| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Ole D. Rughede" |
| Date: |
21 Sep 2005 10:48:14 PM |
| Object: |
Aetherptheory and GUT |
We assume to find in every point of space a flow in all directions of
radiant energy from all astrophysical objects, meaning that space
everywhere has a specific energy U erg and an energy density u = U/V
erg/cm^3, which of course is a local variable depending on the position
in space.
The radiant energy will we name "The Aether", and since it is present
overall in the universe, we will call space "The Aether-Space",
presuming the aether is the medium of all physical fields and forces.
A set of equations can be found for this situation with solutions I have
given once to these newsgroups, and from which may be derived the aether
equation with the minimum energy U at the temperature T(Aether) which
has been confirmed by the COBE observations of T(CMBR) = 2.735 +/- 0.06
Kelvin.
kappa*U*V = G*h*c^2;
K = G*c/kappa*L^2 = U*L/h*c = 2.000343E3.
U = 3.973637E-13 erg at T(Aether) = 2.692064 Kelvin.
Defining kappa = 1 erg/(sec*g^2) and V = 1 cm^3 it is seen that if U is
a variable, also the Newtonian G and the velocity light c are dependent
variables, if Planck's h is a universal constant.
At higher energy densities of the aether, such as in the galaxies, G and
c would have other and higher values than G = 6.672426E-8 cm^3/(g*sec^2)
and c = 2.99792458E10 cm/sec of the aether equation and will need some
co-efficient rho to G, while the maximum value of c is supposed from a
possible co-efficient function to be c_max = sqrt(2)*c.
To have an idea of the extreme energy densities and their corresponding
rho-values, we will have a look at the Schwarzschild solution to the
electron:
G*m_e / r_e*c^2 = 1 / rho_e = G*(m_e)^2 / e^2.
m_e = 9.109535E-28 g, e = 4.803242E-10 esu,
r_e = 2.817937E-13 cm, rho_e = 4.166705E42.
Considering the composite neutron, the proton+, and the neutron-meson-
we find that the meson must be the mass difference between the neutron
and the proton, and that the meson must be a special heavy
neutron-electron, since the free neutron in relatively short time
disintegrates into a proton, an electron, and some neutrino energy
depending on the velocities and directions of the parting massive
fundamental particles. We therefore have:
m_n = 1.674954E-24 g,
m_p = 1.672648E-24 g,
m_m = 2.305589E-27 g.
We then find the following relations with alpha as the fine-structure
constant:
m_p*m_m / (m_e)^2 = alpha*K^2 / 2*pi = K^3*e^2 / U*L = 4.64723E3.
rho_e*G*m_p*m_m / e^2 = alpha*K^2 / 2*pi,
alpha*rho_hc / 2*pi = rho_e
rho_p,m = rho_hc / K^2 = 8.965996E38
As an analogon to the Schwarzschild electron solution we find:
rho_p,m*G*m_n / r_n*c^2 = rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_m / e^2 = 1.
r_n = 1.11492E-13 cm would then be the radius of the neutron,
and if the proton is calculated with the same co-efficient rho_p,m,
rho_p,m*G*m_p / r_p*c^2 = 1, r_p = 1.113386E-13cm.
When the neutron-meson should in fact be a heavy electron, and m_m/m_e ~
2.53, it would make reason if the mass-difference m_m minus m_e was the
virtual gravitational mass of the neutron's intrinsic proton-electron
pair, whence we find
rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_e / r_n*c^2 = m_vir = 9.09669E-28 g ~ m_e,
rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_e / r_p*c^2 = m_vir = 9.109531E-28 g.
We hereby have accounted for a neutron-meson of twice the electron's
mass, while we need an explanation for the extra mass of about ˝
electron-mass in the neutron-meson. We will abstain here from further
calculations and for the moment consider it sufficient to have shown a
double electron-mass in the meson, pointing to the self-gravitation also
of the virtual mass as a probable solution to the deficiency of ~
4.83E-28 g meson-mass.
Having demonstrated that the Newtonian G must be a variabel of very
great values at extreme energy densties, such as in the composite
neutron (rho_p,m*G ~ 6E31), it seems reasonabe to believe that the
strong nuclear force is caused by such extreme values of the Newtonian
gravitational factor.
We therefore assume that the neutron-meson would be able to bind two
protons in the atomic nucleus by orbiting in such a way that it shifts
constantly between the two protons, of which the one may be considered a
neutron, when the other is a proton and vice versa in constant shifts of
constitution in the neutron-proton pair of a nucleus.
The binding orbit may hence be thought of in a most simple theoretical
illustration as the meson following an Oval of Cassini around the two
heavy electrically positive charged particles, forcing them to the
constant shifts of neutron-proton phase. And as will be known, the
Lemniscate is the extreme curve of the Cassini oval, with the parameters
a = b, where the strong particle-binding would break in a proton and a
free neutron that may possibly leave the nucleus.
Of course, the real conditions of an "orbiting neutron-meson" cannot be
made really lucid, since we know that the interaction is rather a
question af probability of distribution of charges and masses, when we
observe the weak magnetic moment of the electrically neutral neutron.
However, it seems that the strong nuclear force may be accounted for as
a very strong gravitational force at extreme energy densities, to which
is remarked that we also in the galaxies with their very intense
radiation from stars and gasses may expect special dynamics due to the
variable factor of G, which would therefore account for the observed
galactic differential velocities and probably would explain also the
so-called "problem of missing mass in the universe".
As in fact gravitational action according to the aether physics is an
electromagnetic phenomenon of energy exchange in Planck quanta leaving
an enduring train of impulses unto the gravitating masses, it seems that
a unification of the four fundamental forces in nature may be expected
from consideration of the physics of the aether.
Ole D. Rughede
.
|
|
| User: "Ole D. Rughede" |
|
| Title: Re: Aetherptheory and GUT |
24 Sep 2005 11:10:44 PM |
|
|
"Ole D. Rughede" <ole.rughede@privat.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:43322764$0$58128$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk...
We assume to find in every point of space a flow in all directions of
radiant energy from all astrophysical objects, meaning that space
everywhere has a specific energy U erg and an energy density u = U/V
erg/cm^3, which of course is a local variable depending on the
position
in space.
The radiant energy will we name "The Aether", and since it is present
overall in the universe, we will call space "The Aether-Space",
presuming the aether is the medium of all physical fields and forces.
A set of equations can be found for this situation with solutions I
have
given once to these newsgroups, and from which may be derived the
aether
equation with the minimum energy U at the temperature T(Aether) which
has been confirmed by the COBE observations of T(CMBR) = 2.735 +/-
0.06
Kelvin.
kappa*U*V = G*h*c^2;
K = G*c/kappa*L^2 = U*L/h*c = 2.000343E3.
U = 3.973637E-13 erg at T(Aether) = 2.692064 Kelvin.
Defining kappa = 1 erg/(sec*g^2) and V = 1 cm^3 it is seen that if U
is
a variable, also the Newtonian G and the velocity light c are
dependent
variables, if Planck's h is a universal constant.
At higher energy densities of the aether, such as in the galaxies, G
and
c would have other and higher values than G = 6.672426E-8
cm^3/(g*sec^2)
and c = 2.99792458E10 cm/sec of the aether equation and will need some
co-efficient rho to G, while the maximum value of c is supposed from a
possible co-efficient function to be c_max = sqrt(2)*c.
To have an idea of the extreme energy densities and their
corresponding
rho-values, we will have a look at the Schwarzschild solution to the
electron:
G*m_e / r_e*c^2 = 1 / rho_e = G*(m_e)^2 / e^2.
m_e = 9.109535E-28 g, e = 4.803242E-10 esu,
r_e = 2.817937E-13 cm, rho_e = 4.166705E42.
Considering the composite neutron, the proton+, and the neutron-meson-
we find that the meson must be the mass difference between the neutron
and the proton, and that the meson must be a special heavy
neutron-electron, since the free neutron in relatively short time
disintegrates into a proton, an electron, and some neutrino energy
depending on the velocities and directions of the parting massive
fundamental particles. We therefore have:
m_n = 1.674954E-24 g,
m_p = 1.672648E-24 g,
m_m = 2.305589E-27 g.
We then find the following relations with alpha as the fine-structure
constant:
m_p*m_m / (m_e)^2 = alpha*K^2 / 2*pi = K^3*e^2 / U*L = 4.64723E3.
rho_e*G*m_p*m_m / e^2 = alpha*K^2 / 2*pi,
alpha*rho_hc / 2*pi = rho_e
rho_p,m = rho_hc / K^2 = 8.965996E38
As an analogon to the Schwarzschild electron solution we find:
rho_p,m*G*m_n / r_n*c^2 = rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_m / e^2 = 1.
r_n = 1.11492E-13 cm would then be the radius of the neutron,
and if the proton is calculated with the same co-efficient rho_p,m,
rho_p,m*G*m_p / r_p*c^2 = 1, r_p = 1.113386E-13cm.
When the neutron-meson should in fact be a heavy electron, and m_m/m_e
~
2.53, it would make reason if the mass-difference m_m minus m_e was
the
virtual gravitational mass of the neutron's intrinsic proton-electron
pair, whence we find
rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_e / r_n*c^2 = m_vir = 9.09669E-28 g ~ m_e,
rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_e / r_p*c^2 = m_vir = 9.109531E-28 g.
We hereby have accounted for a neutron-meson of twice the electron's
mass, while we need an explanation for the extra mass of about ˝
electron-mass in the neutron-meson. We will abstain here from further
calculations and for the moment consider it sufficient to have shown a
double electron-mass in the meson, pointing to the self-gravitation
also
of the virtual mass as a probable solution to the deficiency of ~
4.83E-28 g meson-mass.
