortices rotating in both directions, with the >same number of the both of these kinds. But then idle wheels between >vortices rotating in opposite direction must be modeled in a >completely different way. Basically Maxwell had to rebuild his model >at least starting from part II (since alternating vortices rotating >in opposite directions can save part I). There are, and never were, actual "idler wheels" in Maxwell's model. There were flow lines that either went like: -------------> <------------- a.k.a. opposite to each other (for which Maxwell envisioned friction between these without some kind of lubricating mechanism, the idler concept gave "him" a conceptual way out of this). Or: ------------> ------------> Remembering the historical "context" in which he worked (for in modern fluid mechanics the diametrical opposing streamline condition simply is not a problem) >He had never tried to do that. Ever. One can wonder why. Most >historians of science think of course that Maxwell knew it was very >difficult to salvage his model and that he preferred to follow a more >rewarding way. He did not have the appropriate tools to rely and call upon. That IS the problem with "bleeding edge" development, generally you are, by definition, breaking totally NEW ground. >> Luc Bourhis writes: >>> >>> Paul Stowe wrote: >>> >> Maxwell became convinced of Faraday's hypothesis. He set out to >> figure out the details of, specifically how, and yes why, the >> experimental observations of Faraday did what they did. He >> 'believed' that this would yield to a mechanistic fluidic >> interpretation. Thus using Faraday's ideas as the working basis, he >> added to, and mathematically quantified, the phenomena. But yes, >> Maxwell never questioned the validity of Newtonian mechanics. > > We agree. But we disagree about how rigorous was the model Maxwell > finally came with. That IS an accurate statement! >>> The next question is how believable was the mechanism itself and we >>> are surely going to disagree about that issue. >> >> Belief is irrelevant, > >I meant a mechanism similar to what is observed for ordinary fluids >or solids. Good, now what mechanism of Maxwell's proposal is not observed in ordinary fluids? >> the fact is, to this day, the characteristics that Maxwell ascribed >> to describe bulk EM processes are in fact a set of specific fluid >> mechanical equations. Fact two, these were, and still are, based >> upon vortex interactions. > >Definitively not. Some part of Maxwell's model relies on the >mechanics of solid and not of fluid. His vortices behave as solid >when he needed them to have this property. I'll support that later >when answering your next comments. Moreover we disagree about >specific. Instead I would have said "unlike anything seen elsewhere", >which is certainly not what you meant. And these "mechanic of solid" properties are? Remember, superfluids can, and do, have transverse wave components, "rotons". And before you come back with ...but superfluids are quantum, define WHAT, specifically, you mean by quantum. The word quantum was initially coined only to designate an apparent "discrete" verses "continuous" nature in observed phenomena. >> This is WHY the so-called abstract mathematics of Penrose's twistors >> describe a ring vortex structure! Don't believe that, go find a >> pictorial illustration of said twistor... Your only other choice is >> to believe in coincidences. > > A twistor is a pair of SL(2) spinors which means that it is an object > with 4 complex components: it lives in a 8-dimensional real space. At > best your pictorial illustration is 3-dimensional. So whatever is > this pictorial representation it is as comparing an elephant and a > tire because the both of them have a coarse surface ! Impasse, not worth further debate. >>>>> 1) Maxwell **wanted** a mechanical explanation because this fit >>>>> with his metaphysical ideas. >>>> >>>> Undeniably extremely successful ones, one might add. >>> >>> There are much simpler derivation of Maxwell's equation than his >>> original one. [....] >> >> First, generally one cannot find something if they don't look for >> it. > >Something ? What are you talking about ? That you would ask this question in light of all that has been discussed is quite telling of you mentality on this subject. You have claimed that Maxwell's model hasn't yielded anything of notable merit. As I reference below, on the contrary, the model remains sound and yielded one of the most successful descriptions of nature every devised. However, if no one seriously works with it, and explores & probes how it may fit into modern views (since by your own admission it lays abandoned and idle for ~100+ years), the argument become circular and useless. A.k.a. "no one has successfully shown Maxwell's model to be..." yet "no one has seriously attempted to show ..." since no one has work on this, and 99+% of the physicist alive today don't even know that this model exists. >> However, even when one isn't looking for Maxwell's vortices they >> keep finding them. May I suggest you look at section 7.3 (pages >> 217-228) of Paul Davies "The New Physics". But of course, just >> other pure coincidences since, in your mind, the obvious >> connectivity simply isn't possible. > >If this example is as silly as your seeing vortices in Penrose's >twistor ... but I will have a look at it if I find the book. No, go look at the section. What I am saying, specifically, Maxwell's vortex model has never been overthrown. This is NOT a controversial statement, and you can find references to this in many places. For example, in the "Handbook of Physics" Part 3, Chapter 2 "Fluid Mechanics", Section 5 "Vortex Flows of Inviscid Fluids" we find: "There is an analogy between fluid dynamics for solenoidal fields and electrodynamics: the vortex strength corresponds to the current intensity and the vortex vector the current density. Vortices are surrounded by velocity lines (streamlines for steady flows) just as electric currents are by magnetic lines of force. In these terms the flow velocity is said to be 'induced' by the vorticity. The formula for induced velocity corresponds exactly to the law of Biot and Savart for magnetic effect of an electric current (See Part 4 Chapter 1, Sec. 6). Now you can "believe" that this is "pure coincidence", but doing so most certainly is not being "scientific", and definitely not in holding with Ockham's Razor. IOW on what objective observational basis does one remove Maxwell's hypothesis from consideration. It won't be MMX, Trouton-Noble, or any known incompatibility with Fluid Mechanics (as referenced above). The only basis for removal is metaphysical, i.e. it does not fit into the current 'belief' system. >>> The comparison is misleading because Maxwell's mechanical model >>> does not explain anything else than his field equations. It can >>> not give any valid result that is not obtainable by the field >>> equations, mainly because it was partially tailored to give these >>> equations. >> >> Sure it can. Once one correctly fills in the empty slots, it can >> give us Planck's constant direct, for example. > >How do you define Planck's constant in relation with a purely >classical model a la Maxwell ? This sentence is ridiculous. >Furthermore any other examples ? What does the term Action [A] mean in the context of standard fluid theory? What units does it have? Is it defined as: A = 2pL Where p is the momenta of a particle of the medium, and L the mean free path between collisions? It is NO coincidence that Planck coined the term "the quantum of Action" for h. So, let p ~= 5.152E-27kg-m/sec and L ~= 6.431E-08 m, then: h = 2(5.152E-27)(6.431E-08) = 6.626E-34 kg-m^2/sec Moreover, given that elemental charge [q] (as defined by my interpretation of Maxwell's model) is Div p, we get: 2p q = ---- = 1.602E-19 L One of them-thar amazing coincidences that I just keep coming up with... Ya'know like k = h/qc, w = Qm/r, d = zv, ...etc. k = Boltzmann's constant w = power flux (watts/m^2) Q = LeSagian power induction coefficient (2.4E-19 m/sec^3) m = a body's mass r = a spherical body's radius d = drag (deceleration) v = a body's relative velocity z = drag coefficient (7.05E-14 1/sec) Another is, the energy associated with p is pc/2, or 7.725E-19 Joules or 4.8 eV. >> [idle wheels] are nothing more than the particulate entities >> constituting the medium. >> [...] >> Transfer of momentum/energy from one point to another >> along a streamline (line of force) act 'like' a conveyor, it >> certainly isn't any mechanical 'conveyor belt'. > > That's your own personal interpretations of Maxwell's model. Don't > think you will impress any knowledgeable reader by using bombastic > expressions. Here are facts on the contrary: > > 1) Maxwell's own words (Scientific Papers, vol. 1, p. 486): ><< The conception of a particle [idle wheel] having its motion >connected with that of a vortex by perfect rolling contact may appear >somewhat awkward. I do not bring it forward as a mode of connection >existing in Nature, or even as that which I would willingly assent to >as an electrical hypothesis>> Note the key words "a particle" and *your* translation [idle wheel] in your Maxwell quote. >2) These idle wheels which are in perfect rolling contact with >vortices do not rub against each other however (cf. point (5) near >the end of part II). Idle wheels have therefore not the same >properties as the particles vortices are made of, contrary to what >you wrote earlier. All I can say is; you understanding of basic fluid theory is lacking. >3) For Maxwell's model to work there must be one and only one layer of >idle wheels between the vortices and they must be constantly in >contact with each others. If the former are the particles the fluid >are made of, don't you think it is a completely ad hoc hypothesis >which contradicts what is observed in ordinary fluids ? In all compressible particulate mediums the particles are NOT constantly touching... >4) the translation of an idle wheel in a conductor changes not only >the motion of the part of the vortex in contact with it but also the >angular speed of the vortex as a whole. So vortices act as solids more >than as fluidic objects. > >Therefore contrary to what you wrote Maxwell's model is definitively >very close to a real conveyor belt when it comes to explain the >connection between electricity and magnetism. The only purely >hydrodynamical part of his work is part I where he studied purely >magnetic phenomena. > >Let's continue with a few incorrect statement of yours, some extracted >from old messages in this thread: > >> As far as I can discern, Maxwell considered the individual vortices >> standard ring vortices like the so-called smoke ring, ... > >Where did you find the word "ring" in Maxwell's writings ? In part I, >just before eq. (1), Maxwell stated clearly that the shape, the >distribution of density and angular velocity are not specified. The >only constrain is that all these characteristics must be the same for >all vortices. Yet another completely unrealistic postulate by the by. OK, in a uniform medium without discrete discontinuous boundaries (such as a wall, floor, or embedded object) what type of vortices can exist? >> .... not any exotic hexagonal one. > >Maxwell considered hexagonal vortices in part II for god sake. And >here is what you came with to prove how natural was this hypothesis: > >>>> Ring vortices are like rubber bands; they can and will distort >>>> their shape to fill voids. Place a bunch of ring vortices on a >>>> 2D surface with parallel axes and aligned rotations watch what >>>> happens. >> >>> You don't think "ring vortices on a 2D surface" will get an >>> hexagonal shape, do you? >> >> Yes, its typical fluid behavior. A case in point is illustrated on >> page 318 of Davies's book. This is due to thermal convection and >> called Benard Cells. It is a mundane NON superfluidic example of >> this behavior. > >These are _convection_ cells for god sake ! This means that you need >gravity to produce them and that they can exist only in a sufficiently >horizontal plane. What is needed in Maxwell is utterly different. I >advise you to reread Descartes who stated that one must search clear >and distinct concepts to think rationally. Again, your lack of either understanding AND showing any ability to reason is showing. (I think that this is mainly due to an intense reluctance to be willing to look at the subject with anything approaching an objective, open perspective) >> Remember Maxwell predicted this before (as far as I know) it was >> even seen. > >LOL. Then bees have been predicting Benard cells on a daily basis for >millions of years. Did you even bother to look at page 318? This book is not hard to come by. >Anyway you have therefore failed to support your claiming that >vortices can get an hexagonal shape, either with theoretical or >experimental evidences. > >>> I do not understand what you disagree with. >>> >>> (1) On one hand he treated the wheels as fluidic circular >>> vortices when calculating their kinetic energy and the >>> difference of pressure between center and border; the >>> intensity of the magnetic field was identified with the >>> speed of the vortex at its surface and the magnetic >>> permeability as its possibly varying density; >> >> No, wrong again. No wheels, the circulation profile in the vortex. > >Please read carefully what I wrote. In this (1) I did clearly state >that Maxwell treated his vortices in a proper hydrodynamical way in >some part of his paper, in part I actually. And he NEVER changed him perspective. >>> (2) On the other hand he demanded that they were impenetrable and >>> hexagonal to explain how their rotation makes electrical balls >>> move. >> >> Hey Luc, what is the 'rule of streamlines'? > >This remark would be relevant if the stream of idle wheels, that I >called electrical balls in my previous messages, was of the same >nature as the vortices, as it should be in fluid mechanics. But it >is not so at all as explained at length above. Maxwell's idle wheels >are like solids and there is no reason they should not penetrate the >vortices. I am not interested in attempting to teach fluid theory via newsgroup traffic... >>> Were the latter not hexagonal they would not pack properly between >>> the vortices. Their bouncing around would dissipate energy. Were >>> they not impenetrable the conveyor belt would not work properly. >>> You do not think (1) and (2) are compatible, do you ? >> >> Yes, why don't you ask an expert in fluid turbulence this question? > >I know the answer, don't you ? I 'think' I do, so do you, and we are not both right :) >>> You don't think a fluidic vortex can not be penetrated, do you ? >> >> But streamlines (lines of force) cannot cross... > >But a billiard ball can penetrate a fluidic vortex. Does a particle of the fluid? Helmholtz theorem says no. His theorems are: 1 - No fluid particle can have rotation if it did not originally rotate. 2 - Fluid particles which at any time are part of a vortex line always belong to that same line. 3 - The product of the cross-sectional area and of the angular velocity of an infinite thin vortex filament is constant over the whole length of the filament and keeps the same value even when the vortex moves. The vortex filaments must therefore be either closed tubes or end on the boundaries of the fluid. Hint Luc, #3 is what demands ring vortices... Item #2 I conceptually find hard to fathom, but it is proven by Helmholtz, i.e. all particles contained in a vortex are permanently 'locked' in place, rotating in the vortex. If other particles could penetrate they could, and would, knock these vortex particles out of place by kinetic interactions. >>> I repeat that classical mechanics can not explain superfluidity. >>> How could it explain the sudden disappearance of viscosity or the >>> dramatic fall of heat capacity just below the critical temperature >>> for example ? Only few aspects of superfluids can be modeled with >>> Euler equation. >> >> The key to superfluidity IS a near perfect absence of viscosity, and >> since heat IS a characteristic of dissipation, one should expect it to >> be absent from a non dissipatory medium. > >You confuse different concepts. The heat capacity is the derivative of >internal energy with respect to temperature. It falls dramatically >below the critical temperature because many atoms condensate in the >superfluid state where they have zero momentum and do therefore no >more contribute to the internal energy. > >> This clearly states that it is the vortices that are stressed and >> 'distorted' NOT the field particles! Which you'll note he calls >> particles, not your imaginary balls. > >You are right. I had it the other way around. Memory works strangely >sometimes ! > >>>> Helmholtz put this issue to rest, look up Helmholtz's/Kelvin >>>> theorems. >> >> Are you saying you are unaware of Helmholtz's theorems for vortices? >> Ditto for Kelvin circulation theorem? >> >> OK then, look them up. They are widely presented and form the >> foundation of the mathematical description of vortex behavior. > >Had you read what followed you would have seen that I quoted Kelvin's >theorem. As for Helmholtz theorem there is nothing with that name in >Milne-Thompson but I suppose you refer to the fact that vortex rings >are permanent, can not be cut, etc ... > >Anyway I think I understand what you meant now. You think that fluid >mechanics can be used to treat Maxwell's model as a whole. But now you >have to refute all the objections made earlier to continue on this >path. Maxwell's model is definitively a patchwork of fluid and solid >mechanics with a lot of wishful postulates. Again, to what solid mechanics are you referring? >>>>> To prove that classical electrodynamics can be modeled by fluid >>>>> mechanics within a Newtonian framework. For example to show that >>>>> it can be deduced from Euler equation and mass conservation. >>>> >>>> But Luc, that's already been done. >>> >>> You are lost in a day dream. Why not starting a new thread in which >>> you would show such a derivation? >> >> Why it was referenced herein (this newgroup) two years ago. >> >> See: http://home.online.no/~ukarlsen/WholePaper.html >> >> A daydream with an internet site address. > >As if to have an internet address meant anything !! > >The derivation of Maxwell's equations presented there is pure >crackpotery. Proof: > >The electric field E is defined as > E = -du/dt >where u is the displacement of a point of the medium from its original >position. But wait ... what about electrostatics ?... well very >simple: > u(t) = - E.t >which predicts that the displacement diverges toward +infinity when >time passes :-D That not a problem for circular motion, or in general. >Let's continue, such a fun is really addictive. So the magnetic field >now: > B = curl u >So u plays the role of the potential vector and therefore for the >magnetic field created by an infinite wire we have > |u| ~ Log r >where r is the distance to the wire. So again we have a displacement >diverging toward +infinity :-D Again, this isn't a problem. >What kind of medium is that ?????????????? > >But what could I have expected from a "paper" whose plan is >Ê >1 NavierÕs equation and electromagnetism.. 5 >2 Some considerations about matter 9 >3 A model of matter 12 >4 Spin. 17 >5 Polarization. 19 >6 The electron. 21 >7 Systems of many particles. 23 >8Ê De Broglie waves and Schršdinger wave equation. 26 >9 Atomic nuclei and the strong forces. 29 >10 The Big Bang. 32 >11 Gravitation > >that is to say from somebody who thinks he has a theory of everything. IMLO a biased mindset is anti-scientific...

In article <01HW.B5EC7295000D49860A5E5C00@news.freeserve.net>, Luc Bourhis <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> wrote: >Paul Stowe wrote: > >> Luc Bourhis wrote: >>> So first I managed to find Maxwell's original text (well I still do >>> not have the beginning of part II because the corresponding pages are >>> missing in the Philosophical Magazine in my library; how unlucky !). - show quoted text - You're not making any sense??? >>> Since Maxwell's model can not survive without rotating vortices one >>> must therefore have vortices rotating in both directions, with the >>> same number of the both of these kinds. But then idle wheels between >>> vortices rotating in opposite direction must be modeled in a >>> completely different way. Basically Maxwell had to rebuild his model >>> at least starting from part II (since alternating vortices rotating >>> in opposite directions can save part I). >> >> There are, and never were, actual "idler wheels" in Maxwell's model. >> There were flow lines that either went like: >> >> -------------> >> <------------- >> >> a.k.a. opposite to each other (for which Maxwell envisioned friction >> between these without some kind of lubricating mechanism, the idler >> concept gave "him" a conceptual way out of this). Or: >> >> ------------> >> ------------> >> >> Remembering the historical "context" in which he worked (for in modern >> fluid mechanics the diametrical opposing streamline condition simply is >> not a problem) > > You have just explained why Maxwell introduced idler wheels in part I > of his paper. But you fail to see that they were given new and > completely different roles in part II and III. Hmmm, let see. In kinetic theory, pressure is the result of particulate impacts. So, we explain pressure as such. By your logic above, since we have assigned particles the function of pressure they cannot possibly have any other properties or function? Great argument Luc... > There are definitively idler wheels in Maxwell's model and they are > essential in the modeling of electricity: > - electrical currents are just streams of these idler wheels; > - electrical tension is caused by the pressure in the gas made > of these idler wheels; > - induction is explained by the perfect rolling contact between idler > wheels and vortices. > > If you disagree with these statements, please explain to us what were > Maxwell's explanations for these phenomena according to you, I mean how > he modeled them without idler wheels. Your above arguments are illogical. Conceptually substitute 'olive oil' for Maxwell's 'idlers' and it performs the same functionality.

