Blog 20140430
Hello Mr. Borchardt,
I have a question with regard to your
aether theory and how you would explain transverse light waves in the
gaseous/liquid medium of aether. As I have come to understand from certain
objectors to aethereal theory, the polarization of light, and their conclusion
that it must be a transverse wave, is one of their claims to the impossibility
of aether being the medium of a light wave. My question is: Can you explain how
light in your ether can be a transverse wave, or do you have a different theory
of what "polarized" light is where a compression wave can also
explain it?
I came to wonder about this thanks to Ionel
Dinu (another NPA member) bringing it up years ago in an NPA video conference,
saying that the question of the polarization of light was important for aether
theories to address. I am aware that Ionel Dinu has done some theoretical
thinking on this problem, and that apparently there are experiments that are
putting the transverse conclusion into question:
[GB: Thanks
for a question that has bedeviled aether theorists for more than a century. I
do not think there is any doubt that light is a transverse (T) (shear) wave and that it
is not a longitudinal (L) (compression) wave. For physics beginners: An L wave compresses and decompresses the medium in the direction of
travel. A T wave compresses and decompresses the medium in all directions
perpendicular to the direction of travel. The fact that we can polarize light
proves that it is a T wave, despite some desperation on the part of other
aether theorists. As you know, gases and liquids only have L waves. Only solids
have T waves in addition to L waves. This makes aether a strange beast, with
none of the transmission properties of gases and only one of the properties of
solids. Dinu’s evidence for L waves does not seem convincing. There may be
some, but it seems insignificant, and simply may be a result of imperfections
in the apparatus. Of course, we should not necessarily expect aether to behave
exactly like baryonic (ordinary) matter.
On the
other hand, the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things
have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as
characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things) teaches us that
aether particles will have some of the characteristics of other microcosms. As
we showed in “Universal Cycle
Theory,” one of the most prevalent structural forms in the universe is the
vortex. Obvious examples are the Milky Way, the solar system, Saturn, and the
hydrogen atom. Back in 2009, I used vortex theory to speculate about the
structure of the electron and positron.[1]
Thus, it is likely that aether-1 particles are vortices formed from
aether-2 particles. Vortices form disc-like shapes as rotation rates
increase (Figure 1). If this speculation is correct, then it appears unlikely
that a medium filled with these aether discs would produce much compression and
rarefaction in the direction of travel. Head-on collisions between disc edges
would be rare, giving way to motion perpendicular to the direction of travel. L
waves would be insignificant, while T waves would dominate.
Figure 1. Do aether particles look like this?
{The Sombrero Galaxy
(M104) Credit: HST/NASA/ESA.}]
The following isn't part of the question,
just some thoughts and things you might find of interest.
Also, I have come upon another aether
theorist by chance but I find his work interesting. Mr. Distinti is an
electrical engineer who is using a dipole aether model to deal with the
transverse wave problem, but his use of mathematics for his models are
impressive and add much strength to conceptual theory. Perhaps you may find
some interesting things in his work that may aid you in yours:
I thank you for any response you can give.
Sincerely, a student of univironmental determinism
[GB:
Thanks for the link. Distinti has some interesting ideas. I like his demand for
a mechanical cause for activities that regressive physicists shrug off as a
kind of magic. He realizes that baryonic matter must form from aether-like
particles and that Standard Particle Theory is mostly working with what he
calls “junk” (I have called it “rubble”) from accelerators. On the other hand,
like most dissidents, he does not get everything right. For example, he
apparently believes that energy exists and that time dilation is possible.
Being an electrical engineer, he takes charge and electrostatic attraction for
granted, never explaining what they are. His videos are a work in progress,
needing a good reorganizing effort.]
[1]
Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of
E=mc2 ( http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E=mc2.pdf
): Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 6, no. 1, p. 27-31.
Posts
5 comments:
{Are either of you familiar with Nordberg? His ball of light idea? What do you think of that concept?}
George
I find the last paragraph unfathomable. Energy is the word we use for action or motion. It doesn't exist?
Time dilatation does exist. Ref GPS time corrections. In a frame of reference etc etc.
Space does not shrink with increased acceleration, as per SRT.No proof of that. Read Thomas E. Phipps Jr. "Old physics for New."
George
George:
Sorry that, like most everyone else, you have been led down Einstein’s yellow brick road to relative confusion. The “fathoming” process cannot begin without the proper deterministic assumptions. George, in the age of regressive physics you are not supposed to know what energy is. Hugh books have been written about energy without producing a satisfactory definition (e.g., Hoffman, E.J., 1977, The concept of energy: Ann Arbor, MI, Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 573 p).