Having demonstrated that the Newtonian G must be a variabel of very
great values at extreme energy densties, such as in the composite
neutron (rho_p,m*G ~ 6E31), it seems reasonabe to believe that the
strong nuclear force is caused by such extreme values of the Newtonian
gravitational factor.
We therefore assume that the neutron-meson would be able to bind two
protons in the atomic nucleus by orbiting in such a way that it shifts
constantly between the two protons, of which the one may be considered
a
neutron, when the other is a proton and vice versa in constant shifts
of
constitution in the neutron-proton pair of a nucleus.
The binding orbit may hence be thought of in a most simple theoretical
illustration as the meson following an Oval of Cassini around the two
heavy electrically positive charged particles, forcing them to the
constant shifts of neutron-proton phase. And as will be known, the
Lemniscate is the extreme curve of the Cassini oval, with the
parameters
a = b, where the strong particle-binding would break in a proton and a
free neutron that may possibly leave the nucleus.
Of course, the real conditions of an "orbiting neutron-meson" cannot
be
made really lucid, since we know that the interaction is rather a
question af probability of distribution of charges and masses, when we
observe the weak magnetic moment of the electrically neutral neutron.
However, it seems that the strong nuclear force may be accounted for
as
a very strong gravitational force at extreme energy densities, to
which
is remarked that we also in the galaxies with their very intense
radiation from stars and gasses may expect special dynamics due to the
variable factor of G, which would therefore account for the observed
galactic differential velocities and probably would explain also the
so-called "problem of missing mass in the universe".
As in fact gravitational action according to the aether physics is an
electromagnetic phenomenon of energy exchange in Planck quanta leaving
an enduring train of impulses unto the gravitating masses, it seems
that
a unification of the four fundamental forces in nature may be expected
from consideration of the physics of the aether.
Ole D. Rughede
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From the aether equation we have found the constant K = 2.000343E3,
K = G*c/kappa*L^2 = U*L/h*c.
Considering the composite neutron, m_p + m_m = m_n, we have:
(m_p*m_m) / (m_e)^2 = K^3*(e^2 / U*L) = K^2*(e^2 / h*c).
Previously has been shown that K*Phi / c = G*m_x*m_y / L^2 for any
pair of gravitating masses in mutual distance L = 1 cm, when the radiant
flux Phi is Phi_x,y = kappa*m_x*m_y.
We will therefore show that a radiant aether flux Phi is the common
cause of the Coulomb force and the extremely strong force of gravity in
the neutron, acting as the strong nuclear force.
e^2/(r_n)^2 = rho_p,m*[(K*Phi_p,m)/c]*[L^2/(r_n)^2] =
rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_m/(r_n)^2,
e^2*c/(r_n)^2 = rho_p,m*K*Phi_p,m*L^2/(r_n)^2 =
rho_p,m*(G*m_p*m_m)*c/(r_n)^2.
e^2*c/(r_n)^2 = rho_p,m*[K*Phi_p,m]*[L^2/)r_n)^2] erg/sec.
e^2/m_p*m_m = rho_p,m*K*kappa*L^2/c = rho_p,m*kappa*U*V/h*c^2 =
rho_p,m*G.
This again leads to the aether equation: kappa*U*V = G*h*c^2, why we
find that
e^2/G = rho_p,m*m_p*m_m = (M_J-S)^2, the Johnstone-Stoney mass squared.
For any pair of fundamental particles of unit charge +/- esu there seems
to exist a dimensionless factor of proportionality rho_1,2, which, if
made a co-efficient to G, will balance the electrostatic Coulomb force
and the Newtonian force of gravity at any distance between the charged
particles. For any charged pair of mass_1 and mass_2 the factor of
proportionality will be rho with the Johnstone-Stoney mass squared =
e^2/G as a constant :
rho_1,2 = (M_J-S)^2 / (m_1*m_2).
When, however, all ponderable matter is constituted as a sum of charged
particles, and the force of gravity as shown is an electromagnetic
phenomenon by energy exchange in the aether space between any pair of
masses via a radiant flux Phi erg/sec, which is proportional to the
product of the two masses, we have according to the aether equation:
G*M_1*M_2 / r^2 = kappa*M_1*M_2*U*V / h*c^2*r^2 = K*[Phi/c]*[L^2/r^2]
dyn.
The radiant flux K*Phi may be thought of as aether energy at the
velocity of light, which is bound in the line of distance r between the
gravitating masses, representing the gravitational energy K*Phi*L^2 /
r*c and the equivalent virtual gravitational mass K*Phi*L^2 /r*c^3 that
belongs to the binary system. It should therefore be added to the sum of
gravitating masses for calculations of total potental and force
including the self-gravitation of the aether energy in Phi.
As seen from the case of the neutron, the Coulomb force between the
neutron-proton and the neutron-meson is e^2/(r_n)^2 = 1.856E7 dyn from
interaction of a radiant flux of 2.07E-6 erg and equivalent mass 2 ,53
electron mass = 2.3024E-27 g which is very near equal to the meson mass
(m_n minus m_p) = 2.305589E-27 g.
In the composite neutron, however only two elementary charges are
acting, the proton's +e esu and the meson-electron's -e esu. The latter
is an ordinary electron, when the neutron disintegrates, and we have no
idea whatsoever of a variation in the elementary charge e = 4.803242E-10
esu.
We therefore conclude from the neutron equation:
1 = rho_p,m*G*m_n / r_n*c^2 = rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_m / e^2,
e^2 / (r_n)^2 = rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_m / (r_n)^2,
e^2 / m_p*m_m = rho_p,m*G,
that gravity is an electromagnetic phenomenon, and that it is the shown
relation between charges and masses which governs the gravitational
force between the neutrons proton and electron at the extreme energy
density of the free neutron.
Presumeably, it is the gravitational interaction between the free
neutron and all other masses in the aether space, by enduring energy
exchange with the radiant energy of the aether, that makes the neutron
unstable by emitting more energy to the aether field than is absorbed in
the same interval of time. This loss of energy is by radiation at the
cost of the meson-mass, which diminishes, meaning a loss of mass and of
the neutron's energy density, thereby a reduction of the co-efficient
rho to G. That means a increase in r_n, the radius of the free neutron
to a considerably greater dimension as a so-called "cold neutron",
untill the proton and the neutron-electron part with a random measure of
the electron-meson's binding energy as a mass-less supply of
neutrino-energy to the aether.
The aether energy represented in the radiant flux Phi is according to
the theory present in the aether space of infinite energy as random
radiation at all wavelengths and in all directions to an from the
gravitating systems. Therefore the action of gravity is immediate, say
if one of the gravitating masses is suddenly increased, while any change
in the gravitating system will result in a signal which propagates in
the aether space as a gravitationel wave with the velocity of light.
Such a signal may therefore be thought of as a modulation of the present
radiant aether energy. The flux Phi is not a flow of energy from mass 1
to mass 2 and back again. It is a result of the energy exchange in all
directions between the aether and the complete system and its single
gravitating masses.
Aether energy which is absorbed by a mass is immediately re-emitted
randomly to the aether, and in all directions. The action of gravity
means a work by impulses h*ny/c both at absorption and radiation of
energy, while reflection means as double-pulse. The gravitational work
done by the aether causes a incresing loss of aether energy, shown in
the Hubble-effect of increasing red-shift with distance of all light
from distant sources. The universal red-shift is evidence of
gravitational work, and not of any universal expansion interpreted as a
Doppler-effect. The red-shift is in complete accordance with the
gravitational effect described by Einstein's theory of relativity, why
we have to discriminate between two types of gravitational effects: 1)
The local redshift of a single mass also deflecting passing rays of
light. 2) The redshift of distance called the Hubble red-shift.
The loss of energy to gravitational work is replenished by the the stars
and all energy producing astrophysical objects by irradiation of new
energy into the aether space. It seems clear that there ought to exist a
feed-back effect working to keep the aether at a constant energy level,
which, however, may be left to future research.
25th. September 2005
Ole D. Rughede
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ole D. Rughede" |
|
| Title: Re: Aetherptheory and GUT |
06 Oct 2005 06:14:55 AM |
|
|
"Ole D. Rughede" <ole.rughede@privat.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:43322764$0$58128$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk...
We assume to find in every point of space a flow in all directions of
radiant energy from all astrophysical objects, meaning that space
everywhere has a specific energy U erg and an energy density u = U/V
erg/cm^3, which of course is a local variable depending on the
position
in space.
The radiant energy will we name "The Aether", and since it is present
overall in the universe, we will call space "The Aether-Space",
presuming the aether is the medium of all physical fields and forces.
A set of equations can be found for this situation with solutions I
have
given once to these newsgroups, and from which may be derived the
aether
equation with the minimum energy U at the temperature T(Aether) which
has been confirmed by the COBE observations of T(CMBR) = 2.735 +/-
0.06
Kelvin.
kappa*U*V = G*h*c^2;
K = G*c/kappa*L^2 = U*L/h*c = 2.000343E3.
U = 3.973637E-13 erg at T(Aether) = 2.692064 Kelvin.
Defining kappa = 1 erg/(sec*g^2) and V = 1 cm^3 it is seen that if U
is
a variable, also the Newtonian G and the velocity light c are
dependent
variables, if Planck's h is a universal constant.
At higher energy densities of the aether, such as in the galaxies, G
and
c would have other and higher values than G = 6.672426E-8
cm^3/(g*sec^2)
and c = 2.99792458E10 cm/sec of the aether equation and will need some
co-efficient rho to G, while the maximum value of c is supposed from a
possible co-efficient function to be c_max = sqrt(2)*c.