In article <01HW.B5EFEB9F005BC0CA0DB2C380@news.freeserve.net>, Luc Bourhis <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> wrote: >Paul Stowe wrote: > >> You're not making any sense ??? > > You are at bay, aren't you ? Huh? > That's surely why you switched to the that's-plainly-silly mode in > order to avoid precise discussions which would expose your being > consistently wrong. Now Luc, I have not gotten malicious. My statement was a clear, concise portrayal of how I read your response. Prehaps you could try being more clear (and detailed). > But you underestimate badly the intelligence of the readers, well > at least of those who might be interested in discussing such > prehistoric stuff. Bias showing again Luc? Being pendantic can be useful only up to a point, beyond that, it become obtrusive. > Anyway contrary to you I am proud to always come with well crafted > arguments. So let's try to summarize ... Sure we all think this (in our own minds). What matters is if others "get it" and form the same opinion... >(1) In the model Maxwell constructed in part I vortices rotates in the > same direction in paramagnetic substances, in vacuum and in > diamagnetic substances (wrt the direction of the magnetic field). Now Luc, if the above were to be literally interpreted as you claim, we would have one and the same value for the paramagnetic state, the vacuum state, and the paramagnetic state. In other words, there would be NO para or di magnetic states. I've re-read this first section and can find no reference to where Maxwell makes such a claim... >(2) In part IV Maxwell showed that this model predicted for > magneto-optic effect a rotation of the plane of polarization > in the same direction in any substance: the rotation angle > being bigger in paramagnetic substances than in vacuum, and > bigger in vacuum than in diamagnetic substances. > >(3) Verdet's experiment exhibited on the contrary opposite directions > of rotation in diamagnetic and paramagnetic media -- and no rotation > whatsoever in vacuum. Can you attempt to show me (us) how you get the 'interpretation' you enunciate for #2. Rotation for ring vortices of reverse orientation, is, for example, reversed. Therefore, anything following the streamlines of such systems would reverse for such an inversion. > Conclusion: (2) and therefore (1) is refuted experimentally and Maxwell > had to change his mind and came with the explanation you illustrated > with sketches in your last message in this thread, i.e. opposite > directions of vortex rotation in diamagnetic and paramagnetic media, > and null average rotation speed in vacuum -- Maxwell's himself admitted > he had to modify what he had done until that point. But then the > modeling of electricity in part II and III predicted electrical > currents in vacuum. Maxwell had never ever published any attempt to > solve these difficulties. Where, I've re-read part four and can't find where Maxwell recants by saying that claims he made in part one must be retracted. >>> You have just explained why Maxwell introduced idler wheels in part I >>> of his paper. But you fail to see that they were given new and >>> completely different roles in part II and III. >> >> Hmmm, let see. In kinetic theory, pressure is the result of particulate >> impacts. So, we explain pressure as such. By your logic above, since >> we have assigned particles the function of pressure they cannot possibly >> have any other properties or function? Great argument Luc... > > Rhetoric will not help you making your case. In part II and III > Maxwell's idler wheels became the core of his explanation of > electricity. Electrical currents are flows of these particles. > Electrical tension is modeled by the pressure of the gas made of these > idler wheels. Induction is explained by the effect of a differential > rotation rates of adjoining vortices on the motion of the idler wheels. > These are new roles that were not foreseeable by readers in part I. There were no 'actual' idler wheels in Maxwell's model. I'm very sorry that you cannot recognize an illustrative analogy, but at some point (which has come) it become ridiculous to continue to argue such an obvious point. >>> There are definitively idler wheels in Maxwell's model and they are >>> essential in the modeling of electricity: >>> >>> - electrical currents are just streams of these idler wheels; >>> - electrical tension is caused by the pressure in the gas made >>> of these idler wheels; >>> - induction is explained by the perfect rolling contact between idler >>> wheels and vortices. >>> >>> If you disagree with these statements, please explain to us what were >>> Maxwell's explanations for these phenomena according to you, I mean how >>> he modeled them without idler wheels. >> >> Your above arguments are illogical. Conceptually substitute 'olive oil' for >> Maxwell's 'idlers' and it performs the same functionality. > >If and only if > > - olive oil is made of spherical particles; > - there is only one layer of these particles between vortices; What's wrong with three particles, or five, or seven, ...etc. In fact, any odd number alignment will do. One 'could' construct a mechanical analog to Maxwell's model using segmented rollers and such an oil. > - particles roll without sliding between vortices; > - they are never in contact with each others; > etc ... > > Otherwise you are not discussing Maxwell's model but your reworking of > it. But then I am entitled to ask you to write it down with the same > precision Maxwell used. Where is the deviation Luc?

In article <01HW.B5F119B700090E5F0DE541C0@news.freeserve.net>, Luc Bourhis <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> wrote: >Paul Stowe wrote: > >> Luc Bourhis wrote: >> >>> (1) In the model Maxwell constructed in part I vortices rotates in the >>> same direction in paramagnetic substances, in vacuum and in >>> diamagnetic substances (wrt the direction of the magnetic field). >> >> Now Luc, if the above were to be literally interpreted as you claim, >> we would have one and the same value for the paramagnetic state, the >> vacuum state, and the paramagnetic state. In other words, there would >> be NO para or di magnetic states. I've re-read this first section >> and can find no reference to where Maxwell makes such a claim... > > Paramagnetic, vacuum and diamagnetic substances are differentiated by a > quantity related to the density of the fluid, the magnetic inductive > capacity mu: > mu < 1 : diamagnetic > mu = 1 : vacuum > mu > 1 : paramagnetic > Maxwell explained that in a short comment on p. 174 of part I, just > after the equation (21). Then he repeated in part IV that mu is smaller > in diamagnetic than in vacuum, in the citation I have already given in > this thread. OK, but that was NOT the issue. The issue was your statement that ALL of those zillions of vortices MUST line up in the requisite manner for the Para, neutral, and Di magnetic condition. You seem to be INSISTING on a all or nothing situation. If ALL vortice aligned for a paramagnetic state we'd have mu (max) if ALL vortices aligned for a diamagnetic state we'd have mu (min) etc. But that is not, nor never was, what Maxwell was advocating. >>> (2) In part IV Maxwell showed that this model predicted for >>> magneto-optic effect a rotation of the plane of polarization >>> in the same direction in any substance: the rotation angle >>> being bigger in paramagnetic substances than in vacuum, and >>> bigger in vacuum than in diamagnetic substances. >>> >>> (3) Verdet's experiment exhibited on the contrary opposite directions >>> of rotation in diamagnetic and paramagnetic media -- and no rotation >>> whatsoever in vacuum. >> >> Can you attempt to show me (us) how you get the 'interpretation' you >> enunciate for #2. > > That's not an interpretation at all. (2) is just a summary of Maxwell's > own writings in part IV. On p. 88 > <<In the following investigation I have found that the only effect > which the rotation of the vortices will have on the light will be > to make the plane of polarization rotate in the _same_ direction > as the vortices, through an angle proportional -- > (A) to the thickness of the substance, > (B) to the resolved part of the magnetic force parallel to the ray, > (C) to the index of refraction of the ray, > (D) inversely to the square of the wave-length n air, > (E) to the _mean radius_ of the vortices, > (F) to the capacity for magnetic induction >> > Combined with the classification (F) leads clearly to my above > paragraph. How? Ring vortices have two distinct rotations, poloidal, and torroidal. When aligned (say with their axis of symmetry center flow up) let the torroidal rotation be clockwise... Now flip this ring so the center flow is now down, the torroidal rotation reverses. Thus the result should be obvious, a reversal in any induce rotation. >> Rotation for ring vortices of reverse orientation, is, >> for example, reversed. Therefore, anything following the streamlines of >> such systems would reverse for such an inversion. > > I do not get your point. Note that my (2) is Maxwell's prediction > _before_ the modification he suggested at the end of part IV to agree > with Verdet's experiments. At that point all vortices rotate in the > same direction wrt the direction of the magnetic field. See above. - show quoted text - In Maxwell model mu (permeability) is related to the fluid pressure. Increase mu and you decrease pressure. Flow and pressure are have an inverse relationship, so decreasing pressure would increase flow. If a magnetic field IS circulational flow, this would be manifested by an increase in it strength. The reverse is, of course, also true. So, align the centers of the vortice to be concurrent to the B field flow and the flows would increase (the center flow in a ring vortex is the fastest) the is seen with apparatus called eductors. Reverse the orientation and you would oppose the externally imposed flow... >>> [...] In part II and III Maxwell's idler wheels became the core of >>> his explanation of electricity. Electrical currents are flows of >>> these particles. Electrical tension is modeled by the pressure of >>> the gas made of these idler wheels. Induction is explained by the >>> effect of a differential rotation rates of adjoining vortices on >>> the motion of the idler wheels. These are new roles that were not >>> foreseeable by readers in part I. >> >> There were no 'actual' idler wheels in Maxwell's model. I'm very sorry >> that you cannot recognize an illustrative analogy, but at some point >> (which has come) it become ridiculous to continue to argue such an >> obvious point. > > Sigh. In this thread I do not care for the name of the particles > between the vortices. I have not criticized Maxwell's model because his > idler wheels are an unrealistic mechanistic model here. This was a > previous discussion which is now over. Here I am accepting all his > hypotheses. Idler wheels can be whatever you want, as long as they have > the properties assigned to them by Maxwell in his model -- I have > reminded some of them above. I can call them electrical particles or > interstitial particles if you prefer. In this thread I just wanted to > show that Maxwell's model is not compatible with the magneto-optic > effect. It would be pointless to discuss how realistic is his theory if > it is refuted experimentally, wouldn't it ? You have not shown this... >>>> Your above arguments are illogical. Conceptually substitute >>>> 'olive oil' for Maxwell's 'idlers' and it performs the same >>>> functionality. >>> >>> If and only if >>> >>> - olive oil is made of spherical particles; >>> - there is only one layer of these particles between vortices; >> >> What's wrong with three particles, or five, or seven, ...etc. In fact, any >> odd number alignment will do. > > For your idea to work one must have a row of particles in contact with > each others, the two at both ends being in contact with adjoining > vortices. That's obviously not a stable configuration, especially when > the particles will translate. So in fact the particles will not stay > permanently in contact with the vortices and they will bounce between > them actually. But that's precisely to avoid such kind of situations > that Maxwell introduced hexagonal vortices, so that vortices and > electrical particles pack perfectly. It wasn't an idea 'to work' it was to show that you insistence on a single idler was ill founded. >> One 'could' construct a mechanical analog to Maxwell's model using segmented >> rollers and such an oil. > > Sorry I do understand what you mean by "segmented roller". Consider the following (top down) illustration -- / \ | | \ / -- Let each segment [the three (--) is to be considered one segment] represent a cylinderical roller. The spaces between them the appropriate mechanism to make them revolve. Immerse many of these assemblies in olive oil, voila, we have a mechanical representation of Maxwell's model. >>> - particles roll without sliding between vortices; >>> - they are never in contact with each others; >>> etc ... >>> >>> Otherwise you are not discussing Maxwell's model but your reworking of >>> it. But then I am entitled to ask you to write it down with the same >>> precision Maxwell used. >> >> Where is the deviation Luc? > >?????? Touche' I don't even know what I was thinking here???

# April 2002

n article <3CC2F28D...@attbi.com>, Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote: > > >Paul Stowe wrote: >> >> > the aether of your liking other than spacetime) ... >> >> Oh, I think Maxwell's aether has been quite detected. BTW, Maxwell's >> aether was never refuted by any observation or experiment. Further, as >> you should be aware, Maxwell's aether is also space-time's aether. > > Complete with the rollers and the idler gears? > > See - Physical Lines of Force - by James Clerk-Maxwell Please, do. BTW, its "ON the Physical Lines of Forece"... Further how about a citation from same... >>> ...and theories that do not assume aether predict successfully, so >>> who needs aether? >> >> Anyone who ever really wants unification... >> >>> How does aether account for the predictions made by the various flavors >>> of quantum theory? >> >> Easily. > > Cite please. Show where. Show how based on experimentally confirmed data > and rigorous mathematical derivation. Thats a tall order >> All one needs realize is that Planck's constant is the aetherial >> 'kinetic action' parameter. Next, they need to recognize that all material >> manifiestations are interactions of Maxwell's vortices... > > Maxwell knew nothing of Plank's constant although he was getting easy > about the equipartition of energy. He know something was wrong with > statistical mechanics, but he did not know what. Show where aether was > specifically used to derive Planck's Constant. A citation to a real > honest to god journal will do just fine. First, how aobut you give us the general mathematical definition of the kinetic action parameter from kinetic theory... >>> No aether theory ever predicted anti-particles. But Dirac was able to do >>> so by modifying Schroedinger's equation and taking into account >>> relativistic effects. >> >> Dirac was a closet aetherist. As for anti-particles, they're in Maxwell's >> model... > > Cite Please. Maxwell did not even know about electrons when he was alive. Maxwell's theory was one of interacting ring vortices... Now, you have four possible basic individual ring states. These are, > < x * Ring state A < > < > x * Ring state B > < > < * x Ring state anti-A < > < > * x Ring state anti-B > < Note, x is toroidal circulation into the page, * toroidal circulation out of the page, > & < direction of poloidal circulation in the plane of the page... Now hydrodynamically, these rings can & do interact with each other? Want to guess happens when A & anti-A interact, or B & anti-B interact? Try looking at what the circulation vectors do, they cancel, being equal & opposite. IOW, the 'blow' each other apart at the speed of propagation. Now are you going to try to tell me it ain't so, or that Maxwell model wasn't ring vortices. If you can't do either, one must conclude that atni-states (anti-matter since Maxwell's theory was the atomic vortex hypothesis) was always there... inherrent to his system. >>> Aether does not predict the photo electric effect. You need particles >>> for that. Maxwellian waves carry their energy in the amplitude, not the >>> frequency. >> >> Wrong, all you need is quantized interactions for that. >> >>> Aether does not predict the violation of Bell's Inequalities. Quantum >>> theory does. >> >> Really? That somehow just seems a natural extension ... > > Seems. Prove that Aether does predict the violation of Bell's > Inequalities. Just tell us what aether is first though. >> >>> and so on.... >>> >>> Aether is a lot of gas. >> >> Go ahead, believe what you want, I somehow think unfolding history will >> prove otherwise. >> > I am interested in experimentally established facts, not hopes about > what history will bring. Yup, backward looking, a clear trait of the unimaginative...

In article <3CC2F28D...@attbi.com>, Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote: > > >> Paul Stowe wrote: >> Dirac was a closet aetherist. As for anti-particles, they're in Maxwell's >> model... > > Cite Please. I now took the little time necessary to look this up see: http://www.blavatsky.net/confirm/ev/ether/ether.htm Citations,... In 1954 P.A.M. Dirac, a Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1933, said, "The aetherless basis of physical theory may have reached the end of its capabilities and we see in the aether a new hope for the future." While Dirac was not able to develop the mathematics as he would have liked to, we note this further observation on his activities: In 1957, however, the Nobel physicist P. A. M. Dirac asked (as the title of a paper), "Is there an ether?" He answered affirmatively, and since then other atomic scientists have suggested that the ether may be defined as an energy-rich subquantic medium composed of neutrinos, pervading all space, interpenetrating all matter, and acting as the common denominator in all particle reactions. The question is still being debated. (Pole Shift by John White p 54)... Also see: http://www.calphysics.org/articles/sst97.pdf I will presume to sources will satisfy you...

