"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:pw5qf.71066$V7.31573@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:2m5qf.641926$_o.546150@attbi_s71...

Ole D. Rughede wrote:

http://www.doaj.org/abstract?id=126097&toc=y

*Plonk*

I see the crackpot patrol in sci.physics is still actively
crusading to win friends and influence people, but its
a pity about their paradigm of rationality, that the cosmos
is obviously reduced to Jacksons Electrodynamics, and
all evolution therefrom is non existent.

My advice: stay clear of the plonk.
It fucks ya liver.

Yea it seems he got his usual posts published. I have no idea what kind
of review process they used.

Reading between the lines, the review process cannot
be highly regarded, or, IOW, how can someone being
saying anything at all logical if their premises are a different
set than the ones set in cement in the mind-set of academia.

http://www.doaj.org/articles/questions

Tell me O auspicious members of the crackpot patrol,
whatever became of original thinking, and does it have
a place in the world at large?

The fat lady has not yet sung
on the theory and physics of
the cosmic element of nature
that the ancients termed the
aether.

--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au

I thought that Einstein disproved the

Ole D. Rughede wrote:

"shevek" <shevek4@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1135179472.287847.296410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Ole D. Rughede wrote:

You define the "Aether-Space" as the radiant energy (presumably
electromagnetic energy) from all astrophysical objects - a

boson gas". This is in contrast with the usual definitions of

as a background or carrier for energy (for bosons) and not the

itself. If one were to build a very good Faraday cage, would

less Aether-Space in its interior? No, one would have the same

of aether but without the wave energy.

"The radiant energy will we name the "Aether", and since it
is present throughout the Universe, we will call space the
"Aether-Space". Presuming the aether the medium sustaining
all physical fields and forces, the aether-space is the universal
physical space".

I would offer a word of caution, as it appears you are mixing up
concepts in the excitement and contradicting yourself. You say "the
radiant energy we name the Aether", but then you immediately say that
the aether is the medium sustaining all physical fields and forces.
Radiant energy is indeed a physical field and provides real forces,

so combining your two statements we have a medium which sustains

- a logical contradiction.

So, - how many concepts do we have?
Isn't the aether-space the background and carrier for energy,
namely the radiant energy of the aether in the physical space?
Isn't then the physical space the affine aether-space?

You get a fine for using that word - in fact I've never seen much of a
need for it.

Let's make a very very solid Faraday cage of lead, concrete,
and bricks with a central cavity and a tiny channel for some
measuring tool. Will we find some radiant black-body wave
energy in the cavity? Yes or no! Would we be able to measure
the temperature, the energy density, and the energy pressure?

We will find less.
Temperature of what? Energy density of what?

Can you measure the height or the width?

You say "a meson must be a special heavy neutron-electron".. but
without mentioning quarks or observations of scattering of any of

these

objects. Your brief foray into strong nuclear forces seems a bit

non-sequitur in the context of the title of your paper.

No. I have shown that the neutron-meson is a heavy electron!

Um.. WTF is a neutron-meson. Sounds like one a dem pentaquarks.

No quarks are needed so far. Give it a trial more, beginning with
the aether equation, the variability of rho G, the composite

the neutron-meson shown to be a heavy electron, which may bind
two protons in the atomic nucleus. Cfr. Note (4) about the torus-
model showing the max. center-distance between a proton-proton
pair, and the Lemniscate condition, where a "meson-orbit" would
mean a most diturbing reversal of the magnetic fields before the
meson must be catched by one of the protons to make up a regular
neutral neutron. The "meson-orbit" may be traced everywhere on
the surface of the torus in plane cuts parallel with the axis?

Last time I checked, heavy electrons were called muons or taons..
better keep up on your nomenclature!

What do you think has been the idea of the analysis in relation to
galactic differential velocities and the problem of "missing mass in
the Universe"? Is any mass missing? How much equivalent mass
do you think 1 cubic kilometer radiant aether energy at T(CMBR)
represents? Does energy gravitate, or does it not?

Good questions! Missing mass is just a placeholder for "we don't know
WTF is going on with galaxy rotation, formation, or motion". As for
the the energy of a cubic km of CMBR radiation.. low - but I can't put
my finger on it.

You also suggest that:

I do not suggest. I conclude with forcing logic!

I suggest you use more gentle logic.

"[..] the force of gravity as shown is an electromagnetic

by

energy exchange in the aether space between any pair of masses via

radiant flux F [erg/sec]"

If this were correct, a simple shielding mechanism such as a

designed faraday cage or even a sheet of lead could partially

the forces of gravity. AFAIK nothing like that has worked, though

all means please give it a try.

Your forcing physical arguments, experiments, or observations?
Do we have to discuss here the 3- or n-body problem, or are you
able to cope with it yourself?

Yes, Ir have to cope with it myself. Good luck with the alchemy -

shevek

"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:4hmqf.79444$V7.18856@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"shevek" <shevek4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135179472.287847.296410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Ole D. Rughede wrote:

http://www.doaj.org/abstract?id=126097&toc=y

Thanks for your ideas. I agree with many of your general

statements.

I'm sorry but I have a hard time with your paper, it seems there are
too many topics addressed and none in depth.

You define the "Aether-Space" as the radiant energy (presumably
electromagnetic energy) from all astrophysical objects - a "perfect
boson gas". This is in contrast with the usual definitions of

aether

as a background or carrier for energy (for bosons) and not the

energy

itself. If one were to build a very good Faraday cage, would there

be

less Aether-Space in its interior? No, one would have the same

amount

of aether but without the wave energy.

You say "a meson must be a special heavy neutron-electron".. but
without mentioning quarks or observations of scattering of any of

these

objects. Your brief foray into strong nuclear forces seems a bit of

a

non-sequitur in the context of the title of your paper.

You also suggest that:

"[..] 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 F [erg/sec]"

If this were correct, a simple shielding mechanism such as a

properly

designed faraday cage or even a sheet of lead could partially negate
the forces of gravity. AFAIK nothing like that has worked, though

by

all means please give it a try.

It all has been pointed out to Ole D. Rughede before

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/b205cd47fd791083?dmode=source

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/a3d87e2131d730e1
and many more posts can be found.

He is usually backed up by the same member of the peanut gallery -
Mountainman with exactly the same tired arguments and references to

Cahill

etc.

Bill

Cheers -

These are Bill's problems in a nutshell to avoid, what he consistently
call "obsufucations". Apparently his predominant nightmare. Though
"shevek" has been answered in detail in a previous sending, we see
Bill using one of his old tricks as a self-assigned crackpot hunter by
"obsufucating" in attempts to suppress the discussions with irrelevant
postings about crackpottery of his own inventions, pretending that
no relevant arguments have already been given.
[snip further newsgroup flaming]