To have an idea of the extreme energy densities and their
corresponding
rho-values, we will have a look at the Schwarzschild solution to the
electron:
G*m_e / r_e*c^2 = 1 / rho_e = G*(m_e)^2 / e^2.
m_e = 9.109535E-28 g, e = 4.803242E-10 esu,
r_e = 2.817937E-13 cm, rho_e = 4.166705E42.
Considering the composite neutron, the proton+, and the neutron-meson-
we find that the meson must be the mass difference between the neutron
and the proton, and that the meson must be a special heavy
neutron-electron, since the free neutron in relatively short time
disintegrates into a proton, an electron, and some neutrino energy
depending on the velocities and directions of the parting massive
fundamental particles. We therefore have:
m_n = 1.674954E-24 g,
m_p = 1.672648E-24 g,
m_m = 2.305589E-27 g.
We then find the following relations with alpha as the fine-structure
constant:
m_p*m_m / (m_e)^2 = alpha*K^2 / 2*pi = K^3*e^2 / U*L = 4.64723E3.
rho_e*G*m_p*m_m / e^2 = alpha*K^2 / 2*pi,
alpha*rho_hc / 2*pi = rho_e
rho_p,m = rho_hc / K^2 = 8.965996E38
As an analogon to the Schwarzschild electron solution we find:
rho_p,m*G*m_n / r_n*c^2 = rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_m / e^2 = 1.
r_n = 1.11492E-13 cm would then be the radius of the neutron,
and if the proton is calculated with the same co-efficient rho_p,m,
rho_p,m*G*m_p / r_p*c^2 = 1, r_p = 1.113386E-13cm.
When the neutron-meson should in fact be a heavy electron, and m_m/m_e
~
2.53, it would make reason if the mass-difference m_m minus m_e was
the
virtual gravitational mass of the neutron's intrinsic proton-electron
pair, whence we find
rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_e / r_n*c^2 = m_vir = 9.09669E-28 g ~ m_e,
rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_e / r_p*c^2 = m_vir = 9.109531E-28 g.
We hereby have accounted for a neutron-meson of twice the electron's
mass, while we need an explanation for the extra mass of about ˝
electron-mass in the neutron-meson. We will abstain here from further
calculations and for the moment consider it sufficient to have shown a
double electron-mass in the meson, pointing to the self-gravitation
also
of the virtual mass as a probable solution to the deficiency of ~
4.83E-28 g meson-mass.
Regarding the self-gravitation of the neutron, it may be shown from a
normalization of the neutron's gravitational potential P, that the
potential with respect of the central proton, when the self-gravitation
means an increment of the meson-mass from ~ 2*m_e to m_m, would result
in a slightly greather value of rho by a factor of 1.001378 from rho_p,m
to rho_n, so that
rho_n = 1.001378*rho_p,m = 8.978353E38.
We then find from considering the gravitational potential of the
neutron, as if produced by the central proton alone in the distance r_n,
that it leads to the resulting potential
P = rho_n*G*m_p / r_n = rho_p,m*G*m_n / r_n = c^2,
why rho_n*G*m_p*m_m / r_n = E_m, when E_m = m*c^2 is the total energy
of the heavily augmentet neutron-electron to the full mass of the
neutron-meson, m_m = m_n minus m_p.
Ole
Having demonstrated that the Newtonian G must be a variabel of very
great values at extreme energy densties, such as in the composite
neutron (rho_p,m*G ~ 6E31), it seems reasonabe to believe that the
strong nuclear force is caused by such extreme values of the Newtonian
gravitational factor.
We therefore assume that the neutron-meson would be able to bind two
protons in the atomic nucleus by orbiting in such a way that it shifts
constantly between the two protons, of which the one may be considered
a
neutron, when the other is a proton and vice versa in constant shifts
of
constitution in the neutron-proton pair of a nucleus.
The binding orbit may hence be thought of in a most simple theoretical
illustration as the meson following an Oval of Cassini around the two
heavy electrically positive charged particles, forcing them to the
constant shifts of neutron-proton phase. And as will be known, the
Lemniscate is the extreme curve of the Cassini oval, with the
parameters
a = b, where the strong particle-binding would break in a proton and a
free neutron that may possibly leave the nucleus.
Of course, the real conditions of an "orbiting neutron-meson" cannot
be
made really lucid, since we know that the interaction is rather a
question af probability of distribution of charges and masses, when we
observe the weak magnetic moment of the electrically neutral neutron.
However, it seems that the strong nuclear force may be accounted for
as
a very strong gravitational force at extreme energy densities, to
which
is remarked that we also in the galaxies with their very intense
radiation from stars and gasses may expect special dynamics due to the
variable factor of G, which would therefore account for the observed
galactic differential velocities and probably would explain also the
so-called "problem of missing mass in the universe".
As in fact gravitational action according to the aether physics is an
electromagnetic phenomenon of energy exchange in Planck quanta leaving
an enduring train of impulses unto the gravitating masses, it seems
that
a unification of the four fundamental forces in nature may be expected
from consideration of the physics of the aether.
Ole D. Rughede
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Aetherptheory and GUT |
22 Sep 2005 04:16:03 PM |
|
|
"Ole D. Rughede" <ole.rughede@privat.dk> wrote in message
news:43322764$0$58128$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk...
We assume to find in every point of space a flow in all directions of
radiant energy from all astrophysical objects, meaning that space
everywhere has a specific energy U erg and an energy density u = U/V
erg/cm^3, which of course is a local variable depending on the position
in space.
The radiant energy will we name "The Aether",
The aether has already defined to be something a lot different. All
choosing a name already in use does is introduce unnecessary layers of
obsufucation. The purpose of such will probably become clear later
and since it is present
overall in the universe, we will call space "The Aether-Space",
presuming the aether is the medium of all physical fields and forces.
It did not take long - you define it to be the radiant energy density at any
point in space - then you context shift and claim it is the medium of all
physical fields and forces without first demonstrating your previous
definition can have such a property. Of course that is the reason you wish
to use the word aether - so you can shift the context and hope your
undemonstrated connection is not noticed.
Bill
A set of equations can be found for this situation with solutions I have
given once to these newsgroups, and from which may be derived the aether
equation with the minimum energy U at the temperature T(Aether) which
has been confirmed by the COBE observations of T(CMBR) = 2.735 +/- 0.06
Kelvin.
kappa*U*V = G*h*c^2;
K = G*c/kappa*L^2 = U*L/h*c = 2.000343E3.
U = 3.973637E-13 erg at T(Aether) = 2.692064 Kelvin.
Defining kappa = 1 erg/(sec*g^2) and V = 1 cm^3 it is seen that if U is
a variable, also the Newtonian G and the velocity light c are dependent
variables, if Planck's h is a universal constant.
At higher energy densities of the aether, such as in the galaxies, G and
c would have other and higher values than G = 6.672426E-8 cm^3/(g*sec^2)
and c = 2.99792458E10 cm/sec of the aether equation and will need some
co-efficient rho to G, while the maximum value of c is supposed from a
possible co-efficient function to be c_max = sqrt(2)*c.
To have an idea of the extreme energy densities and their corresponding
rho-values, we will have a look at the Schwarzschild solution to the
electron:
G*m_e / r_e*c^2 = 1 / rho_e = G*(m_e)^2 / e^2.
m_e = 9.109535E-28 g, e = 4.803242E-10 esu,
r_e = 2.817937E-13 cm, rho_e = 4.166705E42.
Considering the composite neutron, the proton+, and the neutron-meson-
we find that the meson must be the mass difference between the neutron
and the proton, and that the meson must be a special heavy
neutron-electron, since the free neutron in relatively short time
disintegrates into a proton, an electron, and some neutrino energy
depending on the velocities and directions of the parting massive
fundamental particles. We therefore have:
m_n = 1.674954E-24 g,
m_p = 1.672648E-24 g,
m_m = 2.305589E-27 g.
We then find the following relations with alpha as the fine-structure
constant:
m_p*m_m / (m_e)^2 = alpha*K^2 / 2*pi = K^3*e^2 / U*L = 4.64723E3.
rho_e*G*m_p*m_m / e^2 = alpha*K^2 / 2*pi,
alpha*rho_hc / 2*pi = rho_e
rho_p,m = rho_hc / K^2 = 8.965996E38
As an analogon to the Schwarzschild electron solution we find:
rho_p,m*G*m_n / r_n*c^2 = rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_m / e^2 = 1.
r_n = 1.11492E-13 cm would then be the radius of the neutron,
and if the proton is calculated with the same co-efficient rho_p,m,
rho_p,m*G*m_p / r_p*c^2 = 1, r_p = 1.113386E-13cm.
When the neutron-meson should in fact be a heavy electron, and m_m/m_e ~
2.53, it would make reason if the mass-difference m_m minus m_e was the
virtual gravitational mass of the neutron's intrinsic proton-electron
pair, whence we find
rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_e / r_n*c^2 = m_vir = 9.09669E-28 g ~ m_e,
rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_e / r_p*c^2 = m_vir = 9.109531E-28 g.
We hereby have accounted for a neutron-meson of twice the electron's
mass, while we need an explanation for the extra mass of about ˝
electron-mass in the neutron-meson. We will abstain here from further
calculations and for the moment consider it sufficient to have shown a
double electron-mass in the meson, pointing to the self-gravitation also
of the virtual mass as a probable solution to the deficiency of ~
4.83E-28 g meson-mass.
Having demonstrated that the Newtonian G must be a variabel of very
great values at extreme energy densties, such as in the composite
neutron (rho_p,m*G ~ 6E31), it seems reasonabe to believe that the
strong nuclear force is caused by such extreme values of the Newtonian
gravitational factor.