In article <3CC66E36...@attbi.com>, Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote: > pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote: >> >> >> You're welcome... > > Define aether, once and for all. It is highly unlikely that any rational objective definition will suit you given your demonstrated propensity to behave irrationally on this topic. However, the aether is, and always has been, those physical properties associated with otherwise apparently empty space that is manifested by the ability of one physical object to induce affects on other physical objects that are otherwise in physical isolation from each other. This easily observed 'connectivity' is best, and as far as can be discerned, only explainable in terms of some form of physical continuity. There are in observational science few known processes that manifest the requisite observable behavior. Other that the general mathematical form that describe all physical media (Continuum Mechanics) there exists no other viable process that matches the observed manifestations of so-called 'action at a distance effects'. Thus one has a choice, accept the weight of observations and its clearly suggested conclusion, or deny this apparent commonality and claim that, somehow, for just so-called empty space, this similarity is just a unrelated coincidence. In application of Ockham's Razor, the Razor cuts clearly in favor of the physical medium interpretation. > After you define it (by stating its physical properties in quantitative > terms) make a prediction that no aether free theory can make. O.K.? In the seven years that I have participated in these newsgroups I have provided all of your requested information. I'll summarize several elements predicted by aether theory that cannot be found in current aether free theory. 1. The thermal-electric coupling owes it very existence to the aether properties and those properties give us a new, until now unknown relationship of: k = h/qc Where k is Boltzmann's constant, h Planck's constant, q elemental Charge, and c light speed in MKSC units. 2. The aether, when interacting with matter to create the gravitational potential, results in induction heating in a gravitating mass which is manifested by a thermal emission (per unit area) of a magnitude defined by the equation, w = zM/r(1 – e^-Ht) Where z is the aetherial power dissipation factor for matter having a value of 2.4E-19 m/sec^3, M is the mass, r the radius (spherical), H the thermo-dynamical response term for the body, and t the time that the body has been in existence. As t -> oo, the (1 - e) term goes to unity leaving simply w = zM/r... 3. Using the same derivation process that lead equation #2 the aetherial drag for linear motion can be quantified. This leads to the equation, a = dv Where a is the deceleration in m/sec^2, d is the drag factor in 1/sec (7.05E-14), and v is the linear velocity of the body in m/sec. I have also clearly defined the very nature of the property we call charge and demonstrated mathematically it very essence. All of these have been posted in these newsgroups over the years and most details and derivations can be found on websites. The full derivation of the gravitational terms above can also be found the the new book of Matt Edwards titled "Pushing Gravity". So, not only have I defined the density, modulus, viscosity of the aether I have clearly demonstrated that by utilizing these aetherial definitions one can greatly simplify the equations of state and reduce all constants to four, 1 - a quantum of mass 2 - an interaction parameter 3 - the medium's propagation velocity [c] 4 - and the vortex field geometric coupling factor Further, given that the very nature of elemental charge is a harmonic oscillator, (in units of kg/sec) I can show a clear relationship beteewn the observed CMB and the base harmonic state of the electron, as follows Given the QM relationship E = h{nu} And that the charge to mass ratio q/m for an electron yields the harmonic frequency of this state such that nu = 1.6E-19/9.1E-31 ~= 1.8E+11 Hz Now, go look up the Black body temperature for ~1.76E+11 Hz... You'll find it to be, surprise, surprise, 2.8 degrees Kelvin.

In article <3CCAC98A...@attbi.com>, Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote: > > >Paul Stowe wrote: >> >> >> As always, both faulty logic and shallow reasoning. What else is to be >> said until you realize that sometimes one does not need to describe the >> details of frame, wiring, plumbing, sheetrock, and finish to fully >> describe a room in a house if all needs to do IS describe the the >> dimensions, layout and furnishings... > > Let me tell you where your view is faulty. You think that it is > possible for a theory to be demonstrated true. This is a practical > impossibility. No, I think that there exists an independent reality, and that this actual physical reality, being independent, is NOT describable by 'free creations of the human mind'. It is, instead, describable by applying reasoning to observations and experimentations. It is thus a 'self guided process' that one is NOT at all free (as in at the arbitrary whim to) create any explanation. Nature is a puzzle and, like any puzzle, its pieces fit together only in a certain fashion, thus it is THIS FACT that will, ultimately prove the only correct answer. THus there ARE NOT MANY possiblities, there is just ONE. And this is fixed by nature, independent of humanitys whims. > If a theory predicts an effect, and that effect is verified by > experiment, it does not prove the theory true. How about observations lead to hypotheses as to causes, this leads to ideas for verification which leads to tests of same, those that withstand this phase are considered 'viable'. Thus we have one or more 'possible' pieces to our physical universe puzzle. However, how the remaining 'viable' causes fix with other observations will in turn cull these down, leaving at the end of this process, the ONLY correct answer. > To assert such, it so commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent, > a well known form of incorrect reasoning from standard logic. Don't try to sell me Kantian philosophy... Reference, http://www.friesian.com/kant.htm > You also believe you can infer from a finite number of observations > (and crude observations at that) the total nature of physical reality. And if you don't get out of the business of science... > Not so. All we shall ever know about nature is (1) what we perceive > and (2) what our machines tell us, realizing that machine observations > are theory laden and not independent, like raw perception. We cannot > go from a finite number of observations to Truth. In addition to the > crudeness of our senses is the matter of believing that a relation > observed in Nature now, will continue to hold throughout time. This > is pure metaphysical hoo haa. We have no assurance that a law that > hold now will hold later and that a relation that holds Here will hold > There. We only * assume * that our (so-called) physical laws are place > and time independent. And we must make that assumption in order to do > science at all. We also assume the validity of Induction and Abduction > more generally. > > The best, the very best we can do is theoretically model the world based > on our perceptions and our intuitive notions of how things work to > produce prediction models that are consistent with observation. That is > it. There ain't no more. We can believe in our models, we can be > comfortable with our models, we can get warm and furry feelings about > our models, but all that will not prove the ultimate Truth of our > models. God knows the Truth and Man knows what Man perceives. > > So if you think sound caution and realization of our limitations is > shallow, by all means go on think that. But it won't make what you think > any truer. It seems that you don't know metaphysical philosophy even when espouting it...

In article <3CCB2913...@attbi.com>, Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote: > Paul Stowe wrote: >> >>> <snip of a remaining tidbit of Kolker's inproper snipping> >> >> That's bullshit. Maxwell NEVER thought space was 'filled with hexagonal >> gear trains and idler wheels'. Citation please... > > - Physical Lines of Force - by James Clerk Maxwell That's a reference, now how about the citation... >> Maxwell did provide illustrations of vortex arrangements that formed >> a hexagonal matrix and predicted this LONG before it actually was >> observed. > > This is it. He proposed the vortex as a reality. He later unproposed it > in - The Dynamical Theory of the Electrical Field -. > > Did you bother to read his papers? Yes, probably better than you did. He didn't unpropose any such thing. > You can get a sample of how Maxwell thought (he was a genius) by reading > - Maxwell on the Electromagnetic Field : A guided study - by Thomas K. > Simpson. Yup, if you remember correctly, it was I who provided you with that reference... > See his hexagons and idler wheels on p. 205. Its right there. I see the hex pattern in figure 3.19 with a current flow indicated. I call your attention to the photograph on page 318 of Davies' "The New Physics" of Benard cells... or see http://www.etl.noaa.gov/eo/notes/Convection/RBCells.html Or following this http://staff.science.nus.edu.sg/~parwani/c1/node62.html and click on Benard cells. Now, in 1861 there existed no means on Earth to create and observe such but, as you say, such was Maxwell's genius that he was both able to envison, draw, and predict the existence of such.

n article <3CCB37C0...@attbi.com>, Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote: > > >Paul Stowe wrote: >> >> >> Yes, probably better than you did. He didn't unpropose any such thing. >Not so. > >Here is a quote of Maxwell from "A Dynamical Theory of the >Electromagnetic Field", Philosophical Transactions Vol 155 (1865) pp >459 - 512 > > > "I have on former occasion attempt to describe a particular kind of > motion and a particular kind of strain, so arrange as to account for the > phenomena. In the present paper I avoid any hypothesis of this kind, and > to using such words as "electric momentum" and "electric elasticity" in > reference to the known phenomena of induction of currents and > polarization of diaelectrics. I wish merely to direct the mind of the > reader to mechanical phenomena which will assist him to understanding the > electrical ones. All such phrases in the present paper are to be considered > as illustrative, not as explanitory." Gee Bob, you do have a very short memory don't you. Let's see do I have to point anything out???? No, let's let Stephen Spiecher say it... again "I am not sure what you think Maxwell is implying in the quote you provide. In the very same document, "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field," Maxwell states: "We have therefore some reason to believe, from the phenomena of light and heat, that there is an aethereal medium filling space and permeating bodies, capable of being set in motion and of transmitting that motion from one part to another, and of communicating that motion to gross matter so as to heat it and affect it in various ways." I am not an aetherist, but the above sure sounds like someone speaking about an aether which is "really, really, real."..." And of course he WAS speaking to you, just a month or so ago... There is also again that thar problem of the Treatises, where he says again that he by the 'atomic vortex hypothesis' but that the details need a lot more work on... Yup it doesn't appear to support your claim that he 'unproposed' his vortex hypothesis...

# February 2003

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 18:39:45 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: ><pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:pf17lvob72iridii50uqsop6qf671tovqk@4ax.com... >> On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 17:15:57 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel" >> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: [Snip...] >> Simple, the fundamental question is, from where does the CMBR >> originate? If from a far field it can indeed be blocked. If from >> matter itself (specifically electrons of matter) the you'd see their >> hum from the surrounding material (like the antenna itself). Either >> way, even IF one assumes the far field case, good science gets the >> baseline, the control... >> >> You say it been done, great. I'd like to see the reference, details, >> & results. >> >> If someone is going to claim, scientifically, that something CAN be >> done, they damned well better be able to show it! Otherwise the're >> going on faith (religon) not objective science. > > So, in order to have an objective scientific basis for the otherwise > undetectable ether of your religion, *you* would like the CMBR to > originate in the machine that measures it, and then you want *us* to > prove that it doesn't. No, I'd like a simple answer to the above. Repeating, I'd like to see a reference, detailing, 'ANY' control experiment that was specifically done to 'rule out' near field sources for the CMBR. That's all... It should have been ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS DONE! It is neither a like or dislike, there exists an equation, T = hq/3km Where in SI units h is Planck's constant, q is elemental charge, k is Boltzmann's constant, and m the electron's mass... Since this value is 2.8 K, it 'suggests' a possiblity. Thus it is valid to ask this simple question. All that is required to answer it is to say, yes, it has been measured, here's the the reference... Paul Anderson said, "It IS possible to measure the noise temperature of the antenna/detector without having a terminator at 0K. The noise temperature of the WMAP receiver is 35uK (micro K)." This suggest that it possibly HAS been done. All that remains for the rather simple request is a reference to the article... Now how hard is that??? > Same thing goes from my dropping *you* out of *my* specific window. > The experiment has not been done. Don't try to weasel out of it with > your Drop Zone. Cite me one experiment please. Otherwise you float > when I drop you and there is nothing you can do about it. I think I'm > beginning to understand why this makes you and your buddy so jumpy ;-) Do you know what the "Drop Zone" is Dirk? Beside, NEVER measuring something is quite different than repeating something done uncountable times from time immortal... But given you demonstrable shallow mindset, it is most certainly expected behavior.

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 08:48:25 -0000, dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote: > pst...@ix.netcom.com: > >> Hmmm, as I thought, shallow thinking... It is very easy, indeed >> trival, to 'block' any far field EM radiation. Hell, simple metal >> sheets will do (the ultimate Faraday cage). But there's an itsy >> bitsy problem Billy Boy, unless that thar metal is less than the >> temperature spectrum you want to block, you guess what might happen! > > > Here, let me guess. What you'll see is the noise spectrum of the metal > making up the faraday cage. Bingo... > Why would the radiation corresponding to the microwave background > penertrate the conductor better than other signal? NEVER said it would... > Why is it a problem to simply calculate the blackbody spectrum at room > temperature and subtract it in software to see what's left? Try answering you own question... >[...] >> >>> Now the cosmic background radiation is a form of light so can not be the >>> medium through which light travels. >> >> ??? What is "a natural source of sound" Bill? Otherwise known as >> background noise... > > Thermal fluctuations of the medium. More fundamental, density fluctuations of the medium, which BTW, is all sound waves are. >> Where does it arise in mundane media? Does the fact that the medium >> itself self generates it make it a 'cannot be'? > > Are you claiming that your ether is made of atoms? ... On the contrary David, atoms are made of aether... > If not, then what is doing the radiating (which is caused by accelerated > charges)? ... The aether of space is hypothesised to be the medium of space. A compressible medium will incur density fluctuations, which will be a source for both destructive and constructive interference. Those that persist, and constructively couple, will manifest in a background 'noise'. For air, this is a natural backround 'noise'. For the aether, ditto, but for it, the waves are manifested in the vortex sponge manifold as waves of light. > How do your charges accelerate if there is no space between them? If > there is space between them, then obviously the medium doesn't fill > space, in which case you should be rewriting maxwell's equations to > treat your medium in the same way as any other dielectric by providing > a set of equations with no \epsilon_{0} or \mu_{0}. This I take as a fundamental misunderstanding...

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 17:02:05 -0700, "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote: >"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message >news:slrnblf63v.178.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net... [Snip...] >> Being able to cool something to a few millikelvin is plenty of proof. >> What you are suggesting about the microwave radiation would require >> the ability to cool something without being able to insulate from a >> heat bath which surrounds every atom in the object. > > I am not so sure that is really proof. If the source of the CMBR is right > there where you are cooling something down, then the source is being > cooled down also. It just means that it is also possible to cool down the > vacuum source of the CMBR. Imagine a hydrogen atom that is in a vacuum > spin matrix and the electron and proton are "heavily" interacting with the > spin matrix. When you cool down the atom, it will transfer to the spin > matrix and it will become cooled down also next to the atom. It's a red herring Fred. The equation w = UAdT applies. Where U is the overall heat transfer coefficient, A the area, dT the differential temperature, and w the thermal power transfer. Thus, given CMBR input w' is, w' = zT^4 Then, for a steady state condition we'd need, w = w' Or UA = zT^3 For any fixed temperature T we have only one variable, A. Therefore, A = zT^3/U Let zT^3/U = k For A <= k the system cannot be cooled and for A > k the system can be cooled... Surprising that Bilgey boy doesn't know this...

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 00:33:08 -0700, "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote: [Snip...] > Am I confused here? I swear Paul is saying the vacuum is the source of > the CMBR, not that the vacuum is the CMBR. If the vacuum is the source, > then you can only screen out the radiation coming from a distance. You > won't be able to really screen out the local source. However, it will be > effected right along with whatever you are trying to do. You are most certainly not confused here, this is what I said, and am saying. I'm saying that the CMBR 'might' be a result of vacuum fluctuations. 'If so', then it cannot be completely screened out. It is a prediction of aether theory (not just mine). It is testable...

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 18:25:02 +1000, "Bill Hobba" <bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote: > Bill Hobba wrote: > >> > I do not know the aether of Maxwell but I do know something of the >> > aether of Lorentz. >> > >> Paul Stowe wrote: >> >> Then one should not attempt to comment or criticize that which they >> neither know, or understand. > > Am I to take this as meaning you do not refer to the aether of > Lorentz? In that case what aether do you use? (Lecture mode on [again]) Regardless of what particular variant of aether one chooses the premise itself has an inherent physical nature. All aethers, be they conceived as continuous solid, particulate irrotational fluid, particulate vortexual superfluidic, ... etc. HAVE (or share) certain basic characteristics. The nay-sayers ALWAY ask for these. These include at a minimum, density, viscosity, energy (thus some form of speed), wave speed, ... etc. As you keep focusing on Lorentz's 1904 paper, the fact is, that paper defines NO aether theory per-se, it attempts to explain the results of experiments in terms of Lorentz's idea of electrons... It assumes the validity of Maxwell's equations which in turn, the inherits Maxwell's physical vortex model on which those equations were derived. The simple salient fact is, if there is ONLY the aether medium and no forces except those generated by dynamic processes of same, Lorentz covariance of ALL processes are an inevitable result... >Bill Hobba wrote: >>> And that aether can not be detected because it results in exactly >>> the same predictions as SR. Caveat: Since the fundamental basis >>> of LET and SR are different it may be possible in principle to >>> figure out some difference but I have not seen any proposals. If >>> Paul is claiming that the penetration of the background radiation >>> into a faraday cage ... >> > > Paul Stowe wrote: >> <roll-eyes, deep breath, exhale slowly, 1,., 2., ...10> >> >> Get it through your apparently thick skull, NOT PENETRATE..., >> >> T = hq/3km >> >> but PRESENT in any and ALL electrons of mass m and charge q, even >> virtual ones... > > I now understand that you are not proposing that the background radiation > is not the aether but rather an effect of the aether. Whew, that took long enough... Yes! > Paul Stowe wrote: >> Of what Bill? Do you not agree that the materials (ANY) used to >> attempt to shield ANY far field thermal spectrum, will in turn, emit >> their own thermal signature (by definition, a 'near field')? > > Of course - unarguable. > >Paul Stowe wrote: >' I have NEVER claimed that far field sources could not be screened out. In >> fact, quite the contrary. I claimed that there 'might' be a near >> field (a.k.a. on the inside side of any such screen) source, given >> the equation above. To scientifically discriminate and RULE OUT such >> a possibilty it needs to BE EXPERIMENTALLY tested, and THAT'S ALL!' > > OK I now understand that your proposing now. The question is by what > reasoning you believe an aether theory leads to such an effect. Consider the following, The basic continuity equation of Continuum Mechanics is given as : d(rho)/dt + (rho)Div v = 0 [Eq. 1] Where rho is the field density, and v is the mean velocity. If the field is incompressible this simplifies to: (rho)Div v = 0 [Eq. 2] Since with the incompressible assumption, there can be no change in' density. We can further simplify the equation by removing density (dividing it from both sides) we then get: Div v = 0 [Eq. 3] This is a equation of state, given an incompressible medium the above MUST BE SATISFIED! There is a problem here however, if we have equation 3, then we have for, c^2 = 1/uz [Eq. 4] Where u is the coefficient of compressibility and z density, u = 0 [Eq. 5] In other words, this definition requires infinite propagation speeds of any perturbations in such incompressible systems, eliminating any possibility of wave activity! Thus, for c to be finite, u cannot be zero, Eq. 3 is ruled out... Conversely, in compressible mediums we see that (rho)Div v equals the time rate of change in the density d(rho)/dt. For the limit, as a volume element [s] go to zero, we get: s(rho)Div v = s(d(rho)/dt) [Eq. 6] This is based on the observation that for the two terms to sum to zero, and therefore must have opposite signs. This leads directly to: mDiv v = dm/dt [Eq. 7] And cannot be zero. This is an important finding, it describes a unique characteristic of all compressible systems. The result of this is a fixed finite propagation speed for any perturbations in the resulting continuum, leading directly to standard acoustic behavior. So, what is the above equation saying? It appears to be saying that compressible medium will have a basic oscillation of density fluctuation occurring continuously. Moreover, given a generally uniform density and velocity, this fluctuation will have a distinctive frequency associated with this activity. This is clearly demonstrated by the relationship: Div v = d/dt [Eq. 8] Obviously, d/dt is a frequency... So, what is this??? When applied to the Continuum Mechanics of Electromagnetism where is this? There is a fundamental property that has remained undefined (and given arbitrary units), this is charge [q]. So, if we assign to charge the units [kg/sec] and let's now assume it is a result of the definition above, what is the result? In Coulomb's law, the force resulting from the interaction of two charges is given to be: F = [1/4pi(eps)][qq/r^2] [Eq. 9] Following that assumption we find that permitivitty [eps] must have units of density to get a result in units of force. If we can associate permitivitty with density, we find that standard acoustic equation matches that given for light propagation exactly. In standard acoustics wave speed c is given by the relationship: c^2 = Y/z [Eq. 10] Where Y is proportional to pressure and the specific heats in a gas, the bulk modulus of a liquid, or Young's modulus in a solid. For a solid we have the further complication of whether we are evaluating the compression <p wave> or shear <Sv, Sh waves>. The relationship between these two in a perfect elastic medium is that the shear wave travel at a speed Sqrt(3) time slower than the compression wave. We can of course write the above equation in terms of inverse Y [u] (in the standard literature this is known as the coefficient of compressibility see Eq. 4 above), and as can be seen: c^2 = 1/u(eps) = 1/uz [Eq. 11] This provides us with confirmation that this definition is, at least, internally consistent for Coulomb's law and the Maxwell/Heavyside relationship to wave speed. We can now look elsewhere for other possible correlations. As shown above, Div v = nu (a characteristic frequency in Hertz). With our definition, the charge to mass ratio would suggest that the mass, seen in matter, could be some sort of resulting stable manifestation of this harmonic oscillation in the field. Exploring this idea, lets look at the thermal (as in black body) frequency which, given the above definitions, results from this relationship. Given: E = h(nu) = 3kT [Eq. 12] and, as defined, nu = q/m. [Eq. 13] We have: E = hq/m = 3kT [Eq. 14] And the resulting temperature T for this relationship is T = hq/3km [Eq. 15] For the smallest stable elemental particle, the electron, this calculates to be 2.8 degrees Kelvin. > Bill Hobba wrote: >>> Not so. The aether of LET has Maxwell's equations and charge mobility >>> exactly the same as conventional theory. It is those that predict the >>> screening of the background radiation. Again which one are you calling >>> into question? And can you point me to a paper describing the exact >>> aether model you are using? If it is the aether of LET then why do you >>> believe it will give results different from Maxwell's equations? > > Paul Stowe wrote: >> OK fine Bill, what are the known physical characteristics of all >> compressible medium? >> >> I'll give you a few obvious ones, >> >> Density, >> Viscosity, >> Action, >> Finite wave speed, >> > > Now we are getting somewhere. Are you claiming that the aether must be a > compressible medium? Yes, by definition, see above... > That this must be the case is not clear to me. For example in Lorent'z > 1904 paper I can find no mention of such properties being attributed to an > aether. Indeed it is my understanding from a number of sources that Lorentz > deliberately shied away from attributing any structure other than that required > to support Maxwell's equations. If you are claiming the aether is a > compressible medium what is your reasoning linking that fact to the background > radiation being 'PRESENT in any and ALL electrons of mass m and charge q, even > virtual ones'; unless of course I still do not understand what your trying > to say. > > Thanks Hopefully, I've answered your questions...

