Text: From tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien): Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories, sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics.electromag, sci.philosophy.meta, Subject: Re: Aether Discussion, was (Crackpot) All Follow-Up: Re: Aether Discussion, was (Crackpot) Date: 24 Jan 1998 20:43:10 GMT References: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, ----------------------------------------------- In article <6AAVVK$PP2@SJX-IXN8.IX.NETCOM.COM>, pstowe@ix.netcom.co says... GS: Greg Shetler writes: PS: Paul Stowe wrote: GS: A proper model will posit some structure, then derive equations from that structure that cover known behaviors, then derive equations from that structure that predict unknown, testable, behaviors. I don't see equations of motion coming from your model, nor any other descriptive equations. All I see is clever manipulation of numeric values, coupled to in incorrect assumption that e=Div p, and that the existence of divergence means both inflow and outflow at all points, and that such paired inflow and outflow must mean harmonic motion. This is implicit, and again, I "assumed" that you understood that this was the foundation. GS: Consider a pipe with fluid flowing through it. Any volume of the pipe has both inflow and outflow. Therefore, Div p=0 (i.e. no source). You're dead wrong here and from the above description it is very clear that you do not understand the very definition of Divergence. Divergence is a SCALAR that defines the NET inflow (compression) or outflow (rarefaction) of a differential volume element through the surface of said volume (that is normal to said surface, at all points over the volume). It can be zero IF, AND ONLY IF, the medium is INCOMPRESSIBLE. This is very easy to see and understand, so think about it carefully. I will give you both a few of the many observable consequences I have found that must exist if what we think of as matter is instead, solitonic waveforms in aether. And, I show you the things we have in fact observed in our universe, which match what you expect from this model. Finally, I show you that in each place what I expect occurs, physicists using the particle model are confused, and a mystery exists and has persisted for a long time. I say, the particle model where it is believed that mass is equivalent to energy is incorrect, and for as long as that notion is included in physical models, they will fail to anticipate the actual observed behavior of stars. I don't have time to list the 30 some odd examples I have now accumulated, but below are a few of them. Regarding PS' last statement, Paul, couldn't you have a differential volume in the aether where the aether is co-moving, and thus there is over some small time interval, no divergence across the boundary of the differential element? ie, if you have a spherical resonance, a soliton structure, at the center of convergence there is some tiny spherical differential volume, say, at the Planck scale at about E-35 meters in diameter. Thus, if that soliton is resonant, then aether converges into and out of, the volume cyclicly. But, that means that there is some time when the momentum is reversing, and so for some tiny dt --> 0 , there is no fluid flow across the boundary as the fluid flow transitions from convergent to divergent flow. Now, as for predictions as requested above, treat sub atomic matter as solitonic obeying the KdV equations and using a spherically resonant solitonic wave form to represent Leptons, ie electron muon tauon. Then, use 9 muon resonances coupled in a donut shaped torus, similar to the diagram on the blackboard with Penrose in front in his book with Hawking, "The Nature of Space and Time". Three muon's in three groups where each group of 3 is a "quark". Now, when you fuse nucleons and lose mass in the particle model, you have to be emitting the aether in the solitonic model. Thus, there is a divergence of the aether directed out of the sun. ie, in a solitonic model, mass is not *equivalent* to energy, rather energy is aether in motion and mass is a measure of how much aether is associated with a given motion. But, what we think of as empty space is also an ocean of massive aether into which fusion reactions dump their mass emissions. This leads to observable consequences. If this is so, then it should be observable in stellar phenomena because such a divergence will induce a spacetime distortion, equal to the gravitational compression. In other words, if this were so, then the mass of the sun would have to be **2** solar masses, as the KE of the particles aka solitons provides buoyancy, AND the flow of aether out of the sun would also provide an equal buoyancy. Thus, we should anticipate gravitational wave like phenomena to manifest if there is any change in the luminosity of a star. We should expect that anomalous phenomena manifest the instant the star ignites. We should expect that the flow of aether out of the star leads to an anomalous acceleration as the aether exits the solar interior and