We therefore assume that the neutron-meson would be able to bind two
protons in the atomic nucleus by orbiting in such a way that it shifts
constantly between the two protons, of which the one may be considered a
neutron, when the other is a proton and vice versa in constant shifts of
constitution in the neutron-proton pair of a nucleus.
The binding orbit may hence be thought of in a most simple theoretical
illustration as the meson following an Oval of Cassini around the two
heavy electrically positive charged particles, forcing them to the
constant shifts of neutron-proton phase. And as will be known, the
Lemniscate is the extreme curve of the Cassini oval, with the parameters
a = b, where the strong particle-binding would break in a proton and a
free neutron that may possibly leave the nucleus.
Of course, the real conditions of an "orbiting neutron-meson" cannot be
made really lucid, since we know that the interaction is rather a
question af probability of distribution of charges and masses, when we
observe the weak magnetic moment of the electrically neutral neutron.
However, it seems that the strong nuclear force may be accounted for as
a very strong gravitational force at extreme energy densities, to which
is remarked that we also in the galaxies with their very intense
radiation from stars and gasses may expect special dynamics due to the
variable factor of G, which would therefore account for the observed
galactic differential velocities and probably would explain also the
so-called "problem of missing mass in the universe".
As in fact gravitational action according to the aether physics is an
electromagnetic phenomenon of energy exchange in Planck quanta leaving
an enduring train of impulses unto the gravitating masses, it seems that
a unification of the four fundamental forces in nature may be expected
from consideration of the physics of the aether.
Ole D. Rughede
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ole D. Rughede" |
|
| Title: Re: Aetherptheory and GUT |
22 Sep 2005 06:19:53 PM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:naFYe.10174$0E5.3280@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Ole D. Rughede" <ole.rughede@privat.dk> wrote in message
news:43322764$0$58128$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk...
We assume to find in every point of space a flow in all directions
of
radiant energy from all astrophysical objects, meaning that space
everywhere has a specific energy U erg and an energy density u = U/V
erg/cm^3, which of course is a local variable depending on the
position
in space.
The radiant energy will we name "The Aether",
The aether has already defined to be something a lot different. All
choosing a name already in use does is introduce unnecessary layers of
obsufucation. The purpose of such will probably become clear later
Thank you Bill,
The "aether" has - to my knowledge - shiftet as a concept so many times
in history since it with the old Greeks was simply the heaven, became
the all pervading fifth element of godly action, and so on, that I see
no hindrance for giving the name now to the described entity. At the
same time I want to emphasize that the rather vague ideas proposed in
classical physics including Einstein's) under the name of aether have
not been acceptable why they were overthrown, in fact leaving the
concept waiting for a new and better definition I propose here, still,
though, with strong allusions to the ideas of the great scientists who
used the name aether describing their marvellous findings about fields,
forces, and space as the seat of fields and forces. So we will honour
those giants in keeping the name "Aether".
and since it is present
overall in the universe, we will call space "The Aether-Space",
presuming the aether is the medium of all physical fields and
forces.
It did not take long - you define it to be the radiant energy density
at any
point in space - then you context shift and claim it is the medium of
all
physical fields and forces without first demonstrating your previous
definition can have such a property. Of course that is the reason you
wish
to use the word aether - so you can shift the context and hope your
undemonstrated connection is not noticed.
Bill
I think you credit me to be more shrewd and cunningly ingenious than in
fact I am, or intend to be. Anyway, thank you! I am not shifting
context, just trying to express me short and precisely. I have so to say
no wantings, but feel compelled to keep to the best and most fundamental
ideas of the great predecessors in physics. I would wish you had once
read Paul Drude's Physik des Aethers, Verlag von Ferdinand Enke,
Stuttgart 1894. Here, referring to Maxwell, Boltzmann, Poincaré, Hertz,
and J. J. Thompson, Drude gives a very clear idea of the aether,
identical to what I describe, mentioning the aether as the medium of
contact-forces of the fields in space, rejecting any and all ideas of
forces by distance. And, forgive me Bill, but we are allowed to
initially set a frame to be further dicussed and demonstrated valid in
the following text(s). However, you are right, we should be very careful
in nomenclature and not get in conflict with prescriptive other use
leading to unnecessesary obfuscations that might impair our own purpose.
That is why I thankfully notice your opinion, and hope to have also
others, from which I perhaps may some time draw a final conclusion, -
staying until then open, of course, for any suggestion.
Ole
A set of equations can be found for this situation with solutions I
have
given once to these newsgroups, and from which may be derived the
aether
equation with the minimum energy U at the temperature T(Aether)
which
has been confirmed by the COBE observations of T(CMBR) = 2.735 +/-
0.06
Kelvin.
kappa*U*V = G*h*c^2;
K = G*c/kappa*L^2 = U*L/h*c = 2.000343E3.
U = 3.973637E-13 erg at T(Aether) = 2.692064 Kelvin.
Defining kappa = 1 erg/(sec*g^2) and V = 1 cm^3 it is seen that if U
is
a variable, also the Newtonian G and the velocity light c are
dependent
variables, if Planck's h is a universal constant.
At higher energy densities of the aether, such as in the galaxies, G
and
c would have other and higher values than G = 6.672426E-8
cm^3/(g*sec^2)
and c = 2.99792458E10 cm/sec of the aether equation and will need
some
co-efficient rho to G, while the maximum value of c is supposed from
a
possible co-efficient function to be c_max = sqrt(2)*c.
To have an idea of the extreme energy densities and their
corresponding
rho-values, we will have a look at the Schwarzschild solution to the
electron:
G*m_e / r_e*c^2 = 1 / rho_e = G*(m_e)^2 / e^2.
m_e = 9.109535E-28 g, e = 4.803242E-10 esu,
r_e = 2.817937E-13 cm, rho_e = 4.166705E42.
Considering the composite neutron, the proton+, and the
neutron-meson-
we find that the meson must be the mass difference between the
neutron
and the proton, and that the meson must be a special heavy
neutron-electron, since the free neutron in relatively short time
disintegrates into a proton, an electron, and some neutrino energy
depending on the velocities and directions of the parting massive
fundamental particles. We therefore have:
m_n = 1.674954E-24 g,
m_p = 1.672648E-24 g,
m_m = 2.305589E-27 g.
We then find the following relations with alpha as the
fine-structure
constant:
m_p*m_m / (m_e)^2 = alpha*K^2 / 2*pi = K^3*e^2 / U*L = 4.64723E3.
rho_e*G*m_p*m_m / e^2 = alpha*K^2 / 2*pi,
alpha*rho_hc / 2*pi = rho_e
rho_p,m = rho_hc / K^2 = 8.965996E38
As an analogon to the Schwarzschild electron solution we find:
rho_p,m*G*m_n / r_n*c^2 = rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_m / e^2 = 1.
r_n = 1.11492E-13 cm would then be the radius of the neutron,
and if the proton is calculated with the same co-efficient rho_p,m,
rho_p,m*G*m_p / r_p*c^2 = 1, r_p = 1.113386E-13cm.
When the neutron-meson should in fact be a heavy electron, and
m_m/m_e ~
2.53, it would make reason if the mass-difference m_m minus m_e was
the
virtual gravitational mass of the neutron's intrinsic
proton-electron
pair, whence we find
rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_e / r_n*c^2 = m_vir = 9.09669E-28 g ~ m_e,
rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_e / r_p*c^2 = m_vir = 9.109531E-28 g.
We hereby have accounted for a neutron-meson of twice the electron's
mass, while we need an explanation for the extra mass of about ˝
electron-mass in the neutron-meson. We will abstain here from
further
calculations and for the moment consider it sufficient to have shown
a
double electron-mass in the meson, pointing to the self-gravitation
also
of the virtual mass as a probable solution to the deficiency of ~
4.83E-28 g meson-mass.
Having demonstrated that the Newtonian G must be a variabel of very
great values at extreme energy densities, such as in the composite
neutron (rho_p,m*G ~ 6E31), it seems reasonabe to believe that the
strong nuclear force is caused by such extreme values of the
Newtonian
gravitational factor.
We therefore assume that the neutron-meson would be able to bind two
protons in the atomic nucleus by orbiting in such a way that it
shifts
constantly between the two protons, of which the one may be
considered a
neutron, when the other is a proton and vice versa in constant
shifts of
constitution in the neutron-proton pair of a nucleus.
The binding orbit may hence be thought of in a most simple
theoretical
illustration as the meson following an Oval of Cassini around the
two
heavy electrically positive charged particles, forcing them to the
constant shifts of neutron-proton phase. And as will be known, the
Lemniscate is the extreme curve of the Cassini oval, with the
parameters
a = b, where the strong particle-binding would break in a proton and
a
free neutron that may possibly leave the nucleus.
Of course, the real conditions of an "orbiting neutron-meson" cannot
be
made really lucid, since we know that the interaction is rather a
question af probability of distribution of charges and masses, when
we
observe the weak magnetic moment of the electrically neutral
neutron.
However, it seems that the strong nuclear force may be accounted for
as
a very strong gravitational force at extreme energy densities, to
which
is remarked that we also in the galaxies with their very intense
radiation from stars and gasses may expect special dynamics due to
the
variable factor of G, which would therefore account for the observed
galactic differential velocities and probably would explain also the
so-called "problem of missing mass in the universe".
As in fact gravitational action according to the aether physics is
an
electromagnetic phenomenon of energy exchange in Planck quanta
leaving
an enduring train of impulses unto the gravitating masses, it seems
that
a unification of the four fundamental forces in nature may be
expected
from consideration of the physics of the aether.