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 14:33:29 +1000, "Bill Hobba" <bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote: >Paul Stowe wrote: >> (Lecture mode on [again]) >> >> Regardless of what particular variant of aether one chooses the >> premise itself has an inherent physical nature. All aethers, be >> they conceived as continuous solid, particulate irrotational fluid, >> particulate vortexual superfluidic, ... etc. HAVE (or share) certain >> basic characteristics. The nay-sayers ALWAY ask for these. These >> include at a minimum, density, viscosity, energy (thus some form of >> speed), wave speed, ... etc. As you keep focusing on Lorentz's 1904 >> paper, the fact is, that paper defines NO aether theory per-se, it >> attempts to explain the results of experiments in terms of Lorentz's >> idea of electrons... It assumes the validity of Maxwell's equations >> which in turn, the inherits Maxwell's physical vortex model on which >> those equations were derived. The simple salient fact is, if there >> is ONLY the aether medium and no forces except those generated by >> dynamic processes of same, Lorentz covariance of ALL processes are an >> inevitable result.. > > Here I must disagree. Many sources including the Conceptual Foundations of > 20th Century Field Theories, a copy of which you state you have, clearly > state the aether of Lorentz had no structure other than that required to > support Maxwell's equations. ... "I shall start from the fundamental equations of the theory of electrons[23]. Let D be the dielectric displacement in the ether, H the magnetic force, rho the volume density of the charge of an electron, v the velocity of a point of such a particle, and F the ponderomotive force, i.e. the force, reckoned per unit charge, which is exerted by the ether on a volume element of an electron. Then, if we use a fixed system of co-ordinates, ..." Again READ THE ABOVE! Now I said, "As you keep focusing on Lorentz's 1904 paper, the fact is, that paper defines NO aether theory per-se, it attempts to explain the results of experiments in terms of Lorentz's idea of electrons..." Now re-read it with comprehension. You'll find numerous references to those charges being 'physically distorted'. > In particular he did not propose that the aether had 'density, viscosity, > energy (thus some form of speed), wave speed, ... etc' ... There's not much disagreement on Lorentz's paper EXCEPT that if I write a paper to discuss a particular issue in the framework of a larger theory, of say for example GR. Since I 'assume' GR's validity and make my point do I need redundantly recreate and state all of GR, or can I just reference GR? > Your statement 'it assumes the validity of Maxwell's equations which in > turn, the inherits Maxwell's physical vortex model on which those > equations were derived' is not an inference that can be made because > Maxwell's equations stand independent of any model. Indeed they can be > derived from simply assuming linearity in the interaction term of the > lagrangian ... What Lagrangian? > and linearity in the field equations (see chapter 3 Landau Classical Theory > of Fields) or even from Coulomb's Law and SR (I do not have a complete > reference for this but an outline of one approach can be found in Chapter 1 > - Schwinger - Classical Electrodynamics). Really, explain Maxwell's main contribution to EM, the vector potential. Is it solonoidal? How does it match vortex dynamics? >Paul Stowe wrote: > >> The basic continuity equation of Continuum Mechanics is given as : >> >> d(rho)/dt + (rho)Div v = 0 [Eq. 1] >> >> Where rho is the field density, and v is the mean velocity. If the >> field is incompressible this simplifies to: > > To be precise rho is the density and v the velocity of the medium - the term > field density would imply it has something to do with electric or magnetic > fields the aether is supposed to be related to in some way. So your making > the assumption that the aether has the property of density. But density of > what? For a fluid that is mass density. Thus your assuming the aether has > mass. All of space filled with a substance with mass. Interesting > consequences for gravity. You're quibbling. In aether theories fields are affects in the physical medium. Grad, Div, Curl and all that... Yes, I assume all of space has a momentum density p. The question of 'rest mass' is not yet resolved... Can you stop an aether particle for me so I can measure its mass? >> >> (rho)Div v = 0 [Eq. 2] >> >> Since with the incompressible assumption, there can be no change in' >> density. We can further simplify the equation by removing density >> (dividing it from both sides) we then get: >> >> Div v = 0 [Eq. 3] > > Of course this is the well known continuity equation of an incompressible > medium. Yup, and for it to be realized the system cannot sustain wave activity. Thus the requirement of compressibility! Do you agree now that, in the framework of ANY aether theory that the incompressible state is physically ruled out? [Snip...] >> If we can associate permitivitty with density, we find that standard >> acoustic equation matches that given for light propagation exactly. >> In standard acoustics wave speed c is given by the relationship: >> >> c^2 = Y/z [Eq. 10] > > Again this is another assumption your making - that the permitivitty of > electromagnetic theory is the same as the density of the medium. Not just I, Maxwell made the same one... [Snip...] >> We can now look elsewhere for other possible correlations. > > What your doing is trying to draw inferences from a particular model of the > aether (that is a medium that can be modeled by the continuity equation of > fluid dynamics) and hypnotizing relationships between that model and known > electromagnetic properties. Using this approach the assumptions just keep > mounting. Again, not just I, Maxwell did precisely the same thing... You know the old saying "if it quacks like a Duck...", Ockham's Razor & all that... >> As shown above, Div v = nu (a characteristic frequency in Hertz). >> With our definition, the charge to mass ratio would suggest that the >> mass, seen in matter, could be some sort of resulting stable >> manifestation of this harmonic oscillation in the field. >> >> Exploring this idea, lets look at the thermal (as in black body) >> frequency which, given the above definitions, results from this >> relationship. Given: >> >> E = h(nu) = 3kT [Eq. 12] >> >> and, as defined, >> >> nu = q/m. [Eq. 13] >> >> We have: >> >> E = hq/m = 3kT [Eq. 14] >> >> And the resulting temperature T for this relationship is >> >> T = hq/3km [Eq. 15] >> >> For the smallest stable elemental particle, the electron, this >> calculates to be 2.8 degrees Kelvin. > > What I have seen you do is make a number of assumptions about the aether eg > that the permittivity of electromagnetic theory is the same as the density. > But density of what? Mass? No, it should be rather obvious, the EM medium! > That a massive medium would fill all space would have gravitational > consequences. Not if this medium is also the source (a.k.a. the root cause) of the gravitational effect! You'd need to know the process by which the effect called gravitation comes about within this base medium. The base field, since it is the cause, may not contribute, or if it does, weakly... > If it is not mass then exactly what basis do you have for using the equations > of fluid dynamics? It Quacks like a Duck, swims like a Duck, Looks like a Duck... Ah, perhaps its a frog in disguise. > All I can see you have done Paul is make a number of bold conjectures none of > which I find physically compelling. Good, then point to the error. > Now an experiment has not been conducted to test you predicted effect so you > can maintain it may still be valid. ... Thus, after ALL of this, my original point. > Continuum mechanics however is not my field so I would really like the > comments of someone who knows a lot more than me on the consequences of the > assumptions you have made. It doesn't change Maxwell model or equations one iota... It does bring clarity to the model and provides a means of getting to otherwise unknown relationships (since charge is now mapped to physical units). For example, k = h/qc Where k is Boltzmann's constant, h Planck's Constant (the aether's Action), q elemental charge, and c light speed. In MKS units, of course. > For me this material must be a pretty magical to have the same properties > of a fluid yet posses no detectable mass (mass as would be indicated by > gravitational effects). Magic has NOTHING to do with it. Failure to think and consider possibilities does not constitute magic... > This would mean to it have to be so tenuous I have difficulty > seeing how it could exist at all. The density of the aether in this model is defined, 8.854E-12 kg/m^3. The term Dark Matter comes to mind in this context... How it all fits together is not yet is not yet fully defined. Hell even if I knew ALL of the answers (which I don't) no one would believe it if those answers did not match their preconceived notions as to how they fit...

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 10:33:35 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote: > pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote: > >> They do spiral in, just very, very slowly... Even GR predicts that >> orbit decay... > > Citation please? "It is worth noting that the cancellation between aberration and velocity-dependent terms in general relativity is NOT QUITE EXACT. If gravity could be described exactly as an instantaneous, central interaction, the mechanical energy and angular momentum of a system such as a binary pulsar would be exactly conserved, and ORBITS COULD NOT DECAY. In general relativity, the gravitational radiation reaction appears as a slight mismatch between the effects of aberration and the extra non-central terms in the equations of motion [11]. One could again try to formulate an alternative theory in which gravity propagated instantaneously, but, as in electromagnetism, only at the expense of deunifying" the field equations and treating gravity and gravitational radiation as independent phenomena." gr-qc/9909087 29 Sep 1999 UCD-99-17 gr-qc/9909087 September 1999 Aberration and the Speed of Gravity S. Carlip Department of Physics University of California Davis, CA 95616 USA

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 11:47:13 +1000, "Bill Hobba" <bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote: [Snip...] >Bill Hobba wrote: >> > Your statement 'it assumes the validity of Maxwell's equations which in >> > turn, the inherits Maxwell's physical vortex model on which those >> > equations were derived' is not an inference that can be made because >> > Maxwell's equations stand independent of any model. Indeed they can be >> > derived from simply assuming linearity in the interaction term of the >> > lagrangian ... >> > >Paul Stowe replied: >> What Lagrangian? > > The standard form of the lagrangian of a particle in a field consists of the > lagrangian of the free particle plus the lagrangian of the field plus the > lagrangian of the interaction of the field and the particle ie > >L(free particle) + L(interaction) + L(field) ^ ^ ^ | | |__ Please define physically | |___________________> ^ |______________________________________| >Now L (interaction) may depend on position, time, 4 velocity and charge. >From the symmetry properties of an inertial reference frame is should not >depend on position or time thus should only depend on the 4 velocity. If we >assume it is a linear theory then it depends linearly on charge and 4 >velocity ie has the form (in units where c is one) (-qAidx/dt)dt (dx/dt is >the four velocity) where Ai is the constant of proportionality. Since q and >the 4 velocity are associated with the charged particle Ai must be >associated wit with field and is called the four potential. Thus the >lagrangian of the particle and the field interaction is: > > -mcds - q/cAidxi . I assume mc = momentum, what's ds? I assume q is charge, A is vector potential x is a coordinate axis > Taking the variation we find the equations of motion of a charged particle > to be dp/dt = eE + e/c V x H where the electric and magnetic field are defined > in the usual way from the four potential. (see page 47 of Landau Classical > Theory of Fields for the full working out). Please state the definitions of E, H, V... My point dear fellow, you have MANY hidden physical assumptions here. Like, for example, from where does E & H spring forth. Lagrangians are cool, but they ARE just short cuts based upon conservation. > The next key point to note is that Ai exhibits the property of gauge > invariance ie A'i = Ai + df/dxi has no physical effect because the extra > term that appears in the lagrangian interaction term is a total differential > ie d e/c f which when the variation is done has no effect on the equations > of motion. Again, explain the meaning of A, physically... I can, Maxwell did... > Now the interesting thing is if we insist on gauge invariance and linearity > this immediately determines the field lagrangian. To quote in Landau's > typically terse style (he uses Sf for the field action and Smf for the > action of the field on the particle): > > 'From the discussion it follows that under the integral sign for the action > Sf there must stand an expression quadratic in the field. Only in this case > will the field equations be linear, the field equations are obtained by > carrying the action and in the variation the degree of the expression under > the integral sign decreases by unity. > > The potentials can not enter into the expression for the action Sf since > they are not uniquely determined (in Smf this uniqueness was not important). > Therefore Sf must be the integral of some function of Fik. But the action > must be a scalar and must therefore be an integral of some scalar. The only > such quantity is FikFik. Thus it must have the form: > > Sf = a integral FikFik dv dt.' > > The value of a depends on the choice of units. In the gaussian system of > units its value is -1/(16 pi c). But what do the terms mean? > As an exercise I once derived the above form algebraically without the words > and applying the gauge invariance - exactly the same equation results. > > Thus we see that considerations having nothing to do with the aether and > everything to do with the electromagnetic interaction being linear in the > four velocity determine Maxwell's equations. Why? > Hence Maxwell's model (whatever that is) is not necessary to determine his > equations. Other considerations are enough. When you can explain each term you use phenomenologically, whith physically is, does, and why, then you'll have a leg to stand on. Just start with A, the vector potential... > Of course Maxwell would not have known of this derivation for it depends on > SR and some knowledge of relativistic field theory which were not known in > his time. But that in no way detracts from its validity. Paul Stowe

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 09:54:09 +1000, "Bill Hobba" <bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote: > ... I have no doubt aetherists will not like my explanation because > it puts forward a world different from their intuition. I believe > the real reason aetherists like the aether is that it allows them to > maintain their view of an absolute time. I for one don't give a rat's ass about 'absolute' time. What in the hell make you think that, somehow, this is even a point of concern for an aetherist? You have, within your posts here, shown a very profound LACK of understanding of the hypothesis, OR what it is, or more specifically, what it is NOT! For example, did you know that Maxwell's model is, inherently, a quantum field theory? > What they need to realize is that any theory that is in agreement with > experiment is just as valid as any other; their personal preference have > no bearing on the matter. And what you and others NEED TO UNDERSTAND IS OCKHAM's RAZOR! Every single indication points to a physical medium! One really has to work at it to deny it. Which, of course, is why Dirk bailed on the little challenge in response to his claim of the aether was superfluous... > I fully admit that aether theories are valid in that they are equally in > agreement with experiment. I believe that is the hallmark of someone who > believes in and understands the foundations of science (at least I hope > it is). That is the reason I was disappointed in Einstein's attitude to > Quantum Mechanics - he maintained scientific credibility by admitting it > was in accord with experiment - but lost in never really accepting it as > the best explanation we currently have. I have the very same problem with the 'current philosophy' as Einstein's. Metaphorically speaking, God does not play dice with with the universe... It is a lousy cop-out to say it's the 'best' explanation, or we'll never really understand, ...etc! > However I often do not see the same integrity on the part of the aetherists. Be specific here... Paul Stowe

