pantheory

http://www.nature.co...ctivity-1.11443

 

Anyone got any thoughts on if this could be possible?

I would consider packed graphite with varying grain sizes saturated in water. Then experiment with different kinds of currents. Since the graphite particles have the potential to move I would eventually look toward trying AC at a greater number of cycles per second along with alternating currents of variant cycles, tried with different and maybe even varying voltages. Lower voltages would have more limited applications. Normally this could produce more heat but I think DC would produce an agglomeration of graphite particles, and normal 60 cps of AC might do the same, which one might expect would end the superconductivity.

A liquid type cable interior might not be a problem if the particulates have some freedom of movement but would not have the ability to clump due to an electrical current. If graphite comes close to working I expect they would try other liquids or combinations besides water, along with other forms of carbon such as carbon nano-tubes with water and different types of liquid or material combinations. Hopefully this is a hint of a real possibility someday.

//

It would seem to be very interesting to see exactly how the experiment was conducted. For instance, if I read the original argument and then saw the opposite on the other side I would want to check the wording of the original by turning back to the original statement. If that was not possible then the exact wording should state whether you are to defend a position whether you believe in it or not, or just to defend the position that you marked because you accordingly support it.

Maybe just one word placed differently, or a misunderstanding, and a person might fill in the data differently.

What a cool panoramic view! Maybe the closest thing that I can think of to Mars are pictures I've seen of a few places on the high deserts of Chile. Here's a link.

http://www.google.com/search?q=pictures+high+desert+chile&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=BVVbUL-cKc_xiQLHlIHwDQ&ved=0CCcQsAQ&biw=1025&bih=428

The equations are not yet there but some of the parts of them are. I don't work that way simply because I can't find any real instance where a successful theory was developed before the physical picture was drawn. Faraday >> Maxwell, not Maxwell >> Faraday. So when I start I work as close to the physical picture as I possibly can. And I must say I'm getting a lot of good help, some people just intuitively see the connections here and have really helped out. We just might pull this thing off, or a least start a big ball rolling.

Yeah, I think I could find such an equation(s) but was hoping somebody had a head start. I would start with vortex equations, and if problems arise try fluid dynamics. I expect the bottom line basis for such equations will be a fluid aether.

//

This is beautiful, something you can put into equations, that I like very much. I'm getting a really good picture of how it goes together. You and Wilmot have no trouble at all seeing how it all goes together. Of course we understand that Galaxies are the builders of worlds and Hurricanes are the Destroyers of Worlds. But simple logic requires that the existence of one implies the existence of the other.

 

Thank you again for this wonderful information.

Do you have any particular equations or method in mind? Vertex equations, fluid dynamics, a combination, etc.? I'd like to try to formulate the equations myself but haven't decided the best way to start. The equation forms discussed so far seem unrealistic to me.

//

Yes, for a very very long time, but not forever if nothing get in its way.

Yes, in my opinion probably not forever, but the present consensus might say forever.

//

Still theoretically the wave would travel forever if their was nothing in its way right?

Yes. According to present mainstream consensus, waves travel until they are broken up by other waves or matter in all of its possible locations. This would accordingly include the full extent of the observable universe, with the knowledge that we cannot know the full extent or form of the entire universe. Conceivably the remnants of such a wave might at some distance finally come to an end.

//

Thankyou man.

 

So being that they have less energy, are the photons more spread out?

Having a lower frequency and lesser energy, does not necessarily mean photons are more spread out, but the more redshifted the light, the farther away its origin therefore the more spread out the light will be and the less dense the photons. The photons are spread out to the extent of the inverse square law of light.

//

Nobody has really answered my question yet lol

Yes, when light is redshifted it loses energy. Longer redshifted wavelengths are of lower frequency and energy and so the associated photons have proportionally less energy.

//

I had to find the answer to this myself. They both solve the equations related to the 'principle of maximum work' in quantum thermodynamics.

The resistance in an electrical circuit solves them too. Which explains why, when Feynman tried to solve the resistance problem with the principle

of least action he failed. There must be equivalent statements for capacitors and inductors.

In my own cosmological model there are similar vortex aether mechanics and fluid dynamics related to a rapidly spinning storm to the slow rotation rates of spiral galaxies. In the present standard model I believe spiral galaxy appearances are accordingly believed to be a function of dark matter orbiting the galaxy with a transfer of its momentum to the stars via gravity.

Plasma cosmology, on the other hand, proposes possibilities of orbital flows of intra-galactic clouds of matter reacting and accordingly creating magnetic influences reinforcing the rotating influences of the background cloud matter accordingly having a relationship with the rotating central black hole.