we have an aether pressure drop as the aether exits what is essentially a fluidized bed of particles, thus that pressure drop and aether acceleration should induce an *****inertial***** acceleration of the matter involved. We see, jets shooting out of new born stars along the axis of rotation (the path of least resistance to aether flow), waves called slow or silent earthquakes on earth, the solar corona is a thousand times hotter than the photosphere beneath it despite a better view factor to distant cold space, a heat sink. We see that O and H ions in the corona have been heated to the same **velocity dispersion** which is just an accidental quirk if you use magnetic fields to accelerate the ions (1:16 and 1:8 vs 1:1 charge to mass ratios for the O and H ions respectively). Thus, if both ions have the same velocity dispersions, they are NOT in thermal equilibrium and so why did they get those same velocity dispersions from the heating mechanism, is it an accident or is it an inertial acceleration mechanism? If you study resonances, then it becomes clear that two oscillators can become coupled. The sun is known to have all sorts of acoustic waves inside, but it is not supposed that these motions of matter betray the flow dynamics of the aether headed out of the sun. Some of those acoustic motions just happen to be a harmonic of the earths rotational period. So the question then arises, "could the earth's rotational period be coupled to the solar acoustics due to the sun emitting waves of aether, which would be interpreted by today's physicists as gravitational waves? The earths orbit is elliptical, so we can make a prediction. As the earth is moving from winter solstice toward summer solstice, the earth moves further away from the sun, so the incident waves should be Doppler shifted to the red. And from summer to winter, the opposite with a blue shifting of the waves coupled to the earths orbital period. So, we should see the earth's rotation slow in spring and speed up in the fall, a tiny bit. Well, we do. (it is attributed to leaves growing and falling to the ground in the Northern hemisphere). Next, if we consider a node on the surface of the earth, such that the earth is being gently compressed and released by the incident aether waves in lock step with the suns emissions, we can now combine the above notion with the inclination of the earth, and predict the line along which the earths crust should be weakened. When you combine the tilt of the earth, with the precession of the earths libration relative to the sun's wave phase angle, you find that the precession of an acoustic node goes from south east up toward north west and then back again as you move around the earths elliptical orbit. When we look at the weaknesses of the earth's plates, we find that the major plates and volcanic regions are indeed along lines from the south east to the north west, ie, consider the line of the west coast of the America's to see what the angle of the plate lines is like. If you consider that fusion requires a divergence of aether, and that spacetime is distorted along the line of the divergence, then you will learn all sorts of places where you should expect our current theories to cause us to expect one thing, while this aether theory tells you nature should do another. You can apply this to new born stars, T-tauri, and you will expect a flow of aether along the line of least resistance, the axis. So you expect jets to blast out. Go see, they are there, and physicists don't know why. if you think a bit further, you will realize that the entire star should then fluidize the volume, and you expect the whole surface to break up and start boiling like a pot of water with steam coming out in a rolling boil. And when you look, you find flare stars, and all manner of solar surface phenomena like CME's flares etc. You will expect that an increase in fluidization will begin near the poles and work down to the equator, and you can read about the solar butterfly pattern of sun spots. If the reactivity goes up or down in the sun, you will expect the flow rate of aether to go up or down too. And so you will expect the density of "empty space" between the particles of the sun to increase and decrease, and thus the density of the particles themselves to decrease and increase respectively. Now you can go read the SOI information where the sun's density changes over the solar activity cycle, despite it taking 170,000 years for thermal energy to reach the surface via Compton scattering. The evidence is all over the place. QM and GR have incorrectly interpreted the equation, E = mc^2. Mass is aether, energy is aether in motion, and energy, momentum, and mass must all be conserved, and empty space is massive. Go see the dark matter problem in galactic dynamics where 90 percent of the mass of the universe is missing. It isn't missing at all, it is empty space, or aether, or the stuff of spacetime foam, or the stuff of quantum vacuum fluctuations, a rose by any other name............ Later, Ross Tessien

See Also:

Source: