PDA

View Full Version : A Luminiferous Aether, Neutrinos and the Galilean Transformation



coliver
2009-Nov-08, 12:31 PM
I know I promised to study and not to open another thread, but some further study led me to what I believe is the answer to unanswered questions posed in my previous thread 'Cosmic Rays, Photons, and the Magnetic Dipole". So I had to make one last attempt at explaining the theory. My dilemma has been knowing that an ocean of something existed in space, an Aether of some kind, but wasnt sure what. Eventually recognizing that neutrinos were a part of it but that there still seemed to be something else, an interaction of some kind. I think I have finally found the answer in the work of Henri Poincar'e and Lorentz-Fitzgerald. Specifically the theory of a Luminiferous Aether.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether


The key difficulty with the aether hypothesis arose from the juxtaposition of the two well-established theories of Newtonian dynamics and Maxwell's electromagnetism. Under a [B]Galilean transformation the equations of Newtonian dynamics are invariant, whereas those of electromagnetism are not. Basically this means that while physics should remain the same in non-accelerated experiments, light would not follow the same rules because it is traveling in the universal "aether frame"


However it wasnt until a last minute attempt at salvaging the Aether theory by the team of Lorentz-Fitzgerald and their contraction hypothesis that I believe the true nature was revealed. And that is that its a "LUMINIFEROUS AETHER" and that everything is affected by travel through the aether.

One more attempt at salvaging was Fizeau's 1851 confirmation of Fresnels predictions that " A medium with a refraction index n moving with a velocity v would INCREASE THE SPEED OF LIGHT traveling through the medium in the same direction. According to SNELLS LAW Movement adds a fraction of the velocity to the light. Dragging the Aether along with a portion of the mediums velocity.

Pioneer Anomoly?

(1-1/n^2)v





It was Albert Einstein in 1905 who abandoned the (classical) aether and emphasized the significance of relativity of simultaneity to our understanding of space and time. He deduced the failure of absolute simultaneity from two stated assumptions.

the principle of relativity—the equivalence of inertial frames, such that the laws of physics apply equally in all inertial coordinate systems;
the constancy of the speed of light detected in empty space, independent of the relative motion of its source.


As for the concept of "In Vacua" per Einstein, I believe the experiments to be fatally flawed.
Removing the air or pressure from a space would not void it of the refracting aether or neutrinos,
and the MSW effect would alter the results.

MSW Effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSW_effect


The presence of electrons in matter changes the energy levels of the propagation eigenstates of neutrinos due to charged current coherent forward scattering of the electron neutrinos (i.e., weak interactions). The coherent forward scattering is analogous to the electromagnetic process leading to the refractive index of light in a medium. This means that neutrinos in matter have a different effective mass than neutrinos in vacuum, and since neutrino oscillations depend upon the squared mass difference of the neutrinos, neutrino oscillations may be different in matter than they are in vacuum. With antineutrinos, the conceptual point is the same but the effective charge ('weak isospin') that the weak interaction couples to, has opposite sign.

The problem of mass increasing with velocity is caused by mass taking on energy as it moves through the aether and absorbing the same frequencies corresponding to the elemental composition of the mass. Or refracting others depending on composition.

Basically we live in a sea of leftover EM radiation from star nucleosynthesis and the neutrinos provide the bridge to the creation of matter, most recently organic matter. The Aether fills all space and the EM on our planet sits within it. Lights interaction with the aether is dependent on its frequencies heat signature or color temperature and the absorbitive or refractive qualities of the mass it bombards. A particle for each frequency of light.The absorption lines are like a grey scale of the variable temperatures involved in the creation of each element. The majority of which were created long ago in stars but interaction between neutrinos and the remaining EM radiation is what gives life to our planet.

The magnetic dipole effect I mentioned in my previous thread is also answered by this theory. As neutrinos have a dipole moment they would be able to transfer energies between mass and the aether via the MSW effect.

Thermodynamically speaking the processes in both space and on Earth are initiated by four things, Heat, Light, Dark (Refractive) and Cold.


Newton's Opticks (1704) postulated an "Aethereal Medium" transmitting vibrations faster than light, by which light, when overtaken, is put into "Fits of easy Reflexion and easy Transmission", which caused refraction and diffraction. Newton believed that these vibrations were related to heat radiation.