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 18:01:56 +1000, "Bill Hobba" <bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote: >Bill Hobba wrote: >>> The standard form of the lagrangian of a particle in a field consists >>> of the lagrangian of the free particle plus the lagrangian of the >>> field plus the lagrangian of the interaction of the field and the >>> particle ie >>> >>> L(free particle) + L(interaction) + L(field) > > Paul Stowe replied: >> ^ ^ ^ >> | | |__ Please define physically >> | |___________________> ^ >> |______________________________________| >> > > This is standard stuff. I am surprised you do not know it. I will be using > units where the speed of light = 1. In lagrangian mechanics and field theory > (the advantage of which is that both particles and fields can be treated the > same way) the equation of motion and the field equations are assumed to > minimize a quantity called the action which is also assumed additive. yeah, yeah, the 'least action' rule. > The action ... You just used a term, Action, now what does it mean, physically? For aetherist hand-waving abstract terminology doesn't cut it. Tell us WHAT they are, physically. > ... is usually expressed as the integral of something called the > lagrangian density or just the lagrangian. For a system consisting of > fields and particles we have action for the free particle (L = m ds the > standard lagrangian of a free free particle m = mass ds the infinitesimal > proper time interval), Ah, isn't ds a distance?, or is it ds/c? Action has specific units, (momentum x distance). There is a very physical reason for this. > the action of the field acting on the particle and the action of the field. What, specifically, is 'the particle'? Is it a simple object, like conceptually a solid point mass & no fields of its own. Or, is it, a QM oscillator? Ditto, what's the field? IOW you haven't begun to answer the question above. > Bill Hobba wrote: > >>> Now L (interaction) may depend on position, time, 4 velocity and charge. >>> From the symmetry properties of an inertial reference frame is should not >>> depend on position or time thus should only depend on the 4 velocity. If >>> we assume it is a linear theory then it depends linearly on charge and 4 >>> velocity ie has the form (in units where c is one) (-qAidx/dt)dt (dx/dt >>> is the four velocity) where Ai is the constant of proportionality. Since q >>> and the 4 velocity are associated with the charged particle Ai must be >>> associated wit with field and is called the four potential. Thus the >>> lagrangian of the particle and the field interaction is: >>> >>> -mcds - q/cAidxi . >> > > Paul Stowe replied: >> I assume mc = momentum, what's ds? >> I assume q is charge, A is vector potential x is a coordinate axis >> > > Explained above. > >>> Taking the variation we find the equations of motion of a charged >>> particle to be dp/dt = eE + e/c V x H where the electric and magnetic >>> field are defined in the usual way from the four potential. (see page >>> 47 of Landau Classical Theory of Fields for the full working out). > > p is the classical momentum. E is the electric field V = velocity H the > magnetic field. This is just the Lorentz force equation. With c=1 it is > > dp/dt = qE qVxH Ah yes, but what does it mean? >> My point dear fellow, you have MANY hidden physical assumptions here. >> Like, for example, from where does E & H spring forth. Lagrangians >> are cool, but they ARE just short cuts based upon conservation. > > You bet I do. The point is none of them involve the aether. Good, the answer my questions above... > The whole point of the post is that you claimed Lorentz was referring to > the aether of Maxwell because he used Maxwell's equations. And, my dear fellow, those equations did not spring forth from nothing. The thing about starting with a physical process model is you must match the equations to the processes or else... > point is that there are many routes to Maxwell's equations that in no > way involve the aether. Hiding something (you know, hidden variables) does not make them disappear. You can say, we'll ignore them, but they're still there. > This is just one based on lagrangian field theory. Ah yes, the 'field'... Make the field be with you :) >Bill Hobba wrote: >>> The next key point to note is that Ai exhibits the property of gauge >>> invariance ie A'i = Ai + df/dxi has no physical effect because the extra >>> term that appears in the lagrangian interaction term is a total >>> differential ie d e/c f which when the variation is done has no effect >>> on the equations of motion. > >Paul Stowe wrote: >> >> Again, explain the meaning of A, physically... I can, Maxwell did... > > It is the mathematical entity that represents the electromagnetic field. No, it usually represents a term called 'Vector Potential'. Again, it defines a very specific physical process. Hint, it's ALWAY solinoidal... > A general theorem by Wigner shows they must always be tensors. Not surprising... > In field theory where fields assumed the primary thing upon which other > things are built ... Ah yes, the 'field'... > there is no need to go further than that. Here lies the vast philosophical difference between the typical aetherist and others... > As to its deeper meaning see some books on Quantum Electrodynamics. What is the physical model of QED? [Snip, for brevity...] > Paul Stowe replied: > >> Why? > > Because the 2 assumptions I made were: > > 1. Electromagnetism is derivable from a standard lagrangian ie > containing terms involving at the most first derivatives. > > 2. The theory is linear ie the interaction term is linear and > the field equations are linear. > > These are the only assumptions I made and do not involve the > aether. > > Paul Stowe wrote: >> >> Just start with A, the vector potential... > > As explained previously from a theorem due to Wigner all fields > can be represented by a tensor. Ai is the mathematical object > that represents the electromagnetic field. It is a 4 vector. > Since in field theory fields are assumed the primary thing no > further explanation is required. In any theory we seek to explain > things in terms of other things. In field theory fields are > considered the primary thing for which no further explanation is > required. I am/was probing to try to make you think about what broad brush terms mean in terms of physical processes. I guess, the real issue is HOW aetherist approach and think about processes as opposed to those that are simply satisfied with such as, it just is/does... Paul Stowe

On 9 Sep 2003 06:38:01 -0700, glha...@indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote: >pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message news:<k46qlv8bc64l7lknbh4k0lh0or2q8kvon8@4ax.com>... >> On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 09:54:07 +1000, "Bill Hobba" >> <bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote: >> >> > Gregory L. Hansen wrote: >> >> Got an estimate that relates the amount of drag to the strength of >> >> gravity in aether theories? Feynman produced one, or so I've been >> >> told, but the library doesn't seem to have his book about gravity, >> >> although the catalog says it does. >> >> >> > >> > Got a copy. Will post with what I find out. >> >> Sigh, Volume I, Chaper 7, Section 7-7, pages 7-9 & 10. Its a >> brush-off, not ANYTHING like that required to evalute the 'real' >> problems... There's drag, aberration, and 'other' velocity dependent >> terms... The drag force can be quantified, as can the heating >> effect, and aberration. Been there, done that, even got invited >> by an independent publisher to contribute articles to a book on the >> topic... > > I know it can be quantified. I've been told as much, and I think > that's probably true. But I'd still like to see it quantified. Fine, http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8or5fi%24tkq%241%40slb3.atl.mindspring.net&rnum=9 http://www.google.com/groups?selm=70oc5vomg4rbrgml3uenh5rnlol7a18lr6%404ax.com&rnum=2 http://www.google.com/groups?selm=bdklgq%24rfg%241%40slb9.atl.mindspring.net&rnum=3 > In particular, comparing with the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 > which I've been told without further elaboration or calculation is > predicted by a LaSagian aether. Yes, see references above or "Pushing Gravity" (Matt Edward's book) > But also how a general relation is found, especially if we're looking at > something like a Lorentz covariant theory with particles going a hundred > times faster than light to keep the planets from observably spiralling > into the Sun. Ah yes, near infinite velocity of the Le Sagian particles eliminates both the drag and aberration problems of orbits. This is one way out for this model (there are others). > Google gave me a lot of crap and Web of Science gave me a lot of > nothing. And even if Feynman gives it the brush-off I'd hoped he'd > reference other work, but that work is not currently available at our > library. You're a cut above the usual aetherist lurking on > sci.physics, that's why I asked you. A good source is Matt's book. It has over 15 authors and spans over 300 years of history. It covers the full range of topics. Paul Stowe

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 05:15:16 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote: > > >pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote: > >> >> And what you and others NEED TO UNDERSTAND IS OCKHAM's RAZOR! Every >> single indication points to a physical medium! One really has to >> work at it to deny it. Which, of course, is why Dirk bailed on the >> little challenge in response to his claim of the aether was >> superfluous... >> > Ocam's Razor is a heuristic, not a metaphysical principle. And it is > easty to deny aether. First, it is not detected. Second, it has > properties that make no sense physically, third, theories without the > burden of aether predict correctly, forth, aether does not predict > anyting that aether free theories already predict. If aether is not just > plain wrong, it is useless. > > Claiming that aether is somehow more "physical" than mathematical > abstraction overlooks the fact that aether is also an idealization and > an abstraction. Physical theories used idealization and abstraction to > produce empirically testable quantitative assertions about the world. > > In modern physical theories, forces are exerted through the exchange of > virtual bosons. Ah yes, those by definition, unobservable, undetectable 'virtual' bosons. Talk about two-faced... > Bosons are particles and particles do not need a space full of jellylike > goo to get from here to there. How many are there of them Bob? How does 'a' virtual boson 'know' to exchange, to cause them thar forces? If it's more than 'a' boson, is it a 'field' of virtual bosons? If it is a field of virtual bosons moving randomly, and they are particles, how is that different than a more mundane medium like a fluidized bed? Paul Stowe

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 10:42:52 +1000, "Bill Hobba" <bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote: >> greywolf42 wrote: >> Kind of a tortured paragraph :-\ >> >> 1) You claim that you aren't knowledgable enough to comment -- then > comment anyway. > > Just letting people know the comments I made were not based on real > understanding of superfluidity. Sorry if my desire for fairness > confused you. Do you know what characteristics constitute a superfluid? Can you state them? One liners are fine, I'll give you the first, vanishing viscosity (Idealized, 0 viscosity) >> greywolf42 wrote: >> 2) You insinuate Feynman's name into the paragraph with an >> 'innocent' question. > > But pertinent - because Landau was not the only person famous for > his work on liquid helium; so was Feynman. But, the issue is not, was not who worked on the idea, but WHAT IS a superfluid... >> greywolf42 wrote: >> 3) You next produce a 'potential' view of Feynman's -- claiming >> a different view than standard. > > The view of Feynmans I produced later was superfluidity 'simply > required the generation of quantized vortex lines ... What, specifically, are 'quantized vortex lines'? > in the superfluid which would give the fluid an overall velocity > field v similar to the one required in the normal fluid in rotation > but at the same time would make curl v vanish almost everywhere in > the region except at the axis of vortices where it would diverge' Do you know what this means? Can you describe it, narratively? > Are you claiming this quote is not correct? Are you claiming that > what Feynman said was not correct? Are you claiming that Feynmans > theory was the same as Landau's? Are you claiming that experiment > did not favor Feynmans theory? Exactly what are you claiming? I dunno, what theory??? >> greywolf42 wrote: >> 4) You flop back into "its properties" -- presumably 'it' is helium >> superfluidity. > > I have no idea what your trying to say here. > >> greywolf42 wrote: >> 5) You make an unsupported claim that an experimental observation is >> dependent upon QFT, instead of classical theory. > > You made the claim Landau said 'the liquid helium acts as a vacuum'. > The reasonable interpretation of that claim is the vacuum of QFT > which is not a classical QM phenomena. http://physicsweb.org/article/world/11/6/3/1 http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/1999-10/msg0018788.html http://www.wspc.com.sg/books/physics/1439.html Now, if you answered my question above (name characteristics of a superfluid) describe the vortex type found therein. >> greywolf42 wrote: >> 6) You then invoke Weinberg's name to claim that QFT is a 'natural >> consequence' of SR and QM (the latter is kind of like saying that >> dogs are the natural consequence of dogs). > > I invoked Weinberg's name to present the modern view of QFT that was > different than in Landaus time; namely it is the only reasonable way > to reconcile QM and SR. Prior to this it was a device used to treat > fields and particles in a unified way. In support of that view I > cite the Historical Introduction found in Weinberg - The Quantum > Theory of Fields. You keep invoking 'modern view' and SR & QM. Then tell us what IS the physical reason for the term (1 - [v/c]^2) and where can I go to find a physical description of QM. Can you describe the physical QM processes pictorially? Penrose has tried... >> greywolf42 wrote: >> 7) You then bring in a claim (again unsupported) about rejection of > theaether due to superfluity. > > Your claim was, using a quote from Landau, that 'the liquid helium > acts as a vacuum'. I claim that the vacuum is an effect of combining > SR and QM. Well once I see that you can physically describe where SR comes from and what QM processes are we might get somewhere... > Since SR specifically rejects the ather as superfluous, and you can't > get more out of a theory than you but in, the vacuum state is not and > can not be the aether of classical theory. Why not? > For example the aether of classical theory has a velocity relative to > most inertial frames (only in one frame is it at rest). Huh? The aether has a velocity relative to itself? Classically, if I envision a moving coordinate system superimposed upon a medium, it may move wrt the medium, but, without anything physical associated with it, what are the physical consequences?, NONE! This has NOTHING to do with classical or Quantum, it' JUST a conceptual frame of reference. Now, what I think you're trying to say is we have Lorentz covariance, not classical Galilean covariance... > The vacuum state does not have that property. > >> greywolf42 wrote: >> Did you just confuse superfluity with superfluidity? > > Of course it was a typo. > >> greywolf42 wrote: >> 'Or did it occur to you that all you had to do was invoke SR to claim the >> aether was 'superflous?' > > I base my arguments for the non existence of the aether on well known > physical principles such as the POR of relativity. But I readily admit > aether theories are viable and also in accord with experiment. And with the POR of relativity... [Snip of rest]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 19:13:36 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote: > FrediFizzx wrote: >> Substitute ether for vacuum above. > > What aether? There is no evidence the space is filled with a > visco-elastic medium that is stiffer than Toledo steel and rarer than > honesty in a politician. No evidence. Zip, nada, zero. Aether is not > even needed as a theoretical construct. PHysics does fine without it. "The unusual behavior of 3He manifests itself at very low temperatures. The liquid enters the superfluid state, which supports topological defects. An example is the quantized vortex line. Such objects are created spontaneously when the container holding the liquid is put into rotation (Fig. 1). Superfluid 3He is the host for a multitude of different types of topological defects, such as point singularities, vortex lines, domain walls, and three-dimensional textures. This behavior allows investigations of general principles, such as topological stability and confinement, nucleation of singularities, and interactions between objects of different topologies. These methods are applicable, for example, to the new and rapidly developing fields of unconventional superconductivity and Bose-Einstein condensation of atomic gases. In addition, there are promising analogies to quantum field theory, elementary particle physics, and cosmology (3, 4). ..." http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=22135 > Phone when there is clear, convincing, undeniable, uncontravertable > evidence that aether exists. "Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of you!"

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 18:04:19 +1000, "Bill Hobba" <bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote: > Paul Stowe wrote >> The how in the hell can you even begin to claim to 'know' whether or >> not a superfluid and Maxwell's vacuum are, or are not, relatable? > > Just so people understand the misdirection that is going on here I > specifically stated I interpreted 'vacuum' to be the vacuum of QFT > not the vacuum of Maxwell. Indeed in modern usage the vacuum of > Maxwell is dead a buried. When physicists speak of the 'vacuum' > these days they usually mean the vacuum of Quantum Field Theory > (QFT) not the vacuum of Maxwell (whatever that is - it is so dead > and buried it is in no standard textbook I have - however the vacuum > of QFT is eg Weinberg - The Quantum Theory of Fields). "Maxwell on the Electromagnetic Field, A guided Study", T. K. Simpson, Rutger University Press - 1997 > I fully believe when Landau made the statement 'the liquid helium acts > as a vacuum' he was referring to the vacuum of QFT. Yeah, so? > However I will admit to be sure I would need the full context and > surrounding content to be sure. If & when you decide to unbury you head and look at the evidence, you'll find that QFT, superfluidity, and quantized vortex (ring) lattices are intimately related... As I said before, we were talking QFT since, that was the very nature of Maxwell's field... Paul Stowe

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 01:35:49 +0000 (UTC), glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote: >In article <1ik4mvsdlbne5547drddnuiohb5qi7aroo@4ax.com>, > <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 19:13:36 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker" >><bobk...@attbi.com> wrote: >> >>> FrediFizzx wrote: >>>> Substitute ether for vacuum above. >>> >>> What aether? There is no evidence the space is filled with a >>> visco-elastic medium that is stiffer than Toledo steel and rarer than >>> honesty in a politician. No evidence. Zip, nada, zero. Aether is not >>> even needed as a theoretical construct. PHysics does fine without it. [Snip...] >> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=22135 > > Great. All you need is an aether with electromagnetic interactions > similar to those in He3. Yes, 'similar to', NOT He3. As for EM interactions (processes), they're in there, by definition... Paul Stowe