//

An object stays in uniform motion until acted upon by a non-zero net force... Ok...

But there tends to be an object like air that will cause oxidation and a material to dissipate/rust over time, right?

So, is that more in the realm of quantum physics or what?

You might say that oxidation is in line with Newton's law. When it is acting upon something by the chemical process of oxidation potentially adding weight and porosity like an atmosphere. It also can slow down an object by friction if it is in motion relative to such an atmosphere. Water is also a good catalyst for oxidation so water/ gas/ water particulates also cause more friction. Realize that both friction and oxidation are external influences, resisting forces, or reactants that can influence/ slow uniform motion by acting upon a moving body. Newton's law remains unaffected by such processes.

//

Pan - Dark Energy, completely agree. Dark Matter - not so sure. I think the leading theories are for some, as yet unknown, particle rather than a quantum field; and for convenience if it is a new particle it will be given a shorter name

Hi imatfaal -- Yes, I think they were premature in giving the Nobel Prize for the discovery of dark energy. And for dark matter I have my bets on an aetherial kind of "dark matter" with particulates down to Planck lengths or smaller. Rather than its mass being the influence of dark matter, maybe the influence/energy of its pushing momentum would be what we can perceive. I agree with your idea that the name for dark matter would be better if shorter and more specific, whether as a particle or "field." For the complete name maybe one represented by an abbreviation or acronym? Maybe something like if the full name were "Planck Point Field" and they called it the 'PPF' An individual particle could be called a Planck, for instance. I believe the word "field" may eventually be realized to be a good word for the volume of particles along with the mathematical construct used to represent a volume of particulates in space like a Higgs particle/field, etc.

I think the word 'field' used in QM and GR, and the related theoretical physics, may eventually be best described as the ZPF and that both the largest and smallest scales will eventually tie into particulate field concepts.

//

So the galaxies moving towards us, why do we think they are blueshifted? Is the gravity strong enough to overpower dark-energy?

There are between a 100 to maybe over 7,000 blue shifted galaxies depending upon the interpretation of galactic spectra/ redshifts. If there are 7,000 + they are mostly all just barely blueshifted. The greatest blueshifts are some of the closest galaxies in the local group. All the other possible blueshifted galaxies are part of the local super-cluster Virgo. Galaxies in these galaxy groups and super-clusters orbit their center of gravity therefore some can be moving in our direction and have blueshifted spectra. The farthest possibly slightly blueshifted galaxies in our super-cluster are no more than 70 million light years distant. The expansion of the universe and dark energy cannot be observed in the local group and it is debatable whether it can be observed in the local super-cluster. The consensus opinion is that gravity compensates for expanding space and dark energy (if it exists) in galaxy clusters.

Another type of galaxy blueshift is when a galaxy has a relative motion toward us but the supposed expansion of space is thought to be greater than the motion of the galaxy toward us. Although these galaxies display an overall redshift the spectra has also been blueshifted because of relative motion in our direction. Some of this may be due to the relative motion of the solar system around our galaxy, our galaxy orbiting within the local group, our local group orbiting within the local super-cluster, as well as our local super-clusters relative motion supposedly within the "dark flow" toward the "great attractor." The galaxies we are observing also have similar types of multi-orbital motions.

http://fittedplane.blogspot.com/

//

I suspect that if either dark matter or dark energy really exists then upon the realization of their true nature, their names will be changed. For dark energy there are a number of possible names out there right now: cosmological constant, quintessence, lambda, etc. For dark matter possible names like Higgs field, graviton fields, etc,

I expect that both will eventually be discredited and that the failed hypotheses will keep their present "dark" names for historical reference.

I know why you do not want my questions answered.

 

elementary physics.101

force is inertial differential

curvature is not

 

Is force inertial differential?

Is curvature?

 

....I can no more prove elementary physics to you than I can prove elementary evolution to creationists.

 

ItS

peace

d.r.jekyl.....

I would like to better understand your aether proposal but believe you are continuing to talk riddles. You may not wish to understand anything different since you may believe you have a superior understanding to those who reply here. But if you wish to learn anything new, you need to communicate better. If you cannot converse with another aether proponent like myself, then I would expect you would have a really hard time, or close to impossible task of communicating with anybody else.

Forrest

If you are proposing something the burden of proof is on you. You need to do a better job of describing your proposal. When you say we are not moving through a static aether, is it that we are not moving, or that the aether is not static? It seems like the latter, but something has to be moving — we're moving relative to other things, so we can't all be stationary — so how does that all work? How is this consistent with the Michelson-Morley experiment?

 

You need to answer with something more substantial than something that sounds like zen koans.