Ole D. Rughede
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Aetherptheory and GUT |
22 Sep 2005 08:52:42 PM |
|
|
"Ole D. Rughede" <ole.rughede@privat.dk> wrote in message
news:43333a01$0$58064$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:naFYe.10174$0E5.3280@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Ole D. Rughede" <ole.rughede@privat.dk> wrote in message
news:43322764$0$58128$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk...
We assume to find in every point of space a flow in all directions
of
radiant energy from all astrophysical objects, meaning that space
everywhere has a specific energy U erg and an energy density u = U/V
erg/cm^3, which of course is a local variable depending on the
position
in space.
The radiant energy will we name "The Aether",
The aether has already defined to be something a lot different. All
choosing a name already in use does is introduce unnecessary layers of
obsufucation. The purpose of such will probably become clear later
Thank you Bill,
The "aether" has - to my knowledge - shiftet as a concept so many times
in history since it with the old Greeks was simply the heaven, became
the all pervading fifth element of godly action, and so on, that I see
no hindrance for giving the name now to the described entity.
In connection with relativity the aether means, and has always meant, a
mechanical substance permeating all of space that light is supposed to
undulate in. But even apart form that nothing excuses the disgraceful
context shifting you engage in that I alluded to. To be specific, and so as
not to be misunderstood, defining the aether as radiant energy then
reverting to it original meaning as a 'medium of all physical fields and
forces' is such an obvious semantic device that you should be ashamed.
Bill
At the
same time I want to emphasize that the rather vague ideas proposed in
classical physics including Einstein's) under the name of aether have
not been acceptable why they were overthrown, in fact leaving the
concept waiting for a new and better definition I propose here, still,
though, with strong allusions to the ideas of the great scientists who
used the name aether describing their marvellous findings about fields,
forces, and space as the seat of fields and forces. So we will honour
those giants in keeping the name "Aether".
and since it is present
overall in the universe, we will call space "The Aether-Space",
presuming the aether is the medium of all physical fields and
forces.
It did not take long - you define it to be the radiant energy density
at any
point in space - then you context shift and claim it is the medium of
all
physical fields and forces without first demonstrating your previous
definition can have such a property. Of course that is the reason you
wish
to use the word aether - so you can shift the context and hope your
undemonstrated connection is not noticed.
Bill
I think you credit me to be more shrewd and cunningly ingenious than in
fact I am, or intend to be. Anyway, thank you! I am not shifting
context, just trying to express me short and precisely. I have so to say
no wantings, but feel compelled to keep to the best and most fundamental
ideas of the great predecessors in physics. I would wish you had once
read Paul Drude's Physik des Aethers, Verlag von Ferdinand Enke,
Stuttgart 1894. Here, referring to Maxwell, Boltzmann, Poincaré, Hertz,
and J. J. Thompson, Drude gives a very clear idea of the aether,
identical to what I describe, mentioning the aether as the medium of
contact-forces of the fields in space, rejecting any and all ideas of
forces by distance. And, forgive me Bill, but we are allowed to
initially set a frame to be further dicussed and demonstrated valid in
the following text(s). However, you are right, we should be very careful
in nomenclature and not get in conflict with prescriptive other use
leading to unnecessesary obfuscations that might impair our own purpose.
That is why I thankfully notice your opinion, and hope to have also
others, from which I perhaps may some time draw a final conclusion, -
staying until then open, of course, for any suggestion.
Ole
A set of equations can be found for this situation with solutions I
have
given once to these newsgroups, and from which may be derived the
aether
equation with the minimum energy U at the temperature T(Aether)
which
has been confirmed by the COBE observations of T(CMBR) = 2.735 +/-
0.06
Kelvin.
kappa*U*V = G*h*c^2;
K = G*c/kappa*L^2 = U*L/h*c = 2.000343E3.
U = 3.973637E-13 erg at T(Aether) = 2.692064 Kelvin.
Defining kappa = 1 erg/(sec*g^2) and V = 1 cm^3 it is seen that if U
is
a variable, also the Newtonian G and the velocity light c are
dependent
variables, if Planck's h is a universal constant.
At higher energy densities of the aether, such as in the galaxies, G
and
c would have other and higher values than G = 6.672426E-8
cm^3/(g*sec^2)
and c = 2.99792458E10 cm/sec of the aether equation and will need
some
co-efficient rho to G, while the maximum value of c is supposed from
a
possible co-efficient function to be c_max = sqrt(2)*c.
To have an idea of the extreme energy densities and their
corresponding
rho-values, we will have a look at the Schwarzschild solution to the
electron:
G*m_e / r_e*c^2 = 1 / rho_e = G*(m_e)^2 / e^2.
m_e = 9.109535E-28 g, e = 4.803242E-10 esu,
r_e = 2.817937E-13 cm, rho_e = 4.166705E42.
Considering the composite neutron, the proton+, and the
neutron-meson-
we find that the meson must be the mass difference between the
neutron
and the proton, and that the meson must be a special heavy
neutron-electron, since the free neutron in relatively short time
disintegrates into a proton, an electron, and some neutrino energy
depending on the velocities and directions of the parting massive
fundamental particles. We therefore have:
m_n = 1.674954E-24 g,
m_p = 1.672648E-24 g,
m_m = 2.305589E-27 g.
We then find the following relations with alpha as the
fine-structure
constant:
m_p*m_m / (m_e)^2 = alpha*K^2 / 2*pi = K^3*e^2 / U*L = 4.64723E3.
rho_e*G*m_p*m_m / e^2 = alpha*K^2 / 2*pi,
alpha*rho_hc / 2*pi = rho_e
rho_p,m = rho_hc / K^2 = 8.965996E38
As an analogon to the Schwarzschild electron solution we find:
rho_p,m*G*m_n / r_n*c^2 = rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_m / e^2 = 1.
r_n = 1.11492E-13 cm would then be the radius of the neutron,
and if the proton is calculated with the same co-efficient rho_p,m,
rho_p,m*G*m_p / r_p*c^2 = 1, r_p = 1.113386E-13cm.
When the neutron-meson should in fact be a heavy electron, and
m_m/m_e ~
2.53, it would make reason if the mass-difference m_m minus m_e was
the
virtual gravitational mass of the neutron's intrinsic
proton-electron
pair, whence we find
rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_e / r_n*c^2 = m_vir = 9.09669E-28 g ~ m_e,
rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_e / r_p*c^2 = m_vir = 9.109531E-28 g.
We hereby have accounted for a neutron-meson of twice the electron's
mass, while we need an explanation for the extra mass of about ˝
electron-mass in the neutron-meson. We will abstain here from
further
calculations and for the moment consider it sufficient to have shown
a
double electron-mass in the meson, pointing to the self-gravitation
also
of the virtual mass as a probable solution to the deficiency of ~
4.83E-28 g meson-mass.
Having demonstrated that the Newtonian G must be a variabel of very
great values at extreme energy densities, such as in the composite
neutron (rho_p,m*G ~ 6E31), it seems reasonabe to believe that the
strong nuclear force is caused by such extreme values of the
Newtonian
gravitational factor.
We therefore assume that the neutron-meson would be able to bind two
protons in the atomic nucleus by orbiting in such a way that it
shifts
constantly between the two protons, of which the one may be
considered a
neutron, when the other is a proton and vice versa in constant
shifts of
constitution in the neutron-proton pair of a nucleus.
The binding orbit may hence be thought of in a most simple
theoretical
illustration as the meson following an Oval of Cassini around the
two
heavy electrically positive charged particles, forcing them to the
constant shifts of neutron-proton phase. And as will be known, the
Lemniscate is the extreme curve of the Cassini oval, with the
parameters
a = b, where the strong particle-binding would break in a proton and
a
free neutron that may possibly leave the nucleus.
Of course, the real conditions of an "orbiting neutron-meson" cannot
be
made really lucid, since we know that the interaction is rather a
question af probability of distribution of charges and masses, when
we
observe the weak magnetic moment of the electrically neutral
neutron.
However, it seems that the strong nuclear force may be accounted for
as
a very strong gravitational force at extreme energy densities, to
which
is remarked that we also in the galaxies with their very intense
radiation from stars and gasses may expect special dynamics due to
the
variable factor of G, which would therefore account for the observed
galactic differential velocities and probably would explain also the
so-called "problem of missing mass in the universe".
As in fact gravitational action according to the aether physics is
an
electromagnetic phenomenon of energy exchange in Planck quanta
leaving
an enduring train of impulses unto the gravitating masses, it seems
that
a unification of the four fundamental forces in nature may be
expected
from consideration of the physics of the aether.
Ole D. Rughede
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ole D. Rughede" |
|
| Title: Re: Aetherptheory and GUT |
01 Oct 2005 09:43:20 PM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:KdJYe.10356$0E5.2415@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Ole D. Rughede" <ole.rughede@privat.dk> wrote in message
news:43333a01$0$58064$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:naFYe.10174$0E5.3280@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Ole D. Rughede" <ole.rughede@privat.dk> wrote in message
news:43322764$0$58128$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk...
We assume to find in every point of space a flow in all
directions
of
radiant energy from all astrophysical objects, meaning that space
everywhere has a specific energy U erg and an energy density u =
U/V
erg/cm^3, which of course is a local variable depending on the
position
in space.
The radiant energy will we name "The Aether",
The aether has already defined to be something a lot different.
All
choosing a name already in use does is introduce unnecessary layers
of
obsufucation. The purpose of such will probably become clear later
Thank you Bill,
The "aether" has - to my knowledge - shiftet as a concept so many
times
in history since it with the old Greeks was simply the heaven,
became
the all pervading fifth element of godly action, and so on, that I
see
no hindrance for giving the name now to the described entity.
In connection with relativity the aether means, and has always meant,
a
mechanical substance permeating all of space that light is supposed to
undulate in. But even apart form that nothing excuses the disgraceful
context shifting you engage in that I alluded to. To be specific, and
so as
not to be misunderstood, defining the aether as radiant energy then
reverting to it original meaning as a 'medium of all physical fields
and
forces' is such an obvious semantic device that you should be ashamed.
Bill
It may be worth reading again Einstein's ideas given at the centenary of
Maxwell's birth 1931, in which the following quotation gives occasion to
ask:
Who told Einstein of physical fields and light vibrations in empty
abstract, non-physical space, and what made him believe in such
absurdities, and in the reality of partial differential equations as of
a higher reality than the fields they represent, when at the same time
he refers to Newton's genius?
"Light in empty space was conceived as a vibration of the ether, and it
seemed idle to conceive of this in turn as a conglomeration of material
points. Here for the first time partial differential equations appeared
as the natural expression of the primary realities of physics. In a
particular area of theoretical physics the continuous field appeared
side by side with the material point as the representative of physical
reality. This dualism has to this day not disappeared, disturbing as it
must be to any systematic mind".
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_2html
Einstein apparently did not have present at that occasion the words of
Newton in a letter to Bentley in the beginning of 1693:
"It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter, should, without the
mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon and
affect other matter without mutual contact, as it must be, if
gravitation, in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it.
And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate
gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to
matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a
vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which
their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so
great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical
matters a competent faculty of thinking, can never fall into it. Gravity
must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws;
but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the
consideration of my readers".
It cannot be said more clearly, that in physics no trolls and fairies
are acting on ponderable matter, neither by ghostly fields or by
sorcery, nor by any miraculous forces of distance through empty,
abstract, non-physical space, as in imaginative fairy-tales for
children.
Having identified the aether as the free radiant energy in space from
all astrophysical objects, we have at the same time shown that the
aether-space is the one and only physical space. And without any idea
whatsoever about other physical entities that might possibly act as the
medium of physical fields and forces acting upon ponderable matter,
which action is our only evidence for the existence of such energetic
actions, we rightly are allowed to presume that the aether is the seat
and medium of all physical fields and forces, until the opposite has
been proven in demonstrating the Theory of the Aether to be false.
It is so much more astonishing that Einstein in his Special Theory of
Relativity to a beginning refers to Maxwell's Electrodynamics;
demonstrates the dynamic actions of magnetic and electric fields, and
then postulates the propagation of light at a final speed through empty
space, denying the existence of a "luminiferous aether" medium as a
superfluous premis, when it should be clear that light is energy, and
energy may perform a work in time by a force, which is energy divided by
a distance. In other words: Einstein's special space has light, and
therefore free energy we now call aether. The space hence is an aether
space of a physical reality which cannot be denied.
Therefore the Special Theory of Relativity is a speculative, unphysical
theory demonstrating that partly true conclusions may result from false
premisses. That, however, in no way makes the false presuppositions and
its resulting false theory true. What is needed, and what Einstein
should have been aware of as late as in 1931, is that the physical space
considered in the Special Theory of Relativity has contents of free
energy at some energy density u, and furthermore that the energy density
should be constant and the same all over the treated physical space to
assure constancy of the light velocity c throughtout the space. Then the
Special Theory of Relativity may become true in perception of the
physical space as the aether space according to the Theory of the
Aether.
It is like some reluctance to admit the falsity of the Special Theory of
Relativity prevents Einstein from drawing the full consequence of his
understanding the necessity of the aether, at least since his public
admittance of some aether concept since 1920. It is presumably the same
reluctance that drives him to falsify his General Theory of Relativity
by a subsequent declaring the lambda-term "his greatest blunder", though
in fact it is what rescues his theory from being a mere abstract
mathematical-topological trick just demonstrating the validity of
Newton's findings in the hope by such ways to once arrive at a causal
explanation of the gravitation.
To this must be added that, provided the lambda-term of the General
Theory of Relativity is not considered some "cosmological constant", but
a local variable specifying the aether energy as that of a black body
radiation at some specific temperature T(Aether), the ingenious General
Theory of Relativity will rightly be of use as true part and tool in the
Physics of the Aether, when also the variable Newtonian G be correct
estimated, such as shown by the Theory of the Aether.
Ole
At the
same time I want to emphasize that the rather vague ideas proposed
in
classical physics (including Einstein's) under the name of aether
have
not been acceptable why they were overthrown, in fact leaving the
concept waiting for a new and better definition I propose here,
still,
though, with strong allusions to the ideas of the great scientists
who
used the name aether describing their marvellous findings about
fields,
forces, and space as the seat of fields and forces. So we will
honour
those giants in keeping the name "Aether".
and since it is present
overall in the universe, we will call space "The Aether-Space",
presuming the aether is the medium of all physical fields and
forces.
It did not take long - you define it to be the radiant energy
density
at any
point in space - then you context shift and claim it is the medium
of
all
physical fields and forces without first demonstrating your
previous
definition can have such a property. Of course that is the reason
you
wish
to use the word aether - so you can shift the context and hope your
undemonstrated connection is not noticed.
Bill
I think you credit me to be more shrewd and cunningly ingenious than
in
fact I am, or intend to be. Anyway, thank you! I am not shifting
context, just trying to express me short and precisely. I have so to
say
no wantings, but feel compelled to keep to the best and most
fundamental
ideas of the great predecessors in physics. I would wish you had
once
read Paul Drude's Physik des Aethers, Verlag von Ferdinand Enke,
Stuttgart 1894. Here, referring to Maxwell, Boltzmann, Poincaré,
Hertz,
and J. J. Thompson, Drude gives a very clear idea of the aether,
identical to what I describe, mentioning the aether as the medium of
contact-forces of the fields in space, rejecting any and all ideas
of
forces by distance. And, forgive me Bill, but we are allowed to
initially set a frame to be further dicussed and demonstrated valid
in
the following text(s). However, you are right, we should be very
careful
in nomenclature and not get in conflict with prescriptive other use
leading to unnecessesary obfuscations that might impair our own
purpose.
That is why I thankfully notice your opinion, and hope to have also
others, from which I perhaps may some time draw a final
conclusion, -
staying until then open, of course, for any suggestion.
Ole
A set of equations can be found for this situation with solutions
I
have
given once to these newsgroups, and from which may be derived the
aether
equation with the minimum energy U at the temperature T(Aether)
which
has been confirmed by the COBE observations of T(CMBR) = 2.735
+/-
0.06
Kelvin.
kappa*U*V = G*h*c^2;
K = G*c/kappa*L^2 = U*L/h*c = 2.000343E3.
U = 3.973637E-13 erg at T(Aether) = 2.692064 Kelvin.
Defining kappa = 1 erg/(sec*g^2) and V = 1 cm^3 it is seen that
if U
is
a variable, also the Newtonian G and the velocity light c are
dependent
variables, if Planck's h is a universal constant.
At higher energy densities of the aether, such as in the
galaxies, G
and
c would have other and higher values than G = 6.672426E-8
cm^3/(g*sec^2)
and c = 2.99792458E10 cm/sec of the aether equation and will need
some
co-efficient rho to G, while the maximum value of c is supposed
from
a
possible co-efficient function to be c_max = sqrt(2)*c.
To have an idea of the extreme energy densities and their
corresponding
rho-values, we will have a look at the Schwarzschild solution to
the
electron:
G*m_e / r_e*c^2 = 1 / rho_e = G*(m_e)^2 / e^2.
m_e = 9.109535E-28 g, e = 4.803242E-10 esu,
r_e = 2.817937E-13 cm, rho_e = 4.166705E42.
Considering the composite neutron, the proton+, and the
neutron-meson-
we find that the meson must be the mass difference between the
neutron
and the proton, and that the meson must be a special heavy
neutron-electron, since the free neutron in relatively short time
disintegrates into a proton, an electron, and some neutrino
energy
depending on the velocities and directions of the parting massive
fundamental particles. We therefore have:
m_n = 1.674954E-24 g,
m_p = 1.672648E-24 g,
m_m = 2.305589E-27 g.
We then find the following relations with alpha as the
fine-structure
constant:
m_p*m_m / (m_e)^2 = alpha*K^2 / 2*pi = K^3*e^2 / U*L = 4.64723E3.
rho_e*G*m_p*m_m / e^2 = alpha*K^2 / 2*pi,
alpha*rho_hc / 2*pi = rho_e
rho_p,m = rho_hc / K^2 = 8.965996E38
As an analogon to the Schwarzschild electron solution we find:
rho_p,m*G*m_n / r_n*c^2 = rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_m / e^2 = 1.
r_n = 1.11492E-13 cm would then be the radius of the neutron,
and if the proton is calculated with the same co-efficient
rho_p,m,
rho_p,m*G*m_p / r_p*c^2 = 1, r_p = 1.113386E-13cm.
When the neutron-meson should in fact be a heavy electron, and
m_m/m_e ~
2.53, it would make reason if the mass-difference m_m minus m_e
was
the
virtual gravitational mass of the neutron's intrinsic
proton-electron
pair, whence we find
rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_e / r_n*c^2 = m_vir = 9.09669E-28 g ~ m_e,
rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_e / r_p*c^2 = m_vir = 9.109531E-28 g.
We hereby have accounted for a neutron-meson of twice the
electron's
mass, while we need an explanation for the extra mass of about ˝
electron-mass in the neutron-meson. We will abstain here from
further
calculations and for the moment consider it sufficient to have
shown
a
double electron-mass in the meson, pointing to the
self-gravitation
also
of the virtual mass as a probable solution to the deficiency of ~
4.83E-28 g meson-mass.