On 13 Sep 2003 06:05:22 -0700, glha...@indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote: - hide quoted text - >pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message news:<jc55mvsa7p6ovuck54s0ba1ra548satp8v@4ax.com>... >> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 01:35:49 +0000 (UTC), >> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote: >> >>> In article <1ik4mvsdlbne5547drddnuiohb5qi7aroo@4ax.com>, >>> <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 19:13:36 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker" >>>> <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> FrediFizzx wrote: >>>>>> Substitute ether for vacuum above. >>>>> >>>>> What aether? There is no evidence the space is filled with a >>>>> visco-elastic medium that is stiffer than Toledo steel and rarer than >>>>> honesty in a politician. No evidence. Zip, nada, zero. Aether is not >>>>> even needed as a theoretical construct. PHysics does fine without it. >> >> [Snip...] >> >>>> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=22135 >>> >>> Great. All you need is an aether with electromagnetic interactions >>> similar to those in He3. >> >> Yes, 'similar to', NOT He3. >> >> As for EM interactions (processes), they're in there, by >> definition... > > The point behind my flippant quip was the following: > > We understand water or other liquids to be mostly incompressible, and > solids to be elastic, and so on, because of electromagnetic > interactions. Mostly electrostatic attraction at longer ranges and > repulsion at shorter ranges, having to do with things like > polarization and nuclei getting too close together. > > The main motivation for aether theories, at least that I've been > given on the newsgroups, is to have a mechanical model for > interactions. So LaSage's ultramundane corpuscles literally bang > into things and push them together by simple billiard ball-like > momentum transfer, for instance. Electromagnetic waves propagate > as a sound through a gas (talk to Keith Stein about that one...) Couple things, Le Sage variants exist where, instead of particles, the process is driven by wave interference. See the referenced book mentioned earlier. EM are sound in aether theories, but the aether is NOT of necessity, a gas... In fact, a superfluid is a very far cry indeed from a gas! > But by the time you've constructed an aether that models things > that happen in the real world you get things like stiffness ... Why? As I've asked before, how 'stiff' is a superfluid. We have an equation that simply says that the wave speed is related to the compressibility [u] and density [z], i.e. c = 1/sqrt(uz) Now, this is not my invention but very standard fare... The issue is transverse waves... At the time OF aether theories the ONLY known substances that could support these was elastic solids! The concept of superfluids did not exist. By the time it did, active development of aether theory had been abandoned. Thus the concept (aether theory) was never integrated or evaluated against this new information. > ...but matter passes through it unimpeded, ... The question becomes, in the aether, what is matter? It certainly isn't something foreign 'plowing' through a separate medium (aether). > ...supporting transverse but not longitudinal waves, ... This is the key, where are the longitudinal [P] waves? Thus the critical question becomes how can we get long range transverse waves without the corresponding long range P waves. > ... mucking around with lengths and time ... This is, and always has been, a red herring. The only issue is, how independent of the aether is matter? > whatever the proposed mechanism for that is (if any), and so on. > You have a magical substance that is no less strange than any concept > of fields or structured spacetime, and you've lost any pretense to a > mechanical model of billiard balls or fluids. Or else you have a simple > mechanical model with non-mechanical force fields to explain forces. Not so Greg. It is well known that, for example, a fluid vortex has long range field-like effects. It IS purely 'mechanical' in it basic nature but, taken as an entity is very force driven... > But it's an undetectable magical substance ... It is not undetectable. It that were true then fields would not be manifested... > whose properties are carefully defined such that its rest frame can't > be measured, If the measuring devices are all manifestations of the medium it is rather impossible to get the 'independence' required to discriminate. But, the aether, being a compressible medium illuminates its own rest frame. All one need do is look. > and its speed must be greater than this or its interaction with matter > must be less than that, giving limits but not actual numbers. So, what's your point? > When you've lost the simple mechanical model and still have no > definite properties to pin to it, what point remains of an aether > theory? Who ever said anything about 'simple'? Kinetic theory, basicly is SIMPLE. Fluid mechanics to which it give rise is the most complicated of all physical processes. > There is the point that remains with any theory; figure out what it > says and then see if the real world acts that way. Keep trying new > things simply to see what happens. But I don't think that explains > the passion. Well, at least some models (Maxwell's variant for one) supports all of our observations. It has given new relationships and an some amazing coincidences like, (you've seen'em before) p = a momentum quanta (5.1517E-27) kg-m/sec L = a Length quanta (6.4309E-08) m h = 2pL q = 2p/L T = hq/3km = (2p/L)^2c/3m k = h/qc = L^2/c Where h, q, k, c and the standard physical constants Planck's, Charge, Boltzmann's ... etc. Given that schrodinger's equation spring forth from the very same process model the evidence is rather hard to deny... Paul Stowe

> Not so Greg. It is well known that, for example, a fluid vortex has > long range field-like effects. It IS purely 'mechanical' in it basic > nature but, taken as an entity is very force driven... > >> But it's an undetectable magical substance ... > > It is not undetectable. It that were true then fields would not be > manifested... Errata, the above should read, It is not undetectable? If that were true, then fields would not be manifested...

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 13:52:26 +1000, "Bill Hobba" <bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote: >Paul Stowe wrote: >> Given that schrodinger's equation spring forth from the very same >> process model the evidence is rather hard to deny... > > Are you claiming that how Schrodenger discovered the equation or how > it was initially discovered? ... No, my claim is stronger. My claim is that the process defined by this equation is inherrent to the Kelvin-Maxwell model! Now, a relevant question is, how did Scrodinger himself interpret what the equation meant... We find, on page 275, Vol II of Whittaker's book "A History of the Theories of Aether & Electrcity" the following passage, "The question may now be raised as to the physical significance of the wave function. Schrodinger at first, in a paper [1] received 18 March 126, supposed that if Y* (Y = symbol cap psi) denotes the complex quantity conjugate to Y, then the space-density of electricity is given by the real part of Y(dY*/dt). In a paper received on 10 May, however, he corrected this to to Y(Y*)... Max Born ... proposed that Y(Y*) should be interpreted in terms of probability..." > ... Dirac with his q numbers had the equation first. In > fact his abstract q number theory is more generally > applicable than either wave or matrix mechanics (which it > has as special cases). And that is the whole problem with > QM - the greatest minds in history have failed to contain > it within a Newtonian model. Once Schrodenger became aware > of this he was sorry he ever had anything to do with his > equation. ... That may have been the thinking of that time but time marches on, knowledge marches forward, and we learn... Trying looking at 'Soliton Solutions'... > The reason is it was a red herring - a chimera that promised > to explain QM in terms of easily understandable things but failed > due to its interpretation - waves of what? Yes indeed. More problematic, as noted by Whittaker, "The notion of waves which do not transmit energy or momentum, but which determined probability, had become familiar..." Now, how can this be (waves which do not transmit energy or momentum) in a physical media??? > Everything we currently know is a particle. We have not discovered > anything that is not. Yet from the double slit experiment we know > it must go through both slits simultaneously - a property of waves. Yes indeed. :) > The standard statistical interpretation is the only one that has > stood up to scrutiny. Statistics of what? > Bohms pilot wave model has had recent experimental refutation. I > really would like the detail of Paul's model that explains the double > slit experiment and how it differs from Bohms model. Yes, I think you would. Hint (for now), think "Price is Right", Plinko... Now, once you understand the basics of the Kelvin-Maxwell model, we'll talk. Paul Stowe

On 14 Sep 2003 08:09:57 -0700, glha...@indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote: >pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message news:<bc66mvseuih66q6c2trlmf0cp1aiijgqp9@4ax.com>... >> On 13 Sep 2003 06:05:22 -0700, glha...@indiana.edu (Gregory L. >> Hansen) wrote: > >>> The main motivation for aether theories, at least that I've been >>> given on the newsgroups, is to have a mechanical model for >>> interactions. So LaSage's ultramundane corpuscles literally bang >>> into things and push them together by simple billiard ball-like >>> momentum transfer, for instance. Electromagnetic waves propagate >>> as a sound through a gas (talk to Keith Stein about that one...) >> >> Couple things, Le Sage variants exist where, instead of particles, >> the process is driven by wave interference. See the referenced >> book mentioned earlier. EM are sound in aether theories, but the >> aether is NOT of necessity, a gas... In fact, a superfluid is a >> very far cry indeed from a gas! > > I didn't want to be too exclusive about who prefers aether theories, > and Keith Stein is one of them. EM as sound waves through a gas is > one of his things. Maybe you could join the next discussion with > him about it. Been there, done that... Like many (both pro & anti) aetherist he has an anti-science attitude, a closed mind and and the unwillingness to even serious consider, look, or learn about other ideas. Don't try to confoze'em his mind is made up... >>> But by the time you've constructed an aether that models things >>> that happen in the real world you get things like stiffness ... >> >> Why? As I've asked before, how 'stiff' is a superfluid. We have >> an equation that simply says that the wave speed is related to the >> compressibility [u] and density [z], i.e. >> >> c = 1/sqrt(uz) > > Again, I didn't want to be too exclusive of which aether theories. > There are some of particles plowing through an aether, some of > particles as disturbances in an aether (that's how I'd go if I swung > that way), ... or defects in the vortex lattice, froth on the ocean. What's funny is, long before mainstream scientist realized that 93% of the universe isn't normal and aetherist friend of mine coined the term froth on the ocean... > ... particular aethers, fluid aethers, etc. Among the crackpot > element the aether motivation seems fairly easy to understand -- > it's easy for them to understand. They can think of fundamental > physics in terms of billiard balls or whatever. You're dealing > with things more complex than that, but I don't understand what it > gets you. Well, it gets me simplification for one. I can, within the context of the theory, reduce 5 constants (h, q, k, z, u) down to two... I can get the MMA classically. I get new relationships like, k = h/qc I get a gravitational drag that matches observation. I get a gravitational heating equation that also both matches observations, and is consistent with the drag equation. I get a link between the mass of the electron and the background temperature. I get a source for galvanic action. And these are just a few. Either I'm the luckiest man who has ever lived in finding 'coincidental' relationships, or there's something there! >> Now, this is not my invention but very standard fare... The issue >> is transverse waves... At the time OF aether theories the ONLY >> known substances that could support these was elastic solids! The >> concept of superfluids did not exist. By the time it did, active >> development of aether theory had been abandoned. Thus the concept >> (aether theory) was never integrated or evaluated against this new >> information. > > And we understand superfluids by such postulates as electrons with > spin 1/2 electromagnetically interacting with nuclei of some spin, > particles rather than continuous structures, interacting by the rules > of quantum mechanics. I think if you want an aether that acts like > superfluids, you'll need more postulates than just that two elements > of aether can't occupy the same volume, and it's not clear to me that > a continuous fluid can become a superfluid since known superfluids are > particulate. Such behavior is something to be demonstrated from a > suitable set of postulates, and something that looks like > electromagnetism is to be demonstrated. But you seem to be getting a > lot of mileage from analogy. Well, as I told Dirk, you have a logic branch here. You can, 1. assume the analogy is pointing to a similarity 2. assume it is just coincidental I was alway taught to believe your indications... It's the Ockham's razor approach. >> >>> ...but matter passes through it unimpeded, ... >> >> The question becomes, in the aether, what is matter? It certainly >> isn't something foreign 'plowing' through a separate medium (aether). >> >>> ...supporting transverse but not longitudinal waves, ... >> >> This is the key, where are the longitudinal [P] waves? Thus the >> critical question becomes how can we get long range transverse waves >> without the corresponding long range P waves. > > Dunno. May I suggest you 'look' & think about something. Take a fluid vortex ring, (a stable, permanent entity in a perfect fluid). It has the following structure, <-- --> / \ / \ | o | x | \ / \ / --> <-- Where >, < indicate poloidal circulation and o, x toroidal circulation. Now perturb the ring hit it with a linear pulse. Think through what its response is... Then couple it to companions (Cooper pairs) and try to figure out how a lattice of these would transmit such a pulse over long distances. >>> ... mucking around with lengths and time ... >> >> This is, and always has been, a red herring. The only issue is, >> how independent of the aether is matter? > > However you want to interpret it, it must still encompass the material > that made people think relativity was a good idea. I've gone on record as stating that it is a fact that any aether medium must be to itself Lorentz covariant. But that's more of a LET perspective than SR philosophically. >>> But it's an undetectable magical substance ... >> >> It is not undetectable. It that were true then fields would not be >> manifested... > > Sure, and gravitons are detected whenever you drop a rock. I was > talking about properties unique to an aether, ... So am I. Again by the same logic as above... > that would cause the thoughtful and educated gentleman to say "Gee, > that doesn't look like a field, that looks like an aether." Good, then tell me how does one discriminate a field property from a medium property? > An absolute rest frame, steady-state liberation of heat from an inert > object, whatever the particular theory leads to. The aether had a 'rest frame' and it is unique in only one way, that is a distributed monochromatic photonic field will be observed as isotropic. In all othe FOR moving wrt the aether this field will demonstrate and distinct motion related Doppler. >>> whose properties are carefully defined such that its rest frame can't >>> be measured, Not true now, and never was true... >> If the measuring devices are all manifestations of the medium it is >> rather impossible to get the 'independence' required to discriminate. >> >> But, the aether, being a compressible medium illuminates its own rest >> frame. All one need do is look. > > Haven't they been looking for more than a hundred years? Yup, and they've detected it... >>> and its speed must be greater than this or its interaction with matter >>> must be less than that, giving limits but not actual numbers. >> >> So, what's your point? > > General relativity has its dark matter and dark energy. I think this > is the aetherists' dark matter and dark energy. You can't say what it > *is* like, only what it's *not* like, by excluding regions of > parameter space but not by pinning down concrete properties. What > makes you sure that the reason you don't have definite properties for > that is because there's nothing there to have those properties? See my comment above about froth... As to what is is, well to know for sure would require that we know 'for sure' what gravity's cause is. We're not there yet... - hide quoted text - >>> When you've lost the simple mechanical model and still have no >>> definite properties to pin to it, what point remains of an aether >>> theory? >> >> Who ever said anything about 'simple'? Kinetic theory, basicly is >> SIMPLE. Fluid mechanics to which it give rise is the most >> complicated of all physical processes. >> >> There is the point that remains with any theory; figure out what it >> says and then see if the real world acts that way. Keep trying new >> things simply to see what happens. But I don't think that explains >> the passion. >> >> Well, at least some models (Maxwell's variant for one) supports all >> of our observations. It has given new relationships and an some >> amazing coincidences like, (you've seen'em before) >> >> p = a momentum quanta (5.1517E-27) kg-m/sec >> L = a Length quanta (6.4309E-08) m >> >> h = 2pL >> q = 2p/L >> >> T = hq/3km = (2p/L)^2c/3m >> k = h/qc = L^2/c >> >> Where h, q, k, c and the standard physical constants Planck's, >> Charge, Boltzmann's ... etc. >> >> Given that schrodinger's equation spring forth from the very same >> process model the evidence is rather hard to deny... > > That's analogy again. Schroedinger's equation doesn't describe > densities and velocities of a fluid, it describes the evolution of a > vector in a Hilbert space. Well Schrodinger thought it did. And, that IS how it is interpreted in more the more mundane branch of fluids known as vortex dynamics... Paul Stowe

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:13:27 +1000, "Bill Hobba" <bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote: > Gregory L. Hansen wrote: >> And we understand superfluids by such postulates as electrons with >> spin 1/2 electromagnetically interacting with nuclei of some spin, >> particles rather than continuous structures, interacting by the rules >> of quantum mechanics. I think if you want an aether that acts like >> superfluids, you'll need more postulates than just that two elements >> of aether can't occupy the same volume, and it's not clear to me that >> a continuous fluid can become a superfluid since known superfluids are >> particulate. Such behavior is something to be demonstrated from a >> suitable set of postulates, and something that looks like >> electromagnetism is to be demonstrated. But you seem to be getting a >> lot of mileage from analogy. > > Thanks for saying that. I am not that knowledgeable about fluid > dynamics ... That, is quite obvious... > so I must be careful what I say. I believe the aether can't be a superfluid ... Your beliefs are irrelevant, fact ARE relevant... > ...because a superfluid depends on QM effects of its constituents for > its properties. Here you have to be specific. What QM effects? > But an aether is something that is meant to explain things at a deeper level > than that. Hmmm, like what cause those manifested QM effects perhaps? > You remarks indicates my belief [is] probably is correct. Nope... > And that is my take on this whole discussion - a lot of it is from > analogy and not from a specific model where deductions are made except > vague references to the 'Kelvin-Maxwell model' whatever that is. http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/ENSGT/PHILO/walter/nature.html http://www.victorianweb.org/science/maxwell1.html Also See Whittaker's reference mentioned above, as well as those given to you before. Just because YOU refuse to learn about this does NOT mean there is no theoretical model! > Its name would suggest something from the late 19th or early 20th century. > Such being the case it is unlikely the great minds like Feynman, Dirac, > Bohr etc would not have known of it. Good, do a little background research an 'back up' that claim with something concrete. I'm from Missouri, show me that Bohr knew. I know that Dirac knew (he was a closet aetherist you'know) superficially but Feynman?, haven't seen any mention that suggest he ever studied Maxwell's model, rather than the Hertzian approach. > And they failed utterly to come up with an explanation other than the > normal ones for QM. Failure in scientific understanding does not constitute any failure on nature part to provide same! Paul Stowe

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 13:38:17 +0000 (UTC), glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote: - hide quoted text - >In article <3f67b...@news.iprimus.com.au>, >Bill Hobba <bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote: >> >> Gregory L. Hansen wrote: >>> And we understand superfluids by such postulates as electrons with >>> spin 1/2 electromagnetically interacting with nuclei of some spin, >>> particles rather than continuous structures, interacting by the rules >>> of quantum mechanics. I think if you want an aether that acts like >>> superfluids, you'll need more postulates than just that two elements >>> of aether can't occupy the same volume, and it's not clear to me that >>> a continuous fluid can become a superfluid since known superfluids are >>> particulate. Such behavior is something to be demonstrated from a >>> suitable set of postulates, and something that looks like >>> electromagnetism is to be demonstrated. But you seem to be getting a >>> lot of mileage from analogy. >> >> Thanks for saying that. I am not that knowledgeable about fluid dynamics so >> I must be careful what I say. I believe the aether cant be a superfluid >> because a superfluid depends on QM effects of its constituents for its >> properties. But an aether is something that is meant to explain things at a >> deeper level than that. You remarks indicates my belief probably is >> correct. > > There's actually no particular problem with quantizing a continuous fluid. > It's a lot like quantizing a field. But I'm not convinced you can get > field-like behavior from the usual aether-like postulates. What 'usual' postulates? >> And that is my take on this whole discussion - a lot of it is from analogy >> and not from a specific model where deductions are made except vague >> references to the 'Kelvin-Maxwell model' whatever that is. Its name would > > Maybe he knows more than he's saying, but I'm getting a lot of "Just trust > me, it works this way" sort of thing from him. Funny, I've said in the past, and continue to say just the opposite, trust no-one, GO LOOK & THINK for yourself. But, t-h-i-n-k about the premise. That does not mean, ah, let's me superfically look for something as an excuse to dismise the idea. In fact, I asked you to think about, work through the process, and come back on how a ring vortex lattice would transmit a linear pressure pulse. http://www.google.com/groups?selm=94qqlk%24685%241%40slb6.atl.mindspring.net&rnum=1&filter=0 http://www.google.com/groups?selm=6k9hs2%24nma%40sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com&rnum=2&filter=0 No-one are a bigger fools than those who will not look... As for providing detailed discriptions of what I'm talking about, hell, I've more than kept up my end of that bargain... Like, for example... http://www.google.com/groups?selm=ueu1lvot78a29eg4gh0tdss5hbvhn513gs%404ax.com&rnum=1&filter=0 http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b2f0nr%24mvj%241%40slb6.atl.mindspring.net&rnum=3 http://www.google.com/groups?selm=adaq0i%249mv%241%40slb0.atl.mindspring.net&rnum=5 http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a9v0iv%247il%241%40slb1.atl.mindspring.net&rnum=6 http://www.google.com/groups?selm=6oHL6.28304%24e85.10708665%40typhoon.ne.mediaone.net&rnum=7 http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1nucjvkp3id5ive015ddup4ssloctupbef%404ax.com&rnum=6&filter=0 (Which, is just a sampling...) BTW, are you going to answer the last thread??? Paul Stowe