Yeah, maybe I would like his aether proposal, maybe not, I can't know unless I better understand it. I don't seem to be very good at solving Jwjefferson's riddles

jwjefferson,

Swansont is making an important point. You need to try to communicate more clearly without riddles.

This is the speculation forum so you are in the right place. Unlike some other science forums you may speculate much here with meager evidence or justification, but I think you should try to explain your proposal using your best communication skills. If your proposal is contradicted by strong evidence that you are unaware of then others may know and point out your proposals weaknesses. If others believe your proposal has merit they might likewise provide you with better supporting evidence or tell you what they think might improve your ideas. They cannot make their own proposals diverting attention away from your ideas since they can start their own thread.

So give us your best shot so that we might have a chance to understand your aether proposal.

good luck, Forrest

//

Mr. Pi, Kewei (China)

The press conference hosted by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) on July 4 announced a newly discovered subatomic particle, which could very likely be the Higgs boson that is generally known as "God Particle". This discovery ecstasizes many physicists who are firm believers of Standard Model Theory, and they consider this moment the true triumph for this Theory. However, is what they believed really true?

According to my understandings, most believe the Higg's particle cannot be eliminated as one of the possibilities of this particle. If they could somehow show strong evidence that this new particle was the predicted Higgs, then I think it would be a very big plus for the standard model. If it turns out to be something different then I would expect the standard model would equally suffer a serious blow.

Frequency is a basic physical quantity. It can be used to create a new physical unit system named "unit system of quantum", which is to replace energy with frequency (cycles/second), kinetic energy with wave density (cycles/meter), force with /m (cycles/second), mass with second/meter², i.e., (cycles/second) /c². Electricity is expressed by the number of basic fermion (indicated by "e") which is distinguished between positive and negative electric charges (i.e. positive and negative electricity). By the unit system, the physical formula only possesses a few physical quantities like second, meter, cycle, and e. The physical formula does not possess the usual energy and mass, neither does Planck's constant h exist，and then formulas and theorems from kinematics, kinetics, electromagnetism can be easily described, disclosing relationships among physical phenomena connections directly. Quantum unit system is entirely corresponding with international unit system. If quantum unit system is brought up by adopting the quantum wave perspective, it will naturally result in the unified transformation formula of special theory of relativity, result in Klaus von Klitzing constant, and result in permittivity of vacuum of reciprocal divided by twice the speed of light and equals to fine structure constant. These do not happen by accident; they must be a sign that the theory has much credibility. .......................

There are many facets to the standard model of particle physics. Some aspects could be valid and others not. I think the same thing applies to Quantum Theory. When enough hypothesis within a theory eventually turn out to be wrong, a number of alternative hypothesis or theory contenders are usually available to meet the challenge -- and replace the old with the new via better predictions and understandings.

//

Flowing fluids are not static.

For sure. Did he use the word "static?" If so I missed it

//

It's not the words, it's the combination of them.

 

How can speak of a static aether and then say it moves toward center of mass? It can't do both.

 

If we are not moving through the aether, how do you explain stellar aberration?

He used the word "fluent" concerning his aether which I interpret to mean fluid. He can correct me if I am wrong.

An aether that moves toward the center of gravity, is a gravitational aether model. A pushing aether model of gravity. There are a great number of such aether models proposing to explain gravity. Most of these models are centuries old and few propose anything other than the inverse square law to mathematically explain the model.

Stellar aberration has never been mentioned in any of aether models I have read, so I expect I have just missed such discussions. If such an aether were fluid it could seemingly move in different channels depending upon its location, from higher pressure areas to lower. For example it might move in a vortex motion within spiral galaxies, and have less distinctive motions in elliptical and irregular galaxies. It could move in distinctive curved currents between galaxies. It could therefore seemingly be able to bend light, cause stellar aberration, lensing effects, and seemingly could cause the same effects as presently attributed to dark matter.

//

Actually, the Earth is an Oblate Spheroid. If we're already being petty

Yes, an oblate spheroid. As we would say here in the colonies (U.S.) and in Scotland, "the radius of the Earth varies a wee bit." U.S.: The radius varies about 10.5 miles from its mean radius. In Scotland we would say: the total variance of the Earth's radius is about 31 kilometers, but it's far shorter if you take the high road to Bryan's pub. Or ye can go to Mam's place ta yonder point -- and get tall ones for carven a few kegs upstars for the bide. Wednesday next at Bryan's pub the local chapter of the Earth is Flat Society will commence. For the cost of just 1 lb. Sterling one can join the club which includes a one year membership and certificate and 6 Ker table drinks (O Guinness fer 6 bobs mere) for the bi-monthly meetings, all alcohol at half price during meeting times.