But for univironmental determinism and neomechanics, the definition is rather simple:
Energy is a calculation. Even if it was motion, it would not exist. Existence is the property of things, which have xyz dimensions. Motion is what things do; it does not have dimensions. Energy is a matter-motion term that we use to describe what things do or what we think they will do. With energy, we multiply a term for matter and a term for motion to describe the significance of a particular motion. A term that only describes motion, such as velocity (dx/dt), is insufficient. Similarly, other matter-motion terms such as momentum (P=mv) and force (F= ma) would be meaningless as descriptions of motion without the term for mass. Like energy, momentum and force do not exist; they are only calculations.
Another way of thinking about matter and the motion of matter is through this everyday example:
Matter is something that I could figuratively put in my back pocket. I could not do that with motion. Thus, I could put a frog in my back pocket, but I could not put his last 100 jumps in my back pocket.
You mentioned the silly idea of “time dilation” that Einstein invented to preserve his equally silly idea that the velocity of light was always constant. See my most popular blog on Time is motion. The upshot is that motion cannot dilate, since it is not “part” of the universe and does not have xyz dimensions. Sorry, but GPS does not require corrections based on relativity (Hatch, Ronald R., 1995, Relativity and GPS - I ( http://ivanik3.narod.ru/GPS/Hatch/relGPS.pdf ). They are based on simple Newtonian mechanics.
Unfortunately, George, your reference (Phipps, 2006), got it backwards. He knew he must make a choice between dilation of time and the dilation if matter. Following the current propaganda of regressive physics, he incorrectly chooses time dilation. Space, on the other hand, always contains matter, which can dilate or contract. Microcosms dilate somewhat upon receiving collisions that produce their acceleration. This is because the submicrocosms within also would be accelerated to a degree, producing an increase in their momenta. Subsequent impacts on the inside of the microcosmic boundary might cause it to yield somewhat. This is why a piece of metal expands when you heat it (heating is a form of acceleration in which most of the impinging motion accelerates submicrocosms more than the microcosm). That creaking noise that your metal roof makes in the morning is an illustration of E=mc^2 when some of the motion of aether particles is transferred to metal, causing the metal to expand. The creaking starts up again in the evening when the metal cools, imparting some of its motion back to the aether and contracting in the process.
There are good political and philosophical reasons for your confusion. The universe demonstrates only two basic phenomena: 1) matter and 2) the motion of matter. Believing that makes you, not only a materialist, but a mechanist, along with all that entails for your worldview. Einstein was anointed a genius and used to rescue the opposing, indeterministic view held by the authorities along with most of their followers. The denial of aether paved the way for energy construed as an indefinable kind of matterless motion. That fit with Einstein’s concept of “immaterial” fields. They could be modeled mathematically even though he could not give a physical explanation for the actions observed.
TSW blog 20140528
Re: paragraphs 7 and 8
Finite macroverse of BW. Only if you think there is such a thing as nothing.
Finite particle of BW. Only if you are a dualist and think that there is something and nothing. Or, that wave energy really has a boundary or border to it. Wave energy exists. The wave energy of the field converts forms of energy, by the laws of conservation, into things we can see and measure, but itself operates on an infinitesimal scale. It is analogue, not binary. Only aspects of it appear binary, to us.
Second law of Thermodyamics GB. The universe is unlike any other system since one cannot get out of it, to examine whether it is gaining or losing energy, or moving towards or away from equilibrium.
Paragraph 12 and on….
Aether. Ether. Medium. Field. All synonymous to this reader. E.g. in string theory what would the strings be oscillating in. Nothing? What is another word for something? Try field on for a word to express the foundational matter in motion. Ah, yes another synonym. Matter in motion. I prefer field. It is closer to modern QED and QCD as a place for things to exist. Matter and motion exist in the field as well as being the field. Just a matter of personal preference in holding concepts in mind.
In Para 20 or so says GB "In univironmental determinism, we define matter as an xyz portion of the universe that contains other matter, ad infinitum." This is where critics of TSW like to point out circular reasoning. Saying matter contains matter is not good elucidation. Whereas, if you said the world for matter can be generalized to a concept of field, then although matter is the field, it has a structure to it. I think it makes it easier to do it this way.
Re: GB's "Univironmental determinism maintains that the proper focus always must be between the microcosm and its interactions with the macrocosm." I say, that should be the second focus of interest. The first is that univironmental means whole, and univironmental determinism is another way of reducing the whole universe and its operation into one idea. A "wholeness" to bring Eastern philosophy into this.
BTW the earlier idea of something vs nothing as proven to all of us here discussing this is an absolute. We all agree that this absolute is a logical necessity. Not that we need to focus on this word, but that it is a legitimate way of talking.
Re: Free Will. Isn't that an oxymoron given cause and effect?
Blighcapn
Look GB, you can not have it both ways. You refuse my abstraction words for what is while using them yourself.
Matter is an abstraction. Motion is an abstraction.
Actually, shouldn't you reduce it all down to one choice? Perhaps to say all is matter as Parmenides did would be more consistent.
BC
Post a Comment