The modern understanding is that heat radiation is, like light, electromagnetic radiation. However, Newton considered them to be two different phenomena. He believed heat vibrations to be excited "when a Ray of Light falls upon the Surface of any pellucid Body". He wrote, "I do not know what this Aether is", but that if it consists of particles then they must be "exceedingly smaller than those of Air, or even than those of Light.

I also believe light may be propagated via a transverse wave in two circular polarizations, rather than a longtitudal wave. Or 3 phases as related to color charge in quarks. These polarizations may be directly connected to the neutrino or atomic particles via the MSW effect. I may have a few things twisted around but this all ties in to my earlier discussions concerning GRB Baryonic/Non Baryonic matter interaction and my ideas of all radiation being ionizing.

The main thing is that our space is a transparent and refractive medium that even light resides within. And that the speed of light is determined by whether or not it is in the universal reference frame or not.
By directing this aetherial refraction, I believe we may be able to travel faster than light? If anamolies such as the Pioneer events are due to this acceleration, it would only seem practical that that energy could be harnessed and redirected.

?

NorthernBoy
2009-Nov-09, 11:49 AM
I know I promised to study and not to open another thread

Yes, Coliver, you did. Sadly, you have just posted a re-hash of things which have been shown to be wrong.

You seem to act with great intellectual dishonesty in this respect, in that you'll change the subject when someone shows that what you have posted is incorrect, and then just re-use the same error-filled ideas again later, as though you think that the disproof does not matter if you pretend that it never happened.

Please, be a man of your word here, and do as you promised, which is to go away and study physics properly before you try to reinvent it.

Why should people help you, when you don't do what you promise?

coliver
2009-Nov-09, 12:17 PM
Yes, Coliver, you did. Sadly, you have just posted a re-hash of things which have been shown to be wrong.

You seem to act with great intellectual dishonesty in this respect, in that you'll change the subject when someone shows that what you have posted is incorrect, and then just re-use the same error-filled ideas again later, as though you think that the disproof does not matter if you pretend that it never happened.

Please, be a man of your word here, and do as you promised, which is to go away and study physics properly before you try to reinvent it.

Why should people help you, when you don't do what you promise?


But it fits perfectly with what I was proposing in the previous thread? And goes to the very heart of Einsteins vs Newtons early SR proposals and the eventual Photoelectric effect that we discussed. It seems to me to provide the missing piece that I didnt have. Why is it wrong?

I very much appreciate the help you and others have given me and respect your opinion, but why are you so sure that its wrong? The previous ideas havent been proven wrong, I just didnt have enough knowledge of physics to defend them.

Geo Kaplan
2009-Nov-09, 12:56 PM
The previous ideas havent been proven wrong, I just didnt have enough knowledge of physics to defend them.

I've used this analogy before, but repetition seems necessary here: You are like the guy off the street running into a room full of brain surgeons, and telling them that they're doing things wrong. Why should they take this person seriously, especially when he uses words like "gooshy stuff" instead of "brain tissue", or asserts that the brain is "obviously" used for cooling the body? It's not a matter of having too little knowledge to defend his ideas -- it's plain that he doesn't even have enough knowledge to form a coherent idea in the first place, right?

There's no shortcut to learning science. You're a poster child for the axiom that the less one knows, the more certain one can be.

As NB said, keep your promise. You're just posting the same type of junk ideas as in the other thread that just got shut down. If you have a question, ask the question in the Q&A forum. When you have an ATM theory that you can and will defend, then that's the time to post again. Right now, it seems -- to me, at least -- that you're disingenuously gaming the system to avoid facing the critical challenges that ATM proponents are obligated to face here.

NorthernBoy
2009-Nov-09, 01:22 PM
But it fits perfectly with what I was proposing in the previous thread?

But in the previous thread, you were shown again and again that you were wrong about mainstream physics. As a result of this, you said that you would go away and study physics properly. (You say that these ideas were not shown to be wrong, but you justify this by saying that you don't know enough physics. You can't have it both ways, and in this case, it is only your ignorance of the subject that lets you say that you have not been shown to be wrong.)

That was a couple of weeks ago, and yet here you are, doing just what you did before, and posting things that you know that people have shown you to be wrong.

Please, show yourself to be a man of your word, and do what others have urged, and study the subject instead of posting the same old disproven ideas again.

captain swoop
2009-Nov-09, 05:27 PM
OK this is a rehash of a previous thread. Coliver. Please don't start another thread on the same idea until you have something to present.
I am closing this thread and strongly advise you not to restart it. You risk action being taken against you.