If you dunna wish a fight, mention not the area sightings of aliens nor the alleged abduction and probings of Bryian's wife. But if ye do like a good fight ask to see Bryan's wife and tell em how bonnie his wife's figure looks and dat yur sorry bout da alien probings of is wife with da pipes -- wear a kilt, show your bum, mention that you are both a scientist, religious and thar to help his wife with free massage therapy.

//

How could they look in the wrong direction? Is our motion through the aether north/south?

rwjefferson, on 29 July 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

 

Like I said before, it is not speculation that aether has not been disproved because M&M were looking in the wrong direction.

Hi Swansot,

Aether motion North-South or South_North, pretty good. Haven't heard or thought of that one yet.

Not exactly sure the meaning of his statement aether but I know of a number of other possibilities, than yours, of his meaning. rwjeffersonell will tell us soon enough, I expect.

There are/ have been many variations of aether theory in and before the 19th century, the 20th, and I expect, the 21st century. The most famous argument was Lorenz' proposing that via motion and aetherial influences the instrumentation of the interferometer deforms via the direction of the aether and instrument rotation, rendering the M & M's experiment and other interferometers unable to detect the relative motion of the aether (the wording may be a little off).

In one model the aether is gravity centered, meaning that gravity drags aether around so that there could be no measurement of its relative motion such as in a M & M type experiment. In another theoretical version aether is not only the carrier of EM radiation, but the cause of time dilation and the the force of gravity. In this version aether is radiated away from all matter in the form of EM radiation and other forms of wave and particulate radiation, and the back-flow of aether equalizing pressure would accordingly be the cause of gravity. In another model again aether is something like dark matter that does not interact with EM radiation so cannot be detected via light. In another version the effect of particle spin causes a 3D aether vortex surrounding matter. Accordingly in larger matter like the Earth, we would be near the center of the vortex somehow and would see no relative motion of the aether. Still another aether version proposes that aether is the source of dark energy and the proliferation of the ZPF. Accordingly the aether energy of motion is what we observe as the ZPE. This somehow would be the cause/ of the expansion of the universe, its acceleration, the source of dark matter, etc. (Note: My explanations of such various proposals are according to my memory and may be a little bit off, in some cases. )

I would guess that the aether model rwjefferson is interested in is different again. I have seen a few modern mainstream aether proposals that have included some of these older proposed ideas but most do not involve a luminiferous aether, and its author's usually choose to use alternative wording because of the commonly perceived stigma concerning the word "aether"

I guess any particulate background-field model could be called an aether model such as dark matter, gravitons, Higg's particles, etc., or any background energy field such as dark energy, quantum space foam, etc., depending upon how aether is defined.

//

drag is drag by any other name

 

def: drag

the retarding force acting on matter moving through a fluent

 

How do you measure drag?

 

please answer the question

ItS

peace

 

that you only know what Authority tells you so does not mean I am speculating

 

Don't know who you are addressing your comments and question to but I will answer since I will assume you are still talking to me.

How do you measure drag?

Drag is not just a retarding/ slowing-down force when moving through a fluid, drag also occurs when moving through any physical medium such as a gas, a liquid, a particulate solid, or any medium that might cause friction or resistance including so-far undiscovered theoretical entities or mediums.

To measure drag you use a coefficient(s) of friction concerning the medium(s) involved, the relative velocity, subtracting other known forces, and then estimating drag. If by doing so you can't account for all of the drag you observe then you might speculate as to possible additional frictions, contrary or drag forces.

Like I said before, aether of the many possible types has not been disproved, but fast moving tangent-to-the-Earth aether has pretty well been thought to have been discredited in most scientists minds, regarding the numerous attempts to find a luminiferous tangential aether.

//

Actually antimatter has been produced and captured for as long as 16 minutes. It is quite solidly confirmed.

Yep, that's true. Positrons are anti-matter and there is much evidence that they are quite stable and long lasting. Anti-protons which are also anti-matter, on the other hand, have only been stored for a limited period of time but theoretically are thought to be stable particles according to the standard model. If they are not totally stable such as a lifetime of a million years or less, for example, this might be the simplest explanation why we observe far more matter than anti-matter.

//

Might have been an even better story if in the process the gorillas would have by tracking to find the traps, dismantled a poacher or two

David Levy,

Yes there have been a great number of dissenters to the general BB model, and many present-day alternative theorists expect that the BB model will be replaced in the next couple of decades. This, however, is not the place in the forum to discuss what one thinks about the BB model. This is the news section of the forum and the subject of this thread is based upon the BB nucleosynthesis problem as it relates to Lithium abundances and its scarcity compared to BB nucleosynthesis predictions.