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 02:09:34 GMT, pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote: >On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:13:27 +1000, "Bill Hobba" ><bho...@iprimus.com.au> wrote: > >> Gregory L. Hansen wrote: >> ... Thanks for saying that. I am not that knowledgeable about >> fluid dynamics ... > > That, is quite obvious... BTW, for your education and a little light reading :) ... http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9602081 http://sbf.if.usp.br/bjp/Vol33/Num2/v33_346.pdf http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0112027 FYI, Inviscid = zero viscosity = superfluid... Now learn something... Paul Stowe

On 18 Sep 2003 17:49:49 -0700, glha...@indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote: >pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message news:<77shmv8cfob8i1e654s3m5t3qs632kppgs@4ax.com>... >> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 13:38:17 +0000 (UTC), >> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote: [Snip...] >>> >>> There's actually no particular problem with quantizing a continuous fluid. >>> It's a lot like quantizing a field. But I'm not convinced you can get >>> field-like behavior from the usual aether-like postulates. >> >> What 'usual' postulates? > > Mechanical interaction, momentum transfer in the direction of aether > flow, things like that. See below... >>> Maybe he knows more than he's saying, but I'm getting a lot of "Just trust >>> me, it works this way" sort of thing from him. >> >> Funny, I've said in the past, and continue to say just the opposite, >> trust no-one, GO LOOK & THINK for yourself. But, t-h-i-n-k about the >> premise. That does not mean, ah, let's me superfically look for >> something as an excuse to dismise the idea. In fact, I asked you to >> think about, work through the process, and come back on how a ring >> vortex lattice would transmit a linear pressure pulse. >> >> >> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=94qqlk%24685%241%40slb6.atl.mindspring.net&rnum=1&filter=0 >> >> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=6k9hs2%24nma%40sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com&rnum=2&filter=0 >> >> No-one are a bigger fools than those who will not look... >> >> As for providing detailed discriptions of what I'm talking about, >> hell, I've more than kept up my end of that bargain... Like, for >> example... >> >> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=ueu1lvot78a29eg4gh0tdss5hbvhn513gs%404ax.com&rnum=1&filter=0 >> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b2f0nr%24mvj%241%40slb6.atl.mindspring.net&rnum=3 >> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=adaq0i%249mv%241%40slb0.atl.mindspring.net&rnum=5 >> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a9v0iv%247il%241%40slb1.atl.mindspring.net&rnum=6 >> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=6oHL6.28304%24e85.10708665%40typhoon.ne.mediaone.net&rnum=7 >> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1nucjvkp3id5ive015ddup4ssloctupbef%404ax.com&rnum=6&filter=0 >> >> (Which, is just a sampling...) > > I suppose I could have searched Google archives, read a few books, > taken a year off to study fluid dynamics, etc. All of which would have been extremely useful, but not necessary > But I was looking for a Usenet discussion, not a research project. I > was interested enough in the aether to discuss it when I saw it > mentioned on Usenet. Now I'm frustrated from getting the brush-off > in response to any question that I thought could be easily explained. I guess that 'frustration' cuts both ways. As I tried to illustrate with the above references I DO try to explain processes that occur in Maxwell's vortex model. But, I am also looking (and probing) to see if, 1. what reception the presentation is getting. (which BTW is usually, it just can't be... yak, yak, yak) 2. the person in question is even relly thinking about, much less understanding the information I'm trying to give to them. Again, usually, it's the knee-jerk reaction "I don't believe it"! 3. I can usually provide the information when requested to do so, but NO, I don't have ALL of the answers. If I had that I most certainly would not be here trying to enlist the help of others in thinking about the topic. In fact, I've tried to answer all of the questions but sometimes the answer is to 'lead' one to the edge of the knowledge and try to get them to discern the answer. >> BTW, are you going to answer the last thread??? > > I didn't realize you were waiting for an answer, or that there was > much for me to say. No, I'm probably not going to answer the last > thread. I'm backing out of this, neither of us have gotten much out > of it and I doubt we will. Well, here was the exchange, >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> This is the key, where are the longitudinal [P] waves? Thus the >> critical question becomes how can we get long range transverse waves >> without the corresponding long range P waves. > > Dunno. May I suggest you 'look' & think about something. Take a fluid vortex ring, (a stable, permanent entity in a perfect fluid). It has the following structure, <-- --> / \ / \ | o | x | \ / \ / --> <-- Where >, < indicate poloidal circulation and o, x toroidal circulation. Now perturb the ring hit it with a linear pulse. Think through what its response is... Then couple it to companions (Cooper pairs) and try to figure out how a lattice of these would transmit such a pulse over long distances. >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------- Here, I gave you the answer, albeit in the form of a mechanism. To see the answer one must think about the circulation in the vortex. Then realize the gyroscopic properties that this circulation of momentum entails and imparts to its surroundings. This is what I meant by probing... Yes, fluid mechanics is verrrry complex and vortex dynamics the most complicated of all. But, it would seem to me that understanding how the result comes about IS the key to understanding the answer. If you want the simple answer (without understanding how) then "The greatest advance in the vortex sponge theory of the aether was made in 1887, when W. Thompson (Lord Kelvin) showed that the equation of propagation of laminar disturbances in a vortex sponge is the same as the equation of propagation of luminous vibrations in the aether." Reference, "A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity", Sir Edmund Whitaker, Dover 1989 page 296 of Volume 1 In which you'll find the mathematical derivation. In the nearly eight years I've been here I've encountered the majority (well over 90%) naysayers. That would not be so bad if those same naysayers had taken the time and effort to attempt to understand that which they seek to criticize. Most take the position 'it can't POSSIBLY be', therefore I need not waste my time or effort to look. Thus they simply, superficially, attempt to dismiss the whole notion, by the first thing that they 'think' doesn't work. Well, let me say, twenty years ago I WAS THAT person. I bought in to the myth that the aether had been disproved and had no place in modern scientific thinking. It was a long hard road to find out differently. Most modern physicist (as opposed to some engineering disciplines) are not taught detailed fluid dynamics. They have been taught basic thermal physics, mechanics, and continuum mechanics in a broad brush fashion, but have little exposure to turbulance fluids or vortex dynamics. If nothing else, I think you'll come away from even this discussion with a little better understanding of Maxwell's vortex model. Not to mention, Le Sage's hypothesis. That should help the next time this type of topic comes up. As you've probably seen in a corresponding post, I gave Bill references to full detailed derivations of the correlation between the hydrodynamic vortex model and QM/QED. So understand that I also have lost some patience by a very clear and present bias to the point of bigotry by respondents that seek to criticize that which they have not bothered to attempt to even understand. Their excuse, I don't need to, everyone knows... So, let's have a little fun with that poor idiot aetherist! Put up with that for 7+ years and then see how you'd respond to superfical comments... Paul Stowe

On 20 Sep 2003 05:36:30 -0700, glha...@indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote: - hide quoted text - >"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bkgorp$1ho1m$1...@ID-185976.news.uni-berlin.de>... >> "Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@indiana.edu> wrote in message >> news:8ce5c97e.0309191318.6f04570f@posting.google.com... >> | pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message >> news:<joqkmv8ilo21dsdthiebcd8iomkaneb7mm@4ax.com>... >>|> On 18 Sep 2003 17:49:49 -0700, glha...@indiana.edu (Gregory L. >>|> Hansen) wrote: >>|> >>|> >pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message >> news:<77shmv8cfob8i1e654s3m5t3qs632kppgs@4ax.com>... >> [snip] >>|> >>|> So understand that I also have lost some patience by a very clear and >>|> present bias to the point of bigotry by respondents that seek to >>|> criticize that which they have not bothered to attempt to even >>|> understand. Their excuse, I don't need to, everyone knows... So, >>|> let's have a little fun with that poor idiot aetherist! Put up with >>|> that for 7+ years and then see how you'd respond to superfical >>|> comments... >>| >>| I might have stopped bringing it up by now. I can understand your >>| frustration there. But on the other hand, why continue discussions >>| with a yahoo if it frustrates you? >> >> Certainly you and Bill are not yahoos. And have shown that you might be >> interested in learning more about Paul's ideas. I am certainly >> interested. I think there could possibly be a lot of insight gained by >> realizing that charge is a mechanical effect. All charge, not just >> electrical charge. "Something" in some kind of regular rotation is >> responsible for the effects of attraction and repulsion. It is the >> perfect common denominator for all forms of charge. > > I don't know how to get an isotropic 1/r potential from that. Try, http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~krasny/math654_hw3.pdf http://www.physics.ubc.ca/~berciu/PHILIP/TEACHING/PHYS340/SLIDES/PDF/Lecture_9.pdf also, from the "Handbook of Physics",Condon & Odishaw, McGraw-Hill 1967, Chapter 2 (Fluid Mechanics) Section 6 Page 3-20 & 3-21...; 5. Vortex Flows of Inviscid Fluids "The vorticity or vortex vector O (Omega) is given by curl v (l/2 Omega, the average rotation of an element of volume, is called the vorticity of some authors). For example, a parallel flow with transverse velocity gradient has vorticity; a vortex-free motion, w = 0, is irrotational. A vortex line is a curve for which the tangent at each point has the direction of Omega. A vortex tube consists of all the vortex lines passing through a surface element normal to them; the vortex strength is the flux of the vortex vector through the tube. Consideration of a closed curve completely on the wall of a vortex tube leads to the fact that vortex lines are material lines; i.e., they consist permanently of the same fluid particles (Helmholtz's first theorem). By Stokes' theorem (1847) the vortex flux through all cross-sectional curves of a tube is equal to the circulation around it, which remains unchanged. Hence the vorticity of a vortex tube remains unchanged during the motion (Helmholtz's second theorem). Vortices cannot be created or destroyed; a vortex-free motion will remain so. These theorems, due to Helmholtz (1858), are true for steady and unsteady motions for incompressible and compressible fluids [p(rho)]; they are sufficient to give Kelvin's circulation theorem. Hence either Helmholtz's vortex theorems or Kelvin's theorem together with the equation of continuity are equivalent to Euler's equation of motion and the equation of continuity. Water spouts and tornadoes are approximate vortex filaments (modified by the uniform rotation and compressibility of the atmosphere). For low speeds vortices form behind a body like a cylinder. As the speed increases, the vortices break away and move downstream. A system consisting of an infinite number of similar positive vortices spread evenly along a line and an infinite number of negative vortices inbetween along a parallel line is called a Karman street (1912); the stability criterions is sinh (h/a)pi=l, where h is the distance between rows and a is the distance between neighboring vortices in the same row. Stable vortex streets are often found in the wake of an obstacle (Benard, 1`908). The alternate vortices leaving the body produce a periodic force on it, so the body vibrates (Stroubal, 1878). A circular vortex filament has no radial velocity in the plane of the ring, so the radius of the ring remains constant, while the ring moves forward with constant speed. Smoke rings are such closed (circular) vortices. When two such rings have the same axis and the same sense of rotation, the induced velocity will result in the enlargement of the leading ring and the diminution of the other, which may eventually pass through the first ring, after which the process is repeated for the new leading ring. When two such rings have the same axis but the opposite sense of rotation, the induced velocity will result in enlargement and diminution of velocity of each ring. There is an analogy between fluid dynamics for solenoidal fields and electrodynamics: the vortex strength corresponds to the current intensity and the vortex vector to the current density. Vortices are surrounded by velocity lines (streamlines for steady flows) just as electric currents are by magnetic lines of force. In these terms the flow velocity is said to be induced by the vorticity. The formula for induced velocity corresponds EXACTLY to the law of Biot and Savart for the magnetic effect of an electric current ." "Handbook of Physics",Condon & Odishaw, McGraw-Hill 1967, Chapter 2 (Fluid Mechanics) Section 6 Page 3-20 & 3-21 You might also find this interesting... http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~rcarrete/talks/2003-04-07-IMACS-GeorgiaBW.pdf Paul Stowe

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 00:41:35 -0700, "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote: >"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@indiana.edu> wrote in message >news:8ce5c97e.0309200436.1dba054a@posting.google.com... >>> >>> Certainly you and Bill are not yahoos. And have shown that you >>> might be interested in learning more about Paul's ideas. I am >>> certainly interested. I think there could possibly be a lot of >>> insight gained by realizing that charge is a mechanical effect. >>> All charge, not just electrical charge. "Something" in some kind >>> of regular rotation is responsible for the effects of attraction >>> and repulsion. It is the perfect common denominator for all forms >>> of charge. >> >> I don't know how to get an isotropic 1/r potential from that. > > Well, naturally, for charge as a mechanical effect to work, the > sources and sinks have to be imbedded in some kind of "fluid-like" > medium. The quantum vacuum is the medium. Consider two 'line vortices' like so, o o If the have the same rotation like, <- <- o o -> -> The inline pressure increases (velocity decreases) between them cause them to physically repel each other (they act like sources). Conversely, reverse flow such as, <- -> o o -> <- causes the inline pressure to decrease, the act like sinks, and attract each other. Now, the big question, can the merge or, will the never merge? Paul Stowe

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 10:51:23 -0700, "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote: >Dear pstowe: > ><pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message >news:07nrmv8dmi7l0192upsi9qb0bb1f9q980j@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 00:41:35 -0700, "FrediFizzx" >... >> <- -> >> o o >> -> <- >> >> causes the inline pressure to decrease, the act like sinks, and >> attract each other. Now, the big question, can the merge or, >> will the never merge? > > I don't think they merge in nature, ... Nope, they physically cannot merge > since as they approach one another, they spawn counter-rotating vortices. Such behavior is rare and a viscous medium is required. See Helmholtz Theorems... But more to the point, in the 2-D plane (slice) we have a dual charge model. Like rotations repel, unlike attract. Attracting pairs cannot merge, collide or annililate each other... They cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Paul Stowe

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:42:59 -0700, "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote: [Snip...] > I am not sure what you are asking about here. Charge precursor? What is > charge exactly? I think I like Paul Stowe's mechanical model a lot. Then > if we think about QFT, it is like chunks of energy with spin. Rotational > motion is what has to create charge. In the right situation, an up > electron can attract a down electron (cooper pairs). It is really all > about how things are oriented with respect to one another. I really really really REALLY wish I could claim it as 'my model'. I have added a couple of refinements and clarifications but it is Helmholtz/Kelvin/Maxwell's atomic vortex model. My refinements are to identify charge as a result and requirement of the removal of the 'incompressibility' assumption. This, of necessity removes the identity crisis that Maxwell had with the model. Also, a non-zero viscosity (departure from pure inviscid) makes for a slight departure from the divergence free state and could explain the dark energy situation. The clarification is the resolution of what the MLt units of charge are, identification of Planck's constant within the model's framework and simplfication of constants from many to three... Paul Stowe

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:56:30 GMT, Richard Saam <rds...@att.net> wrote: > > >pstowe...@ix.netcom.com wrote: > >>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:42:59 -0700, "FrediFizzx" - hide quoted text - >><fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> [Snip...] >> >> >> >>>I am not sure what you are asking about here. Charge precursor? What is >>>charge exactly? I think I like Paul Stowe's mechanical model a lot. Then >>>if we think about QFT, it is like chunks of energy with spin. Rotational >>>motion is what has to create charge. In the right situation, an up >>>electron can attract a down electron (cooper pairs). It is really all >>>about how things are oriented with respect to one another. >>> >>> >> >> I really really really REALLY wish I could claim it as 'my model'. I >> have added a couple of refinements and clarifications but it is >> Helmholtz/Kelvin/Maxwell's atomic vortex model. >> >> My refinements are to identify charge as a result and requirement of >> the removal of the 'incompressibility' assumption. This, of >> necessity removes the identity crisis that Maxwell had with the >> model. Also, a non-zero viscosity (departure from pure inviscid) >> makes for a slight departure from the divergence free state and could >> explain the dark energy situation. >> >> The clarification is the resolution of what the MLt units of charge >> are, identification of Planck's constant within the model's framework >> and simplfication of constants from many to three... >> >> Paul Stowe >> > >Where is the definitive presentation of the model?? >Is it at: > >http://www.mountainman.com.au/p_stowe.html > > The report there is 1996 Yes, it is getting older... > Is there something in PDF that has all the mathematics in more > descriptive form vs ASCII format? It came from a word document which is formated (with the equation editor) for a publication. That is available. But, to help more, what specifically do you want to see? Paul Stowe

# April 2003

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 13:04:05 -0400, "Laurent" <cyber...@starpower.net> wrote: [Snip...] >>> The quantization, or "jumpiness'' of action as depicted in >>> quantum physics differs sharply from classical physics which >>> represented motion as smooth, continuous change. Quantization >>> limits the energy to be transfered to photons and resolves the >>> UV catastrophe problem. >>> >>> The Bohr model basically assigned discrete orbits for the >>> electron, multiples of Planck's constant, rather than allowing >>> a continuum of energies as allowed by classical physics. >> >> Now that you've written all those irrelevant words, can you answer >> the question: >> >> Why should a shortest wave exist? >> >> greywolf42 >> ubi dubium ibi libertas >> >> > > If you take a careful look at the bottom of my previous post, where > I quoted Baez, you may realize that the size of the shortest wave > depends and it's determined by the speed of light. Hmmm, c = L(nu) Let L -> 0 and nu -> oo, c remains unchanged... If it where 'just' a function of the finiteness of c then there NEVER would have been an 'untraviolet catastrophe. Look at this, E = h(nu) = pc Given c = L(nu) then h(nu) = pL(nu) Then h = pL Given E = pc and c = constant... Clearly p o< E thus o< nu, then in the equation above, L MUST become a constant of nature, IF h is, in fact, constant. If you have any finite interaction length L, you cannot, by definition, have an infinite range of frequencies...

