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.