Having demonstrated that the Newtonian G must be a variabel of
very
great values at extreme energy densities, such as in the
composite
neutron (rho_p,m*G ~ 6E31), it seems reasonabe to believe that
the
strong nuclear force is caused by such extreme values of the
Newtonian
gravitational factor.
We therefore assume that the neutron-meson would be able to bind
two
protons in the atomic nucleus by orbiting in such a way that it
shifts
constantly between the two protons, of which the one may be
considered a
neutron, when the other is a proton and vice versa in constant
shifts of
constitution in the neutron-proton pair of a nucleus.
The binding orbit may hence be thought of in a most simple
theoretical
illustration as the meson following an Oval of Cassini around the
two
heavy electrically positive charged particles, forcing them to
the
constant shifts of neutron-proton phase. And as will be known,
the
Lemniscate is the extreme curve of the Cassini oval, with the
parameters
a = b, where the strong particle-binding would break in a proton
and
a
free neutron that may possibly leave the nucleus.
Of course, the real conditions of an "orbiting neutron-meson"
cannot
be
made really lucid, since we know that the interaction is rather a
question af probability of distribution of charges and masses,
when
we
observe the weak magnetic moment of the electrically neutral
neutron.
However, it seems that the strong nuclear force may be accounted
for
as
a very strong gravitational force at extreme energy densities, to
which
is remarked that we also in the galaxies with their very intense
radiation from stars and gasses may expect special dynamics due
to
the
variable factor of G, which would therefore account for the
observed
galactic differential velocities and probably would explain also
the
so-called "problem of missing mass in the universe".
As in fact gravitational action according to the aether physics
is
an
electromagnetic phenomenon of energy exchange in Planck quanta
leaving
an enduring train of impulses unto the gravitating masses, it
seems
that
a unification of the four fundamental forces in nature may be
expected
from consideration of the physics of the aether.
Ole D. Rughede
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ole D. Rughede" |
|
| Title: Re: Aetherptheory and GUT |
01 Oct 2005 10:02:17 PM |
|
|
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_2.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ole D. Rughede" |
|
| Title: Re: Aetherptheory and GUT |
29 Sep 2005 09:05:50 AM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:KdJYe.10356$0E5.2415@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Ole D. Rughede" <ole.rughede@privat.dk> wrote in message
news:43333a01$0$58064$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:naFYe.10174$0E5.3280@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Ole D. Rughede" <ole.rughede@privat.dk> wrote in message
news:43322764$0$58128$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk...
We assume to find in every point of space a flow in all
directions
of
radiant energy from all astrophysical objects, meaning that space
everywhere has a specific energy U erg and an energy density u =
U/V
erg/cm^3, which of course is a local variable depending on the
position
in space.
The radiant energy will we name "The Aether",
The aether has already defined to be something a lot different.
All
choosing a name already in use does is introduce unnecessary layers
of
obsufucation. The purpose of such will probably become clear later
Thank you Bill,
The "aether" has - to my knowledge - shiftet as a concept so many
times
in history since it with the old Greeks was simply the heaven,
became
the all pervading fifth element of godly action, and so on, that I
see
no hindrance for giving the name now to the described entity.
In connection with relativity the aether means, and has always meant,
a
mechanical substance permeating all of space that light is supposed to
undulate in. But even apart form that nothing excuses the disgraceful
context shifting you engage in that I alluded to. To be specific, and
so as
not to be misunderstood, defining the aether as radiant energy then
reverting to it original meaning as a 'medium of all physical fields
and
forces' is such an obvious semantic device that you should be ashamed.
Bill
What the aether has once meant, and in which connections, seems now, at
least to me, less interesting. Something like wondering how the blind
discussed colours. Since Newton the physical aspects and properties of
the aether apparently have been quite diffuse in physics until now.
"But to proceed to the hypothesis: It is to be supposed therein, that
there is an aetherial medium, much of the same constitution with air,
but far rarer, subtiler, and more strongly elastic . . .For the electric
and magnetic effluvia, and the gravitating principle, seem to argue such
variety. Perhaps the whole frame of nature may be nothing but various
contextures of some certain aetherial spirits or vapours, condensed as
it were by precipitation, much after the manner that vapours are
condensed into water, or exhalations into grosser substances, though not
so easily condensable, and after condensation wrought, into various
forms, at first by the immediate hand of the Creator, and ever since by
the power of nature, which, by virtue of the command increase and
multiply, became a complete imitator of the copy set her by the
Protoplast. Thus perhaps may all things be originated from aether". -
Newton in letter to Henry Oldenburg 1675.
"I shall set down one conjecture more . . . it is about the cause of
gravity. For this end I will suppose aether to consist of parts
differing from one another in subtility by indefinite degrees: that in
the pores of bodies, there is less of the grosser aether in proportion
to the finer, than in open spaces; and consequently, that in the great
body of the earth there is much less of the grosser aether, in
proportion to the finer, than in the regions of the air; and that . . .
from the top of the air to the surface of the earth, and again from the
surface of the earth to the centre thereof, the aether is insensibly
finer and finer. Imagine, now, any body suspended in the air, or lying
on the earth; and the aether being, by the hypothesis, grosser in the
pores which are in the upper parts; and that grosser aether, being less
apt to be lodged in those pores, than the finer aether below; it will
endeavour to get out, and give way to the finer aether below, which
cannot be, without the bodies descending to make room above for it to go
out into". - Newton in letter February 28, 1678 to Robert Boyle.
We should notice that Newton did not speak of aether parts or particles
of ponderable matter, but rather strives at a theoretical concept
describing the aether by partial quantities.
"I here use the word attraction in general for any endeavor whatever,
made by bodies to approach each other, whether that endeavor arise from
the action of the bodies themselves, as tending to each other or
agitating each other by spirits emitted; or whether it arises from the
action of the ether or of the air, or of any medium whatever, whether
corporeal or incorporeal, in any manner impelling bodies placed therein
towards each other". - Newton in the second edition of Principia 1713.
Keywords here are "medium whatever, whether corporeal or in corporeal".
"Hitherto we have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our sea
by the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of this
power . . .But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of
those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses;
for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an
hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of
occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental
philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from
the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus it was
that the inpenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of
bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered. And
to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to
the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for
all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea" - Newton at the
end of Book III in the General Scholium.
"And now we might add something concerning a certain most subtle spirit
which pervades and lies in all gross bodies; by the force and action of
which spirit the particles of bodies attract one another at near
distances, and cohere, if contiguous . . . But these are things that
cannot be explained in few words, nor are we furnished with that
sufficincy of experiments which is required to an accurate determination
and demonstration of the laws by which this electric and elastic spirit
operates". - Newton on "ethereal spirits" as opposed to "substance" at
end of General Scholium.
"You some times speak of gravity as essential and inherent to matter.
Pray, do not ascribe that notion to me; for the cause of gravity is what
I do not pretend to know, and therefore would take more time to consider
of it". - Newton in letter to Bentley1692.
No need to remind of the ideas of Fitzgerald and the young Einstein.
Were Bentley in fact less knowing of physics than Newton, inclined to
think of gravity as a divine force and evidence of some divine action,
he at least held the correct idea, as also later Mach, that gravity was
result of an action between any specific gravitating body and all the
stars (other masses) in the universe.
"It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter, should, without the
mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon and
affect matter without mutual contact, as it must be, if gravitation, in
the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. And this is one
reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That
gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one
body may act upon another at a distance through a vaccum, without the
mediation of anything els, by and through which their action and force
may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity,
that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent
faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an
agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but wheter this agent
be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my
readers". - Newton in second letter to Bentley.
One may assume that had these words of Newton been sincerely studied and
known by the founders of relativity theory and quantum mechanics, we
would never have seen these theories with their arbitrary assumptions
and hypotheses on the physics of nature. What was needed, was the study
of thermodynamics to which Planck so brillantly contributed. Einstein's
endeavour clearly was: Let's find out what we know and what may be said
about the action, irrespective of what may be the causal agent, then
perhaps we will have a better chance to identify the cause.
Thanks to Einstein's change of view by age, and his incorporating the
lambda-term in his ingenious theory of gravitation - as is the general
theory of relativity - Einstein's theory and the theory of the aether,
incorporating the theory of quantum-gravity, complements each other and
unifies relativity theory and quantum theory, provided the lambda-term
is not considered a cosmological constant, but a variable, specifying
the local radiation energy in the finite physical aether-space
considered, as if black body radiation of certain energy density and
temperature.
Thereupon aether theory and general relativity, with appropriate
co-efficients to the Newtonian factor of gravity may be of application
to the research of the cosmological nature of the galaxies, their
formation, life-cycle, and contribution of energy and matter to our
universe of continuous creation.
Ole
At the
same time I want to emphasize that the rather vague ideas proposed
in
classical physics including Einstein's) under the name of aether
have
not been acceptable why they were overthrown, in fact leaving the
concept waiting for a new and better definition I propose here,
still,
though, with strong allusions to the ideas of the great scientists
who
used the name aether describing their marvellous findings about
fields,
forces, and space as the seat of fields and forces. So we will
honour
those giants in keeping the name "Aether".
and since it is present
overall in the universe, we will call space "The Aether-Space",
presuming the aether is the medium of all physical fields and
forces.
It did not take long - you define it to be the radiant energy
density
at any
point in space - then you context shift and claim it is the medium
of
all
physical fields and forces without first demonstrating your
previous
definition can have such a property. Of course that is the reason
you
wish
to use the word aether - so you can shift the context and hope your
undemonstrated connection is not noticed.