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 11:18:23 -0400, "Laurent" <cyber...@starpower.net> wrote: ><pstowe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message >news:0putnvk91hmdtrsl3404bepsgnc8dnolrl@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 13:04:05 -0400, "Laurent" >> <cyber...@starpower.net> wrote: [Snip...] >>>> Why should a shortest wave exist? - hide quoted text - >>>> >>>> greywolf42 >>>> ubi dubium ibi libertas >>>> >>>> >>> >>> If you take a careful look at the bottom of my previous post, >>> where I quoted Baez, you may realize that the size of the shortest >>> wave depends and it's determined by the speed of light. >> >> Hmmm, >> >> c = L(nu) >> >> Let L -> 0 and nu -> oo, c remains unchanged... If it where >> 'just' a function of the finiteness of c then there NEVER would have >> been an 'untraviolet catastrophe. Look at this, >> >> E = h(nu) = pc >> >> Given c = L(nu) then >> >> h(nu) = pL(nu) >> >> Then >> >> h = pL >> >> Given >> >> E = pc >> >> and >> >> c = constant... >> >> Clearly p o< E thus o< nu, then in the equation above, L MUST >> become a constant of nature, IF h is, in fact, constant. >> >> If you have any finite interaction length L, you cannot, by >> definition, have an infinite range of frequencies... >> >> Paul Stowe > > c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)... where Uo is the permeability and Ep is the > permittivity for free space (aether). So, and your point is? Is c = L(nu) true or false? If true, your statement is irrelevant, if false, the explain. > And since ratios like permeability and permitivity are determined at > the aether level, and the aether is immaterial and not bound by > spacetime laws, c is frame independent. So? > The speed of light sets the scales, and because mass is physically > finite there can be time dilations and length contractions in > relation to other inertial frames. This is what makes the principle > of relativity a law, and how the principle of equivalency becomes > truth. So? How is this at all related to the issue at hand? > There isn't an absolute time because there is no preferred frame, > the aether is immaterial. Materially speaking, the Universe is > background free. The aether is the origin, the substrate, a plenum, > the matrix. Apple pie and the American Flag... None of which has any bearing on shorest wavelength and the ultraviolet catastrophe...

# July 2009

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/sci.physics/CdDVekr2iW4

On Jul 27, 1:17 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote: > For PaulStowe, the "Aetherist" ( for my edification) > > Paul, you asked me a few weeks back something > about my views on the -- el. Charge vs. Gravitation > relation ship --..... Well, let me get into your knack > of the woods with this and request for a starter from > you: > > 1) How did you select for or arrive at the dimensionality > of the elementary electric charge with e ~ M/T? > (Do it in brief with a few cgs arguments only. > We'll get to your entireSTOWEUNIT SYSTEM > (SUS) shortly. > 2) What dimensionality and numeracy does > Newton's G have in the SUS? > > Regards, > hanson Hi, See: http://www.mountainman.com.au/charge_ps.htm for where the dimensions of charge comes from. In my system mass, length, time converts between MKS to cgs in the standard manner such as 1 Kg = 1000 g ...etc. As for the gravitational constant G, it has its standard dimensions (m^3/Kg-sec^2) and is the the product of two other physical terms, the aether's momentum flux (6.72E+00 Kg/m-sec^2) and mass attenuation coefficient (3.1512E-06 m^2/kg), squared... -> 6.673E-11 m^3/Kg-sec^2 Hope this answers your questions...

Just to followup on the topic. As of late I've come to suspect that inertia (and gravitational mass, per the strong equivalence principle) is fundamentally an EMF response to changing inertial states. Gravity could be a second order EM process. Being of the second order it results in a unidirectional force response sense the +/- squared wipes any other possibility. In the Stowe model (which is an extension of Faraday/Maxwell superfluid vortex model) I catogorize field effects as follows, Grad c => Field Forces, including gravity Div c => Charge Curl c => Magnetism Its as simple as that, fundamentally...

In the cgs system the Coulombic force equation is given as, F = Kqq'/d^2 and k is, by definition, set to unity and assigned no dimensionality. To get final results in the proper dimensional units q^2 must be assigned gm-cm^3/sec^2. This something done out of a desire for simplification, and ignorance. Maxwell made no such error. In his work "On Physical Lines of Force" he clearly defines and identifies light speed c as, c = Sqrt(m/p) Quote, "Prop. XVI.--To find the rate of propagation of transverse vibrations through the elastic medium of which the cells are composed, on the supposition that its elasticity is due entirely to forces acting between pairs of particles. By the ordinary method of investigation we know that, c = Sqrt(m/p) ... (132) where m is the coefficient of transverse elasticity, and p is the density." see: http://www.vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf What Maxwell calls "transverse elasticity" is known today by the term 'bulk modulus'. Development of the current cgs expressions is discussed in, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centimetre_gram_second_system_of_units We find, "Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism relates these two laws to each other. It states that the ratio of proportionality constants kC and kA must obey kC / kA = c2, where c is the speed of light..." We've seen this expression before, above, as defined by Maxwell where kc and ka are simply m and p in his expression. Of course, Maxwell's expression is simply the well known wave speed expression relating it to the density and modulus of a medium. At this juncture kc & ka could be either m or p... Here's where the train jumps the tracks, "Therefore, if one derives the unit of charge from the Coulomb's law by setting kC = 1, it is obvious that the Ampère's force law will contain a prefactor 2 / c2. Alternatively, deriving the unit of current, and therefore the unit of charge, from the Ampère's force law by setting kA = 1 or kA = 1 / 2, will lead to a constant prefactor in the Coulomb's law." If one explicitly ignores Maxwell and simply declares there is medium, thus no density or modulus, you can just use c as in the above and set kc = 1. However, because there is, actually, a medium this results in irrational dimensions for the physical quantity charge. At least in the SI system permittivity and permeability are introduced and defined to keep things rational. As you shown above, kc = p, and ka = m. In turn, m is the inverse of the 'coefficient of compressibility' (u). Using these (u,p) we get, c = Sqrt(1/up) = Sqrt(m/p) As Maxwell explicitly stated. This of course mean that a cgs system that utilizes the SUS must define a permitivitty (p) and permeability (u) to the system. This alters the cgs system and makes it equivalent to the SI system. > =3= What numerical value do you get for this density ? It should be obvious, however, 8.854E-12 kg/m^3 or 8.854E-15 gm/cm^3 > =4= What type of physical thing is it that has this density? so-called 'empty space' > AFAIAC, you have done here something that would delight > Planck. You suggest to make experiments by using different > measuring units... and that perhaps that way you'd be able > to see something new.. or at least in a new light. you mean like, k = h/qc Where k is Boltzmann's constant, h Planck's constant, q elemental charge, in the SI system of course... > I suggest for you to respond only on this particular issue. > Once I can see these density answers, I shall try and move > to questions that have to do with "G". > Don't bring up the "A"-word [1] ".... yet.... > > Thanks, Paul > hanson > > [1] some people get hemmies and aneurisms when they > hear the word "Aether". Be kind, Paul. "Do no Harm"... > ahahaha... AHAHAHA... OK, but as seen above, it very difficult to do when ...

Errata: Kc = 1/p and Ka = 1/m such that Kc/Ka = m/p = c^2 ... I realized these typos after posting but was waiting for a reply before bothering to correct it. However, after nearly three days I will correct it for posterity since I don't like uncorrected typos.

> "PaulStowe" wrote: > > Is the fine structure constant your issue??? > > hanson wrote: > > No. (a), the finestructure constant is the same traditional > zero-dim, ~ 1/137, in both, cgs and in SUS (you said). > Stay with me and address issue [1] & [2] in/with SUS. > How does the equation (e) or (e^2) = f(G) look in SUS? Ok, I resolved the SUS system for the cgsC', it is, From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units in the cgs the SUS values are: h = 6.626E-27 gm-cm^2/sec c = 2.998E+10 cm/sec z = 8.854E-15 gm/cm^3 (Permitivitty) G = 6.673E-08 cm^3/gm-sec^2 q = 1.602E-16 gm/sec C' (milliCoulombs) u = 1.257E-07 cm-sec^2/gm (Permeability) k = 1.381E-16 ergs/K (However, 1 {K}elvin in the SUS is 1 kg-m/ sec^3 so we're mixing dimensional systems here) If we kept the dimensional system the same k drops by 10^5 to 1.381E-21 but lose the Kelvin... instead 1 K = 10^5 ? Planck's Mass: M(p) = Sqrt(hc / [2pi]G) = 2.176E-05 gm Planck's Length: L(p) = Sqrt(hG / [2pi]c^3) = 1.616E-35 cm Planck's Time: t(p) = Sqrt(hG / [2pi]c^5) = 5.391E-44 sec Planck's Charge: q(p) = Sqrt(2zhc) = 1.875E-15 C' Planck's Temperature: T(p) = qc^3[Sqrt(c / [2pi]Gh)] / [10^5] = 1.417E+32 K Gravitational Constant: G = q(p)^2 / m(p)^2([4pi]z) = 6.673E-8 cm^3/gm-sec^2 Where do we go from here?

> Where do we go from here?... > > hanson wrote: > > ... maybe this way because there is a shorter route to G(SUS). > If h & c is the same in SUS as is in cgs then G will have > the same dimensions & size in both systems and so > does m_pl too because it is sqrt(hbar*c/G). Therefore > G = a*e^2 / (Planck-mass)^2 --in/as-- cm^3*gr/sec^2... [3], > where it not for the e^2 that is still in cgs units... sooo.... > > *** therefore *** if we stay strictly within SUS using: > q(SUS = [e(SUS] = 1.602E-16 gm/sec > e^2(SUS) = gr^2/sec^2 and > m_pl^2 (SUS) = gr and > a (SUS) = a(cgs) then > G(SUS) = a*e^2 / (m_pl)^2 becomes [(gr^2/sec^2)/gr^2 = > ****** G(SUS) = 1/sec^2 ******** ............ > [4] > > Now if that G(SUS) is indeed dimensionally [1/sec^2] > in your SUS unit system then you have a second event > which show interesting aspects!... just as the first one > did ([A] above) where some density gr/cm^3 coverts > e(cgs) into e(SUS). > So, if you see this density(SUS) gr/cm^3 & this G(SUS) 1/sec^2 > as viable items in your SUS system, then gimme the corresp. > sizes of these 2 units... and I may perhaps be able to guess > and tell you **potentially** what you have been looking for > phenomenologically. > See ya, > hanson I finally... understand! In the esu/cgs as stated earlier Force is, F = (q/d)^2 in the SI/MKSC and SUS Force is, F = k(q/d)^2 Where k = 1/4piz The SUS system keeps EXACTLY! the same form in conversion to cgs. The is no esu, so your formula, G = [q / m(p)]^2 / a If a = 1 / 137 Now, for the SUS we must use the permittivity just as we would in SI. The formula above then becomes, G = k[q / m(p)]^2 / a Since k is inverse density (specific volume) you'll find that BOTH, the value and dimensions match in both versions. The SUS remains totally consistent no matter which system MKSC or cgsC' is used... I hope this clears up this issue.

Just for simplification the fine structure constant is, a = q^2 / 2hcz and Planck's mass squared is, m(p)^2 = hc / 2piG Thus the equation above becomes, G = G (a/a) Which is why I asked about the fine structure earlier...

> hanson wrote: > > ... maybe this way because there is a shorter route to G(SUS). > If h & c is the same in SUS as is in cgs then G will have > the same dimensions & size in both systems and so > does m_pl too because it is sqrt(hbar*c/G). Therefore > G = a*e^2 / (Planck-mass)^2 --in/as-- cm^3*gr/sec^2... [3], > where it not for the e^2 that is still in cgs units... sooo.... > > *** therefore *** if we stay strictly within SUS using: > q(SUS = [e(SUS] = 1.602E-16 gm/sec > e^2(SUS) = gr^2/sec^2 and > m_pl^2 (SUS) = gr and > a (SUS) = a(cgs) then > G(SUS) = a*e^2 / (m_pl)^2 becomes [(gr^2/sec^2)/gr^2 = > ****** G(SUS) = 1/sec^2 ******** ............ > [4] > > Now if that G(SUS) is indeed dimensionally [1/sec^2] > in your SUS unit system then you have a second event > which show interesting aspects!... just as the first one > did ([A] above) where some density gr/cm^3 coverts > e(cgs) into e(SUS). > So, if you see this density(SUS) gr/cm^3 & this G(SUS) 1/sec^2 > as viable items in your SUS system, then gimme the corresp. > sizes of these 2 units... and I may perhaps be able to guess > and tell you **potentially** what you have been looking for > phenomenologically. > See ya, > hanson > > > > I don't know where you were wanting to go with this but you twigged me onto this, m = ql / c Where q = elemental charge l = wavelength c = light speed in SUS-SI dimensions. Take the wavelength for 2.73 K ~ 1.7E-03 m what mass does the above equation give?

Another interesting coincidence, m = ql / c where l = pi (meters) [3.14159] = 1.679E-27 kg...

> -------- Epilog --------- > Now Paul, if you can dream up and suggest or do a New > experiment (that is not leaning on MMX nor Sagnac nor any > such type setups) to determine what this z-roh density really > does represent, then if it brings forth positive and widely > acceptable results... then .. go rent a tuxedo.... If by this you mean showing that light paths are are actually anisotropic Roland DeWitte already has. However remember the old strip chart dot recorder used in high school science labs to record the rate of fall? One could use a sophisticated version of it to determine if there were any anisotropy in light pulse travel times from a fixed transmitter and the recorder. If the recorded signals are always exactly equally spaced no anisotropy would be present however any anisotropy should result in an uneven spacing. No clock synchronization is required since the recording device is totally independent of the transmitter. It is all in the spacing of the pulses and yes, the pulses themselves represent a single timing device. > So, Paul thanks for posting your stuff. It was and is delightful. > hanson "One is glad to be of service" :;)

> "PaulStowe" wrote: > > If by this you mean showing that light paths are are actually > anisotropic Roland DeWitte already has. However remember the old > strip chart dot recorder used in high school science labs to record > the rate of fall? One could use a sophisticated version of it to > determine if there were any anisotropy in light pulse travel times > from a fixed transmitter and the recorder. If the recorded signals > are always exactly equally spaced no anisotropy would be present > however any anisotropy should result in an uneven spacing. No clock > synchronization is required since the recording device is totally > independent of the transmitter. It is all in the spacing of the > pulses and yes, the pulses themselves represent a single timing > device. > > hanson wrote: > > it is all reasonable and "true" what you just said Paul, but > A) that is not what I was meaning and referring to.. and > B) what you described, DeWitte's and other searchers' work, > has fallen on deaf ears in the physics community. And that, is the most damning indictment of the modern peer process... If something like Roland DeWitte's results occur the proper thing to do is to attempt to replicate them NOT! armchair argue that they simply cannot exist, as a certain poster here did... As you say below, science has, to a very large extent, become a religion with pre-defined catechism belief system. Anyone suggesting ideas counter to these is guilt of heresy even when proving otherwise. > Here is my opinion why that is so. All that work is not well > received because it criticizes the greats of the establishment > and the concurring heuristic beliefs. Such Anti-Maxwell/MMX > work is rejected, just like is done in the sordid Einstein > Dingleberry's games... But, you would think that supporting a claim with new physical relationships that are directly derivable from the claim would constitute strong support if not definitive proof of validity. I have done this. I have shown that Boltzman's Constant k can be expressed as a relationship of Planck's constant h, elemental charge q, and light speed c as: k = h / qc = 1.38E-23 And that, if the definition of charge does consist of mass divided by time then the charge to mass ratio has to be a frequency. I then show that the relationship between quantum energy (hv) and thermal energy (3kT) for an electron of mass 9.1E-31 kg just happens to almost perfectly match the observed CMBR signature temperature. As you point out, the added benefit is the entire SUS which can reduce all known constants to 3 which is consistent with Maxwell's 1860-61 model. > ==== Remember Physics is a social enterprise! ===== Yes, and they need not look since their scriptures already tell them what it will look like. > So, think out of the box, Paul, and develop an experiment or > a case, a paper, that does NOT need the anisotropy or the > drift and does not rely on modern "me too" MMX/ringlaser > setups or variations therof... etc. For example, if there is a thermal-electric effect must the not also be a thermal-magnetic effect? Also I 'think' Searl Effect is quite real and he stumbled upon it having no theoretical basis for it. I am currently studying this from the new Stowe/Maxwell model. I am now convinced mass/inertia is an EM induced feedback and can be directly countered via EM processes, hence, Searl's Effect, the spinning superconducter disks, ... etc. But, I'm not there yet... > Develop an explanation about what that **z-rho density** in > or of a supposedly empty 3D space may refer to and how it > could be measured. Impedance of 'free space', like rho and modulus are ALL classical medium properties, they have no other explanation within physical models. > Use your compressibility and whatever else you can think of > and keep focussed on that density as tyhe central point at > issue. Avoid any references and repetitions of/to what others > have done before. > Once you have made your case for your subject, then only > do shower the predecessors with praise... lavishly. > > Set it up such that the reader will say "Of course, and now I > can see how to make such and such a gizmo based on that" > > Paul, mention your SUS only as having been a byproduct > and let **others** say that what PaulStowehas described or > measured is nothing but the Aether of old... & FINALLY, Paul > proved its existence.. etc, etc.... ----------- Good luck, Paul, > hanson

next

next

next

next