Bill
I think you credit me to be more shrewd and cunningly ingenious than
in
fact I am, or intend to be. Anyway, thank you! I am not shifting
context, just trying to express me short and precisely. I have so to
say
no wantings, but feel compelled to keep to the best and most
fundamental
ideas of the great predecessors in physics. I would wish you had
once
read Paul Drude's Physik des Aethers, Verlag von Ferdinand Enke,
Stuttgart 1894. Here, referring to Maxwell, Boltzmann, Poincaré,
Hertz,
and J. J. Thompson, Drude gives a very clear idea of the aether,
identical to what I describe, mentioning the aether as the medium of
contact-forces of the fields in space, rejecting any and all ideas
of
forces by distance. And, forgive me Bill, but we are allowed to
initially set a frame to be further dicussed and demonstrated valid
in
the following text(s). However, you are right, we should be very
careful
in nomenclature and not get in conflict with prescriptive other use
leading to unnecessesary obfuscations that might impair our own
purpose.
That is why I thankfully notice your opinion, and hope to have also
others, from which I perhaps may some time draw a final
conclusion, -
staying until then open, of course, for any suggestion.
Ole
A set of equations can be found for this situation with solutions
I
have
given once to these newsgroups, and from which may be derived the
aether
equation with the minimum energy U at the temperature T(Aether)
which
has been confirmed by the COBE observations of T(CMBR) = 2.735
+/-
0.06
Kelvin.
kappa*U*V = G*h*c^2;
K = G*c/kappa*L^2 = U*L/h*c = 2.000343E3.
U = 3.973637E-13 erg at T(Aether) = 2.692064 Kelvin.
Defining kappa = 1 erg/(sec*g^2) and V = 1 cm^3 it is seen that
if U
is
a variable, also the Newtonian G and the velocity light c are
dependent
variables, if Planck's h is a universal constant.
At higher energy densities of the aether, such as in the
galaxies, G
and
c would have other and higher values than G = 6.672426E-8
cm^3/(g*sec^2)
and c = 2.99792458E10 cm/sec of the aether equation and will need
some
co-efficient rho to G, while the maximum value of c is supposed
from
a
possible co-efficient function to be c_max = sqrt(2)*c.
To have an idea of the extreme energy densities and their
corresponding
rho-values, we will have a look at the Schwarzschild solution to
the
electron:
G*m_e / r_e*c^2 = 1 / rho_e = G*(m_e)^2 / e^2.
m_e = 9.109535E-28 g, e = 4.803242E-10 esu,
r_e = 2.817937E-13 cm, rho_e = 4.166705E42.
Considering the composite neutron, the proton+, and the
neutron-meson-
we find that the meson must be the mass difference between the
neutron
and the proton, and that the meson must be a special heavy
neutron-electron, since the free neutron in relatively short time
disintegrates into a proton, an electron, and some neutrino
energy
depending on the velocities and directions of the parting massive
fundamental particles. We therefore have:
m_n = 1.674954E-24 g,
m_p = 1.672648E-24 g,
m_m = 2.305589E-27 g.
We then find the following relations with alpha as the
fine-structure
constant:
m_p*m_m / (m_e)^2 = alpha*K^2 / 2*pi = K^3*e^2 / U*L = 4.64723E3.
rho_e*G*m_p*m_m / e^2 = alpha*K^2 / 2*pi,
alpha*rho_hc / 2*pi = rho_e
rho_p,m = rho_hc / K^2 = 8.965996E38
As an analogon to the Schwarzschild electron solution we find:
rho_p,m*G*m_n / r_n*c^2 = rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_m / e^2 = 1.
r_n = 1.11492E-13 cm would then be the radius of the neutron,
and if the proton is calculated with the same co-efficient
rho_p,m,
rho_p,m*G*m_p / r_p*c^2 = 1, r_p = 1.113386E-13cm.
When the neutron-meson should in fact be a heavy electron, and
m_m/m_e ~
2.53, it would make reason if the mass-difference m_m minus m_e
was
the
virtual gravitational mass of the neutron's intrinsic
proton-electron
pair, whence we find
rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_e / r_n*c^2 = m_vir = 9.09669E-28 g ~ m_e,
rho_p,m*G*m_p*m_e / r_p*c^2 = m_vir = 9.109531E-28 g.
We hereby have accounted for a neutron-meson of twice the
electron's
mass, while we need an explanation for the extra mass of about ˝
electron-mass in the neutron-meson. We will abstain here from
further
calculations and for the moment consider it sufficient to have
shown
a
double electron-mass in the meson, pointing to the
self-gravitation
also
of the virtual mass as a probable solution to the deficiency of ~
4.83E-28 g meson-mass.
Having demonstrated that the Newtonian G must be a variabel of
very
great values at extreme energy densities, such as in the
composite
neutron (rho_p,m*G ~ 6E31), it seems reasonabe to believe that
the
strong nuclear force is caused by such extreme values of the
Newtonian
gravitational factor.
We therefore assume that the neutron-meson would be able to bind
two
protons in the atomic nucleus by orbiting in such a way that it
shifts
constantly between the two protons, of which the one may be
considered a
neutron, when the other is a proton and vice versa in constant
shifts of
constitution in the neutron-proton pair of a nucleus.
The binding orbit may hence be thought of in a most simple
theoretical
illustration as the meson following an Oval of Cassini around the
two
heavy electrically positive charged particles, forcing them to
the
constant shifts of neutron-proton phase. And as will be known,
the
Lemniscate is the extreme curve of the Cassini oval, with the
parameters
a = b, where the strong particle-binding would break in a proton
and
a
free neutron that may possibly leave the nucleus.
Of course, the real conditions of an "orbiting neutron-meson"
cannot
be
made really lucid, since we know that the interaction is rather a
question af probability of distribution of charges and masses,
when
we
observe the weak magnetic moment of the electrically neutral
neutron.
However, it seems that the strong nuclear force may be accounted
for
as
a very strong gravitational force at extreme energy densities, to
which
is remarked that we also in the galaxies with their very intense
radiation from stars and gasses may expect special dynamics due
to
the
variable factor of G, which would therefore account for the
observed
galactic differential velocities and probably would explain also
the
so-called "problem of missing mass in the universe".
As in fact gravitational action according to the aether physics
is
an
electromagnetic phenomenon of energy exchange in Planck quanta
leaving
an enduring train of impulses unto the gravitating masses, it
seems
that
a unification of the four fundamental forces in nature may be
expected
from consideration of the physics of the aether.
Ole D. Rughede
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Aetherptheory and GUT |
22 Sep 2005 09:24:58 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 01:52:42 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote:
In connection with relativity the aether means, and has always
meant, a mechanical substance permeating all of space that
light is supposed to undulate in.
*****! Do you think this definition is what Einstein had in
mind when he wrote,
"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general
theory of relativity space is endowed with physical
qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.
According to the general theory of relativity space without
ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only
wonld be no propagation of light, but also no possibility
of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods
and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the
physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as
endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media,
as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time.
The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
But even apart form that nothing excuses the disgraceful
context shifting you engage in that I alluded to.
Quit your whining, you're acting like a three year old...
To be specific, and so as not to be misunderstood, defining
the aether as radiant energy then reverting to it original
meaning as a 'medium of all physical fields and forces' is such
an obvious semantic device that you should be ashamed.
All forms of energy are manifestation of the aether. You
'get it' and thus attempt this rather petty *****!
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Aetherptheory and GUT |
23 Sep 2005 02:09:33 AM |
|
|
"Paul Stowe" <TheAetherist@best.net> wrote in message
news:4fo6j1tfjanu5ct8apjjek7gu03fo7mdj3@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 01:52:42 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote:
In connection with relativity the aether means, and has always
meant, a mechanical substance permeating all of space that
light is supposed to undulate in.
*****! Do you think this definition is what Einstein had in
mind when he wrote,
"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general
theory of relativity space is endowed with physical
qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.
According to the general theory of relativity space without
ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only
wonld be no propagation of light, but also no possibility
of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods
and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the
physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as
endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media,
as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time.
The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
Then I wonder why Einstein said in the same article 'As to the part which
the new ether is to play in the physics of the future we are not yet
clear.'? The reason is of course it is not the usual conception of what the
aether is as Einstein knew quite well. Physics is not a game of
definitional semantics. The aether has a well known meaning in physics. It
is one thing for a scientist of Einstein's stature to suggest it might be
worthwhile to give it a new meaning - it is another for physics to embrace
it. We of course now know the answer to Einstein's musing - none at all.
It is another thing again to define it as something we have no evidence for
(namely radiant energy filling all of space) then somehow claim it also
retains its old meaning of 'the medium of all physical fields and forces.'.
Anyone can see the logical absurdity of such semantic nonsense and the
obvious obsufactionist ploy being peddled as physical insight.
Bill
But even apart form that nothing excuses the disgraceful
context shifting you engage in that I alluded to.
Quit your whining, you're acting like a three year old...
To be specific, and so as not to be misunderstood, defining
the aether as radiant energy then reverting to it original
meaning as a 'medium of all physical fields and forces' is such
an obvious semantic device that you should be ashamed.
All forms of energy are manifestation of the aether. You
'get it' and thus attempt this rather petty *****!
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Aetherptheory and GUT |
23 Sep 2005 07:41:13 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:09:33 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote:
"Paul Stowe" <TheAetherist@best.net> wrote in message
news:4fo6j1tfjanu5ct8apjjek7gu03fo7mdj3@4ax.com...
| | | | | | |
